Toshiba To Stop HD DVD Player Production

[Flyer0815]

Ahhhh! And maybe future MBPs might...got it.

Exactly. When this might happen is anyones guess... But since HD-DVD is down for the count, it is more likely that it will happen sooner rather than later, once consumer and professional demand warrants it.

[Towhead]

This development is another portent to the coming irrelevance of Microsoft as a "major player". A few years ago, the mere fact that Microsoft was backing HD DVD would have doomed BD, but that was then.

Do not get me wrong, Microsoft is entering new arenas, its touch table is intriguing, but I think that their time as a Monopoly, simply, is in the past, and now they will have to compete along with everyone else, as equals.

The next major development? Nanotechnology. And I can't imagine why Microsoft isn't putting all its riches into it, instead of meaningless ventures as Yahoo (which, by the way, I have never used).

[Evangelion]

Other then credibility and a finalized format out of the gates? I guess not much. :rolleyes:

If HD-DVD was that "credible", why did it lose? I guess it wasn't that credible after all, huh? So what exactly did DVD-Forum bring to the table?

As to "finalized format".... that's more or less a non-issue anyway. There has been new version of the BD-spec, but those deal mostly with extras on the disc, not the actual movie. So at worst some early players might not have all the features in the extra-materials. Big deal. There are already profile 2.0-discs out there, even though for all intents and purposes there are no 2.0-compliant players out there, and those discs work fine in 1.1-compliant players.

[jhsfosho]

While I was an HD DVD supporter, I think its a good thing that there's one format. Though I would have rather had the customer decide instead of the studios and companies making behind the scenes deals, I also realize that would have taken much longer to decide on one format. Hopefully now bluray players will drop in price and we can all get our HDM on.

[Bastich]

you know what, i'm going to say what everyone else is thinking - yet i've never seen it mentioned before:

Blu-Ray has won (is winning?) the battle because it has a snappier name than HD-DVD

anyone with me on that one? HD-DVD is a really boring name, 'Blu-Ray' on the other hand is exciting, it's futuristic, as a consumer i get excited by exciting sounding products.

If you had no knowledge of any of the technical specs or the pros and cons of each (of which both have; blu-ray has some serious cons by the way) but you were in a shop and you had to decide between "Blu-Ray" or "HD-DVD" - which would you go for?

2 syllables vs 5 syllables?

Doubtful. Ask a non-technical person what "Blue Ray" is out of context, and they probably won't even know. Ask them what "HD-DVD" is, and they can at least hazard a guess.

Are you saying a disc format named "FWAM!" would then beat the others?


Just join Netflix. You can have them deliver the movie to your door when you feel like watching it.

No, you can have it days after you feel like watching it. If I'm in the mood for a specific movie, I want it now.


Blu-ray is the winner. It's over for HD DVD. :p :D

Thanks for coming out...

:cool:

[stephenli]

Lack of educated consumers is the saddest part.


Excuse me but It seems to me that you are trying to say that all ppl choosen Blu-ray were not educated?!

Why studios choose Blu-ray? Becasue more consumer buy Blu-ray Disc instead. Take a look at the sales of titles that have both format in the market, which one sell more?

I am not an AV mania. I don't realise (an I don't care) the difference betweem quality difference BD and HD-DVD. I just wish the format war to end as soon as possible so that I can purchase HD movies.

I got PS3 at day one, and not getting a single BD movie until now.
Its great that I could start buying BD disc.

[Bastich]

The next major development? Nanotechnology. And I can't imagine why Microsoft isn't putting all its riches into it, instead of meaningless ventures as Yahoo (which, by the way, I have never used).

Because they don't manufacture storage media?

:cool:

[zentraedi]

Cool feature is that AVCHD video cameras can output AVC files via a dedicated DVD burner playable on a Blu-Ray player. Also, I use SD flash via PS3 and a Panasonic DMP-BD30K right out of the camera. Big problem is lack of AVCHD output from apple video apps; yet another reason for waiting for a Blu-Ray burner BTO.

Too bad you need a PC to do this!

Come on, why is this thread even on Mac Rumors? We all know Apple does not want to support Blu-Ray, especially having it competing against their movie download store.

I just feel sorry for those who were tricked by jobs into assuming since iMovieHD supports HD cameras, they'd be able to make HD discs playable in setup players.

[eetu]

i just hope that when war is over they will remove that terrible blue strip on top of the movie artwork on the blu ray cases.

[fluidedge]

why? - it clearly defines the product, stops people buying it buy mistake and is clearly recognizable by people who are looking for them.

[JesterJJZ]

i just hope that when war is over they will remove that terrible blue strip on top of the movie artwork on the blu ray cases.

Amen.

[JesterJJZ]

why? - it clearly defines the product, stops people buying it buy mistake and is clearly recognizable by people who are looking for them.

Because the blue plastic looks cheap and horrible not to mention doesn't go with every movie cover. Needs to be something that goes with everything. It's a different type of case, that's good enough. If you have to put another color in there make it something more universal like grey or silver. Heck, I'll take a white case over that blue crap.

[nubero]

Why are region codes so bad? …

Because it means you can't buy your media from where you want it. A region unlock in a BluRay device seems quite a bit harder if not impossible than in a DVD player.

Me I'm behind Bluray but the region code things bugs me quite a bit. It means I won't be able to buy Crietrion releases should they decide to sell their stuff locked.

So next time you ask that question try to think of other people in other parts of the world too, 'kay?

[diamond.g]

While it's nice to see Microsoft's wmv plans take a hit with the end of HD-DVD, I don't understand all the clamor for Blu-Ray support.
VC-1 (a derivitaive of WMV) is a codec BD can use as well.

If HD-DVD was that "credible", why did it lose? I guess it wasn't that credible after all, huh? So what exactly did DVD-Forum bring to the table?

There are already profile 2.0-discs out there, even though for all intents and purposes there are no 2.0-compliant players out there, and those discs work fine in 1.1-compliant players. HD-DVD did so poorly because of 3 letters P S 3. It is the cheapest full spec player. Pretty much all the studios were told that BD would win because the PS3 would have such a large market share. If you look at the number of BD players out, it does. As far as the profile 2.0 thing, what disc is a 2.0 disc? That seems like poor form to release a disc with features no one can use.

[Macmel]

I think some people are a little confused about what monopoly means:
They say it is bad to have only one format because that monopolistic or because that's going to increase the prices due to lack of competition.
Well, I quite think it is the opposite...

The battle was ABOUT THE FORMAT, not ABOUT THE BRAND. Someone mentioned the airlines getting together to control the market. It is not similar to what happened here. Actually, the similarity would be choosing the same format for their planes (WHICH THEY DID: elongated body, two wings, etc).

Monopoly would refer to only one brand making BD discs. Now that the war is over, all tech companies are going to start to adapt to BD and by the end of the year dozens of companies are going to be offering BD discs and players. THAT IS COMPETITION and that's what is going to reduce the prices. Same thing happened when CD or DVD were adopted. Monopoly would mean, again, that ONLY Sony would make BD products and control the market by that. But as long as other brands make them too, there's going to be fierce competition as it happened in the past with every other tech product.

On a different topic, do you really think that the lack of region codes or DRM in HD-DVD would last. Those are not disc features, but content related features that media companies want included no matter the format. It would have been a question of time...

[TMay]

Ummm wow. That is known as spin. So you are telling me that people who dropped at minimum of $300, and realistically more like $400 on a BR player won't be able to use all its features, and no one is going to care? Wow. What is the color of the sky in your world? Pink? Brown? Purple? Because here in the real world companies finish a spec for a product before they launch it.
Watch for the class action lawsuits against the various companies as this hits the fan. Mark my words right now...someone is going to get sued.



Other then credibility and a finalized format out of the gates? I guess not much. :rolleyes:

Actually, there were lots of people early on that paid quite a bit more for players, each of which will as I said, play Blu-Ray disks fine. According to one estimate that I have read, 85 percent of Blu-Ray capable players will be able to be updated to v2.0. Those would be the PS3's. The rest have a choice of selling and buying v2.0 compatible players, or living without PIP and interactivity. Life on the bleeding edge does not a class action make.

Meanwhile, a couple of million HD-DVD players with the supply of content drying up would appear to call for a class action suit against the DVD-Forum, don't you think?

[TMay]

Too bad you need a PC to do this!

Come on, why is this thread even on Mac Rumors? We all know Apple does not want to support Blu-Ray, especially having it competing against their movie download store.

I just feel sorry for those who were tricked by jobs into assuming since iMovieHD supports HD cameras, they'd be able to make HD discs playable in setup players.

Very true, and as the hardware requirements are steep, I'm not able to accomplish this on Pentium hardware with PC apps either.

So, SD for me until Apple supports AVC output, which probably will arrive with Blu-Ray burners once Apple establishes HD downloads.

It sucks, but there it is.

[fluidedge]

imovie HD can edit HD footage which can then be exported as a 1920x1080 AVI (.mov ~ whatever) that can then be used on a website, or played on a high def monitor. It can be moved on to Apple TV and played in HD there.

There was never any con or promises about burning the file to BluRay etc

[Evangelion]

HD-DVD did so poorly because of 3 letters P S 3. It is the cheapest full spec player.

There were cheaper HD-DVD-players out there than what PS3 cost.

Pretty much all the studios were told that BD would win because the PS3 would have such a large market share. If you look at the number of BD players out, it does. As far as the profile 2.0 thing, what disc is a 2.0 disc? That seems like poor form to release a disc with features no one can use.

I would guess that the studios can figure out what format is going to win and what isn't. And fact is that BD was outselling HD both in content and players. In the latter part, BD-players outsold HD-players even if we disregard PS3.

As to 2.0... It refers to the version of the specification. Currently BD-discs and players are version 1.1-compliant, with 2.0-compliant version becoming available later today (PS3 will just need a software update though). But that doesn't mean that existing players and/or discs become obsolete. 2.0 just deals with extras and their features.

There are few 2.0-spec discs out there, and while there are no player that can take advantage of the extra features at this moment, in few months time there will be. IF you have a 1.1 player that can't be upgraded to 2.0, there's no need for alarm, 2.0 doesn't bring any "must-have" features with it.

[diamond.g]

There were cheaper HD-DVD-players out there than what PS3 cost.

I would guess that the studios can figure out what format is going to win and what isn't. And fact is that BD was outselling HD both in content and players. In the latter part, BD-players outsold HD-players even if we disregard PS3.

Based on my understanding of the "war" BD really didn't take off until after the PS3 became available. HD DVD was winning. On AVSforum I seem to recall BD supporters saying wait for the PS3. I thought BD players started outselling HD players about halfway through the 2007 year, mainly due to the BOGO's.

As to 2.0... It refers to the version of the specification. Currently BD-discs and players are version 1.1-compliant, with 2.0-compliant version becoming available later today (PS3 will just need a software update though). But that doesn't mean that existing players and/or discs become obsolete. 2.0 just deals with extras and their features.

There are few 2.0-spec discs out there, and while there are no player that can take advantage of the extra features at this moment, in few months time there will be. IF you have a 1.1 player that can't be upgraded to 2.0, there's no need for alarm, 2.0 doesn't bring any "must-have" features with it.

I know what 2.0 refers to. I was asking what disc were 2.0 compliant discs. That is why I said it would seem to be poor form to make a disc no one can take full advantage of.

[Evangelion]

Meanwhile, a couple of million HD-DVD players with the supply of content drying up would appear to call for a class action suit against the DVD-Forum, don't you think?

Um, no. First of all, DVD-Forum is not responsible for manufacturing players or releasing content for the format. Second: If you really think that this calls for a lawsuit, then by that same logic you should sue Nintendo because they do not provide any content for Nintendo 64 anymore. Or Micrsofot for not providing any content to Xbox. Or Sony for not providing content for PS1. Or Apple because they no longer support OS9. The list goes on....

Besides, those players can play back DVD's from here to eternity. I bet that DVD still has about 5 years of life left in it.

In short: it sucks to be an early-adopter on the losing side! But that's the chance you take.

[TMay]

Um, no. First of all, DVD-Forum is not responsible for manufacturing players or releasing content for the format. Second: If you really think that this calls for a lawsuit, then by that same logic you should sue Nintendo because they do not provide any content for Nintendo 64 anymore. Or Micrsofot for not providing any content to Xbox. Or Sony for not providing content for PS1. Or Apple because they no longer support OS9. The list goes on....

Besides, those players can play back DVD's from here to eternity. I bet that DVD still has about 5 years of life left in it.

In short: it sucks to be an early-adopter on the losing side! But that's the chance you take.

Mine was a rhetorical point as was yours. Either none of this is class actionable, or all of it is. Its the nature of technological obsolescence and evolving standards.

[Evangelion]

Based on my understanding of the "war" BD really didn't take off until after the PS3 became available. HD DVD was winning.

Well, PS3 was one of the first BD-players available. There was some other player available few months earlier, but it had a price-tag of over 1000 bucks. When PS3 was released it was the cheapest BD-player out there (and I think it still is), but IIRC HD-DVD was a bit cheaper still.

Of course HD-DVD was winning at first, for the sole reason that it was released earlier. They had players and (some) content out there, whereas BD was not yet available. So of course it was outselling BD.

I know what 2.0 refers to. I was asking what disc were 2.0 compliant discs. That is why I said it would seem to be poor form to make a disc no one can take full advantage of.

So, do you think that they should release 1.1 spec discs now, and 6 months later release 2.0-spec discs? Um, why? What benefit would that give?

What benefit would releasing 2.0-spec disc now give? Simple: when 2.0-players become available, those discs are ready to take advantage of the additional features. Maybe they want to design the disc and it's contents once, as opposed to first designing 1.1-compliant disc, and then designing 2.0-compliant disc?

As to what discs are 2.0-compliant at this moment.... Wikipedia sez: "War" and "Saw IV".

[mkjj]

We all know Apple does not want to support Blu-Ray, especially having it competing against their movie download store.

I just received my Disney Annual Report which features a lot of Blu-Ray stuff and a nice pic of Steve J (with hair!). Wonder what he has to say about BR when sitting on the Disney Board???:rolleyes:

[iStefmac]

I don't like this one bit. I do not understand why both cannot continue to exist.

[diamond.g]

Well, PS3 was one of the first BD-players available. There was some other player available few months earlier, but it had a price-tag of over 1000 bucks. When PS3 was released it was the cheapest BD-player out there (and I think it still is), but IIRC HD-DVD was a bit cheaper still.

Of course HD-DVD was winning at first, for the sole reason that it was released earlier. They had players and (some) content out there, whereas BD was not yet available. So of course it was outselling BD.

BD players were on sale 6 months before the PS3 showed up. And for 8 months (cause HD DVD came out a couple months earlier) HD DVD was leading.

So, do you think that they should release 1.1 spec discs now, and 6 months later release 2.0-spec discs? Um, why? What benefit would that give?

What benefit would releasing 2.0-spec disc now give? Simple: when 2.0-players become available, those discs are ready to take advantage of the additional features. Maybe they want to design the disc and it's contents once, as opposed to first designing 1.1-compliant disc, and then designing 2.0-compliant disc?

As to what discs are 2.0-compliant at this moment.... Wikipedia sez: "War" and "Saw IV". Doubledipping for the win!!! I am suprised they aren't taking advantage of all the normal folks. You know extended version, directors cut, super extended unrated directors cut, etc. Interesting on what movies are 2.0 discs.

[Scharke]

I'm a video producer and i have always worked on Mac and Final Cut Pro, but if Apple does not announce support for creating Blu-Ray discs now, I will abandon Apple and do my production on PC with Canopus. They have had Blu-Ray production for a year now and I've stayed loyal while Apple drage it's feet, but I've had it. It's absolutely ridiculous that Apple has such market share in video production and gives us no way to deliver HD content. Forget it, make an announcement in the next week and give me a DVD Studio Pro update in the next month or I give up. And I'll sell the rest of my AAPL stock.

Apple is dead in the water very soon if they don't move on this news.

[fluidedge]

I'm a video producer and i have always worked on Mac and Final Cut Pro, but if Apple does not announce support for creating Blu-Ray discs now, I will abandon Apple and do my production on PC with Canopus. They have had Blu-Ray production for a year now and I've stayed loyal while Apple drage it's feet, but I've had it. It's absolutely ridiculous that Apple has such market share in video production and gives us no way to deliver HD content. Forget it, make an announcement in the next week and give me a DVD Studio Pro update in the next month or I give up. And I'll sell the rest of my AAPL stock.

Apple is dead in the water very soon if they don't move on this news.

You can't have been producing video for very long then if you've only ever used FCP.

Apple is far from dead in the water, pro apps are making a less and less important contribution to Apples revenues and as such they are focusing efforts elsewhere *at the moment* - as soon as there is an update to be made, I'm sure they will make one. But without the team of people working on it full time, an update to DVDSP is not going to come around every few months.

BluRay will come to the mac one day, i'll admit, i'd expected to have seen something by now, but there is NAB coming up (which Apple staff have been reportedly saying that they'll be there for the 10 days in some capacity ;)) and the FCP supermeet where again apple will be in attendance in some form.

I suggest you calm down, the problem is being worked!

If you really want to go to a PC based system (Avid?) and reinvest in hardware and software all over again, be my guest.

By the way, why are you so anxious to produce BD content? Can you guarantee everyone you hand a BD disc has some way of playing it at the moment? I've got no way of playing BD and i know many others haven't either

[Tosser]

You can't have been producing video for very long then if you've only ever used FCP.

Apple is far from dead in the water, pro apps are making a less and less important contribution to Apples revenues and as such they are focusing efforts elsewhere *at the moment* - as soon as there is an update to be made, I'm sure they will make one. But without the team of people working on it full time, an update to DVDSP is not going to come around every few months.

That seems like the perfect reason to move on to another platform as quickly as possible, frankly.


I suggest you calm down, the problem is being worked!

You just argued the opposite.


If you really want to go to a PC based system (Avid?) and reinvest in hardware and software all over again, be my guest.

There are other "systems" than avid, you know.


By the way, why are you so anxious to produce BD content? Can you guarantee everyone you hand a BD disc has some way of playing it at the moment? I've got no way of playing BD and i know many others haven't either

No, he propably can't. But then again, I can't promise that each and everyone can play a wav file on their portable players – especially one that is, say, 24bit/48kHz. Does that mean I should only be able to edit and save in MP3s? :rolleyes:

[Spanners]

Err.. Have I missed something?

You'd think these "Video producers" use Mac Pro's? If so then why don't you just sling in a BD-Writer in one of the spare 5.25 slots and produce your content?

:confused:

[chillywilly]

As others have already said, I'm hoping this eventual decision by Toshiba to pull the plug will have Apple adding Blu-Ray drives to at least the Mac Pro line.

[Tosser]

Err.. Have I missed something?

You'd think these "Video producers" use Mac Pro's? If so then why don't you just sling in a BD-Writer in one of the spare 5.25 slots and produce your content?

:confused:

Apparently it's the software that doesn't support it. It's not just a matter of plugging in a BR-burner. And from what I can gather, Roxio supports Bluray – unfortunately only the data-format. So, even if you did throw in a BR-burner, you couldn't use it with FCP.

[fluidedge]

That seems like the perfect reason to move on to another platform as quickly as possible, frankly.

You just argued the opposite.

There are other "systems" than avid, you know.

No, he propably can't. But then again, I can't promise that each and everyone can play a wav file on their portable players – especially one that is, say, 24bit/48kHz. Does that mean I should only be able to edit and save in MP3s? :rolleyes:

If you've got the time and money to move to another system, learn another system more importantly - then go for it!

of course i "know" there are other platforms - i was asking if this is perhaps the the choice after moving platform. It is about the most popular for serious Vid editors. You could always go with Vegas instead! :eek:

WAV is a digital file format, if you can't play it on your music player, you can be damn sure that in 5 minutes of being on any computer you'll be able to download something that will let you play it. Solid media like BD on the other hand needs special hardware to play that at the moment is expensive (as is the actual BD-R disc)

PS - you need to read up on your steve jobs quotes

[chillywilly]

Apparently it's the software that doesn't support it. It's not just a matter of plugging in a BR-burner. And from what I can gather, Roxio supports Bluray – unfortunately only the data-format. So, even if you did throw in a BR-burner, you couldn't use it with FCP.

This is correct. Over on the DVInfo forums, this is an issue with people doing HD production. They have to do all of the pre-production in FCP, then move it all over to Vegas (a Sony app) on the PC to make a Blu-Ray disc.

Hoping to see a DVDS4 update that will support mastering the Blu-Ray on the Mac someday.

[fluidedge]

Apparently it's the software that doesn't support it. It's not just a matter of plugging in a BR-burner. And from what I can gather, Roxio supports Bluray – unfortunately only the data-format. So, even if you did throw in a BR-burner, you couldn't use it with FCP.

You can work around it - someone managed to burn media with Adobe Premiere, though it was a royal pain in the ass - if you *really* need to be producing BD content, you'll have found a way of doing by now rather than moaning about apple not providing you with the tools

[saltyzoo]

Prices always drop so price is never really an issue.

Maybe I don't understand your point, but that's pretty funny. If one thing is more expensive than another and they both drop in price.....

[Scharke]

You can't have been producing video for very long then if you've only ever used FCP.

By the way, why are you so anxious to produce BD content? Can you guarantee everyone you hand a BD disc has some way of playing it at the moment? I've got no way of playing BD and i know many others haven't either

I make wedding videos and the majority of my clients are concerned with HD. Usually it's the groom that is most interested and this is great, I can use the technology hook on the groom now like never before, and if he's into it too, I make the sale, and for more money. Everyone wants their wedding captured in the highest quality and in the past several months I'm getting more couples with either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. If they don't have it now, many plan on getting something soon. Many have it on their gift registry. I'm getting so discouraged having to say no I can't give it to you in HD but I can shoot it in HD. I lose business to the PC-based producers who can deliver in Blu-Ray. I've seen huge movement in my customers in the past year. Almost everyone is aware of HD disc players and it's a factor whether they currently have one or not.

Maybe Pro Apps are not a big revenue source, but the Mac-only FCP drives huge hardware sales. Unless they drop the ball on HD delivery. Then I'll be dropping huge money on a whole new system.

Actually, I'm dead in the water without HD delivery, not Apple (let me rephrase that :)

[MyJelleo]

I hate it when people lie to me. Some guy a few weeks ago was adamant that the war was still going strong, and that he read a bunch of articles about it.

I hope he enjoys lying when he's burning in hell.

[Tosser]

If you've got the time and money to move to another system, learn another system more importantly - then go for it!

Hmm, so you're suggesting, that one should wait around for a year, still without support, use a product that aren't really fully featured, all because it's a bitch to switch platforms?

The thing is, a pro – any pro – care more about the end result (and in this case, there can be no BR end result), than they care about platforms. Of course it will cost money to switch platforms, but it's about timing. If you time it, the hardware wont cost more (as you will need to buy new hardware once in a while), and the "learn another system" is really a non-argument. I don't know any audio guy or video ditto who doesn't keep track of what's out there, and is pretty fluent on windows as wells as macs (when they use a mac, that is).

Further, it's not that difficult to learn a new video or audio app, when you know what you're doing, and have done it for a while.

Then you go on, and ask to me read a bit more, when I told you you argued the opposite. But you did, even if you aren't aware of it.
You argued that Apple has shifted focus, and that that shift of focus meant that the pro-support were toned down. And you argued that because of Apple moving people from the pro support to other places, that people should just wait. That is an argument for moving along: No pro-support, unless the people have the time for it, between working on iPhone and the Touch.



of course i "know" there are other platforms - i was asking if this is perhaps the the choice after moving platform. It is about the most popular for serious Vid editors. You could always go with Vegas instead! :eek:

No, you inferred, that the "othe choice" out there was going with Avid and buying hardware for it.


WAV is a digital file format, if you can't play it on your music player, you can be damn sure that in 5 minutes of being on any computer you'll be able to download something that will let you play it. Solid media like BD on the other hand needs special hardware to play that at the moment is expensive (as is the actual BD-R disc)

Haha, what a joke. You do realise the difference between wav and aif, right? Let me give you a clue: Little endian/big endian. And on a CD, funnily enough, the tracks are aif-files. Now, anyone can author a CD on basically any computer, and they sure can download something for it immediately (to play on the comp), but what you don't seem to get, is that it's FCP that doesn't allow authoring of a BR-disc. Hence the analogy and the reason why your argument that because not everyone can play, it perfectly fine for a pro app not to support certain features. Video and audio pros use non-consumer bit rates and sample rates all the times, not to mention non-consumer formats. Do you get it now?


PS - you need to read up on your steve jobs quotes

Why? Where did I quote Steve Jobs?

[Tosser]

You can work around it - someone managed to burn media with Adobe Premiere, though it was a royal pain in the ass - if you *really* need to be producing BD content, you'll have found a way of doing by now rather than moaning about apple not providing you with the tools

Oh, haha, it gets better and better. Now you're suggesting, that because there is a workaround, that by your own admission is a "royal pain in the ass", people should just use that, instead of having the feature built into a pro app :rolleyes:

[gkarris]

I don't know how this turned into from Toshiba stopping HD DVD production to abandoning Apple because it doesn't have Blu-ray production in its Macs.

I think after the Toshiba announcment, Apple should have Blu-ray production in its Mac Pros by the end of this month...

[diamond.g]

I think after the Toshiba announcment, Apple should have Blu-ray production in its Mac Pros by the end of this month...
I don't get this comment. Apple has supported making HD DVD's since FCS 2 was released. How could they not make a Blu-ray version by now?

[gkarris]

I don't get this comment. Apple has supported making HD DVD's since FCS 2 was released. How could they not make a Blu-ray version by now?

They have to wait until the Blu-ray group has settled all the profile specs... obviously.. (HD DVD profile specs were settled a long time ago).

[fluidedge]

I hate it when people lie to me. Some guy a few weeks ago was adamant that the war was still going strong, and that he read a bunch of articles about it.

I hope he enjoys lying when he's burning in hell.

:confused::confused::confused:

you know what i'd hate? to get on the wrong side of you!

[saltyzoo]

I don't know how this turned into from Toshiba stopping HD DVD production to abandoning Apple because it doesn't have Blu-ray production in its Macs.

I think after the Toshiba announcment, Apple should have Blu-ray production in its Mac Pros by the end of this month...

I agree this SHOULD happen. I have a bad feeling however that it won't be happening.

[fluidedge]

No, you inferred, that the "othe choice" out there was going with Avid and buying hardware for it.

The strategic placement of a "?" by me - 'infers' i was asking a question.

[fluidedge]

I hate it when people lie to me. Some guy a few weeks ago was adamant that the war was still going strong, and that he read a bunch of articles about it.

I hope he enjoys lying when he's burning in hell.

someone's just bought a HD-DVD player...

[TMay]

I don't get this comment. Apple has supported making HD DVD's since FCS 2 was released. How could they not make a Blu-ray version by now?

Pretty sure that the problem is that Blu-Ray Authoring requires BD-Java. It came out later than HD-DVD's HDi and, at least from reading, is more difficult to master. I don't doubt that Apple is working on it for both iDVD and DVD Studio, but I also haven't a clue on its release.

Based on Apple's track record for Pro Applications, it will be late, and probably very robust. Biggest problem for Apple is that there is so much product synergy, that Blu-Ray drives, HDCP compliant Cinema Displays, Pro Applications and Pro Application support in Leopard really need to arrive simultaneously.

Aperture 2.0 is a striking example of this.

[SactoGuy18]

Now that we don't have to worry about current Blu-ray specifications and no more competition from HD-DVD, I expect Apple to have ready some time later this year new versions of iMovie and Final Cut Pro that can master Blu-ray discs, along with offering Blu-ray burners on their Mac Pro tower computer line. It would certainly go a long way in making more Blu-ray discs available, since now you can create a "master" on a Mac Pro instead of a high five-figure UNIX workstation. :)

[megfilmworks]

IMHO, Bluray will not replace DVDs. There is a very small difference in watching a film on dvd upscaled vs. HD DVD formats for the average consumer on their average size monitors.
One poster mentioned Bluray blows away Apple HD downloads. On paper I agree, but in reality on my 9 foot wide screen I have ABed HD DVD, Bluray and several Apple HD downloads and the differences are barley visable to the trained eye. And in the case of filmed content, even less visable.
DVD, Bluray and CDs all are going the same direction. They will become a niche market, while downloads (led by lo res) will become the majority player.
Brick and mortar stores are vanishing left and right, and even though downloads are limited at this time, just give it two years and revisit this debate.

[mBox]

I make wedding videos and the majority of my clients are concerned with HD...Im all for BD on any mac app platform. I work with digital signage and have been doing a/v for ten years. you go with what you have if you want to stay afloat. at the moment its 720p/10801 MPG2 for what I have to deal with. the displays I work with are only 1080i (one is 1080p..Panasonic 103inch). the only suggestion I have with clients and HD are promises. I usually hang onto all my original data for at least 3 years. anything shot (XDCAM, P2 or miniDV) lately I just charge a small fee for storage. when if things go right, Im ready for BD. last I heard Sonic is BD exclusive but we got away from them years ago. Avid at the moment is still playing catch up with everything else so BD is still a ways yet. We also use FCP and of course were waiting on that too. If you can keep the data that would be great. I work with a wide range of formats and just lately we've convinced our training dept. to buy into PS3s for possible BD playback.
I think they have other intentions but to bide time, were loading the clips onto the future HD players using network/files:)

[chillywilly]

Now that we don't have to worry about current Blu-ray specifications and no more competition from HD-DVD, I expect Apple to have ready some time later this year new versions of iMovie and Final Cut Pro that can master Blu-ray discs, along with offering Blu-ray burners on their Mac Pro tower computer line. It would certainly go a long way in making more Blu-ray discs available, since now you can create a "master" on a Mac Pro instead of a high five-figure UNIX workstation. :)

When this happens, I will invest in a Mac Pro and move my small video production I do now on my MacBook Pro 15" over, doing mostly DVDs and online video, but having the option to move to BD.

[megfilmworks]

I think Apple may not want to support Bluray in their computers because of the obvious competition factor with Apple's vision of a physical media free world.
This paradigm works for content providers, distribution, impulse buyers
and even for the ever increasing movement to be "green".

[BobVB]

Considering the fact that the maximum visual acuity of a person with "perfect" 20/20 vision is one arc minute, and the angle subtended by a pixel on a 42" 1080p is significantly less than one arc minute (assuming you sit more than 3-4 feet away from the TV), I would say you got taken. Should have saved some $$$ and gone with 720p.

Well considering the recommended viewing distance for 1080 is 4-6 feet for a cinematic experience he should be fine. High resolution is FOR sitting closer. 720p is great if you are going for a 'sports bar' feel but not for serious movie watching.

[Tosser]

The strategic placement of a "?" by me - 'infers' i was asking a question.

Ah, yes, rhetorical questions. It's nice to hide behind such a thing, isn't it"?"

[gkarris]

I think Apple may not want to support Bluray in their computers because of the obvious competition factor with Apple's vision of a physical media free world.
This paradigm works for content providers, distribution, impulse buyers
and even for the ever increasing movement to be "green".

Apple can't ignore its Pro customers, and just about all are going High Def and may need to author discs.

Unless, Apple is becoming even more consumer oriented and leaving the Pro market altogether...

[chillywilly]

I think Apple may not want to support Bluray in their computers because of the obvious competition factor with Apple's vision of a physical media free world.
This paradigm works for content providers, distribution, impulse buyers
and even for the ever increasing movement to be "green".

While I understand Apple's push for digital media, physical media is still going to be a large part of distributed media. Even for the purpose of backing it up, it's going to be a viable format for sometime. And with the storage capacity of BD, that will help (once Apple adds support) with offline storage.

[saltyzoo]

IMHO, Bluray will not replace DVDs. There is a very small difference in watching a film on dvd upscaled vs. HD DVD formats for the average consumer on their average size monitors.
One poster mentioned Bluray blows away Apple HD downloads. On paper I agree, but in reality on my 9 foot wide screen I have ABed HD DVD, Bluray and several Apple HD downloads and the differences are barley visable to the trained eye. And in the case of filmed content, even less visable.
DVD, Bluray and CDs all are going the same direction. They will become a niche market, while downloads (led by lo res) will become the majority player.
Brick and mortar stores are vanishing left and right, and even though downloads are limited at this time, just give it two years and revisit this debate.

You also have to consider the rendering of the disc. I have many DVD's that are rendered so poorly that VHS could easily outperform them. If studios don't spend the extra dough to remaster specifically for the higher res of Blueray, it's not going to make any difference.

Improper mastering could explain why there is no difference to the "trained eye". But then the question comes down to whether or not Blueray is adopted by enough people to enduce better mastering for that format before online streaming becomes the "standard".

[Scharke]

I think Apple may not want to support Bluray in their computers because of the obvious competition factor with Apple's vision of a physical media free world.
This paradigm works for content providers, distribution, impulse buyers
and even for the ever increasing movement to be "green".

I love this idea, but how do I deliver 20 minute film in this paradigm? What is the universal file format for HD that I can post on a server? Something that can be downloaded for archiving, streamed to a computer or TV device, or burned on to the optical media of the end-users choosing? HD MPEG-2? MPEG4?

Entonces, pues. I have two questyions for y'all:

What can I create on my Mac today that I can post to a server as a portable HD movie file?

Why can't someone make a stand-alone player that can play 1920x1080 (Or 720?) MPEG4 files from a standard DVD data disc?

[fluidedge]

digital only downloads are all very well and good for movie studios who spend zillions on marketing and advertising their latest blockbuster - they'll get prime position on the iTunes movie store.

what about the small indie film makers, they haven't got the budgets to spend on advertising, if they have to distribute only by online delivery then they're going to get lost in the soup of iTunes. They;ll have no way of getting their small movies to their small/local audience.

I don't think Apple's path to an all digital world is good for all parties.

BluRay also has a $2000 fee to encode/master the audio of some sort doesn't it? (Could be wrong here - but there is a $2000 fee somewhere down the line) Small movie makers would prefer to distribute on HD-DVD as they didn't have to pay any encoding fee.

Does anyone know more about that $2000 fee? I know there is something somewhere about it

[gkarris]

Why can't someone make a stand-alone player that can play 1920x1080 (Or 720?) MPEG4 files from a standard DVD data disc?


Already done: HD VMD

http://www.nmeinc.com/technology.aspx

[TMay]

I love this idea, but how do I deliver 20 minute film in this paradigm? What is the universal file format for HD that I can post on a server? Something that can be downloaded for archiving, streamed to a computer or TV device, or burned on to the optical media of the end-users choosing? HD MPEG-2? MPEG4?

Entonces, pues. I have two questyions for y'all:

What can I create on my Mac today that I can post to a server as a portable HD movie file?

Why can't someone make a stand-alone player that can play 1920x1080 (Or 720?) MPEG4 files from a standard DVD data disc?

AVC is MPEG4 and it does what you want, around 20 minutes of play time on a DVD disk, in a Blu-Ray player (probably in an HD-DVD player as well). I can do that now with my Panasonic SD-5 and an accessory DVD burner. The glitch is that if I have to edit that video (requiring the Apple Intermediate Codec), then I need to export AVC to DVD, and Apple applications can't yet do that.

[fluidedge]

i've found it - mandatory copy protection.

A licence from AACS costs about $2000 PER TITLE.

Not good news for small indie film makers.

[MarsUltor]

I think Apple may not want to support Bluray in their computers because of the obvious competition factor with Apple's vision of a physical media free world.
This paradigm works for content providers, distribution, impulse buyers
and even for the ever increasing movement to be "green".



Apple has been a member of the Blu-ray consortium's board of directors since 2005, but has not publicly announced their Blu-ray plans. It is likely that Apple's hesitation about releasing any Blu-ray products has been at least partially due to the ongoing format war.

Answer me this... why would apple be on the bluray consortium board of directors if they had no intention of actually employing the technology?

In my opinion, external media e.g. optical discs, thumb drives, etc, will never die... at least not for a long time; it is cheap, and extremely portable. Sure having your movie collection on your computer is nice, but many people like physical back-ups (especially back-ups that won't get destroyed in magnetic fields eg optical disks), and until we have HHD that are multiple terabytes, saving all this stuff to your computer will tie up your hard drive(s). I personally would rather spend $20 for 100 DVD-Rs (more than 400 GB), than over $100 on an internal or external drive that is only a fraction of that size... and the portability factor is huge.

[chillywilly]

i've found it - mandatory copy protection.

A licence from AACS costs about $2000 PER TITLE.

Not good news for small indie film makers.

Edit: found link to Wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System

[MarsUltor]

i've found it - mandatory copy protection.

A licence from AACS costs about $2000 PER TITLE.

Not good news for small indie film makers.

It shouldn't matter too much, most indy flicks are picked up by big studios at film festivals like Cannes, and Sundance... that is why most indy flicks are released by offshoots of the biggies like Fox's "Fox Searchlight" for example. The only way to get decent distribution is to ally yourself with a big studio to help pay for some of the distribution costs, and to increase the potential DVD audience of your film.

[TMay]

digital only downloads are all very well and good for movie studios who spend zillions on marketing and advertising their latest blockbuster - they'll get prime position on the iTunes movie store.

what about the small indie film makers, they haven't got the budgets to spend on advertising, if they have to distribute only by online delivery then they're going to get lost in the soup of iTunes. They;ll have no way of getting their small movies to their small/local audience.

I don't think Apple's path to an all digital world is good for all parties.

BluRay also has a $2000 fee to encode/master the audio of some sort doesn't it? (Could be wrong here - but there is a $2000 fee somewhere down the line) Small movie makers would prefer to distribute on HD-DVD as they didn't have to pay any encoding fee.

Does anyone know more about that $2000 fee? I know there is something somewhere about it

Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray use AACS as their primary DRM. Blu-Ray adds BD+.

I haven't found anything definitive stating that AACS must be incorporated into the disk authoring, but if you incorporate it, then their would be a fee. Any hardware, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray would have to have AACS support.

[diamond.g]

Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray use AACS as their primary DRM. Blu-Ray adds BD+.

I haven't found anything definitive stating that AACS must be incorporated into the disk authoring, but if you incorporate it, then their would be a fee. Any hardware, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray would have to have AACS support.

Wiki claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high-definition_optical_disc_formats#Security_features)that AACS is mandatory on BD. That may only be the case for BDMV though. I found this (http://forums.support.roxio.com/lofiversion/index.php/t13692.html) on Roxio's website that shows the difference between BDAV and BDMV.

[seashellz]

SONY is in a MESS of debt, and they are subsidizing the BR discs and players-watch for dramatic price increases now that there is no competition. SUCKERS!

SONY and their Rootkit. their DRM, their region locked players-I say ***** 'em.

>>quote: SACD failed because most people didn't want to replace their CD's and buy new CD players (the quality wasn't that much better to the average joe with an inexpensive system<<< sums it up

I think its a war between S-DVD and as for HD-Ive too many thing to worry about than spending hours in front of the tube- and on my 36" the latest DVDs look great, thank you. Spending hours fretting over black levels--- Its absurd..I dont think 75% of america will care-who wants to buy their collections all over again-or be forced into a BR player when they stop making the S-DVD version of a film

I dont know about some of these home theater nuts-some need professional help-really-its almost that they want the films on the discs to look BETTER than the source-they are insane.
And then downloadable content or flash drives are around the corner, so there goes several billion in SONYs R&D and subsidy investment.

Oh yea-look out or better days-the banking system is about to collapse-and when GM lays off (buys out) 75,000 you can see trouble ahead.

Be VERY thankfull for what you have-there is a storm coming...

[Jschultz]

Well considering the recommended viewing distance for 1080 is 4-6 feet for a cinematic experience he should be fine. High resolution is FOR sitting closer. 720p is great if you are going for a 'sports bar' feel but not for serious movie watching.

What baffles my mind as a TV salesman, is when people come in DEMANDING a 42" 1080p set- but they sit 12 feet away. At that distance, 720p is fine, and almost on the brink of 480p being fine.

Who sits 3-4 feet from a 42" anyways? Unless it's a computer monitor!

[BobVB]

What baffles my mind as a TV salesman, is when people come in DEMANDING a 42" 1080p set- but they sit 12 feet away. At that distance, 720p is fine, and almost on the brink of 480p being fine.

Who sits 3-4 feet from a 42" anyways? Unless it's a computer monitor!

guess you aren't the TV salesman at the stores I shop at - they point out that you are supposed to be sitting at just beyond individual pixel resolution (which for a 42" diagonal widescreen is 5.5 feet for 1080i and 20/20 vision). And if you want to sit further back they'd be more than happy to sell you a bigger screen ;)

But that is the two living room set ups I've seen: some people are the 'seating on one wall, television on the other' sports bar type setups and then the ones my family always had - tv in one corner, seats for viewing TV a few feet away, rest of living room available for other things. Blood can almost be spilt in discussions about which is 'right'.

But you are right if the viewer is NOT going to sit close enough to the screen for 1080 to make a difference 720 is good enough (yeah and even 480 depending on the screen size and viewing distance)

[matticus008]

Well considering the recommended viewing distance for 1080 is 4-6 feet for a cinematic experience he should be fine. High resolution is FOR sitting closer. 720p is great if you are going for a 'sports bar' feel but not for serious movie watching.
Oh, not this crap again. A living room is not a movie theater and a television, even an HD television, is not a movie screen.

If you're building a home theater (literally; a dedicated room) digitally and using a good quality projector, then you can start using cinema-reproduction proportions.

Up until that point, or unless people are suddenly buying 100"+ televisions for their living rooms, dens, bedrooms, and/or family rooms, the room layout is the most significant consideration. Given the average family's budget and the average room size, 1080p does not offer an advantage. It's great for people on the high end who will benefit from it, but it's ridiculous to upsell someone hundreds of dollars on the TV and a couple hundred dollars on the player for something with next to no benefit for the typical home. It's even more ridiculous to tell people to sit 4 feet from their televisions.

[jaw04005]

Wiki claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high-definition_optical_disc_formats#Security_features)that AACS is mandatory on BD.

BDAV and BDMV are essentially file structures.

AACS is mandatory on all playback devices and software and for authoring BDMV. Adobe's Encore and Roxio's DVDit HD programs both author BDMV complete with interactive menus with AACS protection.

For consumer use, the AACS license is paid by the software company and disc OEM, not the user.

BDAV refers to either the transport stream format used for all Blu-ray content, or the plain format intended for home video with no interactivity.

BDAV is what consumers will normally be using for consumer-created content. It also provides basic menu support. However, it's up to each individual Blu-ray player manufacturer to implement BDAV.

Sony's PlayStation 3 and most other Blu-ray players support both BDAV and BDMV on BD-R and BD-RE (Rewritable) via software upgrades.

BDAV and BDMV should not be confused with BDCMF. BDCMF is a special format comprised of BDMV (which itself contains BDAV) for replicating facilities. BDCMF requires AACS licenses per title, and special software to author such as Sony's BluePrint.

In short:

BDAV (No AACS protection) is for consumer software packages like iDVD, Ulead MovieFactory, Roxio's MyDVD, etc
BDMV (Currently No AACS protection, Eventually will support Basic AACS protection) is for prosumer and professional software packages like Adobe Encore, Roxio's DVDIt! HD and Apple's DVD Studio Pro
BDCMF (Expanded AACS and BD+ protection) is for large-scale commercial software packages like Sony's BluePrint

Update: It gets even more complicated.

Apparently, the Blu-ray Disc Association never intended consumers to use BDMV to author onto BD-R or BD-RE because of piracy concerns. That's why they created BDAV. However, they allowed manufacturers to support BDMV on BD-R for a short period of time (internal purposes, demos, promotional purposes, etc).

But BDA relented and have started allowing manufacturers to support both AACS-encrypted and non-encrypted BDMV discs on their players as an option.

Therefore, if you have a Blu-ray player that supports AACS-enabled Version 3.0 BD-R or BD-RE discs, your player also supports Non-DRMed Version 1.x or 2.0 BD-R or BD-RE discs.

The 1.x and 2.0 discs are what's currently available on the market. The AACS encryption is tied to the disc and activated by the software package. For example, if you own Adobe Encore and put in a Version 2.0 BD-R that doesn't support AACS, Encore will recognize this and burn appropriately.

[chillywilly]

AACS is mandatory on all playback devices and software and for authoring BDMV. Adobe's Encore and Roxio's DVDit HD programs both author BDMV complete with interactive menus with AACS protection.

For consumer use, the AACS license is paid by the software company, not the user.

BDAV refers to either the transport stream format used for all Blu-ray content, or the plain format intended for home video with no interactivity.

BDAV is what consumers will normally be using for consumer-created content. It also provides basic menu support. However, it's up to each individual Blu-ray player manufacturer to implement BDAV.

Sony's PlayStation 3 and most other Blu-ray players support both BDAV and BDMV on BD-R and BD-RW via software upgrades.

Very informative post. Thank you for the details.

[BobVB]

f you're building a home theater (literally; a dedicated room) digitally and using a good quality projector, then you can start using cinema-reproduction proportions.

But that is the point - you are the one advocating using an entire room for watching TV, i.e. a dedicated room - oddly you just are seemly enamored with the viewers having a less than optimal viewing experience possible.

Why are you so resistant people having a family room where the part of the 'family' who wants to watch tv does so from a good 1080p distance and the rest of the room being available for the rest of the family NOT watching TV? But I said before this subject oddly seems to be almost 'fighting words' for some.

You watch from what ever distance pleases you, please. But don't bother with 1080 if you aren't going to be watching from close enough for it to make a difference.

[fluidedge]

thanks for reading around guys. Very interesting. It seems there is a hell of a lot more to all of this than "which is cheaper" or "which is 'better'"

[BOSS10L]

Let the bitching from the people that bought HDDVD players begin.

It's your own fault for not waiting.

Why? Why should there be bitching? While a bunch of people sat on the fence, I've enjoyed HD DVD titles for 2 and a half years, and Blu-Ray for over 2 years. I bought in at the very beginning, and even at $500, the Toshiba HD-A1 is an awesome machine. My discs won't magically stop working if Toshiba stops producing the machines.

I find it ironic that on this website someone will chastise others for not waiting, yet if you simply look around, you've got a bunch of people agonizing each and every Tuesday to see if it'll be the day that Apple decides to release the new MBP. :rolleyes:

[Scharke]

http://forums.support.roxio.com/index.php?showtopic=21049

This post explains how to set up Compressor to create MPEG-2 files that can be burned to Blu-Ray on a PC running DVDit Pro HD, a $299 program from Roxio.

There must be some enterprising people all over the country with a PC and DVDit Pro HD who can burn Blu-Ray discs for people producing content on the Mac. Or someone who will set up internet file transfer of MPEG2 files and deliver Blu_Ray by mail.

The settings are:


Apple Compressor

File Extension: m2v
Video Encoder
Format: M2V
Width: 1920
Height: 1080
Pixel aspect ratio: square
Crop: None
Frame rate: 29.97
Frame Controls:
Retiming: Nearest Frame
Resize Filter: Linear Filter
Deinterlace Filter: Line Averaging
Adaptive Details: On
Antialias: 0
Detail Level: 0
Field Output: Same as Source
Aspect ratio: 16:9
Field dominance: Top first
Average data rate: 21.1 (Mbps)
1 Pass VBR enabled
Maximum data rate: 25 (Mbps)
High quality
Best motion estimation
Closed GOP Size: 15, Structure: IBBP

<<Note from TominIowa>>

For Final Cut and Compressor users, please make sure to,

In Final Cut changed the
"Sequence Setting",
"Starting TimeCode"

to 00:00:00;00 instead of the default value of 01:00:00;00.

If you don't, chapter markers may not work.

[diamond.g]

MPEG 2?? Ewwww. It is interesting that you basically double the bitrate (well more like 2.5x), but want like 6 times the resolution. Doesn't seem like that would end well.

[matticus008]

But that is the point - you are the one advocating using an entire room for watching TV, i.e. a dedicated room
Nonsense. The only time or place that those ridiculous home theater proportions make sense is if you are dedicating a room to recreate a cinema.

If you aren't, the proportions simply do not apply. The TV is not the sole function of the typical living room, nor is it reasonable to shove a sofa so close to the television that you can't even put a coffee table in front of it. The result is a cluttered room with too much furniture (or a puzzling and vast expanse of empty space) and a TV that can only support at most 3 people with their face up against it (never mind that the two not in the middle have a substantially impaired experience, being off-center at such a close distance to such a small screen).
- oddly you just are seemly enamored with the viewers having a less than optimal viewing experience possible.
It only seems that way because you're hell-bent on people turning their homes into replicas of cinemas. The "optimal cinema viewing experience" is not the same as the practical function of a typical room in a home.
Why are you so resistant people having a family room where the part of the 'family' who wants to watch tv does so from a good 1080p distance and the rest of the room being available for the rest of the family NOT watching TV?
Because that's not a family room. That's a heap of furniture, completely out of balance with the space, that is wholly antithetical to a "family" enjoying a movie or, heaven forbid, each other's company with the TV turned off. Cramming a whole home theater system and furniture into a 6x6 box in the corner of the room, and having to duplicate furniture everywhere else is not consistent with a traditional household.
But don't bother with 1080 if you aren't going to be watching from close enough for it to make a difference.
Exactly. A living room and a normal size HDTV aren't spaces conducive to 1080p at the screen sizes most people can afford.

[jaw04005]

MPEG 2?? Ewwww.

This is such a misconception. The only difference between MPEG-2 and AVC or VC-1 is that MPEG-2 is not as efficient (quality vs. size).

Theoretically, let's say you have a source file that when compressed with MPEG-2 takes up 20GB of a 25GB BD-R. Then, you take that same source file and compress it using AVC to take up 10GB of a 25GB BD-R—your end result is going to be the same.

MPEG-2 itself is NOT a bad video codec, it's just not as efficient as AVC or VC-1.

[megfilmworks]

Why? Why should there be bitching? While a bunch of people sat on the fence, I've enjoyed HD DVD titles for 2 and a half years, and Blu-Ray for over 2 years. I bought in at the very beginning, and even at $500, the Toshiba HD-A1 is an awesome machine. My discs won't magically stop working if Toshiba stops producing the machines.
I have to agree. Plus the Toshibas are also great upscalers for DVD as well.

[dsnort]

'Bout time

[BOSS10L]

I have to agree. Plus the Toshibas are also great upscalers for DVD as well.

Yes they are. DTS-MA and HD Audio over analog doesn't hurt either (that's why I kept my A1 and didn't upgrade to a newer model). :D

[BobVB]

Nonsense. The only time or place that those ridiculous home theater proportions make sense is if you are dedicating a room to recreate a cinema.

Nonsense. You have very limited exposure to room usage. Look at the floor plans for system setups on any number of sites - most are not designed to take up the entire room, just the TV viewing part.

shove a sofa so close to the television that you can't even put a coffee table in front of it.

Again you seem to have a very limited experience - The TV viewing area is separate! You don't put a coffee table in front of it because when you are entertaining people you don't sit them across from a TV you sit them across from YOU!

The "optimal cinema viewing experience" is not the same as the practical function of a typical room in a home.

In your limited world view - what's so amusing is you think your limited world view is the only way to go.

That's a heap of furniture, completely out of balance with the space,

So your sense of esthetics should dictate the layout of a room more than its function? I have gotten a sense you were full of yourself.

that is wholly antithetical to a "family" enjoying a movie or, heaven forbid, each other's company with the TV turned off.

No having a TV opposite the only seating in the room would be antithetical to a 'family room'. Again, you complain about that I want people to make 'home theatres' when you are the one advocating making the TV the center feature of the room. And its sounds like you have the Von Trapp family in mind since our family of 5 sat comfortably on a TV sofa (yes there was always another for entertaining) with 3 on the sofa and 2 kids sitting in front on the floor and that was very pre HD.

A living room and a normal size HDTV aren't spaces conducive to 1080p at the screen sizes most people can afford.

It is with a 42" screen, very affordable and that and larger are what you see going out the doors at Costco and other median consumer markets.

Face it, you seem to have an extremely narrow view of what the 'proper' viewing experience is even though the one I personally use is recommended from one end of the internet to the other. If you LIKE a 'sports bar' setup where the room is basically a TV viewing room for large numbers of people then have at it, and you are right 720, 1080 makes no real difference since the human eye can't resolve the differences at those distances. But that doesn't mean viewing a 1080p TV in the environment they were designed for is wrong, or silly, or insane or 'bad for the eyes' ;) Many people really do, obviously not in your experience but they really do. Don't know what the deciding factor is but I can only think of one house where I go where they sit you down in a space opposite a TV most have special seating for when you are going to watch TV. Obviously that is not the exception but the rule for you - I wonder what determines the difference - not money I'm very middle income, maybe regions? - Pacific NorthWest here...

[BobVB]

MPEG-2 itself is NOT a bad video codec, it's just not as efficient as AVC or VC-1.

Though not 'bad' I find its compression artifacts to be of a more obvious and 'jarring' nature than those of AVC which tend more to just noticable blur or contrast issues.

If I have a choice of over compressed media I would take AVC over MPEG-2

[jaw04005]

Toshiba has scheduled a press conference for tonight at 12AM PST (5PM Tokyo Time).

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Toshiba/Industry_Trends/Breaking:_Toshiba_Schedules_Press_Conference,_HD_DVD_Announcement_Expected/1479

http://www.nikkei.co.jp/news/main/20080219AT1D180DU18022008.html

[matticus008]

Nonsense. You have very limited exposure to room usage. Look at the floor plans for system setups on any number of sites - most are not designed to take up the entire room, just the TV viewing part.
That's where the wheels come off the wagon for you. People don't arrange their living rooms based on floor plans on "build your own home theater" websites. If they're doing that, they're already outside the norm. Instead, they follow the standard distance guides used by retailers across the country: a 42-50" television for distances of 8 to 12 feet produces a comfortable image size.
Again you seem to have a very limited experience - The TV viewing area is separate! You don't put a coffee table in front of it because when you are entertaining people you don't sit them across from a TV you sit them across from YOU!
Go into any number of rooms in this country or any other. You'll find that most living rooms have a set of furniture laid out to best suit the room, and a TV somewhere in that room, visible to the majority of seats in that room. You will almost never find a TV in a corner with a sofa 2.5 feet in front of it, set up like a little cocoon for one "perfect seat" viewer. At 4 ft to the eyeball, a three person sofa shifts the field of view almost 40 degrees. That's an unacceptable compromise for the typical home.
In your limited world view - what's so amusing is you think your limited world view is the only way to go.
The only one with a skewed world view is your bizarre insistence that people are rebuilding movie theaters in their living rooms, or that they pile furniture all over the place so one person can have a textbook-perfect seat.

If you want to set up some corner of your room this way, knock yourself out. But it's foolish to suggest that everyone do so, ignorant to believe that most people want to do so, and just plain wrong to advocate that it's the best setup for a typical living room.
So your sense of esthetics should dictate the layout of a room more than its function?
No, your sense of space planning should dictate the setup of your family room, not some contrived formula based on cinema design. The family room is not meant for such a purpose, and it is not used as such. Please just face the simple reality that a typical household room is not configured so that one person on a sofa gets a cinema-reproduction experience, and the people to the left or right get the "last seat on the end of the row" experience. It's set up as the furniture dictates, and there's a TV somewhere in the room where it looks best. The idea that people have multiple sets of furniture piled up in there doesn't comport with the average home.
our family of 5 sat comfortably on a TV sofa (yes there was always another for entertaining) with 3 on the sofa and 2 kids sitting in front on the floor and that was very pre HD.
With the numbers you espouse, there's no room to sit on the floor in front of such a television these days.
It is with a 42" screen, very affordable and that and larger are what you see going out the doors at Costco and other median consumer markets.
The number of homes placing the sofa 4 feet away from a 42" television is remarkably small. But if they don't, they're not getting your absurd "optimum" experience.
Face it, you seem to have an extremely narrow view of what the 'proper' viewing experience is even though the one I personally use is recommended from one end of the internet to the other.
That's rich coming from the person saying that you should sit 4-5 feet away from a 42" TV or you're doing it wrong.

I guarantee you that the typical family does not plan their living room around what some bloviating "videophile" claims is the "optimum" distance, based on the proportions required for cinema certification. Those numbers are totally worthless unless you're building your own mini-theater.

[mBox]

MPEG-2 itself is NOT a bad video codec, it's just not as efficient as AVC or VC-1.Use it all the time. End user cant tell the difference. When the other codecs become easily accessible, then Ill use it :)

[gkarris]

Though not 'bad' I find its compression artifacts to be of a more obvious and 'jarring' nature than those of AVC which tend more to just noticable blur or contrast issues.

If I have a choice of over compressed media I would take AVC over MPEG-2

EXACTLY - hence I went with HD DVD instead of Blu-ray to start. Studios with movies on both formats initially made the Blu-rays with MPEG-2 and the HD DVDs with AVC or VC-1....

[DakotaGuy]

I'm not sure what to do because it is rumored that they are going to completely drop all support for HD DVD. I have an HD DVD player and 20 HD DVD movies. Do you think that a person can even sell them on eBay after this or will the price be so low that I might as well just throw them away? I mean it is hardly worth the hassle for a few bucks. I guess that I will have to wait and see what they say in the press conference. I just hope that there will be some way to play them in the future otherwise I might as well clean the shelf off. (and they were some darn good titles too!!!) Oh well.

[rodolfo]

This is very unfortunate.

Last two versions of Apple DVD Studio pro, supports the authoring of HD-DVD but not BR. It means that this great tool will require an update soon...

I hope we will get our money back or at least a Bluray replacement for the HD-DVD stuff we got (HD-DVD authoring SW, HD-DVD players and Warner-brothers HD-DVD titles)


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

Reuters is relaying reports (http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSL1627196120080216) from Asia that Toshiba will cease production and development of HD DVD players, essentially abandoning the platform.

Toshiba had been the single largest proponent of HD DVD hardware. Earlier this year Warner announced it selected Blu-ray exclusively (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/01/04/hd-dvd-vs-blu-ray-battle-over-warner-switches-to-blu-ray/), which gave Blu-ray an overwhelming majority of studio support. With recent conversions by Netflix (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSWEN388420080211) and Wal-Mart (http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSWEN397220080215) to Blu-ray-only stock, key elements to the end of the format war are in place: content, hardware, and distribution.

Apple has been a member (http://www.macrumors.com/2005/03/10/apple-adopts-blu-ray-technology/) of the Blu-ray consortium's board of directors since 2005, but has not publicly announced their Blu-ray plans. It is likely that Apple's hesitation about releasing any Blu-ray products has been at least partially due to the ongoing format war.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/16/toshiba-to-stop-hd-dvd-player-production/)

[ZorPrime]

Why? Why should there be bitching? While a bunch of people sat on the fence, I've enjoyed HD DVD titles for 2 and a half years, and Blu-Ray for over 2 years. I bought in at the very beginning, and even at $500, the Toshiba HD-A1 is an awesome machine. My discs won't magically stop working if Toshiba stops producing the machines.

I find it ironic that on this website someone will chastise others for not waiting...

You put it eloquently... the fact of the matter is that if it weren't for the early adopter things wouldn't progress, especially when one is talking about TECHNOLOGY. The point for the consumer is to make a decision... whether if it's HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, or Digital Downloads... if one doesn't like the wares being offered, then he/she can simply buy something else, boycott, or abstain... simple as that.

But it is fun to watch the Busters... LOL :D

[Nermal]

I hope we will get our money back or at least a Bluray replacement for the HD-DVD stuff we got (HD-DVD authoring SW, HD-DVD players and Warner-brothers HD-DVD titles)

DVD SP will still produce discs, your players will still work, and so will your HD DVDs. Nobody is obligated to refund or replace anything.

[DakotaGuy]

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/ir/en/news/20080219_03.htm

Looks like a lot of discs are going in the trash tomorrow.

[Nermal]

Server's a bit overloaded so here it is:

Tokyo—Toshiba Corporation today announced that it has undertaken a thorough review of its overall strategy for HD DVD and has decided it will no longer develop, manufacture and market HD DVD players and recorders. This decision has been made following recent major changes in the market. Toshiba will continue, however, to provide full product support and after-sales service for all owners of Toshiba HD DVD products.
HD DVD was developed to offer consumers access at an affordable price to high-quality, high definition content and prepare them for the digital convergence of tomorrow where the fusion of consumer electronics and IT will continue to progress.
“We carefully assessed the long-term impact of continuing the so-called 'next-generation format war' and concluded that a swift decision will best help the market develop,” said Atsutoshi Nishida, President and CEO of Toshiba Corporation. "While we are disappointed for the company and more importantly, for the consumer, the real mass market opportunity for high definition content remains untapped and Toshiba is both able and determined to use our talent, technology and intellectual property to make digital convergence a reality.”
Toshiba will continue to lead innovation, in a wide range of technologies that will drive mass market access to high definition content. These include high capacity NAND flash memory, small form factor hard disk drives, next generation CPUs, visual processing, and wireless and encryption technologies. The company expects to make forthcoming announcements around strategic progress in these convergence technologies.
Toshiba will begin to reduce shipments of HD DVD players and recorders to retail channels, aiming for cessation of these businesses by the end of March 2008. Toshiba also plans to end volume production of HD DVD disk drives for such applications as PCs and games in the same timeframe, yet will continue to make efforts to meet customer requirements. The company will continue to assess the position of notebook PCs with integrated HD DVD drives within the overall PC business relative to future market demand.
This decision will not impact on Toshiba’s commitment to standard DVD, and the company will continue to market conventional DVD players and recorders. Toshiba intends to continue to contribute to the development of the DVD industry, as a member of the DVD Forum, an international organization with some 200 member companies, committed to the discussion and defining of optimum optical disc formats for the consumer and the related industries.
Toshiba also intends to maintain collaborative relations with the companies who joined with Toshiba in working to build up the HD DVD market, including Universal Studios, Paramount Pictures, and DreamWorks Animation and major Japanese and European content providers on the entertainment side, as well as leaders in the IT industry, including Microsoft, Intel, and HP. Toshiba will study possible collaboration with these companies for future business opportunities, utilizing the many assets generated through the development of HD DVD.

[Bastich]

Why can't someone make a stand-alone player that can play 1920x1080 (Or 720?) MPEG4 files from a standard DVD data disc?

+1.

But there are an awful lot of DivX players out there...

:cool:

[Project]

they only sold 700,000?

[b0ned0me]

Exactly. A living room and a normal size HDTV aren't spaces conducive to 1080p at the screen sizes most people can afford.
Maybe not in the US, but in a modern UK house or apartment it can be a challenge to get more than 5 feet away from the screen unless you have a jumpseat fitted to the wall. 1080p - giving people who live in shoeboxes something to enjoy!

Because here in the real world companies finish a spec for a product before they launch it.
Crikey! Which planet are you from then? Here on earth the usual approach is to release a half-arsed half-baked half-ready version of something while trying to get the final draft of the specification to actually work. Some of the people reading your post are using USB 1.1 keyboards plugged into USB 2.0 ports while relying on a 802.11 draft-n wireless card to connect to their ADSL 2+ router. While simultaneously downloading beta versions of Service Pack 1 for Vista, Service Pack 3 for XP and the latest software update from Apple, not doubt.

[Tosser]

Maybe not in the US, but in a modern UK house or apartment it can be a challenge to get more than 5 feet away from the screen unless you have a jumpseat fitted to the wall.

You do know that 5 feet is 1,5 meter/150 centimetres, right?

I doubt anyone, except someone living at home, with a room only big enough for a closet and a very narrow bed only have 1,5 metres to "stretch out" in.

[arkitect]

You do know that 5 feet is 1,5 meter/150 centimetres, right?

I doubt anyone, except someone living at home, with a room only big enough for a closet and a very narrow bed only have 1,5 metres to "stretch out" in.

I think it is called hyperbole… ;)

[Tosser]

I think it is called hyperbole… ;)

LOL – if so, it really isn't put together well. :p

[johnnyjibbs]

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/ir/en/news/20080219_03.htm

Looks like a lot of discs are going in the trash tomorrow.

I notice there is no mention of BluRay in the press release - Toshiba doesn't even mention anything about high definition DVDs - I wonder if they will start producing BluRay players or whether they will promote other HD technologies, as the press release has a big bias to.

I'm sure glad I didn't buy a next-gen player and sure as hell glad Apple didn't place one (even if it was BluRay) into any of its computers. HD in terms of DVD discs is still not mass market and will not be for another year or two, or maybe longer. There is just too little incentive to upgrade from the success of DVD.

And who wants to buy their DVD collection again? Not everyone has a 50" 1080p TV...

[takao]

And who wants to buy their DVD collection again? Not everyone has a 50" 1080p TV...

even more so in europe where tv sizes have been generally smaller than in the states.. i read somewhere that the difference in average is for some countries even as high as 10-15" which i found quite massive

[mBox]

I'm not sure what to do because it is rumored that they are going to completely drop all support for HD DVD. I have an HD DVD player and 20 HD DVD movies...
If I did have one, it would be sit beside my SegaCD, Nintendo and Betamax ;)
Im no stranger to losing out due to technology. I bought a PS3 (Dec 06)because of the future possibilities with games (that I love..MGS, Ratchet), I did not think much of BD until Feb last year.
Buyer beware thats all I can say.

[diamond.g]

This is such a misconception. The only difference between MPEG-2 and AVC or VC-1 is that MPEG-2 is not as efficient (quality vs. size).

Theoretically, let's say you have a source file that when compressed with MPEG-2 takes up 20GB of a 25GB BD-R. Then, you take that same source file and compress it using AVC to take up 10GB of a 25GB BD-R—your end result is going to be the same.

MPEG-2 itself is NOT a bad video codec, it's just not as efficient as AVC or VC-1.

It is interesting that you basically double the bitrate (well more like 2.5x), but want like 6 times the resolution. Doesn't seem like that would end well.
Above was what I was really getting at. BD has 6 times the resolution of DVD, you would think that only increasing the bitrate by 2.5-3 or so would have poor quality.

I thought that was why the max bitrate of BD was 40 mbps due to Sony wanting to use MPEG2.

[Cousin Dirk]

Surely this is official now?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7252172.stm

[3247]

Surely this is official now?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7252172.stm
No, that's still hearsay. :p

But that is as official as you can get:
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2008_02/pr1903.htm
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2008_02/pr_j1903.htm

[DakotaGuy]

If I did have one, it would be sit beside my SegaCD, Nintendo and Betamax ;)
Im no stranger to losing out due to technology. I bought a PS3 (Dec 06)because of the future possibilities with games (that I love..MGS, Ratchet), I did not think much of BD until Feb last year.
Buyer beware thats all I can say.

I guess all I can do is use the thing now. I'm just going to stick with standard upconverted DVD for rentals and might even look into an Apple TV. If Blu-ray gets cheaper then I might buy a player, but I am in no hurry. It will take a year or so for the sting of being wrong to go away.

[Wie Gehts]

:apple:

[jaw04005]

"While Universal values the close partnership we have shared with Toshiba, it is time to turn our focus to releasing new and catalog titles on Blu-ray," said Craig Kornblau, president of Universal Studios Home Entertainment.

"The path for widespread adoption of the next-generation platform has finally become clear. Universal will continue its aggressive efforts to broaden awareness for hi-def’s unparalleled offerings in interactivity and connectivity, at an increasingly affordable price. The emergence of a single, high-definition format is cause for consumers, as well as the entire entertainment industry, to celebrate."

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?article_id=12118
http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Universal/Breaking:_Universal__Studios_Goes_Blu/1483

[zioxide]

Good, now the widespread adoption can begin, which will bring prices down :)

[DakotaGuy]

Good, now the widespread adoption can begin, which will bring prices down :)

I wouldn't expect prices to go down that fast. The war did create some faster then usual price drops, but from here on out it will follow a slow, gentle pattern down. This is brand new tech and corporations are going to profit all they can while it is still new.

[jaw04005]

Good, now the widespread adoption can begin, which will bring prices down :)

Universal is pretty competitive on their HD DVD pricing. With the addition of Paramount, surely Blu-ray will drop to around $20 as standard pricing.

Fox can shove their $35 new release Blu-ray discs. Ridiculous even with the 10 % Amazon discount that was supposed to expire two months ago. :)

[Nermal]

I haven't found any information about Universal's HD DVD plans. Is it *switching* to BR or just *adding* BR support?

[jaw04005]

I haven't found any information about Universal's HD DVD plans. Is it *switching* to BR or just *adding* BR support?

They're switching, but no details on the transition have been released.

"While Universal values the close partnership we have shared with Toshiba, it is time to turn our focus to releasing new and catalog titles on Blu-ray."

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Universal/Breaking:_Universal__Studios_Goes_Blu/1483

[gkarris]

Universal is pretty competitive on their HD DVD pricing. With the addition of Paramount, surely Blu-ray will drop to around $20 as standard pricing.

Fox can shove their $35 new release Blu-ray discs. Ridiculous even with the 10 % Amazon discount that was supposed to expire two months ago. :)

After today's announcement - there's not going to be any "Blu-ray" price drops. No more competition, so they can call the price shots. Expect all $35 Blu-ray releases here on out....

[chillywilly]

After today's announcement - there's not going to be any "Blu-ray" price drops. No more competition, so they can call the price shots. Expect all $35 Blu-ray releases here on out....

Are you serious? I really doubt that. I don't think most of the recent and current sales on BD movies were due to competition with HD DVD. I think it's Blu-Ray's best interest to woo the DVD users over, especially so with recent movies that really show off the HD content.

[iMouseHD]

I am just glad this over as I no longer have to listen to debates on the topic. I own both, like both, knew neither was going to be much more than a small market in the mainstream for some time, oft repeated but until Blu players get to under a $100 and on new release Tuesdays, I can pick up a movie for $14.99, all they have "won" is the chance to be only one in that small market.

I am not saying I had not hoped that HD DVD or Bluray for that matter gets there, just that I understood that neither would anytime soon if at all.

[jaw04005]

After today's announcement - there's not going to be any "Blu-ray" price drops. No more competition, so they can call the price shots. Expect all $35 Blu-ray releases here on out....

Yeah there's not this market leader known as DVD to compete with or anything. :rolleyes:

[diamond.g]

Yeah there's not this market leader known as DVD to compete with or anything. :rolleyes:

You know, if you could include a dvd version with the BD version you could stop production of just the dvd's. Then slowly but surely stop making the combo discs.

[mBox]

Yeah there's not this market leader known as DVD to compete with or anything. :rolleyes:havent bought a DVD in 3 years (way before BD existed). never will. got Transformers for Xmas (thanks sis).
lately Ive bought up to 30 BD's ;) it used to be about SFX stuff (CG artist by trade), but when I picked one of my all time faves Trading Places, I was hooked with non SFX movies ;)

[gkarris]

Yeah there's not this market leader known as DVD to compete with or anything. :rolleyes:

DVD falls way short of 1080p - Blu-ray has no other competition...

You get what you pay for...

[jaw04005]

DVD falls way short of 1080p - Blu-ray has no other competition...

You get what you pay for...

So? If the studios want Blu-ray to replace DVD, they're going to have to have to match DVD pricing.

DVD didn't have format competition either, and at $7.99 for library titles at big box retailers like Wal-Mart or Target seems to be doing well.

Blu-ray will not always be at the $25-$35 price point (or $20-$27 at Amazon).

[Nermal]

After today's announcement - there's not going to be any "Blu-ray" price drops. No more competition, so they can call the price shots. Expect all $35 Blu-ray releases here on out....

I haven't confirmed this, but I heard that Panasonic increased one of their (sold at a loss?) players from $440 to $749 after Toshiba threw in the towel.

[KopThat]

HD is still a niche market, and Blu ray and HD DVD combined hardly made a dint into the SD DVD market which is also in decline.

Download services like AppleTV and pay per view are the biggest threat to all forms of optical disks.

Sure you don't get 1080p or HD sound, but not everyone is a Home Theatre buff,
so 1080i or 720p will look good enough on their new Plasma or LCD, and as long as the 5.1 sound makes their speakers vibrate and subwoofer rumble they will be happy.

I like HD DVD because not being from the US meant cheap purchases from amazon and no region locking, some new releases are well over the $US40 mark locally, plus the top of the line Toshiba player is an excellent upscaler with it's REON chip

[Bastich]

I'm just going to stick with standard upconverted DVD for rentals and might even look into an Apple TV. If Blu-ray gets cheaper then I might buy a player, but I am in no hurry. It will take a year or so for the sting of being wrong to go away.

You weren't wrong... it's just the bad guys won.

:cool:

[rodolfo]

DVD SP will still produce discs, your players will still work, and so will your HD DVDs. Nobody is obligated to refund or replace anything.

Agree that the player and current disc will "still working"... however if the player stop working, I'm not sure about what to expect in regards service.

What will happen with the current titles that includes enhanced content over the Internet, do we have the warranty that those titles will still working during the life of the HD-DVD media?

What will happen to firmware updates?

Also new Warner brothers titles will not work on HD-DVD players. And that's why I disagree with WB new decision to SWITCH and take a supposed decision to "end" a media war... New WB titles should remain working on HD-DVD regardless that WB wants also to offer BR version(s) at least for 10 more years. Personally, I believe that WB decision has little to do with "ending a market war" it sounds more to end a "piracy war" using the coming BR+ and I'm not talking about piracy as those criminals who sells millions of piracy copies but normal consumers like us who have the legal right to make a backup to protect our investment and as today can't do... (More when we are talking about a media as fragile as BR. -regardless of the advertisement that they use a hard-coat material that supposedly prevents scratching, a media that was originally enclosed on a caddy/case to protect it).

Also. the problem I have with BR, is that they use Java"s". That means developing for multiple platforms rather than authoring on a standard... To produce an advance interactive title compatible with all those coming players will be a nightmare, so with BR, I'm expecting a very mediocre interactivity or basically forcing me to pick a "sony brand" player under the assumption that this player firmware will be constantly maintained to keep peace of all coming problems I believe will come (as in other platforms that used Java for Interactive TV applications). HD-DVD is a more stable platform that BR in terms of interactivity... and that's why I like it.

[takao]

actually last year DVDs sales were still on the rise .. in double digits percentages

[MikeTheC]

Wasn't this more-or-less a fait accompli for a while now? I mean, come on: difference in storage capacity, difference in media durability and protection, being originated from and pushed by the de facto owner of half of Hollyweird (that is, Sony)...

Was there anyone out there who didn't see this coming? (Well, ok, maybe all those HD-DVD player purchasers, I suppose...) Poor suckers, them.

Glad I haven't been in the market to buy a new player.

BluRay players do come with COAX and S-Video out ports on the back, right? :p

[chillywilly]

BluRay players do come with COAX and S-Video out ports on the back, right? :p

I think it depends on the model. The few I've seen have all ports (RCA audio, COAX and S-Video, as well as HDMI, optical and ethernet)

[MikeTheC]

I think it depends on the model. The few I've seen have all ports (RCA audio, COAX and S-Video, as well as HDMI, optical and ethernet)
Seriously?

I was just kidding. I can't imagine wanting to buy a Blu-Ray player to watch Blu-Ray movies on a 27" RCA ProScan. (Which is what I've got in the living room, btw.)

[chillywilly]

Seriously?

I was just kidding. I can't imagine wanting to buy a Blu-Ray player to watch Blu-Ray movies on a 27" RCA ProScan. (Which is what I've got in the living room, btw.)

Gotcha. :)

I think the wealth of ports is just to provide a broad compatibility with any TV, regardless of it being HD or not, since most Blu-Ray players also support SD DVD playback.

[BOSS10L]

I hope we will get our money back or at least a Bluray replacement for the HD-DVD stuff we got (HD-DVD authoring SW, HD-DVD players and Warner-brothers HD-DVD titles)

That has to be the funniest response I've ever read. What's next? Blaspheming Apple for dropping the price on the iPhone in order to get some money back? Oops, that already did happen. :rolleyes:

While I do feel for those that paid full boat for their iPhones, that is the way the cookie crumbles. It's a calculated risk. Sometimes the bones bounce the way you want 'em to, sometimes you're staring at snake-eyes.

Apple did themselves a huge disservice by pandering to the whiners. Now, whenever they release something new or drop prices to help bump up their installed base, there will be a group of people who will cry crocodile tears. What people aren't considering is the fact that the iPhone base exploded exponentially once the price was dropped. I would have NEVER considered an iPhone at it's release price, but I was happy to part with $399 for my 8GB model.

Innovation costs money people. Either pay up or put up.

[BOSS10L]

actually last year DVDs sales were still on the rise .. in double digits percentages

I was just kidding. I can't imagine wanting to buy a Blu-Ray player to watch Blu-Ray movies on a 27" RCA ProScan. (Which is what I've got in the living room, btw.)

1) These are the two points a lot of people forget to think about. For every person who owns a Plasma/LCD and an HD DVD or Blu-Ray player, there are 100 people out there who have a 19" CRT, a VCR and their $25 Wal-Mart DVD player, who are just as happy as pigs in slop.

2) There are still people out there sputterin' and spittin' mad that they can't get (insert new hit movie of choice here) on VHS anymore. The fact that you can now purchase a DVD player for the cost of a case of beer and that DVDs have dropped to 'impulse buy' category.

[dbaer]

So... Does anybody want to buy a hardly used Toshiba HD-A35? :p

[megfilmworks]

Good, now the widespread adoption can begin, which will bring prices down :)

I think you got that backwards. Already articles are writing about Bluray players going up in price (they were cut to compete with HD DVD).
Look forward to price increases on Bluray discs, players and an end to discounting for bundles.

[DakotaGuy]

Agree that the player and current disc will "still working"... however if the player stop working, I'm not sure about what to expect in regards service.

What will happen with the current titles that includes enhanced content over the Internet, do we have the warranty that those titles will still working during the life of the HD-DVD media?

What will happen to firmware updates?

Also new Warner brothers titles will not work on HD-DVD players. And that's why I disagree with WB new decision to SWITCH and take a supposed decision to "end" a media war... New WB titles should remain working on HD-DVD regardless that WB wants also to offer BR version(s) at least for 10 more years. Personally, I believe that WB decision has little to do with "ending a market war" it sounds more to end a "piracy war" using the coming BR+ and I'm not talking about piracy as those criminals who sells millions of piracy copies but normal consumers like us who have the legal right to make a backup to protect our investment and as today can't do... (More when we are talking about a media as fragile as BR. -regardless of the advertisement that they use a hard-coat material that supposedly prevents scratching, a media that was originally enclosed on a caddy/case to protect it).

Also. the problem I have with BR, is that they use Java"s". That means developing for multiple platforms rather than authoring on a standard... To produce an advance interactive title compatible with all those coming players will be a nightmare, so with BR, I'm expecting a very mediocre interactivity or basically forcing me to pick a "sony brand" player under the assumption that this player firmware will be constantly maintained to keep peace of all coming problems I believe will come (as in other platforms that used Java for Interactive TV applications). HD-DVD is a more stable platform that BR in terms of interactivity... and that's why I like it.

First of all if your player breaks and you can buy another one on eBay if needed. There were enough players built that you should be able to get a pretty decent one for a few years to come. I am sure some people will buy a back-up player or even a dual format player if they are deeply invested. LG has stated they will continue selling dual format players.

As far as internet extras go, I suppose in time those will be turned off, but the movie will still play.

I am not sure what you mean about Warner disks not playing. How are they going to turn them off? Maybe you mean that going forward they will no longer make HD DVD's. In that case you are right.

Last, I would not worry much about firmware upgrades. Toshiba is a good company and will continue to support the products with firmware upgrades. Since there will be no more new HD DVD's in a few months the final firmware upgrades for all players should play everything just fine.

I looked at some of the prices on eBay and decided just to keep my stuff. It is not worth the loss and they are still great movies. Besides I still have my 5free HD DVDs being sent. I called the rebate program last night just to check because I do want to get them before it is all over and she said they are on the way!

[megfilmworks]

I spent less than 160 dollars on my last Toshiba HD DVD player and got 10 HD DVDs free. Looks like no loss there. It is also one of the best upconverting players I own.
I also own about 50 classic titles in HD DVD with beautiful transfers.
I will eventually rip them to lossless before my old HD DVD players turn to dust.
I bought a couple of Bluray players as well and they are decent. For many reasons stated by others I like the HD DVD more, but as we all know both formats are doomed by downloadable media. This is where the smart money is.
Sorry Walmart, Good Guys, etc. You decided too late to save a stop gap technology for your old fashioned bricks and mortar super boxes.

[gkarris]

... It is not worth the loss and they are still great movies. Besides I still have my 5free HD DVDs being sent. I called the rebate program last night just to check because I do want to get them before it is all over and she said they are on the way!

I just got my 5 Blu-ray movies last night from my PS3 purchase over Christmas! :)

Just went over to CC over lunch to grab the last A3 for $99. Looks like another 7 free movies for me! :D

(let's do the math, if HD DVD's are worth $10/each right now, times 7, $99 - $70 = $29, for an HD DVD player :eek:)

Don't you love competition?

(BTW, while at CC, I checked out the 80 Gig Zune - great job MS! Keep Apple on its toes!)

[MikeTheC]

1) These are the two points a lot of people forget to think about. For every person who owns a Plasma/LCD and an HD DVD or Blu-Ray player, there are 100 people out there who have a 19" CRT, a VCR and their $25 Wal-Mart DVD player, who are just as happy as pigs in slop.

2) There are still people out there sputterin' and spittin' mad that they can't get (insert new hit movie of choice here) on VHS anymore. The fact that you can now purchase a DVD player for the cost of a case of beer and that DVDs have dropped to 'impulse buy' category.

When it comes to VHS... I'm certain you're probably right, but considering just how long the DVD standard has been both the defacto standard as well as the most popular format, to say nothing of how long it's generally been out for, I can't see anyone other than sheer utter technophobes buying them.

I actually have a nicer Sony DVD player, and I've owned it since about 2003, but I've probably used it no more than maybe a dozen and a half-ish times since then, so it's been a complete and total waste. Wish I'd never spent the money on it.

C 'est la vie...

[Bastich]

That has to be the funniest response I've ever read. What's next? Blaspheming Apple for dropping the price on the iPhone in order to get some money back? Oops, that already did happen. :rolleyes:

While I do feel for those that paid full boat for their iPhones, that is the way the cookie crumbles. It's a calculated risk. Sometimes the bones bounce the way you want 'em to, sometimes you're staring at snake-eyes.

Apple did themselves a huge disservice by pandering to the whiners. Now, whenever they release something new or drop prices to help bump up their installed base, there will be a group of people who will cry crocodile tears. What people aren't considering is the fact that the iPhone base exploded exponentially once the price was dropped. I would have NEVER considered an iPhone at it's release price, but I was happy to part with $399 for my 8GB model.

Innovation costs money people. Either pay up or put up.

You sir, are the king of clichés.

:cool:

[Prof.]

Here is more news officially announcing Blu-Rays victory (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23262620/) over HD-DVD:cool:

I am sooooo happy Blu-Ray won.

Go, Sony, it's your birthday; we're gonna party like it's your birthday.:D

[JesterJJZ]

Just give me a burner and bluray support in DVDSP and we're good.

[chillywilly]

Yep. Now it's Apple's turn to start giving out the Blu-Ray love, in the form of software updates and new additions to the Mac Pro line.

[gkarris]

Yep. Now it's Apple's turn to start giving out the Blu-Ray love, in the form of software updates and new additions to the Mac Pro line.

Yea, but if you've seen what Apple can do with 720p, DDS5.1, and all under 5Gigs with HD on iTunes, then you'd know why they've "overlooked" high-def discs so far... :eek:

[chillywilly]

Yea, but if you've seen what Apple can do with 720p, DDS5.1, and all under 5Gigs with HD on iTunes, then you'd know why they've "overlooked" high-def discs so far... :eek:

True, but it's the ability to create HD content on disc that will help video professionals. 5gb isn't a lot when compared to local storage. But when you get 100's of people moving 5gb files over bandwidth on a regular basis, it's easier to pop in a disc then wait the 1-2 hours (average users bandwidth) to download each video.

[gkarris]

True, but it's the ability to create HD content on disc that will help video professionals. 5gb isn't a lot when compared to local storage. But when you get 100's of people moving 5gb files over bandwidth on a regular basis, it's easier to pop in a disc then wait the 1-2 hours (average users bandwidth) to download each video.

Actually, my download of "Transformers" that I rented took close to 12 hours on my slow 768 DSL. The other thread has people complaining that the HD downloads take a ton of time in certain cases.

I'm a movie collector and prefer something to "hold" in my case. I just wanted to see what HD rentals on Apple were like and I was impressed.

I downloaded some TV shows in HD on XBLive and was impressed with that too.

The studios like downloads because there's no physical media to deliver and, of course, has a lot of DRM.

[chillywilly]

The studios like downloads because there's no physical media to deliver and, of course, has a lot of DRM.

Yes, they do.

Personally, I wish the studios would include an iPod copy of the movie on disc, like what Fox did with Blue Harvest DVD. Then offer the download, too. Give multiple users some choices.

12 hours??? sheessh.. That's a long time, even if you are downloading it at night.

[diamond.g]

The studios like downloads because there's no physical media to deliver and, of course, has a lot of DRM.

It reminds me of this Penny-Arcade comic (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/01/18). I would IMG tag it but there is some swearing in the comic.

I know it isn't completely the same thing, but you have to admit, the studios are getting what the originally wanted. And people are eating it up.

[rodolfo]

Yea, but if you've seen what Apple can do with 720p, DDS5.1, and all under 5Gigs with HD on iTunes, then you'd know why they've "overlooked" high-def discs so far... :eek:

I don't understand why people believe and expects that 720p24 fps (4:2:0) is HD, when in reality it only contains less than 40% information of a real HD stream, 1920x1080p24 is HD, 1920x1080i59.97 is HD, 1280x720p60 is HD; The funny part is that even 720p60 is only "deployed" on the USA by very few broadcasters, where the main content they broadcast is fast-motion video.

Dear GKarris, the reason that files are around 5GB is because the stream only contains less than 40% of a HD DVD/BluRay version. True HD content is not only really heavy to download but also really hard to decode by most of the machines produced in the last 4 years. I'm positive that an Apple TV will not be able to play 1920x1080 H.264 High Profile 4:2:2 @ 15~35Mbps as that little intel box has not H.264 hardware to support it...

[Bastich]

The studios like downloads because there's no physical media to deliver and, of course, has a lot of DRM.

I've often felt that the studios would like to do away with hard media completely. Then they would realize their lifelong dream of being paid every time a movie was watched.

:cool:

[JesterJJZ]

I don't understand why people believe and expects that 720p24 fps (4:2:0) is HD, when in reality it only contains less than 40% information of a real HD stream, 1920x1080p24 is HD, 1920x1080i59.97 is HD, 1280x720p60 is HD; The funny part is that even 720p60 is only "deployed" on the USA by very few broadcasters, where the main content they broadcast is fast-motion video.

Dear GKarris, the reason that files are around 5GB is because the stream only contains less than 40% of a HD DVD/BluRay version. True HD content is not only really heavy to download but also really hard to decode by most of the machines produced in the last 4 years. I'm positive that an Apple TV will not be able to play 1920x1080 H.264 High Profile 4:2:2 @ 15~35Mbps as that little intel box has not H.264 hardware to support it...

HD has nothing to do with framerate. I can make a 1080p video that runs at 2fps and it would still be HD or "full HD" as the term invented by Sony to fool consumers. HD is determined by resolution alone. Colorspace and compression just vary by the codecs and compression used in different applications of HD from cable to HDV to AVC to DVCPROHD.

[matticus008]

I don't understand why people believe and expects that 720p24 fps (4:2:0) is HD
Because it is. ATSC and DVB-T, along with ITUR-BT.709, defines high definition resolution, frame rate, and color space. It explicitly includes 1280x720 @24fps (or even 23.97fps) and includes 4:2:0.
Dear GKarris, the reason that files are around 5GB is because the stream only contains less than 40% of a HD DVD/BluRay version.
A Blu-ray film is upwards of 25GB. Even taking your 40% figure at face value, the file size should be at least double what it is.

The quality they are achieving at DVD sizes is really quite impressive and better than I expected. It's not a replacement for BD; it's not supposed to be. There's no replacement or alternative for Blu-ray if that's your water mark. Broadcast TV, cable sources, on demand, and all legitimate online content are inferior to Blu-ray and that's just the way it goes. Blu-ray is designed and targeted for exactly that reason.

[diamond.g]

I've often felt that the studios would like to do away with hard media completely. Then they would realize their lifelong dream of being paid every time a movie was watched.

:cool:

DIVX (the circuit city one) Part 2. With iTunes they will get their way, and a lot of people here are happy with that. I am really referring to those that feel digital downloads are the future.

[BOSS10L]

You sir, are the king of clichés.

:cool:

I was in a "buzzword bingo" kinda mood. :D

[rodolfo]

HD has nothing to do with framerate. I can make a 1080p video that runs at 2fps and it would still be HD or "full HD" as the term invented by Sony to fool consumers. HD is determined by resolution alone. Colorspace and compression just vary by the codecs and compression used in different applications of HD from cable to HDV to AVC to DVCPROHD.

I don't believe that scaling and saving a DVD or a YouTube video to "HD resolution" will make it HD video, right? (well maybe in a perversive way... like many "HD" camcorders). On the other hand temporal resolution matters; a 2fps cannot be considered video, right? (probably you can called it a "motion picture" but for most of the people this is not really "video" --although... you may be right if we talk about computer "video" and we don't move anything on the screen on a sample-and-hold display)

[rodolfo]

Because it is. ATSC and DVB-T, along with ITUR-BT.709, defines high definition resolution, frame rate, and color space. It explicitly includes 1280x720 @24fps (or even 23.97fps) and includes 4:2:0.

A Blu-ray film is upwards of 25GB. Even taking your 40% figure at face value, the file size should be at least double what it is.

The quality they are achieving at DVD sizes is really quite impressive and better than I expected. It's not a replacement for BD; it's not supposed to be. There's no replacement or alternative for Blu-ray if that's your water mark. Broadcast TV, cable sources, on demand, and all legitimate online content are inferior to Blu-ray and that's just the way it goes. Blu-ray is designed and targeted for exactly that reason.

Agree that the parameters for MPEG2 in the ATSC spec. enables you to support 1280x720p24. However in reality for most of the countries (other than USA) HD is deployed as 1080.

Regarding the size of the BR media, I believe you want to say that the "great quality" of HD video is because BlueRay can allow you to deploy HD MPEG2 @ 19/39Mbps, or H.264 @15Mbps/25Mbps or VC1 @9/22Mbps to achieve a good image.

Please don't feel offended but it looks like you have never seen a true HD video, ones you see true HD (uncompressed, from a true-HD source and in a true HD-monitor) believe me; no even 1920x1080p30 H.264@30Mbps will longer impress you... and you will not longer accept that 1280x720p24 can be considered as "High-Definition Video"

[JesterJJZ]

I don't believe that scaling and saving a DVD or a YouTube video to "HD resolution" will make it HD video, right? (well maybe in a perversive way... like many "HD" camcorders). On the other hand temporal resolution matters; a 2fps cannot be considered video, right? (probably you can called it a "motion picture" but for most of the people this is not really "video" --although... you may be right if we talk about computer "video" and we don't move anything on the screen on a sample-and-hold display)

Video format is independent from the content you put in it. Quality will never exceed your source, obviously. You can lay any framerate of video within another video standard by adding duplicate frames or removing some. We seem to be talking about different things. Basically anything that displays natively at 720p or 1080i/p is considered HD, regardless of compression or quality.

Please don't feel offended but it looks like you have never seen a true HD video, ones you see true HD (uncompressed, from a true-HD source and in a true HD-monitor) believe me; no even 1920x1080p30 H.264@30Mbps will longer impress you... and you will not longer accept that 1280x720p24 can be considered as "High-Definition Video"

There is great uncompressed HD and there is crap compressed HD...but it's still HD. You're definition of HD is based on what you feel it should look like not what it actually means.

[rodolfo]

There is great uncompressed HD and there is crap compressed HD...but it's still HD. You're definition of HD is based on what you feel it should look like not what it actually means.

No really.. I'm more a technical guy than a marketing fellow... "To me" and most of the professional broadcaster I work (outside USA); to have HD you need a real HD camera (Including the right lens), the right archiving/ delivering, an a real HD monitor. Per example in Japan HD is transmitted from the source to the studio using H.264 @ 270Mbps... it sounds excessive and unpractical for USA, but this is what it takes for NHK to handle HD betwen studios. For them and many others I know 720p24 is an "American invention" to market "HD". (--it may work for some time as ATSC transmissions, since most of the American people just have a "HD ready TV" which can't display a true HD image, or maybe it does as 40 inches display at 3m can be assumed to have the same quality on 720 as 1080)

Don't forget that the goal of HD was to have at least 4 times more quality than SD (no just the double as it looks to be the case of Apple TV).

[matticus008]

Please don't feel offended but it looks like you have never seen a true HD video, ones you see true HD (uncompressed, from a true-HD source and in a true HD-monitor) believe me; no even 1920x1080p30 H.264@30Mbps will longer impress you... and you will not longer accept that 1280x720p24 can be considered as "High-Definition Video"
Due respect, but HDTV is defined in the specs mentioned. Everything in it is high definition by, well, definition. What you consider it to be is wholly irrelevant. What is most impressive is irrelevant.

How you were able to deduce the kind of HD content anyone has seen in a discussion about what HD is remains a mystery.

It's not subjective judgment. It's a set of standards. A rather clearly and explicitly defined set, at that. Please don't be offended, but you're just full of it.

[DakotaGuy]

Well I was a pretty big HD DVD supporter and I still think for the consumers that it had some advantages with pricing and region codes, but as I always say if you can't beat them, join them.

My HD DVD's are for sale on eBay and I replaced my Toshiba HD A3 HD DVD player with a Panasonic DMP-BD30 BD player. It seems to be a great player after using it last night. I looked at a PS3, but I would never use it to game with because I don't really get gaming except for the Wii which I own and love. The guy that helped me at Best Buy said that if I don't want to play any games then I would be better off with a standalone. I had a Reward Zone 10% off coupon to help with the price. They don't really have sales on Blu-ray anymore.

As far as picture quality goes I would say that Blu-ray appears a tiny bit better then HD DVD. However I don't think it is the format doing that. There are 2 reasons. 1) The Blu-ray player I bought is comparable to a higher end HD DVD then the one I had. 2) Even though I have a 768p Vizio LCD HDTV it can still accept a 1080p signal. My Toshiba output 1080i and not only did the TV have to down convert the signal it also had to de-interlace it. Now the TV only has to down convert so it helps a little on smoothness, etc.

I took a hit on HD DVD. I still love the format, however I agree that we are better off with just one. Now I don't have to feel scare when I buy a movie. Well I hope so anyhow. I just hope that Blu-ray doesn't die next because I am going to be pretty upset with all the people that said how great it was and the future is blu and all of that!

Also a lot of my favorite movies are Universal movies so it might take a long time to re-build my collection, but I guess that is life.

[gkarris]

My HD DVD's are for sale on eBay and I replaced my Toshiba HD A3 HD DVD player with a Panasonic DMP-BD30 BD player. It seems to be a great player after using it last night. I looked at a PS3, but I would never use it to game with because I don't really get gaming except for the Wii which I own and love. The guy that helped me at Best Buy said that if I don't want to play any games then I would be better off with a standalone. I had a Reward Zone 10% off coupon to help with the price. They don't really have sales on Blu-ray anymore.

Yea, it's kinda hard using the PS3 remote to watch movies with. Yes, Sony's got (unfortunately, special Bluetooth) the remote, but then I'm back to having a controller AND a remote, like my 360 for HD DVD's. To many things to keep track of...

Standalones are better if you are using them for just movies....

[mixel]

I love the "doesn't matter anyway, optical media is doomed!" brigade. (often oddly overlaps with people who bought into HD-DVD..)

Yeah, right.. in 5 to 10 years maybe, which is a long time for any format. Every format is "doomed" if you look that far forward.

What do you do at christmas when movies and music are 100% digital distribution? vouchers? Great! Never mind the fact that currently digital downloads are a minute fraction of the market, and a lot of people would rather be using physical media. (whether because of habit, technophobia or preference) There will *always* be a physical format, and for the next 10 years it looks like it's going to be bluray.

For environmental reasons I'd rather things were digitally distributed, but for practical reasons I prefer something solid. The media-less future is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; BD isn't exactly doomed to fail.

HDTV is standard, everyone will end up with HDtvs relatively soon, DVD players will go off the mainstream market as BD players drop in price. No biggie, BD players still play DVDs. People have big DVD collections, they aren't going to want to throw them away, or re-download everything. :rolleyes:

[PodPacker]

I'm actually surprised that third parties have not stepped in and sold Blu-ray movie watching kits for Macs. I suspect it's because the only mac you can install an additional optical drive into is the Mac Pro, making the potential market smaller.

It's not hard to do; Bluray player plus movie playing software in a box. They did this back in the days before all systems came with DVD-ROM drives, afterall.

The problem here is that the studios want all sorts of crazy protection on everything to keep "piracy" down. There are news sites claiming that the studios were requesting specific kernels and coding in OS X and Apple said No.

The Apple TV is relatively inexpensive compared to Blu-Ray players and is relatively more versatile. Apple is intentionally not providing support for Blu-Ray, so don't hold your breath. Apple is entrenching it's box by not providing the drives or software in its computers and now, with the studios behind iTunes, it won't be long before Apple TV becomes the next iPod.

[Kalafut]

I kinda wish Microsoft had put and HD DVD player in there xbox 360, that way when blue-ray finally won, the 360 would be ****ed. the 360 is only good for halo, and even that has gotten boring. hell games are useless.

[Frisco]

I kinda wish Microsoft had put and HD DVD player in there xbox 360, that way when blue-ray finally won, the 360 would be ****ed. the 360 is only good for halo, and even that has gotten boring. hell games are useless.

Yeah the Xbox 360 is so weak it's sad. Once again 3rd place for Microsoft. They really should get out of the gaming business. Sony and Nintendo will destroy Redmond.

[cisco1138]

I just feel sorry for those who were tricked by jobs into assuming since iMovieHD supports HD cameras, they'd be able to make HD discs playable in setup players.

That would be me! :mad:

[matticus008]

I just feel sorry for those who were tricked by jobs into assuming since iMovieHD supports HD cameras, they'd be able to make HD discs playable in setup players.
"Tricked by Jobs"? Please.

It should be eminently clear to anyone making discs or purchasing HD camcorders that you need an HD-DVD burner or a Blu-ray burner to deliver HD content to "setup" (perhaps you mean set top?) players. You can shell out for one, or you can watch the HD footage on your computer/AppleTV.

It simply does not follow that editing HD footage means that it magically makes HD discs out of thin air.

[fluidedge]

yeh but come on, what is the main point of editing HD - to deliver it in the most natural format, which in 2008 is probably disc.

still i agree in principle with what you say

[rodolfo]

Due respect, but HDTV is defined in the specs mentioned. Everything in it is high definition by, well, definition. What you consider it to be is wholly irrelevant. What is most impressive is irrelevant.

How you were able to deduce the kind of HD content anyone has seen in a discussion about what HD is remains a mystery.

It's not subjective judgment. It's a set of standards. A rather clearly and explicitly defined set, at that. Please don't be offended, but you're just full of it.

You cannot avoid the subjectiveness of HDTV; The ITU-R BT.709-5 (latest version -2002-) defines: "A high-definition system is a system designed to allow viewing at about three times the picture height, such that the system is virtually, or nearly, transparent to the quality of portrayal that would have been perceived in the original scene or performance by a discerning viewer with normal visual acuity.” (vague, yet another very subjective definition)

The ATSC standard defines: "High-definition television has a resolution of approximately twice that of conventional television in both the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) dimensions and a picture aspect ratio (H × V) of 16:9. ITU-R Recommendation 1125 further defines “HDTV quality” as the delivery of a television picture which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard." (another subjective definition)

Ironically and according to the ATSC definition; 1280x720 should not be even be considered HD! i.e. conventional TV =SDTV (as defined by ATSC) = BT.601= 960(16:9)/720(4:3) X 480 4:2:2 @ >50 fields therefore: HD=1440~1920 x 960 4:2:2 @ >50 fields)

Take a look of this old controversy: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_23_39/ai_54827393

Currents status of HD: USA the only country to "deploy" 720p HD (in a few channels to be fair like CBS, ABC & ESPN) Apple and Adobe Flash (On2) the only ones to define HD=720p24 4:2:0). ATSC (Advance TV spec, covering SDTV, EDTV and HDTV a spec that may be valid to reference if Apple TV has at least a Digital ATSC Tuner) uses SMTP 296M-2001 as a normative reference and SMTP 296M-2001; which by it self; uses BT.709 as a normative reference. BT.709-5 = 1920x1080 4:2:2/ 4:4:4. Also in europe the DVB standard (ETSI TR 102 154 V1.1.1 (2001-04)) = 1920x1080 4:2:2. and in Japan ARIB B24=1920x1080 4:2:2.

In addition consider that HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) doesn't have such thing as 720p24 but 720p/50/59.97/60, EIA 770.3 also doesn't support 720p24 (i.e. there is no way to connect a 720p24 analog source to a HDTV with component inputs) but 720p59.97/60. (Yes you can argue that people have the freedom to encode a film into a 720p60 --a format developed to portray fast action well, but that doesn't mean that 720p24 is HDTV because 1920x1080p24 was designed for that specific scenario) --Yes, The ATSC have a table that defined 28 different MPEG 2 compression "constraints" "allowing 720p24 MPEG-2 encoding" But this is more considered to be enhanced TV rather than HD (like 480p60).

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_23_39/ai_54827393 )

Please don't consider my respond a personal offense, if you find something else on this technical HD puzzle, I will be more than happy to learn about it... So far what I found interpreting all those documents is that 720p24 is no HD an Apple HD movies doesn't look like HD

[rodolfo]

Too bad you need a PC to do this!

Come on, why is this thread even on Mac Rumors? We all know Apple does not want to support Blu-Ray, especially having it competing against their movie download store.

I just feel sorry for those who were tricked by jobs into assuming since iMovieHD supports HD cameras, they'd be able to make HD discs playable in setup players.

Actually, you can author HD-DVDs on your Mac using DVD studio Pro 3 or 4. The disc will be playable on your mac and on a HD-DVD player (at least my Toshiba and XBOX360 do it)

[diamond.g]

Actually, you can author HD-DVDs on your Mac using DVD studio Pro 3 or 4. The disc will be playable on your mac and on a HD-DVD player (at least my Toshiba and XBOX360 do it)

Just to add on to what you are saying, you can actually put it on a regular DVD. It was an advantage of HD DVD that no one really touted, which is also why you don't see combo BD.

[matticus008]

You cannot avoid the subjectiveness of HDTV; The ITU-R BT.709-5 (latest version -2002-) defines:
The executive summary is not a definition, nor is, as the iteration you quote, a footnote in a section on color space a definition to resolution.

HDTV is a set of standards. It is not subjective. To address any concerns that 720p is a uniquely American phenomenon, I refer you to the EBU (*European* Broadcasting Union) Technical Committee: "a minimum of 720 vertical lines(PDF) (http://www.ebu.ch/en/technical/trev/trev_308-hdtv.pdf)"

I'll also refer you to the (groan) Wikipedia article on HDTV, which has a very clear chart that accurately reflects the embodiment of international standards: here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hdtv)

Finally, I'll refer to Samsung's excellent guide for beginners: here (http://product.samsung.com/cgi-bin/nabc/campaign/university/hdtv/module_2_3.jsp)

ATSC and DVB both define SDTV and HDTV standards (there is no such thing as EDTV except in marketing), and all 720 vertical-line formats and higher are classified as HDTV per A/53.
Take a look of this old controversy: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_23_39/ai_54827393
Actually, if you were following the controversy, you should remember that the issue wasn't that 720p wasn't 'high definition', it was that they objected to the inclusion of multiple resolutions and formats in the standard. In other words, they urged "HDTV" to be defined as 1920x1080 progressive and nothing else. 720p would have to be called something else, as would 2160p, as would 1080i. As history has played out, that view did not prevail (for better or worse). They objected to 1080i being called HDTV for about a decade before revising their position to "just 1920x1080"--but within a few years, they'd lost that argument, too.
But this is more considered to be enhanced TV rather than HD (like 480p60).
Considering that neither ATSC nor DVB, let alone ITU-R, EBU, ISDB, or the FCC, have any idea what "enhanced TV" is, I think we all can move on. "EDTV" is marketing and nothing else. SDTV and HDTV are the only two officially recognized kinds of DTV worldwide.

The distinction is clean and intuitive as it actually exists. 480/576 formats are SDTV; 720p and higher are HDTV. Splitting the resolutions around a convoluted scheme of framerate and color space, including some but not others is needlessly complex and detracts from the central and immediate difference between HD and other content: resolution. Since 720p and 1080i share the same approximate effective vertical resolution (due to idiosyncrasies in the production of most 1080i), it would be odd to separate them in that way. I can see how you would come away from reading on ITU-R BT.709 with that impression, since it is dominated by issues of colorspace reproduction (i.e. predominantly sRGB), not by broadcasting (ATSC/DVB) or image production.
yeh but come on, what is the main point of editing HD - to deliver it in the most natural format, which in 2008 is probably disc.

still i agree in principle with what you say
I think it's more accurate to say that the point of editing HD is to preserve as much of the original content as possible so that when moving to final production, your final encoding is the only source of quality loss. Delivery in the "most natural format" as of today would still be DVD, so encoding for DVD would entail a loss of HD. As has been said, however, HD-DVD players can play back properly encoded HD video from a DVD.

[JesterJJZ]

You cannot avoid the subjectiveness of HDTV; The ITU-R BT.709-5 (latest version -2002-) defines: "A high-definition system is a system designed to allow viewing at about three times the picture height, such that the system is virtually, or nearly, transparent to the quality of portrayal that would have been perceived in the original scene or performance by a discerning viewer with normal visual acuity.” (vague, yet another very subjective definition)

The ATSC standard defines: "High-definition television has a resolution of approximately twice that of conventional television in both the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) dimensions and a picture aspect ratio (H × V) of 16:9. ITU-R Recommendation 1125 further defines “HDTV quality” as the delivery of a television picture which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard." (another subjective definition)

Ironically and according to the ATSC definition; 1280x720 should not be even be considered HD! i.e. conventional TV =SDTV (as defined by ATSC) = BT.601= 960(16:9)/720(4:3) X 480 4:2:2 @ >50 fields therefore: HD=1440~1920 x 960 4:2:2 @ >50 fields)

Take a look of this old controversy: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_23_39/ai_54827393

Currents status of HD: USA the only country to "deploy" 720p HD (in a few channels to be fair like CBS, ABC & ESPN) Apple and Adobe Flash (On2) the only ones to define HD=720p24 4:2:0). ATSC (Advance TV spec, covering SDTV, EDTV and HDTV a spec that may be valid to reference if Apple TV has at least a Digital ATSC Tuner) uses SMTP 296M-2001 as a normative reference and SMTP 296M-2001; which by it self; uses BT.709 as a normative reference. BT.709-5 = 1920x1080 4:2:2/ 4:4:4. Also in europe the DVB standard (ETSI TR 102 154 V1.1.1 (2001-04)) = 1920x1080 4:2:2. and in Japan ARIB B24=1920x1080 4:2:2.

In addition consider that HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) doesn't have such thing as 720p24 but 720p/50/59.97/60, EIA 770.3 also doesn't support 720p24 (i.e. there is no way to connect a 720p24 analog source to a HDTV with component inputs) but 720p59.97/60. (Yes you can argue that people have the freedom to encode a film into a 720p60 --a format developed to portray fast action well, but that doesn't mean that 720p24 is HDTV because 1920x1080p24 was designed for that specific scenario) --Yes, The ATSC have a table that defined 28 different MPEG 2 compression "constraints" "allowing 720p24 MPEG-2 encoding" But this is more considered to be enhanced TV rather than HD (like 480p60).

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_23_39/ai_54827393 )

Please don't consider my respond a personal offense, if you find something else on this technical HD puzzle, I will be more than happy to learn about it... So far what I found interpreting all those documents is that 720p24 is no HD an Apple HD movies doesn't look like HD

You like to talk a lot. Yet all you do is confuse people. All you do is contradict yourself and act like you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't know the entire picture here...no pun intended.

720p IS twice the 16:9 equivalent of SD. While much of SD is transmitted in a frame size of 720x480, the actual square pixel resolution is 640x480. The 16x9 frame size is 640x360, which times two is what? Oh yeah...1280x720.

Back to the 24p topic. The current HDTV runs in a couple flavors...1080i @60i or 720p @60p...all framerates can "fit" or "run" within those two formats. Current 24p DVDs playback in 60i on SD tv's. Pulldown is added to the frames to conform 24p into 60i so it can run at 29.97. HD works basically the same way. A 720p 24p movie will be played back at 60p with extra frames added in. It's still HD. The resolution is there, the native framerate doesn't matter. It will all come out as 60p when broadcast the same way all 1080i/p will be broadcast as 1080i.

Oh and I playback 720p 24p material through component outputs all the time. It just gets conformed on the fly to 60p. 720p, regardless of initial framerate is most definitely HD.

I really don't get why you're on this anti-720p-24p crusade here. It's how all movies look in the 720p format.

[rodolfo]

You like to talk a lot.
Sorry... there is a "lot of standards" I just bring what I found on each one...

Yet all you do is confuse people. All you do is contradict yourself
I understand that it sounds like a series of contradictions, read everyone of the specs in detail and you will find those contradictions and a lack of clarity (ATSC is a good example)

720p IS twice the 16:9 equivalent of SD. While much of SD is transmitted in a frame size of 720x480, the actual square pixel resolution is 640x480. The 16x9 frame size is 640x360, which times two is what? Oh yeah...1280x720.

SDTV <> 640x360

SDTV = ITU-R601 has essentially two modes 1) 13.5Mhz for 4:3 and 18Mhz for 16:9, According to the definition of ATSC (definitions on A53 PART 1 page 9 and 11 of January 2007) SDTV (vertical)=525 line system 60 field x sec. 525x2=1050 (active 960). SDTV (horizontal 16:9)=960 active lines x 2 = 1920.

Back to the 24p topic. The current HDTV runs in a couple flavors...1080i @60i or 720p @60p...all framerates can "fit" or "run" within those two formats. Current 24p DVDs playback in 60i on SD tv's. Pulldown is added to the frames to conform 24p into 60i so it can run at 29.97. HD works basically the same way. A 720p 24p movie will be played back at 60p with extra frames added in. It's still HD. The resolution is there, the native framerate doesn't matter. It will all come out as 60p when broadcast the same way all 1080i/p will be broadcast as 1080i.

I understand that you can play You tube content on HD. that doesn't make it HD, right? yes you can see it! yes it looks big! but that is not HD.

Oh and I playback 720p 24p material through component outputs all the time. It just gets conformed on the fly to 60p. 720p, regardless of initial framerate is most definitely HD

When I refer that you cannot connect a 720p24 signal to a HD monitor via component video or HDMI , I mean a 720p24 signal, -a pure 720p24 signal-. no the ability of a monitor to play 720p60... where the content was "temporal-resolution" adapted to make it "HD" and more where HD has an specific mode for this which is 1080p24 and the monitor will play the movie with the right cadence.

I really don't get why you're on this anti-720p-24p crusade here. It's how all movies look in the 720p format.

Is not an anti-720p24 crusade... It is not even a crusade too... It is just an exchange of opinions and findings on this great forum...

My point is: Apple and anyone can advertise that they have a movie rental service on 720p24 and I'm sure that people who love Apple (including me) enjoy this service while expecting 720p24. However I disagree to market it as real HD. I don't like the idea to manipulate an ambiguity on the "broadcast" standard (regarding the constrains of MPEG2 encoding allowances) and advertise their movies as 720p (a nomenclature where people understand 720p as 60fps) and more when it comes from a company like Apple... there is not need.

Please don't take it as a personal attack... ;)

[matticus008]

When I refer that you cannot connect a 720p24 signal to a HD monitor via component video or HDMI , I mean a 720p24 signal, -a pure 720p24 signal-.
When referring to films shot at 24fps, there is no effective difference. The original film is high definition and 24fps, and it is neither accurate nor fair to claim that the 720p version is "not HD" by virtue of the framerate limitation imposed by the source.

Those films are 24fps regardless of the output, even in 1080p (whether telecined to 1080p50 or 1080p60). The same is true of 720p. The display handles the difference. Television content filmed at 30fps will also have to be adjusted to hit 50/60fps as necessary.

As to digitally produced content, its framerate will be telecined to the content as needed as well. That is, motion pictures filmed at 24fps can have those frames repeated as necessary to sync with one of the display standards (just as 1080i can be double-framed by a TV to "upconvert" to approximate 1080p). This is just another illustration of why framerate, like colorspace, is not used as a defining characteristic of HDTV.
My point is: Apple and anyone can advertise that they have a movie rental service on 720p24 and I'm sure that people who love Apple (including me) enjoy this service while expecting 720p24. However I disagree to market it as real HD.
So in order for it to be "real" HD, you'd expect this one particular resolution to have a higher framerate requirement than film project, analog broadcast, SDTV, and 1080p? You'd require replacing motion picture equipment for one idiosyncratic gap caused by the fact that nothing is shot on film in 720p natively, and that digital recording isn't done at 24fps?

It's a motion picture. It was filmed at 24fps, probably on 35mm film. It doesn't stop being HD because those frames have to be repeated (it should be noted that many films already double up each frame to reduce 'jitter' in the theater).

[kaiwai]

Why are region codes so bad? Prices always drop so price is never really an issue. More capacity is everything for me at this point.

Region codes are crap because in some cases I am waiting up to 2 years to get a DVD of a television episode which played 20 years ago. That is why regional encoding royally sucks.

We, the vermin outside the US are continuously given the royal screw job by media inc. under the false assumption that those of us down here don't have televisions or money to spend.

[JesterJJZ]

24p in either 720p or 1080p is HD...end of story.

[rodolfo]

When referring to films shot at 24fps, there is no effective difference. The original film is high definition and 24fps, and it is neither accurate nor fair to claim that the 720p version is "not HD" by virtue of the framerate limitation imposed by the source.

Those films are 24fps regardless of the output, even in 1080p (whether telecined to 1080p50 or 1080p60). The same is true of 720p. The display handles the difference. Television content filmed at 30fps will also have to be adjusted to hit 50/60fps as necessary.

As to digitally produced content, its framerate will be telecined to the content as needed as well. That is, motion pictures filmed at 24fps can have those frames repeated as necessary to sync with one of the display standards (just as 1080i can be double-framed by a TV to "upconvert" to approximate 1080p). This is just another illustration of why framerate, like colorspace, is not used as a defining characteristic of HDTV.

So in order for it to be "real" HD, you'd expect this one particular resolution to have a higher framerate requirement than film project, analog broadcast, SDTV, and 1080p? You'd require replacing motion picture equipment for one idiosyncratic gap caused by the fact that nothing is shot on film in 720p natively, and that digital recording isn't done at 24fps?

It's a motion picture. It was filmed at 24fps, probably on 35mm film. It doesn't stop being HD because those frames have to be repeated (it should be noted that many films already double up each frame to reduce 'jitter' in the theater).

Although I can clarify each on of your points, and constraining our discussion to broadcast TV (As is clear that there is not 720p24 inputs on Digital and analog TVs) I believe is more productive to review ITU BT.1203-1 "User requirements for generic video bit-rate reduction coding of digital TV signals for an end-to-end television system" This effort came to clarify the points your mentioned, questions that were formulated officially 3 years before his release (June 8, 2003)

BT.1203 states the following formats:

BT.709/HDTV (16:9) 1920x1080p/24, 1920x1080p/50, 1920x1080i/50, 1920x1080p/60,1920x1080i/60

BT.1543 (16:9) 1280x720p/60

BT.601 and BT.1358/SDTV (4:3 or 16:9) 720x576p/50 720x576i/50, 720x483p60, 720x483i60

*50 & 60 means: 50 & 60 Hz environments

This effort also describes the bit-rate and compression profile considerations for each case on MPEG2/H.262 and MPEG4-AVC/H.264. (the AppleTV 720p24 format and H.264 profile is not close to those figures)

Also notice that ITU described BT.709/HDTV, and BT.1543 doesn't have HDTV. If you read the BT.709-5 document states HD on his title and all over the place. But if you read BT.1543, the document that describes the 1280x720 system there is not mention of HD at all (including High-Definition nor HDTV). It handles the term as 1280x720 progressive capture system which BTW is handled for 60Hz environments only.

Another document that makes a good description of HD is EBU-TECH 3320 "User Requirements for HD Monitors in TV production": There you will see that 1920x1080/p24 is required but there is not mention at all of 720p/24 but 720p/60. And if you also read the European Broadcast Union document "High Definition for Europe -a progressive approach". You will not be able to find 720p/24 in their official statement. (Actually you will read the statement of High-Motion made by American broadcasters justifying the existence of 720p60)

Furthermore: Keep always in mind that High-Definition Video was designed under the premises of visual acuity. If you use the subjective rule of thumb that our eyes "can see" 300dpi at 12 inches (i.e. get a book and you will be able "to see" the details...) and we follow the definition on BT.709 that HD should be virtually transparent at a distance of 3x the height of the picture. It means that HD should be close to 1200x2133p (make a 4x7.1 inches piece of paper and hold it at 12 inches from you and you will understand why Japan have designed the Super-High Vision system -aka UltraHD-, because that display size is not yet enough i.e. 8x14.2 inches is more realistic)

However, considering that we are talking about video and if the objects are moving rapidly the visual acuity decrease and thats why 720p60 was offered as format intended to deliver fast motion images (60fps=our best way to see motion). I remember that the 3 HD systems where designed while consider the effective resolution per second and taking in account the Kell factors (effective resolution) and all of them converged to deliver 49,766,400px of effective resolution per second...

1920x1080i30 x Kell factor 0.8=49,766,400
1280x720p60 x Kell Factor 0.9=49,766,400
1920x1080p24 x Kell Factor 1.0=49,766,400

Again: I'm not arguing that anyone can use the 720p60 high-motion system to send only 24fps or 2fps or YouTube content and make it fit in a HDTV display. But that doesn't mean that this content will be converted to HD. It is just displayed on a HD display.

I respectfully thing that Apple should review his statement that they are renting "HD movies".

[matticus008]

BT.1203 states the following formats:
...for video bit rate. Again, you are inundating the discussion with irrelevant facts. You are referring to video display constraints to systems supporting particular color modes. It does not follow that source production in video content has any such framerate requirement. Motion pictures are filmed at 24fps. It doesn't stop being high definition merely because of one gap in the display requirements.
BT.601 and BT.1358/SDTV (4:3 or 16:9) 720x576p/50 720x576i/50, 720x483p60, 720x483i60
SDTV is not 16:9, and there again you're referring to resolutions below the threshold.
Also notice that ITU described BT.709/HDTV, and BT.1543 doesn't have HDTV. If you read the BT.709-5 document states HD on his title and all over the place. But if you read BT.1543, the document that describes the 1280x720 system there is not mention of HD at all (including High-Definition nor HDTV).
Again, you are referencing an outdated document from 2001 when ITU contended that 1920x1080 progressive was the sole form of HD. It lost that argument. Twice, in fact.
Another document that makes a good description of HD is EBU-TECH 3320 "User Requirements for HD Monitors in TV production": There you will see that 1920x1080/p24 is required but there is not mention at all of 720p/24 but 720p/60.
That is because there IS NO NATIVE 720p CONTENT at 24fps. All 720p production occurs digitally at 50fps or higher. This does not mean that we draw a moat around the source content to create some erratic definition of HD.
Furthermore: Keep always in mind that High-Definition Video was designed under the premises of visual acuity. If you use the subjective rule of thumb that our eyes "can see" 300dpi at 12 inches
Resolution without size is an untenable argument. A 1080p display is HD whether it is 30" or 65", whether it is viewed from 4cm or 100m. If you want to make a visual acuity argument, you're going to have to go into every room in the world and de-certify 90% of televisions out there.
I'm not arguing that anyone can use the 720p60 high-motion system to send only 24fps or 2fps or YouTube content and make it fit in a HDTV display. But that doesn't mean that this content will be converted to HD.
No, because it already is, with the exception of YouTube content, which is irrelevant because it's not 720p or better. We don't require a specific frame rate for HD resolution. We require that the displays support a certain minimum framerate so that they can potentially display such content.

The only reason 1080p24 is permitted is that most HDTVs for the first several years didn't have the hardware capacity to render video at higher framerates anyway. The DSP simply didn't support the 1080p60 goal of ITU. They lost that fight, allowing 1080p24. They lost the fight allowing 1080i. They lost the fight allowing 720p as well.
I respectfully thing that Apple should review his statement that they are renting "HD movies".
Be that as it may, your reality-defying system is totally irrelevant to the issue. We do not define HD content for the purposes of labeling by either its framerate or its colorspace (those factors set the optimality minima for HD displays such that they have the full potential to display any content meeting the standards; it simply does not follow that all such content must be produced at that specific nexus). We do so based on its resolution (and not on its angular size, either), and all international bodies have clearly delineated the 480/576 standards from the 720 and higher standards. The former is SD and the latter is HD.

All manufacturers, all trade groups, and all standards bodies reflect this. We do not create special requirements based on tenuous math and worthless redirection, as 1080i would not meet your zig-zagging arbitrary line.

If the content is mastered at 720p, it is HD, whether it's a static image, a 24fps motion picture, a 30fps TV show, or a 50/60fps video made simply by repeating frames in mastering to compensate. Or are you arguing that if the image isn't moving on the screen, it's not really HD either?

[rodolfo]

All standards I have referred and reviewed are on "in-force" status

I believe that your criticism is very constructive and I sounds supported by a good technical background but with all my respect, on some of your points it looks like you are not reading to the standards and facts I have cited:

Per Example:
* BT.709-5 is not just a color space spec but the detailed definition of HD Video (frame rates, picture characteristics, optoelectronic conversion, etc...) which includes the film content scenario.
* BT.601-6 defines 960x480 as SDTV WideScreen (16:9).
* BT.1203-1 Is absolutely relevant for our discussion as it answers your previous question -A similar question that was made by the industry in 2003- (Question ITU-R 12-1/6)

Bottom line: The International industry has already defined that film content should be on 1920x1080p\24. no 1280x720p\24. 1280x720p\60 is a format justified for "sports/high motion" content and should not to be used to false advertise "HD Movie" content.

And if this doesn't sounds right, and you truly believe that 720p24 is HD. Then thing for a moment about why more than 80 major companies joined to develop HD-DVD and BluRay --A standard DVD has been always capable to storage what :apple: Apple claims to be HD movies-- right?

Check the latest version of the standards and ITU documents I have cited and let me know your conclusions...

[matticus008]

All standards I have referred and reviewed are on "in-force" status
It's not the standard that's at issue; rather, it is the imbalanced application.

* BT.709-5 is not just a color space spec but the detailed definition of HD Video (frame rates, picture characteristics, optoelectronic conversion, etc...) which includes the film content scenario.
No one said it was "just" a color space spec, but the sections you cite specifically are. The standard includes requirements for broadcast carrier stream support and for display support. It sets optimality minima for the hardware. It does not speak to the content source.

Capturing 720p24, for example, is always done on a 60fps carrier stream by the HD camera. If captured on 35mm, it is always digitized at 50/60fps for editing. A 1080p24 disc is just cut down from what is usually a 1080p60 edit. The fact that it bears the same frame rate as the acquisition capture is coincidental, since it was exported in that format either to save space or to run on lesser hardware.

There is no native digital 1080p60 capture at the moment; the closest is 1080i60.

BT.601-6 defines 960x480 as SDTV WideScreen (16:9).
No, it doesn't. It defines DTV widescreen. Further, no one has adopted that mode as a native resolution for any TV hardware.

Bottom line: The International industry has already defined that film content should be on 1920x1080p\24. no 1280x720p\24. 1280x720p\60 is a format justified for "sports/high motion" content and should not to be used to false advertise "HD Movie" content.
A distinction without a difference--requirements for HD don't shift with content type, either. There is no such thing as mastered 720p24. It's 720p50/60, and clearly and definitively HD. The same is true of 1080p50/60. In either case, it was acquired at 24fps either on film or on a 60fps MPEG carrier stream. It doesn't stop being HD because it was captured at a lower framerate any more than it stops being HD because it's a photo slideshow. 1080p60 content doesn't exist outside of animated films. To raise the bar to that standard would be to cut out almost every film ever made--it could never be HD.

The files distributed by iTunes are 720p60 content. Their acquisition at 24fps is as irrelevant as the fact that 1080p60 Blu-Ray discs were also acquired at 24fps.
A standard DVD has been always capable to storage what :apple: Apple claims to be HD movies-- right?
Not with bonus content, menus, and alternate audio tracks, and not for presentation on 1080p displays. A dual-layer DVD is sufficient to store 720p HD content for just the movie. Blu-ray and HD-DVD were developed to allow for expansion of content and the inclusion of 1080p versions on disc, since digital delivery would not accommodate them. They pursued a content size that would be adequate for the next decade and be open to expansion; a standard DVD does not support the room for growth a new format requires.

[intoxicated662]

yes! finally the format war is over. now if we can only get a blu ray player bullt into a macbook that would be the best. since afterall, toshiba laptops had hd built in

[rodolfo]

It's not the standard that's at issue; rather, it is the imbalanced application.

No one said it was "just" a color space spec, but the sections you cite specifically are. The standard includes requirements for broadcast carrier stream support and for display support. It sets optimality minima for the hardware. It does not speak to the content source.

Sorry, I thought it was you...

However you posted on #403
Because it is. ATSC and DVB-T, along with ITUR-BT.709, defines high definition resolution, frame rate, and color space. It explicitly includes 1280x720 @24fps (or even 23.97fps) and includes 4:2:0.

And I believe now is clear that BT-709 doesn't includes 702p\24. (I don't talk again about ATSC as it was clear to me that it is used for interoperability reasons on the broadcast chain)


Capturing 720p24, for example, is always done on a 60fps carrier stream by the HD camera. If captured on 35mm, it is always digitized at 50/60fps for editing. A 1080p24 disc is just cut down from what is usually a 1080p60 edit. The fact that it bears the same frame rate as the acquisition capture is coincidental, since it was exported in that format either to save space or to run on lesser hardware.


Do you have a serious reference of this practice?

I have a couple of friends in Technicolor who are positive that the scenario you describe is not very usual and even need it, according to them movies are digitized at 24fps since long time ago.



No, it doesn't. It defines DTV widescreen. Further, no one has adopted that mode as a native resolution for any TV hardware.

My point was under the context that ATSC defines SDTV as on BT.601, (page 11) A53's definition of SDTV also integrate the term "standard digital television" and ATSC defined HDTV as 4x SDTV 16:9.

However to be honest, I believe that this definition requires a commite revision, since I believe that their reference to BT.1125 should be read BT.709 (1125 lines HDTV system, BT.1125 has nothing to do in this context) and I also believe that 720p60 is HD video


A distinction without a difference--requirements for HD don't shift with content type, either. There is no such thing as mastered 720p24. It's 720p50/60, and clearly and definitively HD. The same is true of 1080p50/60. In either case, it was acquired at 24fps either on film or on a 60fps MPEG carrier stream. It doesn't stop being HD because it was captured at a lower framerate any more than it stops being HD because it's a photo slideshow. 1080p60 content doesn't exist outside of animated films. To raise the bar to that standard would be to cut out almost every film ever made--it could never be HD.


This is the core of our disagreement. You are talking about HD as a picture and I'm talking HD as a Video. To you HD is only about spatial resolution. To me what I read from the standards is about Spatial, Spectral and Temporal resolution. (resolution size, compression/sampling, and frame rate)



The files distributed by iTunes are 720p60 content.


No. The files are in 720p24, Apple TV will output it as 720p60, again a delivering system designed and justified for High-motion/sports content no for movies...



Their acquisition at 24fps is as irrelevant as the fact that 1080p60 Blu-Ray discs were also acquired at 24fps.

I don't believe is irrelevant. BTW: HD-DVD and BR uses 1080p24 and will output it using the display capabilities (i.e. HDMI 1.1 -1080p24)



Not with bonus content, menus, and alternate audio tracks, and not for presentation on 1080p displays. A dual-layer DVD is sufficient to store 720p HD content for just the movie.


You are missing my point... And -yes- it does at the compression level that Apple is using. in fact it can fit the movie in a little bit more than one layer, leaving 1:25 minutes of 720p24 for all the extras on the second layer of the disc.



[QUOTE=matticus008;5021553]
Blu-ray and HD-DVD were developed to allow for expansion of content and the inclusion of 1080p versions on disc, since digital delivery would not accommodate them. They pursued a content size that would be adequate for the next decade and be open to expansion; a standard DVD does not support the room for growth a new format requires.
It's not the standard that's at issue; rather, it is the imbalanced application.

No one said it was "just" a color space spec, but the sections you cite specifically are. The standard includes requirements for broadcast carrier stream support and for display support. It sets optimality minima for the hardware. It does not speak to the content source.

Sorry, I thought it was you...

However you posted on #403
Because it is. ATSC and DVB-T, along with ITUR-BT.709, defines high definition resolution, frame rate, and color space. It explicitly includes 1280x720 @24fps (or even 23.97fps) and includes 4:2:0.

And I believe now is clear that BT-709 doesn't includes 702p\24. (I don't talk again about ATSC as it was clear to me that it is used for interoperability reasons on the broadcast chain)


Capturing 720p24, for example, is always done on a 60fps carrier stream by the HD camera. If captured on 35mm, it is always digitized at 50/60fps for editing. A 1080p24 disc is just cut down from what is usually a 1080p60 edit. The fact that it bears the same frame rate as the acquisition capture is coincidental, since it was exported in that format either to save space or to run on lesser hardware.


Do you have a serious reference of this practice?

I have a couple of friends in Technicolor who are positive that the scenario you describe is not very usual and even need it, according to them movies are digitized at 24fps since long time ago.



No, it doesn't. It defines DTV widescreen. Further, no one has adopted that mode as a native resolution for any TV hardware.

My point was under the context that ATSC defines SDTV as on BT.601, (page 11) A53's definition of SDTV also integrate the term "standard digital television" and ATSC defined HDTV as 4x SDTV 16:9.

However to be honest, I believe that this definition requires a commite revision, since I believe that their reference to BT.1125 should be read BT.709 (1125 lines HDTV system, BT.1125 has nothing to do in this context) and I also believe that 720p60 is HD video


A distinction without a difference--requirements for HD don't shift with content type, either. There is no such thing as mastered 720p24. It's 720p50/60, and clearly and definitively HD. The same is true of 1080p50/60. In either case, it was acquired at 24fps either on film or on a 60fps MPEG carrier stream. It doesn't stop being HD because it was captured at a lower framerate any more than it stops being HD because it's a photo slideshow. 1080p60 content doesn't exist outside of animated films. To raise the bar to that standard would be to cut out almost every film ever made--it could never be HD.


This is the core of our disagreement. You are talking about HD as a picture and I'm talking HD as a Video. To you HD is only about spatial resolution. To me what I read from the standards is about Spatial, Spectral and Temporal resolution. (resolution size, compression/sampling, and frame rate)



The files distributed by iTunes are 720p60 content.


No. The files are in 720p24, Apple TV will output it as 720p60, again a delivering system designed and justified for High-motion/sports content no for movies...



Their acquisition at 24fps is as irrelevant as the fact that 1080p60 Blu-Ray discs were also acquired at 24fps.

I don't believe is irrelevant. BTW: HD-DVD and BR uses 1080p24 and will output it using the display capabilities (i.e. HDMI 1.1 -1080p24)



Not with bonus content, menus, and alternate audio tracks, and not for presentation on 1080p displays. A dual-layer DVD is sufficient to store 720p HD content for just the movie.


You are missing my point... And -yes- "Apple HD Movies" fits on a DualLayer DVD leaving +1:20 minutes for extra content.


Blu-ray and HD-DVD were developed to allow for expansion of content and the inclusion of 1080p versions on disc, since digital delivery would not accommodate them. They pursued a content size that would be adequate for the next decade and be open to expansion; a standard DVD does not support the room for growth a new format requires.

Agree...

Well I guess, you will remain convinced that "HD" is only about spatial resolution, and that Apple-TV HD movies are really HD movies.

My interpretation of "HD VIDEO/TV/FILM" from the international standards is a set of well defined parameters for production and content delivering that incorporates spatial, optical, spectral and temporal resolution to define HD video...; that each HD mode specified by the ITU was designed to cover specific scenarios; that some companies/individuals are interpreting an old "MPEG-2 interoperability codec constrain" to advertise "HD movies"; That if I want to experience a "FULL HD-Movie", I need a Blue-ray or HD-DVD player, but if I want to see something lightly better than a DVD, I can get an AppleTV and rent what they call 720p HD Movies.

Good luck! it was nice changing impressions with you... and let see what happen in the future... maybe people will not care... and Apple stock will increase! :)

[matticus008]

Do you have a serious reference of this practice?

I have a couple of friends in Technicolor who are positive that the scenario you describe is not very usual and even need it, according to them movies are digitized at 24fps since long time ago.
No, they're not. VTR streams are always 60fps (or 50 for PAL countries) and editing workflow follows this procedure. Were films digitized at 24fps, there would be absolutely no 1080p50/60 content. I suspect you are confusing acquisition with the carrier stream.

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/app_hd_faqs.asp
This is the core of our disagreement. You are talking about HD as a picture and I'm talking HD as a Video. To you HD is only about spatial resolution. To me what I read from the standards is about Spatial, Spectral and Temporal resolution. (resolution size, compression/sampling, and frame rate)
No, I'm talking about HD as a practical designator, not as an environmental constraint. We have a clear separation between SDTV (480/576p) and HDTV (720p and higher) that works uniformly with all standards bodies. What you read from the standards is a massive conflation of requirements and modes for specifying broadcast and equipment standards. You're not looking at production, and you're not looking at the consumer impact. All international standards clearly support the whole range of 720p content, or you wouldn't be able to watch it on every HDTV ever made, or there would be a non-HDTV that would play it without any manipulation. But there's the rub: an SDTV won't play back 720p content unmolested; an HDTV will.

And that's the long and the short of it. There is SDTV and there is HDTV. Those are the only two officially recognized forms of DTV; SDTV is capped at 480p/576p. There's no twilight zone. 720p content is HD.

As an end customer, an HDTV is one that is 720p or better. The fact that the monitor has to support specific frame rates and conform to color space requirements is a non-issue, because all equipment labeled as HD meets that requirement. The content, too, is produced in the same format.

Framerate is an utterly meaningless qualifier, because motion pictures are 24fps in capture but can be mastered however the producer wants. They're 48fps for projection, they're 60fps on nearly any progressive-mastered disc, with the exception of some 1080p titles, which are 24fps due to (a) file size limitations and/or (b) equipment limitations. We simply do not disqualify motion picture content because it wasn't natively acquired at 50+fps. The nature of digital editing is such that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if I captured the original at 5fps, 24fps, 30fps, or 300fps--the finished content will be mastered in an HD-compatible form: 720p50/60 or 1080p24/50/60, and those finished files, not the source, is what falls under the purview of HD playback and broadcasting equipment.
No. The files are in 720p24
Source? I have never in my life seen a 720p24 mastered file.
You are missing my point... And -yes- it does at the compression level that Apple is using. in fact it can fit the movie in a little bit more than one layer, leaving 1:25 minutes of 720p24 for all the extras on the second layer of the disc.
That isn't the point. A standard DVD was inadequate as a future-proof disc format. It is inadequate for what technology is capable of delivering. High definition disc formats were introduced solely because a DVD became a space constraint for the best possible technology. The move to a larger capacity disc has exactly zero bearing on whether a 720p film is HD.

[The General]

This has gone on far too long. :rolleyes:

[JesterJJZ]

I think we are also forgetting that HD and HDTV are two completely separate things. Oh whatever...just whip out the measuring tape and get it over with guys...:p

[ebouwman]

This has gone on far too long. :rolleyes:

I'll say!