HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray...both losers. [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray...both losers.



N. Abstentia
08-13-2006, 08:52 AM
Interesting...and along with what is stated in this article I personally feel the biggest obstacle is consumers. Most of whom don't even own HDTV yet, so good luck in talking them into a $1000 player which to them is no better than a $60 DVD player.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20060811/tc_nf/45357;_ylt=Ao7tiG.fy8o9Pp6phatRRGEjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDM TA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

drseid
08-13-2006, 09:21 AM
That writer is wrong on many fronts, and the article title is quite misleading. I found his article quite biased in favor of Blu-ray, actually.

That said, he focuses on "players costing up to $1500" for both formats... and while this is certainly true, it does not mention that they are also available for as low as $500 (HD-A1) and a street price around $400 or less in some quarters. Hardly a bank breaker for many early adopter types. By next year, both formats will be much less expensive, and as such will be more available to J6P.

As for the 50GB vs. 30GB... Both formats can support higher amounts than those numbers by adding more layers if needed. He points to that fact later on in the article only for Blu-ray (while seemingly reversing his earlier point), but no mention anywhere that HD DVD can do the same... It is true that Blu-ray has an advantage of 25GB *per layer* over HD DVD's 15GB per layer, but right now BRD is only releasing 25GB single layer discs with the high space consuming MPEG-2 codec, versus most HD DVDs being 30GB dual layer discs using the more efficient VC-1 encoding. Picture quality has been in HD DVD's favor on every release so far that is on both formats for comparioson purposes.

For all the declarations by the writer and "analysts" that BRD has won the war already, I say they need to visit AVSForum.com and see what they think. ;-) I think they are about 3 months behind the times with their statements... At this point due to BRD's poor start (quality-wise, price-wise and player delays), it really is anyone's to win.

The studio support does initially favor BRD, but as people buy more and more HD DVD players due to their current video superiority, coupled with their much lower prices, the studios could very well switch sides or release on both formats to hedge their bets... I originally thought BRD had the early advantage due to many factors including this early support, but now it is anyone's game.

Bottom line is this article is quite deceptive and biased at best, and in some cases flat out wrong.

---Dave

kexodusc
08-13-2006, 01:40 PM
Storage capacity seemed like a weak feature to me. Discs are cheap, and adding a 2nd like all the double dvd titles out there seems to make it moot.

Other than that, it's sad that everyone is getting shots in at these formats now- especially since the 2006 version is likely not representative of what these formats will be.

superpanavision70mm
08-13-2006, 01:49 PM
VHS had a strong run of 20+ years.
Laserdisc had a very weak run of about 15 years.
DVD had a strong and still has a strong run of almost 10 years.
Beta has a very poor run of about 1 year.
Divx had a very.... yeah.

Interestingly enough the HD formats are similar to the phenomenon that happened when Laserdiscs first arrived. The reason is fairly simple. HD formats compared to basic DVD show improvement mainly if your equipment is suitable. Laserdiscs showed improvements as well, but were hard to adopt because of the cost involved and the fact that they were bulky compared to the VHS tape.

The HD formats really need to play hard into the quality aspect because aside from that...they are not really offering a whole lot more. Extras? DVD has them too. Extras for the longest time were the biggest component of the sale. People would buy movies just for the extras or at least be more inclined to. While the HD stuff might hold more per disc...who cares? Some people enjoy having lots of discs when it comes to DVD's. Those 3-disc sets for movies like BLACK HAWK DOWN....we enjoy those because we really feel we are getting something for our money.

Case in point...

If you sold somone a HD version of let's say BLACK HAWK DOWN with all the features on 1 disc as compared to the same material being on DVD, only across 3 discs...people would still feel cheated despite the only difference being the amount of discs. Of course there is a quality difference, but that's only marginal when you consider the small percentage of people who own TV's that are capable of truly demonstrating the difference.

I am quite suprised about a few things already with the HD formats. My first surprise is that the prices are very competative and marketable. The players and discs are actually all over the place in Walmart. I can't find a huge selection anywhere else...even BB has a small selection. The players might be a bit expensive, but fact of the matter is that the player is probably even keel with regular DVD players that are upwards of that price as well, if not better. So by default the best DVD player out there to some extent is an HD formatted player.

Anyone else have some thoughts?

GMichael
08-13-2006, 03:01 PM
Once they get it right I'll jump on board.

Get it right =
Big step up in VQC.
Backward compatable.
Many more choices in good movies.
Price that's reasonably afordable.

Mr Peabody
08-13-2006, 03:16 PM
This is second hand info since I have not seen this for myself yet, I was talking to a local high end dealer about which HD disc format the higher end manufacturers are leaning toward and none they carry have jumped on either yet. They do have a distributor and they brought in one of the available HD-DVD players to check out. What he told me was that the HD-DVD was some what brighter but as far as color and over all picture quality that a $1k Arcam DVD player was better than the HD-DVD player. The HD-DVD was around the same retail price and he was upset because he didn't know how he was going to off load the HD-DVD.

If this proves to hold true, I see HD-DVD and BRD going the way of the SACD and DVD-A. Lot's of promotion, not really taking off to the masses and eventually being just that a nitch or novelty that some have and swear by, where others could care less and not see the value.

I think it sucks that both force you to use HDMI to get the HD signal. I personally feel this is an inadequate and under developed mode of passing the signals. Maybe with the HD they will make it do what they claim.

drseid
08-14-2006, 12:57 AM
This is second hand info since I have not seen this for myself yet, I was talking to a local high end dealer about which HD disc format the higher end manufacturers are leaning toward and none they carry have jumped on either yet. They do have a distributor and they brought in one of the available HD-DVD players to check out. What he told me was that the HD-DVD was some what brighter but as far as color and over all picture quality that a $1k Arcam DVD player was better than the HD-DVD player. The HD-DVD was around the same retail price and he was upset because he didn't know how he was going to off load the HD-DVD.

If this proves to hold true, I see HD-DVD and BRD going the way of the SACD and DVD-A. Lot's of promotion, not really taking off to the masses and eventually being just that a nitch or novelty that some have and swear by, where others could care less and not see the value.

I think it sucks that both force you to use HDMI to get the HD signal. I personally feel this is an inadequate and under developed mode of passing the signals. Maybe with the HD they will make it do what they claim.

I encourange you to check out both of the new formats with your own eyes, because actually most of the above is untrue... :-)

First off, *no* DVDs, upconverted or not are as good looking as any HD DVDs of the same movie on both formats... even the worst quality ones. The resolution is just significantly better. That said, if we are talking *upconverted DVD* then it is a closer call. The Toshiba players are really some of the best upconverting DVD players on the market, but then again so is the Arcam. For DVD upconversion I might still go with the Arcam, as it is much faster than either of the Toshibas. The point is that most people are not buying an HD DVD player just for regular DVD upconversion, they are buying it for HD DVD, and in that respect it is no contest IMO.

In the case of Blu-ray, I have indeed seen BRDs that look as bad or worse than their DVD counterparts (take the Fifth Element for example). This has more to do with BRD not yet utilizing their disc space properly yet, however (they are currently using single layer discs with MPEG-2 encoding). Once Sony and company get the dual layer BRDs to work in a production environment, and switch to VC-1 encoding like HD DVD has, quality should improve considerably.

As for both forcing you to use HDMI to get the HD signal... this is not true either. Both formats will pass full 1080i signals through their component outs. The issue at hand is the ICT constraint token that could signal to the player off the disc that it needs to downrez the signal to 540p through the component outs. So far, this has not been implemented in any discs (HD DVD or Blu-ray), and in all likelihood won't for many years to come. The rumor in the industry (published on many trusted web sites and magazines alike) is it won't be activated until 2010, and even then it is entirely optional for the studios to use it. Many studios have already committed to never activating ICT, and the rest could follow over time if they see it is not going to work with the consumer (most likely). I would not be too worried about it really. I do agree that the idea should not even have made it out of the gate though.

---Dave

Defshep
08-14-2006, 03:43 AM
I was just wondering about how much grain from the original print HD or Blu-Ray actually enhances. Couldn't improving the definition make older source material look worse? Maybe this is a stupid question, but I'm just trying to decide if it's worth it yet. For example, I have a couple of Superbit discs. In most cases, the images are sharper on my hdtv. Sometimes, however, limitations in the film are more apparent in the higher bit-rate transfers. Am I making any sense? It seems like it will be alot better once more flicks are shot in high def video.

drseid
08-14-2006, 03:55 AM
I was just wondering about how much grain from the original print HD or Blu-Ray actually enhances. Couldn't improving the definition make older source material look worse? Maybe this is a stupid question, but I'm just trying to decide if it's worth it yet. For example, I have a couple of Superbit discs. In most cases, the images are sharper on my hdtv. Sometimes, however, limitations in the film are more apparent in the higher bit-rate transfers. Am I making any sense? It seems like it will be alot better once more flicks are shot in high def video.

I think I know where you are going here... It is true that the enhanced resolution will display limitations in the original master in all their glory. That said, even with the flaws I have found that the films look better in HD with the higher resolution -- a good example of this is "Sleepy Hollow." While the grain in the original master is made all too visible in HD, the overall picture quality is much improved over the DVD (and the HDTV broadcast version also just recently shown). I will say that while revealing limitations of the source could be considered bad by some, it is also true that when a transfer is good to begin with (even a lot of older films have good master material), then HD will also let the viewer see that too.

---Dave

Defshep
08-14-2006, 04:13 AM
Thanks for the info, Dave. I think I'll still have to wait until the players make it to the sub-200 dollar range, although the dvd prices themselves are pretty reasonable.

edtyct
08-14-2006, 06:14 AM
First of all, no viewing material exists that will inherently defy the benefits of high resolution. That said, however, if an older film, or what's left of it, is in some state of disrepair, a high definition transfer of it in all its faded glory will show all of the flaws. However, with the film restoration techniques now available, many older films stand a good chance of putting their best foot forward again. They may not have the snap of newer films, but they should make a better showing of their original ambience. If the film stock used in the first place had a little visible grain, it should become more evident in HD. What would a film noir be without it?

Woochifer
08-14-2006, 11:53 AM
I think the article's conclusions are correct. The biggest challenge is simply convincing consumers that HD-DVD/Blu-ray will offer that much more than DVD, especially since less than 20% of U.S. households currently own HDTVs. The upgrade between VHS and DVD was obvious and multifaceted. The DVD is a compact, random access format that gave just about everybody a noticeable improvement in picture quality, 5.1 audio, and connectivity to their computers. HD-DVD/Blu-ray do not offer up a substantial improvement in functionality, and the technical improvements are only noticeable to consumers who already own HDTVs.

The problems with HD-DVD/Blu-ray are many. First off, the DVD format was created on the assumption that it would be an interim format. Dangerous thing to assume because consumers that have already invested in the hardware and populated their disc collections, are not going to necessarily go through the whole upgrade cycle again when the DVD format has been out there for less than 9 years, and only passed VHS in market share less than 3 years ago. Problem with creating an "interim" format is that it very well might become an "interim" format that last more than 20 years like VHS dominated for about 26 years.

With the HDTV standards adopted in 1992, everybody knew that a HD-disc format would eventually come out. The question that I've always asked is why rush the DVD format into the market when everybody saw that the TVs of the not-so-distant future would have HD resolution? If the DVD had been introduced as an HD disc format from the beginning, it would have avoided the mess that HD-DVD/Blu-ray are in right now with a format war and very uncertain market prospects. Even if most consumers don't own HDTVs, a DVD format with HD from the beginning still would have given average consumers the random access, bonus features, surround audio, and compact size -- more than enough reasons to upgrade even without a HDTV.

As it stands now, Blu-ray and HD-DVD are working from a market base of less than 20% of the total audience, because the only tangible benefit (aside from higher resolution audio that has yet to be implemented) is the higher picture resolution and to attain that benefit requires a HDTV. Compare that to the DVD format, which had almost 100% of the viewing audience as a potential customer.

And with that ~20% base, Blu-ray and HD-DVD have further eroded their target market by including a forced analog downsampling key that, if activated, would require a copy protected digital video connection for full HD resolution. This would leave about half of the existing HDTV owners out in the cold, because those early HDTVs came with analog component video connections only. For now, the key has yet to be activated on any HD-DVD or Blu-ray discs, but the word has gotten out and the response involved a lot of four-letter variety.

Oh, and then there's that absolutely idiotic silliness with the format war, which leaves even more potential customers sitting on the fence because not too many consumers want to spend $500 to $1,000+ on a machine that might become an obsolete relic within the next two years. The market might eventually take off as the dust settles and/or universal players that can handle both formats become available. But, in the meantime, as this pissing match drags on and drags the market down with it, other HD viewing options like on-demand and downloading get closer to reality.

If these resources had been marshaled towards a unified HD-disc format from the very beginning (i.e. with no "interim" DVD format in the meantime), that format very well might have locked down the market and spurred the HDTV growth a lot sooner. As it stands, those of us who choose to watch our movies via disc media might be stuck at 480p for a long time.

Woochifer
08-14-2006, 12:44 PM
Laserdisc had a very weak run of about 15 years.

"Very weak" would depend on who you ask. For collectors and hardcore movie enthusiasts, the Laserdisc was the only way to go for almost 20 years. No tapes to wear out, random access, superior picture quality, most movies available in widescreen format (whereas the vast majority of VHS titles were pan & scan only), and the first to market with both AC-3 and DTS 5.1 audio. Only when the DVD format came along did the Laserdisc finally give way.


Beta has a very poor run of about 1 year.

Introduced in 1975 and the last ED Beta machines that were used in professional circles did not go out of production until 2002. I wouldn't call that "1 year." Most video stores stocked dual formats until around the late-80s when Sony started producing VHS machines and studios phased out the Beta format.

And if your definition of "very poor" includes first to market, forward and reverse scan from the very beginning (early VHS machines could only scan forward, and even the latter mechanisms did not have the precision that the Beta mechanisms had from the beginning), first to introduce Hi-Fi audio, first to include an enhanced resolution mode (SuperBeta was an actual 20% resolution increase, whereas VHS HQ was nothing more than a brightness/sharpness tweak), first to create a video camcorder, first to have a video mode capable of 500 lines of resolution (ED Beta), and all the while consistently producing higher picture quality, then I guess Beta indeed had a "very poor run of about 1 year."

VHS could not even best the Beta format's picture quality until D-VHS came along in 1998. The primary advantage that VHS had from the beginning was that it could record longer on a single tape, and JVC was much smarter with its marketing even while it kept playing catch up on the technical side.

And let's not forget that many of the digital PCM studio recordings of the 80s and 90s were stored onto Betamax tape media, so the need for Betamax machines will go on.

nightflier
08-14-2006, 02:28 PM
As for both forcing you to use HDMI to get the HD signal... this is not true either. Both formats will pass full 1080i signals through their component outs. The issue at hand is the ICT constraint token that could signal to the player off the disc that it needs to downrez the signal to 540p through the component outs. So far, this has not been implemented in any discs (HD DVD or Blu-ray), and in all likelihood won't for many years to come. The rumor in the industry (published on many trusted web sites and magazines alike) is it won't be activated until 2010, and even then it is entirely optional for the studios to use it. Many studios have already committed to never activating ICT, and the rest could follow over time if they see it is not going to work with the consumer (most likely). I would not be too worried about it really. I do agree that the idea should not even have made it out of the gate though.

If I buy Samsung's new Blu-Ray player today, I can watch 1080 programming through my component outs?

Also, is this true for the many up-converting players? For example, can I watch my regular DVD's in upconverted 1080 through the component outs if I buy a Marantz DV6600?

drseid
08-14-2006, 03:09 PM
If I buy Samsung's new Blu-Ray player today, I can watch 1080 programming through my component outs?

Also, is this true for the many up-converting players? For example, can I watch my regular DVD's in upconverted 1080 through the component outs if I buy a Marantz DV6600?

No, you won't be able to watch 1080i upconverted DVDs through the component outs (nor on any other player I know of). You *will* be able to watch Blu-ray discs on the Samsung in true 1080i, however.

---Dave

nightflier
08-14-2006, 04:08 PM
No, you won't be able to watch 1080i upconverted DVDs through the component outs (nor on any other player I know of). You *will* be able to watch Blu-ray discs on the Samsung in true 1080i, however.

And I was so hoping that the upconverting players would avoid this arbitrary restriction too. I'm just not willing to give up my existing DVD collection, nor do I care to replace my TV. Oh well, I guess I'll just wait until the smoke clears between HD & BR (or for something better to comes along).

Woochifer
08-14-2006, 05:14 PM
If I buy Samsung's new Blu-Ray player today, I can watch 1080 programming through my component outs?

Well, until the studios decide to start activating the forced analog downconversion, you're fine with 1080 resolution. The problem with using component outputs is that the studios at any time can start activating the forced downconversion key that brings the resolution down to barely above DVD resolution when played through the analog outputs. The studios are playing nice for now, but with their paranoia about digital rights management and copy protection, I wouldn't count on them keeping the "analog hole" open once HDMI-enabled TVs begin to constitute a clear-cut majority of the HDTVs out there.


Also, is this true for the many up-converting players? For example, can I watch my regular DVD's in upconverted 1080 through the component outs if I buy a Marantz DV6600?

My understanding is DVD players will typically only upconvert the signal through the HDMI outputs, so you'll need to double check with Marantz to see if the analog video outputs are also upconverted.

edtyct
08-14-2006, 08:09 PM
I doubt that the Marantz differs from just about every other mainstream player these days. The unofficial agreement between mfgers and content providers is that upconversion will remain the province of digital connections. A few fringe companies, like LG/Zenith and V, inc,. permitted upconversion via component in the early days (I think even then it worked only if the disk in question had no analog copy protection [Macrovision]--in other words, rarely) but no longer. Chinese players, like the Neu Neu, however, may not be under the same constraints. I'm not sure.

superpanavision70mm
08-14-2006, 10:50 PM
Wooch...

Once again you obviously did not get my humor...I wasn't being realistic with how long the formats lasted...it was suppose to be funny. Unfortunately you missed it just like with everything else...you are too busy trying to argue and debate people so that you are right and they are wrong. You have such a wealth of knowledge and everyone else is just stupid I suppose. As for LaserDisc...you don't need to give me a lesson on the format since I am still a big fan of it and have well over a few hundred titles still.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-15-2006, 10:59 AM
That writer is wrong on many fronts, and the article title is quite misleading. I found his article quite biased in favor of Blu-ray, actually.

Well spoken from the HD DVD camp, however I think the article has a whole lot of merit.


That said, he focuses on "players costing up to $1500" for both formats... and while this is certainly true, it does not mention that they are also available for as low as $500 (HD-A1) and a street price around $400 or less in some quarters. Hardly a bank breaker for many early adopter types. By next year, both formats will be much less expensive, and as such will be more available to J6P.

Yes, but for that $500 you only get 2 advanced codecs, the lossless one in two channels only. You do not get 1080P which is the native coding format for the disc itself. This is not what the potential of this format can deliver.


As for the 50GB vs. 30GB... Both formats can support higher amounts than those numbers by adding more layers if needed. He points to that fact later on in the article only for Blu-ray (while seemingly reversing his earlier point), but no mention anywhere that HD DVD can do the same... It is true that Blu-ray has an advantage of 25GB *per layer* over HD DVD's 15GB per layer, but right now BRD is only releasing 25GB single layer discs with the high space consuming MPEG-2 codec, versus most HD DVDs being 30GB dual layer discs using the more efficient VC-1 encoding. Picture quality has been in HD DVD's favor on every release so far that is on both formats for comparioson purposes.

HD DVD can only support two layers because of the pit depth. Sony however can support up to 4 layers which top out at 100GB. HD DVD at its best cannot come close to that. And yes HD DVD is winning the picture battle, but so far BR is winning the audio side providing 16bit uncompressed audio as opposed to lossy DD+. Also consider that the Samsung was released with the video filter enabled, and that does make the picture softer. However, poor masters where used in many of the inital BR releases and you cannot expect that Sony will continue that practice. They are just trying to get titles released to support the single player out there. I can tell you for a fact based on what I have seen, and heard when the Pioneer and Sony players are released, things will be much different.


For all the declarations by the writer and "analysts" that BRD has won the war already, I say they need to visit AVSForum.com and see what they think. ;-) I think they are about 3 months behind the times with their statements... At this point due to BRD's poor start (quality-wise, price-wise and player delays), it really is anyone's to win.

AVSFforums opinions are not the end all of opinions. The members do not make or break a format. Secondly you are sadly underestimating the fact the only ONE company is going to be manufacturing HD DVD players. ONLY ONE! How long do you thing Toshiba can afford to be the only manufacturer of its players? Without broad support from the manufacturing community, it leaves Toshiba very exposed financially. Toshiba also cannot keep up with the demand for its players, how long do you think that people are going to sit around waiting for their player to come? The last time I check my own BB, they had no $500 players and haven't had any in a couple of weeks. So having a lower price but no product doesn't really give one an advantage.


The studio support does initially favor BRD, but as people buy more and more HD DVD players due to their current video superiority, coupled with their much lower prices, the studios could very well switch sides or release on both formats to hedge their bets... I originally thought BRD had the early advantage due to many factors including this early support, but now it is anyone's game.

The studio support for BR stems from the fact there is very broad support amount CE manufacturers, and that includes manufacturers of PC's as well. The studio's recognize that the sheer size of that support will guarantee the success of this format. From what I have heard the studio's are waiting for a couple of things that will really put BR over the top. 50GB dual layer disc, and the introduction of players from Sony, Pioneer, LG, Hitachi, Panasonic, Sharp, and Phillips. All of this will occur next year when most analyst think that this format war will really begin. All of these companies will release players with varying prices, and probably lower than the current offerings. To even think that just because HD DVD came out strong means they have the advantage is a naive, shortsighted, and wishful thinking. I see Toshiba position with HD DVD the same as Sony with Beta. Sony choose to go it alone with Beta, while VHS had wide manufacturing support. VHS won for the consumer, and lost the professional market, Sony lost the consumer market but won the professional market because their product was superior in every way to VHS. Sony sold enough Beta players and recorders to the professional market to consider that format a success in spite of the fact that they didn't win the consumer market.


Bottom line is this article is quite deceptive and biased at best, and in some cases flat out wrong.

---Dave

Disagree entirely. However in the end we all will see. Right now, I see no one with a advantage. 2007 however is really when the big race takes place. I think only then will it be appropriate to discuss who has the advantage.

Woochifer
08-15-2006, 11:00 AM
Wooch...

Once again you obviously did not get my humor...I wasn't being realistic with how long the formats lasted...it was suppose to be funny. Unfortunately you missed it just like with everything else...you are too busy trying to argue and debate people so that you are right and they are wrong. You have such a wealth of knowledge and everyone else is just stupid I suppose. As for LaserDisc...you don't need to give me a lesson on the format since I am still a big fan of it and have well over a few hundred titles still.

Translation added ...

Thanks Wooch for pointing out the obvious lapses in the purported facts that I was trying to present. Given that I didn't have much of a clue as to what I was talking about, I had to resort to the spin job of convincing people that I was being humorous about the whole thing. And since I can't point out any factual errors in your response, I resorted to attacking your intentions in an effort to elicit sympathy from the other participants. But, I now realize that all of this is in vain, as any "real genius" would realize. So, anyway thank you for pointing all of this out and I'll get my facts straight next time. Have a nice day!

drseid
08-15-2006, 11:36 AM
Yes, but for that $500 you only get 2 advanced codecs, the lossless one in two channels only. You do not get 1080P which is the native coding format for the disc itself. This is not what the potential of this format can deliver.


It is true that the lossless one is in two channels, but firmware update 2.0 is going to be released any day now (this has been posted on several web sites and forums, and has been confirmed by Toshiba reps) and it will offer Dolby TruHD Lossless for 5.1 channels. This should sound quite good indeed. I actually also prefer the DD+ to the PCM soundtracks on the BRDs, BTW.

The 1080p output is irrelevant and has been debunked a long time ago by several folks on AVSforum.com and elsewhere. This is more marketing hype by the Blu-ray camp than anything else.


HD DVD can only support two layers because of the pit depth. Sony however can support up to 4 layers which top out at 100GB. HD DVD at its best cannot come close to that. And yes HD DVD is winning the picture battle, but so far BR is winning the audio side providing 16bit uncompressed audio as opposed to lossy DD+. Also consider that the Samsung was released with the video filter enabled, and that does make the picture softer. However, poor masters where used in many of the inital BR releases and you cannot expect that Sony will continue that practice. They are just trying to get titles released to support the single player out there. I can tell you for a fact based on what I have seen, and heard when the Pioneer and Sony players are released, things will be much different.

Actually this is incorrect. HD DVD has already tested 3 layer discs and could use them any time they want to (the actual maximum storage capacity for the format is 4 layers with 60GB). That said, I do not know if they ever will, as they really are not necessary (as the dual-layer discs already being used are showing they are quite sufficient). Blu-ray is testing discs that have even more than 4 layers, but those tests so far have mainly been for computer storage use. This of course could change and would allow Blu-ray to expand further as well.

As for the Samsung player, it was not the best player to debut the format to be sure. I have also heard that the Pioneer in particular seems to be a better representative of what a BRD player can do. That said, the insiders who have seen it in action on AVSforum.com prefered HD DVD (for 1/3 the price currently). I agree that the masters can and will improve over time, and that can only help Blu-ray in the long run. HD DVD of course can also improve...



AVSFforums opinions are not the end all of opinions. The members do not make or break a format. Secondly you are sadly underestimating the fact the only ONE company is going to be manufacturing HD DVD players. ONLY ONE! How long do you thing Toshiba can afford to be the only manufacturer of its players? Without broad support from the manufacturing community, it leaves Toshiba very exposed financially. Toshiba also cannot keep up with the demand for its players, how long do you think that people are going to sit around waiting for their player to come? The last time I check my own BB, they had no $500 players and haven't had any in a couple of weeks. So having a lower price but no product doesn't really give one an advantage.

With respect to the AVSforum statement above... I agree. Of course I never said that they did make or break a format. What they *do* represent is some very knowledgeable folks that tend to be early adopters and industry insiders. Hardly people to ignore when getting a format off the ground. Once the initial launches are complete, it will be J6P who will ultimately determine the success or failure of either format.

As for Toshiba being the only OEM for the players... That is true for now. There are already other companies that will be getting in on the action quite soon. Still there is no question that Sony and the rest of the Blu-ray camp have the upper hand here.




Disagree entirely. However in the end we all will see. Right now, I see no one with a advantage. 2007 however is really when the big race takes place. I think only then will it be appropriate to discuss who has the advantage.

Agreed, we shall see. :-)

---Dave

superpanavision70mm
08-15-2006, 11:40 AM
Wooch...you have serious issues. How's that "NEVERENDING" DVD collection going ?

Woochifer
08-15-2006, 12:14 PM
Wooch...you have serious issues. How's that "NEVERENDING" DVD collection going ?

Another translation added ...

Oh poor pitiful me! I got no way to respond other than to lash out and accuse other people of having issues. Otherwise, they'll just see that I have a thin skin and can't deal with the "humor" that I accuse others of misunderstanding. And I guess I also need to get a clue since I still fail to understand that when Wooch refers to a "neverending DVD collection" he means that he keeps adding to it. Hence, it ... never ... ends .. oh, never mind I still don't get it! But, since so much of my manhood is tied to the size of my movie collection, I'll just keep boasting about it until someone notices that I have no other response.

robert393
08-15-2006, 12:24 PM
Wow.....heated debate. I don't think anbody would disagree that HD-DVD has gotten a really good jump start, and that BR has been disappoining thus far. However, BR has alot of Studio support, and certainly seems to be superior "on paper". Translating that into a superior product has been more difficult thusfar.

The whole 1080p hype from the BR camp seems to be just that........hype, as oppossed to reality at this point. Good article regarding the subject HERE (http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm).

Excerpt: "At this point we should address what can only be characterized as a hoax—the notion that Blu-ray must be technically superior to HD-DVD because the Samsung player outputs 1080p, whereas the Toshiba player is "only 1080i." One high-end home theater retailer told me last weekend that the reason you pay $1000 for the Blu-ray player is for the "higher resolution 1080p output." This is absolute baloney. If you encounter any retail sales rep feeding you this line, keep your wallet in your pocket and leave the store.

The truth is this: The Toshiba HD-DVD player outputs 1080i, and the Samsung Blu-ray player outputs both 1080i and 1080p. What they fail to mention is that it makes absolutely no difference which transmission format you use—feeding 1080i or 1080p into your projector or HDTV will give you the exact same picture. Why? Both disc formats encode film material in progressive scan 1080p at 24 frames per second. It does not matter whether you output this data in 1080i or 1080p since all 1080 lines of information on the disc are fed into your video display either way. The only difference is the order in which they are transmitted. If they are fed in progressive order (1080p), the video display will process them in that order. If they are fed in interlaced format (1080i), the video display simply reassembles them into their original progressive scan order. Either way all 1080 lines per frame that are on the disc make it into the projector or TV. The fact is, if you happen to have the Samsung Blu-ray player and a video display that takes both 1080i and 1080p, you can switch the player back and forth between 1080i and 1080p output and see absolutely no difference in the picture. So this notion that the Blu-ray player is worth more money due to 1080p output is nonsense."


This is going to be a fun battle, but 2 things are for-sure.
1) HD video is the future.
2) The consumer will be the ultimate winner of the format war.

Let's all be kind, and patient, and enjoy the ride!~

Robert

GMichael
08-15-2006, 12:55 PM
Let's all be kind, and patient, and enjoy the ride!~

Robert

OK, but I'm getting splinters from riding this fence for so long. And Sir TTT & LJ won't move over. Can I get some acoustic panels for my bottom?

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-15-2006, 04:27 PM
Wow.....heated debate. I don't think anbody would disagree that HD-DVD has gotten a really good jump start, and that BR has been disappoining thus far. However, BR has alot of Studio support, and certainly seems to be superior "on paper". Translating that into a superior product has been more difficult thusfar.

The whole 1080p hype from the BR camp seems to be just that........hype, as oppossed to reality at this point. Good article regarding the subject HERE (http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm).

Excerpt: "At this point we should address what can only be characterized as a hoax—the notion that Blu-ray must be technically superior to HD-DVD because the Samsung player outputs 1080p, whereas the Toshiba player is "only 1080i." One high-end home theater retailer told me last weekend that the reason you pay $1000 for the Blu-ray player is for the "higher resolution 1080p output." This is absolute baloney. If you encounter any retail sales rep feeding you this line, keep your wallet in your pocket and leave the store.

The truth is this: The Toshiba HD-DVD player outputs 1080i, and the Samsung Blu-ray player outputs both 1080i and 1080p. What they fail to mention is that it makes absolutely no difference which transmission format you use—feeding 1080i or 1080p into your projector or HDTV will give you the exact same picture. Why? Both disc formats encode film material in progressive scan 1080p at 24 frames per second. It does not matter whether you output this data in 1080i or 1080p since all 1080 lines of information on the disc are fed into your video display either way. The only difference is the order in which they are transmitted. If they are fed in progressive order (1080p), the video display will process them in that order. If they are fed in interlaced format (1080i), the video display simply reassembles them into their original progressive scan order. Either way all 1080 lines per frame that are on the disc make it into the projector or TV. The fact is, if you happen to have the Samsung Blu-ray player and a video display that takes both 1080i and 1080p, you can switch the player back and forth between 1080i and 1080p output and see absolutely no difference in the picture. So this notion that the Blu-ray player is worth more money due to 1080p output is nonsense."


This is going to be a fun battle, but 2 things are for-sure.
1) HD video is the future.
2) The consumer will be the ultimate winner of the format war.

Let's all be kind, and patient, and enjoy the ride!~

Robert

Rob,
Joe Kane has quite a different take on this. He warns not to listen to anyone who says that 1080I and 1080P are the same. He says the same problems that crop up on 480i signals will also pop up on 1080i signals. The same benefits 480P has over 480i will be the same benefits that 1080P offers over 1080i. He has quite an extensive write up on the subject in Widescreen review.

N. Abstentia
08-15-2006, 05:31 PM
This is going to be a fun battle, but 2 things are for-sure.
1) HD video is the future.
2) The consumer will be the ultimate winner of the format war.


Robert


That's exactly what they said when DVD-A and SACD came out, then followed by DualDisc. Yeah, that worked out real good for the consumer :frown5:

paul_pci
08-15-2006, 05:48 PM
That's exactly what they said when DVD-A and SACD came out, then followed by DualDisc. Yeah, that worked out real good for the consumer :frown5:

Not only that, but right now the consumer is the unpaid R&D for these formats. That's what I despise the most.

edtyct
08-15-2006, 06:51 PM
Rob,
Joe Kane has quite a different take on this. He warns not to listen to anyone who says that 1080I and 1080P are the same. He says the same problems that crop up on 480i signals will also pop up on 1080i signals. The same benefits 480P has over 480i will be the same benefits that 1080P offers over 1080i. He has quite an extensive write up on the subject in Widescreen review.

Sir TT,

JK's point is well taken. His crusade to eliminate 1080i from the face of the earth aims at ridding the video world once and for all of interlacing artifacts. The common notion that 1080i is visually tantamount to 1080p acts as a de-incentive to do so. However, material filmed or mastered at 1080p, 24 fps, and sent to a 1080p display as 1080i should be functionally equivalent to the same material sent as 1080p, 60 fps, since the display's processing of 1080i into 1080p should mimic any 1080p that came right out of the chute. However, this same 1080i signal fed into a 1080i display will not achieve the same performance, precisely because the interlacing factor remains; the 1080i display can show only 540 lines at a time, rather than 1080. This scenario speaks directly to JK's point about the inherent difference between 1080i and 1080p. A 1080p display's ability to re-assemble a 1080i signal to pristine 1080p on screen avoids the problem of how to mesh fields altogether. They mesh intrinsically, and progressively.

Ed

drseid
08-16-2006, 02:10 AM
Sir TT,

JK's point is well taken. His crusade to eliminate 1080i from the face of the earth aims at ridding the video world once and for all of interlacing artifacts. The common notion that 1080i is visually tantamount to 1080p acts as a de-incentive to do so. However, material filmed or mastered at 1080p, 24 fps, and sent to a 1080p display as 1080i should be functionally equivalent to the same material sent as 1080p, 60 fps, since the display's processing of 1080i into 1080p should mimic any 1080p that came right out of the chute. However, this same 1080i signal fed into a 1080i display will not achieve the same performance, precisely because the interlacing factor remains; the 1080i display can show only 540 lines at a time, rather than 1080. This scenario speaks directly to JK's point about the inherent difference between 1080i and 1080p. A 1080p display's ability to re-assemble a 1080i signal to pristine 1080p on screen avoids the problem of how to mesh fields altogether. They mesh intrinsically, and progressively.

Ed

Very well said Ed. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. You made it much better. :-)

---Dave

robert393
08-16-2006, 04:52 AM
That's exactly what they said when DVD-A and SACD came out, then followed by DualDisc. Yeah, that worked out real good for the consumer :frown5:Maybe your right, and HD Video will not succeed. 480p will be as good as anybody will ever want........YEAH RIGHT.....LOL!!

Keep trying to compare DVD-A and SACD to HD ............get real. At some point NA you are going to have to face the reality that HD "IS" here, it's glorious, and HD is FAR superior to 480p in every aspect. Just because you bought a projector that is incapable of reproducing HD (and by your own admission (http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=14069)you think 480p is superior to HD (Post #10 & 14)) doesn't mean HD sucks or that HD is going away.

Robert

N. Abstentia
08-16-2006, 07:29 AM
Maybe your right, and HD Video will not succeed. 480p will be as good as anybody will ever want........YEAH RIGHT.....LOL!!

Keep trying to compare DVD-A and SACD to HD ............get real. At some point NA you are going to have to face the reality that HD "IS" here, it's glorious, and HD is FAR superior to 480p in every aspect.
Robert


Umm...if I were you I'd quit trying to start sh!t again, robbie. Remember the last time you got 'outed'!! LOL! Don't make me point to the picture of your 'male friend' on your website again :ihih:

I never compared DVD-A/SACD to HDTV, I merely said that they also said that those two were the next great coming for audio and that it didn't work out for them. I never said that about HDTV, you dolt, so quit trying to make something out of what is not there. How could you even confuse an audio format with a video format? Well...you ARE a car audio guy so I guess we can excuse you from our adult topics and cut you some slack.

I notice you only post here every three months or so, and every time you do you just try to start a fight. We can do without you. Now go get your shinebox.

robert393
08-16-2006, 09:12 AM
Umm...if I were you I'd quit trying to start sh!t again, robbie. Remember the last time you got 'outed'!! LOL! Don't make me point to the picture of your 'male friend' on your website again :ihih: I think you got reprimanded for your previous personal attack, and the moderator put you on notice for your actions. If I were you I would not disrespect this site any furthur, nor it's moderators. Many have been banned for disrespecting the moderators warnings.
I never compared DVD-A/SACD to HDTV I never said you did DS. But you did compare it to HD in your previous post. It wasn't somebody else that did that.........you did! Now don't start trying to change what you said.....lol
How could you even confuse an audio format with a video format? I didn't. YOU DID. Wow, you really need to get out of the sun.
Well...you ARE a car audio guy so I guess we can excuse you from our adult topics and cut you some slack. Thanks for the slack, but of the two corporations I own, the car audio business does quite well (finanicially speaking), and my store is 14-Time World Champion (IASCA & USACi combined). Many of the cars that leave my shop end up gracing the cover of CAR STEREO magazine, and we are internationally recognized as one of the top 3 single stores in the nation for our competition cars. I have 2 competition cars at my shop now. One was shipped to us from CA, and the owner has spent $140,000.00 with my store thus far. The other was shipped to my store from CO, and the owner has spent $90,000.00+ with my store thus far. Of course these are truly exceptional cars and do not represent the J6P customer that spends more than $2.5 M with me annually.

I notice you only post here every three months or so I try to limit my post to topics I feel I can contibute, not to post simply to get my count up or say "I don't know much about HD & scaling and such".

and every time you do you just try to start a fight. You made the original post here, and had NO INPUT until I POSTED, then you quoted me and started your crap AGAIN. It is obvious you lay and wait for me to post something then you quote me and try to evoke me into responding to your idiot comments.
So, We can do without you. Now go get your shinebox. NA climb out from under that rock you live under (from looking at your webpage I guess you ACTUALLY call it your house....lol). You can only wish me away........"oh ye of feable mind". I DO have a shinebox for you........take a look at the 4-walls surrounding you at dinner tonite....it's YOUR HOUSE.

NA, although I made an initial response to your quoting me, you bore me to no end. Therefore, with great respect for this site, fellow members, and moderators, I will decline to respond to you directly any furthur in this post. I prefer to keep the exchange informational and conducive to a learned experience.

So, make whatever helpless/hopeless attempt you may wish in order to build yourself up and sling mud here. I refuse to participate.........

So, have fun NA...........lol!!

Robert

Robert

N. Abstentia
08-16-2006, 09:33 AM
I think you got reprimanded for your previous personal attack, and the moderator put you on notice for your actions.
Robert


Ummm....huh? I think you have it backwards, there bub. YOU are the one who posted a picture of your male friend, not me. If that's your thing, fine. Just keep it to yourself. We don't want that pushed on us here at this board, and I don't think you can afford another strike.

What's the name of this so-called car audio shop? Where is it located? I don't think it exists.

N. Abstentia
08-16-2006, 09:36 AM
NA, although I made an initial response to your quoting me, you bore me to no end. Therefore, with great respect for this site, fellow members, and moderators, I will decline to respond to you directly any furthur. I refuse to participate.........


Robert


Well it's about time. Most of the members here have been calling for you to leave for quite some time, glad you finally got the hint.

Since there won't be any more responses from you, have fun with your imaginary car audio store and don't come back. See ya.

nightflier
08-16-2006, 09:53 AM
One thing that still bothers me is the dearth of HD/1080 programming. There are a few Blu-Ray & HD movies out there, but nothing close to making me want to switch. And the 5-10 HD broadcasts out there hardly make it worth the expense either. I'm not an advocate of government eliminating standard programming, but at the very least it should make all major networks broadcast in both formats by a certain date. The point is, that all these better technologies, even if they've been around for years are just way too tentative. They are pussyfooting when they should be pushing much harder. It's almost as if they don't care enough.

It's what killed (or is killing, depending on your point of view) SACD & DVD-A. To deny that there are parallels between these two defunct formats and Blu-Ray/HD is just myopic. The only advantage that the latter two have is that there is a broadcast standard that is comparable (1080), and yet, they still look like they will wimper away. We can argue about the minor details, but what disaffected the public the most about SACD & DVD-A is:

- required a different player
- required more / better equipment (5.1 speakers)
- overly hampered & delayed by copy protection
- completely incompatible with each other's formats
- attacked by future emerging formats
- lack of selection
- no marketing

Now can anyone say that Blu-Ray and HD don't suffer from the same symtoms? And yes, we can say that it's still early, but that's what they were saying about SACD & DVD-A years after the realease of the formats all the way up until Sony decided to finally pull the plug on SACD.

robert393
08-16-2006, 10:12 AM
One thing that still bothers me is the dearth of HD/1080 programming. There are a few Blu-Ray & HD movies out there, but nothing close to making me want to switch. And the 5-10 HD broadcasts out there hardly make it worth the expense either. I'm not an advocate of government eliminating standard programming, but at the very least it should make all major networks broadcast in both formats by a certain date. The point is, that all these better technologies, even if they've been around for years are just way too tentative. They are pussyfooting when they should be pushing much harder. It's almost as if they don't care enough.

It's what killed (or is killing, depending on your point of view) SACD & DVD-A. To deny that there are parallels between these two defunct formats and Blu-Ray/HD is just myopic. The only advantage that the latter two have is that there is a broadcast standard that is comparable (1080), and yet, they still look like they will wimper away. We can argue about the minor details, but what disaffected the public the most about SACD & DVD-A is:

- required a different player
- required more / better equipment (5.1 speakers)
- overly hampered & delayed by copy protection
- completely incompatible with each other's formats
- attacked by future emerging formats
- lack of selection
- no marketing

Now can anyone say that Blu-Ray and HD don't suffer from the same symtoms? And yes, we can say that it's still early, but that's what they were saying about SACD & DVD-A years after the realease of the formats all the way up until Sony decided to finally pull the plug on SACD. Good points, but no way around the fact that High Definition Video is here now, and is not going away. The longer the HD-DVD & BR format war last, the better the odds VOD-HD has of being the ultimate winner................going to be a fun ride!~

Robert

N. Abstentia
08-16-2006, 10:16 AM
I completely agree with nightflier, great post.

I'm still heavy on the consumers view of this stuff. This applies HDDVD/BluRay as well as SACD/DVD-A. Basically, it's this:

You have to convice Joe Walmart, who accounts for probably over 90% of the TV buying dollar, why it's better. (And yes, for the record I personally realize HD/BluRay looks better if you have the right equipment. Problem is with audio/videophiles like myself and the other folks here is that we represent a tiny fraction of the market.)

"Hey folks, this new format is wonderful! It has over 10 movies available, plus you get to buy $3500 worth of new equipment to make it work!"

It's a catch 22. People aren't going to accept it until it's widely available and cheap and works better than what they currently have that costs 1/10th as much.

It's not going to be widely available and cheap until all consumers accept it. So which is likely to happen first?

It's an uphill battle, that's for sure. What a shame. I hate to seem them going down the DVD-A/SACD route.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-16-2006, 11:27 AM
One thing that still bothers me is the dearth of HD/1080 programming. There are a few Blu-Ray & HD movies out there, but nothing close to making me want to switch. And the 5-10 HD broadcasts out there hardly make it worth the expense either. I'm not an advocate of government eliminating standard programming, but at the very least it should make all major networks broadcast in both formats by a certain date. The point is, that all these better technologies, even if they've been around for years are just way too tentative. They are pussyfooting when they should be pushing much harder. It's almost as if they don't care enough.

It's what killed (or is killing, depending on your point of view) SACD & DVD-A. To deny that there are parallels between these two defunct formats and Blu-Ray/HD is just myopic. The only advantage that the latter two have is that there is a broadcast standard that is comparable (1080), and yet, they still look like they will wimper away. We can argue about the minor details, but what disaffected the public the most about SACD & DVD-A is:

- required a different player
- required more / better equipment (5.1 speakers)
- overly hampered & delayed by copy protection
- completely incompatible with each other's formats
- attacked by future emerging formats
- lack of selection
- no marketing

Now can anyone say that Blu-Ray and HD don't suffer from the same symtoms? And yes, we can say that it's still early, but that's what they were saying about SACD & DVD-A years after the realease of the formats all the way up until Sony decided to finally pull the plug on SACD.

Yes they require a different player, but that is not really going to stop someone that wants own leading edge technology. Remember, DVD required a different player, updated audio codecs, component inputs for televisions, new recievers, and 5.1 speakers, and if was the fastest adopted technology in history.

Neither Bluray nor HD DVD were delay were delayed by copy protection, though the DVD was.

They are definately incompatible, but one does offer advantages over the other. drseid mentions that HD DVD could add capacity. However the max capacity supported under the HD DVD standards is 30GB. However Toshiba says they can produce a 45GB disc. TDK has already demonstrated the Bluray can produce a 100GB disc, and is working on a 200GB disc. Capacity does matter to the studio's and to game developers. Toshiba would have to rework their players to accomodate a 45GB disc, Bluray would take nothing more than a firmware update from what I understand.

At this point there is a lousy selection of both formats titles, but in the fall that will certainly change as we get near the holidays.

Marketing is a non issue. You can't go anywhere and not see both Toshiba and Sony pushing their formats. Its all over the net, in CE stores, and in magazines and the paper.

This weekend I am going to have a HD DVD player to audition in my system. In the coming weeks I will have a Bluray player to audition. If I cannot find the $499 player, I will probably not be looking at HD DVD. However I am definately going to purchase a Bluray player as soon as more models from more manufacturers hit the streets, and HDMI 1.3 is in the players.

nightflier
08-17-2006, 11:14 AM
It looks like the Samsung BR players are the best bang-for-the-buck right now. They offer 1080p from both HDMI and the component outs and are backward compatible with standard DVD's. Better yet, it upconverts standard DVD's via either the component or HDMI outputs. If I was a betting man and had to put down cash now, I'd say that was my pony. But for now, I'm still on the fence.

Supposedly the Sony PS3 will do all this as well and it will play games.

edtyct
08-17-2006, 11:26 AM
I don't think that nighflier is right about the 1080p from component. Will someone else confirm or disconfirm?

drseid
08-17-2006, 11:32 AM
You are right Ed. No BRD or HD DVD player will output 1080P from its component outs.

---Dave

edtyct
08-17-2006, 12:11 PM
Thanks, Dave, and I'd be much surprised if the Samung upconverted at all from compoment, too.

Mr Peabody
08-17-2006, 07:18 PM
Samsung has impressed me with their TV's and I consider them a top brand in that area but I have not cared much for their DVD players, not quite up to snuff with the big dogs on performance. This leaves me hesitant to buy one of their HD disc units.

basite
08-18-2006, 01:58 AM
i already knew that when hd-dvd and blu-ray was first announced, for a couple of reasons,
1: it isn't really an improvement, from vhs to dvd was an improvement, because it made some visible difference,
2: there are 2 products with the same to offer, only thing is that if you get a player for the one, the other won't play
3: the price, for that normal guy, who is going to pay a 1500 $ for a player?? and then you can't even play both, and you can't see a difference??
4: since it has a larger amount of space to store data on then a dvd, it might (i said might) be usefull for the pc, for data storage like a backup of all your files or a best of games collection on one disk, but even then, who wants to pay it?? 1500 for a player, then you can't even write your own disks, and 20$ for one disk? who wants that?
5: it will actually also fail on the pc department because in a few years Hvd is going to be released, it can hold up several br discs on one disk, so everyone will wait for that.

drseid
08-18-2006, 03:19 AM
i already knew that when hd-dvd and blu-ray was first announced, for a couple of reasons,
1: it isn't really an improvement, from vhs to dvd was an improvement, because it made some visible difference

Who said you can't see a visable difference? Do you mean J6P can't see a difference because they wont purchase or own the HDTV needed in order to see it? If so, then my feeling is HDTVs will continue to come down in price, and as they do, both BRD and HD DVD will gain much more traction. Neither format is going to make the inroads DVD made when it had its debut though.

---Dave

edtyct
08-18-2006, 05:36 AM
This idea that the difference between a hi def and a standard def product isn't visible is foolish. As Dave says, many of the people who think so, or want to think so, don't own a hi def set or don't get hi def progamming if they do. And a sizable contingent is still lurking around who think that because they own an HDTV, regular DVDs played on it become hi def automatically. Many people also suffer from status quo syndrome; they simply can't imagine anything that exceeds the performance of the products that they happen to own. In a way, this one is understandable, but a little firsthand attention to the evolution of audio and video can cure that bit of naivite for good. Badly informed, nonspecialist journalists are also to blame--the ones whose equipment and background experience are all wrong for an assessment and whose presuppositions may color their judgment. A lot of these contrary arguments are just self-serving--whether they protect their proponents from the prospect of spending more money or simply flatter the idea that anything produced by large corporations is a fraud.

I just had a running controversy with a critic from the Boston Globe who claimed that watching films and TV shows on a home theater distracts from the essential core of a work of art (script and acting). To me, that's bollocks. I couldn't care less whether any particular person--critic or otherwise--has a home theater or not, but the self-congratulatory argument that just having one dumbs the viewer down is absurd. The critic was big enough to see the folly of his point, and the exchange was friendly, but his position testifies to the kind of prejudice that still surrounds this endeavor.

Also on the consumer downside is the notion that every new product or format shouldn't cost anything. What kind of nonsense is this? Early production runs cost manufacturers money. Economies of scale bring prices down; this isn't charity. And if early adopters don't do their share, the products don't develop beyond their initial offering. If you don't want to pay, or have serious misgivings about the terms of a launch, then by all means take a pass, but don't justify your decision by insulting the people who don't share your view. They're just as smart as you are.

Finally, you don't buy into HD-DVD or Blu-ray for its backward capabilities. These are a convenience; they don't represent where the money and attention have gone. Maybe the Toshiba upconverts fairly well, as Dave says. Nonetheless, upconversion, which is a dubious distinction in many respects, can be handled equally well, or better, by a host of $300 standard machines on the market. The early adopters have bought these things because they can, they're curious, and they like hi def and are willing to suffer a little inconvenience from the players to experience it in a potentially state of the art way on disk.

Enough said. Let the criticism of the two formats continue.

N. Abstentia
08-18-2006, 07:15 AM
Yeah there will be quite a bit of visible difference for those who chose to invest in the right equipment. But that's one of the points...the majority of consumers will not, and they will not see a difference.

But anyway here's my conclusion for the winning format. This is the format that will win, hands down. Here it is...


the winner will be.....




Whichever one comes out with a burner that allows you to copy the movies. There you go. Like it or not, that's how it will be determined.

edtyct
08-18-2006, 07:42 AM
I don't agree with the first two sentences, especially when the right equipment--an HD-capable TV--is just about the only kind of TV that people will be able to buy very soon. I don't believe that the number of new purchasers who opt for a low-rent, straggling 20" Orion CRT will outnumber those who opt for a digital set readily available in the local big box store. The only question that remains is whether the size of this new HDTV matters for visibility of better resolution, color, and processing. It does, but not absolutely. The HD difference is visible on a 32" TV, so long as you don't watch it from the next county.

As for who the winner will be in the HD disk sweepstakes, I haven't a clue. I wish I had your clairvoyance, or confidence. Too many intervening variables for me.

nightflier
08-18-2006, 09:38 AM
I don't think that nighflier is right about the 1080p from component. Will someone else confirm or disconfirm?

I should have said 1080i, but for the equipment that most people have, there won't be much of a difference, especially considering all those 720p max plasmas that are flying off the sheves as "true HD" sets. I almost think that 1080i/p will become a fringe SACD-type technology. Anyhow, for those that are comparing, the Samsung player:

- plays Blu-ray high-definition discs (selectable output resolution: 1080p signals available through HDMI output only; 720p/1080i signals available through HDMI or component video)
- plays DVD-Video, DVD-R & DVD-RW, and DVD-RAM, as well as CD and audio CD-R & CD-RW
- selectable 720p/1080i/1080p video upconversion for DVD (upconverted video available through HDMI output only)
- built-in audio decoding for Dolby® Digital and DTS®, plus multichannnel uncompressed PCM
- HDMI digital output (combines video and multichannel audio with HDCP copy protection)
- 1 composite video, S-video, and component video output
- stereo and 5.1-channel audio outputs
- coaxial and optical digital audio outputs
- Memory Card slot
- 216MHz/12-bit video D/A converter
- 192kHz/24-bit audio D/A converters
- DVD playback restricted to "Region 1" coded discs only

It's interesting that it supports Panasonic's marginal DVD-RAM (you have to take the disk out, though), but not DVD+R/RW. On the audio side it also does not support SACD, DVD-A, multichannel CD's, nor MP3 decoding. The lack of MP3 support is strange from Samsung, but may be the result of pressure from Sony. Still, if I keep my trusty Sony SACD/DVD player around, then the Samsung BR player completes all the formats (well except for HD-DVD, of course).

Now let's see if someone like LG comes up with a true all-format universal player, I'm talking HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, DVD+/-/R/RW, MP3 decoding, SACD/DVD-A, CD, CD-R/RW, ...the works. Whoever does that will be the winner.

N. Abstentia
08-18-2006, 11:08 AM
I don't agree with the first two sentences, especially when the right equipment--an HD-capable TV--is just about the only kind of TV that people will be able to buy very soon.

True, BUT...who's going to convince the majority of consumers that they need to go out replace their perfectly good non-HD sets with a nice new $1000 HD set just to get a little bit of improvement? Yeah I know that in 2009 they'll have to unless congress delays that another few years again..but this is now. Will these formats creep along for 3-4 years while everyone upgrades to an HD system?

edtyct
08-18-2006, 11:32 AM
Convincing people that they "need" things from some perspective, dubious or not, is a big part of our consumer culture. So, even on your terms, I'm not convinced that failure is inevitable. Many people go way over their financial heads when they buy cars and homes; it won't take too many people in the normal course of economic events to go a little over their heads to buy a TV that advertising, and reality, associates with so many benefits. TV is awfully important in American entertainment culture. It's even eroded attendance at movie theaters, causing ticket prices and other indignities to rise even higher. Remember, when color first arrived on the scene in the 1950s, TV had a long enough history for people to be satisfied with black and white and not need another format. But upgrade they did--not all at once but substantially. That said, I honestly have no idea what will happen with HD DVD and Blu-ray in particular, but I'm certain that the hi def medium for disks, or equivalent media for elective home use, is here to stay.

I also believe that a format can creep along for a few years, and that the two camps were prepared to eat a little capital before seeing any real success. They don't need everyone to upgrade to HDTV by a long shot.

By the way, nightflier, 720p is a genuine part of the HD standard, every bit as viable as 1080i and arguably more possessed of HD cache, not being interlaced (but that's splitting hairs). If you take the broad view of 1080p, pixel crunching aside, it is not crucial in many people's environments. It should not be equated with the desirability of having high def disks.

nightflier
08-18-2006, 01:48 PM
By the way, nightflier, 720p is a genuine part of the HD standard, every bit as viable as 1080i and arguably more possessed of HD cache, not being interlaced (but that's splitting hairs). If you take the broad view of 1080p, pixel crunching aside, it is not crucial in many people's environments. It should not be equated with the desirability of having high def disks.

I have been witness so many times of sales reps telling uninformed customers that 720p is what they need. While we can argue about how much better 1080i or 1080p might look, the fact is that the vast majority of plasmas out there are maxing out at 720p, which is quite a bit below the capabilities of BR (and some HD) players. I have several friends who are kicking themselves now for having bought TV's on impulse w/o doing the research. Sales reps are the last people customers should trust when buying a $3K component - one wouln't trust a car salesman the same way, right? I think it is disingenuous for sales reps and manufacturers to mislead the public into thinking that 720p is sufficient.

edtyct
08-18-2006, 02:10 PM
I don't get it. What about 720p is insufficient, the fact that it isn't 1080p, which just came down the pike, anyway? The fact is that 42" plasmas max out at 720 or 768 because they can't fit any more cells. A 720p screen of 42" coupled with the distance that most people sit from their TVs (if only for audio's sake), can look mighty good. I defy anyone to tell me that a 768p Hitachi or Panasonic plasma is at any visual disadvantage compared to most 1080p sets of the same size, and sometimes even larger. However, 1080p squeezed onto a relatively small (40" or so) LCD screen requires viewers to sit far closer than normal or comfortable for them to get the benefit. If your friends have come to think that they made a mistake, most likely it's because they bought an inferior plasma, not because they failed to wait for 1080p per se. I'd love to get a few people in a darkened room with a bunch of very good 720p, 1080i, and 1080p sets of similar size but different type and performance and challenge them to state the resolution of each from 10 to 12' away.

nightflier
08-18-2006, 04:22 PM
Ed,

Picking out the resolution between 1080 & 720 is not too hard. I'm blind as a bat, and I can see the difference on an LCD monitor when switching channels. Between 1080i & 1080p, I don't know, because I haven't seen it, although I can also tell the difference between 480i and 480p very easily.

That said, 1080i has been around for years on HD tvs; it did not just come down the pike. All I was saying is that my CRT at 1080i, has higher resolution than their 720p sets. Considering I paid a whole lot less than they did, that vexes. But for them the real kick in the pants is that HD-DVD & Blu-Ray is now here and they won't be able to take advantage of the higher resolutions. By the way, there are several Plasmas that do 1080 now, so I don't think it's an issue of squeezing pixels in.

I'll give you that there are huge differences in picture quality, but that these differences erase the noticeable differences between resolutions, is a stretch in my opinion. And when it really comes down to it, there is nothing worse than having settled on something. It's sort of like having to live with a scratch on a screen - it's only a small scratch, but somehow it's the one thing you notice more than anything else. Living with a lower resolution also nags at the back of your mind, even if it's only barely noticeable.

drseid
08-18-2006, 05:03 PM
I don't know Nightflier... I'm with Ed on this one. I own a 1080i CRT set and a 768P LCD set and I can honestly say I prefer watching my 768P. That is not to imply that I think 768P (or 720P for that matter) is "better" per se... I just feel that a lot of the differences have more to do with set quality rather than being 1080i or p versus 768/720p.

Speaking as someone who owns an HD DVD player... you really dont miss anything to speak of if you have a good quality 720 or 768P set (as long as you set the HD DVD player to 1080i output). I suppose the difference might be noticable on some large projection screens, but on my 50 inch widescreen I honestly can't tell the difference when sitting at a normal distance from the screen. I expect I will have the same experience with BRD as well. Maybe you can...

---Dave

Mr Peabody
08-18-2006, 05:23 PM
Everyone seems to be able to tell a difference between 480i and 480p because it's interlace vs Progressive Scan so with all things being equal and a monitor with enough resolution to show the difference, there should be as much difference between 1080i and 1080p. 720p being progressive vs 1080i interlace, it should be more difficult to tell a difference, if maybe even 720p having the advantage because it's progressive scan. It would seem that 1080i would only compare to about 540p. It seems that people are hung up on the higher the number and overlooking the Progressive scan better technology. Is this not correct?

It would also seem that to take full advantage of the higher rez your monitor would always have to be able to display as high or higher rez than the source. Those who jumped on the Hi Def band wagon earlier will have to wait or sell and upgrade. One big disadvantage to being the first to pay for the poor corporations R&D. And to those who defend the virtue of these upstanding corporations, when HDMI first came out making all these wild claims of multichannel etc. no DVD player on the market output more than 2.0 and no receiver accepted HDMI or more than 2.0. Which in itself wouldn't b so bad except no one was upfront about this and I feel the marketing was totally misleading. They should have said, "SOME DAY we will have this capability". And while the public was still bending over they sold you upscalers that wouldn't upscale copy protected material. You can argue all you want but that is a fact right from the manufacturers. I don't know if it's changed but I highly doubt it and they ain't about to tell you up front. Each person has to judge for themselves when they feel the need to buy into new technology but don't go telling me I should trust these money grubbing bastards and feel they are doing me a favor by spending their money on R&D. This industry does not have their act together and the consumer is paying for the mistakes. I'm sorry if anyone might be offended by my comments but this HDMI/upscaling sham still has me hot and what bothers me more than anything is that more consumers aren't. I think that's because they just don't know and if they did, may not understand.

edtyct
08-19-2006, 07:30 AM
Nightflier, I'll do a simple factual reply and let the rest of the chips fall where they may about what you can or cannot see. My point was that 1080p, not 1080i, just came down the pike. So far as plasma's having the capability to display 1920x1080p, size has everything to do with it. The individual cells that have ruled the day since plasma's inception have been too big to offer anything better than 1024x768 on a 42" plasma, though some makers have been enterprising enough to squeeze 1200-1300 horizontally. But 1365x768 is normally the province of 50" to 60" plasmas. As plasmas escalated in size beyond 60", they have been able to accommodate 1920x1080 pixels far more easily. The only 50" plasma at this point with the full HD complement of pixels is a new Pioneer model, and Pioneer was able to achieve 1920x1080 on it only by finding a way to reduce pixel size by 1/2, to .576 millimeters, which is no mean feat. You won't find too many of those for a while on the market.

As for 1080i resolution being better than 720p, you have the glimmer of a point--but only if you ignore interlacing, which guarantees that only 540 lines get drawn on the screen at one time (Mr. Peabody's point, I believe). Last time I heard, 540 is less than 720. But for years, the consensus has been that 1080i and 720p are all but indistinguishable to the eye. Most broadcasters certainly jumped on that notion; it didin't hurt that 1080i was slightly easier for them to implement. However, not everyone agreed. ESPN and ABC refused to go with the 1080i standard, preferring progressive 720 for its ability to show motion (hence, live sports) without the artifacts that we've come to know so well. I'll leave it to you and your friends to decide about any differences between 720p and 1080i. Personally, I think that they perform equally well for most purposes, though it's hard to make comparisons in the real world since most people's sets don't receive both standards natively, and, if they do, the providers already scale to one resolution or the other before the signal reaches the set.

I grant that differences between 1080i and 1080p are visible. The reasons are that interlacing itself is evident to those who look for it, as are its artifacts, like jaggies and combing. I'll leave the rest of the point to individual sensitivities. But few people were all that concerned about certain of these issues with 1080i because of its higher pixel count relative to 480i, which made them, and the gaps between the original picture elements, harder to see on most HDTVs. Similarly, on suitably small TVs, some of the difference between 480i and 480p is difficult to see. As screens became have larger, however, 1080p has become more more valuable to fill the gaps, making the processing of 1080i to it more important to tame the artifacts that can be irritating when magnified.

Mr. Peabody, I believe that long ago, you and I discussed this notion of upconverting copy protected material. I'll say it once again for the benefit of anyone who may not know it: DVD players are capable of upconverting standard DVD signals to the native resolution of displays (the same thing that microdisplays do themselves) via DVI and HDMI only because of the copy protection (HDCP) implemented via these digital interfaces. Most manufacturers agreed to ban such upconverting from analog component, which is not capable of digitally embedded copyright protection, with the idea that upconverting were at least enough like actual HD to deserve it (which to me is hogwash). The vast majority of DVDs already have Macrovision copy protection on them, but this is irrelevant to digital transmission through HDMI or DVI. It simply protects the disks, to one extent or another, from analog copying, not digital copying. The very existence of HDCP allows upconversion to take place. By the way, the early DVD players that could upconvert via their component outputs were only capable of doing so if the particular DVD had no analog copy protection--precious few. The only real issue with the upconverting process via HDMI concerns the HDMI handshake between components, which sometimes fails, rendering anything from upconverting to showing any picture at all problematical.

Mr Peabody
08-19-2006, 08:40 AM
Ed, it may have been us, I don't know where you get your info from. My LG owners manual plainly prints in black and white it will NOT upscale copy protected DVD. This led me to investigate other manufacturers as I was going to take the LG back. Toshiba and Sony both admitted to me in an email that they then DID NOT, upscale copy protected DVD. I don't know what kind of magic machine you have. I felt extremely ripped off.

On the other hand, it is plainly apparent that my Sony TV upscales analog signals. I have never seen a VHS tape look so good. I think you may have gotten your signals reversed. And, now with HD disc formats they may have decided to change what they will upscale. But you better bet I will do my research first this time.

edtyct
08-19-2006, 11:08 AM
Mr P, the one thing that I hate more than an argument is a pointless one. I'll say it once and be done, and you can do with it as you will. Disks physically copy-protected by Macrovision cannot be upconverted through component outputs precisely because of their analog copy protection. This analog copy protection, however, is useless through a digital output (HDMI or DVI). Hence, no disk is copy-protected digitally unless the player and its target display are both HDCP-compliant. When it comes to digital signals, disks themselves aren't copy-protected; their transmission is. Hence, no copy-protected disk can be upconverted, but HDCP permits upconversion via HDMI or DVI, even for disks copy-protected against analog duplication, because HDCP protects HD and upconverted standard-definition disks against piracy by protecting their transmission.

This factual information is available in countless sources. If anyone feels the need to explain this matter any more, please feel free.

Mr Peabody
08-19-2006, 02:02 PM
Ed, either give me some of your countless sources or some one else needs to explain it. In my exchanges with Sony and Toshiba I specifically addressed upscaling via HDMI, why would they say they could not when according to you they can? They told me it was prohibited by law. If there is no digital copy guard on the disc, then why can't I make copies on my computer of my own DVD's? Please don't even bring component or analog into this because like I said my exchange with manufacturers was about HDMI. It's also interesting that if the copy protection is in the transmission, why can I record from cable, digitally, both NTSC and HD onto a DVR, yet I cannot record from DVD?

You can call it an argument if you want, I think I have some pretty substantial sources for my view. I also know that because you see it on the web, don't always make it correct. So if you can show me some where that I am wrong I will stand corrected. But the source better know more about a product than the manufacturer or it's rep. I told you where I got my information from which I formed my view, all I've heard from you is your opinion.

edtyct
08-20-2006, 05:48 AM
We were talking about consumer video, and I told you that HDCP between a DVD player and a display that share the requisite secret handshake (like two freemasons) can allow HD and upconverted material to pass between them. If a DVD player asks a display for the handshake but receives nothing, or an anomalous gesture instead, it will refuse the feed. I don't know what went on between you and Sony/Toshiba customer service, but bringing your computer into the discussion needlessly complicates the matter. I won't go into much detail, but disks also contain various forms of encryption because the Macrovision on them, which I mentioned earlier, will not prevent digital duplication of a DVD (only analog). The CSS on a disk, for example, operates via a special key that a properly licensed computing device has to recognize in order for the disk to play or record. The disk content might make it to a hard drive, but CSS will still prevent it from being played back in a rogue machine. CSS became notoriously easy to crack, but if hacking or buying software to circumvent it isn't your thing, copying a DVD becomes well nigh impossible. HDCP, which is more robust than the copy protection traditionally aimed at duplication by computer, is slowly making its way into cyberspace, too.

Back to consumer video. Recording HD digital content to an approved DVR (a form of digital rights management), is the province of HDCP. If a DVR is equipped with the right HDCP key, it's good to go--hence, the DVRs embedded safely in STBs that can copy HD material for home use but not transfer it outside the box. Without the encryption code, no recording will take place. Computer drives need not apply.

So much for backtracking. I realize that nothing that I happen to say or do counts for anything with you. You want third-party corroboration. But that's the strange part, because upconversion has been a going concern since the humble Bravo D1, by V, inc., broke the ground a few years ago. Fred Manteghian wrote a seminal review of this otherwise flawed player in SGHT and was so impressed with its ability to upconvert that he bought the inexpensive review sample (for his high-end home theater). You might be able to find a transcript of the review on the web.

Do you read Widescreen Review? It's one of a handful of rags that bridges authoritatively between the industry and informed consumers. I have the January 2006 issue on my bedside table; it contains a review of the Sony DVP-NS9100ES DVD player by Bill Cruce. On page 42 appears the heading "Digital Output." I'll quote from what follows it:

"The DVP-NS9100ES is able to scale DVD video (480i) to HD rates of 720p or 1080i. For most of my viewing I used a Pioneer PRO-920HD plasma display. . . . It uses a 1024x768 pixel array in a 16x9 configuration. Although you would think a 720p image was best matched to it, the panel actually prefers to receive a 1080i image. . . . A problem with this combination of a DVD player and a fixed pixel display is that both devices do scaling and deinterlacing (when 1080i is sent to a display), thus the combination may not be apparent without careful testing. The AVIA sharpness pattern[shows] that HDMI signals produced the sharpest signal with the least amount of ringing and edge enhancement using 1080i. . . . Both 1080i and 720p signals resolved the 5.0 MHz resolution test; the 6.75 Mz pattern was resolved, but with banding. With both tests, the 1080i image was slightly sharper. . . . Other displays may look best with the DVP-NS9100 set for a different scaled HDMI output."

Wait a minute! He says that you can test the results of upconversion yourself using the AVIA test DVD. I suppose that you could even use Digital Video Essentials, or any other DVD with good test patterns. Even if your display doesn't read out the resolution of the signals that it displays, you can check what effect upconversion at various rates has on a display's sharpness. This strategy would take the matter out of the abstract realm into the empirical one, meaning that anyone could conceivably determine whether Fred, Bill, I, and hundreds of people at such forums as AR and AVS who discuss the relative merits of upconversion were part of some vast conspiracy or vast army of duped consumers/professionals.

Lest you still find room for doubt that anything Bill says could possibly apply to a DVD that you might watch, he goes on to say on p. 44, under the heading "How Does It Look," "The Pioneer plasma works best when it receives a 1080i signal. . . but I also looked at DVDs using 720p and 480p HDMI output." The DVDs that Bill mentions by name are two reviewers' staples, Dark City and the Fifth Element, because of their exquisite mastering and wide dynamic range in greyscale. The upshot is that all of this reviewing took place watching standard 480i DVD video scaled via HDMI at rates of 720p and 1080i. In that regard, there's nothing unusual or controversial about it; the review just happens to be on top of my pile.

Mr Peabody
08-20-2006, 06:49 PM
Ed, I've been doing some more research and I see where you are coming from. Frankly, I wish I had not and left it alone, this copy protection is scary and confusing. There are about 8 different copy protections out there. I thought HDCP was already being used but I found some articles that led me to believe it was a future protection. Maybe it's just a new version. Some articles say this HDCP will not be compatible with our currently owned HDTV's because they will not have the "key" or "friendly hand shake" that will allow HD picture from HD disc players to be displayed. One article even said that people who are buying A/V receivers now with HDMI have wasted their money because no receivers are HDCP compliant yet. You also have to be careful when buying equipment that is says "hdcp compliant", NOT, "compatible". HDCP compatibel does not mean a piece accepts the HDCP signal. Some PC magazines even say if HDCP goes through that people will have to have new computer monitors and cables in order to get HD picture on your computer.

When I bought a DVD player with HDMI it was when the connection first came out, the only thing I can think of is maybe in the beginning these players were not allowed to upconvert copy protected DVD's via HDMI but later things changed. What other explanation could there be for 3 major manufacturers saying they do not do this? Also, which copy protection were they referring to?

It's easy to see how you and I could disagree on this topic when many who are paid to write about such subjects cannot agree, and themselves, seem to not be able to cut though the confusion. If I can think of a source, I still would like to get to the bottom of this. It really does not make sense to deny any upconversion via HDMI since they wont' allow anything to record it.

nightflier
08-22-2006, 09:56 AM
Just out of curiosity, I'm planning a trip to Europe soon. Should I consider buying a region-free DVD player there? Do theirs upconvert to 1080i or 720p through the component outs? After all, the hobbling of this capability is entirely an American phenomenon, no?

edtyct
08-22-2006, 10:29 AM
Night, you can get a region-free player in the states. One company that I ran across by accident is International Electronics in Illinois, which specializes in them and has a website. I think that you'll have trouble finding a player that upconverts via component in Europe, since the same companies and content providers are there. Your best luck might be with a Chinese player that will show NTSC or region-free disks.

If you have your heart set on one, the first firmware release of LG's/Zenith's earliest upconverter--in 2004, I believe--worked with component. Unfortunately for you, the later firmware, which fixed a defect or two, also eliminated component upconversion, probably because of pressure. I do believe, however, that if you have this player with the later firmware, you can revert to the initial firmware if you want. Check AVS to find out how. Another one that I think worked via component was the Bravo D1, which still shows up from time to time on ebay for $50 or so. Remember, however, that upconverting via component may work only on disks without copy protection (Macrovision, etc.), which comprises precious few commercial ones.

Don't construe this information as a recommendation for these players by any means. If you can't upconvert with your current equipment, I wouldn't sweat it. I get a sense that you're thrifty. Upconversion may not justify the expense of a new player. But that's none of my business.

nightflier
08-22-2006, 04:19 PM
Ed,

Thanks for the info. What about a component to DVI/HDMI converter? Could I purchase one of these to get the same effect (w/o the restriction)?

edtyct
08-22-2006, 04:56 PM
Have you seen such an animal? You can get a DVI-D to VGA converter for $400 or so, but I don't know whether any converter switches directions, since that would compromise HDCP or fail for lack of it, giving you nothing better that 480 if anything at all. Even if such a converter were to pass any kind of signal, you'd need a component to VGA adaptor to get you in the door, which would run you another $150, and you would still not get the benefits of a fully digital HDCP connection.

nightflier
08-23-2006, 10:26 AM
Ed,

No I have not seen such an animal, and I am also not interested in circumventing copy protection. The only thing I'm looking to do is pass 720p and 1080i signals to my component-only HD-ready tv, because technically it should be able to do this. I believe this arbitrary restriction has no merit, stiffles technological advances, and irritates the law-abiding public. It is my belief that this hobbling of a viable technology has very little to do with actual risk from bootleggers and much more to do with profits - profits generated from getting me to buy new technology when the old technology works just fine. We can debate the morality of this ad-nauseum, but if I can find such a beast in Europe, then I will buy it.

My apologies if I seem a bit perturbed; it is not directed at the posters here, but rather at the industry.

edtyct
08-23-2006, 11:33 AM
Night, ol' buddy, you won't get any argument from me. I see no reason why, from a copy protection standpoint, upconversion should not be permitted via component. It has no need of the protection accorded to HD, because it is a far cry from HD, and it is not a means of copying anything.

But consider this fact before your anger and disappointment get the better of you. The restriction of upscaling to HDMI or DVI is largely a red herring. As I said, upconversion is a a far cry from HD. Anyone who thinks that it is HD, or even that it is capable of providing performance that cannot be achieved otherwise, and thus buys new equipment expressly to get it, is merely playing into manufacturers' hands. Sure, upconversion provides another level of interest, and if you like tinkering with this sort of thing, as I do, it's another fun option to have. However, DVD player upconversion is, for all intents and purposes, no different from the upconversion done routinely by any microdisplay (the only type of display that counts here, since CRTs have no ostensible need for this scaling). Sometimes DVD players perform it better, but the differences are rarely worth writing home about. Most people don't notice any improvement at all.

So manufacturers have invented a need, upconversion, that in most important respects is unjustified so far as the enjoyment of standard DVDs is concerned. N. Abstentia, early in this thread, doubted whether Toshiba and Sony could convince people that they need hi def DVD. I argued that companies are convincing people all the time that they need one thing or another. Sometimes they bank on consumer ignorance, and sometimes they bank on generating interest for genuine innovations. We usually don't count the stuff that we actually buy as cases in point, only the stuff that we resist buying. Upconversion via digital output from a DVD player may well qualify as a value generated wholecloth out of next to nothing. And I say so as someone who pays attention, and sometimes even revels in, minute degrees of difference in video performance. It's the nature of the discursive game.

nightflier
08-23-2006, 01:34 PM
Well, if I find one, I'm buying it, if only to tell the industry to stick it. But I guess I won't be able to actually mention it here that I have one of these or I'll have the D(u)MCA police knocking on my door....

Mr Peabody
08-23-2006, 05:19 PM
NF and Ed, I just read a review of the Toshiba XA1 HD-DVD player $499.00 at Crutchfield by one of their employees. Sorry, I could not get the link to copy. Anyway he says the component out does output 1080p, which leads me to believe that it should also upscale through component, why block an inferior upconversion and allow the superior HD? He also says the HD DVD is a step up from over the air HD because the HD disc uses VC-1 encoding which is twice as efficient as what they use over the air and both are better than the MP2 that satelite uses. He is also one of many sources that report the movie industry is thinking about putting off the ICT or copy guard key until 2010. The writer says he could tell little difference between the component and HDMI picture quality. He reported that the machine sometimes gave an HDMI error message and others have reported compatibility problems between HDMI and some displays. The player itself has some ergonomic problems and is slower than standard DVD to load and play. This I found interesting since I love my remote and functions of my Toshiba DLP, I guess that's a draw back of having such a fragmented corporation. Now my Sony remote has serious ergonomic problems, volume toward the bottom and mute at the very top by the power button, what were they thinking?

edtyct
08-23-2006, 06:26 PM
Mr. P,

It all has the ring of truth, except for the 1080p part. The Toshiba doesn't output 1080p from HDMI or component, and it doesn't upconvert at all through component. By the way, for those who are interested, the HDMI 1.3 spec appears to have been finalized. Eventually it will find its way into everything.

Ed