Ten Reasons Why High Definition DVD Formats Have Already Failed

[hazydave]

Well, just to smooth things out a bit - the main thing to note is that I'm not disappointed per se in the quality of Blu-ray or HD-DVD (though Blu-ray coming out with MPEG-2 masters instead of using the newer/better CODECs was indeed a disappointment). I am predicting the demise of these formats in terms of mass consumer adoption (like DVD or CD).

I agree with you, but possibly for different reasons.

I think the primary reason for failure (and that's a good word for it) is that neither company seems to understand how a market get kickstarted. Simply put, that's us -- the audiophiles, videophiles, technophiles. I've spend $4,000 in the last year on consumer electronics: DVD player, camcorder, PC, satellite box, etc. ALL in the pursuit of high definition. And I'm not buying one of these new players.

First problem: copy protection. I'm no pirate, I have no desires whatsoever to copy an HD-DVD or a plain old DVD. But, like pretty much every early adopter, I have a pre-HDCP HDTV. So any disc that wants to can downscale my video.

Second problem: format wars. I don't have a big problem spending $500 on a cool new player. I dumped $250 on a red-laser high-def DVD player, so I could just play my own HD stuff (and a few discs from HD-Net). What I object to is the chance I'll spend $2500 on software that won't play on the final winner in the market.... I'm sure any Betamax fans understand.

I don't think consumers give a hoot about any final product. They buy what's cheap and "good enough." It was my $500 CD player back in 1980 and my $650 DVD player back in the 90s that helped jumpstart today's world of $20 DVD players. If there was just one standard for high-def DVD, we'd probably all jump on it, and after some years, this would show up as a "feature" added to mainstream players, much as you have MP3, DivX, progressive scan, upconversion, etc. today. In 5-10 years, the $20 players would play HD, simply because the economics of the market would make it silly not to. Joe Sixpack could still play his plain old DVDs, still hook up the Rat Shack video modulator and get it on channel 4, etc. He's wasn't involved in making DVD a success... it was already a success before he got that Blue-Light special Chinese player at K-Mart.

This isn't about the formats or how great they are - DVD-Audio, SACD, DAT, and minidisc are all great formats - but they share one thing in common: Your Mom, Dad, and uncles probably don't know what they are. I think this will be the same road for HD-DVD and BD due to the reasons I cited.

If Dad lived in Europe, he probably would know what DAT is... part of that was just bad marketing, and the whole DRM battle raging here delaying the products. Part of it, as well, was the simple fact that DAT was never designed as a low-end consumer format.

DVD-Audio and SACD are in the same boat as the high-def videos: they had to fight a format war, and the winner in many of these battles is "none of the above". When you offer something unique, like VHS vs. Beta, one is a sure winner. Some markets support multiple formats: LPs and cassettes existed side by side for decades. Rentals are what forced the Beta vs. VHS battle; recording time is what made VHS the winner. Easy story.

And yet, both DVD-Audio and SACD did something better than the HD formats have. DVD-Audio discs all play, in DVD-Video mode, on plain old everyday DVD players. I can't play them on my CD walkman, but I can buy a DVD "walkman" that'll play them fine, for under $50. SACDs don't all play on conventional CD players, but most have the CD layer and do.

This is important in two ways. First way is the fact that I could actually buy either format of media today and use it, before I plunk down the cash for a new player. If there was one format, many, many would, I think. Second way is that, while I may have this totally tricked out home theatre, sometimes I want that music elsewhere. That may mean on a CD player in my daughter's room, or in my car, or on my home media network, on on my iPod. None of that demands access to the new and improved format, but it does mean I should have 16/44.1k available, unencumbered. Had ONE of the new formats offered a solution of this kind, I think they'd have a winning plan. At the very least, I could buy media and not worry about their business model being successful -- at least it would still play on my DVD player.

They deleted this thread at AVS Forum BTW... so manufacturers really don't want to hear this either.

I believe they don't. It's hard to fathom how far astray their shot was, IMHO. Ok, maybe I'm thinking our "early adopter" market is smarter than they are, but I doubt it. Manufacturer's like consumers to be sheep, and don't want to hear about wolves. I'd love to hear some sales figures, now that players and media are shipping.

It's also pretty clear that a competitor could pop in, unexpected, and win this out of left field. Imagine something like HVD, perhaps with one DVD layer and walking away with it. Ok, I can dream.

It's not as if these will be total losses, either. It's highly likely that one or both formats will become established in the PC industry, simply because they do offer something of significant value to PC users, at the right price, just as a DVD-R upgrade. There have been numerous successful "PC-only" disc formats not driven by mass consumer appeal (though the consumer appeal is why I can buy $0.50 DVD blanks). I'm looking for a big push into PCs from one camp as an indicator they're panicing

-Dave

 

[bobgpsr]

...Second way is that, while I may have this totally tricked out home theatre, sometimes I want that music elsewhere. That may mean on a CD player in my daughter's room, or in my car, or on my home media network, on on my iPod. None of that demands access to the new and improved format, but it does mean I should have 16/44.1k available, unencumbered. Had ONE of the new formats offered a solution of this kind, I think they'd have a winning plan. At the very least, I could buy media and not worry about their business model being successful -- at least it would still play on my DVD player...

HD DVD does that. It is called a combo disc. 9GB SD DVD one side / 15GB HD DVD the other. Already shipped product for several movie releases over the past few months.

Bob

 

[The Dukester]

There goes the neighborhood

I was afraid all the extra press would bring out/over the hecklers and the all knowings. Good article, Clint.
Here's hoping the site doesn't go down like cheap lard.

1 - CDs and DVDs were not immediately adopted by the markets, there were and will always be people who claim today's old and busted technology "gets the job done just fine".

2 - Irrelevant - the separate formats were devised because the DVD Forum and a group of members disagreed this has nothing to do with gaming consoles outside of Sony being smart enough to realize people won't want to require 10 DVDs to play a single game 3 years from now.

3 - Consumers did NOT arrive in droves when CDs were released in 1982 (read: 1983), optical storage has been around since the 60s and that particular format took 4 years from 1979 to 1983 before it was released by Philips and Sony. The adoption of DVD took even longer after format release - a fact touted by Clint in this very article when he tries to point out that some people only just converted to DVD but conveniently forgotton for this paragraph. Where's the copywriter?

4 - rofl, the studios are responsible for much of the investment behind both HD DVD and Bluray. This argument is so contrived it makes me think of fascist information ministers. $35 wha? Go to amazon and do a search for hdvd or bluray, the movies are $15-$30 most new at $24-29 with the balance ending up at $15-21 and the market hasn't even BEGUN to crunch prices yet. Hell many people pay $20 for a DVD at Walmart or Best Buy already this argument is a sad red flag for no real research done.

5 - The PS3 isn't being touted or marketed as a Bluray movie player, it's being marketed as a gaming machine with a really big optical storage mechanism. We hope it can play movies, seeing as an HD DVD player or Bluray player is basically a linux box in this first generation.

6 - The 90s are over, Can't Touch This and Seether are not hits atm. It's true those who own the content hold power over the consumers, but we don't live in the closed boardroom 70s or the secret bank account 80s things are more transparent today than ever before. The support for SACD and DVD-audio never had 1/100000th the support either HD DVD or Blu-ray has monetarily, politically, or from a consumer enthusiast viewpoint.

7 - Anyone who reads this paragraph and feels enlightened is a shmoo-lemming hybrid. No **** Sherlock. As for consumers not buying a product because they've been burnt by not enough HDTV content - that's simply laughable. The market condition where consumers feel shock due to asymmetric knowledge (used cars et al) is a great example from the economics texts available but people weren't burnt at all in most cases there's plenty of broadcast HDTV around and nobody felt burned once they realized they simply had to upgrade to the high def receiver. The HDTV mandated days approach, we don't have to be upset it isn't pervasive just yet.

8 - Somewhat true except that media formats aren't the same as televisions (where using the term "early adopter" makes sense). In this case the smart consumers will wait until a clear winner has been decided or the prices come down to their threshold for investment pain. This will not, however, determine success or failure one way or another so long as a certain break even point is met.

9 - Oh how cute, an ego prod. Was Clint burned when SACD came out? Are we trying to recover some lost innocence or credibility here?

10 - IPTV and service oriented media delivery systems will not simply be absorbed by people who suddenly all have petabyte storage devices, they will increase demand for high definition writers (HD-DVD or Blu-ray). A fact admitted in the latter half of that paragraph which goes against his very premise.

 

[VarunM]

Er yes you are way off base

I think the article is full of FUD, with an author who is technically not knowledgable enough to give a well rounded assessment. Sorry for the harsh words, but I will explain:

1. HD DVD players are computers hidden in consumer electronics boxes. They boot their own OS, and run a layer of support software. The first release units are buggy, but newer units will be much more reliable and faster. One year from now, the units will be mainstream, and speed and reliability will be a given. Remember, they have an interactive layer, run java, and will have real-time menus, captions, and audio overlaid on the original movie.

2. Agreed - format wars are a hindrance. Blue ray is the more forward looking standard with greater future growth. HD DVD will never even be able to play a movie at native 1920x1080 non-interlaced. TVs are already appearing that have this native resolution. HD DVD may be obsolete as it is just coming to market! (multi-layer HD DVD players of the future may remidy this)

3. Wrong - high def DVD IS a quantum leap. Standard def DVD is 640 lines INTERLACED at 30 frames a second (remember 3:2 pulldown and de-interlacing, grasshopper). That comes out to 5,184,000 pixels per second. Compare that to the highest def monster, blue ray 1080p, which is 1920x1080 at 24 FPS. This is 49,766,400 pixels per second. You would have to play 10 conventional DVD players simultaneously to equal the data bandwidth of one blue ray stream! Also, realize that DVD is mpeg2, while high def players use much better codecs using variations of mpeg4, WMVHD, and H.264.

Remember that the sole purpose of interlaced video is for simulating higher resolution on old CRT TVs taking advantage of the electron gun scan line. How many CRT TVs do you see being sold in electronics stores today? So why would you be happy with a DVD media that works on obsolete technology such as this?

4. Studios are conservative and greedy - agreed. That factor and their ridiculous DRM could be a reason why early high def players do not succeed. The media is not as expensive as you claim. I saw new HD DVD movies already in stores for $25, probably soon to drop.

5. Playstation3 is going to be revolutionary. The standard blue ray player included is giving game developers a quantum leap in content design in games, where they don't have to worry about space restrictions on the media. Sony is banking on the millions of ps3 (yes they will sell millions of them) to spearhead penetration of blueray dvd players into consumers' homes. Also keep in mind that sony owns a major movie studio (spideman, charlie's angels), and they will be releasing these movies aggressively on blue ray.

Please don't mention game consoles and HTPC in the same breath. They are different entities. People will buy PS3 for games, but having a high def dvd player included for free is what buyers will see. Sony is banking on that group buying blue ray dvd movies along with their ps3 game titles when they are shopping at the mall.

6. Why compare SACD to HD DVD?? Audio and video quality are totally different, and cannot be compared. Most people will argue that music sounds acceptable at 2 channel, with occasional perceptable improvement in 5 channel. Music is also easily enjoyed at heavily compressed 192 kbs MP3 for the average listener. That is totally different than the slap in the face difference between SD and HD television. Why would you think for one second that an audio analogy would have any relevance to video? Of course, I forgot - this is AUDIOholics web forum....

7. You are totally wrong on this one. The video quality at higher screen sizes is completely visible. Flat out, at sizes of 70" and larger, standard DVD will be showing its blurry, aging ***, no matter how much people try to upsample the image. Hands down, you are going to want higher resolution. It all depends on screen size. On a pocket psp or video ipod, lower than dvd quality is acceptable. On a 42 inch plasma, a regular SD DVD will look great. Try viewing that same DVD on a 70" DLP or SXRD, and you see blurryness. Now try watching the DVD on a 100" high def front projection. The difference is obvious, and gets more so the larger size you go. I have a friend with a 3 chip high def DLP projector, 106" Stuart screen, and a super high end Meridian DVD player, and DVD movies look awesome. Put in a high def movie at native 1280x720 through a DVI connector from the HTPC, and the picture quality becomes breathtaking. The difference is very obvious. For any non-believers, I would recommend an A-B comparison, such as a regular def DVD of Fifth Element vs the WMVHD version of the same movie.

Please, don't even think of debating this point. If you really think you can achieve the same quality from a SD source, I will ask you to type your next article hooking up your computer to a S-Video output!

8. Again you bring out DVD-A and SACD. You must have bought a lot of these discs and put up with all those crazy analog cables to your receiver. I agree that HDMI with HDCP is evil. The concept of down-rezzing the video is so abhorrent, that I would return any device that tried to do that with any media that I purchased. Still, thinking from the movie studio's side, if they allow digital output without encryption, their carefully crafted high def DVDs could be copied within a couple of years by pirates who simply copy the native digital video stream, slap together their own compression scheme, and release it for free (or gasp - sell it themselves for a profit). No, unfortunately HDCP must be in place in a digital world for creativity and enterprise to flourish.

Keep in mind that no-one will ever limit the quality of your component video analog cables, and they will continue to work well with high def dvd players. Of course, trying to transmit 1920x1080 video over analog cable will not look good. This is also the reason why most high quality computer monitors recommend connection through digital DVI connection versus analog VGA (HD-15). Same idea.

9. Again, you bring up SACD and DVD-A. Those technologies failed because of poor marketing of the superiority of multichannel audio, the ridiculous analog connections, stubborn copy protection, and of course, because there is not much perceptable difference with 2 vs 5 channel audio, and because affordable portable mp3 was right around the corner. The only similarity I can see between this and SD vs HD video is the problem with copy protection and connection issues (HDMI 1.3, HDCP, analog vs video). However the picture quality difference is immediately visible and obvious, and there won't be a problem showing people the quality difference. I don't think copy protection and connection problems will doom either the HD DVD or blue ray formats.

10. Downloaded video and video on demand are great, but will be a different niche. High def DVD will stand on its one strong suit - picture quality. If you want to download that quality, let me know when you will be finished downloading 30 GB for one movie!

Perhaps one thought of relevance is sony selling a "comprehensive" movie, including the blue ray version, DVD version, and a mini SD version for their playstation personal. People may spend $35 for a movie with these three formats for the convenience and portability.



In conclusion, you don't strike me as someone who is hell-bent on picture quality, but someone who simply dabbles in tech. For someone like that who is not convinced that the picture quality is that important, high def DVD is not for you yet. There are enough serious home theater owners who have spent thousands of dollars on a high end setup. Remember, these people will spend $1500 on an upsampling DVD player in a heartbeat. For them, $500-$1000 will be a no brainer for the picture quality improvement that high def DVD will bring. These people will pave the way for incremental improvements, revision2, 3, etc, and soon the high def dvd will be a commodity item for $150 - $200 in walmart. Then watch the sales soar.

It helps if you remember that these players are computers at heart, and the state-of-the-art computer of today will be the bargain bin item of tomorrow.

You say that high def DVD is already failed. I say it is just beginning. It is not only possible that you will be owning one of these yourself in the future, it is inevitable.

 

[ned]

HD DVD will never even be able to play a movie at native 1920x1080 non-interlaced. TVs are already appearing that have this native resolution. HD DVD may be obsolete as it is just coming to market! (multi-layer HD DVD players of the future may remidy this)

Yes it will. The 1st Gen player uses Broadcom chip that does not allow 1080p output. The use of other design will allow that.

This is not a disadvantage as there is NO difference in PQ of a 1080i or 1080P on a 1080P display. The inverse telecine technology will reveal the 1080P info on a 1080P display.

 

[Audioholics]

Wow, the natives certainly are restless. Unlike other forums we'll let the opposing views have their say and not get into a match on who can type longer retorts. Thanks for your OPINION.

 

[hazydave]

HD DVD does that. It is called a combo disc. 9GB SD DVD one side / 15GB HD DVD the other. Already shipped product for several movie releases over the past few months.

Sure, it makes sense that's possible, since HD-DVD is based on DVD technology, and so that's much like a standard DVD18 disc. In fact, they should have the possibility to do 9GB on the SD side, 30GB on the HD side.

The real issue isn't "can they"... I rather suspect the Blu-Ray folks could do this, too. Both of these formats also support their own version of red-laser discs, too, for some reason. But really, WILL they.

SACD got off to a rocky start, IMHO, largely because, while they COULD make them compatible with regular CD using the CD layer from the get-go, they didn't. You couldn't count on an SACD title playing in your CD gear.

You can't count on an HD-DVD title playing in your DVD player, either. Looking over the few titles at a few electronics stores last weekend, they're lumped in with regular DVDs, but carry bright flags proclaiming these will only play on HD-DVD players (I didn't actually check the packages to see if they were correct or not).

Now, a few studios, quickly, shifting the bulk of their titles over to such hybrid discs, and I bet you'll see a winning format... well, unless both camps get in the act I'm still planning to wait out the war before I commit to either format. Or until it's commonplace to offer dual-mode players, but that'll take some time to become affordable.

-Dave

 

[bobgpsr]

The real issue isn't "can they"... I rather suspect the Blu-Ray folks could do this, too. Both of these formats also support their own version of red-laser discs, too, for some reason. But really, WILL they.

You misunderstand. Warner already has released four combos:

Title St DT VC PQ Audio Subs ICT Price
Rumor Has It W CO V 7 DD+ EFS N 39.95
Firewall W CO V 8.5 DD+ EFS N 39.95
16 Blocks W CO V 7.5 DD+ EFS N 39.95
Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang W CO V DD+ EFS N 39.95

More are scheduled. Have not seen any Blu-ray claims to being able to make such or any future claims to being able to do so.

Bob

 

[hazydave]

You misunderstand. Warner already has released four combos:
...
More are scheduled. Have not seen any Blu-ray claims to being able to make such or any future claims to being able to do so.

My point being, if combos are not the norm, they don't make the necessary establishment of this being a real replacement format.

As for Blu-Ray, they certainly can, technically. All DVDs, HD-DVD, and Blu-Ray discs are laminates: there are always at least two pieces of polycarbonate layered together, even (in the case of single-sided DVDs) one is just a "dummy". This is necessary, since the reflective layer for DVD and HD-DVD is at 0.6mm, but the disc itself is always 1.2mm thick.

So a "combo" disc is just the 0.6mm HD-DVD side laminated with a 0.6mm DVD side. There's no physical reason a Blu-Ray disc couldn't do likewise (the Blu-Ray data layer's actually at 0.1mm, but that doesn't preclude this kind of "sandwich"). More interestingly, since the Blu-Ray layer is at 0.1mm, it's quite possible to layer a DVD9 (dual layer) on the SAME side as the Blu-Ray disc. JVC has already demonstrated this technology, though far as I know, no one's shipped it, and Sony's saying "no" to hybrids. But things do change.

The whole Warner/Sony thing brings up a totally new point that didn't get mentioned in the article: studio support. This is certainly related to the format war, but not a necessary condition: some studios are backing only one of the new formats. So there's no telling, even if I did pick a side, if the content I want will ever become available. That's perhaps the biggest "gotcha" yet, if you think about it.

-Dave

 

[Kai]

I feel the format wars will sort itself out over time. Perhaps both formats will be accepted equally similarly to the varied game systems available.

There are several problems, in my opinion, that will limit the number of hd-dvd/blu-ray systems sold.

First is usability for the masses. The average person is still using and enjoying a crt tv with a standard dvd player and probably a vcr as well. This person will not purchase a hd/blu-ray dvd player because it is incompatible with this system for average use. Add to this the current high price, bugs and moderately intensive install and set up demands and you have zero sales in this huge market. These people just want a simple "plug-n-play" system.

Second is copy right protection. In my opinion the buyer/user is taking it on the chin for those that are illegaly copying/selling movies. I do not and would not buy a pirated movie because it is stealing and also there is no guarantee you are getting a quality product (I once watched a pirated vhs movie and the video was so dark and grainy you could barely see the picture...sure it was only $10 but it was a pissed away $10).
However if the providers put so many protections on their content that we are not getting all the content that is available why bother buying the damned thing? I believe this is also cost related. Once again the avarage Joe is not in a hurry to spend $30 to $40 dollars per dvd. It is costly and when you wonder if you are even getting the highest video content available why bother.

The average consumer has a standard crt tv with a dvd/vcr and generally uses the speaker that comes with the tv. More are buying the big box htib but that, while better than the tv speaker, is not much of a step up.
In order for this person to step up to the hd/blu-ray dvd they need to buy a new tv, surround system of some sort, the dvd player and dvd itself. This could cost at least $3500 and the average person is not going to drop that amount of money especially when the buzz is the new format is limited to protect the industry from thieves...this, to me, is a passive/aggressive way of painting all of us as thieves as well---thanks industry big wigs...

While it is not doomed to failure I do not expect to see this new format have the acceptance and desire to own for a long time. Remember we are having problems moving to an all digital format and the freakin' government has to be involved to add to the confusion.

Personally I am not in a huge hurry to spend my hard earned money on a format that may only provide an incrememtal improvement in my movie watching quality. My tv, while a modestly new set with dvi only input, may only provide a marginally improved picture and I am not yet ready to drop 500 large plus the cost of replacing the dvd's I already own for a slight improvement and I do not have the funds or willing to commit the funds to buying a tv for $3500 when I could wait 6 months or so and get better bang for the buck when the industry settles down some and the tv's are more signal friendly.

 

[Audioholics]

I will admit I really left DRM and copy protection out of my discussions to date. If anything, they bolster my argument, but I'm not sure where I stand on that just yet.

 

[hazydave]

The first release units are buggy, but newer units will be much more reliable and faster.

And it wasn't any different with DVD players... many early ones were shipped buggy, and never fixed. In this generation, it could be much better still. Many current consumer devices update via network; the better of these will, too.

HD DVD will never even be able to play a movie at native 1920x1080 non-interlaced.

That's incorrect... HD-DVD supports the format virtually every film will be encoded to, 1080/24p. While the first players don't provide 1080p output, that's an implementation detail, not part of the spec. The first DVD players didn't support 480p, 720p, or 1080i, and yet, many of those on the market support at least one of these formats (mine does all three).

3. Wrong - high def DVD IS a quantum leap.

You know, the term "quantum leap" actually indicates smallest kind of leap possible, not the big one you're suggesting. But agreed... anyone who things 1080i or 1080p vs. standard DVD is a trivial difference hasn't spent enough quality time with HDTV. Period.

Standard def DVD is 640 lines INTERLACED at 30 frames a second

Nothing's "640 lines". SD means, in the digital NTSC world, 720x480 pixels (720x576 PAL). DVD supports 480/60i, 576/50i, and 480/24p; most films are encoded at 480/24p. Whether you GET 480/60i out of your DVD player or not is an implementation detail. Mine will happily do 480/60p, and until recently, would also upconvert (over YPrPb, that's the issue) to 1080/60i.

5. Playstation3 is going to be revolutionary.

The thing yet-to-be released is ALWAYS revolutionary. Until it ships.

The big problem with PS3, though, isn't the technology so much as the price: how many people really are going to pony up $600+ for a game console, particularly one that underperforms similarly priced PC, at least until they do some serious native games. The PS3 may well succeed, but it's not a likely revolution, and it'll take some time.

People will buy PS3 for games, but having a high def dvd player included for free is what buyers will see.

For this to be important to buyers, they'll have to shift their whole base to adult buyers. Most gaming consoles are sold to kids and teenagers, who don't care about HDTV or HD video, since they're not watching these on HDTVs and they spend all of their cash on games, none on videos.

6. Why compare SACD to HD DVD??

MOST people will argue that the TV they have is just dandy, too. Those of us who bought HDTVs (about 3 million in the USA) think differently, but even among us, most HDTV owners view primarily SD content. Most people in the country don't have video gear equal to properly shown DVD (eg, over a component or digital interface), just as most people don't have audio systems that'll reflect the differences between CD and SACD/DVD-Audio. I think it's a very comparable case... particularly since there was a format war on the audio front, and neither format has taken off.

Music is also easily enjoyed at heavily compressed 192 kbs MP3 for the average listener.

Those same average listeners spend billions on VHS tapes, and are now spending money on heavily compressed H.264/AVC videos in low resolution for iPods and PSPs. You never win, overestimating the tastes of the public.

7. You are totally wrong on this one. The video quality at higher screen sizes is completely visible.

I have a 65" Mitsubishi. DVD actually does look very nice on it, the best SD you're likely to see. I have three sources of HD content: my satellite receiver/PVR, my HD camcorder, and my DVD player. There is NO comparison on either direct-to-HD or proper film conversions: the HD just rocks. It is dramatically better than SD. You don't necessarily see the same impact on lesser screens, or with bad material, but it is a big improvement.

8. I agree that HDMI with HDCP is evil.

I think the main issue with HDCP is that, until last year, no one had it. So in one fell swoop, they release a product for early adopters (Joe Sixpack isn't plunking down a grand for a Blu-Ray player this year) that's guaranteed to not perform as expected on the gear that virtually every one of us has. They downrez YPrPb analog too, not just digital. And it's totally at the mercy of the studios -- downrez is a bit you set in one of the control blocks of your video, that's it. They can promise to not use it this year, change their minds next year. I'll have to wait until it's time to retire my 65" before I'd seriously consider one of these players, even if there weren't the format war.

Keep in mind that no-one will ever limit the quality of your component video analog cables, and they will continue to work well with high def dvd players.

See above.

Of course, trying to transmit 1920x1080 video over analog cable will not look good.

You can get very good video at those resolutions over good analog cables. The big issue with VGA looking bad is that so many of those cables are crap, made for the days of 640x480. That's not to say digital isn't better, but simply, when done right, the differences are not profound. Video isn't even high frequency, in transmission-line terms.

9. Again, you bring up SACD and DVD-A. Those technologies failed because of poor marketing of the superiority of multichannel audio, the ridiculous analog connections, stubborn copy protection, and of course, because there is not much perceptable difference with 2 vs 5 channel audio, and because affordable portable mp3 was right around the corner.

Which sounds EXACTLY like today's situation: problems with connections, evil copy protection, not much difference if you're downrezzed for sure (which in theory, applies to every set sold before 2005 and many during and after), no marketing (yet, anyway), and portable video is already here, if that's considered a real issue in either case.

And you can't blame the marketing, anyway. Both SACD and DVD-Audio were put out there for audiophiles and technophiles initially, not plain old consumers. They wanted $500 for a player, and the discs cost more. Very much the same situation today with the new DVD players. Joe consumer might balk at the need to connect 5 or 7 RCA cables, no one in the target market would have half a moment's concern. I didn't buy largely because there was this stupid format war going on (I do have some DVD-Audio and DTS-CD discs, which play just dandy on my surround-sound system, but not enough to invest yet in a DVD-Audio player).

10. Downloaded video and video on demand are great, but will be a different niche. High def DVD will stand on its one strong suit - picture quality. If you want to download that quality, let me know when you will be finished downloading 30 GB for one movie!

They could be offering much higher encoding rates using AVC or WMV/9 or similar, for downloads. And with consumer cable modem now offering 12Mb/s speeds, with FIOS even beyond that, it's at least possible... broadcast HD in MPEG-2 is 19.4Mb/s or less in the USA, for example. The real question is, who will offer HD downloads? To date, every download service on the planet has offered lower quality audio and video, versus the standard physical formats, nothing better.

Perhaps one thought of relevance is sony selling a "comprehensive" movie, including the blue ray version, DVD version, and a mini SD version for their playstation personal.

PSPs use UMD discs, not mini-SD cards, for their store-bought films. UMD is essentially a successor to MiniDisc, they store about a GB of data. PSPs take memory stick duo cards, which is where consumers put their own downloaded video/audio, at least until Sony starts letting you burn your own UMDs. But keep in mind, much of the point of the DMCA was to prevent you from being able to be "comprensive" with just one purchase.

Remember, these people will spend $1500 on an upsampling DVD player in a heartbeat.

I did spend $4500 on my HDTV, $2200 on my HD Camcorder, $250 for a networked red-laser hd DVD player, etc. So I think I quality as a member of the club.

For them, $500-$1000 will be a no brainer for the picture quality improvement that high def DVD will bring.

I have absolutely no issue spending $500-$1000 for a high def DVD player. However, I do have an issue spending a potential $2500+ for a stack of DVDs that might be relatively useless in 3-5 years, when the blue laser in that first player burns out (which it will) and it turns out I bet with the wrong camp. I also have major issue buying an HD player for any price that won't necessarily even deliver HD on my "early adopter" HDTV set, which lacks digital inputs, much less HDCP. And I have a problem that, unless I buy both formats, I can't even be sure the content I want even be available in that format.

That's the real problem. And I predict it's going to impact the sales of these units, at least to other well educated people who have studied this situation and, like SACD vs. DVD-Audio, found the whole set of issues too restrictive to buy into.

-Dave

 

[DDigitalguy06]

All i have to say is hd and blue ray has not fail.
there are upconverter to convert your dvd to near high def but i would wait . until format war stops. to get high def. gear.

 

[tamarok]

Another two ...

They still haven't understood that no one wants region encoding and they still don't understand people don't want DRM technology, that invalidates their current investment or makes things more complicated!!!

When I travel I want to be able to buy my movies where ever I am and play them back on my system, whether it be a portable computer or dedicated player. It is globalization for companies, why can't they understand it should be the same thing for individuals. At least with DVD there enough solutions to allow me to get round this limitation. I have already had to rip a DVD to be able to watch something I bought legally because of this issue (I bought it in New Zealand and I live in Canada).

DRM: evil. They want to remove our fair use rights, they want to control how we can make use of our bought media and where we can make use of it. This makes things inconvenient.

Convenience is a big selling point, and region encoding and DRM are all the opposite. Provide something that provides the customer, rather than big media, real advantages and maybe they will consider the technology.

 

[ironlung]

Upscale a DVD=HD

All i have to say is hd and blue ray has not fail.
there are upconverter to convert your dvd to near high def but i would wait . until format war stops. to get high def. gear.

Hilarious...ROFL!!!!


This is the attitude that will kill the HD discs.

 

[FocaL]

Reasons why HD DVD wont fail (maybe)

The format war
Firstly, I don’t think its right to compare audio formats/resolution with video formats/resolution. I personally find it hard to tell the difference between audio at different resolutions/ bit rates. For video on the other hand, it is it is far easier to tell the difference. I think people will more likely adopt HD dvd based of the easily noticeable difference in picture quality over SD dvd. Plus people have HDTVs for HD video. Who’s ever heard of HD speakers for audio?

Secondly, there are many competing formats that have coexisted successfully. PC and MAC. Mp3 and CD. The hundred of audio/video codecs on PC. Radio and TV. IPOD aaac and generic mp3 players.

Availability/number of movie titlesTime will take care of this one. When a new game console comes out, there are usually only about 5 games out. People still buy them anyway. This was also the case for the first CD players and DVD player. For HD dvd we already know what will be coming out. Its all just a matter of time.

Increased cost of the players/media
Why would you by an expensive HD display when you can have a cheaper SD display? Why spend more money on cable and satellite when you can watch free to air? This is the same reason people will spend more money on new HD dvd players. In addition, the cost of the HD players is still cheaper than many high end players and scalers that offer only small improvement in SD dvd picture quality.

HD cable and IPTV
Firstly, living in Australia we don’t have access to HD movies from cable companies. And free to air HD doesn’t show many HD movies at all. So in places like Australia HD dvd represents the only real source of HD movies. I’m sure this is the case in many other countries.

As for HD movies over the internet. I don’t think this will stop HD dvd. The general population just don’t have the internet speeds needed.

 

[jcrobso]

Well the FCC was forced to drop the copy flag in June of '05 after a court decission.
Digital/HD TV is law, so it is here and will continue.
As for the HD DVD/blue Ray?????? I'm not buying one any time soon.
I still have a lot of Laser Disks!
There is sooooo much FUD about 1080p, it's call "true HD". I doubt that most people could tell the difference between a realy good 720p, 1080i or 1080p on a good HD set. I was in one store that was demoing a Toshibia HD-DVD on a 720p Plasma, and the salesman was tring to tell me how great 1080p is. I asked him what the native resoultion was of the plasma and got a deer in the head lights responce. John

 

[s_kris88]

HD won't happen

I agree Blu Ray is going to go the way of SACDs. I have seen people buy HD plasmas and watch VHS-quality analog broadcast TV on them! Most people don't noticve the difference!

The reason DVD took off is the same reason CDs took off - instant track select. The average person doesn't even know (or care) the sound and picture quality is better. I see the future as speed and convenience, not quality. People will be downloading On Demand what they want to watch and listen via their broadband Internet pipes. HD needs 4 times the bandwidth (to put it another way, takes 4 times longer to download). Select a movie, make a cup of coffee and start watching it? Or wait the entire evening for it to download?

HDTV on disc won't happen.

By the way, do most people on this web site realise that DVDs are not really much more than 480i - or SDTV - resolution? To truly test it, take two progressive-scan DVD players, plug one into a 480i projector and the other into a 720p, enlarge the screen to the same size, and watch. Any differences will be the slight manufacturing differences, but, by and large, the images will be identical.

 

[Thunder18]

By the way, do most people on this web site realise that DVDs are not really much more than 480i - or SDTV - resolution? To truly test it, take two progressive-scan DVD players, plug one into a 480i projector and the other into a 720p, enlarge the screen to the same size, and watch. Any differences will be the slight manufacturing differences, but, by and large, the images will be identical.

Unless you're watching content with any kind of fast motion of course. 480p which is what all DVD's are actually recorded in reduces the incidence of motion artifacts produced by fast moving objects on a typical interlaced display. It's just a smoother looking picture. Instead of jittery motion you see objects moving smoothly across the screen.

 

[BMXTRIX]

Unless you're watching content with any kind of fast motion of course. 480p which is what all DVD's are actually recorded in reduces the incidence of motion artifacts produced by fast moving objects on a typical interlaced display. It's just a smoother looking picture. Instead of jittery motion you see objects moving smoothly across the screen.

DVDs are actually encoded at 480i regardless of content. Specifically, because MPEG2 is used, they are 720x240 per interlaced field. A movie, which is 24fps is encoded using the two interlaced 720x240 fields to make a single frame.

So, while it is 100% possible for the two fields to be rejoined as a single progressive frame. It is not accurate to say that DVD material is on the disc at a native 480p rate. The player must first read the fields and properly combine them into a single 480p frame. Run 3:2 pull down, and output at 60hz for our displays to be happy. As simple as it sounds, not many players do this very well and many times the flags that indicate the type of material in use are not properly set so players have to be that much better.



I still think the article is FUD as the new HD formats have barely begun to crawl, let alone been given the chance to stand up and start walking on their own. Already a million opinions on all of it though.