Jobs on HD DVD Burners [Archive]

SiliconAddict

Jun 14, 2004, 01:57 PM

Apple is always leading on tech innovation.

*cough*bull*cough*s87t*cough*

IBM has more leading edge tech in its pinky finger then Apple does in its whole body. Tell me who else has built in hardware that aids in on the fly encryption for their laptops? Tell me who else has hardware in their laptops that can detect a fall and locks the hard drive prior to impact? Heck in another thread here on macrumors someone posted THIS (http://www.research.ibm.com/thinkresearch/pages/2001/20010808_cooling.shtml) NEver mind they have been looking at water cooled laptops for years now. Or how about THIS (Magnetic RAM) (http://www.research.ibm.com/thinkresearch/pages/2001/20010202_mram.shtml)
Neither the 17" PowerBook, nor the iPod, nor overall design of the new PowerMacs are leading the edge of tech. (The G5 is the closest thing to bleeding edge and the CPU was created by IBM not Apple with the chipset offering a faster bus which WAS probably designed by Apple.) I would put forth Apple hasn't done anything that puts it on the cutting edge in a while. They take established tech and blend it into a beautiful, easy to use package. Nothing in the PowerBook is out of the ordinary for parts ditto with the iPod. Don't get me wrong I like Apple products but they haven't done anything bleeding edge in a while now.

eric_n_dfw

Jun 14, 2004, 01:59 PM

I have a feeling that we're going to see some kind of authentication based scheme for HD DVD's - kind of like the DIVX mess.

IE: Player verifies authenticity with some server via modem/broadband

Portable players would have to have some way of doing this, however, too.

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 14, 2004, 02:07 PM

Deleted.

Becuase I didn't know what I was talking about.

eric_n_dfw

Jun 14, 2004, 02:08 PM

How do HD DVD burners present greater legal issues than regular DVDs? :confused:

It's all digital content, so why does greater quality mean greater risk?

Besides, has anybody seen one of these yet, and how much do they cost? :)I think their point is that PC users would have no use for HD DVD burning except for copying commercial HD movies.

The problem I have with that is that there are already pro-sumer level HD camcorders on the market. If I were to go buy one of them to shoot weddings, my only output solution that my customers would want would be HD-DVD. (Presuming players exist for it -- I just don't see DVHS taking off, BTW)

Presumabably, I'd have to charge an arm-and-a-leg so as buy a pro HD DVD deck (should they be available) or to pay an HD Pressing facility to manufacture my clients 4 or 5 discs.

Not happy with Job's quote on this one at all.

g4cubed

Jun 14, 2004, 02:11 PM

How do HD DVD burners present greater legal issues than regular DVDs? :confused:

It's all digital content, so why does greater quality mean greater risk?

Besides, has anybody seen one of these yet, and how much do they cost? :)

Took the words right out of my mouth!

And as for when, the dual layer burner just came out and still no media for it, last time I look.

twinturbo

Jun 14, 2004, 02:22 PM

DGFan

Jun 14, 2004, 02:24 PM

Haha. How many times have I seen Mac zealots claim that Steve understands that DRM doesn't work?

Mac zealots should wake up and smell the coffee.

FairPlay: Another Anticompetitive Use of DRM (http://blogs.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001557.php)

Steve Jobs loves DRM just as much as Bill Gates.

DRM does in fact work and iTMS sales figures prove it. The necessary condition for DRM working is that the restrictions must not stop customers from using the media in they ways they most want to.

DRM zealots should wake up and smell the coffee. Not everyone is an IP anarchist.

clonenode

Jun 14, 2004, 02:24 PM

How do HD DVD burners present greater legal issues than regular DVDs? :confused:

It's all digital content, so why does greater quality mean greater risk?

Besides, has anybody seen one of these yet, and how much do they cost? :)

I think the idea is that this is a new hardware format. So, before it's introduced and we start seeing HD-DVD movies hit the market, it would be a good idea to consider how DRM will or can work with them.

7on

Jun 14, 2004, 02:24 PM

Haha. How many times have I seen Mac zealots claim that Steve understands that DRM doesn't work?

Mac zealots should wake up and smell the coffee.

FairPlay: Another Anticompetitive Use of DRM (http://blogs.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/001557.php)

Steve Jobs loves DRM just as much as Bill Gates.

To be fair that says "Apple's lawyer" not Jobs. But anybody in the entertainment business needs DRM to protect their stuff. I also don't think Bill Gates loves DRM, he just has to keep the RIAA happy. However, Jobs has Pixar under his belt. He wouldn't be doing very well if he sold machines that people could use to steal from his other job. It'd be like a maker of vaults also making vault cracking devices, like dynamite.

nuckinfutz

Jun 14, 2004, 02:24 PM

What PR fluff. Jobs is giving Hollywood a virtual BJ here. Both HD camps know that they cannot afford to hold back on recorders. That's Blu Rays ace in the hole. The reason why they are sticking with MPEG2 so that recording from ATSC tuners won't require any recompression.

Hell with WM9 HD you have HD resolution at DVD bitrates. For all intents and purposes HD DVD is already here and just waiting for chip support. Jobs really is talking to damn much. We're treading dangerous ground here because he keeps painting Apple into corners.

Personally, I don't care for HD DVD, becuase in reality, films won't look "that" better in 1080i or 720p, becuase they are shot using 24p panavision film cameras, that are no where near the picture quality of native 1080i. I think alot of people are getting excited to think that they can buy the HD DVD version of say Kill Bill, and it will be in HD, it doesn't work that way, if it wasn't shot in HD I can't be true natice HD.

Doesn't matter. HDTV looks far better than the 480i/p what we're seeing right now with DVD. Sure film is still superior but we have limitation in our delivery methods still. I love HD ...once you watch it you don't want to return to DVDs.

This is a distrubing trend for all indie filmmakers<grin>. Once again Hollywood is appropriating technology as if they are the sole reason for its existence. When you can buy a HD camera from JVC for $3500 and a DVHS deck for $500 I'd say HD is for everyone who wishes to record in better resolution.

DGFan

Jun 14, 2004, 02:27 PM

*cough*bull*cough*s87t*cough*

IBM has more leading edge tech in its pinky finger then Apple does in its whole body. Tell me who else has built in hardware that aids in on the fly encryption for their laptops? Tell me who else has hardware in their laptops that can detect a fall and locks the hard drive prior to impact? Heck in another thread here on macrumors someone posted THIS (http://www.research.ibm.com/thinkresearch/pages/2001/20010808_cooling.shtml) NEver mind they have been looking at water cooled laptops for years now. Or how about THIS (Magnetic RAM) (http://www.research.ibm.com/thinkresearch/pages/2001/20010202_mram.shtml)
Neither the 17" PowerBook, nor the iPod, nor overall design of the new PowerMacs are leading the edge of tech. (The G5 is the closest thing to bleeding edge and the CPU was created by IBM not Apple with the chipset offering a faster bus which WAS probably designed by Apple.) I would put forth Apple hasn't done anything that puts it on the cutting edge in a while. They take established tech and blend it into a beautiful, easy to use package. Nothing in the PowerBook is out of the ordinary for parts ditto with the iPod. Don't get me wrong I like Apple products but they haven't done anything bleeding edge in a while now.

Your points are valid but that doesn't mean Apple isn't an innovation leader. IBM innovates at a lower level of technology. Apple innovates more at the product level. For instance, I am simply amazed at the elegance of the Powerbook power brick. Was Apple first with this design? I don't know, but I haven't seen another power brick that even comes close.

PBGPowerbook

Jun 14, 2004, 02:27 PM

Don't get me wrong I like Apple products but they haven't done anything bleeding edge in a while now.

Hm. Maybe from a different perspective on "new tech" I will disagree. I don't have any idea about chipset design or heat management but I know what company made it super easy to use Bluetooth and 802.11g and share files and print wirelessly in my new house. Which is pretty tech to me.

technocoy

Jun 14, 2004, 02:28 PM

apple DOES lead on tech innovation in many areas of interface design and elements, they also often introduce fledgling technologies long before they are accepted by other marketers and hence causes them to be brought into the mainstream sooner.

docpsycho

Jun 14, 2004, 02:28 PM

[QUOTE=Laslo Panaflex]Personally, I don't care for HD DVD, becuase in reality, films won't look "that" better in 1080i or 720p, becuase they are shot using 24p panavision film cameras, that are no where near the picture quality of native 1080i. I think alot of people are getting excited to think that they can buy the HD DVD version of say Kill Bill, and it will be in HD, it doesn't work that way, if it wasn't shot in HD I can't be true natice HD.
QUOTE]
Actually 135 MM film is 4 times higher that a 720p/1080i digital system. do the math. remember a CCD imager is faster for light sensitivity. :D hence film grain, uneven light reaction is the pitfall of traditional film. :o
besides all that is compress into a small viewing space anyways even with someone who has a "killer" front projection systme with a 15 foot screen won't take advantage of all that resolution.

nuckinfutz

Jun 14, 2004, 02:33 PM

Someone want to provide the whole article. I'm not signing up for the WSJ just to read this article.

bathysphere

Jun 14, 2004, 02:34 PM

There is always going to be a way around the encryption/copy protection . . .

Personally, I don't care for HD DVD, becuase in reality, films won't look "that" better in 1080i or 720p, becuase they are shot using 24p panavision film cameras, that are no where near the picture quality of native 1080i. I think alot of people are getting excited to think that they can buy the HD DVD version of say Kill Bill, and it will be in HD, it doesn't work that way, if it wasn't shot in HD I can't be true natice HD.

Sure, you can encode the films at higher bitrates due to larger storage capacity's, and that might make the movies look a little better, but still not HD. I guess the only good thing about HD/Blue Ray DVD is that it has greater storage capicity, which would be good for putting say 4 DVDs on one HD DVD.
hhahahaha holy crap that's the most wrong thing i've ever read. ever.
and i agree with most others here, what the hell is the point of singling out hd dvd burners? why would that be any different than a regular dvd burner? does steve need to pull his head out of his a$$, or am i missing something?

fartheststar

Jun 14, 2004, 02:34 PM

Wow, you have a lot to learn. Film has far more resolution than HD video.

Yep. They can take the film and make HD (or any other digital format for that matter) of it.

Movies shot on film are the best and have the most options when outputting them as a digital product.

SiliconAddict

Jun 14, 2004, 02:34 PM

Hm. Maybe from a different perspective on "new tech" I will disagree. I don't have any idea about chipset design or heat management but I know what company made it super easy to use Bluetooth and 802.11g and share files and print wirelessly in my new house. Which is pretty tech to me.

Ahh see this is where innovation and bleeding edge is in the eye of the beholder. I'm talking from purely a technological standpoint. If you look at it from integration and an ease of use standpoint Apple blows everyone else out of the water.

greg75

Jun 14, 2004, 02:41 PM

DRM doesn't work and iTMS sales figures prove it.
Fixed that for you.

DGFan

Jun 14, 2004, 02:41 PM

Ahh see this is where innovation and bleeding edge is in the eye of the beholder. I'm talking from purely a technological standpoint. If you look at it from integration and an ease of use standpoint Apple blows everyone else out of the water.

Well it sounds like you're arguing with yourself
:)

The term "tech innovation" which you initially objected to does not only apply to purely low-level tech. I would say that a fancy power brick is tech innovation. Why? Well, it's innovation in a technical product. I mean, it's certainly not flower innovation.

Software innovation is also tech innovation. And that's an area IBM could learn a thing or two about (I write this with the worst piece of garbage email program ever written - Locust Notes - sitting in my task bar).

Porchland

Jun 14, 2004, 02:44 PM

How do HD DVD burners present greater legal issues than regular DVDs? :confused:

It's all digital content, so why does greater quality mean greater risk?

Besides, has anybody seen one of these yet, and how much do they cost? :)

My thoughts exactly. HD isn't any sort of "ultimate" quality; it's just a (significantly) higher quality standard than regular old MPEG-2 DVD.

I don't get this either.

iris_failsafe

Jun 14, 2004, 02:45 PM

[QUOTE=Laslo Panaflex]Personally, I don't care for HD DVD, because in reality, films won't look "that" better in 1080i or 720p, because they are shot using 24p panavision film cameras, that are no where near the picture quality of native 1080i. I think a lot of people are getting excited to think that they can buy the HD DVD version of say Kill Bill, and it will be in HD, it doesn't work that way, if it wasn't shot in HD I can't be true native HD.
QUOTE]
Actually 135 MM film is 4 times higher that a 720p/1080i digital system. do the math. remember a CCD imager is faster for light sensitivity. :D hence film grain, uneven light reaction is the pitfall of traditional film. :o
besides all that is compress into a small viewing space any-ways even with someone who has a "killer" front projection system with a 15 foot screen won't take advantage of all that resolution.

It has been calculated that in order to reproduce film at it's full resolution you need 4000 lines (4K). If you use SONY Digital Cinema cameras you get 3300 lines (Attack of the clones). If you couldn't tell the difference in the Cinema, you won't notice it on your living room.

There are film scanners that can scan the negative at 8k (8000 lines) and transfer it digitally from 24-fps to 30-fps. Also there are houses that specialise in re-mastering film without loosing it's texture (grain) and quality.
Actually the best restoration house is a 100% mac company. Check out the article on Apple's web site.

You are right that HD is not cinema, they plan that second genertion of HD will have the 4000 lines resolution. I guess we will have to wait

squatch

Jun 14, 2004, 02:49 PM

Could someone please copy and paste the transcript from WSJ between Mossberg and Jobs here? Not sure if what Jobs said about HD DVD and his comments at D: All Things Digital are from the same article, but I like others am not going to pay just to read one or two articles.

nuckinfutz

Jun 14, 2004, 02:50 PM

Both HD-DVD and Blu Ray will have excellent CP. Blu Ray has already defined theirs and HD-DVD should be defining theirs soon.

Besides copying 30GB-54GB data files is a litter harder to do. Let's just say little tommy won't be downloading HD movies on P2P anytime soon.

Let us not turn this thread into film vs digital. Of course film is superior in ways but non of us can afford a good film projector so digital will have to do.

HD is important Macs. Final Cut Pro supports HD right now. Apple needs to be at the forefront of affordable HD production, editing and finishing. This means shipping HD Burners as soon as possible. Hollywood isn't losing money and HD CP will be solid. Bring on the gear!

DMann

Jun 14, 2004, 02:58 PM

It won't be long before we see HD DVD
formatted machines incorporated into
Apples products - this feature will neither
increase nor decrease the likelihood
of piracy.

dontmatter

Jun 14, 2004, 02:58 PM

Ick, much as we dont' like to admit it, this is just the overpowered CEO who has a conflict of interest that's too profitable to fix story. Grrr.

vanmonkey

Jun 14, 2004, 02:58 PM

There is always going to be a way around the encryption/copy protection . . .

Personally, I don't care for HD DVD, becuase in reality, films won't look "that" better in 1080i or 720p, becuase they are shot using 24p panavision film cameras, that are no where near the picture quality of native 1080i. I think alot of people are getting excited to think that they can buy the HD DVD version of say Kill Bill, and it will be in HD, it doesn't work that way, if it wasn't shot in HD I can't be true natice HD.

Sure, you can encode the films at higher bitrates due to larger storage capacity's, and that might make the movies look a little better, but still not HD. I guess the only good thing about HD/Blue Ray DVD is that it has greater storage capicity, which would be good for putting say 4 DVDs on one HD DVD.

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Film is and analogue format. It has far higher resolution then HD does. Have you been to the cinema when they're playing from a digital projector (which has five times the resolution of HD I might add)? It looks absolutely terrible, pixels all over the place.

And as far as your Kill Bill claims go, it was transfered directly to 3k, and on-lined at that resolution, which far exceeds HD. in fact, It's so high that it had to be compressed, otherwise it would take close to 3 gigs a second!

Okay, done ranting, but don't think you know something about something you know nothing about.

nsb3000

Jun 14, 2004, 03:00 PM

I don't agree with steve on this one..

nsb3000

Jun 14, 2004, 03:04 PM

nagromme

Jun 14, 2004, 03:06 PM

People will pirate. Copy protection is needed. That's sad reality. Artists should be compensated for their creativity. Blame the pirates who do what they want instead of what's right. There's a lot of that type about!

Obviously I wish there was no need for such protection, but there is. And I hope it's done so as not to interfere needlessly with legitimate use. FairPlay, for instance, doesn't harm my legal use of my music at all.

swissmann

Jun 14, 2004, 03:10 PM

I am in the video business. I will be switching up to HD DVD as soon as it becomes available and a consumer standard. I don't believe that after the push with iDVD/DVDSP and integration with DVD burners that Apple would let the HD revolution leave them in the dust. If they do I will have to find an alternate way to produce movies :( Apple just pushed HD with FCP 4.5 HD. They need to be first with the HD DVD burner and an easy integration with iDVD/DVDSP HD. Besides I don't care how much you try to protect media it will be stolen. All it does in the end is make everyone's life more difficult. What region code is it? Is it encrypted or not? etc. If I make a DVD and want to rip it and change it make it easy! If I own a DVD and want to copy or change it make it easy. If someone is going to steal media they will do it whether or not it is encrypted/protected whatever. Plus you remove the challenge of beating the system if it is not. Make it easy and save the money on the R&D to encrypt in the front end rather than think you will make up the money by having less stolen stuff in the end.

greg75

Jun 14, 2004, 03:14 PM

If this is true, than why don't we even have to enter a serial number to install Panther, or any other Apple application (as far as I am aware)?
Serial number != DRM.

Besides, the situation is not even comparable. Apple makes more money selling Macs than they do selling standalone MacOS X packages. Microsoft doesn't even sell computers. Piracy of the OS is a larger problem for Microsoft than Apple.

If other music stores used DRM and iTMS didn't, you'd have a point.

Flynnstone

Jun 14, 2004, 03:15 PM

Tell me who else has hardware in their laptops that can detect a fall and locks the hard drive prior to impact?

Probably everyone !
Most, if not all 2.5" hard disk drives contain an accelerometer to prevent writing "where it's not supposed to".
So just about all laptops have this "technology". It inhibits the write to disk when excessive forces are detected.

nsb3000

Jun 14, 2004, 03:18 PM

It won't be long before we see HD DVD
formatted machines incorporated into
Apples products - this feature will neither
increase nor decrease the likelihood
of piracy.

While I agree with you here, it is obviously why the film industry wants stronger protections. Just look at the evolution of optical media:

Audio Cds: No copy protection
DVD: Minimal copy protection
HD-DVD: Stronger, but almost certainly crack able copy protection.

The problem with CD’s is that anybody can copy them, even my Mom. While I don’t agree with the RIAA analysis of the size of the impact this has on sales, it certainly has some impact.

I would argue that DVDs are much less of a problem. While it is true that with a little know how you can get around the protections of DVDs, it is complicated enough that the mass majority of users don’t do it.

There will always be a group of hard cores users who can circumvent DRM’s, but if they are strong enough for the majority of users, a little precaution goes a long way.

greg75

Jun 14, 2004, 03:23 PM

Probably everyone !
Most, if not all 2.5" hard disk drives contain an accelerometer to prevent writing "where it's not supposed to".
So just about all laptops have this "technology". It inhibits the write to disk when excessive forces are detected.
Do you have a source for that?

Laptops incorporate drop-protection 'airbags' (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994239)
The world's first laptops incorporating automatic protection against the damage caused by a drop have been launched by US computer maker IBM.

The new ThinkPad systems use an onboard accelerometer to detect a sudden fall. If an impact seems imminent, then within a tenth of a second the computer's hard drive stops writing data and the read/write head is retracted to a safe position.

This is to protect the drive from damage that can result from jarring. An impact can cause the drive's heads to skid across the magnetic disks used to store information inside a hard drive, creating unusable sectors and erasing data.

The components most prone to damage are a laptop's hard drive, its display and its keyboard. But losing information stored on the machine's hard drive is the biggest worry for users, IBM believes.

The company compares its Active Protection System to the technology used in automobiles to deploy airbags during an impact. Worldwide product manager for IBM, Bill Iori, told NewsFactor: "The airbag will save the most important part, the driver and passengers. In this case, [the stored data] comes out alive, even if the LCD doesn't."

Active Protection System technology comes with the Thinkpad R50 and T41 laptops. IBM plans to patent the idea.

(newscientist is usually reliable)

slughead

Jun 14, 2004, 03:25 PM

How do HD DVD burners present greater legal issues than regular DVDs? :confused:

It's all digital content, so why does greater quality mean greater risk?

Besides, has anybody seen one of these yet, and how much do they cost? :)

The biggest reason companies create better media for movies and music is to better push DRM on the consumer. Think about it, if your favorite movie was on VHS, you will buy VHS.

DVDs are better, but that's not the biggest reason the movie companies ended up pushing it so hard. The reason is people were comfortable with the quality loss from copied tapes--it's not that noticeable and if you do notice it, you can just spend more money on better equipment. With the success of Go-video, it's obvious people were willing to go through great lengths to get 'free stuff'. If you copy a DVD to a tape, the quality change is very noticeable.

If it can sell 100,000 more movies (by discouraging piracy), then you may rest assured that's what the media manufacturers will push.

Of course, if you ask me the fact that the best HDTV is only 1080x605, AND interlaced makes me reluctant to buy into it. They should at least make the frame rate a multiple of 16 (like say, 80) to make smooth panning less annoying.. we'll see how OLED TVs do.

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 14, 2004, 03:29 PM

Actually 135 MM film is 4 times higher that a 720p/1080i digital system. do the math. remember a CCD imager is faster for light sensitivity. :D hence film grain, uneven light reaction is the pitfall of traditional film. :o
besides all that is compress into a small viewing space anyways even with someone who has a "killer" front projection systme with a 15 foot screen won't take advantage of all that resolution.

Poop on me, then why don't the movies on HD HBO look that much better to me than my regular DVDs? They look better but not not WOW better like 1080i 60 footage. I have a Sony Trinitron 36" model # KV-36HS510 and charter HD cable.

nuckinfutz

Jun 14, 2004, 03:33 PM

Of course, if you ask me the fact that the best HDTV is only 1080x605, AND interlaced makes me reluctant to buy into it. They should at least make the frame rate a multiple of 16 (like say, 80) to make smooth panning less annoying.. we'll see how OLED TVs do.

Not to sound harsh man but you need to get your facts straight.

HD "is"

1280 x 720 - This is commonly progressive so known as 720p
1980 x 1080 - This can be interlaced(1080i) or progressive (1080p)

You were close but you seem to have mixed the two up a bit. The next standard seems to be 4000 x 2000. Sony just announced a 4k projector for pro use.

Poop on me, then why don't the movies on HD HBO look that much better to me than my regular DVDs? They look better but not not WOW better like 1080i 60 footage. I have a Sony Trinitron 36" model # KV-36HS510 and charter HD cable.

LP I've noticed the same thing. HBO HD doesn't look much better than uprezed DVD IMO. Where HDTV looks absolutely phenom is sports. A good sports game with a direct feed in HD is eye popping. I think todays movies aren't being transferred well to HD in many cases. It's one reason why HDnet wants to run newer movies because of the additional clarity.

uzombie

Jun 14, 2004, 03:35 PM

I'm with Steve on this one.

Though nothing is 100% secure, its in his best interest to
secure comfort in the industry by not selling the very tool
that could hurt his business (Pixar).

True-If someone is going to steal, they will.
I am doubtful, though, that its trully viable on large scale.

Fact is, there is still a poor selection of HD on TV as it stands.
Old titles, even if up-converted, will need serious work and you can't get HD from old films.

Personally, why copy something like a DVD. Say my brother borrows my series of the Family Guy on DVD to watch. He likes it so much, he copies each DVD with some illegal PC program. He buys the blank DVD-Rs (we'll say 6 at $2 each). That's $12. Then, he spends about 4 hours setting up, and burning each one. If at his engineer salary of say $40/hr or more, that $172 he spent to dupe a movie he could have bought, on sale, for $40.

Time=money.

The same goes for CDs. It takes time to rip, organize, label. Some folks have time and no money. And a computer and blank CDs. Or friends. Its still time and money. ( I digress...sorry)

So, have they decided on a HD-DVD standard? Blu ray?

Anyway...
The future is still in UHDV. 4000 lines and almost 4 terabytes of storage for just 3 minutes of footage. And 60 frames a second. Steve, get that damn 3.0+ghz G5 out the door already! :)

Groves

Jun 14, 2004, 03:35 PM

hhahahaha holy crap that's the most wrong thing i've ever read. ever.
and i agree with most others here, what the hell is the point of singling out hd dvd burners? why would that be any different than a regular dvd burner? does steve need to pull his head out of his a$$, or am i missing something?

The "thing" that you're missing is that each technology generation (VHS, CD,DVD, HD DVD) is a *fresh* opportunity for content providers to get their DRM ducks in a row before it becomes mainstream, which it will.

it's not that they're singling out HD DVD because of it's difference, but because NOBODY has it yet for all practical purposes, much like black and white televisions.

Parikh1234

Jun 14, 2004, 03:36 PM

If this is true, than why don't we even have to enter a serial number to install Panther, or any other Apple application (as far as I am aware)?

All pro apple apps have serial numbers.

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 14, 2004, 03:39 PM

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about. Film is and analogue format. It has far higher resolution then HD does. Have you been to the cinema when they're playing from a digital projector (which has five times the resolution of HD I might add)? It looks absolutely terrible, pixels all over the place.

And as far as your Kill Bill claims go, it was transfered directly to 3k, and on-lined at that resolution, which far exceeds HD. in fact, It's so high that it had to be compressed, otherwise it would take close to 3 gigs a second!

Okay, done ranting, but don't think you know something about something you know nothing about.

Ok besides from me being totally wrong in my statements, film still needs to be compressed, and from my understanding (probably wrong again) HD wouldn't be "have" to be in order to fit on a HD DVD. Plus the film, is still contrained to the 1080i resolution, so it can't get any better than that no matter how good the original footage is. IMHO 1080i footage looks way better than HD film (I'm talking HD HBO movies), and if you ask most people (not film zealots), I think they will agree. I think 1080i looks better becuase it runs at 60fps (I could be wrong again), and film at 24.

slughead

Jun 14, 2004, 03:47 PM

HD "is"

1280 x 720 - This is commonly progressive so known as 720p
1980 x 1080 - This can be interlaced(1080i) or progressive (1080p)

You were close but you seem to have mixed the two up a bit. The next standard seems to be 4000 x 2000. Sony just announced a 4k projector for pro use.

Oh, I guess I did have it mixed up, thanks for clarifying. Makes sense the vertical dimension is interlaced, not the horizontal.

The framerate problem is still something I'm upset about--They make a 16x9 TV (EXPRESSLY FOR MOVIE VIEWING) and they don't even make it movie framerate compatible. Yes, most of the time you don't notice, but it's really distracting when it starts 'chunking' when doing smooth pans.

ryanw

Jun 14, 2004, 03:49 PM

If this is true, than why don't we even have to enter a serial number to install Panther, or any other Apple application (as far as I am aware)?

Well, good save. "As far as I am aware"..

These all have Serials or other means to control their software:
Final Cut Pro, Shake, Logic (hardware dongle), DVD Studio Pro, and OSX SERVER.

I'm sure there are others. But you are right, on the CONSUMER side, there are no serials, etc. It would be stupid to go through the hastle (cost) of having serials on iLife (itunes, garageband, iPhoto, iMovie), OSX, etc, expecially since they come free on new macs.

ryanw

Jun 14, 2004, 03:55 PM

legion

Jun 14, 2004, 04:04 PM

Actually the best restoration house is a 100% mac company.
Not true. They use Imagica scanners to bring in the film and they run on PC x86 Linux and Windows NT (the newer scanners) and the older scanners run on x86 Linux and IRIX (so SGI machines) That would decidely make Lowry Digital not 100% Mac (also, nowhere in Apple's PR do could I find them mentioning such a statement.) These scanners are the ones that allow resolutions above telecine (like cineon 4K.) I've visited Lowry before and they definitely have PCs there.

bathysphere

Jun 14, 2004, 04:07 PM

The "thing" that you're missing is that each technology generation (VHS, CD,DVD, HD DVD) is a *fresh* opportunity for content providers to get their DRM ducks in a row before it becomes mainstream, which it will.

it's not that they're singling out HD DVD because of it's difference, but because NOBODY has it yet for all practical purposes, much like black and white televisions.
yeah, well it's obvious that future hd dvd's will have copy protection, but why would steve jobs say something to the effect that hd dvd burners should (potentially) not be implemented in personal computers? i fail to see how hd dvd burners have no more potential to undermine film industry profits (through piracy) than our regular dvd burners do.

legion

Jun 14, 2004, 04:09 PM

Probably everyone !
Most, if not all 2.5" hard disk drives contain an accelerometer to prevent writing "where it's not supposed to".
So just about all laptops have this "technology". It inhibits the write to disk when excessive forces are detected.
Yes, but it doesn't park the heads during acceleration. This isn't protecting writing to platters, this is protecting the heads from colliding with the platters.

legion

Jun 14, 2004, 04:21 PM

Ok besides from me being totally wrong in my statements, film still needs to be compressed, and from my understanding (probably wrong again) HD wouldn't be "have" to be in order to fit on a HD DVD. Plus the film, is still contrained to the 1080i resolution, so it can't get any better than that no matter how good the original footage is. IMHO 1080i footage looks way better than HD film (I'm talking HD HBO movies), and if you ask most people (not film zealots), I think they will agree. I think 1080i looks better becuase it runs at 60fps (I could be wrong again), and film at 24.

Laslo, you really should stop... you're just getting deeper and deeper. Go with the old saying "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Panaflex would be abhorred with your statements on video and film.

First off, HD will have to be compressed to fit on HD-DVD. HD takes a tremendous amount of space. There is no such thing as "HD film"... film is film and has its own grade. HD is in reference to digital resolutions and digital cameras. Film can be transferred to a digital HD resolution, but you can work with it at much higher resolutions before printing to digital for distribution. When you work at higher resolutions, it gives you the ability to do greater composting work and graphics integrations and even colour correction-- that ends up with a better finished product.

Frame rates are a whole different topic. Even SD (Standard Definition) in the US runs at 60fps (30 interlaced.) Movies at the theater run at 24fps. Right now, any movie theater will look better than at your house. So I guess that shoots your fps theory out. This is a much larger discussion that you'd think about resolutions, frame rates, media, and analogue sampling. If you're really interested, a good book to check out is The Art of Digital Video by John Watkinson published by Focal Press. It's a good primer on all of this technology and really has little to do with actually shooting film.

VIIGemina

Jun 14, 2004, 04:24 PM

And no one thinks it might be because HD-DVD is tied to Microsoft's Windows Media 9 as one of its formats? The other format is H.264 which Apple only demoed its implementation earlier this year and hasn't released yet.

So Steve fuds the industry while Apple gets its HD-DVD story together with a future release of QuickTime and FairPlay. Then it will suddenly be OK to ship the drives.

Not implausible.

nuckinfutz

Jun 14, 2004, 04:27 PM

And no one thinks it might be because HD-DVD is tied to Microsoft's Windows Media 9 as one of its formats? The other format is H.264 which Apple only demoed earlier this year and hasn't released yet.

So Steve fuds the industry while Apple gets its HD-DVD story together with a future release of QuickTime and FairPlay. Then it will suddenly be OK to ship the drives.

Not implausible.

Actually AVC(h.264) is not an Apple creation. They are just pushing it because it combines nicely with MPEG4. You will see AVC everywhere in a year. It's a tough CODEC to encode though the small size comes at a hefty processing price which is 8x what it takes to process MPEG2 today.

TednDi

Jun 14, 2004, 04:27 PM

And no one thinks it might be because HD-DVD is tied to Microsoft's Windows Media 9 as one of its formats? The other format is H.264 which Apple only demoed earlier this year and hasn't released yet.

So Steve fuds the industry while Apple gets its HD-DVD story together with a future release of QuickTime and FairPlay. Then it will suddenly be OK to ship the drives.

Not implausible.

I agree. Sounds like something Apple will do. Release it and tell the world here is the solution! Don't be surprised if QT is the answer and the WWDC is the launch. But then again I have no idea whatsoever
:)

bathysphere

Jun 14, 2004, 04:39 PM

And no one thinks it might be because HD-DVD is tied to Microsoft's Windows Media 9 as one of its formats? The other format is H.264 which Apple only demoed its implementation earlier this year and hasn't released yet.

So Steve fuds the industry while Apple gets its HD-DVD story together with a future release of QuickTime and FairPlay. Then it will suddenly be OK to ship the drives.

Not implausible.
how is hd dvd tied to windows media 9?

VIIGemina

Jun 14, 2004, 04:43 PM

how is hd dvd tied to windows media 9?
DVD Forum mandates Microsoft for HD disc spec
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/03/dvd_forum_mandates_microsoft/

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 14, 2004, 04:43 PM

Laslo, you really should stop... you're just getting deeper and deeper. Go with the old saying "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." Panaflex would be abhorred with your statements on video and film.

First off, HD will have to be compressed to fit on HD-DVD. HD takes a tremendous amount of space. There is no such thing as "HD film"... film is film and has its own grade. HD is in reference to digital resolutions and digital cameras. Film can be transferred to a digital HD resolution, but you can work with it at much higher resolutions before printing to digital for distribution. When you work at higher resolutions, it gives you the ability to do greater composting work and graphics integrations and even colour correction-- that ends up with a better finished product.

Frame rates are a whole different topic. Even SD (Standard Definition) in the US runs at 60fps (30 interlaced.) Movies at the theater run at 24fps. Right now, any movie theater will look better than at your house. So I guess that shoots your fps theory out. This is a much larger discussion that you'd think about resolutions, frame rates, media, and analogue sampling. If you're really interested, a good book to check out is The Art of Digital Video by John Watkinson published by Focal Press. It's a good primer on all of this technology and really has little to do with actually shooting film.

Really, you aren't understanding, I am not saying that film is not as high resolution, I understand that now. What I am saying is that HD footage to me and probably other people looks better on an HD TV than uprezed film (HD HBO). I am not talking about film in a cinema compared to a TV, they are different like you discribed.

I guess I need to get my hands on a film that has been adjusted for HD broadcast properly, because although slightly better than regular DVD, the movies on HD HBO are not anywhere near as good as sports or other programming in 1080i.

P.S. Sorry for pissing people off by making mistakes on the topic, I find it hard to be perfect.
:rolleyes:

bathysphere

Jun 14, 2004, 04:49 PM

DVD Forum mandates Microsoft for HD disc spec
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/03/dvd_forum_mandates_microsoft/
weird, is there any slightly more up to date news on that? why would they approve a closed standard as opposed to an open standard? does it have to do with quality or politics?

edit:typo

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 14, 2004, 04:54 PM

Frame rates are a whole different topic. Even SD (Standard Definition) in the US runs at 60fps (30 interlaced.) Movies at the theater run at 24fps. Right now, any movie theater will look better than at your house. So I guess that shoots your fps theory out.

Why is is better to have higher frame rates in video games? Becuase it looks better, and to me 1080i 60 looks better on an HDTV than film that I have seen, uprezed or not. So I guess the problem is that the films that I have seen, have not been encoded properly, becuase according to facts, Film should look as good if not better than 1080i. Please, by all means correct me if I am wrong (it wouldn't be the first time).

nuckinfutz

Jun 14, 2004, 04:59 PM

Why is is better to have higher frame rates in video games? Becuase it looks better, and to me 1080i 60 looks better on an HDTV than and film that I have seen, uprezed or not.

24fps doesn't look better than 30 or 60fps from a qualitative standpoint. Hollywood loves the "effect" of 24fps but it has no real bearing in resolution etc.

Think about it. Movies have that blur effect to them that our eyes are used to seeing. Video has a higher framerate so we don't see that blur. That's why video on the nightly news looks like "video from the nightly news" and not a movie.

eric_n_dfw

Jun 14, 2004, 05:03 PM

The reason movies are still at 24FPS is because the public has been trained that it just looks right. When you see video (HD or SD), everything is harsher and more 'real' looking. Film == fantasy, Video == newscast/sports

At least that's what I've read and seems to be the common knowledge. The film vs. video debate has been going on long before HD was around. Heck, for a bigger debate, try to tell a high-end audiophile that tube amps are not better than solid state.

edit: hehe - Echo, Echo (I'm a slower typer than you I guess)

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 14, 2004, 05:07 PM

24fps doesn't look better than 30 or 60fps from a qualitative standpoint. Hollywood loves the "effect" of 24fps but it has no real bearing in resolution etc.

Think about it. Movies have that blur effect to them that our eyes are used to seeing. Video has a higher framerate so we don't see that blur. That's why video on the nightly news looks like "video from the nightly news" and not a movie.

I know, film is more natural and that is a part of the look, maybe there is something wrong with me, but I still think that 1080i/p HD footage looks way better, quality wise than film(on a HDTV). Maybe that has something to do with the camera's used and depth of field in each medium?

Anyway, I hope that films can look better on my HDTV in the future, because now, there is really no difference from my regular DVDs and movies on HD HBO.

tychay

Jun 14, 2004, 05:10 PM

And no one thinks it might be because HD-DVD is tied to Microsoft's Windows Media 9 as one of its formats? The other format is H.264 which Apple only demoed its implementation earlier this year and hasn't released yet.

Finally someone with some sense on this forum. BTW, "HD-DVD" isn't the only format out there, there is the Sony (et.al.) Blu-Ray which is far further along than the WM9 tie-in since they actually have working prototypes.

It's a shame that Microsoft managed to push through "HD-DVD" name through DVD Forum. This confuses the issue with high definition on DVD.

Not sure what Apple's take on this is, but they seem a little behind the ball. I actually don't think this is a big deal since people are so confused about HD that you see people buying wide screen 480p TVs thinking that they "going high definition." It'll take a while before demand materializes while the industry sorts out the chicken-and-egg thing.

RE: the OT film vs. HD video debate. IANIFI (I am not in the Film Industry) I thought that the reason that film was 24fps was because that is the slowest rate that didn't bother people. Film was very expensive in the day (it still is) and a difference of a few fps means many feet of film. In any case, most report that HD is as good as 30mm, so many claiming HD is better than film are right when comparing to a low-budge shot in 16mm. I think many HD cameras have smaller aperture and thus larger depth of field which means that more parts of the video shot will be in focus (though you can get those cool film effects and lighting, I imagine, is much more painful). Film is developed and will have dust and scratches which won't appear in HD. These are things that may affect perceived quality also.

My gut instinct is that the perception of quality is highly dependent on playback environment. Many HD demo setups I have seen have near ideal conditions compared to some of the poorly maintained and movie theatre where there is always someone who thinks of it as an opportunity to play MST3K. We can be very gullible for that sort of thing where some engineer with too much control of the environment has deceived us into perceiving things as better than they really are--heck, I used to own a BOSE speaker setup. ;)

Take care,

terry

bathysphere

Jun 14, 2004, 05:21 PM

Why is is better to have higher frame rates in video games? Becuase it looks better, and to me 1080i 60 looks better on an HDTV than film that I have seen, uprezed or not. So I guess the problem is that the films that I have seen, have not been encoded properly, becuase according to facts, Film should look as good if not better than 1080i. Please, by all means correct me if I am wrong (it wouldn't be the first time).
this link should maybe help in clearing up some of this fps confusion...
http://www.whatvideotv.com/articles/frame.html?http://www.whatvideotv.com/articles/general/200112_progscan.shtml

bathysphere

Jun 14, 2004, 05:32 PM

I know, film is more natural and that is a part of the look, maybe there is something wrong with me, but I still think that 1080i/p HD footage looks way better, quality wise than film(on a HDTV). Maybe that has something to do with the camera's used and depth of field in each medium?

Anyway, I hope that films can look better on my HDTV in the future, because now, there is really no difference from my regular DVDs and movies on HD HBO.
your posts are kind of confusing me... when you said '1080i/p HD footage' did you mean footage that is shot with digital video or film cameras? and when you say 'film (on a HDTV)' you mean movies that are shot on film and have been compressed into an HD format, like on hbo's HD channel?

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 14, 2004, 05:33 PM

this link should maybe help in clearing up some of this fps confusion...
http://www.whatvideotv.com/articles/frame.html?http://www.whatvideotv.com/articles/general/200112_progscan.shtml

All this talks bout is Progressive scan and interlace and 3:2 pulldown. It doesn't answer my question, Why does 1080i/p HD look better than films converted to HD on my HDTV? Is it merely a matter of personal preference? Please somebody give me a link I would love to know.

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 14, 2004, 05:35 PM

your posts are kind of confusing me... when you said '1080i/p HD footage' did you mean footage that is shot with digital video or film cameras? and when you say 'film (on a HDTV)' you mean movies that are shot on film and have been compressed into an HD format, like on hbo's HD channel?

Yes, that's exactly what I am talking about. :D 1080i/p is digital video and "HD film" are movies converted to HD, like HD HBO.

bathysphere

Jun 14, 2004, 05:50 PM

Yes, that's exactly what I am talking about. :D 1080i/p is digital video and "HD film" are movies converted to HD, like HD HBO.
ok that i don't know. it must have to do with whatever settings hbo (or whatever company hbo pays) choose to compress their movies and programs to make them sufficiently manageable to broadcast. and my link was about frame rate and frame rate conversion. but since you're talking about film that's converted to video, then it applies a little less (or at least not in the way i intended it).

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 14, 2004, 06:18 PM

ok that i don't know. it must have to do with whatever settings hbo (or whatever company hbo pays) choose to compress their movies and programs to make them sufficiently manageable to broadcast. and my link was about frame rate and frame rate conversion. but since you're talking about film that's converted to video, then it applies a little less (or at least not in the way i intended it).

yeah, thanks though. I think you are right and it comes down to how the film is compressed for HD. Also, I think that since film and video are such different mediums, it really is hard to compare the two.

GregA

Jun 14, 2004, 08:03 PM

DRM does in fact work and iTMS sales figures prove it. The necessary condition for DRM working is that the restrictions must not stop customers from using the media in they ways they most want to.Actually, the necessary condition for DRM working is that, once all things are considered, the consumer would rather pay for the item than pirate the item.

DRM doesn't have to make things impossible. It just has to make them difficult enough, or perceived as dangerous enough (law suit wise).

fartheststar

Jun 14, 2004, 08:06 PM

HD footage to me and probably other people looks better on an HD TV than uprezed film (HD HBO).

You do not uprez film. Film is higher than any digital resolution right now.

P.S. Sorry for pissing people off by making mistakes on the topic, I find it hard to be perfect.

Quit while you're behind.

Penman

Jun 14, 2004, 08:34 PM

Not to sound harsh man but you need to get your facts straight.

HD "is"

1280 x 720 - This is commonly progressive so known as 720p
1980 x 1080 - This can be interlaced(1080i) or progressive (1080p)

You were close but you seem to have mixed the two up a bit. The next standard seems to be 4000 x 2000. Sony just announced a 4k projector for pro use.

LP I've noticed the same thing. HBO HD doesn't look much better than uprezed DVD IMO. Where HDTV looks absolutely phenom is sports. A good sports game with a direct feed in HD is eye popping. I think todays movies aren't being transferred well to HD in many cases. It's one reason why HDnet wants to run newer movies because of the additional clarity.

FYI - HD's actually 1920 x 1080. That's why the 23" display sports that resolution (along with a ton of other monitors).

eric_n_dfw

Jun 14, 2004, 09:08 PM

lem0nayde

Jun 14, 2004, 09:29 PM

There is always going to be some geek somewhere who is smart enough to crack the DRM of any given technology. From there, the information will spread and for those willing to go through the trouble - they'll be able to illegally duplicate copyrighted material.

While, yes, the entertainment industry should look into the strongest most reliable security that they can find - they also have to realize that the geeks will always be able to get one step ahead of them. There is no solution to end all solutions.

So, there is certainly no reason to hold back new technology. The fact that Mr. Jobs - of the "Rip, Mix, Burn" era of Apple would be so arrogant and hypocritical as to suggest that the next evolution of DVD be halted and kept from all computers is plain silly. I guess that means us poor Apple users won't be enjoying the benefits of HD-DVD any time soon.

LethalWolfe

Jun 14, 2004, 09:30 PM

Just my 2 cents on various points brought up.

First, Laso, I can understand your confusion. The state of digital video right now is very confusing. Especially when it comes to HD because there are so many flavors and varients of HD. The HD used by Lucas, the HD used by local news station, the HD you actually view on your TV and the up-coming HD-DVDs are all different versions, and different qualties, of HD. There is even a new HD format based off of MiniDV called HDV. And many stations are choosing to air lower quality HD so they can air more channels as opposed to using a higher quality HD and having fewer channels.

Second, trying to compare the frame rates of film, video games, and TV is pointless because they are three very different mediums. And yes, as one poster mentioned 24fps for film was choosen as a cost saving measure because it was "good enough." "24p" is the current buzz because it looks more like film. And film, refering to both the medium and motion pictures, has an artist and prestigious<sp?> air about it that video and TV does not. Video still has a home video/low-quality stigma to it. Even though HD can rival film and the average person probably can't tell the difference. So, I guess what I'm saying, is video isn't trying to immulate film becauses film is higher quality (in terms of frame rate and such) but because there is a public perception that projects that are shot on film are of higher quality than those that are shot on video.

Lastly, when refering to SD video it is 30fps (frames per second) not 60fps (fields per second). Although sometimes I've seen to it refered to as "60i" on new digital cameras that can do various forms of HD and SD.

Lethal

AoWolf

Jun 14, 2004, 09:49 PM

HD is important Macs. Final Cut Pro supports HD right now. Apple needs to be at the forefront of affordable HD production, editing and finishing. This means shipping HD Burners as soon as possible. Hollywood isn't losing money and HD CP will be solid. Bring on the gear!

You know its odd that you say that... I was at an apple video something or other where they were showing off motion betas and other various video production software. The main point that they were trying to get across was how the market was adapting to HD and how prices were coming down. The guy was really pushing moving to HD and was talking about future size increases on DVDs.

RichardCarletta

Jun 14, 2004, 10:33 PM

I read it this week in PC World that SONY sells a blu-ray 23GB-Per-Layer Professioal Disc For Data . The specs are : top write speed of 6.5X ( 9 MBps ) , 23 Gb storage capacity . Sells for $3300 for USB 2.0 external drive or $2996 for an internal SCSI-3 drive. Sorry Steve, you are too late. :)

MikeTheC

Jun 14, 2004, 10:46 PM

I was looking on the apple store today and noticed a link which pointed me here:

http://www.apple.com/pro/store/video/

For a company so good at presenting themselves well, this is one of the ugliest websites I've seen in a long time.

Get used to it - all their pro app pages are in that style: www.apple.com/finalcutpro (for example)

Boxy is in.

My company is moving to a similar, boxy style - it's winning awards all over the place they tell me: www.travelocity.com

Ok, I've been to both. Personally, I like having the areas defined like that. And Travelocity is not the only site to have that style. Pretty much all of the major travel-related sites use it. I find it makes things much cleaner and better defined.

Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against white space, but I think it helps contain what's being viewed better.

MikeTheC

Jun 14, 2004, 10:57 PM

The more I deal with this stuff, the more I hate anything and anyone who gets mixed up in it. I work for a call center for a major PC manufacturer (hate to admit I'm supporting the WinTel platform, but it pays the bills). We are dealing with DRM in a lot of products, and naturally products made by other companies. I've also had to deal with a lot of stupidity in it's implimentation. Anyhow, I am completely turned offf personally to DRM because of the PIA it brings anyone who gets involved.

I remember when Sony first released the CLIEs, and then started releasing models that could play back audio. Of course, I use a Mac (naturally) so I have never been a position to use their software, but I can't imagine having to put up with all that crap either.

I don't get into video production (DTP is my main squease), and I watch practically 0 tv (1-2 hrs. per month, max), so by definition, this will all affect me far less than the average person, but the hair on the back of my neck still stands on end when someone tries to "tell me what I can or cannot do". I also have problems with "rights" because, so long as I don't try to profit in some way from someone elses' work, I don't want anyone telling me what I can or can't do.

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 14, 2004, 11:07 PM

You do not uprez film. Film is higher than any digital resolution right now.

Quit while you're behind.

Read all the posts before you flame me, I used the uprez term becuase it was used before, I did not make up the term.

And second, I am sorry I posted incorrect information, I am only human, can you please forgive me? Most of the people that have flamed me just say, "You are wrong" or "God that is the stupidist thing I have ever heard", yet few explain why. NOBODY, has answered my question as to why 1080i footage looks WAY better on my HDTV than the "HD" HBO movies.

So please tell me, becuase I am really confused, since film is such higher resolution, it "should" look at least the same quality of 1080i.

Thanks, and please take it easy, it's a macrumors messageboard :rolleyes:

~Shard~

Jun 14, 2004, 11:12 PM

Man, technology seems to be moving so fast nowadays - not that I'm complaining in the least! ;) I remember what only seems like a short time ago when I was excited to get a 8x CD burner for a measly $300, and CD-RWs were so expensive. Then DVDs came out, and don't even think about getting a DVD burner - they were $4000! Now we have DVD burners, DVD-RWs, and dual layer DVDs on the horizon, along with HD DVDs - bring on holographic storage!!! :cool:

Borg3of5

Jun 14, 2004, 11:13 PM

Pandora's box was open back when CD burners began to be marketed. Another user already beat me to it: "Some geek will find a way."

DRM will never be succesfull, as newer and faster computers are sold. If anyone is nit-witted enough to even think for more than a picosecond that someday a fool-proof copy protection will be invented, I've got a bridge to sell you. :cool:

Ummm...like hello?! A few hours after WinXP began selling there was already a circumvention to the futile attempt at its copy-protection and activation.

We will adapt. Resistance is futile.

LethalWolfe

Jun 14, 2004, 11:29 PM

iris_failsafe

Jun 14, 2004, 11:45 PM

LP I've noticed the same thing. HBO HD doesn't look much better than uprezed DVD IMO. Where HDTV looks absolutely phenom is sports. A good sports game with a direct feed in HD is eye popping. I think todays movies aren't being transferred well to HD in many cases. It's one reason why HDnet wants to run newer movies because of the additional clarity.

Because you need to scan the ORIGINAL film negative at ultra full resolution and convert it to ultra hgh res that HD is not compatible. HD has about 1000 lines, film has 4000. do the math

iris_failsafe

Jun 14, 2004, 11:50 PM

Not true. They use Imagica scanners to bring in the film and they run on PC x86 Linux and Windows NT (the newer scanners) and the older scanners run on x86 Linux and IRIX (so SGI machines) That would decidely make Lowry Digital not 100% Mac (also, nowhere in Apple's PR do could I find them mentioning such a statement.) These scanners are the ones that allow resolutions above telecine (like cineon 4K.) I've visited Lowry before and they definitely have PCs there.

The Imagica scanner actually scan at 8k and they use a pc to control it with your choice of os, and Lowry uses macs here is the link

http://www.apple.com/pro/film/lowry/

absolut_mac

Jun 14, 2004, 11:52 PM

How do HD DVD burners present greater legal issues than regular DVDs? :confused:

It's all digital content, so why does greater quality mean greater risk?

I am really surprised - 80 plus posts here about DRM, fairplay, copying, encryption etc etc, YET nobody has mentioned what, IMHO, the REAL cause of lost revenue to the RIAA and the movie business.

Sure they lose money when John and Jane Doe rent movies and make copies for themselves, or buy movies and CD's and make copies for friends - still, you're talking nickel and dime stuff - the real loss of revenue is when the professional pirates in the Far East and elsewhere make knockoffs by the zillions and sell them for pennies, sometimes even a week or two before the movies premiere.

And it's not just movies either, it's Gucci belts, Rolex watches, Ford Brakes, Boeing plane parts etc etc. This not only robs the rightful copyright owners, but fake plane, car and helicopter parts have been known to be the cause of many fatal accidents.

I honestly believe that most of these companies spend way too much time chasing down teenagers and 80 year old grandmothers and not enough time and money in shutting down the *REAL* pirates!!!

LethalWolfe

Jun 15, 2004, 12:07 AM

I am really surprised - 80 plus posts here about DRM, fairplay, copying, encryption etc etc, YET nobody has mentioned what, IMHO, the REAL cause of lost revenue to the RIAA and the movie business.

Sure they lose money when John and Jane Doe rent movies and make copies for themselves, or buy movies and CD's and make copies for friends - still, you're talking nickel and dime stuff - the real loss of revenue is when the professional pirates in the Far East and elsewhere make knockoffs by the zillions and sell them for pennies, sometimes even a week or two before the movies premiere.

And it's not just movies either, it's Gucci belts, Rolex watches, Ford Brakes, Boeing plane parts etc etc. This not only robs the rightful copyright owners, but fake plane, car and helicopter parts have been known to be the cause of many fatal accidents.

I honestly believe that most of these companies spend way too much time chasing down teenagers and 80 year old grandmothers and not enough time and money in shutting down the *REAL* pirates!!!

This is exactly why there is an air of caution (and sometimes paranoria) by content creation companies in the US because they don't want the States to end up like China. Once it gets that bad there is no stopping it. And companies, and governments, are doing what they can to combat pirates over seas but they are very limited in what they can do. It's another country(s) w/a government(s) that don't seem to care about the rampant piracy in their country.

And you don't hear about it much in the news because "Company X pleading w/Government Y" isn't nearly as headline grabbing as "Company X sues 8 month old fetus."

Lethal

Counterfit

Jun 15, 2004, 12:11 AM

the *REAL* pirates!!! Yeah, those guys. It would make digital life much easier for the rest of us if the pro pirates got shut down. Not all of them are in eastern Asia, but the hard to get ones are. Unfortunately, due to political and trade restrictions, it will be hard to have them shut down, or at least severely crippled.

GregA

Jun 15, 2004, 02:07 AM

I am really surprised - 80 plus posts here about DRM, fairplay, copying, encryption etc etc, YET nobody has mentioned what, IMHO, the REAL cause of lost revenue to the RIAA and the movie business.<snip> - the real loss of revenue is when the professional pirates in the Far East and elsewhere make knockoffs by the zillions and sell them for pennies, sometimes even a week or two before the movies premiere.It's not surprising that this isn't discussed. We're an Apple technology board, not a political discussion list (maybe we need a new forum here ;-)

You're right in some of what you said though - too often companies (and governments) are more concerned with making something LOOK like they're doing good, rather than actually doing good (which is much harder).

To bring it back to an Apple viewpoint - I don't know what the average income is in America, but US$10 for a CD is an acceptable price on iTMS. Does anyone know what the average income is in China?, and what a CD (a LEGAL one!!) costs in China? Is income taken into account? What about for computer software?

I think it would be fair for a CD to cost an average person 1 hour of work for instance, altered for their country. Would you get pissed off if Apple release iTMS in China at US$1 an ALBUM? Or paid US$13 for a legal 10.3/Panther (what do they pay?)?

Ooops too political?

gorkonapple

Jun 15, 2004, 07:24 AM

I think their point is that PC users would have no use for HD DVD burning except for copying commercial HD movies.

The problem I have with that is that there are already pro-sumer level HD camcorders on the market. If I were to go buy one of them to shoot weddings, my only output solution that my customers would want would be HD-DVD. (Presuming players exist for it -- I just don't see DVHS taking off, BTW)

Presumabably, I'd have to charge an arm-and-a-leg so as buy a pro HD DVD deck (should they be available) or to pay an HD Pressing facility to manufacture my clients 4 or 5 discs.

Not happy with Job's quote on this one at all.

This is a incorrect assumption. Correct me if I am wrong, but would a HD/DVD would be similar to a DVD, but with higher capacity? Everyone here well knows that we are always asking for more space....even on our removable media so Jobs would be incorrect here.

Current HD camcorders are NOT what I would consider consumer level. MAYBE prosumer level,but definitely not in the realm of the mom and dad wanting a cam to record baby's first steps. Even if it would be prosumer, it's still not common enough. The consumer level is what drives the market not prosumers. In any case, why would anyone want to record HD video yet? It's just now starting to hit the prices where most consumers will consider it, but maybe not purchase it. In another year, then MAYBE it will be cheap enough for 80 percent of consumers to consider replacing thier TV's And THAT isn't a guarantee either. Consider that you STILL have to LOOK for HD content on the broadcast end and most local news is still being done in analog and if it's being broadcast in some digital mode, it's not High Def, but Standard Def. So besides being a geek, what other reason is there for me to CONSIDER a HDTV or HDDVD? Sure it's cool and all, and DVD's will look great on the HD monitor, but they already look good on my Mac and my TV. What else is there??

MikeTheC

Jun 15, 2004, 08:11 AM

This is a incorrect assumption. Correct me if I am wrong, but would a HD/DVD would be similar to a DVD, but with higher capacity? Everyone here well knows that we are always asking for more space....even on our removable media so Jobs would be incorrect here.

<SNIP>

So besides being a geek, what other reason is there for me to CONSIDER a HDTV or HDDVD? Sure it's cool and all, and DVD's will look great on the HD monitor, but they already look good on my Mac and my TV. What else is there??

I have been resisting getting into this part of the discussion mostly because I have little interest in tv, etc. However, having seen HDTV, while there is certainly no question it is much higher quality than regular NTSC, I'm still left wondering if this is what most people want. Having nothing to do with quality, do most people want a TV with several times the resolution just to watch some soaps, a night-time drama, the news and Leno?

If anything, maybe this is technology that we should have had 10-15 years ago, but now that tv has just become more mindless, it just seems to me like more of a waste. Again, as I have said previously, I watch barely any tv in a typical month, and haven't in many, many years. If you exclude the period I'd watch when Babylon 5 was being rebroadcast, from approx. 1993 to the present, I bet I have watched barely 500 hours of TV, if even that much, so frankly if they quit broadcasting it, I'd hardly even notice.

absolut_mac

Jun 15, 2004, 09:52 AM

I think it would be fair for a CD to cost an average person 1 hour of work for instance, altered for their country. Would you get pissed off if Apple release iTMS in China at US$1 an ALBUM? Or paid US$13 for a legal 10.3/Panther (what do they pay?)?

Of course I do agree with you about regional pricing, but we already have that. It may not be perfect, but no system is going to please everyone.

As for my comments being too political, possibly, but I don't think so. What Steve and his Hollywood friends are proposing is almost identical to the Sony/Disney case from 25 years ago, and the very reason why Disney sued Sony in the first place in that now famous landmark case which clarified consumers fair use rights.

That is "let's cripple the technology, or restrict it because we cannot control it with 100% effectiveness and it might - the key word here being might - eat slightly into our profits".

Everything in life is a compromise, and it's about time these greedy companies accepted consumers fair use rights and turned their efforts to the real thieves - the professional counterfeiters!!!!

Cooknn

Jun 15, 2004, 10:18 AM

When you can buy a HD camera from JVC for $3500 and a DVHS deck for $500 I'd say HD is for everyone who wishes to record in better resolution.That Camera ROCKS! JVC Hi-Def Camcorder (http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?productId=PRD1206000&pathId=29) I think I'll wait for it to come down a bit in price though. Hi-Def for the masses baby :p

- Dave Cook

SiliconAddict

Jun 15, 2004, 11:11 AM

Probably everyone !
Most, if not all 2.5" hard disk drives contain an accelerometer to prevent writing "where it's not supposed to".
So just about all laptops have this "technology". It inhibits the write to disk when excessive forces are detected.

Bull ****. I challenge you to find me a spec that states this in a laptop hard drive. They are NOT built into the drive. In the case of IBM's laptop its a FEATURE of the laptop not the drive. Stop talking crap

kingtj

Jun 15, 2004, 06:37 PM

And honestly, I don't think you're correct on what "the point is" either. The point, quite simply, is that with an HD recorder in one's PC, you *could potentially* make copies of Hollywood's movie content in the same high level of quality they want to sell it to you in. I don't think Apple/Jobs cares a bit whether or not other uses for HD DVD recorders appear! Even if there were 200 great uses for one besides pirating movies, he'd still not want to see it hit the market without some sort of copy protection scheme built in.

IMHO, that's very disappointing to hear, because it tells me Steve Jobs values maximizing his profits (Pixar) over giving the consumer a better, more powerful computer system. It also (in my opinion) further hints that Jobs is focused on turning Apple into more of a "media company" than a "computer company". As he realizes it's easier to rake in big $'s by producing or reselling entertainment content than by selling physical goods (computer hardware), he's going to lean more and more in that direction. Apple computers already suffer greatly from their (partially deserved) image as a computer "useful only for artists and film-makers". The "general public" sees a Mac and thinks "overpriced, style over substance boxes favored by Hollywood types" and moves on to a Windows PC purchase. I really hoped this would change drastically with the maturing of OS X and systems like the G5 - but it may not if Jobs keeps such a "tunnel vision" focus on DRM issues, selling music online, and advocating limitations on the abilities of new PCs/Macs to help prevent copying of movies.

I think their point is that PC users would have no use for HD DVD burning except for copying commercial HD movies.

The problem I have with that is that there are already pro-sumer level HD camcorders on the market. If I were to go buy one of them to shoot weddings, my only output solution that my customers would want would be HD-DVD. (Presuming players exist for it -- I just don't see DVHS taking off, BTW)

Presumabably, I'd have to charge an arm-and-a-leg so as buy a pro HD DVD deck (should they be available) or to pay an HD Pressing facility to manufacture my clients 4 or 5 discs.

Not happy with Job's quote on this one at all.

Doctor Q

Jun 15, 2004, 07:04 PM

IMHO, that's very disappointing to hear, because it tells me Steve Jobs values maximizing his profits (Pixar) over giving the consumer a better, more powerful computer system.It's interesting that his two businesses have run into an area of conflicting interests. But I'm not convinced that we've really heard his definitive position.

Oh course, he probably gets more than $1/year salary from Pixar. Could that influence his strategic planning? :eek:

LethalWolfe

Jun 15, 2004, 09:19 PM

I think it's interesting that people, to varying degrees, blast companies and organizations for "living in the past" or "not changing with times" when it comes to digital media (DRM specifically) even though the people doing the blasting are guilty of it as well. You cannot apply "analog rules" to digital media. It doesn't work. Both consumers and companies will have to change and develop a new set of rules when it comes to digital media.

I can buy a CD, take it home and within a hour (and only a few mouse clicks) distribute a perfect copy, an exact clone, of that CD to 10's, if not 100's, of millions of people. How much time, money, and effort would it take to do the same thing 20 years ago? Heck, even 10 years ago. You don't even need media anymore. You can play/transport you digital media on a computer or any number of portable devices.

The internet and digital media have changed the rules for everyone not just the content providers.

Lethal

Flynnstone

Jun 15, 2004, 10:41 PM

Bull ****. I challenge you to find me a spec that states this in a laptop hard drive. They are NOT built into the drive. In the case of IBM's laptop its a FEATURE of the laptop not the drive. Stop talking crap

We were buying 2.5" hard drives 5 years ago (from IBM) with 200G operational specs. These drives had accelerometers to detect excessive shock or vibration. When it detected excessive shock it would inhibit disk write activity.
Look at the disk drive operational shock specs.

singspiel

Jun 16, 2004, 01:23 AM

I sure hope strategically Apple would rethink which format of next generation dvd burners they would implement.

HD DVD so far is only being supported by Toshiba and NEC
Blu Ray on the other hand is jointly being developed by 13 different companies

check out this FAQS

http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/

absolut_mac

Jun 16, 2004, 10:27 AM

Even if there were 200 great uses for one besides pirating movies, he'd still not want to see it hit the market without some sort of copy protection scheme built in.

The sad part is that consumers eventually find a way to work around it, just ask DVD-Jon. So while it may be a pain in the butt and may even temporarily inconvenience us, we eventually find a way.

So the bottom line is that the technology is crippled, consumers are inconvenienced and I guarantee you that all this nonsense doesn't slow down the pirates one iota. The only thing that slows them down is hefty fines and a few decades in jail!!!

And in a related vein, the MPAA's greed was really highlighted when they brought out this *regional DVD encoding* BS. What they basically were saying is that they didn't want you to buy movies where it suited you - the conumer, as consumers are wont to do, but tried to force consumers to buy their movies where it suited the MPAA and maximized their profit at our expense!!!

Forutnately that turned out to be a huge failure too and now most players are easily converted to be region free :)

trinityr3

Jun 16, 2004, 11:26 AM

Read all the posts before you flame me, I used the uprez term becuase it was used before, I did not make up the term.

And second, I am sorry I posted incorrect information, I am only human, can you please forgive me? Most of the people that have flamed me just say, "You are wrong" or "God that is the stupidist thing I have ever heard", yet few explain why. NOBODY, has answered my question as to why 1080i footage looks WAY better on my HDTV than the "HD" HBO movies.

So please tell me, becuase I am really confused, since film is such higher resolution, it "should" look at least the same quality of 1080i.

Thanks, and please take it easy, it's a macrumors messageboard :rolleyes:

I know I'm probably gonna get flamed for this newb-like response to your question but, here I go.

Assuming you have an HDTV and you watch
1. 1080i Sports footage shot on a HD Video Cam.
2. 1080i HBO Converted Feature Film
3. 720 DVD Film (let's assume it's the same film)

First of all, in terms of resolution output, the are all the same in terms of lines of resolution. So this isn't the problem.

Second of all, When comparing a 1080i "film" as compared to a DVD "film", the winner in terms of picture clarity should be obvious. Especially on a HDTV. To illustrate this point, on a RGB monitor, take a 640x480 monitor and take a look at a 640x480 image and it looks fine. It's rez may not be very good, but it looks "appropriate". Take the same image, and stretch it to fit on a 1600x1200 monitor, and there's noticable flaws in the image. The artifacting is prevalent, noise, pixelisation, etc. etc. This is because the higher resolution monitor acts as a "clearer piece of glass". So whatever is beneath the glass, is show more true to life. In this case, DVD "film" on an HDTV should look worse than the same "film" in 1080i format.

Now if you get that, than your original question of why does HDTV Sports Footage look "better" than 1080i films may actually only have to do with perception of what is "better".

Remember that sports footage, new reports, TV shows, and the like are 99.99% shot on Video and not film. The biggest reason for video cameras are cost. Film cost money. You shoot it once, and it's done with. Video is cheap. With that said, video sports footage is "usually" unprocessed raw footage (not in terms of cutting scenes and the like, but it's usually not filtered, layered, etc.) which may "appear" to you as "better". Have you ever looked at a home movie of say, a family vacation and thought to yourself "this looks more "real" than a TV show or movie? This is because the video is completely un-processed footage. And because (and this is going way off topic) our perception of home movies, news, reality tv shows, and the like in our society to be considered "real", if you couple that with 1080i resolution bumped up with vivid color (most sport footage broadcasts favor vivid color settings), you have this mental perception that it's "better, clearer, more life like".

But in the end, it may very well just be your subjective opinion and not necessarily fact.

Last note. Film, quite often, is post-processed with color filters (to change the scene's mood), special effects, correcting visual mistakes, softening of harsh lines, to give it a certain "look and feel". However, 99% of the time, any time you post-process film or video, you'll get a look that's completely different than sports, news, reality TV, etc.

Ok I'm done. Flame away. :(

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 16, 2004, 11:56 AM

But in the end, it may very well just be your subjective opinion and not necessarily fact.

Yes, I think you are correct. I am not trying to put down film or anything, but I feel that 1080i HD video looks better than film, even film in a theater. So I guess no matter how perfect the film is processed to be shown in HD, it still will not look as good as 1080i HD video to me.

The funny thing is, I don't think I am the only person that feels this way. Don't get me wrong, Film, when done correctly is absolutely beautiful, but I guess that's the reason for the two, they are two different mediums for different outputs.

So . . . My point is, is there really going to be that big of a difference for films on HD-DVD. I guess the films could be processed at higher bitrates and converted to 1080i, which is still lower resolution then the original film shown in a theater, but better than current DVD, so I guess they will be.

Anyway, if anybody has any film footage converted to 1080i that looks awsome, let me know becuase I would love to see it. The Sopranos and Deadwood look pretty good, but not spectacular, I guess I just like HD video better.

/hopes this makes sense :o

Cooknn

Jun 16, 2004, 12:16 PM

The Sopranos and Deadwood look pretty good, but not spectacular, I guess I just like HD video better.Agree with you on the film vs video statement. Live baseball on INHD compared to upconverted movies on the same channel is no contest.

What I would give to see what raw footage off the MiniDV of a JVC Hi-Def camcorder would look like :eek: Does anyone know how much HD data (time) can fit onto the MiniDV of JVC's GR-HD1?

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 16, 2004, 12:22 PM

Agree with you on the film vs video statement. Live baseball on INHD compared to upconverted movies on the same channel is no contest.

What I would give to see what raw footage off the MiniDV of a JVC Hi-Def camcorder would look like :eek: Does anyone know how much HD data (time) can fit onto the MiniDV of JVC's GR-HD1?

I think that the JVC Camera can do 60mins per tape, but from my understanding it only does 720p, it can't do 1080i/p. Not that 720 is horrible or anything . . .

Edit: Here is a link to complete specs of the camera, not too bad of a price either.

GR-HD1 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=278495&is=REG&si=feat#goto_itemInfo)

2jaded2care

Jun 16, 2004, 12:28 PM

What Laszlo might be seeing/preferring is the electronic enhancement that video cameras perform to sharpen edge detail. It is antithetical to the "film look".

I'm pretty sure as well that while most films are shot at 24 fps, motion picture projectors flash each frame twice, achieving an effect similar to 48 fps (similar to the 30 fps/ 60 fields per second of video). If you've ever looked through a running motion picture camera with a reflex viewfinder, you know that the effect isn't the same as what you see on the theater screen.

I think SJ is right on with his take on the HD DVD topic, but I don't think the market will allow it. Where there's money to be made, someone will fill the void whether it screws others over or not.

BeoVir

Jun 16, 2004, 12:37 PM

trinityr3

Jun 16, 2004, 12:41 PM

Yes, I think you are correct. I am not trying to put down film or anything, but I feel that 1080i HD video looks better than film, even film in a theater. So I guess no matter how perfect the film is processed to be shown in HD, it still will not look as good as 1080i HD video to me.

/hopes this makes sense :o

Laslo, one last thing. One thing Video Cameras (Bleeding edge equipment excluded) are not good at that film is, is capturing atmosphere and ambience of a particular space. It's hard to explain.... If the same movie maker shot the same panoramic scene in both video and film, you're likely to see the video "appear" to be sharper (like I said, perception, not reality) , but with film, you're likely to capture characteristics, ambience, atmosphere, and depth that is lost i n the video captured version. I'm not sure if this is due to how video is captured or not, but film's traditional exposure process brings out elements and emotion rarely captured in video unless edited in or processed to do so.

So again, while 1080i sports footage is "perceived" to be better, it also lacks the emotional expression, color, temperature, humidity, ambience, and depth, that film does so well.

IMHO You can't beat the infinite flexibility of analog film. Digital is just too limited in range.

Laslo Panaflex

Jun 16, 2004, 01:04 PM

IMHO You can't beat the infinite flexibility of analog film. Digital is just too limited in range.

Thanks for your input, I agree with you on your thoughts of film, I love film, but like you said they are entirely different mediums with a different look and feel. Maybe I just like HD video right now becuase it is new and exciting. Probably in a year from now, I will be looking at HD video and thinking that film looks way better, but right now, its HD for me.

uzombie

Jun 16, 2004, 01:59 PM

I love B&W photography. The grain, the contrast. Too bad Kodak killed off Panatomic.

Oh. OT.

I think that (and IMHO) that we should look at the country's top export item: entertainment.
If Hollywood is making the economy roll, one is cutting the virtual throat by allowing desktop copying of the very films that are considered an economical "resource".

Greed? Could be.
Profitable? You bet.
Piracy hurting sales? Numbers..show me the numbers.
You like movies? Everyone loves a Pixar film...

Everyone here should have 100-or more shares of Pixar. Or of Sony. Or SDK. Think about it. Would your opinion be different? (pun)

Maybe the casual user won't care or attempt it. But I know that there is a finite amount of individuals that would gladly crank out copies of latest films to give out, free or otherwise. Just getting a film from Netflix and duping it is a federal offense.

I think Steve is wise here. Don't like it? You can start your own computer company and put in whatever you want. I'd buy it, if its better than what everyone offers.

/taking a month off to paint pretty pictures

LethalWolfe

Jun 17, 2004, 02:09 AM

Laslo, one last thing. One thing Video Cameras (Bleeding edge equipment excluded) are not good at that film is, is capturing atmosphere and ambience of a particular space. It's hard to explain.... If the same movie maker shot the same panoramic scene in both video and film, you're likely to see the video "appear" to be sharper (like I said, perception, not reality) , but with film, you're likely to capture characteristics, ambience, atmosphere, and depth that is lost i n the video captured version. I'm not sure if this is due to how video is captured or not, but film's traditional exposure process brings out elements and emotion rarely captured in video unless edited in or processed to do so.

So again, while 1080i sports footage is "perceived" to be better, it also lacks the emotional expression, color, temperature, humidity, ambience, and depth, that film does so well.

IMHO You can't beat the infinite flexibility of analog film. Digital is just too limited in range.

No offense but I'm calling BS on this one. This is why there is still a stigma surrounding video. It goes back to what I said in a previous post about people attaching a prestigious<sp?> and artistic air to film thus infusing it w/a perceived superiority. Video is trying to emulate film not because film is better, per se, but because people associate the visual qualities present in film w/the movie going experience. This includes film grain, dirty/beat-up prints, and the jitter & weave of the on screen image caused by the projector. That is one thing that I'm still getting used to w/digital projection is the fact that the on screen image doesn't move. I'm used to the image always slightly dancing around on the screen. That imperfection is part of watching a movie on the big screen. Is digital projection worse because it doesn't jitter? No. But is sure is different.

The biggest hurdle digital filmmaking has to over come is being different, not being inferior. It's less of a battle over quality as it is over what people are used to. If you read interviews w/DP's that are steadfast against HD their argument usually boils down to, "I like film. I know film inside and out. I don't want to start from square one learning a new system." But they never say that. They keep trying to make an objective argument about a subjective preference. People panned digital editing when it first started making the rounds but look at it today.

When people think "film" they think "Hollywood" when people think "video" they think "home movies."

If you grab a wedding videographer and have him shoot a movie on an XL-1 or a BetaSP camera w/stock lenses it will look nothing like a movie because it was not shot in a cinematic style. If you take that same camera and put it in the hands of a good DP you will have a drastically looking different looking picture. I'm not a big fan of the man nor the movie but there is nothing, IMO, that is visually lacking w/"Once Upon a Time in Mexico" and it was all shot on HD. Relatively new cameras (starting at the prosumer level) are changing the way they process light. Instead of the "normal" video processing way the cameras are handling light more like film cameras (24fps, different gamma, less/no added edge sharpening, etc.,). This just means that there will be less tweaking needed in post to achieve the "film look". And as far as "...but film's traditional exposure process brings out elements and emotion rarely captured in video unless edited in or processed to do so." goes no matter what you shoot (film or video) it will get processed to achive the look you are going after. When you are shooting your main concerns are focus, framing, and exposure. 90% of getting the "look" you want happens in post. "Raw," unmanipulated dalies look way, way different than the final image you see in the movie. Many times footage is intentionally<sp?> under or over exposed during shooting so that after post processing the film product will have the desired look.

Finally, film is not infinitely flexible. It has it's limits just like any other format.
With today’s toys the difference between film and "film-quality" HD are insignificant 9/10. HD, like different film stocks, just provides another "look" filmmakers can choose from. What's better, B&W or color? Well, it depends on the story you are telling. Same thing w/HD. Which is better? It depends on what the needs of your story are.

/rant

Lethal

2jaded2care

Jun 17, 2004, 10:23 AM

Well, iris_failsafe has a point that film is around 4K lines, much higher than 1080. Also, DPs who shoot HD (getting to be about everyone nowadays) always mention the overexposure problem with video, always a dead giveaway if not addressed.

It is interesting the differences in the media, and the perceptions associated with those differences. We have been conditioned for 60+ years to associate film's qualities with "a real movie". Perhaps the next generation of seat-renters will not have the same biases most of us have.

I do find it amusing the extent to which people will muck with SD video to try to get it to resemble "film". Sure, go for it with HD, but SD (especially projected SD), it seems kinda silly.

Also gotta wonder how well HD material is gonna age, compared to (admittedly deficient) 35mm film. Guess they'll have restoration for HD content too...

I think the studios and theaters will be hurting when HD and HD DVD (and future higher-resolution formats) become commonplace. Their business models will probably change, as has RIAA's... In addition to HD DVD burners, they should also be (more) paranoid about digital content delivery to movie theaters -- you wanna talk about piracy, there's an even bigger problem IMO.

trinityr3

Jun 22, 2004, 02:11 PM

No offense but I'm calling BS on this one. This is why there is still a stigma surrounding video. It goes back to what I said in a previous post about people attaching a prestigious<sp?> and artistic air to film thus infusing it w/a perceived superiority. Video is trying to emulate film not because film is better, per se, but because people associate the visual qualities present in film w/the movie going experience. This includes film grain, dirty/beat-up prints, and the jitter & weave of the on screen image caused by the projector. That is one thing that I'm still getting used to w/digital projection is the fact that the on screen image doesn't move. I'm used to the image always slightly dancing around on the screen. That imperfection is part of watching a movie on the big screen. Is digital projection worse because it doesn't jitter? No. But is sure is different.

The biggest hurdle digital filmmaking has to over come is being different, not being inferior. It's less of a battle over quality as it is over what people are used to. If you read interviews w/DP's that are steadfast against HD their argument usually boils down to, "I like film. I know film inside and out. I don't want to start from square one learning a new system." But they never say that. They keep trying to make an objective argument about a subjective preference. People panned digital editing when it first started making the rounds but look at it today.

When people think "film" they think "Hollywood" when people think "video" they think "home movies."

If you grab a wedding videographer and have him shoot a movie on an XL-1 or a BetaSP camera w/stock lenses it will look nothing like a movie because it was not shot in a cinematic style. If you take that same camera and put it in the hands of a good DP you will have a drastically looking different looking picture. I'm not a big fan of the man nor the movie but there is nothing, IMO, that is visually lacking w/"Once Upon a Time in Mexico" and it was all shot on HD. Relatively new cameras (starting at the prosumer level) are changing the way they process light. Instead of the "normal" video processing way the cameras are handling light more like film cameras (24fps, different gamma, less/no added edge sharpening, etc.,). This just means that there will be less tweaking needed in post to achieve the "film look". And as far as "...but film's traditional exposure process brings out elements and emotion rarely captured in video unless edited in or processed to do so." goes no matter what you shoot (film or video) it will get processed to achive the look you are going after. When you are shooting your main concerns are focus, framing, and exposure. 90% of getting the "look" you want happens in post. "Raw," unmanipulated dalies look way, way different than the final image you see in the movie. Many times footage is intentionally<sp?> under or over exposed during shooting so that after post processing the film product will have the desired look.

Finally, film is not infinitely flexible. It has it's limits just like any other format.
With today’s toys the difference between film and "film-quality" HD are insignificant 9/10. HD, like different film stocks, just provides another "look" filmmakers can choose from. What's better, B&W or color? Well, it depends on the story you are telling. Same thing w/HD. Which is better? It depends on what the needs of your story are.

/rant

Lethal

Your first comment on this subject is "BS"? Don't be surprised if you don't make too many in life Lethal.

I respect your comment and you've brought many issues to light. Yes, there are stigmas standard film format doesn't overcome such as jitter through projectors, 24fps (which makes for well percieved motion blur, but this is subjective), grain when that's not what's needed, or wanted, etc.

I absolutely agree with how video can be in some cases better. How video has evolved to an excellent format. How it will only get better and get pushed to the limits, and how quite a few big budget movies have already shot in that format.

But to say film is dead, gone, an old format that is no longer good and that it's essentially holding us back due to prestigious & artistic aire that people associate with it is quite wrong. Well, lets just say, it's not "entirely" correct.

I wonder if your have the same standpoint on Vinyl records and CD's. That being said, CD's were developed, beyond the subject of portablity, to offer a pristine sound that, at the time, was to have unrivaled clarity.

If any of you have listened to vinyl, you'll understand this debate. Simply that records, have a low amount of noise in the background. Hissing, crackling, etc. So followers of innovation subscribed to the CD format to no end and put down vinyl as much as possible, wanting the vinyl standard to be rid of forever because of it's "inferiority".

Then, something funny happened, people kept listening to CD's and Vinyl and noticed something, while CD's had unrivaled clarity, it also lacked something. Something about this digital format was losing information. Could it be that it was 16 bit digital (which is poor at best)? Well the answer is yes. There is something that got lost in translation of very standard CD format since the early 80's till now. And that is to say, 16bit CD's lost the richness of trumpets, vibrant depth of a bass, awesome reverberation of a trilling opera singer, and the edgy shreak of the rockstar.

CD was right to fail from the beginning. Yes it's convienient, yes it's been the defacto standard for selling, copying, and transporting music for 20 years. But it's also a poor standard. DVD Audio and SACD address these issues with 96bit 5.1 quality (which is quite amazing), but digital is not infinite. By virtue digital is finite. There must be clear, defined bordered. Analog has a very different take on that. Analog is not infinite, but offers a much much much wider range of sound than that of it's younger sibling, the CD. Again, DVD-Audiovand SACD have now come much closer to vinyl.

Now, how does this address this conversation? First, I know video and film are not easy nor completely practical to associate with CD's and Vinyl. But there are some simliarities in the arguments.

Like you pointed out, 9/10 times, the diff. between film and film quality HD is insignifcant. But "insignificant" suggests that film still has that edge 9/10 times. And beyond that, that leave 1/10 times that is the diff between the two are "significant".

There lies my analagous argument of CD-vs Vinyl.

Feel free to flame away. :rolleyes:

LethalWolfe

Jun 22, 2004, 09:54 PM

trinityr3,

Do you even understand why I called "BS" in the first place? The entire point of my last post was not to debase film as a medium but to try and debase the mysterious, prestigious aire of superiority that people place on film. There is nothing magical about film. The magic, wonder, and beauty in the finished movie is there because hundreds (if not thousands) of people busted their asses 18hrs a day, for months, or even years, on end to put it there. The magic, wonder, and beauty is not there because film is inherently magical, wonderful, or beautiful.

Secondly, I think you need to reread that post (at least the last paragraph). In a nutshell, here is my position. I don't think, and never said, film is dead (it's far from it). I don't think HD is a poor man's film. At this point in time they are basically interchangable (which is why I said HD could be considered just another type of film stock).

I never said film had a stigma. I said video had a stigma. I mentioned the jitter, grain, and dirty prints because I associate those w/seeing a movie in a theater and when they are not present (i.e. I'm watching a digital projection) I find myself missing them. My point was that, dispite what film snobs say, film is not untouchable, and infact many of its short comings people actually like and expect. And that the biggest (only?) reason they dislike digital is just because it's not film. Every "new kid on the block" gets the same treatment. Talkies, color, digital effects, and digital editing all got the same treatment that HD is getting now. I don't see any of this as moving onto better things. I see it as creating more, not better, tools for storytellers to use.

I've never really entered on the Vinyl/CD debate because I never really listend to Vinyl. But, what it (analgo vs. digital) basically boils down to, IMO, is that people prefer analog "noise" to digital "noise." Analog noise is soft and fuzzy and typically doesn't shout "hey here I am." But digital noise is blocky and hard and is as difficult to ignore as analog noise is to miss.

I don't know why you thought I was going to flame you. I enjoy a good debate, and you basically said the same stuff I did. The only parts you disagreed w/were things that I never said. ;) But If I was going to flame you for anything it would be your reading comprehension skills. :p

Lethal

rickvanr

Jul 31, 2004, 09:39 PM

Serial number != DRM.

Besides, the situation is not even comparable. Apple makes more money selling Macs than they do selling standalone MacOS X packages. Microsoft doesn't even sell computers. Piracy of the OS is a larger problem for Microsoft than Apple.

If other music stores used DRM and iTMS didn't, you'd have a point.

But SJ has said they don't make a large profit on selling songs, and that iTMS is just an enticer to buy an iPod, so, basically, its the same situation. Apple sells a song for 99 cents so that you buy a 400 dollar iPod. And then they are selling 99 dollar software package for a 4000 dollar computer.

titaniumducky

Aug 1, 2004, 12:31 AM

I think that the JVC Camera can do 60mins per tape, but from my understanding it only does 720p, it can't do 1080i/p. Not that 720 is horrible or anything . . .

Edit: Here is a link to complete specs of the camera, not too bad of a price either.

GR-HD1 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=278495&is=REG&si=feat#goto_itemInfo)

Just so you know, 720p is better than 1080i in terms of possible quality. 720p means 720 progressive, or 720 lines on the TV with 720 showing at once. 1080i means 1080 interlaced, or 1080 lines on the TV with 540 showing at once (1,3,...,1079 then 2,4,...,1080).

1080p has yet to hit mainstream (though no HD really has), so 720p is the best commonly available resolution.

sebisworld

Aug 1, 2004, 05:09 AM

Someone want to provide the whole article. I'm not signing up for the WSJ just to read this article.

www.bugmenot.not

nuckinfutz

Aug 3, 2004, 08:26 PM

Just so you know, 720p is better than 1080i in terms of possible quality. 720p means 720 progressive, or 720 lines on the TV with 720 showing at once. 1080i means 1080 interlaced, or 1080 lines on the TV with 540 showing at once (1,3,...,1079 then 2,4,...,1080).

1080p has yet to hit mainstream (though no HD really has), so 720p is the best commonly available resolution.

That's highly debatable. It depends on what type of video you are recording. Fast moving subjects like sports like the benefits of progressive for sharper images while those looking for maximum clarity would still prefer 1080i along with a great de-interlacer.

To make things simply put it this way the DVD vertical resolution is 480 lines. Thus

720p represents a %50 improvement in vertical resolution

1080i represents a %125 improvement in vertical resolution

It's obvious the the "Holy Grail" is 1080p either at 24frames or 30frames. We will get there. Mitsubishi and Samsung both have rear projection monitors that can display 1080p video. Keep in mind that going to 1080p doubles the amount of bandwidth so what took you 19Mbps to broadcast in 1080i now takes 38Mbps. This will be ameliorted by the more efficient codecs coming like AVC and VC-9 but 1080p will still take quite some horsepower but I expect most high end TVs to support 1080p 1:1 pixel mapping within 5 years.