Affordable Universal HD disc player...would it make the "format war" moot??? (1 Viewer)

[Ed St. Clair]

Aaron,
What's the cost differance between a single HD format optical pickup and a ultra-multi HD optical pickup?

 

[DaViD Boulet]

If the same optical drive that reads a Blu-ray disc can be adapted to read a DVD as well, and the same drive that reads an HD DVD can read a DVD as well, then why can't an optical pickup that reads a Blu-ray also read an HD DVD since its tolerances lie between the two extremes?

 

[Aaron_Brez]

Unfortunately, I'm not privy to the specifics, but the chipsets being used are on the order of $20 per. OPUs are several times that.

The companies that design the chips (all of them, not just the ones who are jumping up and down saying "Look at us! We're universal!") aren't in the business to play format war games-- they just want to sell chips. To that extent, the chips don't have specific Blu-ray or HD DVD optimizations, they basically have one or more ports that can receive a program stream (of whatever flavor: MPEG-2, H.264, VC-1) and decode it, spitting it out to a video output. Broadcomm and Sigma Designs and Intel want to sell as many chips as possible, and therefore even if their official corporate policy backs one format or the other (like Intel), their chips are agnostic.

OPUs are hardware optimized for the specific format requirements of the disk-- or for more than one kind of disk. A lot of engineering effort goes into making them work with both blue-laser and red-laser-- whose characteristics are very different-- and, in the Blu-ray case, with layers of different depths (0.1mm, 0.6mm).

It is feasible to make a universal OPU, don't get me wrong. Some have even proposed that the Blu-ray OPU could probably read HD DVDs-- but it wasn't designed to. It was designed to read the top layer of a blue-laser disk at 0.1mm and a red-laser disk at 0.6mm, but it wasn't designed to read the top layer of a blue-laser disk at 0.6mm.

Will it anyway? [shrug] I'd be lying if I claimed to understand the nuances; I'm an engineer, but not an optoelectronics guy. I just know that when you design for two separate cases ("measure current at ~0.1mA +/- 0.001mA"; "measure current at ~1.0mA +/- 0.001 mA") you don't always get the "in-between" case ("measure 0.5mA +/- 0.001mA") for free. Sometimes you design for two distinct cases, and anything but those cases is undefined. Even a slightly different wavelength of red laser can pose problems: some of the initial Blu-ray players won't play audio CDs because it would add complexity (and cost) to the OPU.

Using the Blu-ray OPU, if that worked, would make uni players very, very feasible. Chalk up some extra cash getting licenses from both camps, and in supporting both BD-J and iHD... you could probably sell one for $Blu-ray + $100. If, however, you have to design an OPU from scratch, or modify an existing one, you're probably going to be adding $100 to $200 further to recover your R&D and manufacturing startup costs, until economies of scale take over and drop your prices.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I'd gladly pay $100 more for a universal player...all things being equal.

It would alow me to watch Universal HD titles until they finally release on Blu-ray...

 

[Aaron_Brez]

Sure. I'd pay an extra $300 (worst case, with brand new OPU), provided it was a quality vendor (Denon, Pioneer... possibly even Samsung) and not LG. But it may take awhile to develop (or adapt) an OPU.

I'll believe they're coming when they demo a model. Announcements with no details make me smell vaporware.

 

[Ryan-G]

I don't think there will be much affect from the PC market either way until the war is resolved.

As far as capacity and backups go, the majority of computer owners don't backup anything at all, and out of the remainder it's the pirated material they backup which still fits 5 to a DVD.

The piracy thing would increase sales in some amount, but I don't think drastically if it's HD-DVD cracked. The ability to pirate a small amount of titles from 3 studios wouldn't be compelling enough to sway the market. It's unlikely it'll be Blu-Ray because it's going to use multiple encryption methods and so if one is cracked, others remain locked. Plus, if HD-DVD is cracked, it'll just be further incentive for the studios to release to Blu-Ray first(Or only), the act of pirating actually driving the other camp.

Overall, as long as there's a format war, I don't see the PC industry counting for anything unless it's an inverse reaction to piracy pushing the other format because studios will be less likely to release in the pirated format.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Aaron,
That was an straight & honest reply, thanks. I thought you knew and even if you did not, I now know where your cost 'fears' come into play with Uni's.
Maybe it will be a dual focusing laser, ala the single lasers that read both CD (yet it was incapable of reading CD-R's) & DVD layers?
That could keep the cost down.
Although, I'm a dual laser guy myself!

 

[JackKay]

Now, if Microsoft was smart they would sell an affordable add-on to their Xbox 360 that was universal and played both formats. It would be worth the money they would pay to Sony in royalties and keep the PS3 500 lb gorilla at bay.

 

[RobertSiegel]

With a player selling at 499, I believe that gives much of the advntage to HD-DVD for market share. We here on the forum are not the same as the average consumer. What is the average consumer going to say when they enter a store, and see a high-def player at $499 (possible reduced on sale) and a player at $1000 or more? "Gee, they are both high-definition, so why spend 600.00 more." Most don't check into the advantages of one format or another, and the problem is that most salespeople that work where these will mainly be sold wouldn't know a car from a truck. I am afraid (because I prefer blu-ray) that the consumer, in his or her confusion, will pick the 500.00 player. Of course the prices will come down for Blu-ray, but not so fast for HD-dvd since I think they are already going to be taking a loss at $499.

As far as the multi-players go, heck yes I'd buy one. But I am not investing until I see what they are going to do about this down-rez flag. My Sony projector does not have a dvi or hdmi, only component inputs. I'll live (sadly) with dvd, because I just don't have the money for another display, that projector took a few years of savings. The recent news about the studios not using the down-rez (such as Sony), well, I'll believe that when I see the reviews of the players and discs, to find out if I can play anything in true high def (of course, the projector I have displays a max of 1366x768, but still when a cable high-def movie is playing, it's stilkl a big "wow").

The dual format player would be a great idea, I wonder why more of those have not been announced.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Robert,

What does the "average consumer" care about HD anyway? Is the "average consumer" even *interested* in an HD/BD player of any kind if it costs more than $25 more than the $75 SD-DVD player at Costco?

(hint: answer = no)

I'm not sure why this simple fact gets lost on so many (here and at AVS) but I'll say it again in the hopes that someone hears...

The only consumers who will be purchasing either HD DVD or BD media and players the first year after launch are technophile-early-adoptors. They were the same group that bought DVD the first year of that format's life. They will be the ones that decide how this format war turns out--no one else.

About 2-3 years after the dust settles and one or both formats emerge as victorious (and universal players abound if the latter is the case) and HD players are at Walmart and Cosco for under $150 USD, then, and ONLY THEN, will the "average consumer" step foward and vote with their purchase dollar.

 

[Jeff(R)]

Exactly.

 

[RobertSiegel]

I agree with you totally....in the first year it will be all of the home theater buffs. But don't forget there are more than 25 million high-def televisions out there, they are not all home theater buffs. I wouldn't call the average consumer that uneducated anymore that they won't know what a difference the picture is. Sure, many will say DVD is just fine for them. They used to say that laserdisc was only for the home theater buffs and widescreen as well. I always believed that laserdisc was too expensive, that's why it didn't go over. Movies between 40.00 to 100.00 were way out of range. Look what happened when a quality format came out with-in the financial reach of the average consumer. So I don't believe this is going to be just a home theater buff format.

Let's also not forget the the first dvd players were over $1000... I bought the first Toshiba dvd player and paid 1195.00. I think the story is a little different when a format enters the market at 499 retail (not discounted yet). I think the consumer has been SOMEWHAT educated with quality now, with audio and video, so how this plays out will be anyone's guess. It certainly will be interesting to watch, but I won't be investing right away, maybe a 2nd generation player.

I also agree with you that only when the players are very cheap will the average consumer make their move. That's the way it has always happened with video, with Beta/Vhs/laserdisc AND dvd. Let's also not forget that the first people buying video tape machines were generally movie buffs and theater fans. The better format was BETA, but VHS was cheaper.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Price was not the only factor in the VHS/Beta war.

A very big advantage held by VHS was its ability to record for a longer period of time, which became even greater when recording at low speeds.

It took Beta a while to respond to that issue, and while not so important to those who wanted the best picture quality, it was a big plus for consumers who wanted to time-shift TV when not at home.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Lew,




EXACTLY.

In fact, since recording-time is an important technical factor in a recordable format, it could be argued that despite BETA having better AV quality, that VHS was a *better format* because it allowed for greater recording time.

In the case of Blu-ray...it's better BOTH ways...it can use the most codecs at the highest data rates (AV PQ) and has the greatest capacity for recording and playback.

 

[Steve Berger]

Another factor was the fact that the person buying that RCA VCR was connecting it to a 12 year old TV. He couldn't see any quality difference and the dealer knew it.

RCA reimbursed the dealer 100% of his advertising costs and dealer profit was $100 higher. (and the VCR was $100 cheaper to the customer) The Japanese companies didn't believe in co-op advertising.

Everybody sold RCAs and Quasars. (no big box stores) Zenith teetered on the verge of bankruptcy and couldn't afford to match RCA's advertising budget, plus their TVs did a terrible job of displaying videotapes. Almost all Zeniths required hardware modifications (at the customer's expense) to stop vertical jittering.

When technical details balanced out (quality + special effects vs recording time) then economic issues took over ($$$$).

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Two VHS vs. Beta factors, not brought up yet in this thread;
1. If your friend or family member had VHS, then you got VHS. Because, you were then able to trade/send tapes with/to grandma. This also reflects the greater advertising budget & profit margin for VHS debate.
2. At first only Sony had Bata. If you walked into a store to buy a video tape recorder & that store didn't carry Sony, then you got VHS. No matter how much Beta was.

Back on track:

If Uni's (stand alone, I see PC HD-Uni's being out before the end of the year) can make it out by this time next year, I believe they have a great chance (under $1000US, which should be no problem). If Uni's take longer than two, three years, it will be like DVD-A/SA-CD uni's. Popular, just a little to late to help the format win over the acceptance level of the general public.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

This will only drag out the format war... leading to mass confusion and few discs sold (and no one wins). There were early universal players for DVD-Audio and SA-CD and look what happened there.

Dan

 

[Marc Colella]

DVD-A and SACD "died" because people didn't care, it had nothing to do with confusion.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Believe it! People were confused. Big time.
If you don't believe me, go to the software section of any B&M and ask the sales person to explain the two competing formats & their differences. If 'trained' sales people are/were confused, how in the world did the Audio HiDef Format "death" have "nothing to do with confusion".
Nothing?
The sales people that I meet could rarely guide me to the DVD-A/SA-CD section. That keep constantly moving cause people were confused on where it should go.
People were confused by what equipment was needed.
People were confused by what software could or could not do.
Their are people to this day, that think the DD 5.1 layer on a Dual Disc is DVD-A 5.1. Their are people to this day that are confused that a single layer SA-CD will not play in thier car CD player. Their are people to this day that are confused that a DVD-A will not play in their home CD player.

I'm "confused" by your total lack of knowledge of the "confused" customers & sales personal of the "confused" Audio HiDef Formats had/have! ;-)

By the way I am not in any way saying "caring" did not come into play with the soon to be dead Audio HiDef Formats. That played a role as well. Just I see no way in heck anyone could possibly say "confusion" had "nothing" to do with it.

Peace, Love, & HiDef Forever!

 

[RobertSiegel]

Ed: DITTO. Best Buy, 2 salespeople could not direct me to the SACD or DVD-A sections, I spent more time describing it to them than it took me to find myself in the end. One said "all cd's are high quality" and the other was probably waiting to go to lunch.