Interactivity - is that what we're going to waste the extra Blu Ray disc space on? (1 Viewer)

[Stephen_J_H]

Touchy, aren't we? This is all about perception, and if the flagship machine is primarily for playing videogames (and don't bother trying to tell me that it isn't, with a name like Playstation 3, not to mention the design esthetics), the fear that extra capacity will be "wasted" on kiddie features is very real for some people. My comment that "This is what comes from having a game console as your most popular player." is just that: a comment. It cuts both ways, in that some people on the HT front refuse to consider it as a piece of HT equipment, while those who own it will defend it to the ends of the earth. Likewise, because it is perceived as a game machine first, if "web-based interactivity" is going to get bashed, the PS3 will be the first machine to get blamed, while those who use it and know its capabilities will see this as unfair.

I draw an analogy to the boy who gets a pink bike for his birthday, but it's completely tricked out with the latest hardware. Some people will never see past the pink.

 

[Paul Arnette]

This is where you lose me. When I think of Web-based interactivity, I immediately think of HD DVD. Why? Because they enabled it first. And to what end? So I can buy Star Trek merchandise over the Internet? Or recycled paper towels? See, I have all these impressions of Web-based interactivity and a game machine isn't the flagship player for HD DVD.

Let's be honest, the studios seem to care more about this Web-based interactivity for its revenue potential than most HD enthusiasts do because any worthwhile material they may add has the potential to disappear down the road. If the studios are driving it, it isn't going to matter which format flourishes, it will wind up there anyway.

Again, kiddie/"worthless" Web-based features aren't the sole province of any particular format. Disney, for example, is going to gear kiddie "value added" material in order to increase the sale of their discs and generate additional revenue. You sound as though this would all magically change if Disney was releasing on HD DVD and there was no PS3. Firstly, I doubt that very much. Secondly, you may now realize why Disney doesn't support HD DVD (i.e. no PS3, which attracts a youthful demographic that Disney covets).

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

LOL. There are perceptions, and then, there are such things as "flame-bait" even though you may want to spin it as otherwise.

_Man_

 

[DavidS]

I agree, and also think there should only be isolated scores when the bulk of the score isn't available otherwise (either the soundtrack is out of print or unavailable). That way, the enthusiast is getting something they don't already have.

 

[Mark Zimmer]

The capability for a feature is distinct from how it's utilized. Case in point: the angle feature for DVDs. We were promised all sorts of things like alternate cuts and all we got was multicamera porn. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's more a failure of imagination by the studios than it is a problem inherent in the feature of the spec.

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Exactly. For the most part, we are @ the mercy of the studios when it comes to special features. Sure, we can "vote with our wallets" for features like lossless audio, multiple soundtracks and meaningful behind the scenes material, but if the studios don't provide it to begin with, and others vote for "kid-friendly" interactivity, we are also @ the mercy of the majority. What do we do? We soldier on and make sure our concerns get heard. It's really all we can do.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

The biggest concern with BD quality is that the studios who've released HD DVD product might continue to apply a "good enough is good enough" attitude with BD rather than going for the best.

Web feature's aren't the problem: it's the studios who don't put optimal AV quality at the top of the list who are the problem. For whatever reason, those happen to be the same studios who do or have produced HD DVD.

100% of BD discs from Sony, Disney, MGM, and FOX provide lossless audio.

Only 27% of HD DVDs from Paramount, Universal, and Dreamworks do the same. Warner, which also catered to HD DVD encodes, was also inconsistent with their support of lossless audio (on both BD and HD DVD since they had a policy of not letting the BD be superior to its HD DVD companion).


BTW, Sony's Resident Evil Extinction has PIP. And it also has Dolby TrueHD lossless sound and a stunning unfiltered high-bit-rate 1080p AVC video encode. The nice thing about the increased bandwidth (bit-rate) of BD is that you can do both: have your web, PIP, and other bonus material and still have space left for high-bit-rate video and lossless audio: nothing has to be sacrificed for anything else. HD DVD's narrower bandwidth maintained the same give-take between optimal picture and sound and bonus-features we've had to live with on DVD. BD eliminates that give-take by providing ample bandwidth and bit-space for both to exist without etiher getting in the way of the other.

 

[Paul.S]

I'm not aware of anyone at WHV having said/confirmed this, so it's gratuitous to call it a "policy." It's an uneven practice you have observed on some titles and continue to self-servingly reify into a talking point.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Paul,

WB insiders have been telling us for over a year that the studio, by policy, did not want to favor BD in their encodes, and so tried to "keep the bar even", even if more space was available unused on BD50. A year ago there were WB insiders who posted frequenty at AVS and I was told this directly by one very well respected compressist who worked with WB. Of course, the fact that they released some early HD DVDs with lossless but didn't provide it on the BD (Happy Feet) showed a favoring of HD DVD. We were told that this was a bit of a protest statement by WB for BD hardware not requiring TrueHD decoding... and it seems to have actually had an impact (it wasn't long afterwards that the PS3 got the update for TrueHD... and it wasn't long after that when WB began releasing lossless audio on BD).

In any case, these were real conversations with WB folks. Even the HD DVD folks at AVS knew about WB's policy of parity between the formats... it was pretty out in the open.



I agree that both bonus material and AV quality are important, *especially* when both can be provided without one compromising the other. However, I would never suggest that bonus material was on equal footing with the objective of AV transparency, though I do firmly support having both at all times.

 

[Paul.S]

If what you're saying is an accurate recitation of the facts, then that's crappy on WHV's part.

Would you be so kind as to provide a supporting link to, say, a post by the compressionist you mention?

If you "support having both at all times," my issue is with your general lionizing of the BD-supporting studios when one of them often conspicuously doesn't do what you say you support. I DO place the issue of ported supps on equal footing with fidelity (and frankly, I think it's a specious dichotomy when BD50 easily allows both), and therefore don't think it's fair to broadly criticize the HD DVD-supporting studios when, for instance, WHV has been good at porting their 2-disc SD DVD SE's supps over to HDM.

My point is that just because you feel the fidelity issue is more important than the supps issue doesn't make the HD DVD studio fidelity criticism more objectively valid than BD studio supp criticism (especially given Fox' list price). It's a criticism that flows from a subjective preference that should not be presented as somehow rooted in one format's purported objective superiority over the other.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Yes, That was a typo (now fixed).

I'll see if I can dig up some links. Most of these conversations are a year old, and some of them were via PM on AVS as well.


Huh? It's not ok for an audiophile/videophile high-def collector to care first and foremost about transparent picture and sound?

I'm not trying to do a push-pull debate where one person suggests that sups are important and then someone else suggests that they aren't. Sure, sups are important, and all-thing-being-equal, they should be there. In fact, I've participated in several threads at blu-com where I've strongly criticized sony and fox for releasing BDs that lacked bonus material available on SD DVD versions. You've got my sup-material vote.

However, I will always and forever state that transparent AV quality is the first priority of HDM, and do not few the lack of sups to be on the same level with the lack of transparent AV.

Worst case you keep your SD DVD copy for the sups. But you can't keep your SD DVD copy to get lossless sound or transparent 1080p picture.

 

[Paul.S]

My problem with this equivocation is that it gives quarter to what Fox is doing way too frequently. You can't trumpet BD50 the way you have and then give anything that even smells of a free pass to Fox on this issue. I'm so not interested in having to keep SD DVDs in order to retain ready access to SD DVD supps that have a good "repeat viewing quotient." As a collector, I think you ought to be making as much noise and be as equally critical on this issue as you are about lossless aud. It's an insulting, purposeful omission stunting HDM attach rates when the studios withhold supps they own the rights to. I doubt I am alone in Netflixing movie-only discs instead of buying.

See the The Rock BD review thread for more on my position in these regards, which I'll spare everyone from further recapitulating here.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Agreed, though I don't see where in my comments you got that I would "give anything that even smells of a free pass to Fox on this issue."

I think our disagreement is actually a red-herring. The basis for my logic is this: on BD there's no serious competition in bandwidth between feature-quality and bonus features. That's one reason why I support the format: I like to have *both* high-quality AV and bonus material all together (even if AV quality is more important to me). No discussio, therefore, needs to be categorized in terms of give-take between these two issues. They are discrete and separate: having one does not mean having or not having the other.

Now, regardless of a studio's stance on high-quality AV, they might still be problematic with bonus material. Paramount was certainly like this with SD DVD, and Fox seems to be skimping on bonus material with BD.

Start up a thread bashing Fox for their lack of bonus features on their over-priced BD software and I'll jump right in. I'll go check out the Rock review thread now.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I'll add my voice to the noise here. I have bought exactly one Fox title and for two reasons in no particular order.....

Lack of bonus features, and MSRP that is WAY too high.

I had Speed in my hand in line at the check out, when I started reading the back. Zero bonus features. I stuck it in the rack with the impulse buy Raisinets. No way am I paying $27 for a movie only release.

Doug

 

[DaViD Boulet]

You guys should do what I do for Fox movies: buy them from a "used" seller on Amazon factory-sealed in original shrink wrap. It's pretty much an instant $10 savings, if not more.

At the prices they ask, Fox titles would never walk out with me at a B&M store!

 

[Paul.S]

Oh yes--I love Amazon Marketplace.

 

[Douglas Monce]

But that won't add the bonus features to the disc. Unless the film is around 8 or 9 dollars, or its a film I'm just DIEING to have, I won't be buying a movie only disc.

I'm a little more forgiving with older films such as the Bob Hope Road Films. But even there would it have hurt to find a Hope historian to do a commentary?

Doug