Studios start to weigh in on high-def DVD (1 Viewer)

[Mark_Wilson]

Eric, there are already STBs that can take an encrypted stream over 1394 (firewire) and output it via component video.

Does anyone have a link to that petition to the dvd group about what people really wanted in HD-DVD?

 

[Dan Brecher]

They can't push a new technology onto the general public without going through us first. we're the ones who are crazy enough about films in the first place to pay the exorbitant amounts of cash for the new technology.

As far as technology is concerned, to an extent you are right. Many of us here on the HTF bought into DVD upon it's initial US launch, some even got into it from it's Japanese launch. I must have had DVD for near on two years before the average person in the UK even knew what it was. Now look at it! That said, HT enthusiasts didn't really help establish the components that went into creating DVD as a format.
Some of us are getting slightly snobbish though, and I use "snobbish" due to lack of a better word. I've seen people wanting to embrace the likes of DVHS because it is a niche item, and with niche items, like LD years ago, one can usualy be assure that we're going to get our demands met with OAR and the best possible quality.
Some are worried about the future state of DVD, I am not too worried, I am really rather happy and hopefull of it's future and am confident it will see us through well enough until HD DVDs conception. Like DVHS, DVD itself is a further step forward into making people embrace HDTV sets in the future. We need to continue out battle for widescreen DVDs to further eductae the public on the importance of OAR and how HDTV television sets take advantage of it.
I'll go to great lengths to promote HD in the UK. I've seen HD in the US a number of times and it is wonderful, and I am very curious over DVHS. I've been toying with a couple of projects in order to promote Hi Def broadcasting and DVHS and a future HD-DVD over here. It's not tough to show someone HD and have them immediately want it too. Next year when I buy into CRT projection I will probably adopt a DVHS player and some D-Theatre titles in order to spread the word on home turf. It's for this exact reason that I do not see DVHS as any threat to HD DVD, it is nothing but a progression. Anything that causes further awareness of Hi Def, I am all for it.
From the way you speak of wanting HD DVD, Andy, I'd guess you'd go pretty far in wanting to adopt and import it into the UK time of launch. That's great, we need more of that. I just wish we actually had TVs here that would accept the HDTV signals because until those exist on our shores, our only access to 720p is with a good digital projector or CRT projector. And our only access to 1080i is through a good CRT projector.
Maybe someone needs to pat Mr Blair on the shoulder and inform him of America's intent to go HDTV. He copies everything else they do, we may yet have a fighting chance.
Half the sales work is done here though it must be said, so many people own 16:9 sets now. The tough part is to explain to them that they need to buy new 16:9 sets and that Sky's current digital quality output is pathetic in comparison to that of HD. With DVB so established here now, that's the hurdle. America has to contend with getting more people into 16:9 TV sets as well as getting them to embrace HDTV.
Dan

 

[Andy_MT]

From the way you speak of wanting HD DVD, Andy, I'd guess you'd go pretty far in wanting to adopt and import it into the UK time of launch.

you bet i would. just try and stop me i might even buy into DVHS like you, if it becomes more attractive (more software).

 

[Jeff Kleist]

At the same time encourage him to adopt ATSC Dan No more silly PAL speedup issues

 

[Dan Ramer]

Eric and Mark, the encryption over a digital interface system favored by the MPAA would specifically forbid the marketing of a digital to component video converter. If that device were permitted to be sold, it would make no sense to ban component video outputs on the player.

This is a potentially serious problem, folks. Please don't be casual about it.

Dan

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

I am not buying into the red laser technology for HD, as it is not going to have the quality that it should. More compression is not the answer, and in fact, from a security standpoint, making the files smaller is counter to the concept.

We all know that bandwidth is growing rapidly. If I were designing a HD format, I would want its storage capacity to be enourmous, making it harder to replicate for the average consumer/pirate, while also increasing quality. It would be pretty hard to fileshare content in the terrabite range, at least for the forseeable future. Any illegitimate derivatives would suffer from additional compression, which, if the original were encoded in the right way, could quickly deteriorate image quality.

A rushed to market product is in no one's interest, except perhaps Warner, who could capitalize on the current red laser technology. I don't want HD that looks "pretty good". I want it perfect.

 

[gregstaten]

A few thoughts:

First, compression technology has made some pretty impressive advances in the last few years. MPEG-2 is an *old* compression format technologically speaking and it is possible to get a far better picture at a lower bitrate with newer technologies.

We've played with Microsoft's Corona at work and it is pretty damned impressive. It blows MPEG-2 out of the water at similar bitrates and looks just as good at a much lower bitrate. MPEG-4 also produces a great looking picture at lower bitrates than MPEG-2.

So, would it be possible to get a "great looking HD picture" at 5 mb/sec? I don't think so with MPEG-4 but it is possible with Corona - it really is that good. Realistically, the bitrate is probably going to need to average around 8-9 mb/sec to get a really quality picture. Unfortunately, that barely gets you two hours on a DVD-9.

One reality - there's a lot of money being made in DVD and a lot of money still being invested. The plants are investing millions on fabrication lines based on existing technology.

The consumer electronics industry has to be thanking the gods that brought them DVD as it is driving consumer purchases of new RPTVs and audio gear better than anything out there. Broadcast HDTV really doesn't sell a lot of gear on its own.

My feeling is that we're still a little early in the game for HD-DVD to come out. Would I buy it? Probably. But, IMHO, Warner Bros. is right about one thing: to sell in the near future it has to be backwards compatible with existing DVDs. Blue-ray isn't going to do that unless the players have dual pickups, more sophisticated drive motors, and so on. That adds a lot of cost to the player.

-greg

 

[Jack Briggs]

A nice and wide range of comments here.

As for me, it's Blu-ray all the way--or something even better. Who wants a "pretty good" picture anyway? We already have that with standard DVD-Video. And we already have an outstanding picture with D-VHS D-Theater. A true high-def DVD format must be better than anything that has come before.

But, then, everyone here knows that.

 

[Terrell]

Blue-ray isn't going to do that unless the players have dual pickups, more sophisticated drive motors, and so on. That adds a lot of cost to the player.

There's no reason Blu-Ray can't be backwards compatible at a reasonable price. But it may take some R&D. Better to wait til they can do that.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

What Greg said

I personally believe that HD DVD must have a minimum bitrate of around 15Mbps even with the newest compression technology

 

[Marshall Alsup]

Here's the petition.

 

[Mark_Wilson]

Dan, they can't be too upset about it since its currently allowed with D-VHS.

Thanks Marshall.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

I'm not entierly sure of the facts here, so i hope you'll excuse me if this is inacurate, but i seem to remember readng 5-6 years ago (maybe more), that when the standards for HD were nailed down, some people were very dissappointed because they (whoever lays down the law in this area) were'nt going with the best technical specs that were/are capable, it was more of a compromise solution.
i believe the computer side was petioning for greater resolution than we eventaully got.
it was the concerns of broadcasters ( i guess over how much bandwidth a 'really good' hdtv signal would take) that led to the 'watered down' version of HDTV we have today, and will use for quite a while, once it gets up to speed.

The computer industry was not interested in greater resolution. In fact, they didn't like 1920x1080 because the Pentium which was the state of the art at the time couldn't handle it. The computer industry was interested only in what would make their prophetical "convergence" happen more quickly, and on their terms. They didn't like interlacing at all, 1080/60i was pure evil to them. Microsoft, Intel, and Compaq got together and proposed that HDTV be first introduced in a watered down version that didn't require too much CPU horsepower, they called it HD0 and it was limited to the SDTV formats plus 720/24p as the highest HD format the CPU could barely handle. The 1080 resolution and the full range of ATSC formats wouldn't be available until they developed not one but two generations of upgrades called HD1 and HD2. Microsoft boasted that there would be 40 million HD0-capable PCs in homes before the electronics industry could sell just one million HDTVs.

Anyway, I think the dispute between red laser and blue ray is going to be a moot point. The digital dark age is fast approaching and high definition is going to be its first casualty.

 

[Dave Mack]

Gee, if this does happen, DVHS player prices might actually go UP!!!
Crap is all it is, if this happens.
:frowning: D

 

[Sean Oneil]

Great thread.

I guess the best thing to do is to wait until we can actually see what this red laser HD format can look like, and then pick it apart if we see any flaws.

I have to confess; I was one who was very worried about DVDs using compressed digital video and audio when I was a big laser head back in the day. Yet I get more enjoyment out of a good DVD then I ever did out of a LD. The video takes up a lot less space on a DVD, yet it looks better then LD generally. The same thing might end up happening with this new format (it will use up less space and look better then current DVD video)

The flip side of that is if you can apply those same advanced compression techniques to a blue laser format with much more storage space, then you could get an even more stellar picture.

Heck, if we had blue ray NTSC 480p DVDs using the same current MPEG2 algorithms as the current DVD standard, that ran at triple the bit rate, they could look far superior to what we are seeing. We still have not seen the best of what NTSC can offer.

Anyway, this could be a good thing in the end, because all of the research being done on compression techniques by the studios could then be applied or combined with advancements in storage capacity and laser technology.

I am hoping that the two technologies (blue ray, and this new super efficient compression algorithm) will come together in the end.

 

[Dan Ramer]

Mark,

Not all studios are supporting HD D-VHS, and it's not clear whether the reasons are due to a lack of belief in the viability of the format or fears that "the analog hole" will provoke piracy.

And if you read the operating manual for the JVC HD D-VHS deck, you'll find that image constraint capability is built into the machine. (Anyone may verify this by checking the error code pages and JVC's explanations of those codes.) The studios may, at any time, release tapes that carry the flag that prevents passing full resolution to the component video outputs.

Look, I'm simply pointing out that we have public statements and congressional testimony indicating that the motion picture industry is putting our investments in HD displays at risk. That makes me very uncomfortable and I'd prefer to try to affect the future of the format now, before the specs are locked in and we find ourselves royally screwed.

Dan

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

Similarly, the manufacturers want to start building TV sets and HD set top boxes that are "digital cable ready" but to do so they would have to agree to ridiculous terms in the license which include constraining analog outputs and disabling recording at the whim of Hollywood. So far not one manufacturer has agreed to it, and the impasse is one of several reasons the adoption of digital TV and HDTV is currently at a standstill.

 

[David Susilo]

Going back to the issue, who's to say that in 6 mmonths or so, somebody will come up with a much efficient compression which WILL makes 5Mbps equals to 28Mbps MPEG-2 compression?

If MPEG-4 at 5Mbps looks exactly the same as MPEG-2 at 9Mbps, who's to say that (say) MPEG-6 can't do proper HDTV at 6Mbps?

 

[Brian-W]

David Susilo has a good point.

I sometimes wonder if the 'placebo' effect isn't in action here. If it has more bits to it, it has to look better. I've watched X-Men HBO vs. D-Theater, and aside from the OAR issue, the picture quality was top notch on both of them. Was there a visible difference? Not that I could see. And X-Men @ 15Mbs HBO vs. 28.8Mbs D-VHS, that's a big number difference.

Will 5mbs HD look bad? Depends on the compression they use. MPEG-2 HD @ 5Mbs is trouble, period. But using say Microsofts (I haven't seen it, pure speculation) compression might yield a much better picture than an MPEG-2 equivalent.

Again, there's more the picture than just numbers.

But, I'll jump on the blu-ray wagon.

 

[John_Berger]

Will 5mbs HD look bad? Depends on the compression they use. MPEG-2 HD @ 5Mbs is trouble, period. But using say Microsofts (I haven't seen it, pure speculation) compression might yield a much better picture than an MPEG-2 equivalent.

Oh, GREAT! Wonderful! I can't wait for Microsoft's MPEG-4 format to give me a blue screen on my DVD player telling me to turn my player off and turn it back on! :rolleyes