Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why HD-DVD may fail.

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
August 23, 2004 8:56:34 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

HD-DVD will be here sooner than later. Some manufactuers have already
experimented using the Microsoft WM9 standard and more and more press
is being given to the subject.

The real question to be ask is what will this technology really offer
over our current DVD standards and will it be enough to make consumers
switch. The VCR has been a consumer product since the late 70's. It
came down to a mass-market price circa 1984 and since 1986 it's been a
common household product (took only two years to catch on). Ten years
later (circa 1996) the first consumer DVD players hit the market.
Within two years their price droped to the $180-$200 range
(mass-market) and by 2001 they had exceeded VHS recorder/players in
sales (US).

So what's next? HD-DVD is the obvious answer, but the question is what
does the consumer gain with HD-DVD? Looking at the factors that made
DVD a success when it was introduced is a non trival task: DVD disc
are much more compact than VHS tapes, if they are taken care of DVDs
do not degrade in quality the way tape does, there is no need to
remind, more can fit on a DVD, the image quality (resolution_ of DVD
exceeds VHS by almost x2 on most modern (even non-HD) televisios, DVD
added support for "theater quality" 5.1 digital surround sound. On the
novelity side DVD offed menus, easy access to chapter selections as
well as space for extras.

So we have a pretty signifigant list of new features that helped push
consumers to adopt DVD as the standard for home movies. Now let's
contrast this list with what HD-DVD will offer over current DVD
standards. Really the only thing is High Definition content (as the
name impies) in one of the HDTV formats: 1080p/1080i/720p. Since so
few consumers own HD or HD Ready sets this isn't going to be enough to
make the consumer electronics world take much of a notice and if
people don't rush out to buy HD-DVD decks the movie studios aren't
going to be compelled to spend money putting out HD-DVD movies (and
the ones you will find will likely be very expensive compared to their
DVD counterparts).

How do you all see HD-DVD evolving? Objectively looking at the US
consumer electronics market, do you think HD-DVD will be viable
anytime soon?

More about : dvd fail

Anonymous
August 23, 2004 11:48:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <d4e30081.0408231556.d27ddb1@posting.google.com>,
jmason@funnydelight.co.uk says...
> How do you all see HD-DVD evolving? Objectively looking at the US
> consumer electronics market, do you think HD-DVD will be viable
> anytime soon?

HD-DVD would enable me to do two things. One is viewing HD movies
(assuming Hollywood doesn't flat out refuse to release in HD format)
and the other is recording HD. However, I've recently gotten an HD
Tivo, which pretty much does all the recording I want. Yes, I can't
export HD recordings, but I have little desire to do that; I'm
basically time shifting. So it seems to me that HD Tivo et al will
take a bite (byte?) out of the HD DVD potential market.

If there were significant prerecorded HD content available (eg.
comparable to current SD content), I believe we would see significant
HD-DVD sales, which would even drive HD montior sales. Minus that,
and with the inevitable HD-DVD format wars to follow, I believe HD-
DVD may be a long way out.

/Chris, AA6SQ
August 24, 2004 1:25:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

You have one HUGE lapse in logic: You ASSUME the movie studios want this
technology.
WRONG!!
They do not want high definition movies in the hands of consumers.
HD=DVD is by no means a certainty. And it won't happen unless there is a
fool-proof encoding scheme that will prevent piracy.
Technology without the software is called a boat anchor.


"JamesMason" <jmason@funnydelight.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 4e30081.0408231556.d27ddb1@posting.google.com...
> HD-DVD will be here sooner than later. Some manufactuers have already
> experimented using the Microsoft WM9 standard and more and more press
> is being given to the subject.
>
> The real question to be ask is what will this technology really offer
> over our current DVD standards and will it be enough to make consumers
> switch. The VCR has been a consumer product since the late 70's. It
> came down to a mass-market price circa 1984 and since 1986 it's been a
> common household product (took only two years to catch on). Ten years
> later (circa 1996) the first consumer DVD players hit the market.
> Within two years their price droped to the $180-$200 range
> (mass-market) and by 2001 they had exceeded VHS recorder/players in
> sales (US).
>
> So what's next? HD-DVD is the obvious answer, but the question is what
> does the consumer gain with HD-DVD? Looking at the factors that made
> DVD a success when it was introduced is a non trival task: DVD disc
> are much more compact than VHS tapes, if they are taken care of DVDs
> do not degrade in quality the way tape does, there is no need to
> remind, more can fit on a DVD, the image quality (resolution_ of DVD
> exceeds VHS by almost x2 on most modern (even non-HD) televisios, DVD
> added support for "theater quality" 5.1 digital surround sound. On the
> novelity side DVD offed menus, easy access to chapter selections as
> well as space for extras.
>
> So we have a pretty signifigant list of new features that helped push
> consumers to adopt DVD as the standard for home movies. Now let's
> contrast this list with what HD-DVD will offer over current DVD
> standards. Really the only thing is High Definition content (as the
> name impies) in one of the HDTV formats: 1080p/1080i/720p. Since so
> few consumers own HD or HD Ready sets this isn't going to be enough to
> make the consumer electronics world take much of a notice and if
> people don't rush out to buy HD-DVD decks the movie studios aren't
> going to be compelled to spend money putting out HD-DVD movies (and
> the ones you will find will likely be very expensive compared to their
> DVD counterparts).
>
> How do you all see HD-DVD evolving? Objectively looking at the US
> consumer electronics market, do you think HD-DVD will be viable
> anytime soon?
Related resources
August 24, 2004 4:01:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

JamesMason wrote:
> HD-DVD will be here sooner than later. Some manufactuers have already
> experimented using the Microsoft WM9 standard and more and more press
> is being given to the subject.
>
> The real question to be ask is what will this technology really offer
> over our current DVD standards and will it be enough to make consumers
> switch. The VCR has been a consumer product since the late 70's. It
> came down to a mass-market price circa 1984 and since 1986 it's been a
> common household product (took only two years to catch on). Ten years
> later (circa 1996) the first consumer DVD players hit the market.
> Within two years their price droped to the $180-$200 range
> (mass-market) and by 2001 they had exceeded VHS recorder/players in
> sales (US).
>
> So what's next? HD-DVD is the obvious answer, but the question is what
> does the consumer gain with HD-DVD? Looking at the factors that made
> DVD a success when it was introduced is a non trival task: DVD disc
> are much more compact than VHS tapes, if they are taken care of DVDs
> do not degrade in quality the way tape does, there is no need to
> remind, more can fit on a DVD, the image quality (resolution_ of DVD
> exceeds VHS by almost x2 on most modern (even non-HD) televisios, DVD
> added support for "theater quality" 5.1 digital surround sound. On the
> novelity side DVD offed menus, easy access to chapter selections as
> well as space for extras.
>
> So we have a pretty signifigant list of new features that helped push
> consumers to adopt DVD as the standard for home movies. Now let's
> contrast this list with what HD-DVD will offer over current DVD
> standards. Really the only thing is High Definition content (as the
> name impies) in one of the HDTV formats: 1080p/1080i/720p. Since so
> few consumers own HD or HD Ready sets this isn't going to be enough to
> make the consumer electronics world take much of a notice and if
> people don't rush out to buy HD-DVD decks the movie studios aren't
> going to be compelled to spend money putting out HD-DVD movies (and
> the ones you will find will likely be very expensive compared to their
> DVD counterparts).
>
> How do you all see HD-DVD evolving? Objectively looking at the US
> consumer electronics market, do you think HD-DVD will be viable
> anytime soon?

I think you nailed it. I've been saying this for some time. Why do we
need it.( as a buying population) Now for me I love the picture quality
idea, but I'm only gonna buy one unit.
Clay
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 4:08:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JamesMason" <jmason@funnydelight.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 4e30081.0408231556.d27ddb1@posting.google.com...
> How do you all see HD-DVD evolving? Objectively looking at the US
> consumer electronics market, do you think HD-DVD will be viable
> anytime soon?

I'd like to see CD's and DVD's disappear in the next five to ten years.
Replace them with something similar to the memory cards that are available
for digital cameras. Five years from now you should be able to buy a 16 gig
card for a few bucks. Ten years from now, much less than $1 in quantity.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 5:10:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 23 Aug 2004 16:56:34 -0700, jmason@funnydelight.co.uk (JamesMason) wrote:

>HD-DVD will be here sooner than later. Some manufactuers have already
>experimented using the Microsoft WM9 standard and more and more press
>is being given to the subject.
>
>The real question to be ask is what will this technology really offer
>over our current DVD standards and will it be enough to make consumers
>switch.

Yup. I'm a pretty early adopter of new technologies, and I like the HD pictures
I get BUT I have no real problem with watching DVD quality stuff on my 57" HD
set. And I sure won't go out and buy the movies I own again. So the only way I
see it being a success would be to offer more content, and in many cases there's
way too much on DVD discs already.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 5:42:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

My prediction is that the Blu Ray vs. HD-DVD battle will turn into another
SACD vs. DVD-Audio. Everything about it is parallel. Certainly the
high-end users and early adopters will want this new technology. In that
regard I think it will definitely make it to market. However, it's
longevity and the range of titles to be released is debatable.

Brad

"Curmudgeon" <biteme@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xNwWc.18334$_h.9299@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> You have one HUGE lapse in logic: You ASSUME the movie studios want this
> technology.
> WRONG!!
> They do not want high definition movies in the hands of consumers.
> HD=DVD is by no means a certainty. And it won't happen unless there is a
> fool-proof encoding scheme that will prevent piracy.
> Technology without the software is called a boat anchor.
>
>
> "JamesMason" <jmason@funnydelight.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:D 4e30081.0408231556.d27ddb1@posting.google.com...
>> HD-DVD will be here sooner than later. Some manufactuers have already
>> experimented using the Microsoft WM9 standard and more and more press
>> is being given to the subject.
>>
>> The real question to be ask is what will this technology really offer
>> over our current DVD standards and will it be enough to make consumers
>> switch. The VCR has been a consumer product since the late 70's. It
>> came down to a mass-market price circa 1984 and since 1986 it's been a
>> common household product (took only two years to catch on). Ten years
>> later (circa 1996) the first consumer DVD players hit the market.
>> Within two years their price droped to the $180-$200 range
>> (mass-market) and by 2001 they had exceeded VHS recorder/players in
>> sales (US).
>>
>> So what's next? HD-DVD is the obvious answer, but the question is what
>> does the consumer gain with HD-DVD? Looking at the factors that made
>> DVD a success when it was introduced is a non trival task: DVD disc
>> are much more compact than VHS tapes, if they are taken care of DVDs
>> do not degrade in quality the way tape does, there is no need to
>> remind, more can fit on a DVD, the image quality (resolution_ of DVD
>> exceeds VHS by almost x2 on most modern (even non-HD) televisios, DVD
>> added support for "theater quality" 5.1 digital surround sound. On the
>> novelity side DVD offed menus, easy access to chapter selections as
>> well as space for extras.
>>
>> So we have a pretty signifigant list of new features that helped push
>> consumers to adopt DVD as the standard for home movies. Now let's
>> contrast this list with what HD-DVD will offer over current DVD
>> standards. Really the only thing is High Definition content (as the
>> name impies) in one of the HDTV formats: 1080p/1080i/720p. Since so
>> few consumers own HD or HD Ready sets this isn't going to be enough to
>> make the consumer electronics world take much of a notice and if
>> people don't rush out to buy HD-DVD decks the movie studios aren't
>> going to be compelled to spend money putting out HD-DVD movies (and
>> the ones you will find will likely be very expensive compared to their
>> DVD counterparts).
>>
>> How do you all see HD-DVD evolving? Objectively looking at the US
>> consumer electronics market, do you think HD-DVD will be viable
>> anytime soon?
>
>
August 24, 2004 5:54:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Curmudgeon wrote:
> You have one HUGE lapse in logic: You ASSUME the movie studios want this
> technology.
> WRONG!!

I absolutely believe Hollywod and there ccronies don't want it. I also
believe they bitched and moaned about cable tv when it came out. Then
they bitched about HBO, Then it was VCR's, Then TIvo.

What drove the market was the consumers.

This time around with HD-DVD there is little to no market.

That's why I believe it may fail. It's not about the quality it's simple
supply and demand. To sell a better mouse trap there needs to be mice!

Clay
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 6:46:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Curmudgeon" <biteme@nospam.com> wrote in news:xNwWc.18334$_h.9299
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:

> You have one HUGE lapse in logic: You ASSUME the movie studios want
this
> technology.
> WRONG!!
> They do not want high definition movies in the hands of consumers.
> HD=DVD is by no means a certainty. And it won't happen unless there is
a
> fool-proof encoding scheme that will prevent piracy.
> Technology without the software is called a boat anchor.

You're probably right about piracy being an issue. It is certainly
hurting the industry already with the present DVD format. Of course, to
really prevent piracy, the industry needs a technology that is easy to
mass produce but beyond the scope of an individual user to copy. Books
used to be like that originally. So did movies, but one by one all the
old copy protection methods have fallen. And, given human nature, this
affects the industry's ability to make profits. Now maybe putting some
discrete but effective commercial advertising in the mix and lowering
prices would reduce some of the piracy. But the only thing that would
eliminate it is either a 100% effective copy protection or going
socialist with the whole enterprise and just giving out the end product.

I'm not sure the latter would ensure the same quality of content that
we've gotten from people like Steven Spielberg!

DVD's will be out there, though, and if a technology exists to make them
hi definition, then some of us will buy them in that format. How many
will depend on how inexpensive and how ubiquitous the TV sets where you
can see the difference become.

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 8:19:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"hunkahunkaburninluv" <some@where.come> wrote:
>I'd like to see CD's and DVD's disappear in the next five to ten years.
>Replace them with something similar to the memory cards that are available
>for digital cameras. Five years from now you should be able to buy a 16 gig
>card for a few bucks. Ten years from now, much less than $1 in quantity.
>
I just don't see them reaching those prices. I think you're
mis-applying regression analysis.

For example, by your reasoning, today I should be able to buy a 4Gb
hard drive for $1.98. But of course, while the price per bit is
dropping, that's not the only cost of building a drive.

Things will be better for memory cards, since they have no moving
parts. But I just can't see them being cheaper than a dumb plastic
disk.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 8:55:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Aren't they still producing laserdiscs? I think they are, in fact I think
you can even buy the very latest new releases on them. If so, HD-DVD, once
introduced, should be here to stay. By the way, laserdiscs are analog!
Before they can start rolling out these new discs, people need to buy HDTVs.
It has been a slow start, but right now I think it is really picking up.
Just look at the selection of TVs at any electronics store, they are all
thick with HDTVs.

I have always noticed that everybody around me seems to do things at the
same time. When I am spending a lot, so is everybody else (and really, this
doesn't happen often, I rarely have a chance to buy nice stuff, don't want
to sound like I am bragging about this.). When I am buying a new car so is
everybody else. When I am buying a new computer, so is everybody else. I
just got a HDTV, so is everybody else. Its happening right now. Its like
we have all felt like buying one for so long and now its time. I would
guess that the number of HDTV owners must be going up more rapidly than ever
right now. Anybody got cites for this info?

Whenever I learn a new word, I start hearing it much more often. But I
don't think I am falling to that kind of thing here. But I could be.

--Dan

"JamesMason" <jmason@funnydelight.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 4e30081.0408231556.d27ddb1@posting.google.com...
> HD-DVD will be here sooner than later. Some manufactuers have already
> experimented using the Microsoft WM9 standard and more and more press
> is being given to the subject.
>
> The real question to be ask is what will this technology really offer
> over our current DVD standards and will it be enough to make consumers
> switch. The VCR has been a consumer product since the late 70's. It
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 10:24:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg wrote:
> Aren't they still producing laserdiscs? I think they are, in fact I
> think you can even buy the very latest new releases on them.

Nope, as there are no more LD pressing factors running anymore.

--
Brian The Demolition Man Little
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 1:24:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

JamesMason wrote:

> HD-DVD will be here sooner than later. Some manufactuers have already
> experimented using the Microsoft WM9 standard and more and more press
> is being given to the subject.
[snip]
> How do you all see HD-DVD evolving? Objectively looking at the US
> consumer electronics market, do you think HD-DVD will be viable
> anytime soon?

There are several reasons why it won't catch on:

1) Technology is great and all, but why can't the RIAA/MPAA get out of
the business plan of simply making everyone re-buy their entire media
library every 10 years? They loved it when CDs came out because
everyone went out and bought CDs of stuff they already bought in the
past. I'm still just now replacing some old VHS movies with DVD.

2) No doubt there will be even more digital rights management jape in
there, because the first-gen CSS worked so well on DVDs. I don't need
my digital rights managed, thank you very much. And if Windows WM9 is
in there, I certainly won't be buying any discs knowing a certain
percentage is going to Microsoft for licensing. My boycott of MS must
remain complete for it to have any point.

3) The incremental improvement is not enough. According to most
consumers, they look at a DVD on a HDTV and think "Oooh, it's HD!".
You think the average consumer will notice even better resolution? To
them, DVD is "good enough".

4) Consumers are starting to catch on (I hope?) to the various
companies' practices of coming out with a new "standard" just when the
old one gets entrenched.

Just some thoughts.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 1:26:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Badger wrote:

> Curmudgeon wrote:
>
>> You have one HUGE lapse in logic: You ASSUME the movie studios want this
>> technology.
>> WRONG!!
>
>
> I absolutely believe Hollywod and there ccronies don't want it. I also
> believe they bitched and moaned about cable tv when it came out. Then
> they bitched about HBO, Then it was VCR's, Then TIvo.
>
> What drove the market was the consumers.
>
> This time around with HD-DVD there is little to no market.
>
> That's why I believe it may fail. It's not about the quality it's simple
> supply and demand. To sell a better mouse trap there needs to be mice!
>
> Clay


WRONG! Of course Hollywood wants it! You'll then be forced to go out
and "buy" your entire movie collection again! Only this time, you'll
merely be licensing it, or borrowing it, or something else to make
sure you know you don't actually own it. They've already started
going that way by making personal copying and backups a taboo in their
media campaigns.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 5:33:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Michael J. Sherman" <msherman@dsbox.com> wrote in message
news:<q9srv1-383.ln1@developers.dsbox.com>...
>Badger wrote:

>>I absolutely believe Hollywod and there ccronies don't want it. I also
>>believe they bitched and moaned about cable tv when it came out. Then
>>they bitched about HBO, Then it was VCR's, Then TIvo.

>>What drove the market was the consumers.

>>This time around with HD-DVD there is little to no market.

>>That's why I believe it may fail. It's not about the quality it's simple
>>supply and demand. To sell a better mouse trap there needs to be mice!

>WRONG! Of course Hollywood wants it! You'll then be forced to go out
>and "buy" your entire movie collection again!

Not I.

Personally, I was offended at the DVD format in the first place.
I never did buy many titles on DVD except for TV series which
weren't produced at a high resolution to begin with. Why would
I do something so monumentally stupid as to buy movies on DVD,
when what I really wanted was Hi-Def resolution?

Sure there were movies like Zoolander which I don't need Hi-Def
resolution to fully enjoy. But I won't be buying them over again
just for the extra resolution I don't care about.

>Only this time, you'll merely be licensing it, or borrowing it,
>or something else to make sure you know you don't actually own it.

That's what they tried with DivX. It sank quicker than a
boat anchor, because the movie industry actually managed to
overestimate the stupidity of consumers. Consumers may be
stupid, but not THAT stupid.

>They've already started going that way by making personal copying
>and backups a taboo in their media campaigns.

This campaign has been around for over two decades.

Isaac Kuo
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 5:33:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<12xWc.1133$KD2.654@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...
> My prediction is that the Blu Ray vs. HD-DVD battle will turn into another
> SACD vs. DVD-Audio. Everything about it is parallel. Certainly the
> high-end users and early adopters will want this new technology. In that
> regard I think it will definitely make it to market. However, it's
> longevity and the range of titles to be released is debatable.

The big difference is that Blu Ray is recordable. This can give
it an edge, in that it can be useful even if prerecorded content
is thin.

Isaac Kuo
August 24, 2004 8:10:49 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <d4e30081.0408231556.d27ddb1@posting.google.com>,
jmason@funnydelight.co.uk (JamesMason) wrote:

> Since so
> few consumers own HD or HD Ready sets this isn't going to be enough to
> make the consumer electronics world take much of a notice and if
> people don't rush out to buy HD-DVD decks the movie studios aren't
> going to be compelled to spend money putting out HD-DVD movies (and
> the ones you will find will likely be very expensive compared to their
> DVD counterparts).
>
> How do you all see HD-DVD evolving? Objectively looking at the US
> consumer electronics market, do you think HD-DVD will be viable
> anytime soon?

There are an estimated 10 million HDTV sets in US households right now.

By 2008, there could be 60 million. We are seeing high double-digit
growth in sales and installed base.
Anonymous
August 24, 2004 10:19:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JamesMason" <jmason@funnydelight.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D 4e30081.0408231556.d27ddb1@posting.google.com...
> HD-DVD will be here sooner than later. Some manufactuers have already
> experimented using the Microsoft WM9 standard and more and more press
> is being given to the subject.
>
> The real question to be ask is what will this technology really offer
> over our current DVD standards and will it be enough to make consumers
> switch.

1. Backwards compatibility. A must have.
2. Playback of HD content. People will pay more this.
3. Recording of HD content. Who wouldn't want this?


<snip>

> So what's next? HD-DVD is the obvious answer, but the question is what
> does the consumer gain with HD-DVD?

HD content of course.

<snip>

> So we have a pretty signifigant list of new features that helped push
> consumers to adopt DVD as the standard for home movies. Now let's
> contrast this list with what HD-DVD will offer over current DVD
> standards. Really the only thing is High Definition content (as the
> name impies) in one of the HDTV formats: 1080p/1080i/720p. Since so
> few consumers own HD or HD Ready sets this isn't going to be enough to
> make the consumer electronics world take much of a notice and if
> people don't rush out to buy HD-DVD decks the movie studios aren't
> going to be compelled to spend money putting out HD-DVD movies (and
> the ones you will find will likely be very expensive compared to their
> DVD counterparts).

Today, yes. In the future, the availability of HD DVD will help sell HDTV.

>
> How do you all see HD-DVD evolving? Objectively looking at the US
> consumer electronics market, do you think HD-DVD will be viable
> anytime soon?

Make it at a reasonable cost and people will buy it. The studios will figure
out how to make money without rampant piracy, and movie theaters will no
longer need film projectors. Imagine the same day release at the theaters
and the video store! The movie theaters should be shaking in their boots,
and they will need new gimmicks to get you to come back.

Brad Houser
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 12:42:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Within these hallowed halls, Brad Griffis of <bradgriffis@hotmail.com>
added the following to the collective conscience:
> My prediction is that the Blu Ray vs. HD-DVD battle will turn into
> another SACD vs. DVD-Audio. Everything about it is parallel.
> Certainly the high-end users and early adopters will want this new
> technology. In that regard I think it will definitely make it to
> market. However, it's longevity and the range of titles to be
> released is debatable.
>
> Brad
I hope your prediction is correct in that universal players that handle both
SACD & DVD-A are coming out. It's the new format war (beginning with Dolby
Digital vs. DTS) where both sides win and multi-format playback is an
attractive bell and/or whistle. With universal DVD writer-drives (both plus
and dash) available for cheap (under $100) the capacity for a multi-format
HD-DVD recorder is quite expected.

Just IMHO, YMMV :-)
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 1:51:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Its about damn time! They must have just recently quit making them because
I know I have seen some fairly new movies on laserdisc. I was shocked to
know they were still being produced when I saw how recent the movies were.
So, given the laserdiscs themselves were produced for so long, I would
expect NO less than that for HD-DVD. The HD-DVD has the benefit of actually
being a better picture than anything else available so that should really
help.

As I understand it, the cable and satellite HD content is heavily compressed
to maximize the amount of channels they can offer. This really does cut
down the picture quality of your HD video. A good compression rate is
around 19mbps, I think some may even go up to 22mbps, many go low like
12mbps and it shows. OTA HDTV is often better quality because the
broadcasters are not trying to cram 200 channels down a piece of coax or a
satellite transponder. I understand uncompressed HD (which res, I don't
know) is in the neighborhood of 1.5gbps, a rate which our current consumer
level network technology cannot handle even as a single channel, certainly
not the entire selection of channels we demand. But on a disc? If I was in
the mood I would run some numbers to see what 2 hours of uncompressed video
would take-lets hope they come out with pink-ray discs.

In the future, when HD-DVD becomes a choice, I would really like to have
some really good new releases using the latest cameras, with super low or no
compression, depending on what disc technologies emerge. I would buy them,
so I think MANY others would too.

--Dan



"Brian The Demolition Man Little" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:0aCdnfCg3MWDuLbcRVn-hA@giganews.com...
> dg wrote:
> > Aren't they still producing laserdiscs? I think they are, in fact I
> > think you can even buy the very latest new releases on them.
>
> Nope, as there are no more LD pressing factors running anymore.
>
> --
> Brian The Demolition Man Little
>
>
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 4:57:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Dan,

Uncompressed video would be HUGE!!! You're looking at 10.7 TRILLION bits of
information to hold two hours of uncompressed video. That doesn't even
include the various timing signals that usually would also be inserted into
the bitstream. I think you're going to have to live with compression. :) 

Here's how I arrived at my numbers:

1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels/frame.
2073600 pixels/frame x 30 frame/sec = 62208000 pixels/sec
62208000 pixels/sec * 24 bits/pixel = 1492992000 bits/sec
1492992000 bits/sec * 60 sec/min * 60 min/hr * 2hr = 10,749,542,400,000 bits
for a two hour movie!

Brad


"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zLOWc.11199$Jn.3511@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> Its about damn time! They must have just recently quit making them
> because
> I know I have seen some fairly new movies on laserdisc. I was shocked to
> know they were still being produced when I saw how recent the movies were.
> So, given the laserdiscs themselves were produced for so long, I would
> expect NO less than that for HD-DVD. The HD-DVD has the benefit of
> actually
> being a better picture than anything else available so that should really
> help.
>
> As I understand it, the cable and satellite HD content is heavily
> compressed
> to maximize the amount of channels they can offer. This really does cut
> down the picture quality of your HD video. A good compression rate is
> around 19mbps, I think some may even go up to 22mbps, many go low like
> 12mbps and it shows. OTA HDTV is often better quality because the
> broadcasters are not trying to cram 200 channels down a piece of coax or a
> satellite transponder. I understand uncompressed HD (which res, I don't
> know) is in the neighborhood of 1.5gbps, a rate which our current consumer
> level network technology cannot handle even as a single channel, certainly
> not the entire selection of channels we demand. But on a disc? If I was
> in
> the mood I would run some numbers to see what 2 hours of uncompressed
> video
> would take-lets hope they come out with pink-ray discs.
>
> In the future, when HD-DVD becomes a choice, I would really like to have
> some really good new releases using the latest cameras, with super low or
> no
> compression, depending on what disc technologies emerge. I would buy
> them,
> so I think MANY others would too.
>
> --Dan
>
>
>
> "Brian The Demolition Man Little" <x@y.z> wrote in message
> news:0aCdnfCg3MWDuLbcRVn-hA@giganews.com...
>> dg wrote:
>> > Aren't they still producing laserdiscs? I think they are, in fact I
>> > think you can even buy the very latest new releases on them.
>>
>> Nope, as there are no more LD pressing factors running anymore.
>>
>> --
>> Brian The Demolition Man Little
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 5:29:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

After running my own numbers, I found that you are correct, about 1350GB per
2hr movie. 1.5gbps x 60 seconds x 120minutes / 8bits per byte = 1350GB.
Sure, in the forseeable future we are going to need compression for HD-DVD.
Hmm, dual layer DVD is about 9GB. Dual layer blu-ray is 50GB.

Current HD at about 19mbps looks great. Thats a 79:1 compression ratio from
1.5gbps.

With dual layer BluRay discs, we could get away with a 27:1 compression
ratio on a 2hr movie. That is still a much better picture than anything we
have ever seen! Im all for it.

I just thought of something, AUDIO! Your figures left out audio, but I have
seen over and over the 1.5gbps figure used as a "uncompressed HD" figure. I
can only guess they included audio. Oddly, your figures match the 1.5gbps
figure pretty closely.

--Dan

"Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1uRWc.7217$Y94.72@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> Dan,
>
> Uncompressed video would be HUGE!!! You're looking at 10.7 TRILLION bits
of
> information to hold two hours of uncompressed video. That doesn't even
> include the various timing signals that usually would also be inserted
into
> the bitstream. I think you're going to have to live with compression. :) 
>
> Here's how I arrived at my numbers:
>
> 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels/frame.
> 2073600 pixels/frame x 30 frame/sec = 62208000 pixels/sec
> 62208000 pixels/sec * 24 bits/pixel = 1492992000 bits/sec
> 1492992000 bits/sec * 60 sec/min * 60 min/hr * 2hr = 10,749,542,400,000
bits
> for a two hour movie!
>
> Brad
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 5:43:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

The audio is so small that whether you're talking "video only" or "audio and
video" it's still going to be about 1.5 Gbps. I think a typical Dolby
Digital stream is in the neighborhood of 250-500 kbps. Even if the audio
was uncompressed you'd have 6 channels * 48000 samples/channel/sec * 16
bits/sample = 4608000 bps. So the uncompressed audio would be about 4.6
Mbps. That's negligible when the video is on the order of Gbps.

Brad

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0YRWc.11278$xb2.4622@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
> After running my own numbers, I found that you are correct, about 1350GB
> per
> 2hr movie. 1.5gbps x 60 seconds x 120minutes / 8bits per byte = 1350GB.
> Sure, in the forseeable future we are going to need compression for
> HD-DVD.
> Hmm, dual layer DVD is about 9GB. Dual layer blu-ray is 50GB.
>
> Current HD at about 19mbps looks great. Thats a 79:1 compression ratio
> from
> 1.5gbps.
>
> With dual layer BluRay discs, we could get away with a 27:1 compression
> ratio on a 2hr movie. That is still a much better picture than anything
> we
> have ever seen! Im all for it.
>
> I just thought of something, AUDIO! Your figures left out audio, but I
> have
> seen over and over the 1.5gbps figure used as a "uncompressed HD" figure.
> I
> can only guess they included audio. Oddly, your figures match the 1.5gbps
> figure pretty closely.
>
> --Dan
>
> "Brad Griffis" <bradgriffis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1uRWc.7217$Y94.72@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> Dan,
>>
>> Uncompressed video would be HUGE!!! You're looking at 10.7 TRILLION bits
> of
>> information to hold two hours of uncompressed video. That doesn't even
>> include the various timing signals that usually would also be inserted
> into
>> the bitstream. I think you're going to have to live with compression.
>> :) 
>>
>> Here's how I arrived at my numbers:
>>
>> 1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels/frame.
>> 2073600 pixels/frame x 30 frame/sec = 62208000 pixels/sec
>> 62208000 pixels/sec * 24 bits/pixel = 1492992000 bits/sec
>> 1492992000 bits/sec * 60 sec/min * 60 min/hr * 2hr = 10,749,542,400,000
> bits
>> for a two hour movie!
>>
>> Brad
>
>
August 25, 2004 7:25:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:49 -0700, mechdan@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) wrote:

>Sure there were movies like Zoolander which I don't need Hi-Def
>resolution to fully enjoy.

If you "enjoyed" watching Zoolander, I pity you. I turned that
garbage off after about 10 minutes.
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 8:37:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>If you "enjoyed" watching Zoolander, I pity you. I turned that
>garbage off after about 10 minutes.
>

Oh come on, you aren't looking forward to the complete Andy Dick and Pauly
Shore collections in full HD? LOL
Steve Grauman
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 1:13:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dizzy wrote:
> On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:49 -0700, mechdan@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
>
>
>>Sure there were movies like Zoolander which I don't need Hi-Def
>>resolution to fully enjoy.
>
>
> If you "enjoyed" watching Zoolander, I pity you. I turned that
> garbage off after about 10 minutes.
>

Pity? Garbage? Zoolander was a quirky, interesting movie. Perhaps
you need to lighten up occasionally and watch some fun films.

Good example: UHF! No better movie when intelligence doesn't matter. ;) 
August 25, 2004 1:20:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I don't think its going to "fail", but a transition between DVD and HD-DVD
(or BluRay) for the massives is going to require much more time than VHS to
DVD did.

Anyone reading this NG is familiar with HD, but the masses generally aren't
(yet). They may have seen an article or two about HD, may have seen a
story in the news, they know there are a couple mysterious HD channels on
their cable box and may wonder what they look like if they could receive
them, but until they actually see a 720p/1080i presentation at home - 480 is
"good enough" for them. Their reaction to articles on HD-DVD right now is,
"Huh? DVD look awesome! DVD hasn't been out for that long. There is no
need for any new formats. I have too many DVD's already to consider any new
player. Its probably just an attempt for Hollywood to make even more
money."

Its unfortunate, but the least common denominator will dictate how smooth
and quickly there will be transition. The LCD was considered even for DVD
packaging, as the manufacturers wanted to insure that DVD and CD's wouldn't
be confused with one another.

As more HDTV sets get into homes, it'll make a HD-DVD transition that much
easier. The masses won't consider HD-DVD until they actually have HD at
home for a little while.

I hope HD-DVD rolls out as HD-DVDRW. Ability to use it as a re-writable
recorder would make it even that much smoother as well.
Anonymous
August 25, 2004 11:17:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Isaac Kuo" <mechdan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acc26c07.0408241233.549cfe71@posting.google.com...
> Sure there were movies like Zoolander which I don't need Hi-Def
> resolution to fully enjoy. But I won't be buying them over again
> just for the extra resolution I don't care about.

In my opinion, its just not worth re-doing the older movies. Its the new
stuff shot with new cameras that I would buy. Unless they were aiming for
HD throughout the ENTIRE PRODUCTION, I don't see any reason to buy something
you already have. However, there are shows on that are specifically made in
HD and they are awesome!

--Dan
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 1:58:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In my opinion, its just not worth re-doing the older movies. Its the new
>stuff shot with new cameras that I would buy. Unless they were aiming for
>HD throughout the ENTIRE PRODUCTION, I don't see any reason to buy something
>you already have. However, there are shows on that are specifically made in
>HD and they are awesome!
>
>--Dan

Huh? All professionally-shot movies are inherently HD. Even filmed
TV shows, if the original films are still available. Many would need
restoration and might not be worth the effort and expense. The TV
shows and older movies would be 4:3. But it could be done if there's
a demand for it.

I agree with an earlier poster that DVDs are good enough that I'm not
going to replace my DVD purchases with HD versions when/if they become
available. But I would replace my VHS tape of 2001. I'd pay a
premium for a well-restored HD version from Criterion.

Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 4:09:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

No way, that just isn't so. You can polish a turd, but in the end you still
have a turd. Todays movies and TV shows produced from the bottom up with HD
intentions blow away any old film rescanned to HD.

--Dan


"Del Mibbler" <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:fg1qi01am6fvbkg77vkphv6n90c7t1tt7v@4ax.com...
> Huh? All professionally-shot movies are inherently HD. Even filmed
> TV shows, if the original films are still available. Many would need
> restoration and might not be worth the effort and expense. The TV
> shows and older movies would be 4:3. But it could be done if there's
> a demand for it.
>
> I agree with an earlier poster that DVDs are good enough that I'm not
> going to replace my DVD purchases with HD versions when/if they become
> available. But I would replace my VHS tape of 2001. I'd pay a
> premium for a well-restored HD version from Criterion.
>
> Del Mibbler <mibbler@nycap.rr.com>
August 26, 2004 6:29:43 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:09:59 GMT, "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote:

>"Del Mibbler" <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:fg1qi01am6fvbkg77vkphv6n90c7t1tt7v@4ax.com...
>> Huh? All professionally-shot movies are inherently HD. Even filmed
>> TV shows, if the original films are still available. Many would need
>> restoration and might not be worth the effort and expense. The TV
>> shows and older movies would be 4:3. But it could be done if there's
>> a demand for it.
>>
>> I agree with an earlier poster that DVDs are good enough that I'm not
>> going to replace my DVD purchases with HD versions when/if they become
>> available. But I would replace my VHS tape of 2001. I'd pay a
>> premium for a well-restored HD version from Criterion.
>>
>No way, that just isn't so. You can polish a turd, but in the end you still
>have a turd. Todays movies and TV shows produced from the bottom up with HD
>intentions blow away any old film rescanned to HD.

You are wrong. Live with it.
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 7:42:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg wrote:
> Its about damn time! They must have just recently quit making them
> because I know I have seen some fairly new movies on laserdisc. I
> was shocked to know they were still being produced when I saw how
> recent the movies were. So, given the laserdiscs themselves were
> produced for so long, I would expect NO less than that for HD-DVD.
> The HD-DVD has the benefit of actually being a better picture than
> anything else available so that should really help.

The last USA LD release if I recall right was "Bringing Out The Dead."
There was still some releases in Japan including "Star Wars: The
Phanton Meance" but LD officially died in early 2002.

--
Brian The Demolition Man Little
Anonymous
August 26, 2004 1:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dizzy <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:cleqi01h3eucrnc4udcls2oa59ecbcjkfr@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:09:59 GMT, "dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Del Mibbler" <mibbler@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:fg1qi01am6fvbkg77vkphv6n90c7t1tt7v@4ax.com...
>>> Huh? All professionally-shot movies are inherently HD. Even filmed
>>> TV shows, if the original films are still available. Many would
>>> need restoration and might not be worth the effort and expense. The
>>> TV shows and older movies would be 4:3. But it could be done if
>>> there's a demand for it.
>>>
>>> I agree with an earlier poster that DVDs are good enough that I'm
>>> not going to replace my DVD purchases with HD versions when/if they
>>> become available. But I would replace my VHS tape of 2001. I'd pay
>>> a premium for a well-restored HD version from Criterion.
>>>
>>No way, that just isn't so. You can polish a turd, but in the end you
>>still have a turd. Todays movies and TV shows produced from the
>>bottom up with HD intentions blow away any old film rescanned to HD.
>
> You are wrong. Live with it.

They've been playing the old 1956 version of Around the World in 80 Days
with David Niven and Shirley MacLaine on the movie channels lately from
time to time. With Dolby ProLogic, it really does sound and look quite
good and I'm sure it could benefit from a high-definition release.

There's buckets of good film still laying around in warehouses that could
be re-released if the market was strong for it. But there's the real
rub. Until there are HDTV capable monitors in most homes, there won't be
a strong demand for content. VHS was technically worse than Beta, but it
had the content.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667

A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
August 27, 2004 2:26:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:13:22 -0400, "Michael J. Sherman"
<msherman@dsbox.com> wrote:

>dizzy wrote:
>> On 24 Aug 2004 13:33:49 -0700, mechdan@yahoo.com (Isaac Kuo) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sure there were movies like Zoolander which I don't need Hi-Def
>>>resolution to fully enjoy.
>>
>>
>> If you "enjoyed" watching Zoolander, I pity you. I turned that
>> garbage off after about 10 minutes.
>>
>
>Pity? Garbage? Zoolander was a quirky, interesting movie. Perhaps
>you need to lighten up occasionally and watch some fun films.

I can handle fun films. I can't handle horribly, painfully bad films.

>Good example: UHF! No better movie when intelligence doesn't matter. ;) 

Hmm... Do they have it Hollywood video?
October 7, 2004 12:40:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 21:25:36 -0400, "Curmudgeon" <biteme@nospam.com>
wrote:

>You have one HUGE lapse in logic: You ASSUME the movie studios want this
>technology.
>WRONG!!
>They do not want high definition movies in the hands of consumers.
>HD=DVD is by no means a certainty. And it won't happen unless there is a
>fool-proof encoding scheme that will prevent piracy.
>Technology without the software is called a boat anchor.
-------------------------
That's just so damn deep. Not.
!