45GB HD-DVD discs? Fact or Fiction? (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

Are you guys even reading what I've said?

Imagine that a director has a 1080p "video commentary" stream for the entire movie... so while you watch the movie you could not only *listen* to the commentary but alternately toggle over to the special effects designs, computer-generated models, alternate angles during production, or story-boarding or even a gorgeous work-in-progress like on Beauty and the Beast.

And what about 3-D? If Lucas makes his next film in 3-D, don't you want that in 1080P? You'd need two video streams simultaneously side-by-side sharing the same bandwidth to make that happen. You could do that with Blu-ray (using VC1 or AVC) but not with HD DVD.

That needs to be streamed simultaneously with the feature film... it's a 2nd video stream just like you have more than one soundtrack option that you toggle when you choose your language or audio choice.

 

[Pete T C]

I don't think anyone here is a fortune teller.

One thing is for sure though - the benefit of having additional space (which is evidenced to be unnecessary) is far outweighed by the possibility of a format catching on in the mass market. I see HD-DVD with the things it needs to catch on: excellent quality right from the start, hybrid dvd/hddvd discs, reasonable price, new sound formats already in place, recognizable and understandable name. I don't see Blu-Ray with any of these things, and the extra capacity Blu-Ray or HD-45 could potentially deliver in mass (as neither has yet) is not as important as the format being successful.

You keep talking about all sorts of esoteric extras and Blu-Ray can't even deliver plain jane disc with acceptable video quality. Again, HD-DVD has the best software developer in the world behind it - if any format were to be more capable of tricks like you mention it would be HD-DVD. Its not a space or transfer thing - as you likely know we have seen feature length films fit with fantastic video quality even on an HD15 (nevermind HD30 or HD45) with slim bitrates using VC-1.

But in the end, the most important thing is crystal clear 1080i/p prisitine video and sound. More important than esoteric extras, more important than theoretical PR & paper specs. (I mean realistically, how many companies are going to invest the time and money to create some of this content when they can only sell the disc for $25?). I want my movies in 1080p with perfect video and sound - HD-DVD delivers that right now at an affordable price while Blu-Ray doesn't - and if both formats fail because of certain people clenching onto promised paper specs and PR dreams, it will be a very sad day for home theater fans everywhere.

 

[Robert Crawford]

David,
I don't think you're really reading what they're telling you in their own way which is that many people don't really care enough about all that stuff and probably there are more of them than people like you that want all those bells and whistles. I might be wrong, but I think the majority of those that buy into the HD format will let pricing dictate their spending on which format as long as the video/audio quality of the film being presented is about equal with both formats not whether they can have a long list of interactive bonus material on a disc.





Crawdaddy

 

[Marc Colella]

A "video commentary" isn't being used often now, and probably won't be used that often in the future regardless of how much space is provided. The amount of people who sit and watch/listen to these things are extremely small.
It seems like you're stretching to come up with something that's extremely space consuming just to justify the need for discs that provide a lot of space.

Most won't have the need for such a feature.

Just give me the film in excellent HD quality, and stuff the extras on the same disc if in SD, or put them on a 2nd disc if they're in HD.

 

[Edwin-S]

I guess I would rather not find out if 30G is a "meaningful" limit, especially when a format exists with the distinct possibility of delaying the "meaningful" limit. Eventually, storage capacity always gets exceeded. If the capacity is there someone always figures out a way to fill it and eventually exceed it. I think 30G IS going to be a "meaningful" limit in a few years, especially when studios start to produce extras, running concurrently with the movie, that require the use of multiple audio and video streams; however, that is just me.

If the majority of HT enthusiasts decide that they are happy with the eventuality of changing discs on even short movies then I guess I will be forced to go along with the flow because enthusiasts will have dictated those terms. I will be not be happy if I get stuck with that eventuality because people decided that 30G was not a "meaningful" limit, but I'll learn to live with it. It will be interesting to read the comments on this board when 30G suddenly goes from being a "possible" limit to a "meaningful" one: assuming, of course, that HD DVD isn't buried when BD starts to show up with a variety of hardware and software providers.

 

[Robert Crawford]

A lot can happen between now and then. I know some of you are questioning the viability of Toshiba producing 45 GB discs, but you never know what can happen with technology advances. Today, we all can make predictions that one format or another can or can't solve their problem of producing larger GB discs, but only the future will determine how correct those predictions turnout to be.

 

[Pete T C]

Studios already created that for standard DVD, and the bottom line is no one really cared. Check out the original Mallrats CE for an example of video commentary while the movie is playing. Recent DVDs have cut down on that stuff because the gimmick wears off quickly, it is costly and complex to program, and consumers en masse don't perceive the gimmick as being worth paying say double for the disc.

All of this theory talk is just that, theory. Look at what is really out there and you will see that HD-DVD delivers the goods. If it takes 2-3 years for Blu-Ray to "fulfill its potential" as some are claiming, don't fret as both formats will probably be essentially dead by then anyway and home theater enthusiasts will have to go back to watching SD-DVD in 480p to see their movies. My crystal ball says that when that happens, people will wish they supported the format that showed the best chance to stay alive in the mass market - HD-DVD. Because perfect 1080p video is really what matters, not 3-D video commentaries with a popcorn maker built into the player.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

obviously if someone earnestly believes that 30 gigs is all they need no argument will matter here.

I would like that option to have 3-D on my HD media, which would require twice the bandwidth and storage space over a standard movie presentation.

I would like room for multiple lossless audio soundtracks so no language or auido option has to get short-changed.

I would like to be able to watch long movies on the same disc in case the director didn't plan for an intermission.

I would like the option of multi-angle using 1080p resolution.

I would like to have the space and bandwidth to be used as the format matures and the studios learn what they can do with it... just like they learned how to use DVD's features which quickly hit the limits of the disc technology.

 

[Pete T C]

I would like to have all my movies in pristine 1080p and a successful format as the two go hand in hand. I see HD-DVD offering the goods to make that possible right now, not Blu-Ray regardless of how big a disc Blu-Ray has on paper.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Pete,

you obviously have issues with every possible "feature" of media outside of the image and sound of the feature film.

Those two things are my priority as well.

What about the enthusiast who *is* interested in 3-D projection? And are you aware that using a 1080p48/60 signal that a *single* projector can project 3-D with the use of inexpensive shutter-glasses? No new projector and no new TV. Just a little gadget with glasses that costs less than $300 (available today). You could see every 3-D IMAX film in native 3-D...just like the *director* intended.

Why not have a lossless 24/96 music-only track for your Lord of the Rings, Ben-Hur, and Amadeus HD discs?

Why not avoid having to switch discs during your LOTR film... the director planned no intermission so why should the media have limits that dictacte how he has to edit his film for a forced break?

And many of the same features you tout as "gimmicks" on DVD have also been used to great effect on other titles.

Disney provided a video-commentary for Bambi... the SE's most impressive feature and one of immense value to anyone interested in the movie or the history of animation. They had to use a separate video stream encoded as a separate title track on the 2nd layer of the DVD to maintain PQ because the shared bandwidth for multi-angle would have caused PQ to suffer (they did use multi-angle with the storyboarding of Beauty and the Beast which caused PQ to suffer but was a great idea in concept allowing users to toggle to the work-inprogress animation). That Bambi video commentary detailing the animation process of the entire film would be the precise sort of feature to make use of dual-1080P video streams. And it's not a gimmick. And it's of value to many serious film enthusiasts.



You care so little about a format you'll have for 10 years that you're not willing to wait a few months for BD to work out it's dual-layer and codec-authoring issues?

I'm waiting until the fall before I decide which format can offer what I'm after. I think that a format we'll have for years and years to come deserves a few months to show what it can do. If Sony can't deliver 50 gig by fall and the BD group is still griping over VC1, then you, me, Fox, Disney, and MGM will all gladly provide full support for HD DVD.

 

[RobertR]

That circumstance is too rare to have any meaningful impact.

 

[Pete T C]

Bambi is a 70 minute movie. It could probably fit on a standard DVD using the VC-1 codec with excellent quality (assuming you could take advantage of HD-DVD's transfer rate). But even with a longer movie, HD-DVD could easily offer what you are asking. Right now 16 Blocks is 105 minutes and on HD15. The bitrate is obviously much lower than HD-DVD's 33mbps peak. You could slap that movie onto an HD30 with a second stream (assuming the tools were made available) and probably have the second stream at full quality, too. If it was a movie like LOTR, you may have to reduce the quality of the second stream to 480p to fit on an HD-30. But I don't see how that matters; you are watching the main picture for the picture itself (A/V), and you are watching the extras for the information they provide. The extras do not need to be 1080p, because 1080p does not provide any additional background on the film; further, it is unlikely that extras will even be available in 1080p source material as most DVD extras were mastered from garbage source materials.

If you really do value video/audio as much as you say you do, then wouldn't you want the format that caters to A/V fans the most while at the same time being promising and consumer-friendly enough to float at a retail store? That format is looking to be HD-DVD and not Blu-Ray. HD-DVD is giving us the A/V we want while at the same time giving less picky people the price they want. Its win-win for both camps. Holding out for esoteric extras that are in theory MAYBE possible with Blu-Ray doesn't make sense while they are similarly in theory MAYBE possible with HD-DVD and probably even more likely happen sooner on HD-DVD since Blu-Ray is going to spend its first year just catching up to HD-DVD's launch titles. I mean heck if you are going to keep upping the ante, why not just advocate to buy neither of the two formats because neither have the space to hold 5 concurrent 4K streams with lossless 12-channel 24/192 audio while projecting a talking hologram of the director in your livingroom?

 

[Kevin. W]

These are issues that should have been sorted out before BD was released.

 

[Pete T C]

Not to mention...

Waiting = quagmire = confusion = low sales = failure of both products = back to 480p

No thanks.

 

[Paul_Scott]

given enough money and time, almost anything is possible.
But life is a series of trade-offs and compromises.
I, personally, am willing to trade off less future interactivity and capacity for something that delivers on the fundementals here and now at a more than reasonalble price point- and that has asscoiated costs low enough to allow it to grow that much faster.

David, I'm willing to bet that we do see Bd 50s by the end of Oct, early Nov- but that will in no way mean that they are finacially viable for the long haul- when we see them (I'm betting) they will be heavily subsidized and produced for the main reasons of securing the faifthful and the studios to the Bd bandwagon.
People that have been championing the format will finally have something concrete to point to say "see! It can only get better and cheaper at this point!"
When the fact is -it actually might not.
Bd 50s might not be a sustainable proposition, and if the switch to a more efficent codec happens around the same time, the actual 'immediate need' for them will dissipate greatly. Oh We'll get novelty bd50 releases all right-sprinkled in here and there, but the vast majority of release will most likely be confined to a much easier to produce, less costly bd 25.

just a guess- but if anyone wants to match my $5 on this , let me know I'll even give you two to one odds.

 

[RobertR]

I started a poll on AVS about the percentage of BD50 releases that would be needed to be able to honestly say it's here. The consensus was that BD50 will HAVE to be the NORM, and BD25 the rare EXCEPTION. Sprinkling in a few BD50s just as a "proof of concept" wil satisfy no one but the BD "true believers". David agrees and predicts that BD25 will only be used for short, featureless movies. I think that will HAVE to be the case if BD is to succeed. BD50 had better be the norm IMMEDIATELY after it's made available. Playing the "potential" game when BD50 is claimed to be "here" won't go over well.

 

[Paul_Scott]

well, I would love to see these same people hold fast to that.
I just get the feeling that the only thing that will really change in the fall are the talking points.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Yes—though I can’t write for any of the other guys (my response will be longer than Robert’s).

It seems to me, that many, perhaps most of us do not dispute that there would be benefits to more storage. Setting aside the possibility that the dual-layer BD won’t ever be available (as I assume that they will), one must do a cost/benefit analysis before concluding that extra storage is worth the money.

The benefits:
•…option to have 3-D on my HD media, which would require twice the bandwidth and storage space over a standard movie presentation.. Nice option, but how much money is it worth. I first saw 3D in the theaters in the 50s and the number of titles has not expanded much since then. So the worth to you might be a lot, to me that ability would not cause me to pay anything additional and I suspect that for the general public (based on 60 years of not caring) is less than that.
•… room for multiple lossless audio soundtracks so no language or auido option has to get short-changed. Me too. The market has already demonstrated how much the general public cares about this. I really think that the majority of interested consumers are quite satisfied with DD/DTS 5.1 and probably the majority of them don’t have equipment of sufficiently high quality to distinguish between the good, better and best. BTW, I know from long experience that you hear subtle differences that escape me—and I’ve already spent so much on audio equipement that I’m not investing any more. So you might pay a lot more for this, I’ll pay a premium and again, I believe this to be a meaningless feature to the general consumer. In actual point of fact, I’m happy with one excellent soundtrack—other than the fact that I’m somewhat anal about these kinds of things, I really don’t need to compare one to another to another on a regular basis.
•… able to watch long movies on the same disc in case the director didn't plan for an intermission. I sort of agree with caveats, the main one being: how many of these movies are there? Already mentioned are the ones like Gone with the Wind that have built-in intermissions. To that list one must also add special DVD editions not meant to be viewed in the theater. My problem with the remaining movies is that, at home my spirit may be willing, but my flesh is often weak. What I mean is that for very long movies I usually can’t sit though the whole thing with no breaks (bathroom, snacks, beer or deal with my cats or wife) in any case. So changing the disk on a very long movie is not (in my reality) a hardship. This feature may be worth a lot to you, I wish that it was worth something to me, but when I think about it, it really is not, as the number of such movies is so small and my patience is so limited—and I think that this is not worth anything to the general public.
•… option of multi-angle using 1080p resolution. Another very neat thing. I have at least three disks where I have used this option on DVD, one of them is an opera. Now if there is anything that is not conducive to a seamless viewing experience, it is fussing with the remote to watch the same scene from different perspectives. Besides which, how many movies will make use of this feature? None that are theatrical presentations, but of course there will be some. So you may be willing to pay a lot, but I’m not sure this is actually worth any extra money (though it is a very neat idea—and I’m happy to have that ability for free)—and I have no idea how the public might feel, though it might be a nice toy for the kids—still how much extra will parents pay for their Disney watching offspring? Not much I expect.
•… space and bandwidth to be used as the format matures and the studios learn what they can do with it... just like they learned how to use DVD's features which quickly hit the limits of the disc technology. This for me, is the real issue—who knows what the future will bring? And this is why I don’t dismiss paying more for the extra storage altogether. I’ll pay more for the expansion possibilities, though I don’t know what they are. The question is, will the average consumer buy because of this? I suspect not, but if the developers can come out with the killer app that can’t be duplicated with less storage, then the market may well respond.

I think that the question is not how much you or I want these features, but if they can be provided without too large a premium (defined as the price point where the general consumer won’t buy).

 

[Rob_Walton]

Lew, isn't the true consideration not what we want but what the studios want? Personally I can wait for hell to freeze over before viewing another tedious making-off, but if the studios think this stuff is important to sell their new format then perhaps they're looking beyond us hardcore fans. Without some form of interactive features they're looking at pushing next gen optical disc as simply a PQ/AQ upgrade. DVD had that advantage over VHS but it also had instant access to any point in the movie, and the reams of supplemental material. In contrast SACD/DVD-A only offered an audio quality improvement...

I'm unclear why you think a potentially subsidized BD50 disc might suggest that product might not be financially viable, while not attributing the same possibility to the Toshiba player. Isn't it far more likely that cost savings will come for both, faster at first before slowing to a trickle. Just as with every other form of optical disc. If costs for these discs really are as high as has been intimated by some then we should see other studios announcing releases in HD DVD. That hasn't happened yet so it's probably a little early to go quite so doom and gloom.

 

[RobertR]

July is too early. October won’t be.