does HD-DVD use red-laser or blue-laser ?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

I don't mean any HD-DVD, I mean *the* HD-DVD format, by NEC, Toshiba
(and Microsoft?) the main competitor to Blu-Ray.

does HD-DVD use red laser or does it use blue laser ? obviously the
'Blu-Ray' format uses blue laser / blue light laser. etc.


also, I read somewhere that, blue laser systems have been demoed at CES
for the last 5 years.


can anyone tell me about the different then-emerging High-Definition
DVD formats (not specifically HD-DVD) that were proposed, shown,
developed, etc. say between 1995-96 (when DVD came out) and 2002,
before HD-DVD and Blu-Ray emerged as the two standards ? it seems
that Blu-Ray was announced in early 2002. but as I said, there were
various blue-laser systems being proposed/shown before Blu-Ray came
about.

I also remember that in 1994-1995, there were two competing DVD
formats, that eventually merged.


finally, in general, tell me if I have this straight. the CD / Compact
Disc, was patented in the mid 1960s, developed in the early 1970s,
became available to consumers in the early 1980s.

the Video CD (MPEG-1) was developed in the mid 1980s. DVD I am
guessing was developed in the late 1980s, if not the early 1990s. then
the various high-definition DVD formats were being developed in the mid
to late 1990s, and started to emerge in the early part of this
decade, becoming avaliable to consumers in the middle part of this
decade (HD-DVD, Blu-Ray) .....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

They both use blue wavelength lasers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

yep, I do realize blue laser is much superior to red laser. I asked
the question because, I *thought* I had read somewhere that HD-DVD (aka
AOD or Advanced Optical Disc) by Toshiba and NEC used the same red
laser that current DVD used, and that's why HD-DVD players could play
standard DVDs out of the box. my former belief that AOD / HD-DVD used
red-laser was more solidified because I kept hearing that AOD / HD-DVD
was inferior to Blu-Ray.

I *now* realize that HD-DVD does not use red laser, but in fact, blue
laser, like Blu Ray, even though Blu Ray is still superior in most if
not all ways compared to AOD / HD-DVD.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

videogamedude@gmail.com wrote:

>I don't mean any HD-DVD, I mean *the* HD-DVD format, by NEC, Toshiba
>(and Microsoft?) the main competitor to Blu-Ray.

Of course blue. The reason for the "color"is that blue has a short
wavelength, relative to the rest of the visible spectrum, so it
suffers less from diffraction effects, so it can resolve smaller
details. Red, which is at the long-wavelength end of the visible
spectrum, would going the wrong way.

Ever wonder why the most powerful microscopes use X-rays? Same reason
- the much-shorter wavelength, compared with visible light, allows
much-smaller details to be resolved.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

<videogamedude@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113576994.673695.325350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> yep, I do realize blue laser is much superior to red laser. I asked
> the question because, I *thought* I had read somewhere that HD-DVD (aka
> AOD or Advanced Optical Disc) by Toshiba and NEC used the same red
> laser that current DVD used, and that's why HD-DVD players could play
> standard DVDs out of the box. my former belief that AOD / HD-DVD used
> red-laser was more solidified because I kept hearing that AOD / HD-DVD
> was inferior to Blu-Ray.
>
> I *now* realize that HD-DVD does not use red laser, but in fact, blue
> laser, like Blu Ray, even though Blu Ray is still superior in most if
> not all ways compared to AOD / HD-DVD.

One of the issues that has to be addressed is how the Blu-Ray or HD players
will manage to play ordinary DVDs, not to mention CDs. I realize that this
is not much of an issue to audio/videophiles. We can easily keep these
things straight. If necessary we will simply add another player for Blu-
Ray. But the general public doesn't see it our way. When high definition
players come on the market they are going to insist that the same player
play any 12cm disc they throw at it.

It seems to be the nature of videophiles to insist on the most advanced
technology possible. That's why they all seem to be on the Blue-Ray
bandwagon. However, my guess is that HD-DVD will be the winner because it
will be easier and cheaper to make universal players. I'll be happy to be
proven wrong, but that's the way I see it right now.

Norm Strong

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

In article <1113576994.673695.325350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
<videogamedude@gmail.com> wrote:
>yep, I do realize blue laser is much superior to red laser. I asked
>the question because, I *thought* I had read somewhere that HD-DVD (aka
>AOD or Advanced Optical Disc) by Toshiba and NEC used the same red
>laser that current DVD used, and that's why HD-DVD players could play
>standard DVDs out of the box. my former belief that AOD / HD-DVD used
>red-laser was more solidified because I kept hearing that AOD / HD-DVD
>was inferior to Blu-Ray.

As I recall - and can't point you to where I read it at the moment
- even though they both use light in the red area of the spectrum
they are using different frequencies/wave-lengths/lambdas.

>I *now* realize that HD-DVD does not use red laser, but in fact, blue
>laser, like Blu Ray, even though Blu Ray is still superior in most if
>not all ways compared to AOD / HD-DVD.

We shall have to see if the superior format wins - and depending on
which side of the fence you view the arguments either side could be
superior depending upon your needs. One is more extensible - one
if more compatible with current manufacturing modes.

If the bean-counters makes the choices then it would definately be
HD-DVD, but if the engineers made the choices it would probably
be Blu-Ray.

Just as the vastly superior Beta format killed Quasar VX cartridge
tape format [aka The Great Time Machine] and the Sanyo V-Cord,
the much cheaper VHS format eventually did in the Beta in
North America [while it survived as the leader in other parts of
the world for a very long time]. As I recall the VX format went
under first and it's cartridges were HUGE in comparison to all
others. I've only seen the tapes for one but never the machines.

As consumers we are eventually stuck with what choices the money
people make.

Bill



--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

Bill Vermillion wrote:

>the much cheaper VHS format eventually did in the Beta in
>North America

But was VHS inherantly cheaper to make, or was it because Sony kept
Beta to itself, and kept prices high to make more money?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

<videogamedude@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1113576994.673695.325350@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> yep, I do realize blue laser is much superior to red laser. I asked
> the question because, I *thought* I had read somewhere that HD-DVD
> (aka
> AOD or Advanced Optical Disc) by Toshiba and NEC used the same red
> laser that current DVD used, and that's why HD-DVD players could play
> standard DVDs out of the box. my former belief that AOD / HD-DVD used
> red-laser was more solidified because I kept hearing that AOD / HD-DVD
> was inferior to Blu-Ray.

The original plan was for HD-DVD to use a red laser, but they eventually
changed to blue.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

SNIP

The
> consumer will have to buy new players for either high def disk format,
> most of which will presumably be able to play DVDs, so you will to spend
> money either way.
>

Tests done so far shows that HD-DVD is backwards compatible with a few
hundred DVD players already on the market, although I guess that you won't
get the High Def picture.


SNIP

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

In article <54uv51d00hkb13qub46vf9lfrkoev8pddm@4ax.com>,
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Bill Vermillion wrote:

>>the much cheaper VHS format eventually did in the Beta in
>>North America

>But was VHS inherantly cheaper to make, or was it because Sony kept
>Beta to itself, and kept prices high to make more money?

As I recall the licensing on VHS was lower. Sony invented VHS but
didn't like it and moved on to Beta. Sony did NOT keep Beta to
itself. Other manufacturers made Beta machines and I had
an NEC that was had gorgeous pictures - as it also had
the SB1 - Super Beta 1 - that Sony had in their high-end machines
like my SL-1000 and perhaps the 900 series also.

All the Zenith Beta machines were made by Sony, but there were
several others who made their own machines too. It's been over
25 years so my memory is a bit hazy.

And a comment on Sony making money. When VHS was at 90% sales
Sony was the only company selling Beta machines in the US.
However there were dozens of brands of VHS machines, so Sony
was selling more Beta machines than any individual company [except
maybe the largest] was selling VHS.

I always wanted the highest quality video for my recordings of
films from cable - so Beta was the choice for me. I didn't rent
nor did I buy commercial videos. The one rare execption was
when Magnetic Video leased 50 titles from 20Th Century Fox and I
bought a very expensive copy of The Day The Earth Stood Still.

MV had an idea that selling pre-recorded video might have a market.
So the 50 title leased from 20th was an experiment, and most
people in the film business didn't think it would survive.

The film industry not understanding movie fans who wanted
to own their own copies was what kept prices high so they could be
rented. After all theatres 'rented' the films so why shouldn't
home viewers. Only after a few dropped the prices down to
'sell-through' did they realize the market, and then DVD finally
showed them that people would buy if the prices were low enough.

Going direct to DVD is certainly far cheaper than producing a lot
of prints and then shipping them around. [sorry for the drift]

Bill



--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:IF27u4.KLA@wjv.com...
> In article <54uv51d00hkb13qub46vf9lfrkoev8pddm@4ax.com>,
> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
>>>the much cheaper VHS format eventually did in the Beta in
>>>North America
>
>>But was VHS inherantly cheaper to make, or was it because Sony kept
>>Beta to itself, and kept prices high to make more money?
>
> As I recall the licensing on VHS was lower. Sony invented VHS

No, they did not. It was JVC.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

In article <yST7e.10168$44.4681@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-BITE-ME.mindspring.com> wrote:

> The original plan was for HD-DVD to use a red laser, but they eventually
> changed to blue.

This has me a bit urked. Since both formats are now using blue lasers,
that means the players for both formats will require a second laser
assembly to play standard DVDs, correct? Naturally, the first players on
the market will be backwards compatible as they'll have to do everything
in their power to try to encourage people to buy into the new formats.
But assuming one of the HD formats does eventually manage to "replace"
regular DVD, I fear they'll eventually stop including second laser
assembly to save on production costs. *sigh*
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we." - George Dumbya Bush

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

In article <1163nhvh7qht9dc@corp.supernews.com>,
"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote:

> No, they did not. It was JVC.

Actually, JVC did not. Their shitty engineers couldn't invent tooth
paste. VHS's core design was originally developed by Sony before they
determined it was not up to their standards and abandoned it for the
superior Betamax design. JVC then snatched it up and continued to
develop it for the next year or so before finally releasing it to the
market in 1976(2 years after Sony had already gotten Betamax on store
shelves). Rather ironic that the format that Sony originally developed
ended up killing Betamax in the end. Maybe Sony should have just stuck
with the shitty VHS model...
--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we." - George Dumbya Bush

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

In article <1163nhvh7qht9dc@corp.supernews.com>, Alpha <logos1@trip.net> wrote:
>
>"Bill Vermillion" <bv@wjv.com> wrote in message news:IF27u4.KLA@wjv.com...
>> In article <54uv51d00hkb13qub46vf9lfrkoev8pddm@4ax.com>,
>> chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>Bill Vermillion wrote:
>>
>>>>the much cheaper VHS format eventually did in the Beta in
>>>>North America
>>
>>>But was VHS inherantly cheaper to make, or was it because Sony kept
>>>Beta to itself, and kept prices high to make more money?
>>
>> As I recall the licensing on VHS was lower. Sony invented VHS

>No, they did not. It was JVC.

As I recall it, Sony invented it, and discarded the concept, and
then JVC went on to develop it with the current specs in use today.
The VHS was somewhat patterned after the U-matic that Sony
announced in 1969 and introducedin 1972, but with 1/2"
tape instead of 3/4" tape. As I recall the time line was Sony
developed/invented VHS in 1974/5, never even marketed it, and
went on to releast the Beta in 1975.

I then see [Camras - Magnetic Recording - ISBN 0-442-26262-0]
That Toshiba and Sanyo both brought out V-Cord machine in 1976,
the year after Betamax first hit - which was only availabe in a
console with a 19" TV set for about $2500. JVC finishes
development of VHS in 1976. [An interesting side note is that I
see and that time line that Sony released a 'magnetic camera'
recording images on small floppies in that year. I didn't realize
that electronic imagining for consumers went back that far - but
I'm assuming it was an analog video format].

When I got my Beta machine it had a serial number of just about
30,000, and the estimates were that at that time there were 50,000
households with VCRs. Those included the Cartrivision, The Quasar
VS, Sanyo V-Cord, Betamax and the new VHS which had been on the
market for about 2 months. I never dreamed VCRs would become so
commmon. That was the same year I got my first home computer too.

I'll try to see if I can find where that may be documented. The
trouble with online searches is that the original documents aren't
often on line, just new versions/recolletions that have only
been net-reachable for the last 10 years. And I threw out
all my video magazines from that era in the mid-1980s for lack of
room :-(

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

Alan Figgatt wrote:

> A large part of the reason that Sony is not using DVD in their
> product name is that if they used DVD, they would have to pay
> royalties to the companies that own parts of the DVD copyrights.

Well, no. The term "DVD" isn't copyrighted at all. There are a few standards
(DVD-Video, DVD-RAM, DVD-R(W) etc) that are property of the DVD Forum, so
Sony can't use any of the names for these formats. But they can use a term
that includes "DVD" if they want...

The reason Sony isn't using anything with DVD is that it would imply that
their new devices are compatible to generic DVDs (playback DVD-Videos for
example) which they aren't.

Benjamin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

"Benjamin Gawert" <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:3cfik9F6lr248U1@individual.net...
> The reason Sony isn't using anything with DVD is that it would imply
> that their new devices are compatible to generic DVDs (playback
> DVD-Videos for example) which they aren't.

Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be backwards compatible with standard DVD.
This has been confirmed by both camps.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

Joshua Zyber (jzyber@SPAMMERS-BITE-ME.mindspring.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > The reason Sony isn't using anything with DVD is that it would imply
> > that their new devices are compatible to generic DVDs (playback
> > DVD-Videos for example) which they aren't.
>
> Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will be backwards compatible with standard DVD.
> This has been confirmed by both camps.

I remember that one of the two technologies could be set up with multiple
layers so that you could put standard DVD-Video on the same disc as the
HD video, and current players would only see the DVD-Video. That would
be the best thing for full compatability, but I don't see it happening,
as the only reason to do it would be to have new releases using the dual
format. This would mean no double sales, since people would already have
the HD version when they get an HD player.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/TechBigot.gif

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

Bill Vermillion wrote:

> As I recall the licensing on VHS was lower.

Right.

> Sony invented VHS

Wrong. VHS was invented by the Victor Company of Japan (aka JVC)...

> but
> didn't like it and moved on to Beta. Sony did NOT keep Beta to
> itself. Other manufacturers made Beta machines and I had
> an NEC that was had gorgeous pictures

Right. Sony licensed Beta to other companies. But they had to call their
recorders "Beta" while Sony used the copyrighted term "Betamax"...

> - as it also had
> the SB1 - Super Beta 1 - that Sony had in their high-end machines
> like my SL-1000 and perhaps the 900 series also.

Right, but at that time there also were SVHS machines which used separate
Y/C recording and offered a much better picture than the SuperBeta which
still used composite recording...

Benjamin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

Bill Vermillion wrote:

> As I recall it, Sony invented it, and discarded the concept,

That's just an urban legend. Widespread, but still a legend.

> and
> then JVC went on to develop it with the current specs in use today.

No. It also wouldn't be possible. Remember that Sony charged a lot for
licensing Betamax and even Umatic to other companies? You really believe the
exact same company would invest money in developing a video standard and
then giving it away for free?

> The VHS was somewhat patterned after the U-matic that Sony
> announced in 1969 and introducedin 1972, but with 1/2"
> tape instead of 3/4" tape. As I recall the time line was Sony
> developed/invented VHS in 1974/5, never even marketed it, and
> went on to releast the Beta in 1975.

Sonys Betamax system derived from their semiprofessional Umatic video
system. Both share a lot of common parameters, like the U-Loading concept.

VHS, which definitely was invented by JVC and not by Sony, had some
different approaches (i.e. M-Loading concept)...

Sony never did anything like VHS. They went directly from Umatic to their
home video system Betamax...

Benjamin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

In article <3cfitbF6f3mviU1@individual.net>,
Benjamin Gawert <bgawert@gmx.de> wrote:
>Bill Vermillion wrote:
>
>> As I recall the licensing on VHS was lower.
>
>Right.
>
>> Sony invented VHS
>
>Wrong. VHS was invented by the Victor Company of Japan (aka JVC)...
>
>> but
>> didn't like it and moved on to Beta. Sony did NOT keep Beta to
>> itself. Other manufacturers made Beta machines and I had
>> an NEC that was had gorgeous pictures
>
>Right. Sony licensed Beta to other companies. But they had to call their
>recorders "Beta" while Sony used the copyrighted term "Betamax"...

>> - as it also had
>> the SB1 - Super Beta 1 - that Sony had in their high-end machines
>> like my SL-1000 and perhaps the 900 series also.

>Right, but at that time there also were SVHS machines which used
>separate Y/C recording and offered a much better picture than the
>SuperBeta which still used composite recording...

But the S-VHS didn't compare with SB-1. My SL-1000s had a 6Mhz
bandwidth and the difference was visible. Those also had lower
chroma noise than S-VHS. Then my EDV-9500 ran with a 10MHz
bandwidth and using the standard test patterns, the resolution
came in between 500 and 550. You could see 500, but not 550, so I
estimated it was about 525.

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

In article <7pgv51polo13r4obdvnpm25ogbfv8993na@4ax.com>,
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Of course blue.

Actually blue-violet, I believe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,rec.video.dvd.tech,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage,alt.dvd.video,alt.video.dvd (More info?)

In article <bl2112-DB13F3.00532417042005@news.uswest.net>,
Black Locust <bl2112@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <yST7e.10168$44.4681@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> "Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@SPAMMERS-BITE-ME.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> The original plan was for HD-DVD to use a red laser, but they eventually
>> changed to blue.
>
>This has me a bit rked. Since both formats are now using blue lasers,
>that means the players for both formats will require a second laser
>assembly to play standard DVDs, correct?

DVDs use red lasers, CDs use infrared. Since all the DVD drives I've
seen can also handle CDs, doesn't this mean they already have two lasers?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Is this for Real...?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Nope, Usenet does not exist. We are all dreaming.

"CSE" <cse@noware.comn> wrote in message
news:82m661pv4r6283ia30nj940c3ucdd8h67s@4ax.com...
>
> Is this for Real...?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage (More info?)

Welcome to real world.

"Eric Gisin" <ericgisin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d40jn31ec8@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Nope, Usenet does not exist. We are all dreaming.
>
> "CSE" <cse@noware.comn> wrote in message
> news:82m661pv4r6283ia30nj940c3ucdd8h67s@4ax.com...
> >
> > Is this for Real...?
> >
> >
>
>