Holy Grail of Hi-Def: Are universal players around the corner? (1 Viewer)

[CraigF]

^ Can a typical component-input display offer enough bandwidth to make hi-def via BR very obvious? I speculated on this re the new Toy Story release. I highly doubt it, at least not displays of current manufacture.

And does anyone have any info on the important point as to whether BR and HD would be *allowed* in the same box? Allowed by you-know-who. And I don't mean co-existing under show demo conditions, which mean nothing to the real world (hope we all have at least learnt that over the years, MS demos failing catastrophically excepted).

Edit: based on Robert's post in the "other" thread, I am probably quite wrong re the component input, unless the display(s) he saw were "the latest" to potentially handle hi-def BR component (IOW, not what we typically have). Regardless, his post is extremely encouraging to me personally, especially from the POV of manufacturers' attitude.

 

[BrettGallman]

I would guess that component is more than adequate. That's how most people get their HD signals now, and the difference between standard def and high def is more than just noticable. Now, I'm not sure how component will handle 1080p signals, but it does just fine with what's out there now.

 

[CraigF]

^ Yeah, it's the 1080p I was thinking about, sort of what's "promised". Whole hog, I want to start there.

Not having any OTA TV here at home, I do not know the "guts" of the HD broadcasts I've seen. What I've seen looks soft, but again I don't know what I was really seeing end-to-end except it was visibly obviously HD of some form. Sure beats the regular broadcasts though! I even watched figure skating (only once, I promise) just because it was HD.

 

[Brendon]

Going back to the original question;

Leaving aside the issue of superior reproduction of a dedicated BR or HDVD player vs a universal, a universal player would certainly alleviate the problem of which to choose. In much the same way as combo DVD-A/SACD players did.

Who won the DVD-A/SACD war ? In my opinion Apple and everyone else involved with digital music delivery. Whilst the hi rez audio war was being fought, superior convenience not superior quality won out with the masses.

Whilst the playing field is not the same, could the convenience of Standard definition films delivered over the net trump both BRD/HDVD formats before the war is won ?

Vinyl>cassette>CD and VHS>LD>DVD upgrades worked on account of there being a very clear upgrade path/roadmap without any potential cul-de-sacs. (No one mention DIVX vs. Open DVD!)

Without one clear, certain & unambiguous upgrade path to single HiDef disc format, I feel the war may be lost to both players, universal player or no.

I'm not sure how much of a time window either format will have to establish itself before having to compete with internet delivered content. If the HiRes disc war is not resolved before then, both could lose.

I'd love to be proved wrong, but the lack of market penetration/consumer interest in DVD-A & SACD players (universal or otherwise) versus that of the iPod/iTMS/Napster to me indicates otherwise. Don't even talk to me about the apparent success of the UMD format - that has confounded my every expectation.

Lastly, whilst I feel pessimistic about HiDef disc's future I would dearly love one of them to win out. To get reproduction an order of magitude or two closer to that of 35mm film and theatrical presentation/resolution would be just wonderful!

Brendon

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Yes. HD via component looks far better than DVD via HDMI right now.

Folks...don't be fooled by the "only people with big screens will be able to appreciate the difference". Trust me...guys with 27" 4x3 TVs that have the "squeeze" mode can see the improvement with anamorphic DVD verses conventional 4x3 lbx. That's small patatoes in comparison to what BD has to offer.

Naturally those with full 1080P display capability will be able to experience the most jawdropping improvements of all. But BD will look BETTER THAN DVD even on 480I interlaced NTSC TVs! The better mastering, compression, and higher-resolution color space (along with higher vertical resolution due to excessive filtering in typical 480P DVD) will make it MORE than obvious even on displays that aren't HD at all. No kidding.

Trust me...we'll all be standing in line as soon as our checkbooks allow...

 

[Aaron_Brez]

There is nothing in either the HD DVD or Blu-ray licenses or specs that would prohibit a universal player. Cost is the only issue.

 

[Shane Martin]

Broadcom announced the chip so it's up to the manufacturers to do something.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

If some BD content providers permit full HD via analog component...and others do not...I'd imagine that the consumer outcry to the restricting-studios would be vocal and severe. It could easily come down to a matter of which titles people decide to spend the well-earned dollars on and the consumer could very well have a strong impact on what the studios ultimately decide is in their best interests ($$$) to do.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Quite unfortunately it's going to be the anamorphic problem we had in the "ye olde days". Remember when most studios have had 16:9 but fox still had non-anamorphic?

It's going to be like that all over again with BD.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

MPEG2 on BD = nonanamorphic SD DVD (neither takes full advantage of the quality the format is capable of delivering).

and don't forget about EE...a threat to all our electronically delivered video!

 

[Craig W]

Make no mistake. The studios are going to dumb down the initial BRDs and HDDVDs enough that we will buy the same titles over again for a newer higher quality transfer with a higher bitrate, higher rez and loseless audio.... and so on.

 

[Aaron_Brez]

While this makes sense, I'm not sure it will happen that way. They're gonna have a hard enough time getting people to buy into the new format. If enough reviews start coming around saying, "This picture quality is ass!" that's just one more nail in the coffin.

Not that it will stop WB from putting out BJ-9s like there's no tomorrow...

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Well, the thing is the PQ won't be "ass", but it will be not as optimized as it's supposed to. Y'know, a'la Toy Story. The original UTB PQ is, for lack of better term, ultimate... until they release the anniversary edition where the PQ is more ultimate than the previous version.

 

[Aaron_Brez]

Well, personally, I'll not be buying until I see reviews. And if the review is good enough for me in 2007, I've little doubt it will still be good enough for me in 2010.

There were several DVDs out there which got poor picture quality reviews: I either refused to buy them (Secret of My Success), bought them while accepting that they were niche enough that they would never be any better (Midnight Madness), or waited until the studios came to their senses (the forthcoming Dune and the lamentable Blade Runner).

I've only double-dipped on 2 out of my 250 titles. I don't project that this will cause me a problem. A bigger problem will be in "double-dipping" those 250 into the high-def version.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Their here...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=28855

Well... their coming!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I think the point is that more than likely *all* BD software will look *better* than SD-DVD...even if BD software 10 years from now will look better still.

What's the alternative?

So the argument that one should "keep buying regular DVD until they get BD right" is contradictory...because that's suggesting that it makes more sense to buy software that's much more dramatically compromised in both picture than sound than the supposedly "non optimal" HD transfers we'll be getting while the BD format gets off the ground.

Plus, we've all learned a lot (so have the studios) since DVD hit the scene, so HD media ought to hit the ground running further evolved than DVD when it came on the scene.

Reviewers have more of a clue

Back when DVD hit the scene most well regarded reviewers were using 4x3 480I playback hardware for their critical evalution (you almost shudder to think about that in 2006). I remember people getting "offended" when around the year 2000 I suggested at HTF that a home theater should not be considered "state of the art" if it didn't have a 16x9 set that could at least to 480P.

The point being is that when DVD hit the scene, there were very few displays in circulation that could really reveal what was on the disc. Though a 1280 x 720P projector isn't full-1080P resolution, it comes dramatically closer to showing what the HD signal looks like...and at the very least ought to reveal mastering problems (like EE) that would have slipped by early DVD reviews. Most top-end reviewers are watching their discs wide-angle these days...the same viewing distance that would be appropriate for HD software mastered from film (though a true 1080P image could be viewed as close as 1 screen width on a 1080P display if one wanted to do so).

D-VHS reviews already demonstrate a more critical eye than DVD warranted back in '97

Not to mention that even when WSR was reviewing D-VHS tapes, they weren't just blanketly handing out gold stars to any title that crossed their decks. I remember reading in many places how the D-VHS of T2 was "still filled with EE just like the DVD" and that folks were pissed that it used the old film-tape transfer with looked inferior to the SD-DVD (and WM9 disc) that was released soon after that used a bran-new transfer. This illustrates that people are learning what to look for and aren't so easily impressed as we were in the days of laserdisc when we tolerated noisey EE-ridden transfers and pretended they really were worth the $30 prices we paid.

So...

There still will be a lot to learn with HD media...transparency to the film source original will be a learning curve that will improve with time. However, I suspect that right out of the gate the HD media will look and sound VERY good (even MPEG2 Sony titles) and, while some of us may be tempted to repurchase down the road for new-and-improved versions of some titles, I suspect that the "WOW" effect of even early HD titles will be very easy to live with for quite some time.

The reason I say this is that compromised DVD rarely looks as good (certainly not better) than the 35 mm prints we see at the theaters. However, even non-optimal HD might look better than the average "print job" that comes to your local cinema...so it may not be such a bad compromise to live with while you debate whether the latest and greatest new film-digital transfer of Ben-Hur five years down the road is worth upgrading to from your existing 1080P copy.


p.s. You can BET that I'll be giving as detailed and honest an appraisal of each BD title that crosses my path. If I have to lug my player to my friend's house to see titles on his 1080P projector to get the full impression...I will!

 

[ErichH]

Let's assume there is a uni available. Most likely expensive, but you get it thinking you're good to go. Titles you don't see for BR you can pick up for HD and be happy.

One format begins to show signs of taking over (Let's assume BR for the moment) and your player and the titles you purchased for HD loose their value quickly. Time to ebay the deadskis before they go to zero.

Is this the way it would go?

Getting into either format and investing in titles would be like tossing a coin, yes or no. I'd like BR to dominate, but we're all going to want one or the other if it's a stalemate for long enough.

E

 

[Tim Glover]

Like most of us here at the HTF, the new format has me excited. I got in on the laserdisc format and still own some of my faves on LD. Was a fairly early adopter to dvd too.

I think some of the coolness if you will for dvd was it's size. Same size as a cd. That had to be a big draw for consumers. The "digital" whatever became a overused term too. :b I think there was a certain amount of sex appeal for DVD back in 1997 that Blu-Ray nor HD-DVD will be able to cash in on.

Also, while the quality of dvds is inconsistent ( that really bugs me ) they still look pretty darn good. Even on my modest standard definition projector and screen at 108 inches wide, I marvel each time of how great the picture is. I notice flaws here and there for sure but for the most part, dvds look terrific and I almost always grin a little of how good and big the picture is.

I think the high def dvds will be a slow developing trend like its taken hi def tv to catch on. All the people I know personally, only 2 of them have hi-def service in their home. I do realize that alot of the newer sets are capable of getting the full resolution and the new format will be able to tap into that.

I'm all for it and will be upgrading....eventually but I'm in no hurry. It will have to be very affordable for me to consider it a worthwhile expense when there are other things I want more. I will confess that I am starting to be more selective on what I buy with Blu-Ray on the horizon.

Not trying to rain on the parade at all. I love Home Theater and I love discussing it. I just think that this new format (universal players included) will take longer to really get the mainstream consumers to buy into it.

 

[CraigF]

David Boulet: I have made a few posts in one or the other threads on this subject sort of backtracking on my component-input display bandwidth comment. I guess it's obvious that not all comp-in displays are equal bandwidth-wise. When viewing HD sat (comp out) on displays it definitely looks soft to me...not so much a resolution problem, as it's obviously higher, as more like what you see with bandwidth limiting. I compare this with what I've seen at shows using HDMI and it's worlds better. THAT'S what I want.

But I could live with component output of a hi-def player in the short term. That's not really an issue for me. Neither is the relatively minor hardware upgrade cost, even for a cheapskate like me. What is an issue for me is I don't trust the players in the hi-def world to deliver what they promise. Yet. Their behavior and past performance makes me say: show me!

It's the software that counts, and I don't want to get stuck in a niche where there's nothing that much interests me. I do not want to get into the audiophile thing where people buy recordings of stuff they don't really like just because it sounds good (done that). In this case, movies I don't particularly care about that look really good (done that too). That's just me, and I really have to see that titles I enjoy are coming out in hi-def. Put another way, I'd rather have a title I truly enjoy in std-def than one I don't in hi-def. So for me, it will be a while, until there's a critical mass of software.



Absolutely. As others have mentioned, the younger (than me!) people who typically drive tech seem to be choosing convenience over quality (UMD and MP3 comes to mind). I have the best-looking and sounding HT system of anybody I know (except for the couple I've met locally from HTF) and it's nothing special compared to many here. This includes the engineers and physicists I work with, and others there who make 2-3 times what I do. Techy people with cash, you'd think they'd be in on this. They're not. They don't care. They think I'm nuts. People who take the time to come and participate in this forum are not typical. You could get a very false impression of the world at large by projecting attitudes in this forum onto the masses. Good and better are what we're all about, and we don't mind a little "inconvenience".

Whenever I think of hi-def video I can't help but think of hi-res audio, relegated to a tiny back-row section in most media stores, mostly retread pop titles. A niche. The fact they often cost 2-3x the CD price doesn't help. The proliferation of HTIB choices is certainly not because it's unpopular. It's "good enough" for most. As is std-def DVD. I see hi-def players catching on only when they are virtually all that's available, universal players that happen to play hi-def as well as the discs that people really want to play. Sort of like how Sony disseminated SACD capability that hardly anybody cared about.

Until the DRM, player output formats (analog?), etc. is worked out I don't see how there can be universal chips "ready to go", except at the very basic disc data extraction level. Though obviously important, this is a minor overall part of what will make up a player.

 

[Shane Martin]

Ed,

Sorry Charlie :frowning: