Time Warner Total HD Disc

Which HD Format Media Do you Want to Win?

  • HD DVD

    Votes: 18 50.0%
  • Blu Ray

    Votes: 13 36.1%
  • Total HD

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Vaporware

    Votes: 3 8.3%

  • Total voters
    36
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
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

mike c

Audioholic Warlord
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

stratman

Audioholic Ninja
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.
 
A

allsop4now

Audioholic Intern
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

racquetman

Audioholic Chief
mike c said:
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

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
stratman said:
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
 
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.
 
J

Jedi2016

Full Audioholic
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

mike c

Audioholic Warlord
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

racquetman

Audioholic Chief
mike c said:
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

mike c

Audioholic Warlord
alandamp said:
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

racquetman

Audioholic Chief
mike c said:
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

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
alandamp said:
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

racquetman

Audioholic Chief
WmAx said:
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. :)
 
J

Jedi2016

Full Audioholic
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

racquetman

Audioholic Chief
Jedi2016 said:
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

WmAx

Audioholic Samurai
alandamp said:
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
 
Last edited:
majorloser

majorloser

Moderator
HD-DVD

Sony is already the pro at losing format wars.
 
D

davo

Full Audioholic
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.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top