HD-DVD to use WMV Codec (1 Viewer)

[Nick Laslett]

Surely this is just the sort of news we want to hear?

A competition between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD can only be a good thing.

Perhaps this recent announcement will force the Blu-Ray group to adopt a new compression algorithm. I'm sure the pressure from Blu-Ray has forced the HD-DVD group to think like this.

The Hollywood studios are clearly comfortable with MPEG2. Perhaps they will refuse to encode their movies using the other systems?

Maybe that is why Blu-Ray kept to MPEG2?

It doesn't matter how capable the hardware is if there is no software to play on it.

In Europe we have no HD-TV, therefore there will be very little demand for HD capable displays. Ergo, no demand for HD-DVD. Whereas the recordable biase of Blu-Ray still makes it attractive.

There seemed to be no winner in the DVD-Audio vs SACD battle. I fear the same will happen here.

The one thing I am convinced of is the inclusion of a Blu-Ray drive in the Playstation 3. This has the potential to have a big impact on how things turn out.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I'm not aware of any studio having a particular attachment to MPEG2 (or any other video compression scheme for that matter).

 

[Joe Schwartz]

No, it seems clear that Blu-Ray uses MPEG-2 because it (Blu-Ray) was originally designed as a recording format, and HDTV transmissions are broadcast using MPEG-2. It's much easier to record the direct bitstream than to decode and re-encode it using a different codec.

 

[Brian-W]

Go talk to all the studios and production houses that have significant investment $$$$ in MPEG-2 hardware/software to create DVDs and HD content. They're not using consumer $50 MPEG encoding suites.

Having to re-invest in another compression format isn't something studios will want to do. They're not like us end users that go to Microsofts or TMPEG's site and download the latest software that is either free or $50.

That's why I also think that MPEG-2 is being considered as one of the defacto video codecs for HD-DVD, because most studios and production houses will balk initially at being required to re-invest in new hardware/software and training.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

No reason why MPEG2 *and* Corona can't both be part of the spec. Gives plenty of time and plenty of opttions for studios to maximize what they want to maximize.

 

[Joshua Clinard]

What is all this talk about Corona? I thought the debate was between WMV (VC-9) and MPEG-2? Anyways, if Microsoft's compression protocol makes it into the spec, then they would most likely license the encoding software to the Studio's very cheaply.

 

[DaveF]

I don't know. Look at the competing writable DVD formats: DVD +R, -R, +RAM, (-RAM?). This brings incompatiblities between discs, readers, and writers. It seems like there's still a lot of confusion among consumers, with the main winner being writers that work with all competing formats.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

I have a strong feeling that Microsoft will include an HD-DVD drive in the Xbox2 which may counter-balance that impact. Or just make it harder to choose.

 

[Brian-W]

I agree. I think when all the chips fall, both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will support both MPEG-2 and WM9/MP4.

We'll see...

 

[Paul.S]

Joshua Clinard et al.:

The licensing fees issue is a significant one that MS will have to address before Thurrot can accurately trumpet a "coup d'etat" (sic) of DVD Forum "approval" of "mandatory" WMV9 inclusion.

I think Pete Lee's post #51 makes the excellent point--discussed in an EE Times article he links to ("Microsoft's Windows Media 9 MAY [caps mine] become mandatory for HD DVD")--that the Forum may be playing a political game with MS to get them to lower their royalty rates.

Check out either the CNET or EE Times articles please. The title of this thread--which had me worried--is an inaccurate and premature statement.

-p

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I'm, sorry, but the inclusion of additional information does not make my comments invalid. The fact remains that HD-DVD is going to use VC-9, but the licensing details still have to be agreed upon. If they cannot come to an agreement, then I would assume that another codec would be chosen. No where in my post or in Paul Thurrot's post was it stated that this agreement was "set in stone", regardless of the outcome of future agreements. That information was just left out. Every decision that is ever made can be changed, if the circumstances change. Even a contract can be changed if the circumstances change. Everyone here knows that, so there is no reason to tell me that my post is wrong.

 

[Paul.S]

Joshua et al.:

Be careful with appropriating the right to speak about what "everyone" knows, Joshua. I'd surmise that not "everyone" has the same incomplete understanding of the situation as you apparently do. And I trust that I--and more importantly the CNET and EE Times articles that I linked to above that it still sounds like you may not have read--do indeed demonstrate plenty of reason to say that your post is at best inaccurate if not wrong.

Per Widescreen Review's John Kotches post to a different thread, MLP's inclusion on HD-DVD has been approved. WM9's current status is not "mandatory" inclusion at this time, it is provisional.

Its not my primary intent to be cheeky, but I feel this matter deserved to be parsed out more thoroughly than you or Paul Thurrot presented it.

-p

 

[Jack Briggs]

Please, let's both be civil in our discussion here. This is not a debate. And there should be no challenges from one member to the other.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Yes, cease the "tit for tat" rhetoric.







Crawdaddy

 

[Paul.S]

Jack, Robert et al.:

To the extent post #s 73 and 74 may relate to my contributions herein, speaking for myself, I feel I have been "civil" as always--making no ad hominem arguments or comments, no name-calling, issuing no "challenges" and employing the same thorough style I've used on the Forum for years (without ever seemingly eliciting such admonitions).

To the extent there is anything problematic about the spirit of my contributions to this thread (and I'd kindly request an e-mail detailing such a criticism; please note I've made a few tweaks to my immediately previous post in this regard), I'd argue that it is no more so than the letter of inaccurately titling a thread about something as important to HTFers as codecs for the next generation DVD format and then defending such inaccuracy despite evidence to the contrary in articles written by professional journalists who cover the industry.

Perhaps an Admin should change the title of the thread to more accurately reflect WM9's provisional status vis-a-vis HD-DVD.

Paul

 

[Joshua Clinard]

Oftentimes, the first post of a thread proves to be inaccurate after additional information comes to light. That is the point of a discussion, after all. It is not always neccessary to edit the title of a thread, or the post, if it is made clear in subsequent posts that the original information is not complete. That seems to be the case here. And, since I am not an Admin, I cannot edit thread titles. I don't think anyone else has a problem with anything that I have posted here. I do have to say that I don't apprciate you calling me incompetent. I understand completely, that there are many things, such as royalties, licensing agreements, and even encryption methods that are in play here. I just posted the information I had, that is all.

And that's all I have to say on the matter. Thanks Jack and Robert for setting the mood.

 

[Paul.S]

Joshua:

I'm not sure why you're seemingly construing this so personally, but its not productive.

This is apparently your own insecurities at play, Joshua. I have not called you "incompetent." Its inappropriate to put words in someone's mouth. I'm an articulate guy and am quite capable of speaking for myself.

Paul

 

[Jack Briggs]

Good grief, I can't believe you two. Take your dispute off campus. The subject of HD-DVD and whatever codec will be used for it is one of interest to the rest of the HTF community, which is why I want the thread to remain open.

Any further back-and-forthing in public, however, will result in closed accounts.

 

[Paul.S]

Jack (and Robert):

YGM.

-p

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I am sorry if I have offended anyone here, but I have to defend myself this time. I will try to do this as politely as possible. Any further posts to this thread I will not respond to, unless it relates to the thread topic.

Grant and Pete simply pointed out additional information that conflicted the some of the information I posted. Once we came to an agreement about what that information meant in regards to the date of the meeting, I politely revised my posistion on the matter. I did not feel that they were attacking me in any way, and have never felt that way in this forum until today. And I am sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth, but when you accused me of having an incomplete understanding of the sitiuation, I felt like you were calling me incompetent. I have no insecurities that you speak of.