Who is going to win the Format War and why? (2 Viewers)

[Robert Crawford]

No kidding, the fanboys of both formats seem to have a vested interest in declaring their chosen format winner.

For me, the more I read about what's going on between these two competing formats, the more I want to keep my money in my pocket until a winner is chosen. The industry is screwing the pooch because it has people like me with money ready to spend on HD technology just wanting to sit back and wait for whichever format is going to come out ahead. Furthermore, I have serious doubts as to whether the winner will be nothing more than a leader of a niche market due to all the confusion being placed in front of the average consumer.





Crawdaddy

 

[Shawn Perron]

As far as I can tell from the inital player support, it appears like it's Toshiba vs the industry. If Toshiba had stepped down, there would be no war and this would be over. Of course, no one would be owning a $500 or even $1000 launch player either. Software would most likely cost more as well. If it's true that Toshiba only has 7500 players in retail and people's homes at the moment, then that's a number so small I'd consider it a nonfactor. We'll have to wait till we see some Blu-Ray numbers after they launch. If Blu-Ray can get double or triple HD-DVD numbers into homes, then this may be over in no time.

 

[RobertR]

Given reports of BD discs having only 20 GB of usable space, and the delay in availability of the 50 gb discs (assuming they get usable yields, and really do get 50 gb out of them), coupled with the fact that early BD discs will only use MPEG-2, I'm more determined than ever to "wait and see". I see a LOT of support for BD based purely on its potential down the road.

Meet me down the road. I'll stay off the bus for now.

 

[GregK]

What about universal players that play both HD formats? If combo players become widespread, the whole format war becomes somewhat moot.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

I agree on both points, and I too will be waiting and feel no urgency to purchase any first generation format with as many glitches and uncertainties as HD DVD has, and I suspect the same will be true for Blu-ray as well. To what degree? I'll be waiting with Robert and many others to find that out.

 

[Edwin-S]

Maybe neither format will win if that 7500 unit sales figure is accurate for Toshiba's player. I'm sure Toshiba was able to ship a lot more than 7500 units to retail, even in this first round. If that figure is accurate then it looks the High Definition disk format is off to a very inauspicious start. That sales figure looks like a big "Ho-Hum, who cares about HD" signal. It is possible, however, that that figure has had a zero dropped off by accident.

 

[Paul_Scott]

I was surpised that Sony seems to be having problems even with the yields on the single layer discs. In a discussion over on AVS, a 40% figure was being tossed around (out of every hundred discs manufactured, 60 are coasters).
To me, this sounded like HD DVD supporter wishful thinking, but when asked to back up or explain where they were getting an impression that this figure was accurate this was the response


can anyone find fault with this, or have any information to the contrary?

 

[Shawn Perron]

Not to discount yield issues totally, but the only way Blu-Ray would need a better yield any time soon would be if the format took off like gangbusters. How many players will they sell in the first 6 months really? If a line could pump our 100k good discs a day, they could probably produce every disc sold during the first 6 months inside of 2 weeks. By the time production time becomes an issue, these problems will be solved and the volume of discs made will be fine.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Sure. At the very least, if they do not actually provide a copy of a legitimate internal white paper and verifiable data from which the "press release" refers to, then all we have is more speculation.

It's the internet, people say just about anything and are rarely ever held accountable for it, but unless they have actual verifiable facts to back it up, then its merely speculation. I try and find out more about the person spreading these "figures" around as if they were facts and what sort of preferences or biases they have expressed in the past, to try and help filter out some useful information.

 

[RobertR]

Let's wait and see.... It isn't just the 25 gb problems that need to be solved. BD's ENTIRE future is riding on making 50 gb work.

 

[Edwin-S]

All I see is:

1)A "press release" (no date, no source) and a "Blu-ray white paper"(no date, no source.
2)An alleged comparison (no date, no source).
3)"Multiple insiders" (no names, which I can understand) and a "board member" (No name or affiiliation).
4)Another "press release" (no date, no source).

I cannot see how anyone could take these points as anything more than hearsay. If the points are valid then they should reveal the sources; otherwise, it just becomes a lot of speculative blather.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

The evidence of the past is that early replication problems do not mean doom. For LaserDisc, everything was riding on the capability to press 1-hour CLV Extended Play sides. When DiscoVision actually went to market, they couldn't really do it : in fact, they had great difficulty getting any kind of yield even with CAV pressings. Nevertheless, they launched, and when they finally did get the problems worked out, there was already an installed base of players. I think this "format war" bears the most resemblance to the videodisc war of the early 1980s. There were a few more competitors — TeD was basically out at the start, but while VHD never even launched in the States it stayed in the market in Japan until about 1990, and it had native field-sequential 3D support — but we had competition for control of a relatively small market. At that time, the market for home video at all was not large, and the market for playback-only devices was pretty paltry. Now, we can suggest that the High Definition market is not all that large [although it's growing every day], and the not-satisfied-with-DVD market is only a segment of that. There are no precise parallels. LaserDisc launched first, with a technology which was superior in principle to broadcast TV, but it was very expensive and had serious practical problems. RCA's vinyl CED did not have as good picture or sound quality, but it was far cheaper. CED tried to price for the mass market, among other things by selling low-end players which did not support stereo sound or other advanced features ; LaserDisc players tended to be full-featured, and damn the price [except for the LD-660, which sold poorly]. The technically-minded people who wanted to buy videodiscs generally bought the higher-capability format, LD was marketed in Asia and America, unlike CED [US only except for a brief European adventure] or VHD, and educational and industrial users [including arcade-game makers] bought into LD for capabilities neither CED nor tape offered, but in the end the deciding factor was probably just this : CED was supported by one company, RCA, which ran out of money, while LD was supported by a consortium including, at various times, Royal Philips, MCA, IBM, Pioneer Electronics, and others, and they just kept sinking money into it until it succeeded. I can't predict a winner, but I would say with a 95% confidence level that Blu-Ray will achieve parity in production cost [dual-layer disc vs. dual-layer disc, NOT per-GB] within 5% of HD DVD within 18 months of the BD launch date, assuming both remain in the market that long, and that sales figures for the two formats are within a factor of 5. After that, I expect that the market power of the Blu-Ray backers will begin to tell.

 

[Paul_Scott]

I'm trying to substantiate the claims from that post, but here's what I've run across in the mean time.

from http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13199


the former item i find interesting because the CEO quoted is from Image.
This, along what Don May Jr has been relaying in various forums, is that Bd is too cost prohibitive for smaller studios at this time. Sure, that could/will likely change over time...but if it's 18 months (the usual timeline I see referenced for this eventual parity), it is concievable that momentum could be with the other format- especially if more smaller studios (Synapse, Mondo Macabro, No Shame, Dark Sky Blue Underground, etc), releasing their own 'niche' content, decide to get into HD in the most cost effective manner.

But I also have to wonder how that cost is going to impact the larger studios- and which titles they choose to release, and how much 'extra' production they put into those titles.
And of course, those costs that are mentioned are for single layer Bd.
Would it not make sense that costs for dual layer BD are going to across the board higher- everything from authoring to replication- especially if yields are already low on the single layers?


People can choose to dismiss the impact of independants (and I wouldn't argue their share of the pie wouldn't be small) but on the other hand, if retailers go to segregated displays, 6-12 months from now it's possible we may see far more titles on the shelves in the HD DVD section than the Bd section. Not because of yields, but because of mastering/replication cost.
And if that were the case, I would expect that- when taken with the lower cost of the hardware, the impression of greater variety of content would sway more people to lay down money for one and not the other format.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Absolutely a shot in the dark, but I'd guess that the bulk of that mastering cost is what's required to put together the HD film transfers and video editing, which would be higher-cost because of the need for more resources [hard drives, CPU usage] and better equipment. If so, HD DVD's mastering cost is likely to be similar. It might be lower, because of more similarities between its data structure and that of SD DVD, but I wouldn't think it would be too much lower. In that case, I think the mastering cost will fall a lot more slowly than the replication cost, meaning that it would remain the biggest obstacle for the independents. The major labels have been doing HD transfers, and HD masters for broadcast, for some time, so it's not such a big deal for them — at least not on recent or high-profile titles. Back catalogue which hasn't had a recent restoration is likely to be a different story.

 

[Paul_Scott]

- Robert Harris commented in aother thread that the studios are finding that many of the previously made HD master from several years ago and farther back, just don't hold up now. I know Sony has been banking these for as long as anyone, going back to some of their earlier DVD releases. Of course, I doubt this situation would stop them as they are sure to be among the first on any format to double and triple dip on the excuse of 'improved quality'.
The already have a history of compromising the first 'regular' release.
This seems to be an institutional policy with them, doubt it would change for Bd.

-Sony also doesn't put a lot of resources into restoration for older titles (From Here To Eternity superbit, anyone?) that doesn't really have anything to do with anything here, but just another thing that irks me about them, and a reason I don't think Bd 'inherent superiority' will make a dimes worth of difference to many film buffs.

I don't know how fast replication costs can fall if these formats remain relatively niche as so many people are expecting.

I'm also seeing claims that BDs will only be using about 20gb per single layer disc, as those last 5 gbs are on the outer rim of the disc and thats proving problematic during replication- and this is where the issue of yields comes into play. Much better yields on the discs that only max out to 20gb...supposedly.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

As far as old HD masters go, some of them are bound to be pretty bad. Sony has been making them since '88, and at that time they were using a camera-tube telecine built by Ikegami [2-inch RBS tubes] and an analog VTR with some serious bandwidth restrictions. I'm not sure, but the existing HD transfer of Lawrence of Arabia, as released on the MUSE HiVision LaserDisc format back in 1992, may have been made on that setup, although I think they were beginning to implement digital VTRs by then.

As far as replication costs falling and yields increasing, which are two sides of the same coin, all I know is that DiscoVision, with really small replication numbers [say 500 on any number of titles, although with their yield problems that may translate to thousands pressed], managed to iron out the bugs in relatively short order. They launched in December 78, and by July of 80 most of the bugs were worked out, although the contamination from MCA's disregard of cleanroom practice still meant bad yields. When Pioneer started pressing discs, their quality was good from the outset, and they had little trouble pressing full-length sides, which had been a problem.

 

[Michael TLV]

Greetings

Let's flash back in time to 1997 when the WSR magazine was talking about the DVD format. A figure of $30,000 for mastering costs came up quite frequently per film. It was supposed to be a big strike against the format.

Time passes ...

History repeats itself ...

Regards

 

[Walter Kittel]

Don't know (duh! ) and I really don't care. I'm very happy with HD DVD at the moment and will no doubt indulge in Bd at some point in the future; most likely next year. I can live with both formats occupying a 'niche' existence for the forseeable future. I still spin the occasional LD and I am quite comfortable with HD DVD / Bd holding a similar spot with regards to Home Theater. Standard DVD isn't going anywhere for the near future ( say 3 to 5 years ) and I expect both formats will co-exist during that period.

Of course, this and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

- Walter.

 

[Dave Moritz]

What is the maximum length movie you can fit on HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Somehow I would be willing to bet that Blu-ray can hold a longer movie without useing two discs. And it can hold that longer movie and hold extras and multiple audio tracks on a single disc.

If HD-DVD can hold 4 hours of HD content with extras and multiple audio tracks. Then I would most likely not care if HD-DVD wins over Blu-ray. I however really would not care to purchase a Toshiba player. I would rather purchase a Pioneer Elite, Denon or Yamaha HD-DVD player. While I would rather have Blu-ray and feel it is supperior. HD-DVD is still a capible format that just suffers from a buggy player and space limitations.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Stating the obvious here, but one reason that I don't care about winning and losing is:

Regardless of which format (if either) achieves ascendancy, your collection of titles won't suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke. Owning an obsolete format like Laser Disc is a good primer for the potential cessation of titles in one's preferred media format.

- Walter.