***Official Blue Laser Software Disc. Thread*** (f/k/a "Hi-Def DVDs by Christmas?") (1 Viewer)

[Brennan Hill]

Some excellent points here that I had not considered. That said, I don't think this should be fought on the basis of not wanting to replace our existing DVD's, or not wanting to make DVD's less relevant then they are now. If HD-DVD is inevitable, why not sit back, relax, and enjoy it? I'd rather start buying the new media now, and have less double buying to do in the futire.
The mass majority of consumers do not have HDTV set's, nor will they in the near future. I for one don't. From what I understand HDTV is a major loss leader currently. This may in part be designed to spur interest and sales in HDTV. Regardless, if/when this is introduced I would guess that DVD sales will still blow HD-DVD sales out of the water since the mass majority of consumers will have no reason to purchase the HD-DVD software since they will neither have HD-DVD hardware, nor more importantly, have a HDTV set.
Home theater is a hobby of early adopters. Part of that is constantly having to upgrade to stay current. I don't enjoy that prospect of spending more money anymore then anyone else does. But, once I do lay down the bucks for a 65" HDTV set I hope to be rewarded with HD software in AOR, DTS 5.1, and no g%$ d#$% commercials. If it starts out as a "Laser Disc-style" format where only the few and the proud have it initially, so be it. I can't say that I mind being ahead of the curve a bit. I read a lot of posts from long time LD junkies on this forum, and they seem to be rather proud of it.
Finally, from what some have posted about FMD, it does sound promising, but they better find some way to get a simlar and competitive press release to what we saw yesterday and soon or it ain't gonna happen.

 

[RobertR]

Good arguments, David and William. I'm most impressed by the stated capacity of up to a terabyte (!!). It's a bit strange....I first saw articles about FMD at least two years ago, but no one seems to have made mention of it recently. Is it because it hasn't really progressed beyond the laboratory demo stage? Is it a money/marketing issue? I still contend that none of these technologies will come to market until DVD is milked for all it's worth.

 

[Dave Scarpa]

I have no problems with the technology coming out for xmas. It's not going to be replacing DVD's but could they put both formats on the same disk? Would Studios want to provide dual releases, much as they do P&S and Widescreen now ? If a person has HDTV and wants to buy a new player to play the new discs they could, his existing collection would be playable if albeit at a lower resolution. Studios might opt for re-releasing some disks in Hi def format, that's not to say you would be required to buy them. I would probably replace the classics, Star Wars, Trek and maybe a few others, but for most I would be happy with the Standard DVD. But for all new releases I would be able to add them now in Hi Def. Is this all sensible? But best of all I can utilize my Hi Def investment now.

 

[Yohan Pamudji]

Matt,

Thanks for the picture! I hope they have non-removable plastic sleeves for Blu-Ray, because I always thought one of the worst design flaws of the DVD format is the naked disc. As far as the rental market goes, having a bare disc is just asking for trouble. Considering the average condition of rental discs that I've seen, the rental market would love to have more durable discs with protective covering.

About FMD vs blue-laser, could it be that blue-laser will be the next big thing but FMD will be the next-next big thing? From that FMD article it seems that FMD has the potential to hold data many times larger than blue-laser. So if blue-laser still requires some kind of lossy compression to get a full HD movie onto one disc, maybe FMD will come along after that and be adopted as the next formt, one which allows lossless compression.

 

[Jack Briggs]

There is, at this stage, some concern about the viability of FMD. Isn't there a concern about how all those layers can be bonded effectively?

A curious theme I see running through this thread is that while we all agree that we want the best video quality possible, those who are sounding cautionary notes are perceived to be "against" a high-def optical format. Nothing could be further from the case.

As DVD is far from "dead on arrival," but is instead the most successful home consumer-electronics software format in history, the studios have only recently learned to live with DVD--all that money rolling in is compelling.

Doesn't anyone remember how resistant the studios were to DVD? Remember Fox committing to Divx at first?

Consider your history: The studios have opposed every home-video format from the get-go. They relent only when the economics of the situation compells them to give a video format their support.

Remember also that the studios want to be able to control whether you see their "content" in high-definition broadcasts.

We are talking about paranoia that stems from realizing that billions of dollars are at stake. Digital technologies have the studio mavens whistling in the dark. And that's a formidable obstacle, or "challenge," for a high-def optical format to overcome.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

The folks who complain that a higher-definition format should not cost more per movie....

...why are you not complaining that SACD and DVD-A cost more than regular audio CDs?

 

[DaveF]

Fascinating thread. I agree with those who don't expect to see HD-DVD anytime soon. Here's my basic reasons for this.
1) Collectors bought large numbers of laser discs. They are now repurchasing those titles, and more, on DVD. They will then repurchase all these, and more, when available on HD-DVD. To maximize profits, the studios need to first sell as many normal DVDs to this group before releasing HD-DVD product.
2) J6P are just now getting into DVD. The mass-consumer is finally understanding what DVD is, the difference between it, VHS tapes, and CDs. Introducing a similar, competing product would only confuse these buyers and slow acceptance of both DVD and HD-DVD.
But, where all this could get upset, is with the following (hypothetical) scenario.
- Standardized, high-density DVD-RAM is made available for PCs.
- It replaces CD-RW, and quickly becomes popular as a cheap, universal, simple replacement for archiving hard-drive data. It also is used for application distribution (replacing the CD).
- Stand-alone and portable MP3-type players are released, and the enthusiast music market dumps their CD jukeboxes, replacing them with a player and a single HD-DVD.
- DVD-RAM "VCRs" are released. They become popular, competing well with Tivo and co., since people can record and keep programs like they used to.
- A lone studio, having financial troubles, decides to try for a piece of the action (maybe boost next quarter's financials). They release a summer popcorn-blockbuster. Early adopters goe nuts, buying PC players just to watch this disc.
- Other studios, not wanting the early starter to get the whole pie, follow suit.
HD-DVD happens despite everyone's best efforts.
Of course, history shows that this is highly unlikely. But, stranger things have happened.
Other random thoughts:
As for the FMD-fans: don't confuse technology with business. It's not so much a matter of "can we do this" but "do we want to", from the business' perspective.
Of course future HD-DVD players will also play current DVDs, just like current DVD players play CDs. That's a market necessity.
I think HD-DVD should be a larger disc than current DVDs. This would help reduce market confusion, since they will look different than DVDs, the packaging will be (necessarily) different, and they won't fit into regular DVD players. And besides, bigger = better, as well all know

 

[TerryPM]

As an old time LD fan (since 1987), I was among the first to jump on the DVD bandwagon. I bought several DVDs the day they were introduced, even though I didn't yet have a player. I have since bought over 200 DVDs and I love being able to buy used Criterion LDs (that I would never have paid $100 for) for $10 or less. My LD collection is larger now than when DVD came out.

I have an HDTV and I want software for it ASAP. In 5 years or so when HDTV becomes more mainstream, I look forward to being able to pick up Criterion DVDs I won't pay $50 for now for less than $5.

 

[Brian-W]

...why are you not complaining that SACD and DVD-A cost more than regular audio CDs?

@ Best Buy, SACDs are in-line with regular CD pricing (~$16.99 for stereo, $18.99 for multi-channel). CD's still sell regularly at the local Tower Records for $17.99.

DVD-A, I've noticed are always north of $25.99.

DVD-RAM is a lost cause. Even Panasonic is incorporating DVD-R into its products (both consumer and PC based). Sony/Phillips are too late with DVD+RW, and ultimately I think it's going to be a DVD-R world.

HD-DVDs at a premium price? I'd pay it, and would expect to.

 

[GlennH]

The folks who complain that a higher-definition format should not cost more per movie....

...why are you not complaining that SACD and DVD-A cost more than regular audio CDs?

I'm not one of the complainers, but I'll offer an opinion on this. I think it's because most people are more visually oriented (video) than aurally oriented (audio) when it comes to perceiving improved degrees of quality above a certain level. I know I can discern minor picture flaws easier than minor sonic issues.

I also think that the quality of equipment needed on the audio side to consistently discern the differences between CD and SACD or DVD-A (other than just multi-channel vs. two-channel) is often beyond the level that many of us own, whereas many of us now have larger HDTV monitors that can display to the limits of the DVD video source resolution and beyond.

Bottom line is that I personally am much more sensitive to video than audio quality. That's not to say I don't appreciate good sound, but it isn't as much of an issue for me.

 

[Michael St. Clair]

@ Best Buy, SACDs are in-line with regular CD pricing (~$16.99 for stereo, $18.99 for multi-channel). CD's still sell regularly at the local Tower Records for $17.99.

Sure, but you are comparing lowball SACD prices to highball CD prices.

Fact of the matter is, if you are willing to shop around and go to locally owned stores, you can find CDs for 11.99 or 12.99. If you find the best deal on CDs, and the best deal on SACDs and DVD-As, you will find that the new formats cost 50% to 100% more than the old CD format.

 

[Anthony Hom]

some form of HD DVD format is likely to come out sooner than we think. The reason is the HDTV broadcast law. All TV stations must broadcast an HDTV signal by the year 2006. The problem is the HDTV numbers are still not up there yet. I surmise the reason is not enough content.

If they can get a viable HD-DVD format out there (even HD-VHS) this could push the move for J6P to buy HDTV. I can see the film studios phasing out DVD since it will force users to buy the new format. If they learned anything, make the switch now. VHS lasted so many years, it was hard to get people to break-away, so why not break away from DVD to HD-DVD.

I'm sure all here would welcome HD-DVD. All those people who have 500+ DVD s in their collection really have no reason to complain. It was bound to happen. If we want to keep this HT industry moving then we should be behind getting HD-DVD out asap.

 

[Larry P]

The Japanese aren't involved in FMD? Having an electronic medium without the Japanese involved is like having oil without the Saudi's involved...or something.

It will never, ever happen.

 

[Larry P]

I'm sure we would see HD DVD alot sooner if we didn't keep on repurchasing the same titles every time they are rereleased as Super-Ultimate-Vista-Special Edition-5 Star Collection's on DVD each time.

Ofcourse if we keep repurchasing the same titles on the same format, they won't have a reason to release a new format for a long time.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

About FMD vs blue-laser, could it be that blue-laser will be the next big thing but FMD will be the next-next big thing? From that FMD article it seems that FMD has the potential to hold data many times larger than blue-laser. So if blue-laser still requires some kind of lossy compression to get a full HD movie onto one disc, maybe FMD will come along after that and be adopted as the next formt, one which allows lossless compression.

just how many formats can one intruduce and have the industry adopt and the consumers accept in a given time frame?

The next disc needs to be "the disc" for the coming decade. Consumers are not interested in new formats every 5 years.

FMD technology is here now. Why would we want an inferior format to reach market penetration only to then introduce this better format when we could introduce it right now?

The jump from Standard Definiton (not NTSC, as many people erroneously state) DVD to HD-DVD is signficant enought that every J6P and their videophile friend will jumping for it. The gains from Blue-laser HD to FMD HD are more subtle...better audio compression (no audio compression)...less video compression...longer playing time (Lord of the Rings extended version with no disc break). That's worth having, which is why I want it, but it's a hard sell for one format to supplant another format already established in the market place.

We should do it right to begin with. FMD

-dave

 

[RobertR]

According to this link, Microsoft claims it could give us HD on CURRENT DVD:
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011212S0060

 

[Jamie E]

According to this link, Microsoft claims it could give us HD on CURRENT DVD:
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20011212S0060

Not to bash Micro$oft, but they also claim that the WMA codec at 64 Kbps sounds as good as MP3 at 128 Kbps. My testing revealed... NOT!
We need LESS compression than 8VSB on a future HD-DVD, not more. How sucky would it be to buy a high-def DVD player and disc and find that the overcompressed picture actually looks worse than OTA HD?
I guess it all comes back to Constellation 3D, and whether they can actually get their technology to market. I sure hope the Toshiba speculation is correct.

 

[Brian-W]

The reason is the HDTV broadcast law. ll TV

stations must broadcast an HDTV signal by the year 2006

This has been quietly pushed back since this is still unlikely to happen. Delays in buying towers, getting permits, you-name-it.

Add to the fact that now instead of mandating some HD broadcasting, the FCC is steering clear now of HD and just mandating 'digital'.

HDTV is not in the best position right now.

 

[Matt Stryker]

Why go with these new formats when HD-Divx was clearly the first ?
http://web.archive.org/web/199904282...ddivxdemo.html

 

[Rob Tomlin]

How much difference will there be between a HD-DVD vs one of the current "reference quality" DVD's as far as video quality?

Watching a reference quality DVD using a Progressive Scan player with my HDTV looks pretty darn good. Makes me wonder just how much better HD-DVD would look.