iPod Videos in Blu-Ray Discs? [Archive]

MacRumors

Apr 25, 2006, 11:07 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

iPodHub claims (http://www.ipodhub.net/articles/20060424bluray_ipod_content.html) that according to anonymous sources, Apple is asking Blu-ray content providers to add iPod video content onto their Blu-ray discs.

Apple wants to make sure that when their next-generation iPod is released it will have a sufficient library of playable content already available for customers to watch.

Reliability of this site is unknown.

LastLine

Apr 25, 2006, 11:09 AM

Sounds like an excellent idea to me, that, combined with a longer battery life, would have me buying a video ipod in no time.

twoodcc

Apr 25, 2006, 11:18 AM

sounds good. not sure how much of it is true, but we'll see

paddy

Apr 25, 2006, 11:26 AM

I suppose no one knows the reliability of the site do they?

nagromme

Apr 25, 2006, 11:35 AM

dukebound85

Apr 25, 2006, 11:40 AM

Considering that you can put DVD-ROM content on any DVD or BD, it seems perfectly doable to have the BD-ROM content be files for iPod.

BTW, is Blu-Ray totally dependent on the (often-postponed) PS3 release date? Or with PS3 delayed, is there hope of seeing Blu-Ray arrive ahead of PS3?

Blu-Ray is so much better than HD-DVD, I'd hate to lose it just because a game console is late.

Yea ok even if it means that it costs alot more to produce these than HD-DVD. I don't know about you , but I dont want to buy expensive media when a cheaper alternative nearly as good is right there.

angelwatt

Apr 25, 2006, 12:09 PM

I'm not hopping on the Blu-ray or HD disc bandwagon. I think I'll wait for the next round when they decide to work together rather than forcing customers to choose.

twoodcc

Apr 25, 2006, 12:14 PM

i would pick 54 GB over 36 GB (or whatever HD-DVD is) any day of the week

redeye be

Apr 25, 2006, 12:38 PM

If only that rumor contained the resolution apple has asked them to use...
That would be interesting

the future

Apr 25, 2006, 12:38 PM

supremedesigner

Apr 25, 2006, 12:41 PM

Considering that you can put DVD-ROM content on any DVD or BD, it seems perfectly doable to have the BD-ROM content be files for iPod.

BTW, is Blu-Ray totally dependent on the (often-postponed) PS3 release date? Or with PS3 delayed, is there hope of seeing Blu-Ray arrive ahead of PS3?

Blu-Ray is so much better than HD-DVD, I'd hate to lose it just because a game console is late.

Well, you're wrong. You haven't seen Blu-Ray yet, they're not even out yet. Why judge when you don't see one yet? :P

BTW, I check HD-DVD at Best Buy and it looks nice. Not too sure about Blu-Ray since it's kinda similar to BetaMax. Also, I don't know people will go for PS3 since all games are going to be at least $70-$100. That's way too pricey plus too expensive. But that's me.

nostaws

Apr 25, 2006, 12:43 PM

It would actually discourage piracy, and be in the content providers interest to do so.

Computer Genius: "Boy, I love this movie, I want it on my ipod. Oh I have to get around the encryption. Okay that was easy, I am sure other people would like to do the same, I will share it on the internet."

Everyone then Rips Blu-Ray discs like crazy.

vs.

Computer Genius: "Boy, I love this movie, I want it on my ipod. Oh look! They included a version for my iPod! I don't need to hack their encryption scheme!"

boncellis

Apr 25, 2006, 01:04 PM

...Blu-Ray is so much better than HD-DVD, I'd hate to lose it just because a game console is late.

I hope it doesn't turn out to be another Sony screw-up. I've read good things about Blu-ray, and I was happy to see Apple get on board rather than lump themselves in with the HD-DVD crowd because it could mean a better experience for the end user...whenever that is.

The question in my mind is where does the iPod go from here? Is the 1.8" 100 GB HDD on the way any time soon, or will the flash storage capacity catch up soon enough to take over? 54 GB for a Blu-ray disc is about 6x bigger than my iTunes library, it would be cool for Apple to implement this technology in a portable solution (larger touchscreen iPod Pro with BD drive?).

treblah

Apr 25, 2006, 01:10 PM

I'm gonna call this rumor highly unlikely.

No way is the MPAA gonna include easily shared content on their discs; it would totally defeat the Advanced Access Content Sytem (AACS) the studios have been developing.

The discs would need to include some sort of random serial number on each disc/package that would then be used by an included program (or iTunes) to DRM'ize the video to your account. Imagine Windows style activation in order to watch/transfer the videos. Sounds like a crap solution to me.

EDIT: On second though, maybe Apple would use the supposed TPM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computing_Group) in Intel macs to secure the content. Now wouldn't that give the anti-DRM league some panic attacks.

dongmin

Apr 25, 2006, 01:18 PM

so if i get this right, you can't rip these dics like you can now with DVDs but iTunes will be able to rip iPod-ready files??? what about windows media files?

oliverlubin

Apr 25, 2006, 01:22 PM

no way in hell. unless there is some way to lock down the portable formatted file, it's not going to happen. blockbuster and netflix would basically be giving away unprotected copies of every single movie they rented.

not going to happen without SOME form of DRM. not that i want that but dont get all giddy in anticipation of this actually happening in a way that's as unlimited as we might hope.

jaw04005

Apr 25, 2006, 01:36 PM

I was happy to see Apple get on board rather than lump themselves in with the HD-DVD crowd because it could mean a better experience for the end user...whenever that is.

Apple is also a member of the DVD forum (that controls HD-DVD). Apple is actively particpating in both sides of the HD on DVD battle.

dr_lha

Apr 25, 2006, 02:20 PM

Not too sure about Blu-Ray since it's kinda similar to BetaMax.
In what way? BetaMax failed mainly because the tapes has too small a capacity compared to VHS, but the quality of the video was basically the same as VHS, so in essense it was worse. Anybody tells you anything else is believing an urban myth, or backed the wrong horse in the early 80s.

Blu-Ray *IS* better and has larger capacity than HD-DVD. Its just a case of whether getting to the market first counts (BTW - I believe Betamax was on the market first).

joebells

Apr 25, 2006, 02:55 PM

Yeah blu-ray is 50 gigs compared to 35 for hd-dvd(numbers might be off a gig or two).

What hd-dvd has going for it is cost to manufacture. The existing regular dvd pressing plants require little modification to make new hd-dvd disks. Blu-ray requires almost new lines and so the cost is greater at least for now. I also believe that hd-dvd is backwards compatible and blu-ray will require the inclusion of a second laser to be backwards compatible so not all players will be.

Blu-ray players will be coming fairly soon they won't wait for the ps3.

treblah

Apr 25, 2006, 03:06 PM

Apple is also a member of the DVD forum (that controls HD-DVD). Apple is actively particpating in both sides of the HD on DVD battle.

While it is true that Apple is a member of the DVD Forum, it is not on the steering committee i.e., the companies that make the real decisions.

But Apple is a member of the Blu-Ray Association Board of Directors.

While I have no doubt Apple may swing to HD-DVD if it wins, they are backing BR for the time being.

Thataboy

Apr 25, 2006, 03:52 PM

RidleyGriff

Apr 25, 2006, 05:18 PM

This makes total sense, and doesn't flam with the studio's and MPAA's insistence on AACS, either.

The whole point of AACS is to prevent the easy duplication of <i>high definition</i> content in the digital realm; even with full HDCP implemented, you can still pull an old fashioned Standard Def 480i signal out of any of these next gen hi-def players.

What they're talking about is letting you, with ease, get an ipod (or upcoming iPod Video) resolution file on the disc. This is not the piracy threat they're worried about, because as we all know, nobody's going to watch those small res files on their flat panel 42" TV; that's what the original blu-ray disc is for in the first place.

With regard to DRM, i'm sure the way you'd pull the file off the disc would be directly through iTunes, so any DRM'ing could happen at that stage....

This is very exciting.

dongmin

Apr 25, 2006, 06:14 PM

Can someone please explain to me why ANYONE is looking forward to Blu Ray or HDDVD? Is the supposed "amazing" resolution really worth the price and encryption hassles?

I'll stick with plain DVDs, thanks.You could've asked the same thing about VHS vs. DVD. It wasn't too long ago that DVD players were expensive playthings of videophiles with money.

Seeing how consumers are snatching up HDTVs in droves, I imagine HD-DVD/Blue-Ray adoption will be pretty fast. The main thing that'll hold up the adoption is that there is no clear winner yet--we prolly won't know for a few years.

bugfaceuk

Apr 25, 2006, 06:25 PM

Can someone please explain to me why ANYONE is looking forward to Blu Ray or HDDVD? Is the supposed "amazing" resolution really worth the price and encryption hassles?

I'll stick with plain DVDs, thanks.

Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Both formats will alllow you to watch movies you already have on a disc, on a disc. Except you may have to buy a new television to see the higher quality.

Bet you wonder why you asked now, don't you?

bugfaceuk

Apr 25, 2006, 06:36 PM

reyesmac

Apr 25, 2006, 06:48 PM

If by content they mean the whole movie in iPod format then I am all for it. The only thing I would want on a true video iPod is movies, shows, & videos. Not incomplete extras with commercials.

shamino

Apr 25, 2006, 06:52 PM

Considering that you can put DVD-ROM content on any DVD or BD, it seems perfectly doable to have the BD-ROM content be files for iPod.
Of course. Any data disc can store any kind of file you want. Video DVDs, after all, are just data DVD-ROMs with movie-containing files in the VIDEO_TS folder. It's my understanding that something similar will be used for HD-DVD and BD as well, so the ability to have iPod-compatible content is a no-brainer.

The real question is if the content providers are willing or not. An iPod plays standard MPEG-4 video content (either the orignal MP4 format or H.264), with or without FairPlay DRM, as long as the resolution is compatible.

I would assume that discs won't come with FairPlay, since that really requires the encryption to be tied to an AppleID, which clearly can't be encoded onto a disc. Unprotected is possible, but no movie studio is going to publish a movie in an unprotected format. Still, they might choose to release some of the bonus materials in this format.
BTW, is Blu-Ray totally dependent on the (often-postponed) PS3 release date? Or with PS3 delayed, is there hope of seeing Blu-Ray arrive ahead of PS3?
Actually, the dependency is the other way around. The PS3 is (supposedly) ready to go, but it was delayed because the content providers have not yet reached consensus on the DRM BD movies will be required to use.

It is definitely possible for BD to come out first, but I would consider it unlikely, because Sony will certainly want to ship the PS3 as soon as the lawyers tell them it's OK.

(Personally, I still don't understand the delay. I'd have shipped the PS3 without movie-playback capability, and offer a firmware update to provide this feature when the the DRM standard finally gets nailed down. But nobody from Sony ever asked my opinion :) )
Blu-Ray is so much better than HD-DVD, I'd hate to lose it just because a game console is late.
The PS3's delay may be what kills BD (since it is expected to cost much less than standalone BD video players), but it's because of delays in the BD standardization process, not the PS3 itself that are causing the PS3 delay.

Unless, of course, Sony is lying. Which I haven't seen any evidence of, but wouldn't surprise me either.

shamino

Apr 25, 2006, 07:04 PM

In what way? BetaMax failed mainly because the tapes has too small a capacity compared to VHS, but the quality of the video was basically the same as VHS, so in essense it was worse. Anybody tells you anything else is believing an urban myth, or backed the wrong horse in the early 80s.
It's not quite that simple.

Technologically, Beta was definitely superior. It had, for instance, a flying-erase head, allowing for seamless edits. VHS never supported this (although sVHS does.) It's not coincidence that professional video applications use BetaCam, which is a direct descendant of BetaMax.

The biggest reason BetaMax died was mostly because it was a proprietary Sony standard, and Sony would not license it for a reasonable price. (This, BTW, is also what killed the MicroChannel bus IBM invented for its PS/2 systems.)

BD isn't in the same situation. It's not a Sony-only product, but is being developed by several different manufacturers (albeit without the DVD Forum's support.) If they are smart with their licensing, and don't slip the release too badly, they have every chance of becoming commonplace.

It's worth noting that this has already happened with recordable DVDs. DVD-RAM was the first to market, but is hardly popular (although many video DVD recorders do support the format.) The DVD Forum only supports DVD-R and DVD-RW. A consortium of vendors headed by Sony (sounds familiar?) developed DVD+R and DVD+RW, and shipped it after the other formats had already been deployed, but these formats nevertheless managed to achieve popularity equal to (or perhaps greater than) the -R/-RW formats.

In other words, I don't think we can draw any conclusions about where BD is going to end up. It could get marginalized into oblivion, or it could take over. History is full of examples that can be used to legitimately predict either outcome.

shamino

Apr 25, 2006, 07:23 PM

Yeah blu-ray is 50 gigs compared to 35 for hd-dvd(numbers might be off a gig or two).
Better than this. BD is 25G per layer. 2-layer discs (50G capacity) will be supported immediately. 4-layer discs (100G capacity) have been demonstrated. The developers claim that 8-layer discs (200G capacity) should also be possible.

HD-DVD is 15G per layer. 2-layer discs (30G capacity) will be supported immediately. 3-layer discs (45G) have been demonstrated. No word about higher capacities.
What hd-dvd has going for it is cost to manufacture. The existing regular dvd pressing plants require little modification to make new hd-dvd disks. Blu-ray requires almost new lines and so the cost is greater at least for now.
The DVD Forum (sponsors of HD-DVD) have been saying this. The BD supporters are saying that although it will require new equipment purchases, the costs will be quickly made up, given the massive quantities that studios publish movies in. Overall, I don't think the actual cost to consumers will be any different.
I also believe that hd-dvd is backwards compatible and blu-ray will require the inclusion of a second laser to be backwards compatible so not all players will be.
They said the same thing about DVD being backward compatible with CD. But dual-laser drives became available almost immediately, regardless. (Has anyone here seen a DVD player incapable of playing audio CDs? I never did.)

I'm certain we'll see the same thing with HD-DVD and BD. Consumer players will almost certainly be able to read/play existing CD and DVD media. Any device that doesn't won't sell.

joebells

Apr 25, 2006, 07:29 PM

shamino that last post was correct and I'm not attackign you but I believe the ps3 comments were wrong. General concensus from what I've been reading is that the ps3 is still in the bug testing phase. They used the blu-ray delay as an excuse. Blu-ray will be launching pretty soon quite a while before the ps3. If blu-ray really was the problem then they could launch along side the other blu-ray players.

shamino

Apr 25, 2006, 07:30 PM

Can someone please explain to me why ANYONE is looking forward to Blu Ray or HDDVD? Is the supposed "amazing" resolution really worth the price and encryption hassles?
What hassles? Unless you plan on making copies of your discs, nobody will notice or care. Just like most consumers don't notice or care about the CSS encryption on existing DVDs.

Every licensed BD/HD-DVD player will have decryption tech. Every HD television sold in the last few years supports HDCP on its HDMI ports. And older TVs without HDCP will still be able to display analog HD (via the component video inputs.)

The only people who will be impacted by the copy protection will be the people who want to make copies.

As for me, I want BD (specifically 4-layer BD-RW) as a data storage device. Specifcially, as a backup device. Although they will be very expensive at first, I expect the prices to quickly drop, in much the same way the various recordable DVD formats have. Right now, I use a FireWire VXA-1 drive ($800 drive, $50 per 33G tape) for my backups. 4-layer BD-RW should end up costing much less than this after the initial year or two.

astral

Apr 25, 2006, 07:54 PM

And older TVs without HDCP will still be able to display analog HD (via the component video inputs.).

I'm not up to speed on this, but I remember reading awhile ago that the content providers wanted to limit this analog output to 480P, thus negating the advantages over DVD for people without HDCP.

thejadedmonkey

Apr 25, 2006, 07:57 PM

This would give me a reason to buy DVD's again- oh wait, the plot, acting, musical score, and directing would still suck. but I like the idea for the few (two) movies that I like.

Thataboy

Apr 25, 2006, 08:14 PM

I take it back :)

scotto07

Apr 25, 2006, 08:53 PM

this is the perfect work around to get legal, high quality content on an iPod without having to download a movie from the internet which can take a long time.

My Vote is yes

Freakk123

Apr 25, 2006, 09:56 PM

Well, you're wrong. You haven't seen Blu-Ray yet, they're not even out yet. Why judge when you don't see one yet? :P

BTW, I check HD-DVD at Best Buy and it looks nice. Not too sure about Blu-Ray since it's kinda similar to BetaMax. Also, I don't know people will go for PS3 since all games are going to be at least $70-$100. That's way too pricey plus too expensive. But that's me.

I don't know where you're getting $70-$100. Everything I've read (which is quite a significant amount - I get EGM, GamePro, GameInformer, and read 1up.com and IGN.com daily) indicates a $60 price spot for games. Sony isn't stupid, and they know people won't buy games at such a high price. Personally, I would love to see the PS3 fail horribly, because I'm somewhat of a Nintendo fanboy, but that being said, I'll probably get a PS3 because, first and foremost, I'm a gamer, and it will have games worth buying.

I guess I'm gonna be backing Blu-Ray because of the PS3 and (if memory serves) because apple's backing it.

Anyway, it'd be pretty sweet if Blu-Ray-ROM disks do have iPod Video content. That'd be even more incentive.

wmmk

Apr 25, 2006, 10:16 PM

suddenly, i have a very old feeling system that was purchased 3 months ago. yes, my mac mini has no intel processor for running intel only apps of the future, no HD or BR drive for watching those, and no HD monitor to watch tv on with an eyeTV 500 that i would want if i had a HD monitor.

anyway, ya don't need to be a computer geek to watch dvds on a iPod video
it's called mtr+handbrake;)

grockk

Apr 26, 2006, 12:14 AM

sony is the devil. I try to do everything in my power to avoid giving them money. especially after the whole root kit thing.

that said, HD DVD is supposedly much more robust and has been manufactured in a real plant. Blu Ray is still in the lab, and it sounds like they are having major problems scaling production.

HD DVD will win because it was first and it is more practical (and cheaper) than Blu-Ray.

areyouwishing

Apr 26, 2006, 12:22 AM

so, currently itunes wraps an aac file with DRM while downloading in order to tie it into your music store account.

A movie on a DVD that is iPod friendly with drm has 2 options...
1. dvd has unique serial, talks to itunes upon transfer, wraps file upon transfer from dvd, once transfered, the file can no longer be used or read by itunes from the dvd. itunes would then have to cross refrence the serial every time you stuck in a dvd to transfer, so they know if the song has been put into itunes before or not.

2. dvd is writable and itunes writes something on the dvd to make it only transfer the file once.

both are highly unlikely, i call this a sham... but the first option would be pretty cool.

Vaphoron

Apr 26, 2006, 12:24 AM

As much as I would love for this to be true I just don't see it happening. Unless there was a way to secure the files so people couldn't just load them onto other peoples iPods and computers. It would be so cool to save all that time converting videos on your own.

the future

Apr 26, 2006, 05:40 AM

Wow, there's a lot of misinformation here...

1. Whatever slight cost advantage HD DVD may have in producing their discs, it clearly doesn't show in the prices we're gonna pay. Again, go to amazon, you can buy a few HD DVDs already and pre-order a couple of Blu-ray movies. And they're all about 20 bucks, regardless of format.

2. Blu-ray is not "in the lab", the first players are released in june. Which also shows that the Blu-ray launch is not postponed until the PS3 hits.

3. Both Blu-ray and HD DVD use a blue laser. To be backwards compatible to DVD, both of them need a second, red laser. Every player will have this. HD DVD is not one bit more backwards compatible than Blu-ray.

4. Tha advantages of Blu-ray are: higher capacity for ROM (movie) discs and data storage, better Hollywood studio support (Sony, Disney and Fox are Blu-ray exclusive, Warner and Paramount support both and only Universal is HD DVD exclusive) and much more CE companies providing choice in the hardware area (Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, Samsung, Philips, Sharp and JVC for Blu-ray vs. just Toshiba for HD DVD; LG supports both formats).

ccool2ax

Apr 26, 2006, 09:20 AM

Wouldn't blu-ray already be iPod compatible? H.264 video is scalable down to 320x240 (or 640x480). In other news, I think when Apple released the 5g pod, the rumorfakers were trying to think of how they could still make video ipod mockups. So no, there's not a "real" vpod coming. They are just trying to milk the lst bits out of the Video iFake fad.

shompa

Apr 26, 2006, 09:23 AM

Can someone please explain to me why ANYONE is looking forward to Blu Ray or HDDVD? Is the supposed "amazing" resolution really worth the price and encryption hassles?

I'll stick with plain DVDs, thanks.

Well.
What resolution do you use on your computer?

DVD is something like 0.3 megapixel.

HD is 2 megapixel.

You have 8-10 times more resolution.

But movies has to be remastred to use 1920x1200 HD 1080P resolution.

MPEG2 / DVD is not a good format. Just look at all the squares on the screen.
The compression artifects is really bad.
(and most companies who makes DVD don't use the max bitrate to make the picture look good. You would be amazed how many movies is just arround 4 gig instead of the 9 gig it should be. They simply don't know what they are doing.)

DStaal

Apr 26, 2006, 10:49 AM

Personally, I'll skip the whole Blu-Ray/HD-DVD thing. Internet downloadable video is coming, and it'll be more convenent and useful than either. It'll be lower quality at the start, but that'll change if bandwidth keeps improving.

I'll skip the hype: without spending thousands of dollars it is irrelevent to me. Give me something that makes a difference for my average use, and I'll use it.

(L)

Apr 26, 2006, 12:16 PM

Well, it sounds like a smart move for Apple to recommend such things...plus, such DVD's could get a significant boost from the iPod, so this would be a two-way deal. But, I remain skeptical. The 6G is facing (possibly) highly secret technical difficulties, which would not easily allow for Apple to start persuading such a thing to occur. (Hey, go ahead and get all going for an unfinished product that won't be out for an indefinite amount of time, will you?)

Too early, is my call. Plus, I'm not so sure it'd go over so well (offering a easily copied or sent to iPod version of a movie in addition to the regular one sounds like a pain in the butt and a big leap away from copy protection and all that).

Bonte

Apr 26, 2006, 02:09 PM

Yea ok even if it means that it costs alot more to produce these than HD-DVD. I don't know about you , but I dont want to buy expensive media when a cheaper alternative nearly as good is right there.

Production cost of the disk itself takes up about 1-5 % of the retail price, it won't make a big difference. The system with the biggest production is going to be the cheapest so the current production cost isn't important. The popularity is important (PS3 will help) and future possibility's of the system.

Seems like the logic thing to do for Apple, if not i will rip in HD for sure. If they provide us with a low resolution for the iPod i probably won't do the effort of ripping it myself.

djlu

Apr 26, 2006, 02:58 PM

This rumor has now popped up on CNN on-line.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/26/technology/business2_browser0426/index.htm

Doug

Thanatoast

Apr 26, 2006, 03:32 PM

Does Sony sell a portable video-player? Would it want to compete with itself? Why give iPod a leg-up when they could include a version to fit their own player's needs? Complicated.

DStaal

Apr 26, 2006, 03:43 PM

Does Sony sell a portable video-player? Would it want to compete with itself? Why give iPod a leg-up when they could include a version to fit their own player's needs? Complicated.

They do: the PSP. They are trying to get PSP format disks included with DVDs.

Of course, most people don't think of the PSP as being a video player, and it hasn't sold that well... Also, doing this is not directly related to being able to support the PSP: The PSP can play iPod sized video, if you have it on a Memory Stick, and if you really want to support the PSP you should ship movies in UMD format. (UMD is the PSP's disk format.) Including the iPodable video would not stop you from including a UMD, if you wished.

shamino

Apr 26, 2006, 04:14 PM

I'm not up to speed on this, but I remember reading awhile ago that the content providers wanted to limit this analog output to 480P, thus negating the advantages over DVD for people without HDCP.
Yes and no.

Component video is capable of displaying full HD. But many HD chipsets don't have the capability of generating the signal. And the HDCP standard requires the chip to disable analog outputs when an HDCP-encoded signal is present.

But this doesn't necessarily mean people with older sets are completely SOL. Just like there are DVD player hacks for disabling region codes and Macrovision, I'm certain there will be HD player hacks for disabling HDCP. It's my understanding that there are already people selling HDCP-stripper boxes that can be installed on an HDMI connection, as well.

So, depending on how much work you want to do, owners of older HD monitors may still be able to show modern content. For those unable/unwilling to do this work, use of a modern display will be a hard requirement. If you're not sure about yours, contact the manufacturer - you might be surprised. (My Philips TV is 1.5 years old, and HDCP is not mentioned anywhere in the manual, but when I asked their customer support, they said it is supported.)

dongmin

Apr 26, 2006, 07:09 PM

Personally, I'll skip the whole Blu-Ray/HD-DVD thing. Internet downloadable video is coming, and it'll be more convenent and useful than either. It'll be lower quality at the start, but that'll change if bandwidth keeps improving.Then, you'll be waiting a LONG time. We've been stuck on 128kbps for downloadable music how long??? 1080p is gonna require a fat fat pipe to stream realtime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that HD is 19.3 Mbps. That kind of bandwidth is not gonna go mainstream anytime soon.

zv470

Apr 26, 2006, 08:45 PM

As long as the resolution isn't anything less than 720p.

DStaal

Apr 27, 2006, 10:03 AM

Then, you'll be waiting a LONG time. We've been stuck on 128kbps for downloadable music how long??? 1080p is gonna require a fat fat pipe to stream realtime. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read that HD is 19.3 Mbps. That kind of bandwidth is not gonna go mainstream anytime soon.

Where did I say anything about streaming? If I can download a full movie in a reasonable amount of time (overnight?) that's probably enough for me.

59031

Apr 30, 2006, 09:52 AM

Um no. Betamax was significantly HIGHER quality than VHS. If you believe anything else, you are a muppet.

I am not believing an urban myth, I was there, it was painfully clear what the difference was (and I was a geek so I knew the specs too).

Thank you, I was about to say the same thing. Beta was and STILL IS a superior format to VHS. dr_lha is seriously wrong here. This is why Beta is to this very day STILL the de facto half inch video tape standard in the broadcast video production world. Professional Videographers use Betacams. dr_lha obviously has no knowledge of video production or the technicalities of VHS vs. Beta. I was a huge video geek back in the day and have worked in Video Production up until a recent career switch and VHS stank then and it sill stinks now. Beta was also the innovater, developing the Beta-hifi audio format, when VHS lameley only had "VHS Stereo" (Dr_lha, please explain the difference between Beta-hifi and VHS Stereo, ie. how they were different and why one was dreadful and the other was awesome???)

Hey dr_lha, do you know the difference between U-Loading and M-Loading, and which format used which?????? Do you know which one produced superior picture quality and why???? Huh?? No??? Yeah, I didn't think so.....

shamino

Apr 30, 2006, 08:21 PM

Thank you, I was about to say the same thing. Beta was and STILL IS a superior format to VHS.
Considering that neither VHS nor Betamax has changed much since their introduction, that would stand to reason.
This is why Beta is to this very day STILL the de facto half inch video tape standard in the broadcast video production world. Professional Videographers use Betacams.
Betacam is not the same as Betamax. They use the same physical tapes, but the encodings are incompatible (Betacam uses a higher tape speed and records video as separate component signals.) As far as I know, Betamax was strictly a consumer product and was never used for studio work.

Today, I would expect studios to use a more modern Beta format (Digital Betacam, or HDCAM) or one of the DV variants (DV, DVCAM, DVCPRO). I'd be surprised if a modern studio used any any analog format (like Betacam) except for playing archival tapes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betacam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DV

dr_lha

May 1, 2006, 08:20 PM

Quoting from this page. Amusingly an anti-Mac page (which I don't endorse).

http://spl.haxial.net/mac-fanatics/

...They claim that Betamax was technically superior to VHS, but ultimately lost because of more aggressive marketing by the VHS companies. This is a myth. An Urban Legend.

Firstly, in terms of the image quality, when these formats were viewed on the average TV that existed at the time, the average person could not see the difference between VHS and Betamax.

The real problem for Betamax was that its cassettes could hold only 1 hour, not enough for a movie. When JVC produced VHS in 1976, its bigger cassettes could hold 2 hours, and this advantage of VHS was crucial in the demise of Betamax. Betamax tried to catch up, but at the same time VHS also extended, and VHS always had longer recording times. VHS won because it was better overall. Anyone that claims that Betamax was a victim of marketing apparently has not researched the issue.

There is also a related Urban Legend which claims that Betamax is what the professionals and TV/broadcasting industry use/used (this legend is used to demonstrate that Betamax is superior). You need only research this claim to discover that it is a blatantly false myth. BetaCAM is what the professionals use. Do not confuse Betacam with Betamax because they are quite different formats. The broadcasting industry would never use Betamax because the quality is too low.

Part of the confusion arises from the fact that Betacam tapes are identical in size to Betamax tapes and can be used in Betamax machines, but at this point that the similarity ends. Betacam is a high quality format based apon the component video standard, unlike Betamax. Betacam was launched by Sony in 1982, and is a successful format.

EDIT: I should note I had a Betamax player, and I honestly couldn't tell the difference between the picture quality of it and a VHS player. I am no muppet. ;)

59031

May 2, 2006, 11:34 AM

Quoting from this page. Amusingly an anti-Mac page (which I don't endorse).

http://spl.haxial.net/mac-fanatics/

EDIT: I should note I had a Betamax player, and I honestly couldn't tell the difference between the picture quality of it and a VHS player. I am no muppet. ;)

These people are so seriously wrong, and it's coming from an anti-mac site to boot? That should tell you something. I mean they're so full of crap their eyes are brown.