Slashdot Mirror
Consumer Problems with Blu-ray and HD-DVD
bart_scriv writes "Business Week looks at the upcoming Blu-ray and HD-DVD product launches and predicts problems and confusion for consumers. In addition to anticipated difficulties in distinguishing between the two formats, some studios will be using copy protection that will intentionally down grade the picture. When combined with Sony's plans to upconvert based on hardware configuration and the fact that most HD TVs aren't capable of displaying either format at full resolution, early adopters may be getting a lot less than they bargained for. As the article suggests, it may be that 'the best bet for either format to gain acceptance now lies with next-generation game consoles.'"
Which DRM is easier to crack?
Simple as that.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Could this be any less surprising? I've been following it closely and I have a hard time keeping everything straight. As I work at a video store, I can safely say that average consumers are nothing less than completely screwed.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
My prediction is that consumer will largely (ps3 being the notable exception) ignore both blu-ray & hd-dvd until dual players arrive.
Shouldn't take too long...
My pics.
Neither of these formats will be accepted as easily as, historically, other formats have.
1. Cassetes --> CDs: CDs are thinner and higher quality that does not degrade. Even still, it took *almost* 10 years before cassetes were completely and fully replaced. Even to this day, unless you count, say, iTunes, CDs reign supreme and music on DVD is still a joke.
2. ?? --> Beta/VHS: No fromat existed for viewing movies at home... except maybe an 8mm projector!! But I can't remember video stores that had 8mm rentals... is it just me?
3. VHS --> DVD: DVD is smaller, thinner, and holds more at a better quality. Plus, like every previous post has pointed out, many people have invested in buying DVDs and, like me, see no reason to "upgrade" the quality of their movies... for... $30+??
The Mass-Media-Powers-That-Be have succeeded in royally fucking themselves by taking a perfectly simple concept (watch videos at higher resolution) and turned it into a crippled, convoluted mess.
Ball's in your court, online video distributors (namely Apple).
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
In order for a new format to be adopted, people need to buy it. Early adopters are typically technically minded people, and are generally "informed" about what it is they're purchasing.
...
The content produces are doing everything in their power to make the format unattractive to technically minded people. Meaning they're scaring away all of the early adopters. Which means that the format will never be adopted.
For me, degrading the signal over analog connections was the thing that pushed me over into the "not gonna buy it" category
Not defending HD and BD camps here but an HDMI cable is not a "Pricey Cable".
Solution 1: Wait two years after product mass introduction to buy the same technology with all the bugs worked out, for one-third the price.
Solution 2: Don't buy DRM and other invasive products.
Either solution will work, the former assumes you're just a cog in the machine and you don't need this technology absolutely today but can wait until 50 percent of the population has switched over, the latter assumes you think a non-DRM OpenSource-friendly version will be adopted at some point.
Choose your poison.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Because they suck at what they do.
I mean, HDTV is what a late 90s thing? And we still don't have hidef content. They only hidef that I can get is from cable, satellite, or OTA TV. CDs are late 70s technology (maybe early 80s). The oldest digital recording I own is from 1978.
Why can't these people flood us with content at a reasonable price that we simply do not have the time or need to pirate the stuff?
My HD DVR has firewire output that I can copy the stuff to my computer. Supposedly some of the channels are encrypted, and it takes realtime to make a copy. But I never have made a copy, but I always have 80 gigs of fresh content on my DVR that I can watch anytime. I love it. Oh, and someone is getting the $70 a month or so that I pay for content, right? I mean, sometimes I even watch or listen to the commercials because I'm busy doing something else and don't feel like fiddling with the remote control.
What I don't understand is that the content "providers" dabble in all aspects of the modern era, but they insist on putting stuff on plastic disks and sell them at a brick and mortar store. I mean, Sony makes electronics, but they are talking about making the PS3 so that it does not play Sony movies. Huh??? Time/Warner owns a cable TV outfit and internet, but won't let you download their movies or with little streaming capabilities.
The movie industry lets TV channels broadcast their stuff. The music industry lets radio broadcast their stuff. When are they just going to get with the times and deliver modern day technology?
Oh, the funny thing is that I would assume most people would prefer the lower quality DVDs via DRM. Look how popular iTunes and AACs and MP3s are. Can't figure that one out.
sony has already announced that for the first generation of players, they will not be implementing the flag that signals an output downgrade. each studio has their own liberty whether to implement the flag or not. so far only two of the nine or so studios supporting blu-ray will implement that feature.
unfortunately, their stance is one where they are being lenient in regards to using the flag in order to woo new adopters of their product. they reserve the right to implement HDCP only full-HD output, as more sets reach market in a few years and HDMI becomes more commonplace.
I'm surprised it hasn't come up more, but "pornography" has driven adoption of virtually all modern forms of media. Tin-types, 8mm movie film, VHS, DVD, DSL... you name it, and naked people (or their images) has been behind it. I'm gonna go on a limb and say whatever format is generally adopted by the adult industry is what will win out. Sony and the rest will quickly fall in line. imgunby
If this is as stillborn as DIVX, then we'll get to keep using DVDs and ripping them to our hearts' content.
What's the best way to put your Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movie on your iPod? Oh, yeah. Right. Eat a dick, MPAA.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
"The new content-protection scheme would be the first time customers who have no intention of breaking copyright laws would be penalized because of piracy concerns."
What about all those people who had the pleasure to have Sony's rootkits installed on their computers? They got "penalized" up the ****.
That's the only way most people tell the diference between cd's and dvd's anyway.
The problem I have with this is the plain and simple fact that film lacks the quality and detail that actual high definition video captures. Simply, blowing a film picture up to 1920x1080, even from the original negatives, will not produce the same quality as HD video. The argument about enhanced definition (1280x720p) which most HDTV's can currently only do, vs. full HD (1080p) is a dead-end when talking about HD-DVD's. I for one am not waiting to see a film movie in full HD as the film grain and other artifacts will be more noticable than ever, versus the actual quality of the picture going up. I AM, however, waiting for full-HD produced movies such as Once Upon a Time in Mexico by Robert Rodriguez to come out in the full HD format. And I know a lot of slashdot readers would love to see those Lucas films that were shot in HD above the inferior 480p threshold they currently claim.
No problems at all ...
Consumers hear the DVDs won't work with the HDTV they already have.
Consumers don't buy new HD DVD formats.
Media companies find themselves holding onto a billion dollar albatross they've made unpopular with people.
No problem.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Oh, yeah. Right. Eat a dick, MPAA
Dear Elwood P Dowd,
I did eat a Dick while in Seatte's lovely Queen Anne area and found it to be a totally unforfilling experence. Their meat is dry, the buns are stale, and I found their policy of charging for katsup unacceptable. Further more I spend most of my time in L.A. and there are no Dick's in a convenient.
Should you be interested in eating a Dick please use the following address to find the nearest location. http://www.ddir.com/ It is perfectly acceptable for you to enjoy Dick's while watching the latest films on DVD. I however prefer popcorn.
Yours trully,
The MPAA
P.S. Don't copy that Movie.
"the first time customers who have no intention of breaking copyright laws would be penalized because of piracy concerns."
Or people who bought TV-Out graphics cards thinking they could use their computer as a DVD-player...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I would love to get DVD-A in my car.
I'm sorry everybody, but it had to be highlighted. I would weep for a future in which DVD-A was a common abbreviation, though there's little likelihood of that.
This is exactly where the big chains make their money. The overpriced accessories, not the big-ticket items with slim margins. Online retailers have the luxury of putting slim margins on everything.
I was looking to buy a 20' component cable at Best Buy. The closest I could come was a 16' for just under $100. I borrowed a crimper, used a bunch of RG6 coax I already had, and bought the 6 connectors at $3 a piece. The result? An incredible picture through a 25' homemade cable that cost me under $20.
No one cares about next generation DVDs. People already have huge collections of DVDs, and they will carry on buying them as they have done with CDs over DVD-Audio.
The criminals at the RIAA and MPAA must be removed at all costs before they completely decimate all consumer rights. When I buy a recording of a movie or an album, I expect to have reasonable rights to copy it for use on various devices that I own. If I'm not going out and selling these copies, then I am not depriving them of any profit that they are entitled to. This is simple common sense. Whatever happened to the day when I could easily tape a selection of songs from various albums and play those songs in my car, on a walkman or a boom box? If anything, today's digital media should make these activities easier. And you know what? They DO. It's not the technology getting in the way, it's the lawyers and the artificial restrictions being assigned to playback devices and recordings devices by organizations like the MPAA and the RIAA. Those organizations are holding the artists, the distributors and customers for ransom. And why? Simply to keep their old, failing business model alive. Truth be told, MOST people would do the "right thing" and buy a legit copy of a song if the songs were reasonably priced (a few cents per track) and non-DRM. As long as there is DRM and unreasonable pricing there will be, otherwise honest people, trying to find a way to get "free" or "cheap" music. But as soon as some company offers high quality, direct from the artist to your ears, along with value added media (like liner notes in PDF and album art in JPG) full movie and music packages that are universally playable on all platforms, the DRMed crap will dry up. Kill off the dinosaurs. Show the RIAA and the MPAA that they are largely irrelevant to digital media. If you are an artist, work together with the P2P geeks to find a better distribution method that presents one file for a complete album or a television program or movie that you produced. If you are a user, spend some time exploring the alternatives that exist to big media. The quality is improving daily. Screw the fossils that are trying to control music, movies and television. Rescue YOUR media. Do it NOW!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
This format war is turning into a twisted modern day version of the parable of King Solomon. In that parable, two women both claim that a baby is theirs. Solomon guilefully says the only way to resolve the issue is by cutting the baby in half and giving a half to each woman. The first woman agrees, but the second woman pleads with the King to spare the baby's life and let the other woman have the child. Solomon knew the second woman was the real mother.
Today, that baby is high definition DVDs, and unfortunately for us, both women would rather see that baby slaughtered than give up potentially lucrative royalties from it. The HD-DVD and Blu-ray camps are trying to compete with each other for money, and their greed is about to kill what could be the successor of the DVD. So what happens now? Well, as other people have pointed out, most will wait for one format to beat out the other. Or wait for players that play both formats, assuming such a thing would be made. I don't see it happening. After this whole battle, why would you license a player if it will decode the competition?
In a way, we are Solomon. I think the only smart thing to do is to keep the baby ourselves and leave them both empty handed, by not buying the players or the discs. If the two camps could just get past their greed and see that their actions mean both of them will lose revenue, they might rethink their strategies.
*blinking cursor*
Each disk holds about 50 CDs worth of music. Not a bad way to carry around the collection.
Beats the crap out of DVD-A.
Quad never took off because there was almost no content for it. What content there was mostly sucked balls (e.g. the Beatles rev#9). Mastering quad with analog mixers was a nightmare.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just bought an HD set less than two years ago, but it doesn't have HDMI. If these formats downgrade the signal when using component, then this means that everyone who upgraded too early will have to buy a new TV just to get the most out this new technology. That's b@##$@%t...this DRM crap is going to make pirates out of more people than it will actually stop.
...isn't it?
or am I missing something?
I mean, I'm just going to get the data off these incredibily inconvenient, clumsy data storage devices and store them on (A) a Hard Drive or (B) a flash drive. Although I really will miss using the terminology... I'll miss how it makes me feel like i'm getting something special.
Blu-RAY!... HI-DEF!
Preaching to the converted maybe, but lets boycott this nonsense. It is just marketers working on the age old "milk the technology" strategy to eke out an idea over a much longer period. When disc's first appeared, there were two types, floppy discs and hard discs. These described the differing physical form of the two data storage devices. They were however, fundamentally identical. Each new release of a floppy disc could contain more information than its predecessor, but was called - you guessed it, a floppy disc.
Soon someone developed the compact disc, and it was good, but following this was a higher capacity compact disc. The marketers, having seen a profit in this industry decided that it needed another name change, and some functionality reduced. Digital video disc... "ooooh" sound exciting doesn't it Mr End Consumer. "Hell, i might even have to get myself a fangled 'DVD player' instead of the much smarter long term investment of a PC"
And now we're debating the pro's and con's of two competing 'products'. THEY ARE JUST STORING 0's & 1's! Theres no mystery to this. If i use bluray, it will be to store data files to play on whatever video player software I choose.
Rich Gentlemen Hide - The Existential Comic
Well, it is a simple fact that there is a large difference in quality between VHS and DVD (e.g., fewer than 250 lines of horizontal resolution vs. 500+). I have years of experience in broadcast video engineering, two degrees in electrical engineering, and a current and correct prescription in my eyeglasses. I can be said to be knowledgeable in this area. Both in terms of electronics specifications and in terms of actual performance, the difference in quality between DVD and VHS is readily apparent to those with the opportunity to observe it. Expensive televisions are not needed.
It is unfortunate that you cannot tell the difference. Probably, you either suffer from dramatically degraded vision (nothing wrong with that, some of my best friends are umpires, it's sad but probably not anything you can do anything about) or else you have a really bad television. Consider having a competent serviceman replace some of the vacuum tubes, they're undoubtedly getting gassy.
However, in either case your opinion about the relative quality of DVD and VHS is as relevant as my grandfather's opinions about the relative quality of reel-to-reel tape and CD. That is, not relevant at all (he lost his high-frequency hearing as a result of his service in WWII). By asserting that there is no significant difference, you have quite definitively shown that you absolutely don't know what you're talking about. By suggesting that those who claim to see a difference must be deluding themselves, you've also shown that you're a dimwit. We're used to that; this is Slashdot, after all. In the future, though, when posting shit based on complete ignorance, it'd be nice if your subject could include the phrase "Attention mods: ignorant post follows." Thanks. HAND.
HDTV is over 10 years behind where the "experts" claimed it would be. It has been extremely slow to go mainstream becuase the consumer did not care about it or want it. The only reason I have one is because of the other features that the digital TV had that were handy. I don't even watch HD.
For movies, HD-DVD and BlueRay won't sell very fast becuase the studios have to still make the releases on standard DVD to make any money. The consumer won't care. Only the game machines will pick up the players and that is only for the kids and young adults that waste thier time doint that.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
But (and it's a big butt) film loses quality as it's edited, master positives and shipping prints are generated.
Also note that 70mm film is not unheard of amoung the best film makers (expensive but when you think about how much it cost to film movies like RAN it was very cheap). Some movies even had 70mm prints (though it was an unusual theater that had the projector).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Yes, exactly; they make the format unpopular, nobody buys it, but they interpret that as piracy losses.
Then their lawyers add up the costs of everything, and determine that piracy has resulted in a $100 billion dollar loss of business, which makes the MPAA run out and sue grandmas who don't even have internet connections.
Oh boy, I'm ready for that future.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Early adoptors usually get screwed, how is this a suprise? This is the price you pay for being on the bleeding edge.
The pissing contest continues as electronic/movie companies work together to attempt to get consumers to compare television sets through pixel counting with magnifying glasses and rambling technical specs. Meanwhile mythical consumers are chomping at the bit to be allowed to purchase DVDs for more than $20 a piece and most don't know if they have an HD TV or not, and if they do have an HDTV the chance that they actually utilize it at all is even slimmer.
Videophiles are the only ones that will care, and they are going to buy a new TV the next time a better one is available anyway, so why worry about them.
I almost bought a sony 60XBR1 yesterday, but they don't have 1080p inputs (1080p requires dual link DVI and is not supported by HDMI.
The PS3 is going to output natively in 1080p. It doesn't make since to output 1080i and have the TV upscale it when the PS3 can do it from the start.
There are only 2-3 sets currently that have this feature. I guess I'll wait until Summer to buy.
Dual-link DVI != two cables. It's a single DVI cable with an extra set of pins.
See pics at the bottom of this page:
http://www.datapro.net/techinfo/dvi_info.html
Are you sure you aren't using a dual-link cable?
You are (were) eather smoking crack or don't remember cassette tapes very well. They were hissy, lost more top then MP3s and degraded badly in the heat of summer. Good MP3s sound much better.
I'm with you on the feature set of the players. They need time to mature.
I've got about 100Gigs of MP3 stored on my sun visor. Lets see you carry around all those CDs.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
As my relatively new 2 year old HDTV only has DVI and component and no HDMI I suppose I'll be in the "screwed early-adopter" category so I'll be buying a few HD-DVD units and returning them when, "Ooops, I just found out it doesn't actually do HD unless you have HDMI, oh well, can I return it? K Thx, bye!"
I suggest others do the same so we can send a message and make sure the MPAA et al know there's a segment of the market who won't stand for degraded standards for committing the crime of purchasing an HDTV before THEY got THEIR act together.
I don't think doing it with the players themselves will do the trick.
Buy and return movies to make people notice. Since normally movies aren't returnable because of piracy, they should be able to return them now due to all the DRM.
I know that the library had reel-film (Super 8, probably) movies, although I think they were largely B&W shorts and many were probably silent since I think there were probably few people who had sync-sound Super 8 projectors.
I think there were also a lot of rental options for 16mm prints of movies. Not down at the corner shop, but all those hollywood movies we watched in school and college came from someplace.
What's the problem with this? I've been thinking about getting a tv-out card and didn't know of any problems. I know of problems with input devices respecting macrovision, but not output.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Somebody mod this maroon down. He's the type of dipshit who speaks nonsense like "128kbps streaming audio is better than CD, cos that's only 44.1, and 128 is almost 3 times better than that."
People don't care about DRM now because it's easy to circumvent. They use their DVD-ripping software, not knowing (or caring) what hassles the one cracking the DVD "encryption" had to go through. All they know is that there's some software they can use to copy their DVDs and that they can play their copies.
The onset of market penetration of DVDs matches the moment the copy protection was ripped and region codes fell. Before that, the penetration was rather low. People prefered to stay with DivX and other CD based media. Simple reason: They could copy it.
Early adopters will buy HD-DVD/BluRay, thinking those DRM schemes will be defeated as easily. Then the deciding moment comes: Can the DRM be hacked away or not? If it can, people will grab the new technology off the shelves faster than you can restock. If it can't, people will stay with DVDs, simply because they offer the same quality as HD-DVD with crippled resolution.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Dude, you work at a frigging VIDEO STORE, and we're supposed to be surprised you can't keep everything straight?
Unless you are secretly plugged into the DVD cabal, I think we can safely dismiss your opinion.
Look, the whole DRM issue has been beaten to death on /. more than once, and the discussion almost always focuses on the negatives: downconverting from HD to SD resolution for non-HDMI-compliant devices, inability to make totally unencumbered copies, etc. All of these are at least somewhat valid complaints. I'm would be particularly irritated if I had purchased a non-HDMI big screen set or projector about a year ago only to find out I can't watch pre-recorded HD stuff on it. Good thing I don't have any of that gear; all my stuff (incl. the 72" widescreen) has HDMI.
But let's not lose sight of some of one of the biggest positives of the new DRM. For one thing, it will let you do something you cannot legally do now, namely making a copy of your disc. Limited copying is allowed by the new DRM, and you don't need any (illegal) program like DeCSS to do it. There's been no disclosure exactly how liberal the copying will be, but since it's currently impossible to copy today's DVD's without running afoul of the DMCA, anything is an improvement. Sure, it's not as good as a totally unencumbered copy, but we can thank pirates for the lack of this.
I'm quite sure the DRM will be cracked at some point, and I'll be more than happy when that happens (not because I want to pirate movies but because I want the maximum amount of flexibility in viewing the movie). However, such cracks will only see use by hackers, not the general public. The fact that this DRM will allow non-technical people to make backups of their movies is a step forwards, not backwards.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
IMO, the hardware company's are not to blame for the lack of adoption here. It's not surprising there is more then one standard--in the end only one will win. What sucks though is the copy protection and downgrade of video being done at the movie studio's request.
That makes both standards equally unappetizing.
Personally, I want blu-ray to win (simply due to being clearly superior in tech, even if it costs more initially due to being of a vastly different wavelength then dvds in comparison to hd-dvds)even if it costs more now in time it will mature and be as cheap as cds/dvds. At least in this manner we will be making more progress tech wise at the very least.
Copyright protection is a no-issue (when comparing the two techs, in the end neither of them are desireable to me unless the draconic protection schemes are broken or removed) to me because both techs will have the same crippling technology.
Hmmm... Pie...
InPhase will be releasing holographic drives that use 300GB discs later this year - with 800GB and 1.6TB discs available soon after. How long until we have to upgrade our fancy new HD-DVD with holographic drives?
Whenever you use term "DRM" in a post, please put the words "infected with" before it. Stuff like that catches on you know. The RIAA and MPAA did it with the terms "p2p" and "thief". Why shouldn't we do it too? "Infected with DRM" sounds just as good as "stole material via p2p".
Yet enter DRM: Sony and pals are so scared of nerds ripping off their signal and trading it peer-to-peer they're going to screw those who spent $3000 on TVs and who can afford and do purchase large amounts of DVDs.
Wasn't a key part of the PS3 delay announcement that Sony had been held up producing PS3s due to wrangling over downsampling content that can't find End-To-End HDCP encryption but they had finally got agreement to drop that aspect.
So, if I read that correctly:
Sony and Blu-Ray (along with the PS3) IS NOT going to screw people who bought a $3000 TV that doesn't have HDMI and HDCP.
Microsoft and HD-DVD (along with Vista and the 360 should it gain an external HD-DVD) ARE going to screw people who bought a $3000 TV without HDMI/DVI-D and HDCP and are going to screw every PC user who's bought a current gen graphics card that doesn't come with an HDCP chip.
The entertaining irony in all this, as I recall, was that Sony were the ones who initially gave the movie industry more of the restrictive terms the industry wanted. Microsoft sided with HD-DVD specifically because it allowed you to do more on your PC with it but that freedom meant the movie firms jumped behind Blu-Ray not HD-DVD and the race was pretty much considered over. Then, once they'd won the get-the-movie-firms race, Sony turns around and says they ARE NOT going to downsample for anyone without end-to-end HDCP - making the product with all the movie firms backing it now the best product for consumers too.
So, by all means accuse the "and pals" part. Even accuse "Microsoft and pals". But, given Sony is outputting to non HDMI analog HD sets just fine, it seems a little unfair to brand them too.
Some software DVD players disable TV output if they detect that the video card doesn't support Macrovision. (yes, even some high-profile cards had issues with this) Of course, Media Player Classic + hardware overlay mode + full screen overlay video devices = no issues.
double-sided dual layer DVDs and double-sided single layer DVDs? DVDs are capable of storing close to 20GB of information and although some movies utilize 2 sides of a disc (but 1 layer) or 2 layers (on same side) I don't know of anyone who is producing double-sided double-layered (4 layers) or 3 layer discs not to mention blank discs that are capable of doing that and burners to match so that consumers can take advantage of them. Why aren't we seeing that before blu-ray and hd-dvd come out? maybe the MPAA realizes it needs to redo the copyright protection on dvds so they are redoing the whole thing w/o even taking advantage of existing technology's capabilities.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Fresh original Film that hasn't been worn out (in most commercial cases film usually hasn't degraded noticeabley anyway) has greater picture quality then 1080p. However, if you've got a 1080p TV your best bet is a source that is digitally recorded at 1080p or greater.
In summary...
As media goes (taking degradation out of the equation):
35mm Film is > 1080p stored in some digital format
For a modern 1080p hdtv (which doens't exist to my knowledge btw--will explain below):
Original 1080p digitally recorded media is > 35mm Film.
Why? Simple, the recording for 1080p is already at the max resolution of your tv and most importantly when converting film to a digital format is far from lossless. The reason why your tnt content sucks is because of this, the conversion. The film is being downgraded firstly.
The main reason we are going digital is because we can transfer more video information through the cable lines and the airwaves whelst using equal amounts of bandwidth as analog thanks to modern compression technology. If we had a realistic method of transfering full 35mm quality to a consumer environment it would have been done but that it doesn't exist as you'd need to dedicate much more bandwidth. Two, digital has lots of other nifty benefits like avoidance of degradation on transfers over cable, air, or the change of medias.
Last thing, about 1080p tv's not existing... while most tv's "support" and will display the 1080p content it's inputed with it's not showing the full resolution. I've yet to see any consumer tvs whether they are lcds, plasmas, or otherwise with greater then 1366x768 resolution which is a good deal less then 1920x1080.
Hmmm... Pie...
To my (very limited) knowledge, the encrypted signal can go over DVI as long as the sender (hd player/computer) and your TV have the proper encoder/decoder chips in them. Whether your TV has the decoder chip I wouldn't have a clue, but my guess would be a no, so you're still outa luck.
Hey chump, maybe you should take a look at what Sony promised. All they plan to do is *not* set a flag on on the disks of their first few DVD releases. Once Blu Ray has some uptake... then they start setting it. It's go nothing to do with the players, and it's got fuck all to do with Blu Ray vs HD-DVD since HD-DVD has the extact system system.
Reel-to-reel is better, but you can hear the hiss off the old analog studio master tapes on the CD.
Studio tape machines were a world above any consumer reel-to-reel.
Consumer reel-to-reel were a world better then any cassette tape (with the possible exception exception of high speed 4 track cassette machines).
So basically you are full of it. Is your real-to-real also better then studio quality analog tape? Is your cassette player? (amazing if it is)
I think you're ears are just trained to expect the distortion. Did you initially prefer LPs to CDs? Initially I suspected you had very sensitive hearing to notice the problems with MP3s (With high data rates I can only tell when listening on good headphones). Now I'm suspicious you have very poor hearing and are just set in your ways.
You also did'nt address my point r.e. the acustics of car interiors. Why argue about 0.001 THD vs 0.01 when your speakers are going to add 1-2% THD. (Yes I know there's more to audio quality then THD)
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just like you could with VHS tapes. Too bad DVDs didn't fail, right? I mean, with all that terrible DRM, DVDs deserved to fail...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
...intentionally down grade the picture.
I dub thee BluRry
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
I don't think that DiVX is a good analogy, but I do think that SACD and DVD-audio is a good one. It's been five years since both formats came out, you can find players from every major manufacturer (except Sony) that will play discs in both formats and no one gives a shit. Really, take a look at how many SACDs or DVD-Audio disks you can buy. A lot of them are multi-channel remixes of older albums such as Dark Side of the Moon (SACD) or Hotel California (DVDA - heh, I love that acronym). You're not finding a significant number of newer releases being mastered in either format, even though they are technically superior because people don't really care about multi-channel and they're definitely down on not being able to rip the music from either one of these DRM laden formats and they don't offer enough of a premium over CDs to make adapting them worthwhile. Same thing with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. I don't think that many people are going to care. I think the image from DVDs on my 42" Sony is gorgeous, why am I going to spend a bunch of money to replace most of my movies with something that costs more and which may or may not work with my television? I don't think that I'm alone in this either.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
The picture's so good you can see the DRM watermark!
Now THAT'S progress people! Huzzah!
I never recalled Indiana Jones being chased by a boulder with a giant DRM logo emblazoned on it - but the metaphor is so right ya know?
The DRM on DVDs is fine with me, because it is broken. If the DRM on HD-DVD or BluRay is broken too, then I have no problem with them.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Monster cables are the biggest rip off. Same quality at 3 or 4 times the price. They suck as a company too. They like to sue people who use the monster name wrong. Monoprice.com is awesome.
You're not finding a significant number of newer releases being mastered in either format, even though they are technically superior because people don't really care about multi-channel and they're definitely down on not being able to rip the music from either one of these DRM laden formats and they don't offer enough of a premium over CDs to make adapting them worthwhile.
I think you are giving people too much credit. Most average people don't know that you can put a normal CD into a DVD player. The few who are are buying into combo DVD + home theater units which may or may not support DVDA/SACD, but are not likely to even notice the whole slew of logos on the front of their unit. Most people think in terms of music disc which they call CD, or video disc which they call DVD... and the moment they buy something that doesn't work they return it.
I know it's amazing... I find it hard to believe my self... but your average joe just wants to buy something, and have it work. This would include as you said ripping like to their portable unit, putting a disc in their player and have it play whether music or video. The moment they hear a cryptic acronym their brains lock up and their mouth says "ugh, no work".
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
There is an interesting article over at http://www.maximise.dk/blog/2005/09/format-wars.ht ml/ discussing why it doesn't matter much which formats wins and gains general acceptance
For your cassette to equal the CDs sound quality your cassette would need to have lower noise then the studio analog tapes (with respect to signal to noise ratio at least). I doubt that.
It was'nt my experiance with my high end cassette player (which is still somewhere in my parents attic), it has been a long time. If Nacamichi was/is so great why did they bother including Dolby noise reduction on their tape players? It did a great job making recordings off LPs back in the day.
The only time I've prefered LPs to CDs were some of the very first CDs (which you might recall were just digital rips of the LP master tapes which were pre-distorted for LPs poor frequency response).
It has been my experiance that speakers are almost always the weakest part of any sound reproduction system. You have to have really good speakers to match the sound of even decent headphones. I can hear problems with MP3s using headphones. I can hear them when switching between the same music on the home stereo. But in a car? With traffic noise? MP3s encoded with LAME are just fine.
But that might just be a good place to end this discussion. Everybody has diffent standards for good enough in different circumstances.
For example I know a dufus who claims his car stereo gos to 150Db (that's what? about 10 times louder then a 747 at full throttle at 50 ft). When I questioned where they got a sound meeter that was calibrated that high I got a blank stare. But he thought if was'nt good enough unless it could deafen him. Another thing some people pay for that I'd pay not to have done.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If only it were the cable. Last year, my old roommate bought a brand new 50" HDTV. It has an hdmi interface on it. The interface does NOT support HDCP. Therefore, down-res'd signal.
More TV's do not than do support HDCP, and this is the ones with HDMI. That is the problem.
The Free Software Foundation is already warning consumers to not buy HD-DVD or Blu-ray disks:
Hollywood's plans for Digital Restrictions Management, supported by Intel, IBM, Microsoft and SONY, are an outrageous attack on your freedom. They are also an attack on free software, since free software may never be able to read these disks. Business conspiracies to restrict technology should be illegal; until they are, you should prohibit them from your home and your life.
From a more practical point of view, there just isn't a need for a new disk format like HD video. Compression formats like MPEG-4 and all its variants (h.264, DivX, XviD, etc) can fit perfectly well on a CD or a DVD. Who's going to pay $30 for one blank disk that will become useless if scratched?
I know its cliche, but "digital distribution" of HD movies has already taken off. I get all my HD movies off of Comcast with a PVR and HBO/Starz package. New HD movies can be bought for 7 bucks. The selection isnt great, and its pretty expensive... but so is BluRay and HDDVD when they come out in 6-12 months.
Let's see, I could choose Blu-Ray as my next technology to adopt, but since it was created by Sony, the people who brought us rootkit enabled audio CDs that opened huge security holes on users PCs, that is completely out of the question.
Or I could choose HD-DVD. And thereby render every television and computer monitor I have useless for seeing the HD content because none of them support HDCP. Also out of the question.
Oh, and don't forget, if the DRM gods decide that your new Blu-ray or HD-DVD player broke the rules by doing something like not hiding a region code setup menu good enough, they can revoke the keys for that player and turn it into a boat anchor.
No thanks, I'll stick with DVDs.
I've been involved with some hairy rollouts, but this one would make me hang my head in shame. What sort of ASSES do they think consumers are? Do we really deserve to be bitchslapped by the **AAs and megacorps of the world?
Great implementation, guys. Keep up the fantastic job you've been doing. I'm sure you'll die rich.
"It's a lot like people who abbreviate Microsoft as 'M$'... they don't get a lot of respect in the mainstream."
Actually they do. Most people now equate Microsoft with cable companies or used car salesmen.
I suspect you work for them. For now. Vista is crashing and burning faster than Copeland. The next version of office is stillborn. I hope you didn't get a big mortgage, softie.
8mm ==> VHS ==> Laserdisc ==> DVD ==> avi ==> HR avi (½ HD) ==> HD avi
With all the problems surrounding legal HD content, everyone who knows anything is moving to HD and HR torrents.
[ReidNews]
I'm planning to boycott all Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, and whatever other formats come out, until "THEY" agree on one standard.
Who's with me?
My favourite technique for defeating copy-prevention is to get the RGB signals from the tube grid drives, and regenerate the timing data from the scan coil drives. With just some elementary signal conditioning {a few resistors, capacitors and op-amps which will fit easily on a small piece of copper strip breadboard} you can derive a signal set ready to feed into any fully-wired SCART input.
Unfortunately for those who would exercise their Statutory Right of Fair Dealing in this way, modern TV sets so far have tended to be based on LCD or plasma technology. But now, Samsung have released a HDTV which uses a cathode ray tube: see this review on The Register's hardware site.
Also, it should not be forgotten that the people in the labs -- ordinary people who enjoy a good movie as much as the next person -- know exactly how to defeat copy prevention technology {which is a mathematical impossibility anyway}. It's true what they say: What do you call someone who knows just as much as an engineer, works just as hard as an engineer and gets paid less than an engineer? A technician.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
And, also to do with Macrovision, why can't I legally back up my DVDs to VHS? It's not even a smart way to stop piracy, anyone interested in that can produce a copied DVD a lot faster and cheaper at higher quality.
Umm, just to clear up a couple of points in your post:
1) BluRay is just as bad as HD-DVD when it comes to downconverting for non-HDCP outputs, which is to say that the feature is there, but the studios claim they won't be using it.
2) HD-DVD is actually not going to have region encoding, so there will be no need for them to hide a multi-region menu for all of us in the UK that import our films to get them at 60Hz rather than 50Hz. BluRay will apparently still be having region encoding, but they have at least put Japan and the US in the same region this time, so an R1 player will suit most people.
3) Code revocation existed in the DVD spec as well, but since CSS was such a rubbish encryption scheme, DVD Jon managed to use that one broken code to lever the entire keyspace open, and so there was never really a point at which it would have been useful to use. I don't expect for one moment that they will revoke keys on hardware players and break them, as the resulting support nightmare for the manufacturer would be too damaging to the format - this is going to be used against software players (where customers will get the chance to download a patch with the 'problems' fixed) only.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Like the artical says, I am going to sit this one out and wait for the next next generation of optical storage.
Technology companies, the big ones, need to realize that an industry sweeping technology excpected to dominate over an older technology can ONLY be properly developed and marketed with said big companies developing a universal standard\device or full and fair compatabilty standards. The market does not need choice to work itself out, it needs solid technological standards and compatabilties. This thinking *must* become the next big paradigm shift in how these companies operate, manage, and develop. William
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
by analog, I meant an HDTV that uses analog ins: i.e. component cable. :) sorry
... anticipated difficulties in distinguishing between the two formats ..
Summing up
HD-DVD is a DVD movie copied to a harddrive, right? Hd-dvd.
Blu-ray is just the same, but has Bluetooth enabled, so you can transmit the movie to your cellular phone, your wireless headset or your keyboard.
They plan on making LED display so that when you use Blu-ray, blue rays will be emitted in a visible range. This way, you'll have visual confirmation when you're breaking the warranty.
Just thought I'd clear that up.
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Ok, it might be me but I've been able to read this article after reloading for SIX times because of a OKI banner overlapping a large piece of text on the site
Next to that, there are THREE banners for the C5800 printer of OKI.
Isn't that a little bit over the top?
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
Return the HD/BluRay DVD back to where you bought it. Make a lot of noise if they don't give you a full refund. If the picture looks like crap, it's defective, and they're intentionally selling a product they know is defective.
why would crippling the quality help DRM?
It's "Beware of the Leopard", not lion.
including Sony.
o nt-downsample-hd-dvd-content/
http://robots.engadget.com/2006/03/27/universal-w
"Add Universal to the list of studios that won't downsample content for owners of non-HDMI HD sets. The company follows Sony and several others in announcing its decision not to use the Image Constraint Token to force owners of older HD sets to watch their films at 540p instead of the discs' native resolution."
The rest of the article is opinion, so I've elected not to quote it.
This is exactly what's going to happen.
I can see some Chinese company obtaining the HDCP key of some huge television manufacturer and producing a transcoder box that accepts HDCP-crippled HDMI and outputs full-bandwidth component and optical/coax digital audio. (Bless them for not falling for/caring about the bullshit our media companies and recording associations try to pull over on the buying public.) If this never happens, I am boycotting the purchase of any product that is HDCP-crippled, including both HD-DVD and BR-DVD. I certainly am not going to re-purchase another display just to view these formats. If anything, I would WAIT until I can stream pre-decoded, illegally obtained transcoded content from my PC to my existing TV.
Component cable is bandwidth-ready for 1080p, but very few (if any) companies are making devices that allow people to upscale their existing nedia to this resolution. More people have to spread the word about this.
And just to put things in perspective, I have purchased over 350 legitimate, retail DVDs in recent years, but I didn't purchase a single one until I had a reasonable means of both transcoding the media and upscaling its output to match the native resolutions on my HDTVs (plural), bypassing their internal deinterlacers. Sure, there are many examples of much larger DVD collections, but the collection I have and the equipment I've purchased to view it consists of a huge portion of my income. If they just gave me some reasonable formats that let me do what I want with them, I would buy tons of media. Otherwise, they're of no use to me, and my dollars go elsewhere - like to the aforementioned Chinese companies that produce equipment that allows me to treat my media with the flexibility everyone should have in the first place.
The Microsoft files have withstood hacking attempts pretty well.
as far as I remember.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
whew, thanks.
Man, you really need that seminar!
there will be no need for them to hide a multi-region menu for all of us in the UK that import our films to get them at 60Hz rather than 50Hz
Why would you want to do that? The PAL framerate fits much better to the 24.5 fps that movies are originally shot in, whereas with NTSC, you have to do some jerky resychronisation. Also, PAL offers higher effective resolution than NTSC, and will be especially better if you're using a CRT designed for PAL.
Plus, you can get a real RGB signal out of PAL European players, unlike NTSC.
BTW, does anybody know what framerate BR/HDDVD will use? 24fps is supported in the HDTV standard, so the most logical choice for films would be 1080p24. What is it like for US broadcasts? I know that where I live, the HD provider uses different framerates depending on the material they're using.
It's a matter of personal preference, really. I find the 24fps -> 25fps speedup in PAL releases, or more accurately the associated change in the soundtrack, far more distracting than the slight jump from 3:2 pulldown that you get with NTSC.
I do know people who feel the reverse, and always try to buy PAL, so I definitely recognise that it's just a choice of which compromise you want. My surround setup cost twice as much as my TV, so it's little surprise I'm more interested in the audio side.
Both BluRay and HD-DVD are able to store the image at 1080p@24, and then have the player convert that to whichever output format you require. But you can choose to store the video at a whole variety of other formats too, so it might end up being different from disc to disc. For instance, all the currently-announced discs will store what extras they have as standard 480i@60, because (i) that was what they were shot in, and (ii) it's a waste of space to use anything better anyway.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
"It's a matter of personal preference, really. I find the 24fps -> 25fps speedup in PAL releases, or more accurately the associated change in the soundtrack, far more distracting than the slight jump from 3:2 pulldown that you get with NTSC."
I rarely notice PAL speed-up any more. I find it has a lot to do with the quality of the audio output. I listen through high-end studio headphones (Sony MDR 7509 - $184 street). When I listened through lesser equipment, I found PAL speed-up noticeable. Now, I only notice it if I compare side-by-side or back-to-back with NTSC. PAL speed-up becomes more noticeable with speakers and crappy headphones, because they don't have a flat frequency response and they add their own distortion at the high (and low) end. Try listening on a computer with high-end sound card and headphones. I defy you to notice PAL speed-up when your audio equipment doesn't stink.
Speakers are worthless if you want to hear details. They can't reproduce the frequency range that good headphones can. Mine go from 5 Hz to 30,000 Hz. I've never seen speakers that go below 20 Hz or above 20,000 Hz. And regardless of what you may say, *I* can hear the difference. I can hear that DTS blows Dolby away - louder, more dynamic range, less hiss, cleaner highs, tighter lows...
"I do know people who feel the reverse, and always try to buy PAL, so I definitely recognise that it's just a choice of which compromise you want. My surround setup cost twice as much as my TV, so it's little surprise I'm more interested in the audio side."
Another factor is that many movies aren't available on DVD in the USA. Like Neighbors, with John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd. Or Europa/Zentropa, by Lars Von Trier. Also, movies sold in the USA are often inferior to their international counterparts. For instance, Eyes Wide Shut is digitally censored in the USA. It's uncensored in Europe, Australia, Hong Kong, Korea, Japan... America is the most puritannical country in the world. That makes Americans hypocritical cowards, IMO. America doesn't mind vicious violence and torture and murder (watch any Tarantino film). But they frown upon graphic nudity and explicit sex. I will always be found checking IMDB and DVD Compare to see if the USA version of a DVD is cut or censored or edited. If so, I won't be geting it.
Another example: the USA TimeCop DVD is pan-scan with Dolby 5.1 only. The Australia DVD is anamorphic 2.35:1, with DTS and Dolby 5.1. Australia uses PAL. Guess which version I would prefer. It if's a choice between not seeing a movie at all or seeing it in PAL, I choose PAL. If it's a choice between mediocre cropped NTSC transfer and original aspect ratio PAL, I choose PAL. If it's a choice between Dolby in NTSC and DTS in PAL, I would choose PAL. How about you? What kind of cinephile are you?
"Try listening on a computer with high-end sound card and headphones. I defy you to notice PAL speed-up when your audio equipment doesn't stink."
Oh, it's not that. While I've only got the high-end of Pioneer's line for an amp and Celestion speakers, I have the same problem on my mate's Meridian & Monitor Audio setup. You hit the mark with
"Now, I only notice it if I compare side-by-side or back-to-back with NTSC."
I only really notice it if it's something that I know from the correct speed (usually if I have the score CD), but because I know it's there I tend to worry even if I can't hear it.
But yes, I'd give up and buy PAL if the NTSC release was misframed. Though I wouldn't be buying Timecop in any region...
As for DTS vs. Dolby, I'll take correct-pitch Dolby over incorrect DTS any day of the week. On a decent setup Dolby is very, very close to DTS. Unless, as is often the case, the DTS is a different master. I guarantee that 50% of the time a person raves about how much better DTS supposedly is, they're actually espousing the superior sound mix and not the encode at all. The other 50% of the time, they just prefer the fact that the DTS is 4dB louder.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
"I only really notice it if it's something that I know from the correct speed (usually if I have the score CD), but because I know it's there I tend to worry even if I can't hear it."
That's the difference between speakers and high-end headphones. I *ONLY* notice it if I do a direct compare. I don't notice it even if it's something that I know the correct speed, just sitting down and watching. With ONE exception - PAL speed DOES make ADR and re-dubbing more obvious, for some reason. But that's not a problem in most high-quality mixes. The regular voices and music sound perfect because of the lack of distortion. The speedup is more noticeable on poor headphones (even Sony's well-regarded MDR-V6), and certainly with speakers, which don't even come close to studio headphones in frequency response or distortion levels.
In short, what you are noticing is the distortion of your audio equipment, not the fact that the audio and video is 4% faster and the pitch 4% higher. The difference will be even less noticeable with headphones capable of high-frequency resolution, like Sony's MDR SA5000 (5 Hz to 110,000 Hz). The reason is upper harmonics, which help create atmosphere even if they can't be "heard"). Your speakers compress the upper (and lower) frequencies, whereas good heaphones have more dynamic range and frequency response. So they're not compressed. They shrug at a 4% shift.
"As for DTS vs. Dolby, I'll take correct-pitch Dolby over incorrect DTS any day of the week. On a decent setup Dolby is very, very close to DTS."
No, it isn't. DTS will usually be twice as loud and have a fraction as much hiss. I've noticed that the layer break is usually imperceptible with DTS, unless it's right in the middle of audio. Whereas it's VERY noticeable with Dolby. The reason: DTS has very little hiss, even though it's louder (with SPD/IF).
"Unless, as is often the case, the DTS is a different master."
Source? ON what basis do you assume that the DTS is OFTEN a different master? And why don't you prefer DTS if it's "often" a different (better) master?
"I guarantee that 50% of the time a person raves about how much better DTS supposedly is, they're actually espousing the superior sound mix and not the encode at all."
I think a 71-300% improvement in bit rate would be noticeable, given how lossy a Dolby track is to begin with. DTS 5.1 uses 768-1536 kbps to Dolby's 384-448 kbps. You're either selling yourself short or admitting how poor your hearing is.
"The other 50% of the time, they just prefer the fact that the DTS is 4dB louder."
Even at the same volume, DTS will have less hiss and distortion, fewer artifacts, tighter bass, cleaner highs, more volume/power, and more dynamic range. In short, there is a wider sound space between the softest and loudest sounds. If you have equipment capable of reproducing it, the superiority will be readily apparent. If you listen on speakers, you probably won't notice it, because you're not actually hearing what's recorded on the tracks. It all sounds the same, because your audio equipment is degrading the quality, filtering it, and distorting it.
Your statistics don't add up, because I prefer DTS even if the mixes are the same content and the same volume. DTS has much less hiss than Dolby, even if it's twice as loud. And it's not just louder. It's more dynamic, more difference between the loudest and softest sounds. And whereas the bass gets muddy and slurred with Dolby, it's tight and aggressive with DTS. The difference isn't imaginary. Even if there was no difference except hiss and dB, DTS would sound better to everybody. Why are you knocking it? If you have a good home theater, you should prefer DTS.
You may BELIEVE that volume/mixing is the only difference. But I know otherwise.
When Hyper Sonic Sound (HSS) becomes available, home theater will probably sound vastly better. HSS utilizes the interaction of two high-frequencies to create a lower frequency. As such, it has a totally flat frequency response, vast dynamic range, and no distortion. They've been promising HSS for more than 10 years now. Where is it, and who's holding it up??? Imagine speakers the size of cookies that would fill a room with better sound than a massive home theater system.
HSS can be projected like a laser, so the sound appears to come from anywhere. It was used (fictitiously) in Minority Report, to create those ads that every person heard addressing them by name. Nobody else could hear them, because they're aimed directly at each person. (Obviously an abuse of the technology, but it shows the potential). WHEN are we going to have HSS speakers available?
When will we have broadband that isn't an insult? I think broadband begins at 45 Mbps (T3 speed). Current broadband of 1.5-6.0 Mbps is a pathetic joke. Industries are dragging their feet, as they are with HSS and other advances. Capitalism has slammed into a wall. We need to work together, instead of against each other. The future of technology depends on openness and sharing, not tight-fisted monopolies and closed systems. I want 50-100 Mbps and HSS speakers within a year.
"But yes, I'd give up and buy PAL if the NTSC release was misframed. Though I wouldn't be buying Timecop in any region..."
There are many other examples. David Lynch's LOST HIGHWAY is only available in the USA with pan-scan and stereo sound. France and Australia have a 2-disc version with Anamorphic 2.35:1 PAL, Dolby 5.1, DTS 5.1, and a pile of extras. A FISH CALLED WANDA is released on DVD with MONO SOUND and lousy letterbox video. No extras. Meanwhile, Australia and the UK get a 2-disc set with Anamorphic (16x9) and Dolby 5.1, trivia track, John Cleese commentary, and tons of extras.
The USA rarely gets good DVDs. Other countries get anamorphic; we get pan-scan or LBX. Other countries get Dolby and DTS 5.1; we get stereo or mono. Other countries get 2-disc sets loaded with extras; we get 1-disc bare bones travesties.
I watch DVDs from all over the world, because they usually get better treatment in Hong Kong, Korea, Japan, Australia, and the UK than they do in the USA.
How do I know that DTS doesn't make anywhere near as much improvement over Dolby as a different mix?
1) A vs. B vs. C trials from mates in the industry with access to the sources. DTS is better, but not by nearly as much as some people make out.
2) You can do it yourself by buying one of the many DVDs (try Twister, it's the first one I noticed) that used the exact same mix for both. There isn't very much difference. Then go grab something people claim to be much better in DTS. U-571 is exactly the same, except that the sub channel is overcooked by 4dB in comparison to both the home Dolby and theatrical mix. Saving Private Ryan has sound effects that can only be heard in the DTS mix, others that can only be heard on the Laserdisc Dolby release, and the DVD's Dolby mix is different again.
Dolby 5.1 home mixes get reworked to ensure that they sound ok and not too tinny when mixed down to stereo; as the sub channel is not part of the downmix, there needs to be the correct amount of bass in the main channels to sound 'good' on low-end systems. This is where most of the improvement comes from with DTS.
Finally, I'm really curious as to how DTS is supposed to sound far superior on a good pair of headphones, when what we're discussing is the changes introduced in the balance across all six speakers. Four of which headphones don't have.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Australia has got Lost Highway in 5.1 and correct framing? Thanks for the info. I'd already bought the UK PAL release because it was correctly framed, but that only has 2.0, and the 5.1 mix is particularly good on that film.
I usually go for the US, because they usually get a good treatment and I prefer NTSC to PAL for the reasons I mentioned. But (unlike my friend, who is an editor and insists that a film designed to run for 100 minutes should not finish in 96, even if he can't tell the difference in practice) I'm not so picky about it that I'll refuse to buy a PAL film. It's just one of the things (alongside price, extras, import hassle, sound format and so on) that I consider when buying.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"