iPod Videos in Blu-Ray Discs?

[reyesmac]

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

 

[shamino]

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

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

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

I would assume that discs won't come with FairPlay, since that really requires the encryption to be tied to an AppleID, which clearly can't be encoded onto a disc. Unprotected is possible, but no movie studio is going to publish a movie in an unprotected format. Still, they might choose to release some of the bonus materials in this format.

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

Actually, the dependency is the other way around. The PS3 is (supposedly) ready to go, but it was delayed because the content providers have not yet reached consensus on the DRM BD movies will be required to use.

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

(Personally, I still don't understand the delay. I'd have shipped the PS3 without movie-playback capability, and offer a firmware update to provide this feature when the the DRM standard finally gets nailed down. But nobody from Sony ever asked my opinion 🙂 )

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

The PS3's delay may be what kills BD (since it is expected to cost much less than standalone BD video players), but it's because of delays in the BD standardization process, not the PS3 itself that are causing the PS3 delay.

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

 

[shamino]

In what way? BetaMax failed mainly because the tapes has too small a capacity compared to VHS, but the quality of the video was basically the same as VHS, so in essense it was worse. Anybody tells you anything else is believing an urban myth, or backed the wrong horse in the early 80s.

It's not quite that simple.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[shamino]

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

Better than this. BD is 25G per layer. 2-layer discs (50G capacity) will be supported immediately. 4-layer discs (100G capacity) have been demonstrated. The developers claim that 8-layer discs (200G capacity) should also be possible.

HD-DVD is 15G per layer. 2-layer discs (30G capacity) will be supported immediately. 3-layer discs (45G) have been demonstrated. No word about higher capacities.

What hd-dvd has going for it is cost to manufacture. The existing regular dvd pressing plants require little modification to make new hd-dvd disks. Blu-ray requires almost new lines and so the cost is greater at least for now.

The DVD Forum (sponsors of HD-DVD) have been saying this. The BD supporters are saying that although it will require new equipment purchases, the costs will be quickly made up, given the massive quantities that studios publish movies in. Overall, I don't think the actual cost to consumers will be any different.

I also believe that hd-dvd is backwards compatible and blu-ray will require the inclusion of a second laser to be backwards compatible so not all players will be.

They said the same thing about DVD being backward compatible with CD. But dual-laser drives became available almost immediately, regardless. (Has anyone here seen a DVD player incapable of playing audio CDs? I never did.)

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

 

[joebells]

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

 

[shamino]

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

What hassles? Unless you plan on making copies of your discs, nobody will notice or care. Just like most consumers don't notice or care about the CSS encryption on existing DVDs.

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

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

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

 

[astral]

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

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

 

[thejadedmonkey]

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

 

[Thataboy]

I take it back 🙂

 

[scotto07]

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

My Vote is yes

 

[Freakk123]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[wmmk]

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


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

 

[grockk]

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

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

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

 

[areyouwishing]

im lazy, i didn't read every post

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

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

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

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

 

[Vaphoron]

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

 

[the future]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ccool2ax]

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

 

[shompa]

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

I'll stick with plain DVDs, thanks.

Well.
What resolution do you use on your computer?

DVD is something like 0.3 megapixel.

HD is 2 megapixel.

You have 8-10 times more resolution.

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

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

 

[DStaal]

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

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

 

[(L)]

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

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

 

[Bonte]

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

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

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

 

[djlu]

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

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

Doug

 

[Thanatoast]

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

 

[DStaal]

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

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

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

 

[shamino]

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

Yes and no.

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

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

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