Time Warner Total HD Disc

[gene]

And then there were three….
According to the Associated Press and New York Times, Time Warner, Inc said it has developed a new HD playback media called the “Total HD” disc which will directly compete against the stalemate HD DVD and Blu-ray formats. The new disc is said to host both formats on a single disc making it playable on gaming systems such as Sony’s PS3 and Microsoft’s Xbox360 with HD player. This disc does however comes at a cost premium.

Warner Bros. also has patent a disc that can contain three versions of a film: HD, Blu-ray and standard definition for playback on DVD players.

So far the industry hasn’t learned that adding more formats and further confusing consumers doesn’t win a format war. Mainstreaming them and providing affordable software should be their goal. One wonders how many formats will spin off over the next couple of years until the market decides which one (if any) will endure.

To me it isn’t rocket science. Produce an affordable universal type of machine that will play all of the new formats, and let the software companies battle it out ensuring the prices remain in check and the consumer can readily find and afford the software.

Just for fun, I’d like to conduct a little poll as to which type of disc you would like to see become the mainstream HD format:

[mike c]

I vote blu ray because:

it has more capacity (vs. hd dvd)
there are now more users
it has more big company (manufacturers and film co.) support

[stratman]

Ditto Mike. I see a universal player soon coming our way either LG or Samsung, as far as I know neither has anything vested in either format.

[allsop4now]

Who cares about the newest, hottest monopolistic media format designed to suck the blood out of the consumer? Or the mind-boggling patent to play several formats on the same physical media, for that matter?

This is "old news" that we have seen many times before be it from music/sound or computer industry.

Open standards benefits the consumer, but industry generally (the bigger, the harder) fights against anything that even remotely smells like the words "open standard".

[racquetman]

I vote blu ray because:

it has more capacity (vs. hd dvd)
there are now more users
it has more big company (manufacturers and film co.) support

I don't understand the capacity argument. I hear it all the time but let's think of it from the perspective of what we actually get on the discs. Do you see studios stuffing discs with tons of extras just because they have space left on the disc? Do you see HD-DVD having to cut back on content because they don't have enough space available?

A dual layer HD-DVD will hold 8 hours of HD content according to dvdforum.org. Isn't that enough capacity for you? A double sided dual layer disc will give you 16 hours of HD content. What type of extras do you think Blu-ray discs are going to offer that will require more space above and beyond this? Remember that some studios are releasing on both formats. Do you see studios taking time to offer vastly different content on the different formats? I doubt it. They are going to be identical or very close, don't you think?

If we are talking from a computer user standpoint that's different. More capacity is more capacity. But I assume we are talking about movies here.

Anyway, I dislike Sony and the proprietary games they play time after time after time. If they were more consumer oriented then I would support them. They just never manage to shed themselves in a good light. Look at the games they were playing with SACDs and the CD copy protection scandal that happened not too long ago.

They could have gotten together with the HD-DVD group and made one great format, but they were too greedy to do that. They were convinced that they would win this war, so why share profits when they could have them all. I hope they fall flat on their faces!!

[Sheep]

Ditto Mike. I see a universal player soon coming our way either LG or Samsung, as far as I know neither has anything vested in either format.

What about Denon and Yamaha? 2 giants that haven't disturbed the water. I've VERY interested in which way they'll go.

Personally, Blu-Ray. It just rolls of the tongue nicer.

SheepStar

[Clint DeBoer]

They can't go either way just yet, everything is tied up by the "partner" companies who will release their products first before anyone else can get silicone or a method of manufacturing the players. Just one more way the consumers get hosed by the clueless.

[Jedi2016]

Kind of a tricky question, really.

From a technical standpoint, I hope Blu-ray wins. I just think it's the better disc.

However, I don't plan on supporting either of them.. WB can go to hell, I'm getting a dual-format player.

[mike c]

the capacity argument is simply for the future ... remember, we are dumping DVD's simply because it doesn't have enough capacity ... we didn't use to need that much data space in a dvd, but today we are trying to cram as much relevant data we can on dvd's (superbit)

while we don't need all that dataspace now, I feel its very myopic to use a format that we already know isn't the highest capacity available for the same price.

[racquetman]

the capacity argument is simply for the future ... remember, we are dumping DVD's simply because it doesn't have enough capacity ... we didn't use to need that much data space in a dvd, but today we are trying to cram as much relevant data we can on dvd's (superbit)

while we don't need all that dataspace now, I feel its very myopic to use a format that we already know isn't the highest capacity available for the same price.

I see. In that case I don't think either format will survive for more than a decade. Technological advancement is just moving too rapidly in this field. Holographic discs are already being talked about that hold much more data. Besides, you know that the studios are already trying to figure out how to sell us our favorite movies all over again on another format :) .

[mike c]

I see. In that case I don't think either format will survive for more than a decade. Technological advancement is just moving too rapidly in this field. Holographic discs are already being talked about that hold much more data. Besides, you know that the studios are already trying to figure out how to sell us our favorite movies all over again on another format :) .

how long have dvd's been around?

there's also the fact that unless the studios SHOOT the films in BETTER than the existing master copies, we won't need the holographic disks ... maybe when we have holographic movies :)

but before the studios get to that point ... they'll be selling the original movie in HD ... then the director's cut ... then the extended version ... then the extended director's edition ... then the 1 DISC SET of trilogies, quadrilogies ... :rolleyes:

[racquetman]

how long have dvd's been around?

That was kind of my point. DVDs have only been around for about a decade. I think they started rolling out in 1997 or so. You can bet that in a decade from now something new will be tempting us.

Film has enough resolution to be better than 1080p. There is a lot of potenial for something better.

[WmAx]

Film has enough resolution to be better than 1080p. There is a lot of potenial for something better.

Which film? Any control comparisons? I ask, because there is a similar, though not identical assertion in photography[assertion: film has more available resolution than present comparable digital image sensors] -- but it does not hold up under scrutiny and actual testing. I don't know if it's the same in regards to motion film, but I suspect that it is -- as for example, when I see even a 720P movie that was scanned from standard format film, it is very grainy, unless substantial digital noise reduction was used in post process. The grain limits the practical resolution(and digital noise reduction can not bring back the resolution, it can just remove the grain). If you are aware of some real comparisons performed under controlled testing conditions, I would very much like to review these.

-Chris

[racquetman]

Which film? Any control comparisons? I ask, because there is a similar, though not identical assertion in photography[assertion: film has more available resolution than present comparable digital image sensors] -- but it does not hold up under scrutiny and actual testing. I don't know if it's the same in regards to motion film, but I suspect that it is -- as for example, when I see even a 720P movie that was scanned from standard format film, it is very grainy, unless substantial digital noise reduction was used in post process. The grain limits the practical resolution(and digital noise reduction can not bring back the resolution, it can just remove the grain). If you are aware of some real comparisons performed under controlled testing conditions, I would very much like to review these.

-Chris

Well, I don't know if this will satisfy you, but I trusted this source:

http://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/04/mailbag_hd_movi.html

Go down to the section titled, "The resolution of the movies shown in theaters." This references a study by the International Telecommunications Union which has a link in that portion of the article.

Let us know if you have any issues with their conclusions. :)

[Jedi2016]

That's actually a complex discussion. The problem is that no bit of film is ever shot with perfect focus and super-sharp resolution. There comes a point where a higher resolution offers no real benefit.. it's larger, but the softness of the original film frame means there's no more actual detail being brought out.

For example, go download a 720p video and a 1080p video of the same thing.. a movie trailer or something. Now upscale the 720p video to the same size as the 1080p. Then switch back and forth between them. You'll be surprised at just how little a difference there is, if any.

If film was really so much "higher resolution", then why do 1080p digital theatres look so much sharper than projected film?

Also bear in mind that most every film these days is digitally processed. And that processing is done mostly at 1080p, as is the final master before being transferred back to film for duplication.

1080p isn't some "new thing". It's been the standard for digital film in Hollywood for far longer than most people realize. And it will continue to remain so for quite a while to come.

[racquetman]

For example, go download a 720p video and a 1080p video of the same thing.. a movie trailer or something. Now upscale the 720p video to the same size as the 1080p. Then switch back and forth between them. You'll be surprised at just how little a difference there is, if any.

Trying to see a difference on a 17" computer monitor isn't the same as a movie theater screen ;) .

[WmAx]

Well, I don't know if this will satisfy you, but I trusted this source:

http://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/04/mailbag_hd_movi.html

Go down to the section titled, "The resolution of the movies shown in theaters." This references a study by the International Telecommunications Union which has a link in that portion of the article.

Let us know if you have any issues with their conclusions. :)

Thank you! This is useful. I bypassed the author of the link, and reviewed the published research data directly. The author of the link incorrectly interprets the results of the test data. I reviewed the MTF plots, and for example, where the blog author claims that 2400 lp/ph are possible with the original negative, this is in fact not true in a practical sense. If you look at the graphs in the research, the MTF=6% at 2400 lp/ph. This means that the contrast between the black test chart lines and white background is 6% linear difference. Less then MTF=50 is quickly becoming difficult to perceive in actual photographic images that are not of solid black lines on solid white backgrounds. I'll be generous, and give them 30% as a lower limit of usefulness in real photographic scenes, because with proper post processing, you can raise the MTF of this lower limit to a perceptively higher value, to an extent. So, reviewing the 30 percent limit for the original negative, it extends to approximately 1500 lp/ph. I am not reviewing the end-result theatre prints, because they are much lower, and not relevant, since you would not make the HD scan from these. The HD scan would be made from the original negative, and the scanner will have higher resolution than the negative, so nearly all resolution should be retrievable with almost no loss. I am assuming the scanners used in the motion film industry, as well as the image processing steps, are at least on par with still photography, but this may not be the case due to available processing time for the high number of frames in motion pictures. The study does not address the factors of ISO sensitivity and the resulting grain. The grain structure further masks the resolution, and it is not a subject of this study. An additional study needs to be performed to evaluate this issue. Assuming the grain was not an issue (but it is), then 1500 lp/ph would exceed the resolution capability of the 1080P HD format. Note: Jedi2016 brings up other relevant factors. Perfect focus and depth of field are real issues, and are rarely going to be perfect when shooting moving objects.

Because of lack of data on the factor of noise(grain), I can not come to any solid conclusions, except that under theoretically perfect conditions(perfect focus, still object, perfect light), that 1080P would not be able to contain the resolution of a 35mm original film negative. When I look at HD sources of HD scanned film, even on just a 720P display, the grain is easily noticeable in areas of lower brightness, especially in broad same or similar color areas. This is why I must question the relevance of noise on this subject.

Note: Still photography 35mm film negatives have considerably higher resolution, at least with low ISO types. Low ISO is an option for still photography, as you have available bright flashes for lighting, and also, longer shutter times are possible. A motion picture has a maximum of 1/24 of a second available. Because even this would result in high motion blur, I suspect that considerably higher shutter speeds are used, requiring much higher ISO sensitivity film.

-Chris

[majorloser]

HD-DVD

Sony is already the pro at losing format wars.

[davo]

I wonder if the poll in this thread is reflective of people who own PS3's and X-360's? Shouldn't the Q read"Who have you already bought into"?
Personally I havn't seen much advertising in Australia for HD-DVD, while there has been a lot for Blu-ray. I'm a PS3 wanna-be so you know how I vote.

[mike c]

51gb capacity HD DVD ...

http://www.cepro.com/news/editorial/16862.html

HD DVD now has more capacity
LOTR coming out on HD DVD

can I change my vote?

[Buckle-meister]

Is the coarseness of the grain on film equal to the maximum resolution that can digitally be lifted from it?

[malvado78]

Well I chose Vaporware. I don't reall think this but choosing between Microsoft, Sony, and Time Warner is like making me choose between Hitler, Stalin, and Sadaam. Whose you favorite dictator?

[GlocksRock]

I vote for HD-DVD.

[j_garcia]

I voted total HD, but I'm really leaning towards Blu Ray. Just like DVD-A/SACD, if the universal players are good enough, I'd probably go with one of those though and not worry about format.

[Jack Hammer]

...I really don't care who wins. I'd just like them to do it sometime in the near future.

FWIW, I voted Blu-Ray. Not because of any claimed benefits over the other formats. Simply because I like the name and find it a little less confusing in general. Meaning, I was originally confused by the name HD-DVD; I, like many, had thought all dvd's were already high definition. To me HD-DVD sounds like an upgraded version of what is already there (dvd). Blu-Ray sounds like something new and different (better).

Jack

[WmAx]

Is the coarseness of the grain on film equal to the maximum resolution that can digitally be lifted from it?

This depends on the meaning of maximum resolution; do you mean theoretical maximum or practical? Film grain itself is not the smallest image forming particle on the film, but grain is a pattern noise, and occludes/masks the resolution. What you can lift from the image depends on the contrast of the elements in a particular circumstance, the type of *noise reduction system used, and other post processing factors.

-Chris

*Regardless of the noise reduction system, at a certain threshold, the noise reduction system can not discern noise from image detail, and as a result, tends to remove both[if used too aggressively], causing an easily recognizable(to image editing people, at least) signature appearance that is akin to a plastic surface effect.

[Buckle-meister]

...depends on the meaning of maximum resolution; do you mean theoretical maximum or practical?

Theoretical of course! My mind likes to consider perfect state/behaviour. ;)

Film grain itself is not the smallest image forming particle on the film, but grain is a pattern noise, and occludes/masks the resolution.

I hadn't realised that grain wasn't the smallest image forming particle and so I guess the answer to my question is no.

Interesting that grain is nothing more than pattern noise. It seems obvious now that I think of it. To the software that digitally lifts information from the film, it must be analogous to trying to see the woods from the trees eh? :)

[Guiria]

I can't imagine HD-DVD or Blu-ray going away with the huge support behind each. I hope universal players become the norm and that's when I'll jump on the wagon.

[j_garcia]

FYI, big box stores say they will support Total HD disc:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070110/tc_nm/electronics_show_warnerbros_dc_2

[Jack Hammer]

I can't imagine HD-DVD or Blu-ray going away with the huge support behind each...
Divx had huge support behind it for what seemed like quite a long time. Including some big names who stuck with them til near the end. In the long run dvd won out that format war and those divx only titles were eventually released on dvd. Now, most universal players play divx as well as dvd.

Jack

[stratman]

FYI, big box stores say they will support Total HD disc:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070110/tc_nm/electronics_show_warnerbros_dc_2


If you read the article a good point is made, adding a third competitor might lengthen the format "war", IMO I don't think so, just the opposite might happen, the third competitor might be the impetus for LG's tech to be licensed by other makers faster, as long as this conflict exist everyone is losing money due to the fact that consumers are in a waiting pattern.

[dobyblue]

51gb capacity HD DVD ...

http://www.cepro.com/news/editorial/16862.html

HD DVD now has more capacity
LOTR coming out on HD DVD

can I change my vote?
This wil be for the PC environment.
BLu-ray has a working 200GB disc.
Advantage Blu-ray.

They won't even have a working prototype of this disc (currently it's only on paper) until at the very earliest Q4/07 and they currently have not been able to get (according to Toshiba) a triple-layer HD45 (15GB/layer) disc working on current models. I'm sure they will not want to render 175,000 existing players useless losing their existing consumer market.

PC World
Blu-ray 200GB (tested and working)
HD DVD 51GB (proposed)

Movies
Blu-ray 50GB
HD DVD 30GB

I chose Blu-ray because firstly because of the studio support and secondly because the Blu-ray studios are using lossless audio on almost 100% of their titles. HD DVD's sole major studio supporter, Universal, has yet to use lossless audio. The difference between PCM and lossy Dolby is inarguable to my ears.

AS for the dimensions of film, if the master is in good condition and was not shot on PAL film like 28 Days Later, one of the only major films I know of, then I don't see why it can't give an excellent 1080p rendering. Casablanca from 1942 has received flawless ratings across the board on HD DVD.

Also, regarding aspect ratios and time ranges, if this is useful to anyone, taken from Deci at the BD forums.

Square: Movies 1.18 - 1.38 wide
Silent films 1.33 = 1895 - 1931
Movietone Sound 1.18 = 1928-1931
Academy Sound 1.38 = 1931-1955
TV films and series 1.33 = 20th century TV

Widescreen: Movies 1.66 - 1.85 wide
European widescreen 1.66 = 1955 onwards
Disney Widescreen 1.75 = 1955-1970's
USA Widescreen 1.85 = 1955 onwards
VistaVision 1.85 = 50's and 60's
Super-35 1.85 = last couple of decades
HDTV TV and series 1.78 = 21rst century TV

Scope: Movies 2.00 - 2.75 wide
CINERAMA 2.59 = (only two 60's movies)
CinemaScope55 (55mm) 2.55 (only two 50's movies)
CinemaScope magnetic soundtrack 2.55 = 1952-1956
CinemaScope/Panavision/Superscope235 optical soundtrack 2.35 = 1957-1970
Panavision/Arrivision et al optical soundtrack 2.40 = 1970-1995
Panavision/Arrivision et al digital soundtrack 2.39 = 1995 onwards
SuperPanavision (70mm) 2.20
UltraPanavision (70mm) 2.75
SuperScope 2.00 =50's
Super-35 2.40/2.39 = last couple of decades
Techniscope 2.35 = 1960 -1970, 2.40 after that
Technirama 2.30


I don't see the THD as being a third option. Supporting Blu-ray I will buy the THD versions of LOTR as there will likely not be a BD-only edition.
Warner, HBO and New Line (all owned by Time Warner) are making sure they sell as many copies of their movies as they can with reduced costs. Kudos to them. If Universal do the same then I think Toshiba will join the BDA and this war will come to a close.

[stratman]

I'm still sticking to my guns, by the end of the summer everything will be sorted out.;)

[f0am]

I am waiting to make a decision. I personally am annoyed at the average consumer not knowing the downfalls of DRM. I wish people would just refuse to buy these products and force the market into a different solution. I know this will never happen but one can dream right?? :p

[stratman]

I am waiting to make a decision. I personally am annoyed at the average consumer not knowing the downfalls of DRM. I wish people would just refuse to buy these products and force the market into a different solution. I know this will never happen but one can dream right?? :p
Let's see what LG does with their dual player.

[stratman]

Boy I as just looking at the poll numbers above: Bluray 252, HD-DVD 42.

Nielsen published the final numbers for Hd discs sales for last quarter, advantage to Bluray so far outselling HD-DVD 2 to 1. This has prompted Sony (prematurely IMO) to issue press release stating that Bluray won the the format war, "there's no need for sitting on the fence" they quipped to press. It looks like the software advantage goes to Blueray while the hardware goes to HD-DVD as far as features. I've been going back and forth to BB to see the LG player, no luck, my friend says about 10 more days, he's the guy who told me a while back that BB was keeping close tabs on the sales figures of both formats, he was right on the figures too, they were estimating back in December 2 to 1 in favor of Bluray. Also Bluray is spending much more money in ads and releasing more titles.