DVD Forum picks the Toshiba/NEC blue laser spec for HD-DVD--merged thread. (1 Viewer)

[Wayne Bundrick]

I don't think so, Jeff. If Sony persists to bring a Blu-Ray product to market next year as they plan to, HD-DVD can be there to meet them. I'm seeing it happen within 1-2 years, not 3-4 and certainly not ten. I think that if it's not in stores this time next year, it will be the year after next. But it will be more clear how close they really are when the HD-DVD format is finalized next May.

 

[David Susilo]

10 years before HD-DVD? Whatever you're smoking, pass it over please! I want sum o dat!

 

[Mark Bendiksen]

What about the DVI/fireware issue? My wife almost divorced me last year when I bought my Toshiba widescreen. (Okay, maybe not really, but let's just say it wasn't "pleasant".) There's no way I'll be able to buy another set anytime in the foreseeable future. Am I screwed or not? I guess time will tell.

 

[Paul McElligott]

According to the Bits, the DVD forum has not selected the Toshiba format as the final HD-DVD spec.

What's actually happening is that they're crafting a new spec, built on the blue laser concept, that's based on the various spec proposals they've received. So the final spec could incorporate aspects of each of them. The question is, how much of the Toshiba/NEC proposal is being adopted as opposed to how much of the Sony BluRay proposal is being accepted... and is it enough of a compromise on both sides to keep the Sony group from walking and launching BluRay on their own. Maybe it's time to stress once more how important it is for the industry to adopt a SINGLE format for HD-DVD supported by ALL of the industry players.

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

The Digital Bits story is interesting, except this is the first we've heard that the Blu-Ray spec or any part of it had actually been presented to the DVD Forum for consideration.

But I don't see how the two specs can be merged to the full satisfaction of either side. There's compromise, and then there's compromise. It seems that Sony was on the short end of the compromise that gave us a single DVD format for video/ROM. There hasn't been another compromise since, hence the fragmented market for audio and rewritable DVD formats.

I agree that we'd be better off with a single unified format. I just don't see it coalescing.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Firstly,

for those of you who are posting that somehow this Toshiba/NEC blue-laser version is "backwards compatible", you are utterly in error.

No blue-laser disc (or even a red-laser HD DVD) will play on ANY current DVD player.

The advantage to this proposed disc is that it could be more easily manufactured with existing DVD-production facilities and require a minimum of retooling. This would help keep costs down and encourage the growth of the format over Sony's Blue-Laser format (which would require a more drastic over-haul for manufacture).

But I don't see how the two specs can be merged to the full satisfaction of either side.

They were with SD-DVD. Toshibas "SD" dual-side format and Sony's "MMCD" dual-layer format were merged into the single DVD format we have today. You can thank the computer industry and film studios for helping those camps agree to the DVD-forum's standardiztion guidelines.

Looks like the proposed format may in fact be a nice blending as it seems to have more storage capacity than Toshiba's/NEC's original spec.

-dave

 

[Paul McElligott]

for those of you who are posting that somehow this Toshiba/NEC blue-laser version is "backwards compatible", you are utterly in error.

No blue-laser disc (or even a red-laser HD DVD) will play on ANY current DVD player.

But that's not what anyone meant by backwards compatible. A blue laser DVD player that uses the same form factor as the current DVD format will be able to play the disks we have now.

A player with a different form-factor (Blu-Ray's cartridge) will probably not be backwards compatible (or will be only with additional hassle and expense.

 

[David Susilo]

what hassle and expense?

Panasonic DVD-RAM recorder can accept both cartridge and non-cartridge DVD. So that means it's not impossible for using Sony's Blue-Ray AND still play our (then) old DVDs.

You gotta need a tray anyways, cartridge or no cartridge.

so no hassle, no more expense either.

 

[Todd Hochard]

Given that NEC/Toshiba's push for their format is that it is "friendly" with current infrastructure, I expect that it will be MPEG-2. It just fits with the whole "hey, you can use your old stuff" slant.

Too bad. I still don't expect to see it before 2005 or 2006.

 

[David Susilo]

uhmmmm, the proposed codec is NOT MPEG-2

 

[Jeff Kohn]

The other key part of "backwards compatibility" has to do with manufacturing; apperantly Blu-Ray would require substantial retooling that is not required for the Toshiba format. This is a key factor in time-to-market.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

DD is absolutely a compromise...a compromise of SOUND QUALITY to maximize compression to minimize storage needs.

DVD audio quality is already superior to theatrical audio, atleast in regards to bitrate. How far will the push go until people want better sound that the source material can provide?

 

[Todd Hochard]

uhmmmm, the proposed codec is NOT MPEG-2

I didn't know that any codec WAS proposed yet.

 

[Grady Hollums]

A little more quoting from TheDigitalBits.com:

I've received yet another interesting e-mail from the DVD Forum, clarifying the situation we've been reporting on over the weekend re: working out the final HD-DVD spec. It seems that the Sony group has never officially proposed Blu-Ray to the DVD Forum. And apparently, Forum Steering Committee members are talking about the incorrect article in Japan Today now, which seems to have caused quite a stir. As before, we're working to try to sort out all the details on this - we'll update you as necessary.

Well, now it is getting interesting! I am going from anger to questions and now to a new hope. They should make this into a movie. One that would fit onto one disk, with full 1080P and the highest sound quality possible...what ever format that will be.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

I really don't care as much about WHAT type of high capacity disc medium they use, but I am concerned that they don't compromise video and audio quality.

From the get-go HD-(whatever) should be at least 24/96 MLP or full bitrate DTS 96/24 and DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 with true, 1080p video.

Dan

 

[DaViD Boulet]

DVD audio quality is already superior to theatrical audio, atleast in regards to bitrate. How far will the push go until people want better sound that the source material can provide?

The source material is not the compressed bitstream crammed between the sproket-holes on the theatrical prints sent to theaters. The source material is the analog magnetic tapes on historic 6-track 70 MM films and the 24-bit multi-channel PCM audio masters at the studio.
If 16/44.1 PCM on laserdisc sounds better than 2.0 (and often 5.1) DD on DVD, there's a problem *espcially* considering that 16/44.1 is hardly an "audiophile" digital resolution to begin with.
24/96 DTS or 24/192 MLP would be very nice on HD-DVD thank-you very much

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The source material is not the compressed bitstream crammed between the sproket-holes on the theatrical prints sent to theaters. The source material is the analog magnetic tapes on historic 6-track 70 MM films and the 24-bit multi-channel PCM audio masters at the studio.

This much I know. But what about films that were mixed at 16 bits originally? How long until people are clamouring for 32 bit 8.1 surround sound for every movie? My point was that we've already surpassed the quality of theatrical audio in our home (well, those with a capable setup.) DD/DTS really isn't such a horrible thing.

 

[Grady Hollums]

How long until people are clamoring for 32 bit 8.1 surround sound for every movie?

Would that speaker go directly above or below the listener?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Would that speaker go directly above or below the listener?

I was thinking three channels in front, three in the back, one on each side with one on the ceiling and one on the floor. All discrete, of course.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Seriously folks,

This much I know. But what about films that were mixed at 16 bits originally? How long until people are clamouring for 32 bit 8.1 surround sound for every movie? My point was that we've already surpassed the quality of theatrical audio in our home (well, those with a capable setup.) DD/DTS really isn't such a horrible thing.

Well, as it's already quite apparent that the PCM on laserdisc usually sounds *significantly* better than the 2.0 DD tracks on DVD (and often the 5.1 tracks), clearly even 16-bit PCM studio masters are NOT faithfully rendered with the current implimentation of DD.
It certainly couldn't hurt to provide 24/96 resolution via whatever compression format (MLP, DTS, etc) on HD-DVD since there is an abundance of soundtracks that will directly benefit. In any case it won't hurt the sound of 16-bit source recordings to allow for higher resolution encoding on the disc...so why is it a problem?
I don't think anyone is clamoring for anything beyond DSD or 24/192 PCM. Audiophile-level listening tests demonstrate near-transparency at that level of encoding which is something that 16/44.1 did not do.
And as far as additional channels...they are only needed to reflect the evolving surround technology of mixing in the studios. The studios are providing 6.1 sound now so the audio formats in our home have evolved to reflect it. No one is demanding more channels beyone what the film studio mixes to my knowledge.
In any case, the issue of digital compression/resolution is a *fidelity* issue. Channel for channel, what I listen to in the home should sound as close to the master recording as it can. Isn't that what we want in terms of video as well? Why would I want transparent 5.1 or 6.1 DVD-Audio or SACD but then hear sound that is compromised for my HD films? Or maybe I should be asking, why would you?
-dave