Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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
 
SiliconAddict said:
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.
 
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/
 
Excellent points

kingtj said:
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 :)
 
Laslo Panaflex said:
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. :(
 
trinityr3 said:
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 :eek:
 
Laslo Panaflex said:
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?
 
Cooknn said:
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
 
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.
 
eric_n_dfw said:
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.

I completely agree. There is never a point where companies trying to "protect" their "rights" stops infringing on the people's rights.

I really think this shows that Jobs wants to protect the companies he works for which is a good thing for his job security but not for his reputation. Whether that makes him a worse man or not I dont know.
 
Laslo Panaflex said:
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 :eek:


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.
 
trinityr3 said:
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.
 
I love film...read the FBI Warning!

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
 
trinityr3 said:
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
 
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.
 
LethalWolfe said:
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:
 
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
 
greg75 said:
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.
 
Laslo Panaflex said:
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

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.
 
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.
 
what is HI Def DVD

according to steve, Hi Def DVD will use the new codec included in tiger because you can get higher quality video on the same capacity discs, which makes me think he is hinting that HI-Def DVDs will use the same media but require new Hardware/Software. in my opinion, only the experimental blue laser DVDs would require a diferent burner, due to the narrower wavelengyh of the laser allowing thinner tracks and therefor more data. But as steve said at WWDC 04 h.264 HVC has been adopted as the new standard for the next generation of Hi- Def DVD players? SO Y wouldnd corrent DVD+-r DL burners handle burning a data file in the new codec? :eek:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.