DVD Forum Approves HD-DVD Standard

An anonymous reader writes "Toshiba Corp. and NEC Corp. said Friday that the DVD Forum, an international association of electronics makers and movie studios, has approved the two Japanese companies' standard for next-generation DVDs. It has always annoyed me that DVDs are not the same top resolutions as High Definition TV. Maybe this will fix it." Well, better get to work rebuying your entire video collection, again.

Comments

DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope the standards are open to the public and don't need extremly high licensing cocts.

Re:DVD

[Mr. Mai]

Yeahhh and why not allowing free downloads of the movie too.. cmon be real!!!!

Re:DVD

[saden1]

I guess they are trying to kill China's new EDV initiative before it gets started.

Re:DVD

[smittyoneeach]

I just want to go down and buy hardware and movies and not be continuously beat with a bunch of input power format inconsistencies.
Give me something whose only 'personality' twitch is the shape of the power plug in the country the box is sitting in.
Make it PAL/NTSC/HDTV agnostic, supporting the various major formats for CD and DVD.
What am I quaffing? Absinthe: it makes the tongue grow blond.

Re:DVD

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see what is so funny about the expectation that a new standard be just that a standard. As a consumer I do not wish to pay the additional costs to own, use and reign fair use on products I buy. Licensing costs get in the way fair use and should be removed.

If your primary concern is about piracy then you should be more concerned about the enforment of current legislation then set a course on destroying the current business model of generating money on the distributiion of copyrighted works by setting a precedent that this is ok.

Re-buying

[freeweed]

Well, better get to work rebuying your entire video collection, again.

Toshiba/NEC's standard is fully backwards compatible with the existing DVD standard. What this means is, unlike Blu-ray, you can watch your old movies on the new players. No need for re-buying, unless you're bored :)

Re:Re-buying

[Nazmun]

But your old stuff will not be in high definition video. You have to rebuy to get the new super high def video.

Re:Re-buying

[Fortyseven]

I think they mean, repurchasing all your favorites in the new higher res format...

Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope: The Super-Hyper Fighting Edition: Directors Cut: XTREME Really Wide Screen High Definition Rerelease ULTRA-EX2

Re:Re-buying

[jo42]

Blech. First the SuperBit DVD releases. Then all of the Collector's Editions. Now to toss out my top-o-da-line Sony DVD player. Bastages!

Re:Re-buying

[NoodleSlayer]

Well I think a number of the movies I have therw wouldn't even be a point to buying a high-rez version because the source video isn't that good quality, especially some of the older stuff, so as long as the new players can play the 'old' DVDs should be much of a problem.

And this include Star Wars and practically every other movie that was made before the mid 90s. I look at a number of my DVDs and I can see the film grain on them because of the transfer from the source material, putting these in higher rez isn't going to change that.

Re:Re-buying

[Malc]

Don't forget: you will need a new TV too. Otherwise it will just down converting it all to 480i.

Re:Re-buying

[Shaklee39]

Soooo what is your point? You think all video media should be able to make itself better when a new standard comes out? You will still be able to watch the old dvds as clear as they were when you bought them, however, now when you buy any new movies you can grab ones with higher resolution.

Re:Re-buying

[Mod Me God]

Not only that older stuff. Of the few DVDs I've bought American Psycho (Loin Gate Studios) is the worse... grain everywhere.... and this was only made about 3 years ago!

MPEG-2 sucks unless it is done well.

Re:Re-buying

[sharkey]

Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope: The Super-Hyper Fighting Edition: Directors Cut: XTREME Really Wide Screen High Definition Rerelease ULTRA-EX2

I've heard Greedo shoots at a sensitive, non-violent Han, misses, then chokes to death on a jalapeno popper. Han never has to dirty his hands on a dirty, dirty gun.

Re:Re-buying

[AKnightCowboy]

Star Wars: Episode IV: A New Hope: The Super-Hyper Fighting Edition: Directors Cut: XTREME Really Wide Screen High Definition Rerelease ULTRA-EX2

Then you need to buy the entire remastered original Trilogy in the keepsake collectors box set. Several months later they'll release the entire remastered Star Wars episodes I-VI so you'll need to buy it again. Can't keep up with all these releases. How about just releasing a movie once with all the stuff you want to put in it including commentary without coming back 6 months later and re-releasing a completely new version with new commentary? Damn money whores.

Re:Re-buying

[shirai]

Sorry, but just because Blu-Ray is not inherently compatible with the current DVD format DOES NOT MEAN that DVD compatibility will not be offered in Blu-Ray players.

CD is NOT compatibile with DVD (wavelengths, format, etc.) and yet we see practically every DVD player capable of playing CDs.

Re:Re-buying

[djupedal]

No need for re-buying, unless you're bored

And/or you don't want the HD-DVD Edition of the Alien Series.

Re:Re-buying

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like the name of a Street Fighter game.

-1 redundant

Re:Re-buying

[Saeger]

I heard a slightly different version: Han sees Greedo draw his blaster -- which have been outlawed by Empireland Security -- so Han whispers into his comm to report the incident, as any good patriot must. Storm Troopers arrive moments later to remove the dirty, antenna-head terrorist.

--

Re:Re-buying

[Anonymous Coward]

You're new here, aren't you.

Re:Re-buying

[Anonymous Coward]

no, that was the (sarcastic, attempted humor) point of the submitter.
sheesh, no wonder people never RTFA when they already fail about two words after the headline.

Re:Re-buying

[Fortyseven]

Mmmm...overused cliches. Never gets old. I for one reject our new cliche masters. *cough*

Anwyays, I will rise to the occasion and reply anyways: I've simply never had to post with a "large amount of caps" before. I honestly don't see what good it does to filter posts based on this. There are legit purposes for a mostly-caps post, such as some code, and for comedic effect, as mine was, that are chewed on. I would think that moderation would take care of any trollish all-caps posts...

But anyways, I'm sure I'll get marked off-topic. Again. I'm crying on the inside. Really. Like a naked mime with AIDS.

Re:Re-buying

[aled]

And with 2300 hours of director comments, producer comments, cleaning-staff comments, dog barfs comments and 513 hours of the security camera of an unused location during filmation.

Does someone realy wants these extras??

Re:Re-buying

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a blatant misrepresentation.

I've seen the newly finished shot for the Star Wars: Brave New Millenium edition.

Han is holding a walkie-talkie, and Greedo's first shot ricochets off the wall and kills him.

It could have been worse, they wanted to make a digital Harrison Ford get up and check Greedo's vital signs, and use his walkie-talkie to call for medical assistance. But they spent the 20 million alloted for that changing which finger a ring was on for a featured extra who was later cut for time. Appearently his fart joke ruined the setup for a 10 minute long fart joke involveing Jar Jar at the end of the movie where the heroes recieve medals before the assembly of Flatlanders.

Re:Re-buying

[Neop2Lemus]

I like your comment. I'd add though that people always forget that when they're in the cinema, the image is always fuzzy, it is not clear and crisp like it appears when it's on your home 19" monitor.

No film u've seen is completely clear so I'm not too excited about HD DVDs. I mean, at least till I get a proper projector for them.

And with all this vunderful technology, why can't they be bothered to get rid of the 'cigarette burns'?

Re:Re-buying

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still lame.

Re:Re-buying

[LeninZhiv]

If you've seen a prototype blu-ray player you'd know that's not true--they're not simple optical disks, so unless there are two drives (like a dual DVD-VCR player, which costs considerably more than a solo player), then the OP's assumptions were correct.

Blue ray disks come in a built in protective plastic case, like 3 1/2 inch floppies. This is because the very small track widths make error correction so much more difficult. Even with DVDs there have been a lot of consumer complaints over how easily they scratch, and hi-def disks (in any format, unless someone comes out with one on a laser-disc size platter) are going to be that much more fragile, so this change is not as boneheaded as it sounds.

Re:Re-buying

[Fortyseven]

That I can't argue.

Re:Re-buying

[Whom99]

The Blu-ray founders have been very clear that all Blu-ray players can be expected to play back DVDs as well.

Re:Re-buying

[Babbster]

Can't keep up with all these releases.

I hate to bring little things like facts into a discussion but the truth is there have been NO DVD releases of the original Star Wars trilogy yet, and episodes I and II have each been released exactly ONCE. Thus, I would suggest that keeping up with all the releases of Star Wars movies these days is cake.

Now, bring up The Lord of the Rings and you've got something...Of course, few would want to do that since geeks actually LIKE the new LOTR movies where many didn't care for Episodes I and II of Star Wars.

Re:Re-buying

[BlueCoder]

So they can't include a caddy for playing old style DVD's? Or make money selling empty DVD caddys?

Re:Re-buying

[dododge]

and hi-def disks (in any format, unless someone comes out with one on a laser-disc size platter)

Actually Japanese Hi-Vision (HD) Laserdiscs have been available for years. But they're very expensive, and it's an analog HD format rather than digital.

And I'm sure that as with normal Laserdiscs, they're heavy enough to crush any shelf you try to store them on :-)

Re:Re-buying

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

The problem is not with the studio but with your purchasing habit. YOU are the one purchasing. You can simply pick one version and just ignore all future releases...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Re-buying

[Barbarian]

They can make an adapter cartridge that you put the DVD into before placing it in the player. Remember the CD recorder drives that had these cartridges once?

Re:Re-buying

[AKnightCowboy]

The problem is not with the studio but with your purchasing habit. YOU are the one purchasing. You can simply pick one version and just ignore all future releases...

What I mean is, take LOTR for instance. You can get the movie on DVD when they release it, or wait 2 or 3 months for the special director's limited edition extended play, etc, etc. w/deleted scenes version. Why isn't the normal version just the extended one with deleted scenes? Why bother to release the inferior one just a few months earlier than the other? If I'm a die-hard fan I'll want it on DVD as soon as I can so I can watch it at home, but then I'll want the extended play version with the hour of deleted scenes. Being an American consumer I can't help but have to buy both, and that sucks.

Re:Re-buying

[maximilln]

-----
and yet we see practically every DVD player capable of playing CDs.
-----
It's a good thing the chips for those architectures were compatible and went off patent. Nowadays the mother company would figure out a technicality or two to extend the patent on the circuits and we'd still be paying $300 for a CD player.

Re:Re-buying

[ihummel]

Han never has to dirty his hands on a dirty, dirty gun.

Sooo, Han is MacGyver's first name (and Solo his middle name). I missed the episode where they revealed that. Thanks.

Re:Re-buying

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wished they had put those cases on DVD's to begin with, like 3.25 floppys or MiniDiscs. Every other movie i rent at blockbuster is scratched, and restarts at some point in the middle or something stupid like that.
You can take care of your own dvd's, but cases like that would have helped the rental situation.

Re:Re-buying

[Anonymous Coward]

That is EXACTLY why they bother to release the inferior one. Because you will buy it.

Re:Re-buying

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

LOTR is a bad example because they announced IN ADVANCE that they were releasing multiple versions. I imagine the casual movie fans probably never got the message.... Anyway, as the AC points out, you choose to buy it. If anything, they should release 10 versions and milk all the money out of you ;)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Re-buying

[pete23]

of course, real men look back at the mini-CD adaptors that tiny CD singles required on very old CD players with something halfway between arousal and nostalgia.

or maybe that's just me...

Someone will still complain

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have to buy my entire movie collection again". Yeah sure, if you always want the best quality available.

But why would that make your current collection "look like crap"? It's the same DVDs you've been watching (or rather, collecting) since the beginning.

Re:Someone will still complain

[EABird]

I have to buy my entire movie collection again

Buy..... Again?!?!?!?.....

Re:Someone will still complain

[IM6100]

I wondered about that, too.

I've burned a lot of VCDs in the last five years. I guess I could reburn 'em all as DVDs if I wanted to record all those Simpsons episodes over again.

But really, I enjoy some music that's recorded on 78 RPM platters. If you're going to obsess about the 'quality of the medium' you'd best off just get out your credit card and wave it furiously at anybody who'll take your money. No point in sitting down, relaxing, and enjoying the actual program content.

Re:Someone will still complain

[pla]

But why would that make your current collection "look like crap"? It's the same DVDs you've been watching (or rather, collecting) since the beginning.

Think of a video game you enjoyed from the early 90's, something that had amazing graphics and you just stared at the eye candy for hours when you played it.

Try playing it now, on a modern PC, after having seen a few modern games. They look like crap, not even worth playing unless they included a great story as well (for me, the original "Unreal" kinda ruined all earlier games, at least as far as appearance goes - Pathetic story line, but so pretty...).

The same goes for TV. Most people still use plain old analog NTSC or PAL TVs. We expect, and automatically filter out, a low level of static, and expect a fairly low resolution image. To prove that to yourself, check out an NTSC screen capture on a modern PC monitor - They look like tiny little pictures with horrible graininess.

So yeah, the picture itself won't change, once we all have real digital HDTV playing capabilities. But our expectations will change, and what we currenly have will seem woefully inadequate, just like that classic video game.

Re:Someone will still complain

[dmaxwell]

To prove that to yourself, check out an NTSC screen capture on a modern PC monitor - They look like tiny little pictures with horrible graininess.

True but NTSC video viewed on analog NTSC monitors isn't that bad. There's some inherent analog antialiasing when the signal is viewed as originally designed.

Viewing such a signal on a computer monitor is a lot like listening to early CD or CDs of early stuff. They have stickers that warn you that "limitations of the original source material may be audible". On most turntables (I know, I know but most people don't have audiophile rigs. They have cheezy Symphonic type stuff.) and cassette decks noise inherent to the formats obliterated studio recording artifacts.

Anyway just how high can my expectations really get? I wouldn't mind having an uber-leet home THX set up to watch Lord of the Rings on but I could cheerfully watch Officespace on a cheezy VHS rig. A few movie might somewhat justify ultra quality. Most won't.

Re:Someone will still complain

[Anonymous Coward]

The new format is really only needed if you want to be able to see the occasional grey hairs of those who walked in front of the theatre screen.

Re:Someone will still complain

[stu42j]

I could cheerfully watch Officespace on a cheezy VHS rig

Uhm. Yeah. I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with you on that one.

Watching "Office Space" just isn't the same if you don't get to hear "Damn it Feels Good to be a Ganster" on a nice sound system!

Re:Someone will still complain

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, your response re TV tuner cards versus standard TV is not completely true.

I own several PCI tv tuner cards from various manufacturers. I've found that, like most things, the quality of the picture largely depends on what card you own. The Hauppauge WinTV Theater card I own has excellent output. (Note: I'm talking direct signal conversion, not the PVR250s, which convert to mpeg2 and then the file is replied with a 2 second delay--obvious quality difference there.)

Also, I doubt you've compared monitor output directly alongside a comparable TV. Although a standard TV may have the capability for brighter output (I have 2 Zenith 36"), I've also compared the computer output to a dual monitor/TV setup, such as the NetTV 29" (27" viewable). I think the Theater card has better output compared to the Zenith's. This is largely due to the software--they use the same techniques as the large tube manufacturer's. Why else could you watch standard TV at 1024x768? Also, TVs tend to look better because the tubes are deliberately set higher to run brighter and look better. This is simple to realize when you run a TV tuner card, since what settings look good of a dark shows (such as Buffyor Angel) would be annoyingly bright if you were trying to word process or web surf with a white background.

NTSC screen captures do look like shit, and you are partially correct in what you say, but you're still talking about capturing video to still frame. Sorry, but most conversions do tend to look like shit, including those coming off your DVD. I've DVD screen shots of so-called digitally enhanced movies, and the stills still look like crap. Furthermore, a lot of that is more depending on signal quality or limited color depth of NTSC than the resolution itself, which varies hugely from residence to residence.

Personally, I have no intention on changing much of my collection even if the price and availability was there, because most of it is anime and the like. With that genre, and in particular the TV series box sets, won't really benefit from higher resolutions. You're talking 10/30 frames at minimum typically not changing--at all (hence the nature of animation). Something like Metropolis will, but that's a movie or two, and at some point, having the "old school" stuff will end up being cooler than the new fangled version (see 45s).

Movie rentals

[ajuda]

Is anyone thinking that it would just be cheaper to go to block buster every time you want to watch a moive, instead of buying DVDs? This way you won't have to buy the extended version, the super extended version and the director's ultra extended version as each comes out. As if that wasn't enough, they obsolete each format within seven or so years? Bah. I'm going back to renting!

Re:Movie rentals

[Jeffrey Baker]

Blockbuster wants to drive the sale price of DVDs down to $5 and abandon the rental business altogether. The publishers are reluctant.

Re:Movie rentals

[Baron_Yam]

I buy used DVDs at around $10-$15 Canadian, or the price of two to three rentals. So, if I watch the movie more than three times before the media fails, I've saved money, right?

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

Blockbuster wants to drive the sale price of DVDs down to $5 and abandon the rental business altogether. The publishers are reluctant.

Please site references.

Re:Movie rentals

[Vandil X]

Never underestimate the power of being able to make a midnight bathroom run, then suddenly get the desire to watch Office Space on DVD at 3:51am, in your boxers, looking like crap, with no money in your wallet, and no ambition to find/venture_out_to a 24/hr rental store.

That's the real value of owning the DVD versus renting it.

Re:Movie rentals

[Malc]

I thought that several years ago, which is why my DVD collection is so small. I rarely watch a film enough times to warrant buying it. I guess I'm just not enamoured enough with Hollywood's offerings.

A few years back a friend of mine bought in to the whole DivX thing (no, not that video codec that crashes your Windows box). He loved it. For the price of a rental, he got to keep the disc. If for any reason he decided to watch something again, then it was cheaper and easier to use the pay per use (well, IIRC it was). He had a big collection of discs he wouldn't have considered buying normally due to the retail prices. Too bad DivX died - I guess CompUSA wasn't a big enough company to push it through.

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD ripper + DvD burner = 5.99 for a DVD.

Isnt technology grand?

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

uhmm.. yeah if you only watch rentals 1 time.. and you obviously dont care about new releases.

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully Blockbuster's selection has improved, I haven't rented a movie in two or three years. With DVD's I usually end up watching many of the special features, particularly the audio commentary. By the time actually watch both the DVD and whatever extras I want to watch, the movie was usually late or I'd run out of time and not watched everything I wanted to watch. So instead of dealing with the late fees, time constraints, and generall annoyance of having to return the DVDs, I just started buying them.

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. I'm going back to renting!

There may be a happy medium here. You can keep buying the ones you REALLY want to own, and just rent and burn (to DVD-R, (s)VCD, whatever) the others.

Re:Movie rentals

[mikewas]

Except they give you only one DVD from the set. The one with the grungiest resolution.

Re:Movie rentals

[derF024]

Is anyone thinking that it would just be cheaper to go to block buster every time you want to watch a moive, instead of buying DVDs?

Except that renting a (new) movie from blockbuster costs about $5, plus, if you're even a few minutes late returning it, they charge you as if you had rented it again. You can buy a DVD from their "previously viewed" section for as low as $10. There are usually tons of new movies in the previously viewed section of the store because they need to buy 40 copies of it when it first comes out to cope with demand, but once a movie is a few weeks old, they get rid of most of those to gain back the shelf space.

So, no, it's (often) cheaper to buy the movie, even if you only watch it once or twice.

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

How would that help Blockbuster? If everyone sold DVDs for $5, I still wouldn't go to Blockbuster. I'd keep buying them at Best Buy.

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

But when you rent DVDs they are often scratched by inconsiderate people that watched before you. Will you use a Disc Doctor before you watch a movie?

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

Blockbuster is more likely to be in your neighborhood than Best Buy.

Re:Movie rentals

[milkman_matt]

I buy used DVDs at around $10-$15 Canadian, or the price of two to three rentals. So, if I watch the movie more than three times before the media fails, I've saved money, right?

That's how I do it.. If I know i'm going to enjoy a movie and watch it a few times, with rentals being damned near 6 bucks now, I'll just buy it, I watch it 3 times and save money...

-matt

Re:Movie rentals

[freeze128]

Watch Office Space? Why would I want to do that? I *LIVE* it.

"I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything I thought it could be."

Re:Movie rentals

[Sethb]

Ugh, I hate the Office Space DVD. The cheap bastards didn't put it in anamorphic video, so it looks like crap on my widescreen HDTV. :(

Re:Movie rentals

[fermion]

I don't think Blockbuster wants low sale prices. The latest business plan appears to be the sale of used and previously viewed video, and thier used product price is often comparable to walmart. They buy video at less than $20 and rent for $4 a pop. It is not unreasonable to assume that the costs are covered after a month or two of rentals. However, instead of selling the video for twice rental costs, the tend to sell it in the 12-15 range, with the occasional sale at $10.

They also are expanding in the games market specifically because the price of games are so high. The high price encourages people to rent a game, even a few times, instead of purchasing the game.

Remember that Blockbuster was started when studios still were "pricing to rent" at $50 or more. The drop in price to the sub $20 range has hurt blockbuster by forcing them to effectively cut prices.

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

site

Aaaahahahahahaha.

Re:Movie rentals

[NanoGator]

Troll?! Yeah, I know DivX is automatically evil, but as an additional service, it's great for exactly the reasons the parent poster mentioned. Some movies just aren't worth paying $15-$20 for, but they're well worth $4-$5 to view once.

Lighten up folks. DivX would have sucked if it was used in a "Disney only publishes to this format" kind of way, but simply as an alternative it's great.

Re:Movie rentals

[Polyphemis]

Where did you hear this?

That doesn't sound like a particularly good idea on Blockbuster's part, if it's true. Blockbuster rakes in shit-tons of money from their rentals. They buy DVDs in bulk for $1 to $5 each (source: my fiancee, who worked at Blockbuster for a year until last month) and after only ONE rental per DVD, they've already broken even and begun to profit! Then they keep the movies around for years and rake in profit off of those. When the movies move off the New Releases wall to make room for the newer movies, and the excess copies go into the Previously Viewed sale area and sell for $10 - 17 each.

Let's take a quick look at the kind of money they make doing this.

For popular movies, they'll buy, say, 50 copies to fill up a wall. As soon as that's released, every copy will be rented out at nearly any given time for, eh, let's say a month. They're all 2-day rentals, so let's do the math: $4 per rental + 15 rentals a month = $60 gross - $5 for the initial cost of the DVD itself = $55 profit per copy. $55 * 50 = $2750 profit on a $250 investment.

That's $2750 profit per new movie, for one month, assuming each movie stays out for the maximum time allowed. Usually 8 to 10 movies come out per month. At the end of the New Releases run, they sell them for even more pure profit. On top of that, they don't pay their employees shit, so they're making tons of money here.

So why would they abandon this business model in favor of one with far smaller profit margins? They'd have to keep replenishing their stock repeatedly and the manufacturers would have to lower their prices on DVDs to make this an acceptable business model to Blockbuster.

Source: My fiancee, who worked at Blockbuster for a year until last month.

Re:Movie rentals

[NanoGator]

"But when you rent DVDs they are often scratched by inconsiderate people that watched before you."

Some of us have developed the habit of looking at the disc before leaving the store.

You know, Gigabyte flash cards are available now. they're not cheap, but I do look forward to using solid-state storage for movies. Smaller, more rugged, no errors. Ah I can dream.

Re:Movie rentals

[bobbozzo]

renting a (new) movie from blockbuster costs about $5

so don't go to blockbuster; there are plenty of $1 rental stores.

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck, they make a killing on late-fees too!

That income expectancy sounds entirely plausible to me.

Re:Movie rentals

[iordonez]

Netflix...

Re:Movie rentals

[Malc]

Yeah well, it goes with the territory. This /., not K5 - if you don't toe the Party line and stick to the correct doctrine, or if you mock ignorant moderators, you'll surely get slapped down.

Re:Movie rentals

[Gunzour]

Although Blockbuster does make a nice gross profit, they have been losing money for the past three years after all other costs (such as overhead including your fiancee's paycheck) are taken into account. Source: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BBI&annual That is a $1.6 billion loss they posted in '02. So far this year they seem to be making a profit, but it's significantly less that what your math suggests.

Re:Movie rentals

[Polyphemis]

Yikes! I hadn't realized that. I just asked my fiancee about it, and she's not surprised. Blockbuster apparently takes some losses with the special deals they have, such as the Rewards program that grants free rentals every week, and the promotions like pre-paying for an upcoming movie release and getting a card full of free rentals for six weeks leading up to the movie release. And, of course, the MASSIVE amounts of merchandise that's stolen from Blockbuster every day from customers and employees alike.

On one particularly bad day, ONE guy walked into Blockbuster with a backpack and loaded it up with half the store's supply of games and walked right out, unchallenged, because the employees were busy with other customers. My fiancee also worked with a manager who eventually got fired for being lazy and incompetent shortly before they discovered that she had secretly been stealing thousands of dollars worth of food and brand new DVDs the entire time she'd been working there. By the time they'd realized, it was apparently too late to take action on it.

I suppose that, with all that in mind, they really are taking it pretty hard after all. Damn.

Re:Movie rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

My fiancee also worked with a manager (...) shortly before they discovered that she had secretly been stealing thousands of dollars worth of food and brand new DVDs the entire time she'd been working there.

Are you proud of her ?

Re:Movie rentals

[akuma(x86)]

Blockbuster wants to drive the sale price of DVDs down to $5 and abandon the rental business altogether. The publishers are reluctant.

Where did you hear that?

Considering that Blockbuster makes about 40% of it's revenue on late fees, I don't think that they want the consumer to hold onto a permanent copy for less than they can get for their late fees.

If Netflix could improve their distribution system in such a way that you could get your movies faster...Blockbuster is toast.

Re:Movie rentals

[shplorb]

As I calculated a year or so ago, it's actually significantly cheaper (believe it or not!) to buy yourself a large HDD and low-end PC and to fill it with DVD images from rental discs than it is to buy all those movies outright. The value proposition of this has also significantly increased over the last year too. What's more, with some high bit-rate encoding in say DivX (say 2GB/movie) you at least double the cost-effectiveness of it, especially if you're prepared to wait a month or two until the new-release movies go to the $2-3 overnight shelves.

It's a very tempting idea, even more so if you consider chucking a DVB tuner into the box too so you can record TV streams. I'm probably going to end up building such a device in the next month or two, except I'll fill it with DVD's I own - no more scratches, changing discs or fingerprints. =]

People whinge about CD's costing too much, and say that's the reason people copy music. By comparison, a DVD costs probably marginally more to produce, yet costs significantly more than a music CD.

Re:Movie rentals

[PingPongBoy]

Blockbuster wants to drive the sale price of DVDs down to $5 and abandon the rental business altogether. The publishers are reluctant.


My first reaction - Blockbuster has the right idea really. Look at it economically. If people believe DVDs are affordable they will buy

But this will drive up the cost of making movies. If the best movie by today's standards is just worth $5 when released on DVD, what is required to produce a movie worth $7.50 or even $7.75 on DVD?

Isn't it just typical of people to herald a technological advance by worrying how much it improves their entertainment.

Re:Movie rentals

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

If Netflix could improve their distribution system in such a way that you could get your movies faster...Blockbuster is toast.

It wouldn't surprise me if Blockbuster attempts a takeover of Netflix. The Netflix business model is probably attractive in the long term so buying it out will help Blockbuster. The only thing is that it won't happen any time soon because Netflix and Blockbuster are competitors...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Movie rentals

[SophtwareSlump]

All the public libraries here in Central Ohio rent DVDs out. They're free, have a very large selection, you can reserve/renew online, and the rental period is about a week.

Only downside is that the libraries close at 9pm, so you need to do a bit of planning. Not decide at 10:45pm you wanna go rent a movie.

Re:FP for the CLIT; humble pie for fakers

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, that's great !

I've never seen anyone express their futility like this.

Son of a bitch...

[applef00]

Now I have to buy 1776 again.

Light on details

[Anonymous Coward]

Storage capacity? Compression format?

Those "details" aren't in the article.

Re:Light on details

[Rick.C]

The only details you need to know are:

- Insert disk.
- Press "PLAY" on your remote.

Only DCMA-violating terrorists would ask for more information than that.

Beta

[jptechnical]

Will shortly be announced as the replacement of DVD. And they all told me I was crazy!

No No No Please NO

[/dev/trash]

Well, better get to work rebuying your entire video collection, again.

Dammit it all to hell. I knew getting into this DVD thing was a mistake.

Overkill?

[Tiny Wolf v3]

Games might look much better at higher resolutions, but I'd rather not be inspecting the pores on Keanu's nose when I want to watch the Matrix.

Re:Overkill?

[psychogentoo]

I'll be too busy inspecting Trinity's pores.

Re:Overkill?

[K8Fan]

I'd rather not be inspecting the pores on Keanu's nose when I want to watch the Matrix.

I have The Matrix in HD (from Dish Networks via the Dish 5000, the 8VSB modulator and the Panasonic tuner/D-VHS combo)...and I assure you that I'm not closely inspecting Keanu's nose. On the other hand, I am familiar with every crease in Trinity's leather catsuit.

The only problem with watching movies in HD is that you cannot watch a DVD immediately afterwards. Doing so will make your eyes hurt from the strain. The difference is not subtle - my wife and I watched a movie in HD, then I showed her a bit of one of her favorite DVDs and she asked "What happened to the screen?" Nothing happened at all - it was just the difference between 480 x 720 and 1080 x 1920. Even the very best DVD will look sick compared to DVD.

Re:Overkill?

[Tiny Wolf v3]

Not entirely true. If you have an incredibly large screen it will be very easily noticable, but most people will still have relatively small TVs where the difference is extremely subtle, even if the resolution is much higher.
I'm not saying there's no difference, or that there's no market for it, but since the difference is so subtle for most people, it will be a luxury item that not many will buy for a long time. Just think about how long VHS remained the standard for home movies, even though beta was available with much higher quality. It's also interesting that very few people have TVs that can show the full quality of DVD as it is.

Re:Overkill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Curiously, you aren't aware of the difference between leather and PVC (actually polyurethane-coated vinyl). :)

Re:Overkill?

[K8Fan]

Curiously, you aren't aware of the difference between leather and PVC (actually polyurethane-coated vinyl). :)

My mistake...I'm a little weak on the finer points of fetishware. Dan Farmer I ain't.

Re:Overkill?

[K8Fan]

Not entirely true. If you have an incredibly large screen it will be very easily noticable, but most people will still have relatively small TVs where the difference is extremely subtle, even if the resolution is much higher.

Respectfully, I disagree. I have a very large TV, true (90" wide projection system). But the difference is clear on the VGA monitor I use for preview and cueing.

Any SVGA or better monitor can display HD depending on the source (one might need a component to VGA transcoder). Conduct a simple experiment: scan something at high res. Make two scaled down versions, one at 640 x 480 (roughly equal to 480P) and one at 1280 x 1024 (again, very roughly equal 1080i). Display each on your PC at native res. On any monitor 15" and above, the difference hardly "subtle". A little experimentation goes a long way to discovering the truth.

I'm not saying there's no difference, or that there's no market for it, but since the difference is so subtle for most people, it will be a luxury item that not many will buy for a long time. Just think about how long VHS remained the standard for home movies, even though beta was available with much higher quality.

The failure of Beta had more to do with Sony's squeemishness and refusal to allow porn titles to be issued on the format. That, and the fact that VHS had 2 hour tapes when Beta was limited to 1. And lastly, Sony chose mediocre licencing partners like Sanyo, diluting the market with crappy Beta machines. Beta didn't become the quality choice until the battle was already lost. Trust me on this...I owned a VCR back in 1979, so I've seen the whole battle.

Re:Overkill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the very best DVD will look sick compared to DVD.

totally agree.

Re:Overkill?

[danila]

A few days I've seen Matrix: Revolutions in IMAX - that's probably the highest resolution you can see it in. And although all skin problems are clearly visible (for all actors, especially for Morpheus), that's the choice the directors made. If you don't like that, watch a different movie where directors wanted to show fair-skinned beauties and spend time on that kind of make-up.

Re:Overkill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Overkill? Absolutely not. Read the DVD spec. The color is only 120 lines high! That's pitiful by any measure. There's 240 lines of B/W info, which if you've worked with JPEG encoding, you know that it's more important to have the brightness information higher resolution than the color so they got that part right anyway. Of course, the marketers call it 480i, but you know that's really 240 B/W with 120 color.

Re:Overkill?

[alexpage]

The creases are totally different ;)

Re:Overkill?

[K8Fan]

The creases are totally different ;)

I just want to be the guy on the set in charge of applying her ass-polish every morning.

Eeek the whole process all over again

[Nazmun]

Now that all things dvds (players, rom drives, and even burners) are affordable priced we have to go through the process all over again. Looks like i'll have to wait another few years for an affordable dvd burner that does this new format.

Re:Eeek the whole process all over again

[freeweed]

Or instead of frustrating yourself by always being on the cutting edge, you could just buy what fits your needs, TODAY. Not "what will I need in 5 years". Not "what will the neighbours have in 6 months". Today.

It's not like if you buy a DVD burner tomorrow it's going to stop working all of a sudden. Besides, once this new format is affordable, you'll just be repeating the whining cycle, because there will be an even better, more expensive format out there.

Re:Eeek the whole process all over again

[Tiny Wolf v3]

But most people won't be so easily converted. DVD is easily a justifiable upgrade to most, seeing how rapdily VHS degrades. HDDVD isn't.
Think about this for example, European DVDs don't even have support for progressive scan yet, and there are extremely few complaints on that.

We won't see this becoming big within a few years, it will take longer than that.

Re:Eeek the whole process all over again

[gl4ss]

if you take that attitude with consumer electronics.. you will NEVER GET ANYTHING BOUGHT, you will be waiting for the rest of your life for that next tech thing to replace your old lp/c64/b&w-tv/mono-radio(if you wait long enough they'll be cool tho).

look, if you need something today, go to the store and buy what's available, priced so that you can buy it and fills that need. the latest tech will never be as cheap as 'yesterdays' high tech.

Re:Eeek the whole process all over again

[timeOday]

Mostly agreed, but IMHO the Compact Disc is the best audio format that ever was, or ever will be, in the forseeable future: an unencrypted audio channel for each ear, with as much fidelity as humans can percieve.

The DVD was never close to comparable - single channel, highly compressed and encrypted video with only enough resolution to cover a little bit of your visual field. The DVD is NOT the "final format" for video in the way that CD is for audio.

Re:Eeek the whole process all over again

[a whoabot]

I can buy a CD player cheaper than a turntable. Heh, and, to note, vinyl still sounds better than CD audio. That's why audiophiles haven't left they're vinyl collections. Tube amplifiers aren't cheaper than transistor ones either.

Re:Eeek the whole process all over again

[EvanED]

"...with as much fidelity as humans can percieve."

Except it's not. Ever hear a DVD-Audio or SACD disc? Or for that matter a new (or otherwise unscratched and clean) vinyl record on a good player?

click

[Feyr]

i sure hope they eliminate the "click" you see when the damn thing switches layer in this new format. easily the Single Most Annoying Bug

Re:click

[Malc]

Click? I don't see that on my system. On about half the discs, there's a very brief pause. Most of the time it's not noticable. Maybe my Toshiba handles it better than yours? It seems to me that they could speed up the process of switching layers, or add some cache memory. It would probably put the price up though. Doesn't $1 extra manufacturing cost translate to $30 or $40 at retail?

Re:click

[ziggy_zero]

I think by click he meant brief pause or stutter....but yeah, it's not that noticeable, and usually they're good at putting it right in between scenes. I'm sure newer/more expensive DVD players are better at glossing over it than older ones, but I have a pretty old one and it's not too bad.

But it's still better than the old days before dual-layer where you had to flip the disc midway through the movie, eh?

Re:click

[escher]

This has always baffled me. What, they couldn't spring for just a bit more RAM for a read-ahead buffer? How hard is it to work around a l'il itty-bitty pause? Geeze... technology these days... *grumble* *grumble* *harumph* *grumble*

Re:click

[CharlieHedlin]

It isn't the age of the DVD player, its the price. On my 4.5yr old DVD player, I never noticed a pause at all, but I have seen it at other peoples houses. But can you even buy a single disk DVD player for $350 anymore? A couple of months ago I got a new Sony Progressive scan, and it was only $140.

Re:click

[Jethro]

Sometimes it is age. My 4+ year old APEX (yes, the first APEX DVD player, secret menu and all) does NOT pause at all during layer switch.

The only reasons I replaced the APEX is it's not progressive scan and it has some problems with DVD-A (somewhere along the line these stopped being pute dts streams). My $350 (well, $350 retail MSRP) JVC does pause on layer switch (albeit only for a fraction of a second), as does my $150 Philips DVD/SACD player.

Re:click

[akuma(x86)]

They already have dvd players with enough memory buffering to make the layer change seemless. I believe the buffer sizes are around 2 Megabytes. This is found in high end dvd players.

DVDs & HD content

[coldmist]

It has always annoyed me that DVDs are not the same top resolutions as High Definition TV. Maybe this will fix it.

DVDs can hold video streams with resolutions that HD uses. They just can't hold 2 hours of it.

This new format of disk could still hold an mpg-2 file, but have enough capacity to hold 2-hours worth of video at HD resolutions.

It's capacity, not format.

Re:DVDs & HD content

[jo42]

FWIW, Joe Kane, video industry guru, had a proposal that could have put full length 720p content onto existing DVDs. Didna go no where...

Re:DVDs & HD content

[dmoore]

Not exactly true as far as I understand. The firmware on your current DVD player does not know how to decode higher resolution video streams even if the disk contained them. The DVD-video spec only contains a very small number of specific resolutions that need to be decoded, since the players want to be as simple to implement as possible. Furthermore, the composite outputs on any current player can't be driven higher than 480p, at least not on any player I know of. In order to get higher resolution content, you need to amend the DVD-video spec in addition to increasing the capacity.

Re:DVDs & HD content

[NanoGator]

"This new format of disk could still hold an mpg-2 file, but have enough capacity to hold 2-hours worth of video at HD resolutions.

It's capacity, not format."

Too bad it's not just a case of compression. A recently released Terminator 2 DVD came with a Windows Media file at HD resolution. I know you all fear that watching this MS compressed movie will shackle your content, but it's still proof that DVD's today are still versatile.

Re:DVDs & HD content

[Anonymous Coward]

That was his point: DVDs can still hold HD content (albeit smaller amounts time-wise). Whether or not your DVD player can output or decode HD content is irrelevant.

Even a CD could hold HD content, in the same way that SVCDs can hold the exact same MPEG2 video that's on a DVD (though not as much as a DVD).

Re:DVDs & HD content

[jquirke]

PAL (region 4) capable players here in Australia can drive 576i.

I can easily tell the difference when connecting DVD player via SVIDEO and playing an anamorphic DVD (since with SVIDEO the DVD-player added black bars are wasting resolution), but when playing with my notebook PC connected via VGA the true native resolution of the DVD (576 * 576*16/9) shows, and already it looks substantially better.

I then compare that to 1080i HDTV which is the HDTV format used in Australia and that blows it away again.

Re:DVDs & HD content

[krbvroc1]

DVDs can hold video streams with resolutions that HD uses. They just can't hold 2 hours of it.

That is not correct. The DVD standard is very specific about what resolutions are supported and resolutions that HD use are not.

In the NTSC world, the DVD standard supports 720x480 (called D1) , 352x480 (called 1/2 D1), 704x480 (called Broadcast D1), and 352x240 (called SIF). These are the only 4 standard rates that consumer DVD plauyers have to be able to handle. A DVD player in your PC most likely allows greater flexibility in the standard. In that case you could possibly put HD data on a DVD, but it would only be playable on a PC. Another problem is that todays DVD player hardware were not designed to be able to pump data out at the MB/sec needed for an HD signal.

Re:DVDs & HD content

[cheekyboy]

But these days a $40 P3 CPU can decode dvd, so why not have some cpu in a dvd player and have it all in software so it then can play dvd/hddvd/divx/xvid/qtime/wmedia the lot!

Oh i forgot, no CEO exec is that smart.

DRM?

[IvyMike]

Maybe I'm getting too cynical, but I fully expect these new formats to have some nefarious DRM scheme. The article in question didn't have any information on it, but I'm sure some slashdotters out there know: What's the DRM like on these new formats?

Re:DRM?

[Espresso_Boy]

If it's anything like CSS was, then we have nothing to worry about :P

Re:DRM?

[qaato]

Nah, the DRM part comes into effect when you can't play one format in some other player.

Re:Are Michael's trollish comments necessary?

[satanami69]

Don't worry, when CMDRTACO dupes this story tomorrow, he'll print something like, "Well, at least my backwards compatible DVDs aren't affected by the new player's DRM!"

That'd be terrible!

[SHEENmaster]

Suddenly the DVD industry would have to deal with people stealing movies, like stealing cable. Then all the movie companies would die off, like cable companies have, and the DVD would be as extinct as cable!

Ironically, if they make the standards open, they can export powerful enough crypto to prevent cracking.

Re:That'd be terrible!

[gl4ss]

well that does hardly matter since vhs already killed the movie producers...

err...

Re:That'd be terrible!

[jest3r]

well increasing the data size five fold every few years is a good way to curb piracy ... DVD-R's are already too big for broadband unless you got alot of time on your hands. imagine trying to trade HD-DVD-R's ...

Re:That'd be terrible!

[Mod Me God]

DVDs are not too big for broadband. MPEG-2 (DVD) can be converted to MPEG-4 (Xvid, DivX 5x or whatever) more than ^1/4 size but little reduction in video quality (and hey, AAC audio is on many Kazaa'd .AVIs, MP3'd audio is not awful).

So on a entry level broadband (512kbps) I can dl an almost DVD quality movie in 3 hours (no extras, but extras suck compared to the finished product).

DVDs (DVD-Rs being writable DVDs) can be reduced to VCDs with a few bells and whistles. there is not much scope for size-bloat to prevent size-reduction and pirating.

In HK (used to live there) you could buy _legal_ VCDs (menaing guaranteed quality, recoursability, etc) of the latest DVDs a month after DVDs hit the streets at only US$3/movie. HK has a lot of piracy, but this policy benefitted the legal distro channels and originating studios a lot.

Re:That'd be terrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think you're thinking about Jack the Ripper.
And I think you're thinking about prostitutes.

Re:That'd be terrible!

[Mod Me God]

"When its as easy as kazaa and you can get almost instant gratification"... it is that easy. Yes I agree with you seeing a movie is enhanced by the finer points, but there is nothing hard about opening Kazaa, typing the name of the movie you want, double clicking on the version that seems to have the most 'users' and leaving the PC on overnight. Of course I am talking kazaalite.tk which gives instant access to the kazaa network at god-like karma. Yes it is that easy... type the name, select a credible chance (selecting one with XviD and AAC is a bonus but not rare!!), double click, wake up the next day with the movie. Of course, I completely condemn this behaviour if the download file is not permitted to be freely distributed. Do not download _copyrighted_ films. No.. Don't... Really!!!!

Re:That'd be terrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

... no extras, but extras suck compared to the finished product

Except for the Lord Of the Rings.

Re:That'd be terrible!

[Anonymous Coward]

DVDs are not too big for broadband. MPEG-2 (DVD) can be converted to MPEG-4

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Stop right there.

By converting to a more compressed format you are acknowledging the very fact you claim to disprove.

To wit, that MPEG-2 is too large to stream over the sad little connections that Americans call "broadband".

Re:That'd be terrible!

[jest3r]

DVDs are not too big for broadband. MPEG-2 (DVD) can be converted to MPEG-4

Of course they are - thats why you converted it to MPEG4 ... to lower the filesize.

People on really highspeed networks trade ISO images of DVD's to burn onto DVD-R ... but at 4.7GB a pop they are pretty large for the average joe.

HD-DVD will up the ISO size to almost 25GB per layer.

Re:That'd be terrible!

[Awptimus Prime]

^1/4 size but little reduction in video quality

You obviously don't have an HDTV with a large screen. Divx playback is watchable, but in the same sense as watching compressed DirecTV channels on a 50+" monitor.

Mind you, anything has got to be better than watching movies at 480p. It sucks when you spend all that cash on a hi-def set, then your only outlet for movies in full resolution is PPV. You can, of course, go the route of OTA broadcasts and watch JAG, OC, and the other dribble that comes on during prime time in hi-def.

Stretching the subject a bit, but, I have to say that boobies in 1080i look much more 3D and life-like.

Re:That'd be terrible!

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Stretching the subject a bit, but, I have to say that boobies in 1080i look much more 3D and life-like.

So THAT'S why you spent all that money on an HDTV!

;)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:That'd be terrible!

[GMontag451]

You must not be very familiar with the latest filesharing trends. I see people trading DVD-Rs all the time over regular broadband. I'd wager that for every 4 DivX, XviD, or MSMPEG4 videos out there, there is 1 DVD-R, at least on the torrent sites I visit.

Re:That'd be terrible!

[the grace of R'hllor]

Uhm, DVD's aren't too big to get on broadband. I've got a 1 Mbit connection, which means one night (about 10 hours) of downloading for one DVD. Many broadband connections are now available ranging from 2 to 8 Mbps, ie. full ADSL over here in Rightpondia.

ISP's take the hit with their newsservers, which could be seen as proxy-to-proxy filesharing, with the proxies denying liability and the end-users not (usually) wasting external bandwidth themselves.

This really doesn't make sense though

[Nazmun]

I know i already posted here to clarify a previous point but this is a totally different point.

Why does Blu-ray prevent you from playing other new movies? No matter what the new standard is for the new dvds you still need the old laser to read older dvds as does current dvd players for cds. I know that blu-ray can be more expensive then this standard because production of dvds here can be done with older equipment according to the manufacturers but no mention of the new laser being able to read the dvd format.

Re:This really doesn't make sense though

[Midnight Thunder]

Also with time I would not be surprised if we had tuneable lasers. This would allow total compatibility with the older generation of disks.

Re:This really doesn't make sense though

[blincoln]

Blu-Ray uses a cartridge to hold the discs. I imagine that if it had caught on you could get caddies like the ones that old CD-ROM drives use, but maybe not.

I'm really disappointed that it was not selected. DVDs are fragile enough in terms of potential for damage by scratching. HD-DVDs will probably stop being readable if you breathe on them or handle them without wearing protective gloves.

4 hours on the can?

[Prof. Pi]

...make a midnight bathroom run, then suddenly get the desire to watch Office Space on DVD at 3:51am,

So you decide to watch a movie after spending almost 4 hours taking a dump?

Instead of buying DVDs, you should buy some laxatives or Metamusil or something.

Re:4 hours on the can?

[uberdave]

Either that or move the TV into the bathroom.

Re:4 hours on the can?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Either that or move the TV into the bathroom.

Done, and done! (no, really - it's a widescreen 7" LCD, with wireless access to the main DVD player)

I won't tell you the "bonus" part about this setup... But it involves a particular type of movies. ^_^

Re:4 hours on the can?

[Malc]

Sounds like he might have piles of problems if he doesn't.

Re:4 hours on the can?

[NanoGator]

"So you decide to watch a movie after spending almost 4 hours taking a dump?"

He watched Episodes 1 and 2 in the can, then decided to watch a good movie afterwards.

Re:4 hours on the can?

[coopaq]

...looking like crap...

Looking like or smelling like?

Re:4 hours on the can?

[vyruss000]

Probably falls asleep :)

Just re-process the video

[druiid]

Why bother re-buying your DVD collection to get the high-res movies, when you can use ffdshow filters to resize the video, remove grain, smooth, etc, which if you set the options correctly can make the video look basically as good as 1080i, from 720x480p source. Keep in mind, though, that you'll need a HTPC system with component out, or DVI to be able to take advantage of this, also it takes a crapload of CPU time, but it's well worth it.

Re:Just re-process the video

[The Salamander]

Because then you're just watching a 480i movie upscaled to 1080i, instead of a true 1080i transfer.

IMO, Upscaled 1080i is only about 10% better than 480i, as you just can't add detail from nowhere. Its nowhere as good as a real HD image.

Re:Just re-process the video

[druiid]

Umm, we're not talking about rescaling 480i input. Almost no new DVD movies, if any, are not progressive video at this point. Usually only first-gen movies are interlaced. As far as quality.. no, you're not adding detail, but when you change the resolution of a video-game you're not really changing the LoD either, but in general it makes the game look better. The filters ffdshow uses are quite impressive as far as video processing, so I believe, from what I've seen, that it comes damn close to HD quality.

Re:Just re-process the video

[SuiteSisterMary]

Fine, then you're watching 480*P* upscaled to 1080i. Yes, ffdshow and dscaler do a fantastic job, but 480 lines of data is still 480 lines of data, even when each line is displayed two or three times.

Re:Just re-process the video

[The Salamander]

> that it comes damn close to HD quality.

You must not have an HDTV w/ true HDTV sources (DiscoveryHD is nice), or
you're blind to make such a statement.

I have various software scalers w/ a HTPC. I have a liteon-2001 that upscales to 1080i.

Neither one is HD. Like I said, they're about 10% better. Its worth doing with current DVDs, but its nowhere near an HD image.

As for video games, changing the resolution allows the video card to render more pixels. True pixels, not inferred pixels like in upscaling.

Fully backwards compatible

[hurtstotouchfire]

I'm not trying to be offensive or flamebait, but I'd hate to see us waste a nice long comment thread on talking about how annoying it is to re-purchase our DVD collections when that's completely unnecessary as the new players will still be backwards compatible.

Complain about Blu-ray all you want though. They're going to hell.

Incidentally, stating in the article summary that we'd 'better get to work rebuying your entire video collection, again,' is pretty misleading. I'm sure we don't need to squawk at Michael for not doing his homework, but it is annoying. Now there will be at least 30 people who will read the summary, not read the article or all the comments, and just post to bitch about replacing their DVD collection.

Re:FP for the CLIT; humble pie for fakers

[Anonymous Coward]

He got the fp. You are a dumbass.

Go kill yourself now.

body mod

[Anonymous Coward]

How come none of these western body mod people never do that one they do in mogolia with the neck rings?

Where the chicks put rings around their neck that pushed up on their head until their neck is like a foot long!

Seriously western body modders are such pussies.

Long neck chicks putting wstern body modders to shame.

Re-buying one's collection

[SmoothTom]

Well, better get to work rebuying your entire video collection, again.

Even of there is full backward compatibility this is still something to worry about with most formats.

I have several hundred 12 inch LaserDiscs that still deliver a fine image - but if my player ever breaks they become useless. Many of the releases have never been re-released on DVD, and likely never will.

==
Tomas

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[freeweed]

Even of there is full backward compatibility this is still something to worry about with most formats...if my player ever breaks they become useless.

This is the whole POINT of backwards compatibility! If your old player breaks, no big deal, because the new player can play them.

The reason your LaserDiscs will eventually become useless is due to LACK of backwards compatibility on modern players.

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[Anonymous Coward]

LaserDiscs... wow. I've never seen a laserdisc or player. I have an 8-track though. I bought a boat second-hand and it came with an 8-track. It runs fine (the boat, not the 8-track - I don't have any 8-track cassettes).

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[Politburo]

Could you give some examples of titles that you think won't be released on DVD?

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[SmoothTom]

This is the whole POINT of backwards compatibility! If your old player breaks, no big deal, because the new player can play them.

Duh!

I know that, and I realize that this time the new format will be fully backward compatible.

That does not mean that the future is always going to be bright and cheery and that the next upgrade won't be to something wildly different (and not spinning-disc mechanical) and DVD players will no longer be made.

If you hadn't hacked up your quote of my post one could still see I was referring to a far different format as a historical reference, and cautioning that it could happen to any format, even DVDs, in the future.

--
Tomas

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[Anonymous Coward]

I had thought about LD discs back in those days but was always concerned about the format being replaced by newer technology and the player breaking down. As we all know consumer electronics are generally non-repairable and rely on you, the consumer, to buya new one if your old thing has gone to hell.

DVD is, in a respect better than LD in that the drives that play the DVDs are easily available for your computer (if you can guess I use my computer to play back DVDs then you are following me on this) - I use a computer in my livingroom along with the Real Magic dvd decoder card - picture is great, I get my DTS sound for discs that feature this and if the drive ever breaks I can always replace it. Everything else stays the same. With the price of computer DVD drives being what they are I have a spare drive in new condition just in case as well as three other computers in the house that all have DVD drives now.

This also does not take into consideration better compression technologies that may allow me to archive all my DVDs to hard drive or other storage media in the future so that I may not even need the discs and players in the years to come.

Redundant hardware was not so easy in the laser disc days, the Beta video days, etc...

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[EvilNTUser]

"I have several hundred 12 inch LaserDiscs that still deliver a fine image - but if my player ever breaks they become useless."

Yeah, but remember that if the same happens to your DVD's, you can just copy them to your hard disk and watch them on whatever device you want.

If that fucking weren't illegal, that is.

Wankers.

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[freeweed]

Heh. Guess I didn't think someone would actually take the time to post "nothing lasts forever" :)

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[iggymanz]

you don't want to buy high quality video capture card & encode in mpeg-2 format? Anyway, I'll bet any movie released on laserdisc will be available on DVD sometime

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[xyote]

A lot of earlier work by European directors that was released on laserdisk hasn't been released on dvd and doesn't show up in any future dvd release lists. This used to bother me but most of these aren't mainline films so you have to weborder them. I have yet to get a dvd shipped to me that wasn't partly damaged by UPS or Fedex so I only buy them in the stores now. So I wouldn't be rebuying my collection even if they were available. Unless they showed up at Best Buy or something, which is unlikely.

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[ChaoticLimbs]

you can buy a laserdisc player that plays DVD as well, but they're expensive. go to
http://electronic.mainseek.com/P-B00000K0ZX-Pionee r-DVL-919-LaserDisc-DVD-Combo.html

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[Gunzour]

You must have really bad UPS and FedEx drivers. I get DVD's via US Mail all the time (usually from Netflix in an unpadded envelope) and they are never damaged. I've received some pretty scratched up DVDs from Netflix but that's not a result of shipping.

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[xyote]

Check your next Netflix dvd. I'll bet you'll find that isn't the orginal dvd case the dvd came in but a custom dvd case designed for the rigors of shipping.

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[akuma(x86)]

By the time the HD-DVD standard is widespread, hard drive capacities will be able to completely backup your "old" dvd collection.

Don't you just love exponential density improvements?

Video content is not expanding at an exponential rate. Therefore, at some point in time in the near future, your hard drive will be able to contain just about every movie around.

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[Gunzour]

To save shipping costs they don't even ship the DVD in a case, they just send the plain old DVD in a flat paper envelope.

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[Anonymous Coward]

Star Wars Ep IV Theatrical release with Han shooting first.

Re:Re-buying one's collection

[Jeff DeMaagd]

LD players are easy to come by, cheaply too. The machines I have are very reliable, I have one that was built in 1991 and it still works great.

I think Pioneer has commited to keeping replacement parts available for their LD machines until at least 2010.

Even then, if one fears being losing the ability to watch a movie, I'd suggest recording a DVD-R or two of it for safekeeping.

For recording purposes

[phorm]

I think that the area where "next gen" DVD's will fit in best will be in the recording arena. That is, not home recorders (not yet anyways), but professional recordings.

Think about the massive amount of storage these guys must go through to store (and later archive) the original cuts of movies. If we can come up with a resiliant, high-capacity, versatile storage, then movie studios will save a killer amount of money. Eventually, this can pass onto home editors, as the technology becomes mainstream (hey, look at what you can do at home now Vs 10 years ago).

As a question do, does anyone know what standard original movie footage is "filmed" on? Also, isn't DVD a somewhat lossy format (MPEG-2 based), so probably not good for professional-grade recording yet?

Re:For recording purposes

[IM6100]

does anyone know what standard original movie footage is "filmed" on?

In many instances, particularly older movies, it's 'filmed' on this novel medium called 'film.' Usually on 35mm width film, though sometimes wider.

Re:For recording purposes

[Anonymous Coward]

original movie footage is still filmed on 35mm in most cases and also final cuts are archived in that format. for digital, not so sure. there's many formats coming and going. i guess the movie industrie uses some tape backup solution to archive their digital footage. just look at how much storage those small mini dv tapes have, imagine a much bigger version of those. seems reasonable.

Re:For recording purposes

[sheddd]

Some high-resource digital filmers were using a MPEG-2 variant and big portable raid arrays for filming ~9 months ago.

Saw some setups for that at Comdex last year.

what about cd's?

[Anonymous Coward]

When are we gonna see a medium to replace cd's? For me its not so much that storage capacity -needs- to be increased, but rather id like to have a more portable audio medium. cd's are too big to comfortably fit in my pocket. plus they get scratched pretty easily.

Re:what about cd's?

[Jediman1138]

Hear, Hear!

I get sick of all the scratches on my giant collection. Lugging around cd's in a backpack sure does suck (Yeah, I'm a student).
I've been wondering what type of medium might replace it, and I've come to believe that the easiest solution (given 3-6 years) would be something like that of a closed-source, non-reformattable memory stick.

I think this could work for a few reasons:

1. Small and I could definately see minimal-size carrying cases being produced.

2. Can hold (by the time it would be a reality) lots of information for a reasonable price. Or, if not, a new compression format could be used.

3. Packaging costs could be reduced since the size of the medium would be smaller.

4. The memory stick could hold other types of information such as lyrics, videos, interviews, interactivites..etc...if a reasonable PC/MAC adapter unit was used or if the player had an LCD.

Well, that's my opinion, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a 15 year old.

Re:what about cd's?

[EvanED]

There are many alternatives to CDs already. May I direct your attention to: MP3 players (iPod, Zen, memory based ones), MD players, DVD-Audio, and SACD. The two former solve the size problem, the two latter solve the vinyl-sounds-better problem.

Re:what about cd's?

[Jediman1138]

Yes, but MP3 streams cant be sold to those without computers unless some "vending" machine was developed at retailers to pick and choose the music you want...and the latter two formats don't solve anything but audio quality and are generally more expensive anyway.

Re:what about cd's?

[EvanED]

"I get sick of all the scratches on my giant collection."

I don't use original CDs. When I get a new CD for my collection (200+), I first immediately copy it onto a CD-R. This goes into a CD wallet. Then I rip the CD to a high bitrate MP3 (192 or 256). When I get enough MP3s in a genre I burn them to yet another CD for use in my RioVolt. The original CD and case go on a rack in my room at my parents' house (I'm in college now).

Re:what about cd's?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes you're a 15 year old who somehow got the idea that a memory stick could fit a movie. Have you not seen what the cost of even a 128 MB SD card is? $40 maybe? Let's then take 50 GB and divide it by 128 MB and multiply by $40. Looks like about $15,000. What a deal!

Re:what about cd's?

[Jediman1138]

What kind of a movie takes up 50GB? Dude, idk how much you know about DivX compression, or hell, even MPG1...I have entire 3 hour movies at less than 500mb (encoded myself, I might add), and yes, I know memory sticks are expensive...thats why I said 3-6 years...And you're an anonymous coward who doesn't know the first thing about A/V.

Re:what about cd's?

[Jediman1138]

Yeah, lol, I know....I'm too lazy to do all of it.

Re:what about cd's?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what movie takes up that much space. 50 GB is simply the amount of space that blu-ray can hold. Why get some stupid memory stick that can't hold anywhere near that?

Thats nice but ...

[emkman]

I think I'll wait for HD+DVD

Re:Thats nice but ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'll wait for HD+DVD

Not me. I'm waiting for HD+-DVD, so I can watch all the standards.

Actual Spec Anywhere?

[benwaggoner]

It's nice we have the announcement, but this is Slashdot!

Have ANY technical details of the new standard been published anywhere yet? I can't find any public resources I can link to.

Re:FP for the CLIT; humble pie for fakers

[Anonymous Coward]

Gayest FP ever!

what happened to EVD?

[wep]

there was a chinese made standard for hdtv capable dvd's like last week.. i guess these japanese companies just got the patents done faster? but evd was made to get away from stupid licenses and fees... oh well

Or we could get lots of cheap used DVD's

[tie_guy_matt]

I don't know about you, but IMO standard NTSC is fine for most hollywood movies on most small screen TVs. Maybe if I had a 300 foot monster TV I would want more resolution (Mmmm 300 foot TV! pixels the size of your head!) So I am perfectly happy with my current DVD selection. So when everyone else sells back their standard DVD collection in order to make way for the super duper high res DVD, I will be busy buying up all of their old standard DVDs for a fraction of the cost they paid for them.

Re:Or we could get lots of cheap used DVD's

[disappear]

Indeed!

I have a projector with a native 800x600 resolution; at its distance from the screen, I've got a 16:9 (ie, widescreen) picture that's got a 52" diagonal.

At that size, DVD resolution (720x480) seems entirely adequate. I get some jaggies on poorly-done title screens, but I use those to help me focus the projector. :-) I don't have stairstep problems or jaggies in the films themselves; I can't remember the last time I saw that.

No, wait, I can: it was when I had the DVD player do letterboxing with the projector set in 4:3 mode. Apparently the DVD player does a better job with that than my expensive Philips SACD/DVD player.

I can't imagine repurchasing films that I own in a new format; I'd likely get a player that was backwards-compatible, and just make new purchases in the new format. Of course, exception for films where the transfer is substantially better --- I bought the original Kubrick box set, when it first came out, back before they remastered them. But I've been considering rebuying that regardless, since the transfers are so awful.

Really, the best thing I could do to improve my picture would be to get a brighter projector; that has far more impact on my movie-watching experience than resolution does. I don't have room in my apartment to have a larger picture, and without that, upping the resolution would be not pointless but not a huge deal either.

Re:Or we could get lots of cheap used DVD's

[Quasar1999]

You my friend are the reason that HDTV hasn't caught on... Well, okay, I'm exagerating, and generalising, but still, people that say they don't care about image quality deserve to get a free eye exam, and possibly a head exam.

I have a 100" projector, on which, a DVD is enjoyable, but an HDTV broadcast is simply amazing, and damned enjoyable. Arguing the costs for the system is a whole other issue, but I have not had anyone who has seen my system complain about pixels sizes. My parents have a 32" HD-LCD TV, and the same applies to them, no one complains about pixels, or the picture being too good. As a matter of fact most people prefer to watch movies on my setup than at a cinema, simply because of the better picture quality (screen size not withstanding, anyone with an LCD or DLP system can back me up on this).

People who claim that NTSC is fine either have not actually seen a properly setup HDTV system, big or small,(and most stores don't have them setup properly by a long shot), or they are just smartasses because they feel they can't afford them, and thus bad mouth the technology...

BTW, no personal disrespect intended, but you just fit the stereotype too damned well for me to pass up... Cheers! :)

Re:Or we could get lots of cheap used DVD's

[Psychic Burrito]

I both agree and disagree at the same time with your statement: I too became accustomed to the way DVDs look like and don't feel like changing anything.

But then again, when I look some hi-resolution footage, I must admit that it looks absolutely gorgeous. If everything I would see had that much detail - man, that would be bliss!

I guess in the next 10 years, with TVs becoming cheaper and cheaper, we will see a push by the industry to have bigger monitors at home filling a bigger field of sight. Since most movies are already created for a bigger field of sight, they are just a natural fit for this new generation of TVs. And then we will, indeed, all buy our movies again: Not for the artifacts, but for the added detail.

Re:Or we could get lots of cheap used DVD's

[bogie]

But NTSC is fine for most people. I've seen some real high-end setups and fact of the matter is I just don't miss it except for movies. The content most people watch just doesn't need to be in super High Def the majority of the time. Take gaming for example. Call of Duty needs at least 1024x768 to really be appreciated while Elf Bowling is fine at 640x480. It all comes down to the content. Most content people view is of the "Elf Bolwing" variety and people simply are not willing to pay thousands of dollars for a system that is only really needed for a small amount of the things they watch. So to go back to your other statement, yes they actually don't care about image quality for the most part. The tradeoff from a financial point of view(ie the only view that matters) just isn't worth it.

Re:Or we could get lots of cheap used DVD's

[Gunzour]

Hey I love HDTV and I will definately look forward to HD-DVDs, but I realize that for some people it's just not what floats their boat. Not everybody has the same interests, and that's fine. Just because someone doesn't *care* about image quality doesn't mean they don't appreciate it. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a person might walk by a nice HDTV set at a store, look at it and say "wow" and be amazed by the picture quality, and yet still have no particular interest in buying one. Life is full of choices.

Re:Or we could get lots of cheap used DVD's

[Quasar1999]

I'm not saying that everyone should buy an HDTV set... I'm simply saying... wait, I had the quote in my original post...

... they are just smartasses because they feel they can't afford them, and thus bad mouth the technology...

People will say that HDTV is just another attempt to make us convert formats, spend money, etc. Well so is the PC industry, new versions of processors, software, etc. I haven't heard too many people bad mouth the latest processor (I'm talking overall), just because they can't afford it. People are blindly badmouthing HDTV because they feel that if they embrace it, or even just do anything short of dig their heals in and scream "hell no!" to the FCC, they will be forced to throw out all their current TV's VCR's, etc... and they can't afford it.


But when someone makes a sweeping statement like NTSC is good enough, that's the equivalent of saying a 486 is good enough. Sure, but why is a Pentium 4 not a good upgrade from a technical point of view, not a purchasing point of view?? They both work, but one is better than the other while still supporting the older one 100%... What am I missing?

Re:Or we could get lots of cheap used DVD's

[Gunzour]

'tis true... after all, 640K should be enough for anybody, right? :)

Re:Are Michael's trollish comments necessary?

[Tailhook]

The answer is: No. Michael's trollish editorializing is unnecessary.

Thanks for playing.

yin yang?

[scorilo]

gotta love this duality! blu-ray vs hd dvd, republican vs democrat, etc. it reminds me of that george carlin rant about how when it comes to cereals, you have almost unlimited choices, but for the important things, your choice is rather limited...

NetFlix

[Usquebaugh]

I'll guess I'll wait on the buying front :-)

n00b

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly havn't been doing this long. I've been having sex with my dog while gentoo compiles for years.

Re:n00b

[Anonymous Coward]

Gentoo has been compiling for years? Mine only took a few days to get everything compiled.

You need a newer, quicker PC. Your dog will appreciate it.

Re:n00b

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh and in case you were wondering its a male dog. So the advantage is that I have to go up his ass, but the disadvantage is that he wants a turn on mine :(

no collection replacement for me

[TerraFrost]

Well, better get to work rebuying your entire video collection, again.

i, personally, won't be rebuying my collection. i mean, i bought my collection to *last* me. granted, the media may not last forever nor may the technology to even read them last forever (ie. it may be replaced by something better), but... thanks to DeCSS, the actual content can last forever. i can back it up and transfer it to progressively next generation media for as long as i please, and unlike with analogue copying, these transfers will be the same high quality they were when i purchased them. now, this hd-dvd standard may provide higher quality, but it'll be that much more riddled with copy protection, and blah.

also, for those currious... the name of the discs that the DVD forum approved are advanced optical discs. you can read about it here:
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.13

A consumer flop

[Rick Richardson]

I predict HD-DVD will be a consumer flop for many years. However, mini and micro HD-DVD-R will be a huge success in camcorders.

Never started much of a collection: Thanks Netflix

[FlyerFanNC]

I've avoided buying many DVDs for this very reason, preferring to wait until they match the resolution of HD sets. In the meantime, I have a huge *virtual* collection of DVDs, thanks to Netflix, for only the cost of a single DVD purchase per month.

Why they don't have a universal video standard ...

[Skapare]

Why they don't have a universal digital video standard has often puzzled me. It would basically be a digital stream that provided means to specify the pixel width and height, pixel size ratio, scanning method, scanning rate, color plane depths ... and thus support a digitization of everything from standard film frame rates and traditional video standards to high definition TV, and anything in between that anyone wanted to use (and video display devices can convert and/or display quite a wide range of standards these days). I have not understood why it is that they never did something like this until I realized that the people in charge of deciding things like that are not true geeks.

What Irks Me about the DVDs

[Atmchicago]

Maybe others have commented on this, but my prime dislike of DVDs stems from the regional settings on different dvds. I can't buy a DVD in France or Japan and have it work here.

In a time when our economy is becoming ever more global, we are full of market segmentation anyway. If these new DVDs don't get rid of the regional settings it will cost the American consumer a lot.

Re:What Irks Me about the DVDs

[Nishal]

hey man..just go to www.jlist.com and pop out like 100 dollars for the region free player

well, this does make sense

[penguin7of9]

On the one hand, current DVDs really don't quite have the quality of some of the original film material, on the other hand, the technology to create HD-DVDs cost effectively simply wasn't there when DVDs first came out. So, this upgrade is quite justifiable, IMO. And an HD movie is still too large to be downloaded conveniently.

Take a look at your DVDs, though, and freeze some frames: for a lot of movies, it probably doesn't make much sense to get HD-DVDs because the quality of the original isn't all that high to begin with. You can already see plenty of film grain, fuzziness, and other film-related artifacts even with regular DVD resolutions and compression. Motion picture film just isn't all that great.

Attempts to create new audio disc formats, on the other hand, don't make much sense for the user: audio CDs really capture audio better than most stereos can reproduce it and most people can perceive it. Furthermore, the next "format" for audio is likely going to be the Internet. So, new audio formats are just an attempt at making lots of money with no real benefit to the customer.

Re:well, this does make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Attempts to create new audio disc formats, on the other hand, don't make much sense for the user: audio CDs really capture audio better than most stereos can reproduce it and most people can perceive it.

So just because you and 80% of the buying public can't hear the difference, the 20% that do shouldn't have the opportunity to have a media format that does show that subtlety even though the cost difference is minimal compared to what is being spent on marketing? Ah, the tyrrany of the masses strikes again. But hey, it's OK, it's capitalism at work, not censorship.

Re:well, this does make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your first comment, but apparently you haven't seen a film to HDTV conversion before. They are breathtaking, and can look much nicer than High Definition shot on video cameras. Also, most High Definition drama is shot on film and converted to High Def. CSI is an example o this, being shot on film and converted to HD. Saying that "Motion picture film just isn't all that great" is plain and simple bull. Motion picture film (35 mm) has at least twice the resolution of HDTV, as the cineon format used to scan film into the computer for visual effects is 3656 X 2664 pixels. Film is and will always be a higher resolution format than even the best 1080p/24psf HD video. This of course, is not to say that one format is "better" than the other, just that they are both wonderful and have their respective place.

Re:well, this does make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your first comment, but apparently you haven't seen a film to HDTV conversion before.

I have, actually.

Motion picture film (35 mm) has at least twice the resolution of HDTV, as the cineon format used to scan film into the computer for visual effects is 3656 X 2664 pixels.

Your reasoning is backwards. Someone designing a digital editing pipeline would have to pick a linear scanning resolution several times of what they would expect film to have. If they didn't, the analog-digital-analog conversion would lose a lot of quality, even though the original film actually wasn't that high resolution to begin with. Furthermore, they would design the system to handle the highest quality film, even if most film was actually worse.

So, what that really tells you is that film resolution must actually be far, far below 3656x2664.

Film is and will always be a higher resolution format than even the best 1080p/24psf HD video.

Some film doubtlessly does. But most real-world film and movies probably don't.

Which means that, as I was saying: some films may justify going out and buying HDTV versions, for a lot, I predict you are not going to see much of a difference, in particular compared to DVD players that perform image enhancement.

Re:well, this does make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the tyrrany of the masses strikes again.

Well, I prefer the tyranny of the masses to the tyranny of the audiophiles. If audiophiles had their say, we'd probably still be using vinyl and tube amplifiers.

So just because you and 80% of the buying public can't hear the difference,

Of course, there is a "difference" and lots of people can hear it. But the difference is hardly relevant to the musical experience anymore. No matter how you fiddle around with a recording, how many channels you add, how much you "equalize", it will always remain just a recording.

And, frankly, I doubt that 0.1% of the public care about audiophile hangups, let alone 20%.

Re:well, this does make sense

[axelbaker]

As some one who has worked in the film processing industry for a while, I have to say, good quality film will continue to hold significantly higher resolutions than digital for a long time. I have scanned film at 3000+ dpi on a drum scanner and it still misses information i can get off a nice simple analog print. In the last 5 years the resolution of film has doubled. I find it funny that they keep saying film is dead, yet, its advancing at roughly the same rate as digital technology.
One bias of mine, i shoot medium format film ... so I still think movies are low res using only half a 35mm frame . A when we have TV's that can reproduce the information of a 70mm camera with almost 10x the data of 35mm panavision.

Re:well, this does make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

As some one who has worked in the film processing industry for a while, I have to say, good quality film will continue to hold significantly higher resolutions than digital for a long time.

You know, every time a better technology comes along, people like you come around and claim that the analog medium is "higher quality". We've had that with tubes vs. transistors, vinyl vs. CD, and lots of other stuff.

I have scanned film at 3000+ dpi on a drum scanner and it still misses information i can get off a nice simple analog print.

Sure, although most of that "information" is film artifacts, not actual image data. And the converse is true as well: you can take many 6 Mpixel images and, try as you may, 35mm film won't be able to reproduce it. That's because film and digital are different media with different characteristics.

I find it funny that they keep saying film is dead, yet, its advancing at roughly the same rate as digital technology.

Who said "film is dead"? Lots of people will continue to use film, just like people still paint, still do Daguerrotypes, and still use Polaroids. But that's because they like the medium, not because it's objectively better.

One bias of mine, i shoot medium format film ... so I still think movies are low res using only half a 35mm frame.

Ah, another of those standard misconceptions; actually, resolution and film format are also only loosely related. 35mm cameras often have higher resolution than MF cameras, yet MF cameras usually produce superior overall images--you see, resolution isn't all that matters.

Storage Amount

[ArkiMage]

15GB per side... Simply not enough IMO.

Composite?

[Inoshiro]

Buddy, if you have a composite connection that does 480p, you are the only person in the world to have it.

I think you mean component connection (scroll down a bit).

Blu Ray?

[shirai]

What a lot of people don't know is that the DVD Forum has a lot less influence than it used to. The Blu Ray group basically hasn't even put their proposals in to the DVD Forum at all! They are surging ahead with hardware and studio backing completely ignoring that the DVD Forum exists.

In other words, high def DVDs may very well still be in for some format wars. The irony, of course, is that format wars never helped anyone and that a unified format is what launched DVD so strongly in the first place. And so soon does everyone forget the danger of competing formats to stunt the entire industry.

3 tier architecture?

[Doc Ruby]

How about they keep the current DVD standard, but put more data per frame on the disc? They can use the 2 layer specs in the standard to inrease the capacity, or the 2 sided disc specs, or both. Then they only have to change the "presentation layer", or the tech that renders the data once pulled off the DVD. The "business layer", between the data layer and presentation layer, is already very flexible, with a different app designed and implemented for each DVD title, providing menus and other navigation. Then we wouldn't have to upgrade our entire players to get new features... oh, that's right, they make more money when we throw away the entire "old" DVD player. You'd think Sony/Phillips/etc would learn from the giant business their data storage units generate, and move past these consumer-screwing tech bundling scams.

So, why did they pick the lower quality format?

[argent]

OK, according to the table recently posted, the difference in the hardware comes down to:

AOD: 15G / 30G
Blu-ray: 27G / 50G

I mean, if you want to further increase the resolution or support some new data formats, you can always add new codecs to either of them, and start shipping updated multimode players immediately... but changing the capacity is going to require new hardware.

This looks like a repeat of Beta versus VHS, with the lower quality format beating out the higher quality one, except the difference is bigger and they're picking the winner in advance.

Re:So, why did they pick the lower quality format?

[Rick.C]

The article says that it's because they can modify existing production lines to manufacture them and with Blu-ray they'd have to build all new production facilities.

This post brought to you by the letters R, T, F and A.

Re:So, why did they pick the lower quality format?

[argent]

You gotta translate that from "theoretically they can modify existing production lines..." to the real world. From "theory" to "practice".

In practice that means that a higher percentage of production lines can be cheaply converted with AOD than with Blu-ray. But if that was the only issue, they would have gone with HD-DVD-9 which doesn't require hardware modifications at all.

They're going to have to go from 0.6mm to 0.1mm media anyway, when they run out of headroom in the current format.

It's a rhetorical question, anyway. The real answer is: in exchange for a slightly cheaper transition for some manufacturers now they're forcing consumers to go through two transitions, first to AOD, then to 0.1mm "AOD plus" or "Blue Ray II" later on. And it's going to cost you and I twice as much, because we're not going to get any advantage from the cost savings... not when the vast majority of our cost is royalties.

Divx had more problems than that

[fullmetal55]

What happened if you got the gold edition, ie paid for the full movie it cost around $5 more than a standard dvd. or you could buy the other kinds, where you paid per viewing. I dunno, it never came across as that good, I could already do that, rent a dvd, or buy a full dvd for less than a divx disc. Yes for some people it would have been better, i for one am glad it died. It was essentially extreme DRM. They also wouldn't guarantee if you bought the full version that you wouldn't be charged in the future. they left that wide open in the licencing. also they wouldn't guarantee that you could watch them if they went out of business.

is it still mpg2?

[WoTG]

The article was a little lite on details... is this ONLY higher capacity disks, or is the codec changed too?

Re:is it still mpg2?

[Gunzour]

My guess is that it will follow the existing HDTV standard for broadcast TV, which is mpeg2 format, but I don't believe it is the same codec as DVD.

Re:Why they don't have a universal video standard

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that basically what MPEG does?

I assume we're talking LOTR?

[siskbc]

Is anyone thinking that it would just be cheaper to go to block buster every time you want to watch a moive, instead of buying DVDs? This way you won't have to buy the extended version, the super extended version and the director's ultra extended version as each comes out. As if that wasn't enough, they obsolete each format within seven or so years? Bah. I'm going back to renting!

Well, this I think goes into the "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me" category. Early on, probably everyone got bit on this. I know tons of people who owned the non-extended version of LOTR:FOTR. Not me, simply because I procrastinated so much on buying it that they announced the extended edition before I got around to buying the non-extended.

That said, I know few people who actually bought the non-extended version of LOTR:TTT. Everyone I know who really, really couldn't wait to see it again *rented* the non-extended version, then bought the extended when it came out.

By this point, no one should be getting burned on the "infinite editions" crap. If it's a movie likely to have interesting Collector's Edition features, or if it's a series likely to come out in boxed set, for God's sake, wait to buy it, or at worst rent it once in the meantime.

Re:I assume we're talking LOTR?

[rokzy]

I don't know why so many people moan about the extended version of FOTR. I was well aware there would be 2 versions as was everyone I know, and it wasn't like we had been actively seeking information.

I think there was even a story on BBC News about it where they explicitly said the extended version would be out later and have extra stuff for bigger fans.

imo unless you never read magazine/internet/TV reviews or watch the news or talk to friends or other fans about it then you don't have any excuse for being "tricked". and if you are this type of person, then with all the money you save by not communicating in any way with anyone you can probably afford both versions anyway.

when the Two Towers came out, I actually bought the normal version because I really wanted to see it again. I've just finished watching the extended version with commentary. I noticed that there's a documentary on the normal version about the CGI battles with a preview of the battle in ROTK. this documentary isn't in the appendices of the extended version. maybe FOTR normal edition had some unique content too?

Re:I assume we're talking LOTR?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, Sometimes you have to be told, some people arent total information crazed geeks like us.

Re:I assume we're talking LOTR?

[Andy_R]

I'm waiting for the box set of extended versions of all 3 films plus the inevitable bonus disk.

9 discs for mortal men doomed to die. 1 box to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them, in the land of Mpaa where the shadows lie.

Re:I assume we're talking LOTR?

[evilviper]

If it's a movie likely to have interesting Collector's Edition features, or if it's a series likely to come out in boxed set, for God's sake, wait to buy it, or at worst rent it once in the meantime.

Screw it. I don't even like 'bonus features'. I've heard good things about the extended version of LOTR:FOTR, but that's teh only time I've even heard of added features making a major improvement in a movie (and I've heard the opposite for LOTR:TTT). Personally, I wait until the price has dropped, and get the original version. Screw them and their extra features. I'm not going to buy it twice, no matter what, so I'm not the one giving them the incentive to hold-out on us.

Re:I assume we're talking LOTR?

[N1KO]

In that case, why didn't you wait for the boxed set of LOTR? It is a trilogy after all.

Re:I assume we're talking LOTR?

[PatJensen]

The biggest reason to buy the Extended version is high bit rate DTS EX discrete 6.1. I paid $22 for that piece of crap to come home with a 500k low bit-rate Dolby Digital version. I was disgusted to find out only the extended version had DTS!

Audio is half of a movie. Video is the other half. Why would they botch their release by not including DTS EX? Screw the "how gnomes were invented" videos. Give me decent sound.

I like how X-men 2 came with DTS EX. That's the way it should be.

-Pat

Re:I assume we're talking LOTR?

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

LOTR is the worst movie example to pick. The studios told WELL IN ADVANCE that there would be multiple versions. Those that were fooled, I guess, weren't following LOTR or the movie release.

It's too bad that other movies aren't like that. It would do hardcore movie fans a service if studios announced the versions ahead of time. I realize that greater than expected demand will cause the studios to release a new version but that only applies to a tiny fraction of films...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:I assume we're talking LOTR?

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Sound is NOT half the movie. For you it may be but that's not the case with most people. Most people have no idea what's the difference between DTS and Dolby. I mean, most people still don't know the difference between pan&scan (fullscreen) and widescreen (do you know how many people pick the fullscreen version because it "fills" the screen?).

Most people don't care about DTS unless they are audiophiles or have very good sound systems. Needless to say, this doesn't apply to most.

On top of that, most people still value 'extras' more than the sound (including me). In some cases, you can't fit DTS+movie+extras onto one disk. Movies that are 3 hours will have problems for sure and probably those that are 2:45 or so (not sure exactly). The ideal situation is to have multiple disks (one for movie+sound, another for extras or something). But this increases costs and studios probably don't like doing that.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:I assume we're talking LOTR?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't spend my time seeking out news stories and reviews about video releases of movies I've already seen, so I didn't know. One day it showed up at Costco so I picked it up--a mistake I wouldn't have made if they had honestly labeled it the Inferior Interim Edition.

Re:I assume we're talking LOTR?

[siskbc]

LOTR is the worst movie example to pick. The studios told WELL IN ADVANCE that there would be multiple versions. Those that were fooled, I guess, weren't following LOTR or the movie release.

That's right. Surprisingly, there are some of us who liked the movies but didn't see the need to explore every press release about the movies. Some of us have lives and jobs. I didn't know about the extended until the normal came out the first time, but I didn't get burned despite this.

Not all of us are "hardcore" fans.

More Specs

[cgenman]

More Specs are available here.

"The HD DVD format is a violet laser-based optical disk system with a capacity of 15-20 Gbyte per side using the same disk structure as current DVD disks."

A quick comparison of existing specs here shows that the blue lazer DVD's are well ahead of these higher-density DVD's.

The Blu-ray Disc, supported by nine major makers, including Sony, Panasonic, Philips and Pioneer, could store up to 50 GB of data (more than six times the data capacity of today's DVD) by using a blue laser beam instead of the current red laser. Blu-ray recorders and players could play current DVDs, but Blu-ray discs could not be played on current players.
Advanced Optical Disc, a second blue-laser system proposed by NEC and Toshiba, brings disc capacity to 20 GB. One advantage touted by backers: Today's DVD-making equipment could easily be modified for the new discs.
HD-DVD-9, based on the current DVD format, uses improved software compression to pack 135 minutes of HD video onto the disc. It was developed by Warner Bros.

The most interesting one is the final option... Upgrading the software codec. The MPEG consortium was attempting to get mpeg-4 out the door in time to become a standard for DVD's. They didn't meet that lofty goal, but MPEG4, DIVX, and many other codecs are significantly better at compressing video than MPEG 2. A new codec would require a new decompression chip, but it would cost less than a new laser system, and would provide a platform from which to move up... After all, codecs probably won't see the same growth over the years that hardware will, so using an MPEG4 or other codec could last for many years, at least until Blue laser systems come down in price, at which point you could keep the codec.

Re:More Specs

[rob_from_ca]

Yeah, except that you can't get blood out of a turnip, no matter how hard you squeeze. What's the point in bumping the resolution in the name of better quality if you have to accept tons of ugly video artifacts in the process? If DVD-9 were to become the HD-DVD standard, a large portion of the market would be driven to D-Theather DVHS for high quality movies, and we'd have similar to what we had before with laserdiscs for the high-end and VHS for the mainstream.

Granted, HD-DVD-9 would be better as a "fallback" format than analog VHS, but still, since we're going to have to upgrade anyway, why not just bite the bullet and jump to the highest bandwidth/capacity disc available currently?

New Enhanced DVD CSS Cracked...

[popo]

by Norwegian 9 year-old within 4 minutes of first EDVD release.

Norwegian 9 year old sentenced to 140 years in prison in Guantanamo.

Norwegian 9 year old: "P-P-Please I just wanted to make a back up!" ... Who wants to bet?

Re:New Enhanced DVD CSS Cracked...

[Anonymous Coward]

That has to be the dumbest thing we have ever heard. Please cease discussion of this topic as soon as possible.

Thank you,
The Slashdot Staff

Re:New Enhanced DVD CSS Cracked...

[Brian Stretch]

Norwegian 9 year old sentenced to 140 years in prison in Guantanamo.

No, not Guantanamo, but the MPAA lawyers will threaten to get him sentenced to Neverland Ranch...

Re:New Enhanced DVD CSS Cracked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah... the media cabal is trying to distance itself from Michael Jackson.

Re:New Enhanced DVD CSS Cracked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Norwegian 9 year old: "P-P-Please I just wanted to make a back up!" ... Who wants to bet?

I do all my backups off-site via P2P too.

Why rebuild your collection?

[samsmithnz]

How much better can the quality of DVD's actually get, especially for older movies... Surely the quality of the DVD is dependant on the quality of the original film...

Re:Why rebuild your collection?

[Nuge]

I take it you've never seen a movie in HD vs the same movie on DVD? It can get a lot better.

Examples of no DVD releases

[SmoothTom]

Could you give some examples of titles that you think won't be released on DVD?

Some 'older' movies that don't seem to have enough of a market to push a re-release (The President's Analyst with James Coburn would be one example), and some music videos that now seem to be out-of-date (10,000 Maniacs Un-Plugged and Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits are examples there).

BTW: I'm still trying to find an NTSC copy of Frankie's House (1992 TV movie - see IMDB) if anyone has one ... :o)

--

Tomas

But don't DVD's have higher resolution on board?

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

If I remember right DVD's hold much higher resolution than you see. The standard was written to force the players to downgrade the resolution to video quality. There was a /. article about someone who was using a loophole that did not restrict the resolution for plasma display interfaces. I am not sure what happened to that effort, but the DVD industry was up in arms because if people knew that fact they would revolt and it you could get movied theater like resolution at home, the theaters would suffer.

Rebuying

[MP3Chuck]

"Well, better get to work rebuying your entire video collection, again."

If it wasn't originally created/taped in HD video, what's the point of rebuying it?

Re:Rebuying

[Anonymous Coward]

Because film is still at a much higher resolution than even HD-DVD or the ASTC (HDTV) standard. You can still do a high definition transfer of the source from film for any current movie you have recently watched that was shot with film.

Re:Rebuying

[TheGrimace]

Because most source material for DVDs are from analog 35mm film, which contains more detail than either 1080i or even 720p can contain. The studios would simply need to create a new transfer from the master film at the higher resolution. That is, assuming the existing masters haven't degraded too much by then. Sure, things like TV shows and digital video movies won't look any better, but filmed movies will.

Re:Rebuying

[AveryT]

Sure, things like TV shows and digital video movies won't look any better, but filmed movies will.

Pretty much all prime-time TV shows are shot on film or HD video; many are already broadcast in HD. Get ready to start replacing those X-Files and Buffy box sets, too.

Why?!

[moriya]

Why oh why did they chose HD-DVD over Blu-Ray? Cost is one thing. But thinking ahead is another.

The thing I like about Blu-Ray when compared to HD-DVD is that it houses more capable space. It also uses blue-lasers. A writing format is also included so that if you want to archive your p0rn of the 'net you can do that without worrying about multi-archival discs.

Information will continue to expand and grow. This applies to video as well. When DVD first came out, it can house a lot of film content. But then, things start to get tricky. Movie companies are placing an entire movie on one disc and all their extras on a separate discs. Not only does this provide more room for the movie but it also preserves more quality to the film itself. And with the talk of high-definition movies going around, you're going to need much more space than before. What then? That old DVD will not contain your 1080p 2 hour film on a single-side dual-layered DVD, unless you want to compromise video quality which none of us wants.

HD-DVD may remedy this but what then? Blu-Ray can still house more space. That means for the hardcore geeks and nerds, it may be possible to fit all 3 extended version of the Lord of the Rings trilogy into a single disc and have the film in 1080p with no compromise in film quality. And you may also be able to fit all the extras into that same disc. As movies get larger in resolution for distribution, the more space the disc will need to fit with little to no compromise in quality. Blu-Ray would simply benefit in the future run of movies.

While I do not know of the technical limitation of Blu-Ray such as compatibility in playing today's DVDs, are companies that stingy on cost that they do not want to handle Blu-Ray discs? It may be expensive now. But at least one doesn't have to worry about a different format for a long while. HD-DVD, with its smaller capacity, would have a shorter technicalogical lifespan than Blu-Ray would. How much information you can pact into a single disc matters a lot when you consider that digital video is the most consuming piece of information than any other medium. The more space available, the better film studios and viewers will be when they, in some unknown future, view the movie in insane high resolution with hardly any loss in video quality.

HD-DVD may be the next-gen standard now. But I wonder how many would still back Blu-Ray because of the possibilities and the fact that it houses more information than HD-DVD. Cost-effective? Yeah. But you're only delaying the inevitable. Technology moves fast. I doubt it'll slow down for HD-DVD.

Re:Why?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why oh why did they chose HD-DVD over Blu-Ray? Cost is one thing. But thinking ahead is another.

The Blu-ray standard only allows MPEG-2 video streams to be stored. HD-DVD allows MPEG2, WM9 and H.264. The usage of WM9 or H.264 increases the effective amount of material you can store 4 fold over MPEG2.

What blu-ray gains in raw storage it looses in compression rates attainable by supported codec's. HD-DVD allows 6 hours of 1080p material using H.264, Blu-ray allows 2.5 hours using MPEG-2.

Disk Manufacturing
Short term manufacturing costs are one thing, long term costs are another. Blu-ray disks are vastly more expensive to manufacture in the short term (unless your sony or panasonic), the long term (next 5 years) if both mediums sold at the same level would leave AOD/HD-DVD with a 20% disk manufacturing cost advantage. Blu-ray disk manufacturing equipment is currently 30x the price of HD-DVD ready equipment.
The really lovely thing of HD-DVD is manufacturing wise you only need to alter a single stage on a DVD production facility before you can make HD-DVD's. The stage in question is the mastering and electroplating process used to build stamper "mould". Your production line remains effectively unchanged. Sure the mastering and electroplating equipment expensive but its a one time cost to convert the whole factory to being HD-DVD capable and does not in any way reduce the amount of DVD's or CD's you could produce.

So what about Blu-ray, well firstly the mastering and electroplating stage needs to be changed just like HD-DVD, but then you need to replace the injection moulding machine, the metalization tool, the bonding tool and add a cartriging machine.
So what?
By the time you've done this you have effectively changed every piece of equipment on the production line, this is very expensive to do for disk manufacturers. The second important thing to note is that Blu-ray production equipment cannot be used to make CD's or DVD's. When you are not making Blu-ray disks that equipment stands idle. HD-DVD's can be made on existing machines once pre-production is upgraded.

Hybrid disks
HD-DVD allows for the concept of a hybrid SD/HD DVD where one side would be a normal DVD and the other a HD-DVD this is very powerful tool for studios in marketing the format as a direct replacement for DVD.
Blu-ray does not allow for such hybridization and more importantly it is techically impossible because of the Blu-ray media being cartridge based.

Re-recordable
Blu-ray exists as a recordable/rewritable format with 27GB per layer, AOD (the format selected for HD-DVD) also exists as a recordable/rewritable format with 15GB per layer.
Recordable/rewritable AOD is the proposed standard for HD-DVD-R and HD-DVD-RAM, first generation HD-DVD players will be able to read such disks.

Player Cost
HD-DVD will debut with players priced below Blu-ray. Ignoring the disk manufacturing costs the optics required for HD-DVD players are far simpler this will lead to HD-DVD players dropping in price faster than Blu-ray even if adoption is same. Blu-ray in particular requires a glass lens due to difficultly manufacturing composites to the required tolerances. Furthermore the Blu-ray roadmap displayed by the Blu-ray group at CEDIA 2003 showed no plans to introduce Blu-ray units for computers, this roadmap went from 2003 upto 2007. The marketing message they where presenting was Blu-ray will never ever be PC playable.

Re:Why?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get the idea that Blu-Ray can hold more than 3 hours of video? You won't even be able to fit one of the Lord of the Rings movies on a disc.

Remember CDs, aren't them supposed to be extinct?

[maizena]

I do agree that VHS is mostly dead and HDTV quality is amazing.
But how many Audio DVDs do you own?...

That's the thing about standards and "new standards", it won't be a "real" standard until most of the people begin to use it.

Another funny thing about standards is: they really must be a good thing, because there are so many of them, even when the purpose is the same. I guess everyone remembers the recent DVD-RW DVD+RW silly, and yet important, dispute.

Why only have one standard when you can have a lot more?? And again, Why?????

I wish they had found a real good replacement for floppies instead.

AAC/AC3.

[Grendel Drago]

Don't you mean AC3 audio? Lots of major DVD-rips releases are done with the original AC3 audio (possibly downsampled or compressed, but frequently just copied off the DVD), but I've never seen AAC audio on one.

--grendel drago

Re:AAC/AC3.

[Mod Me God]

AAC... what was I thinking?!?!?!

Yes, I mean AC3, thanks for realising my typo!

Wireless video transmission!

[Grendel Drago]

(a) Hey, how do you get wireless transmission of video locally like that? I want one!

(b) Exactly what kind of place are you living in that you can't jerk off on the couch or, failing that, in your room? Do you live with your parents? In a dorm, so you don't have your own room? Seriously, jerking off in the bathroom is for fourteen year olds, playing "peek and poke" up in the treehouse.

--grendel drago

Re:Wireless video transmission!

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he ejaculates like a stud horse, and desires to do so in a place that's easily cleaned up (eg the shower, or outside, or the dishwasher). For the record, that's my problem.

You don't have to make fun of guys who blow a load that's about 10x the mass of yours. Some of us are kind of sensitive of it.... NOT.

Re:Wireless video transmission!

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, jerking off in the bathroom is for fourteen year olds

I disagree. Jerking off in the bathroom is actually more hygienic. No pubes/semen on bedroom, etc. Much cleaner.

OFFTOPIC???!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

that's hilarius; a direct reply to a comment made in the FUCKING article by michael gets modded 'offtopic'.

Yes, We may never question the idiocy and mindlessness of the editors, do not look behind the curtain because they are always right and infallible.

Finally!

[dbirchall]

Something to view on Apple's Cinema 23 HD! All the fooferaw over Pixlet and whatnot, and they only put up a quarter-size (960x540) sample. :(

Of course not

[Wesley Felter]

You probably have to join the DVD Forum and then sign a 100-page NDA (in Japanese, natch) to see any details.

Re:Why they don't have a universal video standard

[Wesley Felter]

For a standard to be usable, every player has to play every disc. If the DVD Forum had defined a standard back in the early 90s that included HD resolution, then every player would have to support HD, and thus every player would cost 4X as much. That's not good.

Not to mention that the technology to put 2 hours of HD video on a disc simply didn't exist until recently.

Re:Remember CDs, aren't them supposed to be extinc

[Anonymous Coward]

13 DVD-A and 11 SACD

I plan on buying them exclusively, no more plain CDs for me.

Re:But don't DVD's have higher resolution on board

[Anonymous Coward]

why is this marked as interesting. THis guy has no idea what he's talking about. NTSC 720x480 dvd. Where is this much higher resolution? demux the video stream. It's 720x480. film is a much much higher resolution than 480i

Exactly!

[filmsmith]

And with all these special effects companies and computer generated films, no one watches Citizen Kane anymore!

*scoff*

fs

Still crackable? Not likely

[Szplug]

They'll have learned from their mistakes.

There were a couple of lucky weaknesses with DVDs - slackness in protecting their keys, and the SPDIF(?) loophole. Alas, we may be sure they'll have closed those and will take much greater care, generalizing the language and bringing protections up to the state of the art. They're not going to let it happen again.

ffdshow...

[pr0ntab]

Sorry. Wrong.

The reason you can't tell is because the level of detail for things you're supposed to notice on screen is assumed to be one where they know you have 480 vertical lines of resolution. So they scale everything to be legible at that resolution when framing shots.

But then compare the 480 to 1080 when you're looking at the pattern on someone's suit. Or the grass in a football game. It will look at lot less detailed in the upscaled content.

There is no way (information theortically) to restore the 1080 lines from 480 source. Each line in between could be ANYTHING, while the ffdshow algorithm can only produce one guess. With 600x1920 pixels to guess per frame, what are the chances it's going to get it exactly right?

Come on... explain that to me. Does a 200kb library have enough sense to identify the actual OBJECTS in the 480p content and then redraw them as they actually are at 1080p?

Uh, no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you haven't seen 1080i HD content yet. When you see HBO-HD you will know that resampling it (Some players already do this, BTW) is nothing near watching the source in its highest resolution. It's like night and day.

5x DVD

[Thinkit3]

That makes it around 25 (19h) GB per side.

Well, renting + a burner is cheaper

[Anonymous Coward]

>Is anyone thinking that it would just be cheaper to go to block buster every time you want to watch a moive, instead of buying DVDs?

Well, if I wanted a limited selection of censored, 4:3 aspect ratio movies, and excessive late fees... yeah.

Otherwise, I'd suggest buying a DVD Burner ($120), download "DVDShrink" (free), buy a 100pc spindle of DVD-R ($50) and hop onto a GreenCINE (or maybe Netflix) "8 movie plan" for 3 months (3@ $40/mo). Burn and return, baby.

Death v. upgrades

[benwaggoner]

The problem is, one can die without ever having bought a movie or a computer, since next year it's going to be so much better.

If I buy a DVD, it's because I figure I'll watch it enough during one technological cycle to make it be worth it (five years or so). Now that I've got two kids under 4, I don't buy many DVDs :).

Re:Never started much of a collection: Thanks Netf

[dnixon112]

Greetings FlyerFanNC,

Your *virtual* collection if DVD's sounds very intriguing. If you don't mind, my associates and I would like to inspect your collection first hand. Please reply with your coordinates. Thanks a bunch!

Sincerely,
MPAA

Well, I for one...

[raehl]

Well, I for one welcome our new DVD-HD overlords.

Re:Remember CDs, aren't them supposed to be extinc

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember Mini-disk? I always thought they'd make the ideal floppy replacement - small, portable, re-writable and 100 meg + capacity... Never saw a computer with a MD drive, but my sony diskman plugs into USB an is a handy way to move a few files about..

Dell's online store now defaults to shipping usb keys instead of a floppy drive in some of their systems, so I guess we have our replacement there!

Re:Why they don't have a universal video standard

[Skapare]

A universal digital video standard would only specify how information and content would be formatted into a stream or file. It would specify things like what byte offset is where to get the number of pixels wide for a frame. Whether some device can, or cannot, display or convert a given pixel width does not break its ability to conform to it. For example if the width was 1000000 pixes and the height was 750000 pixels, the device could at least understand what that means, and know that it requires more memory than it has, and simply refuse to even try to display thatr content. But it would at least be conforming. This would not make devices cost 4 times as much. In fact it would allow a full range of devices from tiny wrist watch devices to elaborate stadium display systems. You might be limited by a given device due to built in resources like memory, and you therefore may not be able to display some newer content that requires more resources to function. Perhaps you need to add more memory. Perhaps you need to have a faster CPU to crank through the encryption fast enough to handle some content's higher frame rate. But the standard would not be the cause of the incompatibility ... the standard would make it clear the device's level of resources isn't capable.

So that means you might have bought a device that can't display the new super ultra definition that media producers start doing in 2013. So you'll have to buy a new one. But that's not the fault of the standard, which if done right would be able to handle that super ultra definition video content.

You don't have to currently have the technical capability to handle a higher scale to define a standard capable of things at such a scale. By having 32 bits for width and height, you can have video frame sizes of over 4 billion definable. Nothing in 2003 will desplay it in full resolution. Probably nothing will even attempt to convert it (quite a lot of crypto processing needed to get the video and quite a lot of memory needed to work with it). Surely nobody will seriously produce anything like that. But if someone did, at least a standards conforming device would understand the parameters are beyond its capability.

Current DVDs don't look like crap at 720p, but...

[Mephiska]

Having a widescreen HD TV, I do certianly notice a difference between a DVD at 720p on the TV versus watching the same movie via high def at 1080i via HBO's HD channel or any of the local channels that broadcast movies in HD. High Def movies just have a very clear, crisp look to them, whereas a DVD in progressive mode at 720p has a tendency to appear a bit grainy.

It's not quite the night/day difference between VHS and DVD, but more close to that of laserdisc to DVD.

This'll also be great for those HD shows that have found their way to DVD, such as CSI, Smallville, Angel, and so on.

Late fees are lucrative for them.

[Mephiska]

Why would Blockbuster want to do that when a significant chunck of their revenue comes from late fees? I'd heard it was somewhere around 12% of their revenue. With the way movies are released in mass quantities (guaranteed in stock deals), it's not as if they're forced to have such high late fees due to any lost revenue from being out of stock of a particular title.

Maybe they want to drive the price of their pre-viewed flicks down to the $5 range because of the large inventories caused by the guaranteed in-stock promotions. There's no way I could see them getting out of the rental business entirely though.

Dude...

[Anonymous Coward]

the only games I still even semi-regularly play are Bandit Kings of Ancient China (1989 KOEI in stunning EGA), Stars! 2, and Master Of Magic (Master Of Orion having been officially tainted by the pathetic 3rd incarnation.)

Yeah, the graphics could be better. But new games could do with less eyecandy and better concepts, excecution, variety, playcontrol.

Re:Current DVDs don't look like crap at 720p, but.

[swb]

I do certianly notice a difference between a DVD at 720p on the TV versus watching the same movie via high def at 1080i via HBO's HD channel or any of the local channels that broadcast movies in HD.

What are you talking about? DVDs are all 720x480 resolution. Even on the best player, they're all 480p at best. Your set may upconvert it to 720p if it does that, but just scaling it doesn't make it 720p.

And a real 720p is preferred by many to 1080i, since it lacks 1080's interlacing. AFAICT most anything with a glass tube is doing 1080i and anything LCD or Plasma is doing 720p, including the Samsung DLPs, and in the case of the LCDs, Plasmas and DLPs, 720p is their maximum resolution.

Re:Current DVDs don't look like crap at 720p, but.

[Dave Beta]

What are you talking about? DVDs are all 720x480 resolution.

Actually, my DVDs are all 720x576.

Not gonna happen with me...

[evilviper]

Personally, I jumped on the DVD bandwagon because we finally had a popular digital video format, so I could do and control everything from my computer... I can use software to modify the playback anyway I like, I can have it output to anything I like. For the first time, I was no longer dependant on electronics manufacturers, who want to decide what features they will and will not allow the public to have.

DVD gave me that video format, and gives me a picture better than that of a TV signal. Sure, the future format may bring higher resolutions, but I would have been perfectly happy with VHS had it been digital, radom access, etc., so quality really isn't that huge of a deal. Even in DVD format, it's not easy to find very good movies that I want to see in the first place, and a higher resolution will only nominally improve the experience.

I say, screw 'em. I'm not upgrading, and I'd be willing to bet that it is MUCH too soon for most other people to consider that either. DVDs are STILL an over-priced format, so what kind of prices are they going to put on this next format??? $50 for a brand-new movie? $20, if you're lucky, after it's a few years old? People have paid extra to get DVDs, but I don't think they're going to pay twice as much for something that won't even look any better to 99% of the viewing public, who are still happy with their standard-res TVs.

Don't be an early adopter, chump.

[doom]

Well, better get to work rebuying your entire video collection, again.

Really? You mean my VHS collection of old Avengers episodes is going to stop working?

I haven't bought any sort of DVD technology yet, and don't have any immediate plans to do so. From what I've seen of DVD disks, they strike me as incredibly fragile (DVDs borrowed from a local library inevitably crap out in the middle because of all the abuse they get). But the real show stopper for me is the "country code" nonsense. If I could walking to one of the big electronic chain places and get a cheap player that would actually work on the two DVDs that I own (music videos from Indonesia and Vietnam) I would probably be tempted.... But as it stands I don't even have enough incentive to get a DVD drive for one of my computers (my SCSI DAT drive still works fine, with 2Gb of data per 90m tape).

It's looking like I might succeed in sitting out an entire generation of consumer crap technology that I just don't care about. Cool.

Untrue!

[Anonymous Coward]

U R TEH GAY!!!!

Worse than Star Wars

[tepples]

He watched Episodes 1 and 2

...of "Cop Rock."

Less detail for moving images

[tepples]

scan something at high res. Make two scaled down versions

Not exactly. The human eye sees moving images in less detail than it sees still images.

Re:Less detail for moving images

[K8Fan]

Not exactly. The human eye sees moving images in less detail than it sees still images.

Agreed. I wasn't giving a complete example, just countering an often-repeated (but rarely tested) canard. I have set up two equal-sized, carefuly matched, 4:3 15" monitors and fed an HD signal to one and a standard definition down-conversion of the HD signal to the other, and untrained observers consistently identified the HD source. And even more to the point, others offered unprompted opinions that one of the monitors looked a lot better than the other.

A lot of the things that "everyone knows" don't bear close examination. The belief that HD is only for huge screens is one of them.

Re:Less detail for moving images

[Tiny Wolf v3]

"even more to the point"? Your "close examination" of my points was not even close to scientific. Try again with other test subjects, sitting 12 feet away, watching a moving sequence. Now try a dozen other combinations, and see how superior it really is. If you don't tell them there's a difference, I'm betting noone will notice or care on a 15" screen.

Re:Less detail for moving images

[K8Fan]

Your "close examination" of my points was not even close to scientific.

No, but it wasn't pulled out of my ass either. I've done the tests, and anyone with the equipment can repeat it. All you need is a matched pair of monitors that can handle both NTSC and HD, a recent generation HD receiver that can output HD and SD at the same time and some viewers.

Try again with other test subjects, sitting 12 feet away, watching a moving sequence.

12 feet from a 15" image? That's just silly. You're trying to find some extreme example to justify your unfounded opinion. I've set up the test...with moving material...and this is my result. You do the test and report back with your own results.

If you don't tell them there's a difference, I'm betting noone will notice or care on a 15" screen.

I didn't have a sign identifying one as "HD" and the other as "SD". Just the same image on two monitors. And people who had no idea what was going on independently volunteered that one of them looked better than the other.

Very Long Wait

[tepples]

I've avoided Netflix after having read horror stories about all the good titles being on Very Long Wait status.

Capacity of DVD-9 isn't enough

[tepples]

How about they keep the current DVD standard, but put more data per frame on the disc?

And fit 45 minutes of video on one side of a disc? People do not want to get out of their recliners twice during a movie to flip/change discs. Wasn't that one big reason why LaserDisc never became popular in the mass market?

You'd think Sony/Phillips/etc would learn from the giant business their data storage units generate, and move past these consumer-screwing tech bundling scams.

Philips maybe, but Sony is a major consumer electronics manufacturer, but it's also a major copyright producer, a member of both the RIAA and the MPAA. Any format for mass distribution of digital video will have to pass by its schizophrenic eye.

Re:Capacity of DVD-9 isn't enough

[Doc Ruby]

They can use the 2 layer specs in the standard to inrease the capacity, or the 2 sided disc specs, or both.

[From the article]:
Next-generation DVDs will be able to record five times the amount of information of current DVDs. A DVD today can record about two hours of conventional analog TV programming while the next-generation digital video disc format can record more than two hours of digital TV programming.

If they just use the double-layer and double-side parts of the current spec, they'll get 4x the capacity, or 80% the capacity of HD-DVD, about 2h. Sounds just right. They can get us for new players with the double head / double focus readers, so we don't get out of our chairs. Videodisc died because VHS beat it on price, while DVD has no competition. We need to get away from bundling the media format with the data format, so we can do whatever we want with the media we own. Sony's computer, electronics, phone and network divisions dwarf their copyright assets, which would be better utilized to drive sales of the hardware to play the sharable software. It's only a matter of time before someone there lets their accountant and marketer brain halves talk to each other, and the physical media become a means to the end, not an obstacle to commerce. But it looks like they'll stick us with yet another dead medium before we get there.

Reality check on the "rebuying" aisle ...

[fygment]

I bought it once ... like my music. 'Nough said?

Where can I buy a new 8-track player again?

[tepples]

You mean my VHS collection of old Avengers episodes is going to stop working?

Yes. What happens when your VHS player breaks, and no local consumer electronics store still sells VHS players? Will you still be able to play through your box set of The Avengers?

Re:Where can I buy a new 8-track player again?

[doom]

Um, my 8-track player is working just fine, thanks.

You mean my VHS collection of old Avengers episodes is going to stop working?

Yes. What happens when your VHS player breaks, and no local consumer electronics store still sells VHS players? Will you still be able to play through your box set of The Avengers?

But that day is a *long* way away, considering that they're currently pushing DVD/VHS combo units. And what I would probably do on that day, presuming I hadn't started digitizing my VHS tapes (and, say, stashing them on DAT, or more like fixed disks, or possibly the nextgen video disk that we're talking about here), is to just go and buy a used VHS player. You don't think you couldn't find an 8-track player used on ebay right now?

Note, I am not assumming I will *never* buy into another data format, my point is that the time to consider buying the latest round of junk from Sony is when you can get it at a garage sale.

Why? Because ppl keep buying it.

[Anonymous Coward]

nm

legislate selling the same movie again&again&a

[pcTechnic]

This kind of hook, buy, switch, replace, and repeat should eventually be legislated. 8.4G DVD's should look good for a while on hd. If it doesn't the source or the encoders were messed. You guy's are right, on-demand video is here and almost pretty good. The companies should really have a period of research - but they won't...

Different Standards Again

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like nobody learned from the DVD-/+R(W)(AM) wars. The HD DVD is different from Blue Ray.

So what exactly are the specs of HD-DVD?

[Negativeions101]

What's the capacity of HD-DVD disks? Will they use red-ray? I thought the Toshiba/NEC standard was blue-ray but smaller in capacity than the initial blue-ray proposed disks.

Re:So what exactly are the specs of HD-DVD?

[soccerisgod]

Also read this translation of a heise.de article about the new standard and it's competitor.

Wow took them this long to up the res???

[cheekyboy]

Geez, wasnt HDTV designed/planned a long time ago too, any competent executive would have planned HD dvd into the DVD pipeline from the beginning, all it is really is an upped resoltion spec etc...

troll? it was a joke, about standards wars

[emkman]

get a sense of humour

Re:Still crackable? Not likely

[Alsee]

They're not going to let it happen again.

There isn't a damn thing they can do to prevent it if some student takes one of the players into a well sticked college lab, strips the chip, and reads the encryption codes out with a microscope.

That's the difference between encryption and DRM. With proper encryption is is essentially impossible for third parties to ever crack it and get at your data. But with DRM you aren't trying to protect the data from a third party, you are trying to secure the data against against the person you are GIVING the data to. One way or another that person already has the decryption key.

-

it can

[real_smiff]

Even old films are made on film. Film has a very (very) high resolution. Hence HD-DVD (or whatever it's called) can benefit old movies :) As for the soundtrack, yes you probably have diminishing returns there - old movies tend to be mono/stereo and poorly (analogue) recorded and mixed.

Re:legislate selling the same movie again&agai

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

This kind of hook, buy, switch, replace, and repeat should eventually be legislated.

I'm not a capitalist and hence am in favour of legislating a lot of things. But what you are saying makes no sense whatsoever. What's the problem? If people keep buying something over and over and over again, it's THEIR problem. No one is forcing them to buy it again. This isn't important like water, food, energy, etc! Let's keep government control to cases of importance or when powerful entities can harm individuals (eg. large corporations, criminal syndicates, wealthy capitalists, etc)...

Sivaram Velauthapillai

GreenCINE DVD Rentals

[Anonymous Coward]

Wayyyy better than Netflix:

BETTER SELECTION (imports, anime, B movies, pr0n even)
USER FORUMS (much better than "review postings" on NF)
AWESOME CUSTOMER SERVICE
A "requests" department that responds individually...

Is two hours enough?

[tepples]

If they just use the double-layer and double-side parts of the current spec

I thought DVD-18 (double sided, double layer) had pressing problems. Have they since been overcome?

about 2h

That's OK for family films, which average 1:30, but half of movies marketed to mature audiences are longer than two hours. How long was Titanic, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, or even something like Seabiscuit?

They can get us for new players with the double head / double focus readers

Then the motor would have to spin backward to read the other side of the disc. Is this feasible with current optical disc drive motor technology?

Re:Is two hours enough?

[Doc Ruby]

Calimetrics is offering dual layer/side HD DVDs, which are compatible with Blue DVD and Blu-ray (and thereby with the current full DVD spec), to deliver 19GB, 25GB and 50GB DVDs. "50GB ought to be enough for anybody" ;).

Towel!

[Grendel Drago]

Hygienic schmiegenic. I traditionally have a "bodily fluids" towel, stuck in the bottom drawer of my desk and washed weekly, used to mop up head-snot, cock-snot and whatever else comes out of my body.

And heck, when I was living in the dorm, the bathroom was the least private place in the building. And even now, laziness and a 19-inch flatpanel monitor discourage me from getting off my ass to jerk off.

--grendel drago

Resampled old stuff is still the old stuff

[airider]

Relax folks, your DVD investment will be good for many years to come. Resampling the same 23fps film at higher resolutions won't show much difference so the old movies won't gain much from this. For the audiophiles out there, sampling at 96kHz is great, but most people experience 44kHz CDs and these are good enough. High Definition DVDs whatever format will only show marked improvement when the source material is also High Def. High Def recording equipment is just now getting limited use, and the film makers are just starting to use it as well. They aren't there yet and neither will HD-DVDs for quite some time. What does this all mean...it means your existing collection will look fantastic with a progressive scan DVD player and a digital or HD television, now chill out and enjoy your deCSS'd movies okay.

They chose the wrong format!

[smartalix]

The group was extremely shortsighted in their decision to go with the format that relies on compression instead of increased information density to increase next-gen DVD capacity. The more data you can store, the less compression you need, and the better the final image will be.

Re:But don't DVD's have higher resolution on board

[StillNeedMoreCoffee]

Actually it seems that two things are true. The 16:9 DVD Standard "will really play back at 852x480 resolution."

http://forum.digital-digest.com/archive/topic/27 56 9-1.html

Here is an example where you can get 1080i resolution from a DVD by processing the digital signal and DVI interface.

http://www.emedialive.com/Articles/ReadArticle.a sp x?ArticleID=8030

In this review this player converts the digital to HDTV

"The key selling feature here is the DVI interface. The D1 is capable of de-interlacing and scaling the standard 480i DVD image up to 1080i. The deinterlacing and scaling chores are handled by a Sigma Designs EM8500 DVD decoder. Interestingly, the decoder is capable of playing back WMA files, but Bravo doesn't seem to support this feature."

http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3998, a= 45897,00.asp

although I was wrong about the movie quality, HDTV quality availble from the DVD is pretty good.

Re:Still crackable? Not likely

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah. 'tis a problem with no solution. If you can play the d@mn thing, you can very well rip it.

There's just no solution...