Slashdot Mirror
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.
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
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
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.
Don't steal. The government hates competition.
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.
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.
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
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
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.
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).
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
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.
The ______ Agenda
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.
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.
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
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
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
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.
DVDs are not too big for broadband. MPEG-2 (DVD) can be converted to MPEG-4
... to lower the filesize.
... but at 4.7GB a pop they are pretty large for the average joe.
Of course they are - thats why you converted it to MPEG4
People on really highspeed networks trade ISO images of DVD's to burn onto DVD-R
HD-DVD will up the ISO size to almost 25GB per layer.
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.
get a sense of humour
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)