Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft and Intel Back HD-DVD
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In regards to movies storage size really isn't an issue. W/the new codecs (like h.264) you can compress a feature length film into a very good quality HD movie that'll be around 4 or 5 gigs.
And in regards to the copy protection I think it'll be tougher to break because the player and the TV/monitor are actively sending encrypted signals back and fourth (I think its a few times a second) verifying each other and the "list" of verified devices can be changed by the content provider. So, for example, let's say you buy a "black box" so you can watch HD-DVDs on your non-HDCP compliant HDTV. You hook both the TV and the player into the box and the black box spoofs the player so it will send the HD signal. Once, let's say, Sony becomes away of the black box they'll get one, determine what keys it's using to spoof the player and the send and an update (piggy backed on HD/Blu-ray DVDs or TV signals) and the player will no longer recognize the keys the black box is using.
I wouldn't downplay anything M$ does in regards to HD. They got super burned by Apple on the music front and they don't want to let that happen again. I've read the MS has started soliciting the studios now when in the past MS always made people come to them.
I'm assuming you meant 720p.
Sucks to be an early adopter...
Lethal
And in regards to the copy protection I think it'll be tougher to break because the player and the TV/monitor are actively sending encrypted signals back and fourth (I think its a few times a second) verifying each other and the "list" of verified devices can be changed by the content provider. So, for example, let's say you buy a "black box" so you can watch HD-DVDs on your non-HDCP compliant HDTV. You hook both the TV and the player into the box and the black box spoofs the player so it will send the HD signal. Once, let's say, Sony becomes away of the black box they'll get one, determine what keys it's using to spoof the player and the send and an update (piggy backed on HD/Blu-ray DVDs or TV signals) and the player will no longer recognize the keys the black box is using.
I wouldn't downplay anything M$ does in regards to HD. They got super burned by Apple on the music front and they don't want to let that happen again. I've read the MS has started soliciting the studios now when in the past MS always made people come to them.
Yeah, looks like I misunderstand the conversation. There's a difference though between having to use a lower quality i/o and having having your player refuse to output an HD signal because your HDTV is not HDCP compliant. The difference between s-video and component is much smaller than the difference between SD and HD (espeically if you are viewing SD on and HDTV).ZorPrime said:
Also, the higher resolution HDTVs 770i, 1080i or higher tend to have digital inputs and if the input isn't in the format you need, you can buy a converter. Blu-Ray players will support 480i, which is what most people have.
I'm assuming you meant 720p.
Well, considering they (and the HD DVD backers) are screwing over everyone by forcing you to have a HDCP compliant TV/monitor if you want to get an HD signal to come out of the player I wouldn't much past'em.By the way, do you really think Sony will push for replacement DVD players and format that will negate 80% of the US TV market????
Sucks to be an early adopter...Lethal
LethalWolfe said:
Good point.
LethalWolfe said:
Very true. I totally agree.
LethalWolfe said:I'm assuming you meant 720p.
Nope. I meant 770p. I have a 42" 770p XGA Plasma Display (JVC # PD-42X795) and I also have a Mitsubishi 1080p 52" DLP HDTV (#WD-52627).
This is all very interesting. While traditionally Sony innovations have flopped by the wayside, I don't think the small fact of the Playstation 3 supporting BluRay will mean they should get the coffin ready for it yet. Not to mention both Apple and Dell support for the format.
On the other hand, HD-DVD, as I understand it, provides backwards compatibility with the existing DVD format, meaning that, as a video medium, customers will not have to keep their old DVD players or necessarily be forced into buying all their favourite movies again (for a third time!). I'm not overly convinced the extra quality will get people upgrading - most will not really be able to tell the difference and most (certainly in the UK) will not have a TV up to the job. I think the reason DVD video eventually took off was because it offered instant access (chapters) and didn't require rewinding NOT the increase in quality of picture.
We shall see...
On the other hand, HD-DVD, as I understand it, provides backwards compatibility with the existing DVD format, meaning that, as a video medium, customers will not have to keep their old DVD players or necessarily be forced into buying all their favourite movies again (for a third time!). I'm not overly convinced the extra quality will get people upgrading - most will not really be able to tell the difference and most (certainly in the UK) will not have a TV up to the job. I think the reason DVD video eventually took off was because it offered instant access (chapters) and didn't require rewinding NOT the increase in quality of picture.
We shall see...
And if they can get round the copy protection, having more computers with the drives to enable the copying of PS3 games would be a major advantage. Perhaps even with the xbox 360 we will see Blu-Ray win. Microsoft use DVD, prepare for an expensive HD DVD upgrade, people create a huge market in copied 360 discs, Microsoft change their mind and decide that the heavier copy protection of BDs is better.johnnyjibbs said:
I agree, most here seem to be less bothred by HD anyway. They just see it as another scam to immediately follow digital. Very much like the US backing of the lower quality VHS, DVD is enough for most here. Once Blu-Ray and HD-DVD come down in price, those with HDTV will go for it, those without won't necessarily. I also see everywhere selling DVD recorders for £100 or so, and most of those cheaper ones use the inferior DVD+R. If HD-DVD continues to be cheaper in discs, manufacture and player/recorder, a lot will just go for the cheaper technology again. Philips knows this which is why it flooded the market with cheap +R only recorders. If only Philips could make their BD recorders cheap enough to flood the market with.
Hopefully we will, and not in several years time.
A lot can tell the difference, (even with audio), but many aren't bothered to the point of actually wanting to replace equipment or going for the very best quality. If it records, it'll do in their books.cube said:
LethalWolfe said:
Not quite right from what I can tell. The standard dvd on a nice tv or computer monitor you can still see the artifacts. On a HD-DVD on a Hi-def TV you can STILL see the artifacts. With blu-ray you can't because of that extra space. (I've read this so it's second hand info.) Seems like HD-DVD is not what it should be.
Also, from everything that i read, Blu-ray does everything that HD-DVD does and more. Like you can still put a standard DVD in a Blu-ray disc. How handy is that if you want to bring the movie to a friends house?
DVDs, HD-DVD, and Blu-ray will and do undoubtably have copy-right protection.
In the end, blue ray is more expensive, but you get what you pay for. It feels like true next generation technology. Not an interm zip-drive. Remember, even SHARPER HD-tvs are coming out in the future with even HIGHER RESOLUTIONS. If blu-ray dies, it will be from lack of knowledge. Starting with the fact that they didn't but HD or DVD in their name....
Shoot me in the foot if I misstated anything
yadmonkey said:
Huh .... I feel flattered that you call a 16 million people country a competitive market. Your logic is flawed when you assume that they therefore make crappy products. In the world markets there is plenty of competition.... Maybe they are not that crappy afterall.
ZorPrime said:WHA, you have a 2160i TV???? I want one!
Lol.....my hypothetical 2160i TV....I'm going to wait until the prices come down a little bit
Boycott the new formats. Don't buy movies in either format.
Better yet, boycott Hollywood and don't buy any movies at all.
Even better, don't buy CD's either. Bunch'a money grubbing...
Better yet, boycott Hollywood and don't buy any movies at all.
Even better, don't buy CD's either. Bunch'a money grubbing...
ZorPrime,
Do you know much about the 770p function of the set? It sounds like a marketing gimmick to me.
Lethal
Do you know much about the 770p function of the set? It sounds like a marketing gimmick to me.
Assuming you have a good enough monitor you are always going to see artifacts though. The footage has to be severely compressed to be transmitted and it has to be severely compressed to end up on a DVD.pizzach said:
Are you sure that's right? I'd read that one of the HDDVD backers had developed a way to add an "SD layer" in a HDVD disc. So, for example, you could have the SD and HD versions of the movie on the same disc but on separate layers so it would playback in both HDDVD players and current DVD players.
Better quality HDTVs I know will come down the pipe (currently all HDTVs cheat and don't give true line for line reproductions of HD content), but higher res? What's the point of having a display that's higher res than than the recording format? All it will do is make the image quality look degraded (just like when you watch SD content on a computer monitor or HDTV).
Lethal
Lets not forget that MPEG-2 is OLD, add in a new codec such as H.264 and Bam! HD-DVD is awesome/cheap and space really won't be a problem...
LethalWolfe said:
Dont be jealous.
I'm very much well aware of what 720i, 770p, 480i, 1080p, etc. refer to. Do you? There is a difference between a 720 and 770 monitor, a 770 has greater vertical real estate, which I prefer. I can tell the difference between a 770p monitor and a 1080i. Notice the suffixes? If you actually owned an HDTV or viewed one outside of your local electronics store, you'd probably have a different opinion from what you currently have, maybe not. I dont know what your visual acuity is so its completely possible it doesnt make a difference to you and therefore is a gimmick.
LethalWolfe said:
I agree with you that viewing an upconverting a SD signal on an HDTV isn't as good as viewing a native HD signal. But the upconverted image, is still substantially nicer than than the original. Upconverting isn't the same as, viewing a 320x180 movie file on a computer monitor of 1280x1024, then stretching that 320x180 file to view it in 1280x1024 full screen.
As far as artifacts are concerned, an HDTVs resolution has nothing to do with artifacts. The occurrence of artifacts is mainly dependent on two things: the originating signal and how the HDTVs embedded processor processes that signal, interlaced or progressive.
When it comes to HDTVs, the embedded chip processes the signal for viewing in the monitors native resolution. There are two ways a video signal is processed by an HDTV, progressive and interlaced. An interlaced signal will always be of a lower quality than a progressive signal. An interlaced signal will always have more artifacts than a progressive.
Because in an interlaced setting, the first scan is of every odd line of the monitor, then the second follows the previous scan with the scanning of the even lines. We know there are approximately 30 frames shown per second. As a result, the monitor shows one half of every frame per sixtieth of a second. Lower frame rates mean its harder to cover up artifacts, in high speed or action sequences such pan-shots of football players, etc.
Progressive scanning shows the whole picture, the entire frame in one showing, every sixtieth of a second. This provides for a much smoother picture because the frame rate is twice as high, 60 frames per second, compared with interlaced. This process drastically reduces the occurrence of artifacts by masking them. I also agree that pretty much every HDTV will encounter artifacts but progressive HDTV have far fewer and the ones that do creep up are far less conspicuous.
How that converted signal looks depends on the processor. A 720p monitor will typically have a better picture than a 1080i monitor because of the way in which the video signal is processed and in tern displayed. A progressive scan monitor will bump an interlaced image up a generation or so.
As progressive signals occupy more space and require higher bandwidth, Blu-Ray is the preferable choice over HD-DVD in viewing and broadcasting progressive scan/higher resolution HD content. BD have higher data transfer rates than HD-DVD... more information means less compression which means better quality.
Can't be jealous of something I don't want.ZorPrime said:Dont be jealous.
I'm well aware of the HD specs (both for acquisition and for b'cast) and I don't see 770 anywhere which is why it sounds like a marketing gimmick to me (720i doesn't look familiar either).I'm very much well aware of what 720i, 770p, 480i, 1080p, etc. refer to. Do you? There is a difference between a 720 and 770 monitor, a 770 has greater vertical real estate, which I prefer. I can tell the difference between a 770p monitor and a 1080i. Notice the suffixes? If you actually owned an HDTV or viewed one outside of your local electronics store, you'd probably have a different opinion from what you currently have, maybe not. I dont know what your visual acuity is so its completely possible it doesnt make a difference to you and therefore is a gimmick.
I never said it did. I was talking about the quality of the display. Watch an HD signal on a broadcast monitor and you'll see things you won't see on a consumer HDTV from Wal-Mart. Both can have the same native res, but I'll bet the b'cast monitor will look a lot different than the one from Wal-Mart.
Depends on what you are shooting. Interlaced only starts to artifact when there is camera motion and/or motion happening in the frame.
Progressive does show each image as a whole, but how frequently it displays depends on the frame rate (i.e. 24p, 30p, and 60p show images every 24, 30, and 60 seconds respectively).
Again, you have to take frame rate into consideration. For example, a 1080/24p signal is smaller than a 1080/60i signal.As progressive signals occupy more space and require higher bandwidth, Blu-Ray is the preferable choice over HD-DVD in viewing and broadcasting progressive scan/higher resolution HD content. BD have higher data transfer rates than HD-DVD... more information means less compression which means better quality.
Lethal
I certainly don't want to be an early adopter of this technology. Very happy with my analog TV. IMHO Digital Cable is just too expensive. Will just wait until Digital comes to Basic Cable. Think that $9.16/m is all that the technology is worth. Still get to enjoy movies on a nice Apple LCD.
LethalWolfe said:Can't be jealous of something I don't want.
Sure.
LethalWolfe said:
Never mentioned anything about 770 being a broadcast standard. Youre confusing broadcast with playback. By the way Fox and ABC broadcast in 720p. NBC and CBS in 1080i.
It doesnt matter what the broadcast is anyway, since your HDTV will convert the signal for playback in its native resolution. So if you have an HDTV with 770 vertical lines, you will see you motion image in that resolution p or i.
LethalWolfe said:
Im not talking about Broadcast Monitors, I was talking about HDTVs consumers watch broadcasts on.
Youre referring to them interchangeably, nice rhetorical trick but pointless.LethalWolfe said:
Show me a currently sold consumer HDTV with its native resolution at a frequency of less than 60MHz. SDTV refresh rates are 60MHz, yet the broadcast signals are 6Mhz. I didn't know the broadcast controlled the hardware.
As far as DTV broadcasts are concerned, yes the ATSC standard does support a plethora of frame rates and resolutions, per broadcast compression need.
Anyway, once and finally the playback of an HDTV is not the same resolution, frequency, fsp, dpi or whatever as the original signal, be it broadcast, from a VCR, DVD, etc. The HDTVs embedded chip plays the signal back in its native resolution, whatever that may be. End of story.
When you watch a VHS or DVD movie on your consumer SD or HDTV (not broadcast monitor) are you viewing it in its original format? Nope.
The paradigm is different but the convention is the same: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Im finished with this particular discussion. You have your opinion and I have mine. In the end more people would rather have an HDTV than an SD. The thing holding wide adoption is pricing. Once the price of a medium sized HDTV hits $400-600 USD, HDTV will become ubiquitous. Im sure therere people still around that would rather view motion pictures via a stereopticon but its a good thing theyre not calling the shots.
wdlove said:
I totally agree with you. I have satellite and if my wife wasn't working for the company that builds them along with her nice discount, I wouldn't waste my money on digital cable or satellite either. We get digital satellite for about $30 per month with all the major channels and ton of extra channels, I stopped counting after 500.
Does my lack of envy hurt your Home Theater sensibilities? I guess it would just about kill you then to learn I used to watch TV on a 6yr old, 14", $80 Sharp TV w/a dinky mono speaker on the side and no cable. That's right, OTA only. My only complaint was that snipping was hard in Halo 'cause the screen was so small.ZorPrime said:Sure.
Yer right. I'm confused as to why having a TV that "goes up to 11" wouldn't be considering a marketing gimmick.
I was using an extreme example to prove a point. You do realize that a broadcast monitor is basically the same as a TV right? It will be of higher quality, and probably will have professional I/O's and some other pro bells and whistles, but basically it's just a TV. Okay, so how about this. Take the most expensive HDTV you can find at you favorite Home Theater vender and compare it to the lowest priced HDTV you can find at Wal-Mart (both w/the same native res and I/O's of course). There will be a difference in image quality, yes?Im not talking about Broadcast Monitors, I was talking about HDTVs consumers watch broadcasts on.
My mistake. I didn't realize your broad generalizations weren't meant to be broad generalizations.Show me a currently sold consumer HDTV with its native resolution at a frequency of less than 60MHz. SDTV refresh rates are 60MHz, yet the broadcast signals are 6Mhz. I didn't know the broadcast controlled the hardware.
As far as DTV broadcasts are concerned, yes the ATSC standard does support a plethora of frame rates and resolutions, per broadcast compression need.
Anyway, once and finally the playback of an HDTV is not the same resolution, frequency, fsp, dpi or whatever as the original signal, be it broadcast, from a VCR, DVD, etc. The HDTVs embedded chip plays the signal back in its native resolution, whatever that may be. End of story.
So, HDTV is so popular that people aren't willing to pay for it until the government deadline for ending SD transmission is reached and/or SDTV's basically stop getting made because TV manufacturers want everyone to buy a new TV. Yeah, sounds like everyone would rather have an HDTV.
The move by consumers to HD is going to be one of practicality not one of popularity. There will be no "boom" like there was for DVDs or iPods or Playstations.
Just because I'm not a now-screwed own of an HDTV that won't display an HD signal from the forth coming HDDVD/Blu-ray players doesn't mean I'm against HD. Personally I think its a very exciting time to be in the entertainment industry as we switch from analog to digital. It's also a royally PITA time too so the sooner SD goes away the better. I'm just not in a hurry to jump on the HDTV bandwagon yet.
Maybe it's cause I don't watch much TV. Maybe it's because I know some TV shows use the same SD master for both their SD and HD b'casts. Maybe it's because I'm around b'cast quality SD and HD all day and I know consumer HD is never, ever, ever gonna look anywhere near as good as what I see at work. So instead of seeing HDTV as a step up from SD I see it as a step down from the HD I see at work everyday. Also, I find TV entertaining because of good storytelling, not supreme technical merit. Will HD make "Law & Order" or "Dangerous Housewives" better than they already are? Will HD make watching "Pearl Harbor" a less painful experience?
I'm in no way against HD, I'm just not willing to pay a premium on an immature technology. You early adopters take the risks and cut the trail thru the woods. I'll wait until the path is paved, thank you.
Lethal
LethalWolfe said:
Nope. I'd have to actually have an emotional attachment to what you think or say to care.
LethalWolfe said:
Uhmmm... what's a TV?? does it have something to do with charged particles or a cathode thingy? no wait, maybe gas, no wait maybe Si... 5 years doing PostProd and CGI with SKG made me forget.
LethalWolfe said:
yet here we are, on MacRumors.
LethalWolfe said:
No prob. It's hard to get specific when answering vacillating axioms mistaken for convention but it's entertaining none the less.
LethalWolfe said:
Don't get too deep on us or else we dilettantes will feel left out.
LethalWolfe said:
Didn't construe you as being.
Now, do you think you can have the strength not to reply to an uninformed nobody?
ZorPrime said:Now, do you think you can have the strength not to reply to an uninformed nobody?
LOL
No, obviously not.
Lethal
I don't mean to interrupt the uber-nerd battle here, but i thought i post a semi-update to the drama that is unfolding.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050929-5366.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050929-5366.html