HD-DVD Predictions?

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

BlueNeo wrote:
> Considering how painfully slow it has taken HDTV to emerge as a
> semi-embraced technology, how long do you all think until HD-DVD takes to
> come out?
>
> The reason I asked is because I am hearing that somebody (The MPAA?) doesn't
> want to allow HD-DVD content over component cables and of course, my luck -
> my new Samsung Projection HDTV doesn't have DVI or HDMI.
>
> This is complete Bullshit because the HDTV signal I get from my cable box
> looks fantastic.
>
> Does anybody have any idea what this is all about?
>
> My prediction is that HD-DVD is 2-4 years away.

Recent industry press articles state that HD-DVD drives are likely to
hit the market next fall (2005). Since Blu-Ray can't afford to fall
behind, BD drives will likely come out around the same time. The
background to this is that the total number of DVD drives sold has
peaked and total sales numbers have begun to fall as most people have
DVD drives by now in the industrialized counties. So the CE makers have
a reason to move to HD drives as the DVD market is maturing. We will see
HD players in time for the next Xmas season for early adopters who are
willing to lay out the premium bucks. The bottleneck may be a limited
number of titles and availability.

I can't see them selling HD drives which only have digital DVI and
HDMI copy protected connectors. Way too many people have HD sets with
only component connectors for HD. And even those who do have HD sets
with DVI/HDCP or HDMI stick to component cables for their A/V receivers
switch setups. The media companies would like to force everyone to go to
copy protected ports, but I don't see the drive makers going along with
that. They want to sell drives.

Alan F

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

In article <MPG.1c3e06e01119c517989a28@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> 42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > The reason I asked is because I am hearing that somebody (The MPAA?) doesn't
> > > want to allow HD-DVD content over component cables and of course, my luck -
> > > my new Samsung Projection HDTV doesn't have DVI or HDMI.
> > >
> > They want to prevent piracy. The signal on component cables is analog,
> > so its much harder to prevent people from copying it.
>
> Even the MPAA has (finally) figured out that component video isn't a problem
> when it comes to making copies.

Nonetheless, that is -why- they're trying to prevent hd-dvd on component
connections.

> There are no commonly available devices for recording the analog component
> video signal, and devices that can convert that signal to digital cost
> thousands of dollars and result in some loss of quality.

I can't comment on loss of quality but a transcoder...e.g.

http://www.digitalconnection.com/P [...] dctca3.asp

coupled with a rgb capture device will get you there.

Granted the RGB capture devices cost $800.00-2500.00 but demand for them
is still *primarily industrial*.

If the home user develops a demand for it, the price will fall
accordingly and its already at the edge of being within reach.

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

In article <MPG.1c3f6450e8c4e954989a31@news.nabs.net>, wevsr@nabs.net
says...
> 42 (nospam@nospam.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > Even the MPAA has (finally) figured out that component video isn't a problem
> > > when it comes to making copies.
> >
> > Nonetheless, that is -why- they're trying to prevent hd-dvd on component
> > connections.
>
> Actually, they are trying for protected digital only. What they *really*
> want to cut out is plain DVI. Their aggresiveness also excludes component
> video, but that's not as important to them. They *know* that despite the
> fact that nothing can capture DVI today due to its speed, someday it will
> be easy and cheap. Fast analog to digital will never be that easy and
> cheap.
>
> > > There are no commonly available devices for recording the analog component
> > > video signal, and devices that can convert that signal to digital cost
> > > thousands of dollars and result in some loss of quality.
> >
> > I can't comment on loss of quality
>
> The quality loss is *always* going to be there because the source was
> compressed, then decompressed for playback, and the capture requires it
> to be re-compressed.

Yes, I didn't mean to imply that there would not be quality loss, merely
that I don't know what its extent will be. It might be quite small, and
it only has to be done once, directly from the original source, it
doesn't occur with each playback (a la VHS)

At any rate, I'm sure the movie download crowd will happily accept a
small quality loss in exchange for free content (it would be far better
than the quality of most movie downloads today!)... and the tv-timeshift
crowd will similiarly accept a small quality loss in exchange for the
ability to record their favorite shows...(they accepted VHS after all!)

> This is the weak link, because even decent quality
> MPEG-2 real-time encoders that support HD resolutions are $5,000 to
> *start*, and go up from there.

I'm not strictly sure why it would have to be real time. Many users
would be happy to stream it uncompressed onto 200GB+ drives, and then
process it afterwards.

Plus its a given that what is expensive to do in real-time today will
take up a fraction of the available cpu speed tomorrow. It wasn't too
long ago that PCs weren't able to do real time MPEG decoding.

>
> > Granted the RGB capture devices cost $800.00-2500.00 but demand for them
> > is still *primarily industrial*.
>
> Those devices you speak of can't handle HD resolution.

The majority of them are 1600x1200 which is enough for 720p, and there
are also 2048x2048 out there, although I have no idea on the price of
those.