First HD-DVD Disc Reviews - Mixed Marks

An anonymous reader writes "As the first HD-DVD players and discs hit store shelves nationwide today, the new site High-Def DVD Digest has posted extraordinarily detailed reviews of the HD-DVD disc releases of 'Serenity' and 'The Last Samurai,' with more reviews to come later today. The site gives both discs mixed marks, with the Tom Cruise flick edging out the Whedon-fest for demonstrating more pure high-def eye-candy appeal. Also worth a look-see: a detailed account of their 'review reference system' (ie: their gear)."

Comments

plays in Peoria?, redux

[yagu]

The more I read and hear about this stuff, the less interested I become. If it were just about the difference in quality and that difference were BIG, I'd be thinking about going for some equipment, and some new DVDs. But, toss in all the other BS, this one's going nowhere. I'll wait until there's one format, or both play compatibility everywhere, DRM goes away, and a player costs less than $150.

The differences in quality as described aren't blowing me away, and I love upgrades in technology. The improvements I'm reading sound much like some digital camera reviews where they describe the difference between 8 megapixel and 3 megapixel, which unless you're blowing up to side-of-a-building size, or doing mega-cropping isn't noticeable to the casual consumer.

I posted on this yesterday. I guess I haven't changed my mind, I'll go and look for a demo somewhere where they've got it set up correctly (heh, good luck with that!), but this is going to be a non-starter for a while.

In the meantime, to the industry, please:

• make it easier
• make it compatible
• don't DRM it (translation, show a little faith in the customers' integrity, assholes!)
• make it cheaper
• make it durable
• and set it up for my friends and family, I'm tired of coming in and fixing what you're not getting right in the first place.
• consolidate the technology... I know it's complex, but the learning curve is just too darned steep for this to be a breakout technology (though I would agree this is "disruptive" in a different sense)... For those who care, here is a partial list of the technical terms and acronyms from just one of the review:
  1. TrueHD
  2. HDTV
  3. HD-DVD
  4. 720i/720p/1080i/1080p
  5. Dol by/Dolby Digital 5.1/7.1 Surround
  6. DD+
  7. VHS
  8. HD-A1/(and it's snazzier cousin HD-XA1)
  9. D-VHS HD
  10. HDMI
  11. ICT
  12. Component outs
  For the record, I thought I was up to speed and I had to look up a couple of these. Sigh.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[btmark]

I can't wait for my copy of Debby Does Dallas in HD. /.ers are going to be spending a tad more time in front of their tv's now

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[justthinkit]

and stick more extras on it. I am a big fan of Director's / Writer's Commentaries, and of a hefty 30 to 60 minute making of for films I really like. Sometimes I will get a movie only for the extras. If the new Hi Def formats take extras to the next level, that will tip the scales for me, at least a bit.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[QuantumPion]

I for one am really looking forward to HD DVD's. I am not going to rush out and buy a player until someone comes out with a dual format player, the prices drop to the ~$200-300 range, and enough good movies come out. But when they do, I won't be able to whip out my check book fast enough. If you can't tell the difference between a 480i DVD and 1080i HD on a decent sized screen then you need to have your eyes examined. Or check your TV's manual on how to correctly set up your system.

This is not a troll. I seriously don't understand how people can claim to not be able to tell the difference. Regular DVD's just look like trash on a large HD sceen, even with a good up-converting player. Ever since I read about the development of high-dev DVD's several years ago, I have ceased buying regular DVD movies in anticipation of buying their higher resolution versions in the near future.

My only concern is that high-def DVD's will go the way of high-def audio with the DVD-A/SACD format war, with neither gaining acceptance and both dying out.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[gEvil (beta)]

The more I read and hear about this stuff, the less interested I become.

For someone who claims to be uninterested in this, you certainly have a whole lot of (very valid) opinions regarding it.

I'm curious about it, mainly because I want to take good advantage of my HDTV. However, as you mention, I won't really even consider it until the formats are somewhat sorted out and it's reasonably cheap (~$300 is my range).

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[hal2814]

"I seriously don't understand how people can claim to not be able to tell the difference."

I'm with you there. I really think the difference is noticeable but at the same time I don't think there are a whole lot of people who care about that noticable difference. What they have is good enough right now to not justify spending the extra money on HD. HDTV still isn't quite cheap enough yet, especially considering the sheer number of people who bought a big screen a few years ago during the big screen TV boom.

"Regular DVD's just look like trash on a large HD sceen"

That's usually because any NTSC signal looks like trash on an HDTV screen. Most manufacturers don't take the time to get a non-HD signal looking good on their TVs, which is unfortunate considering low-def video isn't going to just disappear any time soon. Upconverters on DVD players is a decent idea but the TV should be doing a good enough job of conversion that it's not neccessary.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously don't understand how people can claim to not be able to tell the difference.

Okay...

Regular DVD's just look like trash on a large HD sceen, even with a good up-converting player.

Okay, so you've seen Regular DVDs on HD screens and didn't like them.

Ever since I read about the development of high-dev DVD's several years ago, I have ceased buying regular DVD movies in anticipation of buying their higher resolution versions in the near future.

But you only say that you've anticipated HD DVDs.

Have you actually seen an HD DVD play on a large HD screen? If not then maybe the reason why you don't understand how people can't see a (significant) difference is that you're comparing in your imagincation.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[bahwi]

Um, have you ever heard the term "Early Adopter" ?

Here's a handy dandy, what kids? Reference!

If you're waiting for it to hit below $150, and, like DVD players which now come free with every happy meal, they will. But others still were happy to pay $300 and up when DVDs first came out.

The difference between regular cable TV, HD TV(over cable), and DVDs is huge, but it depends on your TV.

For most people, the acronyms don't matter, but, with a $1.5k price tag, they are targeting, what kids? Early Adopters. Not the majority. The majority still has to catch up and purchase a new tv. When they get it, it'll be easy. "Plug Cable A into both player and Television. Plug Power Cord into wall. Power On."

Wow, simple! Thanks to a single cable that does Video and Audio. Now, for those who don't care for that, there's other ways to go still. If you know what Dolby Digital Audio is, then you're probably going to be doing a different set up, and at that point, either you know what you're doing or you've chosen to pay someone else to do it already.

Make it cheaper? Make it durable? This is for Early Adopters, once again. It will become cheaper, it will become durable, but for most of the market, there's no improvement in quality and no reason to spend the money. The only thing will be having a single disc for seasons of a TV show, depending if they are in HD or not(cartoons especially won't need to worry, methinks, but not totally sure).

If you're not an early adopter, then you probably don't have to worry about the acronyms. Now, if you want my advice, get a nice HD compatible tv, with HDCP support, (you can ask the guy at Best Buy what you'll need), and then get a nice Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player. Then, follow instructions above(Plug cable A into Player and TV, Plug Power Cord into Wall." There, I saved ya from all those acronyms. It's very easy to do.

Almost every single one of your arguments I can use to say why computers will never, ever catch on.

Hell, acronym time:
1. OS
2. USB
3. Firewire
4. IEEE 1394
5. PS/2
6. PC
7. CPU(which, most people think is the big box that holds the other parts in there)
8. DIMM
9. RAM
10. CD
11. DVD
12. HDD
13. VGA
14. Ethernet, E-Net(ugh, hate that word), Net
15. MB
16. GB

And the list goes on. For that reason, the fact it's so complicated to set up, the fact so many things can go wrong, the fact they're never really stable, is why I doubt anyone will ever see more than 15 computers in their lifetime, if they're even around more than a few years.

Don't worry, unlike computers, the HD stuff will get easier(not sure how, maybe a wireless power for the house so there's only one cable to hook up? Or you mean the remotes? Well, people have learned to live with overly complex remotes, and working with TVs, these things are pretty good about setting up good defaults).

As far as quality, yes, there's a huge one, but you've got to have the right equipment. I'm running an HD projector at the house at 131" and there's a HUGE difference, and the most I get is upscaled DVD or cable compressed HDTV, and it really blows you away.

But, just sit tight, there's no reason to rush out and get one, unless that's what you want. Wait until they're $150, or you get a PS3 if any good games come out for it, or wait until they're like DVD players today, free with each happy meal. That's the good thing about technology, it evolves. =)

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Pieroxy]

A good DTS track on a regular DVD is going to provide the same experience than a SACD/DVD-A for 99% of the persons interested in multichannel sound. This is what is killing SACD and DVD-A, not their stupid war.

They don't provide anything more than what the regular user already has.

as for HDDVD, most people will need to get a lot of money out to see any difference. Not just a player. You and I are not the norm.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[shaka999]

Wow, someone who actually likes the extras on the DVDs. I had heard people like you existed but to finally have proof....

For me most of the extra are just crap thrown on that reduce the quality of the main movie because they end up compressing the hell out of it to make room. Ok, I have to admit I've watched the "Move it, Move it" video more than once on the Madagascar DVD. My 3 year old end up jumping all over the room but other than that I can't think of any extras I couldn't easily have lived without.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could mod you -1, Annoying.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Flyboy Connor]

More extras? Good luck with that. Producing extras costs money, and producers are less and less willing to spend that money. In the early days, they had to cater to the afficinados, who craved for this stuff. Nowadays, DVDs are targeted at Joe Average, who couldn't care less about extras. Warner, for instance, does not really include extras anymore (for some years now), just the movie and perhaps a TV "behind-the-scenes special" intended to promote the movie. Yeah, an extra DVD for popular Harry Potter movies (filled with cheaply produced trash, by the way), but forget about extras for movies your really want to see. Ah, well, there is always Criterion.

So, while there are still studios willing to provide extras with DVDs, expecting that they will increase the amount and quality (especially the latter) of extras is just wishful thinking.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[markalot]

For me it's all about content, which is why HD cable/satellite or downloadable HD content is much more important. I have a 32" widescreen HDTV bought mainly because I didn't want another tube and liked the fact I could plug my laptop into the thing.

So now HD DVD's are out, great, and I can buy an HD movie and watch it a few times in really high resolution. ... um ... I guess the best thing to say is that's it's too bad most movies these days really aren't that good.

VHS won the format wars, and not because of quality. I think that's probably the most important thing that can be said. The movie studios want me to upgrade hardware and pay more per disc so I can own more stuff that I watch once or twice. Great. And what are the shows that get the most play around the house these days? Kids shows, of course. And what discs are most apt to get damaged? Kids shows. And what discs do I make backups (DVD Shrink) of in case they get damaged? You get the idea.

I think the first review of Last Samurai pretty much summed it up.

But I definitely would never have picked a Tom Cruise movie to kick off a new HD format, let alone one as big-budget, bloated and self-important as 'The Last Samurai' (geesh, even 'Top Gun' would have been better -- at least that has flying jets and Kenny Loggins on the soundtrack). But here I am, picking 'Samurai' as my first-ever high-def DVD review title, if only because it allows me to pay the biggest compliment I can think of to the new HD-DVD format -- despite the fact I would normally hate this movie, I loved every last single second of it.

Sure, he loved it, yea. Which brings me back around to why I think HD TV (or Cable) or downloadable content is more exciting than plunking down some change for one movie on one disc in really bitchin hi res format. I'm just not very excited about paying for more than a few of my favorite movies in HD format.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Total_Wimp]

You make excellent points, except I think you underestimate the visual differences. For starters, I haven't seen an HD-DVD and I don't know if the difference will be night and day. But there will be at least two effects you're likely to notice.

1. Stair step. Every time you increase resolution, you get rid of some of the "stair step" effect. Virtually everyone can see this when they look at straight lines running at an angle on the screen. It can be distracting, even to those who claim not to notice differences in resolution. When these people see the two techologies side by side, the difference should be very noticable.

2. Scaling issues. A lot of HDTVs do a mediocre to bad job at upscaling DVD content. Even the ones that do a good job don't generally do a great job. Those scaling issues shouldn't be noticable with native HD content. Once again, even novices should be able to clearly see the difference side by side.

3. As a bonus issue, I've seen some pretty bad over-the-air HD content. Other stuff looks great. The HD-DVD should be a pretty uniformly good source, in much the same way that DVDs beat out a lot of over-the-air digital content.

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather just a few items where people who say they can't tell a difference are likely to be able to, well, tell a difference. I'm not saying everyone should rush out and get lots of brand new crap. If it's not for you, then it's not for you. But I highly recommend you at least take a look before saying the difference isn't that great. I think you might be surprised.

TW

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Intron]

If you had sunk the development cost into making HD equipment and your big worry was getting people to switch, you would go out of your way to make sure that SD looked like crap. That gets people to notice the difference and want to switch.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[BenjyD]

I would say my level of interest is about similar to yours: I won't be an early adopter, but I would like something better quality than PAL. That said, I think the number of people who care about that is very small. For example, when I point out the glaring digital encoding artifacts we get on a lot of Digital TV here, people look at me like I'm crazy or have some kind of super-sight.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[hal2814]

That's a two-way street though. If you are really interested in getting people to switch then you sure don't want some HDTV owner's neighbor, relative or friend to find out that their DVD collection will look WORSE on a new HDTV than it does on their old big screen. Best to let HDTV stand on its own merits than to cripple the other options.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[dsgitl]

Do you like to be called "kid"? I don't.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[justthinkit]

Move It, Move It is offensive to anyone but a three year old.

Check out the Tron special edition with a 90 minute making of extra.

Or the one hour extra in Lawrence of Arabia.

etc.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[justthinkit]

Nothing is cheaper than extras to film/make, and they help the studios justify making Special Editions so that they can sell the same movie twice (or more).

If the average person couldn't care about extras, why are even the bottom-of-the-barrel quality DVDs at Hollywood Video containing extras on new films?

It is typical for new "sure to be blockbuster" movies to come out in a plain first DVD -- Batman Begins came out first in just-a-movie form and soon I will be picking up the 2 disc version from the local library. Then a DirComm version with many a small extra. Then a loaded 2 DVD set. Then even 3 (Gladiator or PiratesOTC) or 4 (WizOfOz, GoneWTW, etc).

The Criterion collection is the pinnacle of a very lucrative (and interesting) extras market.

I am positive we will see more extras on HD DVDs. And I look forward to them.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Jeremy Erwin]

Critical commentaries can also be quite good. The Alexander Sesonske commentary on 'The Rules of the Game' is one of the best I've heard.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Manmademan]

Having seen D-VHS on a big screen high def TV vs. the same movie in DVD- the difference is definitely noticeable. I'm eagerly looking forward to HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray as they become available.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[dindi]

"the extra are just crap thrown on that reduce the quality"

Hmm, that's why decent releases contain 2 DVDs or are double side DVDs.

I find the extras rather interesting many times and actually the extras make me watch movies on DVD as opposed to theaters (besides the popcorn eating every 2 times pissing cellphone chatters that fill cinemas worldwide)

I know you can look up most of the FACTS on IMDB or online, but when you really enjoy a movie it is nice to pop in the EXTRAS and look at how the tricks were made, or see a few interviews with the crew.

But again: yes I prefer it on a different disc or other side. And yes, on my 800x600 projected screen, extras usually look like crap... and usually they lack surround sound

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[justthinkit]

The ten disc Matrix pack has, for each movie, philosopher's and critic's commentaries. Also great.

Sometimes you don't know what parts are good until you listen to them. Generally I favor just the Director (the CPU of a movie). Throw in a second person, even the writer and they start to agree with each other too much -- Terminator 1, the writer totally sucks up to Cameron. Worst for me are the cast commentaries recorded with everyone in the room together, drunk -- k, maybe that was just the Boogie Nights commentary.

Instead of going for bigger TV and more speakers, I've gone for more extras on the (few) movies I really like.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[westlake]

Serenity is #178 on the Amazon DVD sales chart. (Noon EDT)

Interesting as well are Amazon's prices, $20-$25 for HD DVD. Netflix has said it won't be charging a premium for HD rentals.

There are mass market titles on the releae schedule. Apollo 13 next week. Ice Age, Harry Potter, Bravehart, The Lord of the Rings, not that far down the road. This technology could take off a lot faster than Slashdot's skeptics may be willing to admit.

DRM may not even be a speed-bump.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[QuantumPion]

Have you actually seen an HD DVD play on a large HD screen? If not then maybe the reason why you don't understand how people can't see a (significant) difference is that you're comparing in your imagincation.

Well, no, but I do watch OTA high def signals and can compare them directly to DVD's. High def DVD's (Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) should be at least as good as OTA HD, if not better.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[dindi]

Agree as well, however I know some people, who really do not get the difference.

I know people who would hook up 2 pairs of extra speakers to their STEREO system, and claim that they have the same surround as me (produced by 6 speakers on a DTS system) .....

They also do not notice if the local pirate DVD rental store completely misses the aspect ratio of movies when "burning subtitles" permanently onto movies.

They also really do not care when there is a quality problem, and think that I am a snobbish asshole when I stand up and leave refusing to watch.

OK, in Costa Rica at some particualr video rentals they actually use copies of DVDs.

While most of the time it is a copy of the original DVD (single layer, so special features and some audio tracks are stripped) , at other times they release unacceptable quality screeners, or some digital format release before the actual
DVD (usually messing with aspect ratio when they subtitle it, but sometimes with 5.1 digital audio at the same time)....

Just for the record: I do not like renting from there and I do not agree with what they are doing, but sometimes a movie or two somehow makes it to my player (e.g. friends drop by, or I am really desperate to see something and it is not in the decent rentals at all (e.g. asian horror))

Now anyway, when people do not notice that they are looking at a screener, with dull colors and echoed audio, I doubt that they actually notice the difference between HD and non-hd

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[dindi]

HAHA :) I can see my family members look at each other "here we go again"....

I just hate those artifacts ..... especially the "digital clouds" and "digital skies", with harsh, sawtooth edges instead of a smooth sunset....

So relax, you are not alone, I am treated like a psycho at home, and no one wants to talk to me about audio or video quality anymore :)

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[ottothecow]

How long do we have to wait for an HD-DVD torrent of serenity? ;)

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"For example, when I point out the glaring digital encoding artifacts we get on a lot of Digital TV here, people look at me like I'm crazy or have some kind of super-sight."

I'm actually surprised we don't see more comments about the encoding artifacts. One of the main reasons I'm seriously uninterested in HD right now is that every time I go to Circuit City and look at the TVs, there's always a significant portion of them showing pixellated stuff that looks like it's been run through Real Player. Honestly, in those cases, I prefer good ol NTSC.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Tiger4]

"I seriously don't understand how people can claim to not be able to tell the difference."

Two reasons. First, because most people's eyes just can't pick up the difference. Good eyesight (about 20/20) is only good to about 2-3 minutes of arc. Most folks can pick out individual objects somewhat smaller than that (1 minute, like when shooting targets), but for complex scenes, they just can't pick out details. For a 25 inch SD TV that means sitting about 53 inches or closer to see "all" the resolution. For a HD TV you would have to sit proportionately closer. Most people don't sit less than 4 feet from a 25 inch screen (or 8 feet from a 50 inch screen). They may notice the HD image is "crisper" in some way, but they are unlikely to pick out Resolution as the reason.

Second, NTSC broadcasts (or cable) are rarely up to even the standard it could be, and that is what people are used to. Most people are happy to get 240 real lines out of their SD TV (good old VHS tape). When DVD hands them a 350+ image they immediately see the improvement, at ordinary viewing distances with ordinary eyes. The improvement is obvious, and worth it. But HD is just going to take them past what they can perceive. And the question becomes, "why pay for it if I can't see it?"

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Ced_Ex]

I hear that when the definition and quality go up that far, you'll end up seeing things that you don't want to see (like pimple butt, razor bumps, blackheads) that otherwise would have been blurry.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[rikkards]

I am the same. I like the extras especially if there was some technical feat they took. However I have noticed that it seems that Blockbuster is starting to carry movies without the special features on the single DVD. I rented King Kong and it came with two DVDs one english and one French (makes sense for the extras to be on a second DVD but I think they probably could have fit the French soundtrack on the one DVD for a little more compression) and there were no extras. However if you bought it the second DVD had the extras.

So it seems like they are trying to minimize rentals to only the movies and you have to buy them for the extras.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[syousef]

Sorry to nit pick but your photography analogy is terrible. First of all if you're cropping you'll see a benefit in increased megapixels, it's not just for people who blow up pictures to wall size.

The difference between 3MP and 8MP is huge. Just as the difference between 2MP and 4MP is significant. However 6MP to 8MP is nothing Why? Because the megapixel count is the coverage of pixels in area, not just in one dimension. What you should be comparing is the square root of the number (eg. to compare 2MP with 4MP compare their square roots sqrt(2) vs sqrt(4)).

Put more concretely your camera will take pictures at a roughly 4:3 ratio (width:height).

2MP ~= 1600x1200

4MP ~= 2288x1712
(43% increase in height and width over 2MP - worth the upgrade)

6MP ~= 3000x2000
(66% increase in height and width over 2MP - definitely worth the upgrade, 31% increase in height and width over 4MP - less compelling but still significant)

8MP ~= 3265x2250
(104% increase in height and width over 2MP - most definitely worth the upgrade - twice as many pixels in each direction!, 43% increase in height and width over 4MP - less compelling but still significant, 9% increase - you'd be crazy to upgrade from 6MP to 8MP)

This has always been a clever marketing deception by camera companies. No one's going to buy a new camera to get an increase of 9% width and height, but it looks like a 25% increase when you quote 6MP vs 8MP.

Similar marketing deception here with HD-DVD. It's fine if you're getting a whole new setup but if you're using your old tele you're wasting your money!

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[yagu]

Your analysis is exactly correct, and I agree with the marketing hype around megapixels being deceptive at best. And I agree the difference between 3 and 8 megapixel is huge. But, you said: Sorry to nit pick but your photography analogy is terrible. First of all if you're cropping you'll see a benefit in increased megapixels, it's not just for people who blow up pictures to wall size.

And, if you read to the end of my second paragraph, I was on that: The improvements I'm reading sound much like some digital camera reviews where they describe the difference between 8 megapixel and 3 megapixel, which unless you're blowing up to side-of-a-building size, or doing mega-cropping isn't noticeable to the casual consumer. I agree with your analysis... Thanks for fleshing it out a bit more.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[syousef]

Thanks for your reply.

Sorry I must admit I missed the part about cropping. However again it doesn't require a mega-crop to benefit from a jump in megapixels. Going from 2MP to 8MP (4 times as many pixels - twice as many pixels vertically and horizontally), say you crop half the picture out (hardly "mega" cropping. Your 8MP camera is going to do much much much better at keeping the detail than the 2MP (assuming a good lens). This may mean being able to see the detail in your friend's face, be able to make out a marking on a bird you try to photograph etc. Even the casual consumer may want to do that.

I guess the reason I raised my eyebrows at your comment is that I'd argue that there's a real tangible difference between a 3MP camera and an 8MP one, whereas I couldn't care less about the posibility of slightly crisper pictures if and when I replace my DVD players.

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[yagu]

I guess the reason I raised my eyebrows at your comment is that I'd argue that there's a real tangible difference between a 3MP camera and an 8MP one, whereas I couldn't care less about the posibility of slightly crisper pictures if and when I replace my DVD players.

Again, I agree. There is a significant difference between the two. And, I was probably a bit too glib using "mega-cropping", which overstates my point... sometimes when I'm trying to get a post typed and posted before I have to go somewhere I get too hurried and don't self-edit as much as I should.

As for the whole original discussion, sounds like we're pretty close on the DVD issues (we're watching on a 720p now, and I find:

• the constraining factor for quality is always the source for now. Even high-profile network and cable shows ostensibly filming and broadcasting in HD show wild variation in quality. (btw, and for the record, one of the best network quality definition shows is Letterman though I've stopped watching him for a while now... but I find most of the prime time shows in HD to be so-so.)
• the best quality shows we've seen have been the HD demo channels, usually including old IMAX movies, and sports. The most common comment we get from guests (and ourselves) is the "view" is better than real life vision, i.e., it's actually better than if you were there. Again, this is at 720p display, and with good quality DVDs upsampled, we find the view to be excellent. As you said, I would have to see more than modest improvement to be interested in moving up, and every demo I've seen so far hasn't convinced me.

Regards... yagu

Re:plays in Peoria?, redux

[Anonymous Coward]

The higher quality will allow it to scale correctly on that snazzy new 60" plasma...uh compared to 300 lines of VHS at 60"

And the higher quality and detail means that with a big enough screen, those ladies will be the same size as you, so you can finally find out the real world size of those implants.

if you are sitting an appropriate distance from the screen, it will just be more "Vivid" from vivid. aren't you usually less than a foot away from your computer screen when you watch overly compressed 320x240 free clips for from bobpronshack.com anyway?

Serenity on HD-DVD ??

[Entropy]

I'll be in my bunk ..

Re:Serenity on HD-DVD ??

[PhotoBoy]

Shiny!

Re:Serenity on HD-DVD ??

[DarthStrydre]

I'm trying to think of a way for you to be cruder. It's just not coming.

Re:Serenity on HD-DVD ??

[gjyoung]

This must be what going mad feels like.

Re:Serenity on HD-DVD ??

[Spytap]

Oh Geez, just because you don't get the reference, doesn't mean it's offtopic!

Re:Serenity on HD-DVD ??

[Spytap]

Had I modpoints, I would mod you in a manly fashion.
Cause I'm pretty?
Cause you're pretty.

Re:Serenity on HD-DVD ??

[tgd]

I wish I had mod points, I almost blew coffee out my nose when I read it.

Re:Serenity on HD-DVD ??

[farker haiku]

I wish I had mod points. That comment made me choke on my coffee.

Re:Serenity on HD-DVD ??

[gjyoung]

We are just too pretty for God to let us die.

Hmmm..was one of the bonus features

[antifoidulus]

a high def video of placenta eating?

Neat

[slashbob22]

I would love to try this out on my own - but I have to get back to work. Another 5-6 years of overtime should help me afford the reference system.

Something else to consider...

[TobyWong]

Something else to consider... if you are disinterested in this new technology because the difference isn't that noticable and from the looks of things you seem to be technically fluent, how is the average joe going to react? I'm talking about those people who watch standard def contents on their HDTV sets without even realizing it/knowing the difference.

Re:Something else to consider...

[yagu]

You make a most excellent point. I find it more likely than not when I'm at someone's house, they have a first-generation HDTV (720p), and they have it all out of whack in how it's set up. Typically (and this is where it really gets weird) they have become SO adapted to the distortion that if and when I correct it for them, they are uncomfortable with the undistorted pictures, and want it switched back! OMG!

And this is all further compounded by the mostly inferior quality of anything claiming to be "high-def" for the sake of selling product, for example, Dish, Echo, Comcast, etc., all boast some flavor of "digital", with hints and sometimes outright bogus claims of HD too. But in the final anaylsis, lots of it looks not so great, and when the consumers starts stretching it and skewing it trying to get the "HD" out their no-bang-for-the-buck investment, it is most surreal.

Just shoot me now.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

Something else to consider... if you are disinterested in this new technology because the difference isn't that noticable and from the looks of things you seem to be technically fluent, how is the average joe going to react? I'm talking about those people who watch standard def contents on their HDTV sets without even realizing it/knowing the difference.

The new formats are a simple evolution of DVD, and most users will simply evolve into it over time (I doubt they're going to immediately toss their collection/player), just as people have been buying HDTV sets for several years now (e.g. they're buying a new set, and it is a small premium over an SDTV set so why not), yet most regions have only recently started getting HDTV content.

Regarding quality differences, it should be noted that the first examples on a given format/platform are almost always subpar. Be it the first DVDs, the first CDs, or the first game for a console system. Not only are they usually rushed, the system that led to their generation was often built with a lesser system in mind. E.g. Because of low quality mastering in the early CD days, many CDs were only marginally better than cassette tapes. The low quality mastering was a legacy of studios that only had to worry about targeting a low quality end, so things like high end hiss or harmonic noise really didn't matter. Give it time and the engineering kinks will be worked out.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

I find it more likely than not when I'm at someone's house, they have a first-generation HDTV (720p), and they have it all out of whack in how it's set up.

720p isn't first generation, anymore than 540p or 1080i is. They're all just variants on the spec, and new and old sets have supported a variety of them. Maybe you're new to HDTV, but it's been around for a while and current sets - the overwhelming majority of which are 720p - are hardly first generation.

As for screwing with people's display, of course they don't like it. Many people have their sets set to stretch 4:3 images to fill the screen to avoid uneven burn on their display, something that drives the fiddlers nuts. Colour balance is subjective with the environment, and everyone thinks their particular tweaks are correct. Detail is completely subjective as well, as to what is most asthetically pleasing. Don't screw with people's sets.

And this is all further compounded by the mostly inferior quality of anything claiming to be "high-def" for the sake of selling product, for example, Dish, Echo, Comcast, etc., all boast some flavor of "digital", with hints and sometimes outright bogus claims of HD too.

Huh? Firstly, digital is superior to analog, at least where there isn't overcompression. Secondly, what "bogus claims" of HD? Most of them support REAL HDTV. Most network primetime shows are in high definition, and shows like CSI, Without a Trace, and Survivor look worlds better than SDTV (although they are sometimes in 4:3 for framing reasons, the resolutions is far beyond SDTV).

There is nothing at all bogus about it.

Re:Something else to consider...

[TobyWong]

The transition from cassette tape to CD and from VHS to DVD offered dramatic and obvious improvements, even to the untrained eye/ear. Aside from P & S quality, you also had the ability to jump around to random places on the discs and you didn't have to rewind those damn tapes(!!!). Even the neophyte can appreciate these improvements.

Now compare this to the DVD -> HD-DVD/Blu-Ray transition. For starters, they essentially look the same. So whats the difference again? Oh yeah, the picture looks a little better. How many Joe 6-packs do you know who complain about DVD image quality (assuming a properly done transfer)? Not many.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Lumpy]

Even less interested. the average joe has no intention of buying a HDTV in the near future. HDtv sales are dismal right now. Most people are not too crazy about spending $2000.00 on a HD television and the rear projection cheapies are not selling at all because the simply suck. Flat panels are the only thing selling but they are expensive unless you want a nice dinky one or an off brand.

Everyone that buys a nice HDTV get's pissed when they take it home and watch real world Tv signals on it. Standard Def sucks big time on a HDTV. and the lack of HD channels in a cable Tv lineup (oh boy I get 6!) certianly does not justify the expense..

That is ignoring the fact that the Tv shows they want to watch are typically not on the HD channels in HD.

Add to that they have to re buy all their dvd's that they are still pissed about rebuying from vhs (or laserdisc if they were videophiles) and the HDDVD is a no starter for a while... I'm betting it will be adopted as fast as sony's SACD and DVD audio discs have been adopted into the mainstream.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Pieroxy]

Firstly, digital is superior to analog, at least where there isn't overcompression

I haven't read something that dumb in a while. Digital and Analog are two different ways to store/transmit data, nothing more. The quality of each is bound to be the quality that it was designed to hold, nothing more, nothing less. The ONE property digital data has over analog, is that it _can_ be duplicated without loss.

A 8KHz PCM (no compression) stereo file will sound worse than a LP or a cassette, you can be sure of that.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

Did you entirely miss the point of my comment? I specifically said that it was an evolution (as opposed to a revolution), which is why it will be a gradual upgrade. Regarding your derisive "Joe 6-pack" comment, even where people don't notice the difference they can still be sold on hypotheticals. Many average consumers like bragging about their hardware, and if they can pick up a new DVD player at a small premium when they were thinking about upgrading anyways, they will. This will be furthered when they go to pick up some DVDs, and realize that they're buying "obsolete" media.

Re:Something else to consider...

[alphaseven]

I'm talking about those people who watch standard def contents on their HDTV sets without even realizing it/knowing the difference.

Heck, I've met people who can sit through a 16:9 film that's been stretched to fill a 4:3 screen and not realize anything is wrong (and vice versa). I've seen the aspect ration in stores set wrong (I hope this is out of laziness). It makes me wonder how much visual imformation some people are actually pulling in.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

I haven't read something that dumb in a while. Digital and Analog are two different ways to store/transmit data, nothing more. The quality of each is bound to be the quality that it was designed to hold, nothing more, nothing less. The ONE property digital data has over analog, is that it _can_ be duplicated without loss.

The only idiocy was your air of superiority, entirely nonsensical reply. You see, we were specifically talking about television, and feeds over satellite/cable, comparing digital picture quality versus analog picture quality. I realize your Aspergers probably kicked in, and you couldn't resolve the comment in the context of the conversation, ridiculously taking a comment out of context, but next time I'd advise that you just save your dispays of ignorance for venues where it can be so easily shot down.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Xugumad]

>The new formats are a simple evolution of DVD, and most users will simply evolve into it over time

In the same way, say, that they moved across to DVD-Audio? Just a thought...

Re:Something else to consider...

[TobyWong]

"derisive"? A tad over-sensitive are we? If it hurts your feeling so much just substitute whatever phrase you use to refer to the average-non-technically-inclined-consumer.

How do you figure a walmart shopper is going to drop an extra 400 bones just to brag about it? We are not talking about videophiles here.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

A 8KHz PCM (no compression) stereo file will sound worse than a LP or a cassette, you can be sure of that.

As an aside, digitizing a full frequency source into 8Khz PCM is compression, done with the knowledge that it is impossible for it to capture the full source range (compressing attributes of the original). I realize from your prior post that you have a problem taking concepts outside of literal singularities, however that is compression is every sense of the word, and if it were used to digitize an orchestral piece for reproduction on a stereo system, it most certainly would quality as overcompression.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Anonymovs Coward]

The ONE property digital data has over analog, is that it _can_ be duplicated without loss.

And, relevantly, transmitted without loss. Whether on the airwaves or over your cable. I agree with the GP -- when it isn't overcompressed, and storage space isn't a constraint, digital is better.

A 8KHz PCM (no compression) stereo file will sound worse than a LP or a cassette, you can be sure of that.

An 8 KHz file is already, de facto, compressed. It throws away a huge chunk of human-audible spectrum.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Pieroxy]

Let's talk video then. I'll take a 1080i/component over a 480i/HDMI any time of the day. Or another one: I'll take a good analog cable service over a HD satellite badly tuned any time of the day. And on, and on...

The problem with sentences like "Digital is always superior to analog" is that it's just not true, not even in specific cases.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

How do you figure a walmart shopper is going to drop an extra 400 bones just to brag about it? We are not talking about videophiles here.

They won't. The early adopters will buy it early, and soon enough the electronics will be in $50 Apex players, guaranteed. I bought a DVD player for $600 when the only place to rent them was a tiny little corner in an obscure video store in my town (during the whole Divx thing). Many like me supported the format until it entered mass market pricing, and then it exploded. The same thing will happen with high-def DVD.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Pieroxy]

It's not compression, it's sampling. Sampling is always going to remove information. Taking a scene and digitizing it at 720x480 is sampling, not compression. Even if you could have done it at 1920x1080. It all depends on the resolution of your eyes and the size of the screen you're going to view it on. There are no absolutes when it comes to that.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

Let's talk video then. I'll take a 1080i/component over a 480i/HDMI any time of the day. Or another one: I'll take a good analog cable service over a HD satellite badly tuned any time of the day. And on, and on...

I'd totally agree with you. However, analog television has a long and storied history of being incredibly prone to defects, and even the best cable providers serve up a palette of overlapped, distorted analog signals. Their digital feeds, on the other hand, tend to either work or not work, and presuming that they aren't overcompressed the picture quality is perfect.

In the context of the discussion, television media feeds, digital is almost always superior to analog.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Pieroxy]

An 8 KHz file is already, de facto, compressed. It throws away a huge chunk of human-audible spectrum.

It's not compressed, it's sampled. Audio is easy to quantize the way you do it because we more or less understand the human hear. Video is not. When I sample a movie at 720x480, I am not compressing, even though I threw away a few millions pixels that would have been visible on a huge screen.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

If its a plasma display having it stretched preservs the screen from burning
in odd places.

We do it all the time just because most people complain about the black bars
surrounding the picture.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

You try too hard dennis. Now stop threadcrapping and go kick your dog or whatever else is next on your list of ways to inflict your misery on others.

Says the guy following me around to make comments to my threads. You have so much irony you could be dangerous to children.

Re:Something else to consider...

[hackstraw]

Yeah, its like the "digital" boom in the 80s. Marketing started selling digital analog speakers, and then changed it to "digital ready".

I like HD content. I've got a really nice fully upscaled 1920x1080p setup, and let me tell you, DVDs just don't cut it anymore. I watched some horrible movie the other day on my set, and I asked my friend how old the movie was, I was guessing 10+ years. It was only a couple of years ago, 2002 to be exact.

HD/HDTV is an absolute mess. HDMI, DVI, component, DRM, DD, stereo, stereo hacked to be Dolby Surround, 2.0, 2.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, DD, DTS, analog, digital, upscaling, upsampling. I know all this stuff, and its still difficult to convince a surround processor to do the right thing. Its next to impossible to get anamorphic, 4:3, letterbox, and whatnot correct. I have a $1,200 surround processor, a $2k 7 channel amp, a $2k upscaler, and in my opinion the negotiation between the analog and digital formats and getting them right is trial and error at best. At the UI level, its alpha or beta quality for the user. Honestly, if I weren't a geek and knew and cared about this stuff, I would be very disappointed dropping 1/3 of what I have invested in my equipment as far as an end user experience.

If I knew someone that had X million of VC money, I would start my own electronics company that integrated this crap and made it work right so that the average joe can just buy it and enjoy the content.

To me stretching a 4:3 640x480 interlaced picture to a 1920x1080 resolution with crappy interpolation and making the faces and bodies almost 2x their width is almost a crime. But for years, people though that is what HD is all about. If I were to show them real HD content, they might cry.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

You are not nearly as clever as you seem to think you are.

Is this really your baiting technique? The tired old "you're not clever/smart/pretty/strong" chestnut from the junior high days? Wait -- you are in Junior High! Makes sense.

Hopefully you can get your lame jabs in before they update the proxy software to block you from adult sites like Slashdot.

Re:Something else to consider...

[hal2814]

"If I were to show them real HD content, they might cry."

No, they were crying because they got the bill for their new HD setup.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

When I sample a movie at 720x480, I am not compressing, even though I threw away a few millions pixels that would have been visible on a huge screen.

Off the compression topic (though still on it inadvertently), but the 35mm film used for movies, and then the duplication of the same for projection, really isn't that high of resolution. It could be that one of the reasons the new HD formats don't show the promised advantage is simply because the source material doesn't have much more additional information.

On the topic of analog versus digital, in the film world the analog copy is another huge weakness, particularly in the way the source copy (the film reel) is degraded with each playing. It's too bad they couldn't get the digital distribution initiative going, because it's unsatisfying watching a bouncing image displaying some scratched up film.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ergo98]

I knew it! Thanks for coming clean about all of that.

Re:Something else to consider...

[rainman_bc]

If I knew someone that had X million of VC money, I would start my own electronics company that integrated this crap and made it work right so that the average joe can just buy it and enjoy the content.


Like a... Home theatre in a box? Already been done I'm afraid. Brilliant idea IMO, although I'm a bit pissed my home theatre kit doesn't have optical inputs. Can't get the full 5.1 effect from satellite without them.

Re:Something else to consider...

[AgentDib]

"The problem with sentences like "Digital is always superior to analog" is that it's just not true, not even in specific cases."

Note that the "always" in that quote is your addition, not his. Without your addition, his quote is perfectly valid because a good does not need to dominate every comparison in order to be declared superior to another good. It is enough that it dominates 51% weighted by utility. Furthermore, the use of your counter examples rely on unbalanced examples which proves nothing about the basic relationship between the products compared.

For example, if the consumption of apples gave me a utility of 40 per apple, and the consumption of bananas gave me a utility of 35 per banana, we could say that apples are superior to bananas in terms of my utility. That does not mean I would prefer to eat a worm-ridden rotten apple over a banana split. It does mean that I would likely derive more enjoyment from an apple than a banana *if all else was equal.* This is an implicit (and often unstated) assumption held about nearly every single comparison in any arena. If you have a friend who professes to prefer McDonalds over Burger King, he is making an unstated assumption that the McDonalds meal in question has not been rubbed enthusiastically on the ground.

In the context of the discussion, Digital *is* a superior technology to Analog. The trump card here is Clarity, and Digital has that in spades. A few audiophiles out there will prefer the frequency response advantage to analog sound (the ability to listen to sounds over 19k), but that is a drop in the bucket when evaluating the overall market.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Ucklak]

Digital cable for one by Cox, ditigal signal from DirecTV are hardly Hi Def but is marketed in an ambiguous way that confuses the average consumer.
Every person I know that has bought a Hi Def plasma display 100% believes that their digital cable from COX is Hi Def when in fact it is still an analog signal on the output. They're not buying the COX hi def service and they're not buying the Cox hi def tuner to get the digital signal on the output.

Re:Something else to consider...

[umedia]

"Something else to consider... if you are disinterested in this new technology because the difference isn't that noticable and from the looks of things you seem to be technically fluent, how is the average joe going to react? I'm talking about those people who watch standard def contents on their HDTV sets without even realizing it/knowing the difference."

All I know is that years of staring at various CRT's, LCD's and plasma displays has my eyes just wishing it'd all go away for a bit as I open up a book.

My apologies to the warriors of the latest format war but I'm sitting it out...

Re:Something else to consider...

[fossa]

It sounds to me like you are just arguing semantics... But I have a serious question. Start with a 100x100 pixel source (digital) (assume the same color space as JPEG uses, YUV 4:2:0 or whatever it may be). Reduce the file size 4:1 by two methods: in the first, scale the image to 50x50; in the second, compress using JPEG or some other lossy compression. Is it incorrect to view the first method as a naive lossy compression? I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that JPEG is a non-naive lossy compression in that it attempts to discard data that won't be noticed. Now, given that the end user intends to view the image at 50x50, which method will result in a better picture? My first thought is that the 100x100 JPEG compressed image would, when scaled to 50x50, easily surpass the 50x50 image created by a simple scaling algorithm... Will this change if the user views at 100x100? Will this change if it's video instead of a still image?

What I really want to know is this: when preparing a video for online distribution, it is common to offer small, medium, and large files. For the small file, is it better to apply more lossy compression, or is it better to first scale down the video? Of course, if one opts for the more-lossy-compression route, the playback software will attempt to display the video at the full size when it may look better at a smaller size due to the lossiness...

Re:Something else to consider...

[hackstraw]

Like a... Home theatre in a box? Already been done I'm afraid. Brilliant idea IMO, although I'm a bit pissed my home theatre kit doesn't have optical inputs. Can't get the full 5.1 effect from satellite without them.

And if it even did have digital (optical or otherwise) inputs, it wouldn't get 5.1 and other audio formats right all the time either.

No, what it sounds like, your "home theater in a box" is a box.

Re:Something else to consider...

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

Average joe will probably be working out with vince vaughn, or possibly stephen root, and as such will probably not care about HD.

Re:Something else to consider...

[trix7117]

As for screwing with people's display, of course they don't like it. Many people have their sets set to stretch 4:3 images to fill the screen to avoid uneven burn on their display, something that drives the fiddlers nuts. Colour balance is subjective with the environment, and everyone thinks their particular tweaks are correct. Detail is completely subjective as well, as to what is most asthetically pleasing. Don't screw with people's sets.

I'm sure there are some people who stretch their picture to avoid burn, but the majority of people stretching their image are doing it because they want to watch everything "widescreen". When my roommate moved in with his HD set, the first thing I did was turn off the stretching so the picture wasn't distorted. His immediate response was "Why did I pay for a widescreen if you aren't using the whole picture?" He doesn't care about burn, he just doesn't want to waste one inch of his screen, even if that means that all non-widescreen content is distorted. After two years, the screen is still on either stretch or zoom whenever he has been watching non-HD channels, and his argument has never had anything to do with burn.

This is far from an isolated incident as I have visited several friends who stretch their picture (many are so used to stretching that they stretch widescreen content too). The response from all of them when I asked why they stretched their picture was that they paid for 47 (or whatever their screen size is) inches of screen and they aren't going to waste any of it with black or gray bars.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Firehed]

the resolution of your eyes

I do life at 100 terapixels. How 'bout you?

Compression is a BIG factor too. I can fit a seven-hour movie on a DVD-5 disc, but it'll look like ass. I can fit a two-hour movie on that same disc and it'll actally look decent. It varies by content quite a bit when you get any sort of lossy video format (which is used by both DVDs and both high-def formats) - some two-hour movies will fit on a DVD-5 with no compression from the orignal with room to spare while some 1.5-hour movies need to be shrunk to 70%. Take something like Saving Private Ryan - that thing looks absolutely horriffic shrunk even to a DVD-5 disc because of the content and how the algorithms run. When I Xvid my collection, I use "lossless" settings (100% quality, original ac3 audio), and while most movies are about 2-2.5GB in size, that puppy weighed in at over five gigs.

Yeah, ideally we'd have had movies shot on oversized ISO1 film (which would be crazy sharp) and then digitized at some equivalent resolution, probably well over ten times 1080i in both dimensions (IIRC, standard movie film equates to something like 5000 lines of resolution). It would be as lifelike as it could be without being there in person. But that's not going to happen any time soon As it is, the increase to HD from SD isn't that noticible, especially when compared to the numerous differences between VHS and DVD, most notably a much crisper picture.

I personally never touch the bonus content, and at least on most two-disc movies, that's true of most people. As it is, when I make backup copies of my movie so I don't damage the original somehow, I take out everything but the movie - I put it in, it starts playing, no previews or sitting at a menu while you're searching for the remote to hit enter because they couldn't have been smart enough to put that button on the player itself. I think it's safe to say that most people aren't looking for more interactivity, and I can safely say that most people wouldn't benefit from the quality increase right now unless someone hands them the equipment. I'd estimate at least 70% of people prefer fullscreen, since widescreen "cuts off the top and bottom of the original" (yes, they really think that. Of course, that would make perfect sense - remove picture and make it not fit most TVs).

Re:Something else to consider...

[Dare nMc]

> ditigal signal from DirecTV are hardly Hi Def
1) DirecTV is constantly expanding their HiDef channels, and for $5 a month it's actually not a bad deal, currently.
Definitly the widescreen content is the major plus. Even though my vision isn't really good enough to truly see all the difference (except with my glasses, which I don't wear watching TV.) I do notice it seams much brighter, and thus more comfortable watching, the HD content.
2) the regular definition channels do carry the 5.1 surround, which is the bigger deal to me. BTW that is the biggest plus of the digital broadcasts, for myself.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Ucklak]

My point is that people equate digital=HiDef which isn't necessarily true. HiDef=digital but not the other way around.

Yes, DirecTV is super IMO and the 5.1 is good in the standard digital broadcast but your average consumer thinks that a flat screen plasma they they dropped 3 grand on is all then need when they have Cox digital or direcTV which is already digital.

Have a neighbor that bought the plasma and upgraded to Cox digital, not Cox HiDef, Cox digital. He's spent and doesn't want to go through with any hassle anymore so he's content with the coolness factor of a flat screen hanging on his wall and couln't care less about the quality of the display.

Re:Something else to consider...

[elrous0]

I remember people making the same point when DVD first came out.

I was an early adopter (still have my original Phillips 400AT player from 1997). And I wish I had a nickel for every naysayer back then who said "Joe Sixpack will never buy into DVD. He's already perfectly happy with his VHS. He's not going to notice the quality difference and doesn't care about the extras."

-Eric

Re:Something else to consider...

[ncc74656]

Have a neighbor that bought the plasma and upgraded to Cox digital, not Cox HiDef, Cox digital. He's spent and doesn't want to go through with any hassle anymore

It's not like it's that much of a hassle: you go to the nearest office and swap out the SD box for an HD box. They even throw in a component-video cable (12', IIRC) in case you don't already have one. The box also has DVI and FireWire outputs; the latter is what I use to feed HD to MythTV.

Re:Something else to consider...

[ars]

It's better to use more JPEG compression. You can try it and see, but also think about it like this:

Both methods throw aways data, scaling throws away data blindly, JPEG compression throws aways the data least likely to be noticed.

To do a test - "compress" an image by scaling it, then try jpeg compressing with different quality levels until you match the file size. Compare.

BTW the higher the resolution of an image, the better it compresses.

Meaning this:
100x100 = 10,000 pixels.
1000x1000 = 1,000,000

The second one has 100 times as many pixels, yet, when you compress it, the file is only 10 times larger then the first - it's not 100 times larger.

Does higher resolution look 100 times better, or 10 times better? Don't know.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Craig Davison]

People expect a stretched picture now. Just look at the videos at cnn.com, pre-stretched for your viewing pleasure.

Re:Something else to consider...

[kemichail]

"Add to that they have to re buy all their dvd's that they are still pissed about rebuying from vhs" Hah! Just wait soon as they're done reselling us all our DVDs on HD-DVD they'll sell em to us AGAIN on HD-DVD Superbit! And, of course, five years from now we'll be buying them all over on our new holographic media players... http://www.inphase-technologies.com/ Or in a new format designed for 3d? http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2006/ 20060210/20060210.html Personally, I can't wait for the MPAA to start selling licenses to content... then, maybe each time it comes out in new media we'll get it for free....

Re:Something else to consider...

[krotkruton]

To support your point, I'm a college student living with 3 roommates and a rather large HDTV. Two of my three roommates, who are not very tech-savvy (they have huge speakers in their rooms, because as everyone knows, the bigger the speaker, the better the sound...), insist on watching regular shows in the widescreen format, because they "don't like the little bars on the sides." This drives me insane because all of the pictures are distorted unless we are actually watching an HD channel. I just don't understand why a distorted picture is more appealing than having bars on the side of the picture.

And as you said, my roommates have gotten so used to it that they don't even realize it anymore. During March Madness, I got a good chuckle while watching a non-HD game when one of them said to the other, "Dee Brown really gained some weight huh?"

Re:Something else to consider...

[jp10558]

IDK, I still know many people who prefer VHS because they can record on it. DVD Recorders - at least those sold at Best Buy - are notoriously unreliable. That said, there was more to DVDs than quality. Note that it took 4-6 years from 1997 for the major shift to occur (Till about 2002, BlockBuster and such still barely stocked DVDs).

And there are the other benefits - no degradation like tapes, no rewinding, and services like Netflix. I don't see a big change in HD-DVD... And it won't happen till prices come down. Not many average people are rushing to pay $35+ for HD-DVDs, or $2-4k for a TV.

When Players are $100, TVs are $200, and discs are $5-20, then I think we'll see mass market pickup.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Dare nMc]

>My point is that people equate digital=HiDef
I did get that from your first post, just adding the info because they were pretty sparse on HD channels when they first started to sell the HD recievers.

>HiDef=digital but not the other way around.
actualy I have heard that Japan is all analog broadcast Hi-Definition, did that a few years ago. But for all practical purposes here, your correct (of course not required to be digital to the TV/CRT even here.)

Re:Something else to consider...

[Cowclops]

This is something I've pondered myself for extended periods of time. The conclusion I've come to is that, within reason, you're better off leaving it at "full res" even if its starved for bitrate. For example, if I had to limit the video bitrate to 1000 kbits per second, I think it would be better to leave it at 640x480 than to scale to 320x240 (for the same bitrate.) While, unscaled, the 320x240 will have fewer artifacts by virtue of having 1/4 the data to start off with, the reality is that modern compression codecs like xvid and h.264 and whatever are better off being fed as MUCH data as possible and letting them figure out what is redundant. Consider a solid blue sky... whether its at 320x240 or 640x480, its still relatively easy to compress because by increasing the resolution you're also increasing the number of similiar pixels. So the bottom line is that for any bitrate, you should use the highest resolution that is feasible rather than scaling down to decrease the amount of uncompressed data. It is the same reason that even HDV (I've personally used a Sony HDR-HC1), which is the same bitrate as miniDV but runs at 1440x1080 resolution, blows the doors off of regular miniDV. In that exact camera in low light, you will have more noise than a three 1/3" CCD DV cam, but with enough light I'd take that camera over a Canon XL1 or a Sony VX2000 any day of the week. Taking minidv footage and putting it on a DVD looks kinda crappy, but taking HDV footage (which starts at the same bitrate and higher resolution and thus more compression) and downscaling it to 720x480 for DVD comes out looking great.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

A pizza place near campus has the same dumb aspect ratio thing going on. I just don't get it.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Jonny 290]

>>

They fuck up the setup on the 4:3 and SDTV/EDTV sets so they look shittier compared to the HD sets. My roommate works at Best Buy and clued me in to this.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can fit a seven-hour movie on a DVD-5 disc, but it'll look like ass.

What's wrong with 7 hours of Ass?

I'd love that dvd, where's the torrent?

Re:Something else to consider...

[NeMon'ess]

It seems like the biggest problem with SDTV on HDTV is that very few people buy a quality upscaler and deinterlacer to dramatically improve the picture quality. I still don't have an HDTV, but from all the reviews of nVidias Pure Video compared to $2000+ Farouja boxes, my computer will eventually become the intermediary for my SDTV signal. When I finally can afford an HDTV, it will have a resolution of 1920x1080 at 30p or perhaps 60p.

Re:Something else to consider...

[GWBasic]

Looking at how music downloads are much more popular than SACD/DVD-A, it's a pretty safe bet to think that video over the internet will be more popular than HD-DVD/Blue Ray. Perhaps HD-DVD/Blue Ray will only become accepted if they are bundled with home theater PCs.

Re:Something else to consider...

[stuktongue]

"... the 35mm film used for movies, and then the duplication of the same for projection, really isn't that high of resolution. It could be that one of the reasons the new HD formats don't show the promised advantage is simply because the source material doesn't have much more additional information."

I would like to respond to this comment, because there are some people, who don't know any better, that may light on what you've said and develop incorrect understanding.

The fact is, 35 mm film is a very high resolution medium. I'm speaking of original camera negative (OCN) here. Yes, by the time you get to distribution prints the resolution has been reduced--moreso for optical workflows, less so for digital intermediate (DI) workflows--but this isn't really relevant to, for instance, home video production, since both standard definition (SD) and high definition (HD) video masters won't typically be derived from distribution prints (or at least they shouldn't be, IMO). Such masters are typically derived through a telecine process from first-generation color-timed prints made from the cut OCN (this is assuming the producer cares about quality at all). Digital intermediate workflows can, in theory, produce video masters as a by-product of the main theatrical release print production process, or at least derive the master from a first-generation inter-negative that avoids inter-positives and inter-negatives associated with optical workflows. This has the potential to greatly increase end product resolution.

A high-end DI workflow using a film scanner such as a Northlight might involve scanning at 6K resolution, then downconverting to either 4K or 2K, depending on the producer's needs. 4K has typically been used for demanding effects shots, while 2K has usually been deemed sufficient for non-effects work. (4K may be used more as DCI comes online--see below.) As you may know, 2K is 2048x1556, which is more or less equivalent to 1080 resolution, so you can see that the film itself actually offers much higher intrinsic resolution.

Now, of course, there are other factors. First, as hinted at, there may be compromises that result in suboptimal workflows (to save money) that result in reduced-quality end product. Also, the condition of the film plays a large role. What I've been talking about relates to modern emulsions that have been handled carefully. Obviously, poorly-handled film from days of yore won't offer the same results.

There is one other factor to consider here. For recent work like the two films cited in this article, and given a serious effort, there's no real reason the HD product shouldn't look very good. Using a high-quality telecine master, they should be able to produce good looking HD. (That said, clearly different qualities exist in the SD DVD mastering world owing to various compromises, both intentional and unintentional, so this is likely to continue into the HD realm.) But for older content, where rescanning is not deemed worthwhile or where original media is unavailable, then what I'm guessing might happen is they will upconvert SD content to HD. Frankly, I don't know if this would be better than a good quality SD version, but marketing concerns might drive folks down this path, for better or for worse. For instance, five years from now, will anyone want to buy SD DVDs, even for shows that were shot in SD? I don't know. If not, then if owners of profitable catalogs want to cash in on their holdings, they'll need to decide how to get to HD from their original assets. Upconverting SD to HD can be done with reasonable quality, but it will never be a good basis for judging HD quality. In this situation, though, I wouldn't blame the film.

Finally, I'd like to comment just a little on the promise of HD. I'm not at all sure that most people really understand what HD's promise really is. I think most people think (as I once thought) that the purpose of HD is to look "sharper" or "clearer," in general. This isn't really quite true. The real purpose of HD is to allow

Re:Something else to consider...

[mgblst]

Joe Sixpack will never buy into DVD. He's already perfectly happy with his VHS. He's not going to notice the quality difference and doesn't care about the extras.
 
These people are 100% correct. Most people don't care about these differences, and would have stuck with Videos except for the fact that we are all forced into DVDs. The only discernable difference most people notice about DVDs are they are smaller - wow, all that technology and that is the main difference. Most people don't care about the difference in quality, or extras. They just want to watch a movie, and now they can't even fast forward the adds and warnings.

Re:Something else to consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

Colour balance is subjective with the environment, and everyone thinks their particular tweaks are correct. Detail is completely subjective as well, as to what is most asthetically pleasing. Don't screw with people's sets. hardly, they are just used to it a lot of people ask for help, knowing that it's not setup right. I doubt he is just walking into random homes and tweaking like it's a simpsons episode. color is usually screwed up on people sets, and many people keep the default settings. it's amazingly difficult to set correctly, and yes each tv room requires different tweaks. If you spend $2,500-5,000 on a home theater setup, then you should spend another $100-200 for a professional install the system and especially to calibrate the color on that system. (okay, not /.ers, but the majority of consumers)

Re:Something else to consider...

[Danga]

When I sample a movie at 720x480, I am not compressing, even though I threw away a few millions pixels that would have been visible on a huge screen.

You are a dumbass thinking you are sooo smart telling everyone that sampling is not compressing. While what you say in technical terminology is true if you observe what actually goes on then you will find you are wrong. How does lossy compression work? One way is by throwing away sounds/pixels that either are not able to be observed by humans or have less importance than other sounds/pixels. So when you sample a movie at 720x480 while you are not using an actual compression algorithm to pick what data to cut out you ARE throwing away information (that might not make a difference on smaller screens) and what is going on IS BASICALLY THE SAME THING AS COMPRESSING IT USING LOSSY COMPRESSION. You end up with a file that does not contain all of the data the original source contained (analog or digital) and since you could have sampled at a higher rate to record more information you end up with a similar result to what you would have had using compression.

HD-DVD gives "Serenity" mixed marks?

[Z1NG]

Damn your cruel, but inevitable betrayal HD-DVD. Mine is an evil laugh.

all nice

[rocket97]

That's all nice and dandy... but when do the writers come out?

Re:all nice

[.Bruce Perens]

DRM would not exist and HD-DVD writers would be common place if they would open the format. Hobbyist programmers could make set-top boxes with embedded ROMS that you could purchase on eBay.

Re:all nice

[az_bont]

The HD-DVD format allows you to burn high-definition content onto standard DVD-R discs. A single dual-layered disc will hold around 135 minutes of 1080p24 content, and that is the method Warner Brothers are choosing for their upcoming HD-DVD releases.

The latest version of Final Cut Pro has allowed you to burn perfectly valid HD-DVDs for months, and they have been tested to work perfectly with the just-released HD-DVD players.

It really surprises me that this is not a well known or much talked-about fact. It seems to me to be the single largest difference between the two formats, and the one which puts HD-DVD in a far superior position in my mind.

Re:all nice

[Wesley Felter]

It seems to me to be the single largest difference between the two formats, and the one which puts HD-DVD in a far superior position in my mind.

Superior to what? Blu-ray's BD-9 format puts HD content on regular DVD-Rs as well.

Re:all nice

[cno3]

What, just because they didn't like Serenity you assume that they're gay?

It's Just Beginning

[WebHostingGuy]

Well, I hope you are not tired of reading; because the media hype is just going to get worse.

When both formats are up and running you will not be able to go anywhere and not read about this stuff. There is too much cash involved just to leave the decision up to the consumer. The companies backing the standards simply are not going to trust you to make the choice--they are going to let you know what to think. And the way they are going to do that is by running thousands of ads; ghost writing reviews, etc.

It's just beginning and you haven't heard nothing yet.

Re:It's Just Beginning

[plasmacutter]

and watch then not mention the DRM at all.

as usuall.. media elitists schilling out to other media elitists.

Re:It's Just Beginning

[Anonymous Coward]

Theyre up to HD-DVD now? I still dont have a DVD drive cuz I cant choose between +RW and -RW

Reference System

[msaulters]

The core of our system is the HP Pavilion MD6580N 65" Widescreen Rear-Projection DLP display device. It is currently the only consumer monitor that can accept full 1080p via its HDMI inputs, allowing it to display every last line of high-definition's maximum resolution of 1920x1080.

Uh, nope, not right... Westinghouse makes a very nice 42" LCD with 1080p resolution. (on both DVI and HDMI connectors) http://www.westinghousedigital.com/c-7-1080p-monit ors.aspx Maybe the HP is the only 65" monitor with 1080p? I have the 37" Westinghouse, and it's a GREAT 1080p monitor for a decent price.

Re:Reference System

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no HDMI on those westinghouse 1080p's.

Re:Reference System

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoke random crap scraped off the street much? Specs here. Note the "1 HDMI(R)-HDCP" at the top of the list.

Now, it's not 65 inches, which may be what the article author had originally meant by their statement.

Re:Reference System

[pergamon]

That is not true. The LVM-42w2 (42") and LVM-37w3 (37") both have one HDMI and two DVI with HDCP.

Re:Reference System

[Zed2K]

42" is EXTREMELY small and some would convincingly argue that it is too small to notice any difference between 1080p and 1080i on a screen that small. There is a reason the bigger manufacturers don't make 1080p screens that small.

Re:Reference System

[n1ckml007]

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid =QCQURGFMHRAFNKC4D3KFAFQ?skuId=7139447&type=produc t&id=1110265594154 and http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid =QCQURGFMHRAFNKC4D3KFAFQ?skuId=7438873&type=produc t&id=1122655672986 and http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp;jsessionid =QCQURGFMHRAFNKC4D3KFAFQ?skuId=7461409&type=produc t&id=1125465419565

Re:Reference System

[PrvtBurrito]

Most 1080p capable monitors only accept 1080i inputs through hdmi.

Re:Reference System

[msaulters]

42" is EXTREMELY small

Wow, what planet are you from? 37" is the biggest TV I've ever owned. And the article said the HP is the ONLY monitor with 1080p on the HDMI. Flat wrong.

As for the difference between 1080p and 1080i, anyone who says the screen is too small to tell is not telling the whole story. Spend enough time reading AVSForum, for instance, and you'll see many different takes on 1080p,1080i,upscaling,etc etc. Fact is, none of the cable or satellite companies provide 1080p signals and until now, 1080p wasn't available on a disc medium, so the only way to even see 1080p is with a HDPC, and most people's PCs won't do that resolution. Frankly, I'm happy with 1080i, if you can even get that from most sources. The biggest issue really should be DRM and the fact that an 'upscaling' DVD player like my 400-disc Sony changer won't work with an HDMI/DVI cable at 720p due to stupid HDCP DRM. THAT more than the cost or any other factor is enough to make me avoid both HDDVD and BluRay for the time being. No point in buying something if it's not going to work with my other gear.

Re:Reference System

[hackstraw]

Westinghouse makes a very nice 42" LCD with 1080p resolution. (on both DVI and HDMI connectors) http://www.westinghousedigital.com/c-7-1080p-monit ors.aspx Maybe the HP is the only 65" monitor with 1080p?

In my opinion, based on owning one, I think this is the best:

http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?productId=PRD420850 2&pathId=125

56" to 70" 1080p, excellent color and contrast, no burnin (from what I hear). I don't know of any video technology that comes close to JVC's implementation of LCoS.

Re:Reference System

[Jeremy Erwin]

42" is EXTREMELY small

Not everyone has your budget.

Re:Reference System

[kannibal_klown]

Extremely small?

Yes, if I you place it far away in a big room it will look about the same as an ordinary TV. But in a medium or small room it's plenty big.

Re:Reference System

[Zed2K]

A 42" widescreen tv is only the equivelent of a 34" 4:3 tv when viewing non-hidef stuff. I don't call that plenty big.

Re:Reference System

[kannibal_klown]

Plenty big does not mean huge. Plenty big is "big enough to be considered big."

I consider it "big," particualr when I'm only sitting 4 feet in front of it.

Re:Reference System

[sootman]

Reading other replies to your comment, I see this:

42" is EXTREMELY small and some would convincingly argue that it is too small to notice any difference between 1080p and 1080i on a screen that small. There is a reason the bigger manufacturers don't make 1080p screens that small.

Most 1080p capable monitors only accept 1080i inputs through hdmi.

I didn't think the Westinghouse was one of them though. I thought it only accepted 1080i input (same as a Sony SXRD), despite having 1920x1080 resolution.

Note that although the HP accepts 1080p, it isn't true progressive display. There is no such thing as a true 1080p DLP, as 1080-res DLPs use wobleration and thus are inherently interlaced.

Sharp has sold a couple 1080p-inputting, 1080-res, true 1080p output flat panels for a while now, long before the woblerating DLPs came out.

And that's why I'm not buying any HD gear--TVs, DVD players, TiVos, etc.--until
a) all this shit gets sorted out
or
b) I have so much money I don't care
or
c) HD gear is the only gear that's available and is as cheap as SD gear is today.

I'm not about to gamble $5k+ on gear that will depreciate rapidly in the next couple years AND has a good chance of not being optimal AND stands a good chance of not working with to-be-released content and components.

Re:Reference System

[rnelsonee]

Most 1080p monitors do not accept 1080p as an input - they just upscale the 1080i signal. It does look like this Westinghouse does take in 1080p, but I just wanted to point out that technicality which certainly limits the number of TVs that fit their criteria. Also, the westinghouse site doesn't mention the rate at which it accepts 1080p, I know the HP will accept 1080p at 60 frames/sec. Some are only 30fps...

Re:Reference System

[HelloKitty]

Sceptre also makes a 42" 1080p.
It's quite nice once you tape over the annoying blue LEDs on it, remove the ugly speakers, and calibrate the picture (contrast is too high out of the factory and the auto contrast/color settings trash the picture).

Re:Reference System

[donweel]

"42 is small", depends on what it is compared to. Compared to front projectors its dinky. compared to the average monitor it's big. My screen is 92 inches and in the front projection world it's average. 42 " would be huge in a kitchen or bedroom but dinky in a home theater room.

Re:Reference System

[nasch]

Well, that's bigger than my TV that sits a good 10 feet away from the couch. I think we've gotten a little spoiled (OK, way spoiled) since on that TV I can see people's facial expressions, tell what's going on in a sports game, and everything else just fine. The only problems are sometimes the scorebox is hard to read, but the well-designed ones are no problem. I'm not saying watching movies on a bigger screen isn't more fun, but when 32" isn't big enough, it seems like something is wrong.

Re:Reference System

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind that the only two HD players out there currently only output in 1080i.

Re:Reference System

[msaulters]

Part of the confusion with the Westinghouses is due to there being at least 3 versions of the 37" with the same model #, but with different panels/inputs/contrast ratios based on serial #. The original 37s had two DVI inputs and could do full 1080p on one of them and on the VGA input but only 1080i on the 2nd DVI. The latest 37's now have HDMI, which is good, because the DVI 'HDCP compatible' is bogus. It works with my cable box, but not with my DVD changer.

Why these two?

[Aqua_boy17]

"detailed reviews of the HD-DVD disc releases of 'Serenity' and 'The Last Samurai"

May be off topic, but I wonder why they picked these two disks to review? I'd have thought they would get a lot more notice from the /. crowd if they would have reviewed the South Park Scientology episode.

OMG, they've killed Chef! You bastards!

Re:Why these two?

[Deltaspectre]

I think it was more of a problem of only these two.

Re:Why these two?

[iainl]

The discs and hardware weren't supposed to be available until today. These two, plus Phantom Of The Opera (presumably ignored on the ground it wouldn't appeal to geeks, though it's the disc with Dolby TrueHD and so shows off the improved sound more than the others), were the ones that Best Buy managed to break street date on.

Why?

[jawtheshark]

Why do I need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? DVD does just fine everything I need. I'm probably not in the market, because two years and a half ago my old TV died and I bought a new one. A CRT, simply because anything Plasma/LCD was pretty much over 4000€. I got a nice 83cm (~32inch) 16:9 TV for 900€ and it works fine. No, it's not HD-Ready (not that I'm aware of), but I don't care.

My wife would like me to replace it with a Plasma or LCD because the current one looks bulky, but I cannot think of any reason to "throw away" such an investment. It has to stay at least another 6 years. After that, we'll see.

Re:Why?

[pete6677]

Blu-Ray is dead in the water. It has all the parallels of Betamax, and Sony is much more incompetent now. I'll just skip over Blu-Ray altogether and watch it wither away and die.

Re:Why?

[radish]

Simple. If you don't have an HDTV you don't need HD-DVD or BluRay.

Re:Why?

[jawtheshark]

Which is pretty much everyone...

Re:Why?

[Zed2K]

You are forgetting about the 20 gazillion playstation 3's that are going to be sold with blu-ray drives in them. Once the PS3 is released it will overnight generate more blu-ray drives into people's homes than HD-DVD drives have since today.

Re:Why?

[turbofisk]

Beta isn't really dead... Sure, it failed for consumers, but it's professional version, Betacam, the defacto standard at TV-stations. The newest version supports HDTV and the tapes and equipment is in most cases backwards compatible.

Read more at wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digibeta

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every format Sony introduces fails. Betamax, they had a DVD competitor that was stilborn, minidisc, DAT, memory stick and on and on. The only success was the CD but that was only because Philips was involved.

The future of the PS3 is looking shaky with its delays and probable pricepoint and even if it is a smash success, somebody has to make blu-ray movies to play on it and purchasers have to care enough to buy the discs and by that time they may already have HD-DVD players which marginalizes it even more. Of course, there's still the question of whether people will allow the obsolesence of perfectly functional DVDs for crippleware with little additional to recommend it.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why do I need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? DVD does just fine everything I need."

You don't, you're not into watching movies. I ask the same question about the latest greatest video cards. Or why do I need a computer with a the newest, fastest AMD processor? Everyone wants the latest greatest in their area of interest. I could care less about computer equipment and everything else, but I find DVD to be completely unacceptable quality wise.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

is buying a television really an investment? or any other piece of consumer electronics?

Re:Why?

[Rolgar]

When SED technology comes out, take a look at that. It should have better picture, use less electricity, and will have a similar slim size that makes LCD and Plasma attractive, and after a few years, it could be as cheap as a CRT, because it might be able to take advantage of print manufacturing similar to OLED.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife would like me to replace it with a Plasma or LCD because the current one looks bulky, but I cannot think of any reason to "throw away" such an investment. It has to stay at least another 6 years. After that, we'll see.

It might be cheaper and easier to throw away the wife.

Re:Why?

[DrXym]

Some DVD players will even upsample to HD if your TV supported it. Frankly neither format in my view is anything to write home about. Perhaps if you had a crazy-size home cinema system or computer with HD-DVD or Bluray it may justify itself but otherwise I don't see a great deal going for either format. Though personally I reckon Bluray will ultimately win simply because Sony will flood the market with players - the PS3.

Re:Why?

[Zed2K]

Minidisc was far from a failure overseas, beta is used in tv production, DAT is still used heavily, and memory stick devices are all over the place.

Are there other formats that are better? Sure their are but the examples you gave are not examples of completely failed products.

As far as blu-ray titles its supporters are:

Apple, Dell, HP, Hitachi, LG, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Pioneer, Phillips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, TDK, Thompson, Fox, Disney, Warner, MGM, Vivendi Games, EA, Lions Gate, and I'm sure I missed some. Content is not going to be a problem with either format and its way too early to tell which side is going to win. If dual format drives come out at a good price it might not really matter.

Re:Why?

[shidoshi]

Maybe you don't need it. As somebody who plans to get an HDTV in the near future, however, while I might not NEED it, I certainly WANT it. Why would I spend a decent chunk of change to get an HDTV only to watch non-HD resolution DVDs on it? I don't care what anybody says about upconvertors or whatnot, you can't take a 720x480 video, blow it up to 1280x720 or 1920x1080, and have it look good. If some people like to half-ass it and watch content that looks substandard on their HDTV, that's fine, but others of us don't want to do that.

Re:Why?

[Manmademan]

how does this stuff keep getting modded up insightful? The CD, codeveloped by phillips was a success but so was the 3.5 inch floppy, the DVD (sony IS a developer of the current DVD standard and a member of the forum, look it up) Beta has done very well in the professional area and Minidisc sold strongly overseas. Sony's Bravia line of TV's is currently the best selling flat panel out there and the Playstation has been the top selling console for over ten years straight. So clearly not EVERYTHING sony does is a failure.

All of this is kind of a moot point, since Blu-Ray is NOT a Sony-only property as the board of directors includes Apple Computer, Dell, Hewlett Packard, Hitachi, LG Electronics, Mitsubishi Electric, Panasonic (Matsushita..the largest consumer electronics company in the world), Pioneer Corporation, Royal Philips Electronics, Samsung Electronics, Sharp Corporation, TDK Corporation, Thomson, Twentieth Century Fox, Walt Disney Pictures, Warner Home Video Inc. As well as the support of nearly every major hollywood studio outside of Universal.

Re:Why?

[AaronPSU777]

Unless of course you plan on buying an HDTV sometime in the next few years. Which is probably a not insignificant percentage of the population.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd ask the same thing about your post.

Beta has NEVER been a professional format. NEVER. I don't know why this canard keeps getting repeated. Betacam != Betamax.

As far as the current DVD standard is concerned, you don't remember Sony's competing format because it never got to market. They signed on late because the industry abondoned them early.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoke Emiting Diode technology?... been there... done that...

Re:Why?

[evilviper]

Why do I need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? [...] No, it's not HD-Ready (not that I'm aware of),

Ask Slashdot: Why do I need to buy the latest and greatest shoe? Note: Both my legs were amputated, so I don't have feet.

Will NetFlix speed adoption?

[GGardner]

Netflix (and competitors, I assume) claim they will have HD-DVDs available when they are released. To the degree that people use these companies to rent media, instead of owning it, I wonder if that will speed adoption. Sure, HD-DVD and BlueRay players will be backward compatible with my existing DVDs, but if I've got a stack of plain-old DVDs next to the player, I think I'm less likely to upgrade.

Re:Will NetFlix speed adoption?

[Overzeetop]

I thought Netflix was around so that people could rip and archive the DVDs they didn't have the money to buy. I think good decryption software and HD-DVD writers will have to get here before the format really takes off.

Re:Will NetFlix speed adoption?

[slashname3]

I don't think the adoption of the new HDTV/HDDVDs will happen very quickly. The costs have to drop tremendously and there has to be a lot more content. And then there is the fact that a large part of the population gets "good enough" resolution from the existing equipment. Over time HD will eventually take over. But it will be a couple of decades at least. The DVD makers will continue to provide standard DVDs since the market will continue to sell many millions more of those than HDDVDs for some time to come.

Face it, most people get their video over cable lines now. While cable does offer some HD content, at additional cost, most of the content is standard definition. An expensive HD system would not provide much difference. As such there is nothing that compels the average user to upgrade, besides braging rights that they can watch a handful of shows at a higher resolution than their neighbors.

If you want to discuss the next disruptive technology then discuss DVR systems. They are available in both standard definition and HD. DVRs will eventually change the whole financial model of the networks. Commercials as we know them will eventually have to be replaced by a new revenue stream for the networks since DVRs will allow you to skip past commercials either manually, 30 seconds at a jump, or automatically the way mythtv does.

Re:Will NetFlix speed adoption?

[Hao Wu]

My biggest curiosity is whether the new improved scratch-resistant surface is really that great.

I have always favored caddys and cartridges; I think it's ridiculous to hold any media by its outer edge or risk ruining it.

But it runs Linux. LINUX!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pre-Installed Software:

Linux Kernel
Busybox
glibc
gcc
libcdaudio
mpeg123
OpenSSL
libpng
freetype

Remove the drive and it is recognized fine in a PC. Working drm defeat in 5...4...3...2..1...

More important

[tkrotchko]

I'm not going to be buying a whole lot of $30+ movies.

The media needs to come down to $15-18. That's when it will take off. Perhaps it's more expensive because of the novelty, but in 12 months, they'd better get those prices down or these disks are doomed.

Re:More important

[generic-man]

VHS movies were $100 at launch, CDs were $25 or more, and DVDs were $30 or more. Prices will drop. I've seen a lot of $19.99-MSRP movies in the $5 DVD bin at Wal-Mart.

cracked ?

[Adult film producer]

Have the DRM schemes on either blu-ray or HD-DVD been cracked yet?

Re:cracked ?

[Anonymous Coward]

how is that a troll ? wtf.

Re:cracked ?

[Maxo-Texas]

Not sure who would have modded a relevant, legitimate question as troll.

No mod points to fix it myself.

To the best of my knowledge they are not cracked and not likely to be cracked at our level for at least a decade. OTH, any sneaky businesses with a reasonable amount of money will be able to crack them almost immediately and make knockoff copies.

Bottom line, these are STILL just $2.49 movies that they are trying to use to mine the last few dollars out of the 1st world countries. I do not notice a difference in quality at 20' across my living room.

And as someone else here posted- the first time I saw serenity it was downloaded off the net at 233mb each. They were great on my 19" monitor from a distance of 5'.

Re:cracked ?

[Jeremy Erwin]

No, but hdcp (the encryption regime used on dvi/hdmi video signals) is known to be insecure

Re:cracked ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting thing about passive media (movies/music) is that you don't need to crack the format in order to steal the data. The facts are that they are going to release Blu-Ray/HD-DVD players for your PC that will play bought movies using some software program; all you have to do is reverse engineer the software program to be able to rip the movie off of the disc and then re-encode it in another format. On top of that they do want you to be able to make home movies with their format so the "unsigned" (for lack of a better word) movie formats will be published; thus you can now take your ripped content and burn it to a writable disc. Basically, the DRM they produced doesn't matter and is (essentially) a waste of money.

All passive media can be stolen ... you can point a camera at a movie screen, record sound using a microphone and scan a book; the way you prevent theft of these formats is to make them inexpensive enough that people don't bother stealing them ($5 for a movie, same as new rental, sounds about right).

Re:cracked ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No you cant point a camera at HDTV playing an HD-DVD and record it. Afaik the players add unnoticeable watermarks to the video/audio and any recorded information from this device will not play on HD-DVD players because it contains the watermark in the video. SO I guess you cannot record the stream from a hacked HDMI/HDCP cable either, since that data will also contain watermarked data.

In the future I bet the lobyists can force every producer of televisions, computer-displays, soundcards, etc to include this watermark detection system. Like the one many printers include to detect printing of money.. Thus they close the analog-loophope forever.

Yeah. DRM / control of information sucks.. :(

Ugh

[joss]

The Last Samurai [aka Dances with wolves II: Japan] shouldnt even
have been a talkie. High res is moving in the wrong direction.

Re:Ugh

[Flyboy Connor]

The Last Samurai [aka Dances with wolves II: Japan]

And I thought I made a brilliant joke when I labeled this movie "Dances With Tanukis".

Re:Ugh

[cloudmaster]

But Serenity was a good movie? Hmph. The Last Samuri was about the only good movie Tom Cruise has ever been involved with... And there wasn't *much* talking. ;)

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Dances with raccoon dogs?

Maybe dances with ookamis would be more appropriate...

Yes!

[julienbh]

Now there is a way to know which tech will get most hype: The first to be cracked.
Let's look back in my crystal ball:

0- VHS - insert press record
1- CD - cracked, press record
2- DVD - cracked, press record
3- BluRay vs HDdvd: easiest to crack will win

IMHO.

Re:Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, ease of use is all that matters in the end. The winner with the least invasive DRM and cheapest, most accessible content (i.e., Walmart) is going to win.

Of course, all of the above is why online content will beat out standard media in the end.

Re:Yes!

[DrXym]

Cracking is inevitable. If you can see and hear something, then you can rip it. First efforts might be primitive, but it can't be long before some magic dongle appears that breaks HDCP. Then the content is going to fly all over the place. Even if the data is reencoded it's not going to be noticeable to most people. Soon after tools and rippers will appear that allow the menu & features of a standard DVD to be spliced with the ripped main movie data from the HD-DVD to produce a very acceptable pirate version. Perhaps the HD content will even play off a DVD. I wouldn't put it past Chinese / Taiwanese makers to produce players which will play HD content from a regular DVD.

Re:Yes!

[ErikZ]

Would you really buy a blue ray player over HD? It's several hundred dollars more expensive at this point.

Even if it were more crackable, if you can afford 800$ for it, I don't think you'll really care.

lack of early adopters ?

[GodWasAnAlien]

I bought a DVD player early on, partly because I knew it was standard mpeg2, and there were DVD-ROMS becoming available (but I didn't know about DRM then). I suspect there are many other early tech. adopters here. I will not be buying HD-DVD until the DRM is overcome. I wonder where the rest of slashdot is on this.

Perhaps a slashdot poll is needed.

I will buy HD-DVD/Bluray:

1) As soon as one of them is sold.
2) When one of these formats wins
3) When the DRM is removed or overcome
4) When the price drops
5) When the HDDVD-ROM/RW is available.
6) 1-5
7) When Hell exists and is frozen

Re:lack of early adopters ?

[richman555]

I will buy one when the price is lowered down to around $300 when I actually own an High Def television.

Re:lack of early adopters ?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I think that is the opinion of many people.

DVD was dramatically new. Even compared to Laserdisks, DVD was better quality in a more convenient form factor. It represented a huge leap over VHS tapes, and it was the fastest growing media format compared to tapes, CD's and VHS combined.

But High Def DVD's just don't have the same impact as DVDs. DVDs have overed exceptional quality, and even on HD Televisions, DVD's still offer good quality. With new up-converting DVD players, that quality is furthered as it converts DVD data to HD signals. Up converting DVD players are about 1/10 the price of next gen HD DVD players, and people can use their existing library to watch better quality HD movies.

But, High Def was a f*cked up technology release. I don't think you could have rolled out a technology format in a worse way. Cable and Satellite providers were slow to offer HD content, so consumers were slow to buy HD equipment. HD has been around for over 10 years now, believe it or not, and yet, TVs are still pricey, they don't feature ture HD tuner integration (i.e. do not support digital cable natively), and cable companies are charging too much for the "premium" of watching HD content.

High Def DVD players will be a f*cked up technology roll out as well. With DRM and Hollywoods unwarranted worry over copy protection, next gen DVD's will never be quickly adopted. With two competing standards, its the Betamax/VHS stand off all over again. Except the problem now is that we already have a decent format that suits most of our purposes, DVD, period!

Like you said, I will buy a next gen DVD player when they hit Wall-Mart for $50 and one format one over the other. I will only get one that supports my existing DVD library and when HD-DVD's are the same price as regular DVD's, or you can only buy HD-DVDs. I think most people feel the same way.

The question is, will either formats pervail, or will the industry drop both of them because demand will be weak or non-existent?

Re:lack of early adopters ?

[lostvyking]

After reading this thread (to this point) I think a lot of us are in the same camp: we are waiting for all the loose ends to be tied up and the technology to solidify into whatever it is going to become. I have noticed a recurring factor here and it is probably one we will see many more times. Let me know if this sounds familiar.....in 1981 the first audio CD players came onto the market and sold for $1,500. Prior to that it was VCRs that originally sold for $1,500. When the original DVD units came out, I believe they were up there as well. Not only did they all come down to incredibly low prices (in 1985 did anyone forsee a $39 hi-fi VCR?) but the technology still improved. This will probably happen with HD-DVD as well, though probably not as quickly as it did with the DVD which proved to be one of the most successful technology launches ever. Eventually, HD-DVD will become the standard, but probably only when Super High Def (3840x2560) is around the corner and it is time to start all over again....in which case I will go to Wal-Mart and spend $99 on an HD-DVD player that will (by that time) be able to read HD DVDs that are eight layers thick and hold 200 Gigs of data.

Re:lack of early adopters ?

[iainl]

Obligatory whine about missing options, then:

I'll get one once I've got a HD display to make use of it. Until then, standard-def DVD is all I need.

Furthermore, that's not happening until my son reaches an age where he understands that you can't attract the attention of the giraffe in the big box by banging on the glass.

Re:lack of early adopters ?

[Al Al Cool J]

4.5) When I can watch it on linux on my 1920x1280 monitor :-)

Re:lack of early adopters ?

[nytes]

When Cowboy Neal freezes over.

Re:lack of early adopters ?

[Anonymous Coward]

hell already froze when Apple switched to Intel

Re:cracked ? The key to adoption

[Overzeetop]

No, seriously. The parent may well be trolling, but the point is actually insightful in a roundabout way. I don't think the format will take off until you can make a copy for yourself. Do you really think Netfix would be where it is today if you couldn't rip and burn DVDs? Of course not. A cracked format will be the doorway to universal accptance of the new format. Otherwise, it will just sit next to DAT on the shelf of technology that could have been big.

Yeah, but it's Serenity!!

[Anonymous Coward]

...I don't know about you but I wasn't planning on buying a HD-DVD player until I heard there was going to be a Serenity HD-DVD. Then I ran out and ordered one (should be getting it this week!)

Firefly rules... enough for me to spend this much money it.

What's in it for the early adopters?

[DrXym]

I think early adoption of anything is rather silly (e.g. next gen consoles), but it seems more so with Bluray & HD-DVD players. What possible reason is there for buying a 1st generation player for $$$$ (which the reviewer admits doesn't even support their TV's best resolution) and play a handful of mostly meh titles?

While the actions of early adopters might shape the success of the platform, it seems a bit insane to be one. That is unless you have so much money that you are happy to toss your player and collection aside if by chance early adopters for the rival standard win.

Am I the only one...

[Ragnarrokk]

...Who just, doesn't care?

I don't get this thirst for superior quality so we can see every nasal hair the actor possesses. If it's good enough not to miss plot detail why does it matter? Sure it's a nice gimmick for a while but in the end does it really change your entertainment?

I'll openly admit I torrent a lot of shows and I'm perfectly happy to watch them on my big 'ole monitor. Firefly epsiodes for example (they were never shown on TV here, although after downloading me and friends now gladly invested in a boxset each) are 233MB a piece, for about 44 minutes of video at 576x320. I blow it to full screen on the 19 inch LCD while I sit in front of it, and it's more than enough quality to enjoy.

Would I have enjoyed it more if I could have counted Jayne's stubble? No. Not really.

``Ragnarok

Re:Am I the only one...

[krajo]

That's exactly what I did, downloaded Firefly off a torrent. I enjoyed it so much I bought the DVD box set.

The internet should be about this: make people interested in what you want to sell. Not sell them stuff and see if they are interested, cause that just won't work on me.

bye, krajo

Re:Am I the only one...

[Darth Maul]

Agreed. I bought a DVD player for $1K back in 1997 (i.e. early adopter), but that's because the jump in technology was quite apparent. From VHS to DVD, you get improvements in form factor, resolution, sound, no-rewind, storage, etc, etc, etc.

As I look at the transition from DVD to HD-DVD, all I personally see are negatives: The DRM not letting me play a HD-DVD on MY NEW HDTV! I am absolutely the early-adopter market they need, and there is no way I will buy. Just because my HDTV doesn't have their DRM HDMI stuff, I cannot play full-res. This assumption that I am a criminal, and the fact that this *only* inconveniences the average user (people who want to pirate this stuff will still do it), makes me react so negatively that I just wonder why this has all gone completely wrong.

When the DVD came out it was all about great stuff for the customer. Now with HD-DVD is about great protections for the media cartels.

No thanks.

Re:Am I the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that you watch on a 19" display (I assume a foot away from the screen) means you most likely WON'T see any difference in HDTV. HD really deserves something on the order of a 47" widescreen display, with the users sitting six feet away, to really show off the resolution.

Re:Am I the only one...

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point of HDTV is not to count the stubble. It is to widen the angle; change the direction. HDTV should =feel= different.

If you've ever gone into a cinema and had to sit up the back just to make viewing comfortable, the director probably used a normal TV to judge the takes. It'll look fine on the small screen.

CK.

Does that mean it's better? I want the best!

[jdbartlett]

Only time will tell for sure, but don't underestimate the training of Best Buy sales reps to spin deals based on 'technical details'. Average Joe hears the resolution difference ("1080? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!") and think he's getting a better product, just like he did with his digital camera ("8 megapixels? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), just like he did with HDTV ("HD? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), personal digital music player ("80 Megabytes? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), personal computer ("Intel? Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), hifi ("500 Whats? [sic] Does that mean it's better? I want the best!"), etc.

Steep? Really?

[qortra]

Firstly, I really do agree with most of your points. Kudos. But you went too far:

1. TrueHD
2. HDTV
3. HD-DVD
4. 720i/720p/1080i/1080p
5. Dol by/Dolby Digital 5.1/7.1 Surround
6. DD+
7. VHS
8. HD-A1/(and it's snazzier cousin HD-XA1)
9. D-VHS HD
10. HDMI
11. ICT
12. Component outs

OK, I'm pretty sure that most slashdoters know most of the important ones here. Some of them are derivable from other acronyms that are common enough (eg. DD+). Also, as far as I could tell, HD-A1 (and HD-XA1) are model names. It's hardly fair to gripe at an industry because their model numbers are unrecognizable to newbies. Every manufacturer has their system (some more complex than others). Consider BMW; how would you know what 325i meant without doing a small bit of research?

While I agree with your other points, complexity is certainly not a problem here. In many cases, different terms exist to indicate the potential for consumer choice (eg: DTS vs DD, or D-VHS vs DVD). In other cases, it means that the current standards have potential for technological expansion (eg: 480p vs 720p). In any case, having this kind of system and these kinds of terms means that if you do 5 minutes more research, you end up getting a system tailored to your exact need. Are you that scared of wikipedia?

Apex ...

[sgentry6]

I'll gladly get in this market once a name like Apex or similar gives me a unit I can hack the firmware for so that I can output the 1080i image through component outputs. Until then, I don't have much reason to upgrade. If they only allow the HDMI connections to output the higher resolutions, they will lose customers imo. I think too many HDTVs out there don't have the HDMI connector to allow the studios to cripple the format.

Re:Apex ...

[The Barking Dog]

Granted, the early HDTV adopters are SOL if their set doesn't have DVI or HDMI inputs, but anyone who has bought a set in the last six months or so would be foolish if they didn't do their research and make sure that they got one with HDMI. I bought a HD set (a low-end one, but HD nonetheless) in December '05, and I made darn sure I wasn't wasting my money - it has two HDMI inputs. Now if only I had something to connect to them! Buying the set cost me all my Wife Karma for the next year, at least.

Re:Apex ...

[bodester17]

RTFA - The DVD players output at 1080i in the component connection already. In order to get the higher quality 1080p you need to use the HDMI connection.

Re:Apex ...

[sgentry6]

Warner has elected not to enforce ICT, the controversial "down-res" copy protection scheme built into the HD-DVD spec, that allows a content provider to downgrade the quality of an HD DVD disc to standard DVD quality via the component outs. So that means you can watch all the studios initial HD-DVD offerings in full 1080i without HDMI -- at least for now, until Warner decides to implement ICT (which it has publicly stated it intends to do) For those stating RTFA I did. It works for now, it won't forever.

Re:Apex ...

[Jeremy Erwin]

IIRC, ICT down-reses the picture to 540x960, which is then upscaled to 1080i, or 720p. I've seen a site that attempts to compare downresed hdtv with dvd. Although the comparison used photoshop, which has a good scaling algorithm, downrezed hdvd suffers from fewer artifacts, and apparently has better color definition than dvd. The comparisons were made before HDVD became available, so an update would be most welcome.

1080i vs 1080p for film-source content irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Key phrase: Inverse Telecine.

1080p purists, please stop whining. 1080i vs 1080p for film-source content is irrelevant.

Films are filmed at 24 frames per second. They're stored on the HD disks as 1080p24.

1080i is displayed at 60 fields per second, 30 full-frames per second.

The player performs a telecine operation on the material to convert from 1080p24 to 1080i60 and then outputs it to the TV.

There is this nifty techinque called inverse telecine that lets your 1080p-capable TV reconstruct the progressive frames from the interlaced output of the player. Ignoring additional image processing happening inside the TV, it will be displayed as bit-identical to the stored content on the disk, as 24 progressive frames per second, 1920x1080. Please set your TV to "film" mode and get over it.

The only place 1080p is going to matter is for video-source material with 30 or 60 progressive frames per second, like sports, live events, and pr0n. There isn't going to be a lot of that released on discs, at least at first. IIRC most HD production trucks aren't even capturing in 1080p30 or 1080p60, and it certainly isn't being delivered in 1080p by ANY consumer solution at the moment.

So please, stop whining about 1080p. There's nothing being produced to watch with it yet.

Time to wait...

[realkiwi]

FTFA

"Certainly, if these new next-gen high-def DVD formats are going to win over the mainstream, they need to be seen on larger screen sizes."

doh! I have been very non plused by the HD that I have seen. I am quite happy with the 1440x990 DVB-S image I have on my smaller screen. The day I have the cash for a 1.5 metre diagonal screen, another copy of LOTR directors cut, a player, a sound system and a room worthy of it all I'll let you all know if I have changed my mind.

For now despite the cost (MPAA = mob racketeers) I will go and see worthy content in a movie theatre.

Well... maybe...

[DG]

This XMas, Niner Domestic and I treated ourselves to a Samsung DLP 50" 720p rear-projection TV.

This replaced the 27" JVC CRT we'd had for well on 13 years.

We have a JVC DVD player that will output 480p (aka "progressive scan") and we updated our digital cable box to the HD-capable + built in DVR box provided by the cable company (Cogeco) with an upgrade to HD service.

And for grins, I picked up a calibration DVD (Digital Video Essentials) to set the screen settings on the TV. I wasn't able to get them reference-perfect, but got pretty close.

The old CRT TV had a really good tube for its size, so the primary benefits would be the bigger screen size, the increased resolution on DVDs (480p vs 480i) and the occasional HD broadcast (720p vs 480i).

We're running component inputs switched through the sound system, but I hooked up the SVideo cables in parallel for debugging and comparison purposes.

My take on it is this:

1) DVDs are much nicer in 480p full widescreen than in 480i over SVideo. An SVideo signal blown up that big starts to show pixelization and other scaling artifacts. 480p adds enough extra information to eliminate most artifacts and lets you concentrate on the movie. Superbit transfers that increase picture bitrate at the expense of extra fluff are the best.

2) Standard TV depends a lot on the quality of the source material. Stuff filmed with a 480i NTSC camera is a little blocky, and sometimes (like on animated shows like the Simpsons) you can see visible ringing. It's not horrible, but it is there.

3) HD TV also depends a lot on the source material, and a LOT of "HD" is really upconverted NTSC stuff; most network TV in particular. Quality is a little bit better than standard TV (I assume the networks have better upconverters than I do) but you can still tell that you're looking at an upconverted NTSC signal. Sometimes, I'm pretty sure that "HD" movies, as shown on "Movie Network HD" are 480p DVD signals upconverted.

4) But real HD, shot with a real HD signal, is INCREDIBLE. Like, WOW, is that ever pretty. Amazingly, PBS-HD usually has the best/most real HD content, with the sports networks coming in second. Watching the Super Bowl in HD was just amazing, and to my mind, justified the purchase.

Summing up, on my system, I rate standard TV as "acceptable" (the increased picture size is slightly offset by reduced quality, with the size increase winning out by a noze) DVD is "good" to "very good" depending on the bitrate of the transfer (the big win is getting a good quality picture all the way out to the borders of the screen) and real HD signals are "outstanding".

Now, assume that somebody dropped a free HD-DVD player on me. Would I go out and re-purchase all my current flicks in HD?

I suspect not - there's a real step up in quality on a real HD signal when compared to a 480p signal; it's totally there. But that's not enough for me to go out and re-spend all that money. But I *would* get all my new purchases in HD, for sure.

How about early adopting? No bloody way - not until the industry sorts out which format is the standard, and until DRM is eliminated. The pain of choosing the wrong standard and having to deal with brain-dead DRM greatly exceeds the happiness of getting real HD content.

DG

Re:Well... maybe...

[Trixter]

"the increased resolution on DVDs (480p vs 480i)"

You're misinformed. 480 lines is 480 lines. There is not magically more resolution in DVDs now that you have better gear.

Re:Well... maybe...

[Luyseyal]

2) Standard TV depends a lot on the quality of the source material. Stuff filmed with a 480i NTSC camera is a little blocky, and sometimes (like on animated shows like the Simpsons) you can see visible ringing. It's not horrible, but it is there.

I thought this was a problem with digital cable and satellite.

-l

Re:Well... maybe...

[Squozen]

Actually there is, although it's not 'real' resolution. A 480i image is only showing your 240 lines of information on every video field (not frame), whereas a 480p image shows a full 480. The player has to take a guess at what the field would look like if it wasn't interlaced, and depending on the quality of the algorithms can show a visible improvement.

Re:Well... maybe...

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazingly, PBS-HD usually has the best/most real HD content

PBS has a strict requirement that all HD material sent to them originate at more than 700 lines, which means at least 720p. If it is not more than 700 vertical lines, the program is not labeled as "HD." All PBS HD programming has the same leader so you can recognize it. There is a page on the PBS site that describe their policy.

Not very well researched reviews IMHO...

[Troy Baer]

Whoever reviewed Serenity for them seemed to have a big ol' chip on his shoulder for some reason. I gave up reading it when he said that "Firefly" was on the WB.

How about testing on some low-end hardware?

[192939495969798999]

I'd like to see a test on a tv like i have that does 700 lines, just a general nice TV. Does it offer me ANY visible benefit over standard DVD? The vast majority of the population just wont care to upgrade if it means they have to buy a $3000+ dollar tv to see the difference.

Re:How about testing on some low-end hardware?

[debest]

I'd like to see a test on a tv like i have that does 700 lines, just a general nice TV

First of all, I don't know of any "general nice" TV's that have 700 lines: standard definition for NTSC is 480 lines, PAL is 576 lines.

Does it offer me ANY visible benefit over standard DVD?

Assuming you meant that your TV is NTSC or PAL: there is no point to testing HD-DVD or Blu-ray on either one, because DVD already provides more resolution than either can really handle. In fact, given the HDMI/HDCP connectors that these things require, you may not be able to use these players with your standard TV (not sure, they may provide standard Component/S-video outs if you need to use them, but if so they still couldn't make your TV show anything they aren't capable of showing).

The vast majority of the population just wont care to upgrade if it means they have to buy a $3000+ dollar tv to see the difference.

HDTVs aren't that expensive: you can get a nice 32" HDTV-ready LCD for about $1000 CDN right now, a bit more for "name" brands. But you're still correct: few people will plunk down a wad of cash for negligible benefit. That's why these formats will fail.

The technology still isn't there...

[mdboyd]

They still haven't developed it so that you can see through the actress's clothes. Until then, anything hi-def is still a failure.

/perverted

there's plenty of 1080p displays out there...

[YesIAmAScript]

I didn't think the Westinghouse was one of them though. I thought it only accepted 1080i input (same as a Sony SXRD), despite having 1920x1080 resolution.

Note that although the HP accepts 1080p, it isn't true progressive display. There is no such thing as a true 1080p DLP, as 1080-res DLPs use wobleration and thus are inherently interlaced.

Sharp has sold a couple 1080p-inputting, 1080-res, true 1080p output flat panels for a while now, long before the woblerating DLPs came out. These are available affordably up to 45" ($3K), and up to 65" if you can sport $20K for one.

A better use

[SharkJumper]

IMO, it seems that a better use for these large capacity DVDs would be to put entire seasons of standard def material on one disc. The term box set would go away.

Re:A better use

[Ragnarrokk]

Ah but it won't, because think about it, if they can justify only putting a few episodes on per HD-DVD, they can call it a boxset, and sell box off seperately for higher profit. There's also more "perceived" value to a customer in a boxset because there's more of it physically, thus the studio can justify higher prices for such items.

No, I believe they quite like boxsets.

``Ragnarok

Re:A better use

[Jeremy Erwin]

IMO, it seems that a better use for these large capacity DVDs would be to put entire seasons of standard def material on one disc.

Some executives appear to have the same attitude. Take "House", for instance. It's broadcast in 720p, with dolby digital 5.1. Looks quite impressive. The first season recently came out, and for some reason, it's 4:3 letter-boxed. I think I'll be keeping my virtual-dvhs recordings...

Re:A better use

[Fallingcow]

Exactly.

I've encountered lots of this when buying anime. There's a place here that sells Hong Kong releases of Japanese anime (I suspect that some or all of them are bootleg copies, though I don't know that for a fact) and they often fit a whole series on just 2 or 3 discs. Go to Best Buy and look at their anime section, and that same series is split up into 6 discs (for some reason, they seem to like the number "6", lots of series have that many discs per season). Granted, the HK releases usually only have Japanese audio (and Chinese and English subtitles), but the audio is such a small part of these things that the US ones should be able to fit on no more than 4 discs.

Then they charge $15-$25 a case/disc on the US releases, and I can get the possibly-bootlegged HK one (the WHOLE series on fewer discs and in one case!) for $30 or so. It's ridiculous.

Re:A better use

[MisterOblivious]

The worst abuse of splitting I've seen is with the Cowboy Bebop releases. 1 episode per dvd, $20 per dvd, 29 episodes = no way I'm paying for it.

Re:A better use

[Fallingcow]

Huh?

Mine were 4-5 episodes a disc, 6 discs. I've never seen them released 1 episode to a disc before.

Re:A better use

[MisterOblivious]

Ahh, glad you commented. Seems I was a bit confused by the titles. I thought "Session 1" referred to the first episode and "Session 2" the second episode etc, but it looks like the dvds contain about 5 episodes a piece. The online store I originally found them on didn't have descriptions, hence the confusion.

DRM

[AviLazar]

You will get your machine that is dual compatible (and legacy compatible), you will get your machine that is under $150 but you probably won't get your wish for DRM to go away. So unless you plan on never upgrading you may want to let go on that requirement (eventually you may have to if you want to watch any new legit bought DVD). We may not like DRM but try convincing a law maker when the opposing argument "We have 100% proof that people pirate our material, this slows them down. Will it stop every pirate - no, but if it stops some from stealing then we need it." Really, our argument against that is very weak...the only argument we can honestly have is "stop putting spyware on our computers. Stop tracking our computer each time we put our legit owned DVD into the system. And stop trying to prosecute someone who made a legit copy of their DVD".

Re:DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

the only argument we can honestly have is "stop putting spyware on our computers. Stop tracking our computer each time we put our legit owned DVD into the system. And stop trying to prosecute someone who made a legit copy of their DVD".

You forgot the strongest argument: It makes it illegal to produce a (potentially "innovative") player that can play legit content without the consent of the cartel.

Serenity in HD

[boarder]

I hope they didn't use a similar transfer for the HDDDVDVDVVVD version as they did for the DVD version. I watched it on DVD for the first time last week (after seeing it twice in the theatre), and was horrified at how awful it looked. It was a terrible film transfer that looked about as bad as VHS quality. I have a 46" HDTV and a prog scan DVD, and most DVDs look great. This one made me cry (and not because it reminded me the series was over).

Re:Serenity in HD

[Mr. Roadkill]

That was the NTSC version, I assume. Anyone got any comments on the PAL version going through similar gear?

I have the PAL version, and can't say that I've noticed anything wrong with either the cheapie 63cm CRT or the 106cm Widescreen Rear Projection set (three-year-old LG). I'd say that it was significantly better than anything I've ever seen on VHS, and Mrs. Roadkill has quite a good collection of VHS and has been known to order Asian-market DVDs of 80's mini-series that are definitely VHS quality on viewing. I also have that horrible, horrible HORRIBLE 4:3 transfer of Monty Python and the Holy Grail, so I know what VHS-quality DVDs look like.

I guess what I'd like to know is, what does it look like if the set is fed from an interlaced, standard-def output? Is this some weird trick in how the material is mastered to make it look like crap when upscaled for a HD display device, and thus serve as a great in-store side-by-side comparison for selling the new format? More importantly, if that's what happened, can we expect more of that kind of bullshit with future DVD releases?

Some time in the next five years or so I'll probably end up buying a high-def display. I'll probably also end up buying a new high-def disc player to minimise the amount of clutter and keep the loungeroom reasonably kid- and wife-friendly. I will NOT be happy if I find that half the titles I buy between now and then are mastered in a manner that makes them look like crap when played back through my new gear.

Reviewer is NOT knowledgable

[Apotsy]

From the article:

I was also a bit surprised that the HD-DVD of 'Samurai' sported stronger colors and better blacks than the standard DVD version, even though they appear minted from the same master. The considerably increased detail of the HD-DVD format also gives the image a better sense of contrast, as distinct picture elements like the glint on a blade or fine clothing textures now "pop" off the screen more, as opposing areas of light and dark are now more pronounced.

The author sounds utterly confused, as if he expected the only difference to be the number of pixels. If he actually knew anything about video, he would know that most modern HD formats define a different colorspace than most SD formats. The difference in color is expected.

Re:1080i vs 1080p for film-source content irreleva

[iainl]

Inverse Telecine should solve all this, yes. However, a great many sets seem to be disturbingly crap at it, so a proper 1080p output (which should be in Tosh's next generation of players; they went with a slightly cheaper display chip that can't do it for the current models) is a good thing to have.

Sad, but true.

just out of a general sense of curiosity...

[nowhere.elysium]

how many of you slashdotters are in an NTSC zone? if it's most of you, then i can understand why there's this furore about HD. however, PAL, with its native resolution of 720*576, as opposed to NTSC's 720*480 is actually pretty damn nice as it is. ergo, my complete bemusement as to why so many people are banging on about a technology that a) hasn't stabilised, b) hasn't really gotten any significant industry-based use yet, and c) costs more than any sane person is willing to afford for something that they're not gonna see the benefit of yet. as far as i'm concerned, it's the same as with plasma-screen TVs; they're typically (unless you're buying a high-end one) pretty crap; compare the iamge quality of a CRT to a plasma screen of equivalent (notice that i didn't say *the same*) price; there's some serious artefact issues going on there. now; i'm a resolution purist. i do a great deal of image-based work, since my main field of study at the moment is digital arts. yet i'm happier to have a lower pixel count, if it's a cleaner image that comes through. it could just be that i'm spoilt, due to my growing up in a PAL zone. i don't know. i personally reckon that the US should've embraced it when it had the chance. of course, it could be that this is the chance that you guys get to supercede us on the TV quality stakes. we shall see, i guess.

Re:just out of a general sense of curiosity...

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, 720x576 is less than a quarter of the resolution of 1920x1080, so yeah, that's what the fuss is all about! Not to mention it has a better colorspace for richer colors (or colours, take your pick). Be sure to watch the World Cup football (or soccer, take your pick) matches in 1080 HD this summer and tell me it's not better than decades-old PAL technology.

Re:just out of a general sense of curiosity...

[nowhere.elysium]

i understand that it's a quarter the overall resolution, there's no question of that. however, the majority of tv still isn't broadcast in this quality, and there aren't many other things that come out requiring 1920*1080. henc my question: what's the fuss about? we can't make serious use of this yet.

Re:just out of a general sense of curiosity...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a tradeoff. Every time I'm in the UK or Europe, the TVs seems horribly fickery. That little difference in scan rate is where the added resolution is obtained but it isn't a one-way deal.

Re:just out of a general sense of curiosity...

[Anonymous Coward]

i understand that it's a quarter the overall resolution, there's no question of that. however, the majority of tv still isn't broadcast in this quality, and there aren't many other things that come out requiring 1920*1080. henc my question: what's the fuss about? we can't make serious use of this yet.

By 2009 all OTA broadcast TV in the USA will be broadcast OTA like this (ie, in ATSC instead of NTSC), and most TV stations are already broadcasting in ATSC (as well as the old NTSC, which will cease in 2009), and there are currently plenty of HDTV channels available in the USA on cable and satellite. That's a big damn deal. Sure, not all of the OTA broadcast ATSC content will be in HD, some will be SD, but even the SD will be a heck of a lot better than PAL.

Don't comment on things you know nothing about. If you are puzzled why this is a big deal in the USA, you should educate yourself about the topic. We aren't getting ourselves worked up over nothing. That's a rather condescending assumption on your part.

I, for one

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome our DRM overlords!

* looks at component-only HDTV, cries single tear, reads article about cracking HDCP http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1005 *

You might be surprised

[mgoren]

I don't know, people... I've read probably 50 comments on here today saying that no one will buy HD-DVD/etc. because it is a) too expensive / b) incompatible / c) DRM'd... does anyone here really think most people care enough about the DRM to not adopt it? Hell, I hated the DRM and inability to skip FBI warning, etc. on normal DVD's, but that didn't prevent me from immediately switching over to DVD's for their incredible improvement over VHS in terms of both quality and ease of use. And HD just looks SO much better than SD that it seems obvious to me that folks will adopt it quickly. price will come down quickly, drm will eventually be broken, and it's my guess that most people (at least most folks who aren't still using VHS's!) will be buying everything on HD-DVD or whatever by this xmas. We shall see...

Re:1080i vs 1080p for film-source content irreleva

[Anonymous Coward]

Cameras that produce 1080p60: HVX200, Varicam, CineAlta. It is entirely possible that someone could use 1080p60 on their own content produced from an HVX200. Granted, that's not many people, but it is an entirely good reason to buy the 1080p displays. Oh..and, while there might not be many consumer delivery options yet, that will change soon, long long long before the displays are dead.

Re:cracked ? The key to adoption

[Weasel Boy]

For what it's worth, I've been with Netflix for about 3 years, had a DVD burner the whole time, and never even been tempted to copy a movie. If I want to watch a movie again, I'll put it in my queue. Some of us just take the service at face value and still find it worthwhile.

Straying for a moment back to the subject of the article, the driving factor that will get me to buy HD is the availability of Playstation 3. :-)

This upgrade cycle is getting silly

[AliasTheRoot]

I only just settled on DVD and they are replacing them? My TV has a great picture and great sound,i have maybe a 100 dvd's now. TV is still ha;f broadcast in analogue 4/3. The sattelite broadcasters are starting to advertise HD but they have no programs available in that format anyway. I might buy into HD or whatever the next flavor of the month is in 10 years when my tv breaks.

I'm tech savvy, but its a marginal incremental upgrade for me. It's not even on any of the radars of my non tech friends.

Re:This upgrade cycle is getting silly

[Jeremy Erwin]

My TV has a great picture and great sound

Your what? Did you say that your TV had great sound? Maybe you should acquire a good receiver and speakers, and introduce your ears to dts or dolby digital...

Does anyone else find the audio odd?

[Ogre332]

Am I the only person around that finds the fact that both of these movies are being released in "High Def" video format, while the audio format is still 5.1? It seems to me that since all this stuff is geared toward high end systems it would make more sense to include a 7.1 track.

Re:Does anyone else find the audio odd?

[bunco]

With all that space and bandwidth, why not 13.3!? Honestly though, most _consumers_ will not commit to the expense or trouble of 7.1. Likewise, so few films have properly mixed 5.1. Odds are, the consumer won't _appreciate_ the additional channels either.

No ICT yet from WB

[duplo1]

I don't know if anybody bothered to RTFA, but what I found interesting is that WB has NOT implemented ICT at this point. That means that there will be no down sampling when viewing the content on "unapproved" displays. Hopefuly consumers will make enough of a stink when it is introduced to make content providers think twice about DRM.

Don't do it!

[billybob]

Boycott HD-DVD and Blu-ray for the love of all that is holy!! :)

SD and HD content.

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that thinks that they should just put the stadard SD (720x480p) content on the HD-DVD discs as an UNENCRYPTED bonus. DVDs are as wide open as they come. People may want to copy HD content, but I think the majority just want at least SOME freedom to place their content on other devices (psp, video ipod, portable media centers, etc). Why not just make dual sided (one side unencrypted SD content, one side HD-DVD content). That way their PRECIOUS HD content doesn't get stolen (until it is cracked) and that way we have a LEGAL means of exercising our legal right to make backups and use our content on other devices (yes I know that some will argue that we ripping DVDs IS legal, but some would disagree). Who wants to downgrade HD content. I think their idiots for thinking that we want to rip and send this stuff over the internet. Give me a break. SD content is GOOD ENOUGH FOR MOST PEOPLE WHICH IS WHY HD-DVD MAY FAIL!!! However, if they make it so the info is as portable as can be, then I would adopt as soon as I can pony up the cash.

Sometimes better is the enemy of good

[GenSec]

I concur. For what I buy on DVD, there's no justification for HD. Much of that stuff was recorded for television; on one concert that was shot on film, the grain showed even in the VHS edition. Babylon 5 was made for HDTV, but the low resolution of most CGI scenes spoils the fun even on regular DVD.

So, really, HD sounds like overkill to me.

I'm pretty sure though that the judge-quality-by-numbers monkeys will make the sales dept happy.

Just for the record: I don't have a single 16:9 channel on my cable, I record TV shows on a VCR, and I use my 3.1 megapixel camera at 2MP setting most of the time. :)

Fox not WB

[stupidnickname]

So considering Whedon's loyal following, perhaps it is no surprise Universal greenlit 'Serenity,' a big-screen spin-off to his cripplingly low-rated but much beloved 'Firefly.' The show only ran for a few episodes on The WB back in 2004, but became a hot seller on DVD.

Errr, the bad guys would be Fox, not the WB. I distinctly remember the totally inappropriate and half-assed Firefly promos in the middle of Fox Sunday NFL coverage, which would then go long and screw up the broadcast schedule.

Re:Fox not WB

[Traegorn]

Not to mention it was 2002 and not 2004 that the show ran.

Uh, five minutes of research would have helped this article...

Thanks, I'll wait for Blu-Ray

[Gadzinka]

No, thanks, I'll wait for Blu-Ray. After all, Sony has such a great track record with media formats: Beta, MD, MemoryStick, SACD, UMD.

I just can't wait to lay my hands on this blu-ray goodness, there's just no chance that HD-DVD might win!

Robert

PS ;)

PPS For me, both formats look like crap from the consumer's point of view... I'll just stick to PAL upconverted to 720p, thankyouverymuch.

Re:Thanks, I'll wait for Blu-Ray

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah horrible

*cough* trinitron *cough*
*cough* playstation *cough*
*cough* walkman *cough*
*cough* playstation 2 *cough*
*cough* CD *cough*
*cough* DVD *cough*

Bet those last two you had no idea they were involved in. They were even involved in VHS. VHS won out simply because it was cheaper for most people. 100 dollar VHS vs 200 dollar BETA players. Up until the price of VHS came down dramaticaly it was still up in the air as to which one would win. If you had two players that did about the same and you didnt know much about picture quality and such which one would you have gone with?

Yes they have had some stinkers but they have also had their winners. They would *NOT* be around if they didnt have a few decent products. Being the standard seter pays *MUCH* better than being a standards follwer. Sony just needs to learn how to play nice with others. For example trinitron crt tubes were considered the best looking crts. Yet no one would licence them, due to cost and sony wanting to run the market. These days you would be hard pressed to find one that is not trinitron style. As the patent has run out.

Also even WHEN bluray comes out it will be shovelware. Both discs will probably be nearly identical just encoded differently. Basically instead of seeing what each format can do we will see discs that use the features of both. I would be willing to bet that the size of the files will be about the same even when we see bluray.

I for one am waiting on this one. I will buy a PS3. But that is because I like games... That it will play BluRay is just icing on the cake...

Someone care to explain the reference?

[Powercntrl]

n/t

Re:Someone care to explain the reference?

[MojoStan]

SPOILER ALERT

Someone care to explain the reference?

I think I'm risking getting modded down for partially explaining an in-joke, but it's a quote from the episode "War Stories" from the television series "Firefly." The movie Serenity is based on "Firefly."

If you don't want to rent the "Firefly" DVD, the quote is referenced in the Wikipedia article on that episode, but you need to actually see it to appreciate the humor (or find it unfunny).

ANOTHER SPOILER ALERT

Quick summary and explanation: Crude dude has been working and travelling in space for a long time without a wife/girlfriend. Dude is surprised to see the ship's registered companion (legal, respected whore) bring a female client onboard. Dude imagines hot lesbian action. Dude says: "I'll be in my bunk."

I'm going to have to ask you to leave.

[Cyno01]

n/t /screw flanders

1080i HD set

[CSFFlame]

So I was over at a friends yesterday, and they just got an Xbox 360, and had it hooked up through component. And I wanted to see this HD stuff, (they were using Halo 2). So we start playing for a bit, and as a gamer, and the owner of a 1920x1200 monitor, I am spotting upscaling artifacts. I mention this, but they say they are positive they set it for HD. Eventually I just up and quit the game and go to the menu, I hop over to video options, and it's on 480p, with 720p and 1080i just sitting there unselected... sad really. I set it to 1080i, and the menu looked very nice, but Halo was still upscaling from 640x480. Then they said they coulden't see a difference in the menu... yeah, these formats are going to crash and burn like UMD, hopefully.

XXX HD-DVD

[fumcr]

Amagine Porn on HD-DVD. That will get the sales in.

Same old same old...

[wingman358]

Who really cares what the reviewers say? Your Average Joe who knows nothing about HD and all its techno-mumbo-jumbo isn't going to care, even if this new tech does display in 1080p. Those people who just want the cutting edge are still going to buy even if the content isn't there (or, rather, QUALITY content). Most people are just going to wait for Blu-Ray and maybe then the market will grow, if only very slowly.

Re: Reference System my arse

[Catyless]

"...the best consumer HD home theater products currently on the market." Puh-lease. These folks need to get out more.

Ding Dong the Disk is dead

[Anonymous Coward]

The disk as a media format will be dead by 2010 .

There are products on the market that can stream data from your PC to your TV without the need to burn a disk and they support Winodws DRM for all those video rental services like Vongo ,CinemaNow and MovieLink and many other video services that will be launched in the next 6 months .

The D-Link Wireless HD Media Player can stram data over your home network in HD from your PC ,Network storge device or Flash memory dveice to your TV so who seriouly needs a plastic disk anymore .The D Link media Player costs about $230 as opposed to a HD-DVD player which costs $500+

http://www.dlink.com/products/?sec=1&pid=438

Re:cracked ? The key to adoption

[Dachannien]

Actually, I wish they'd expand their used purchase program, both in terms of selections and by allowing you to purchase a disc while you have it rented out. There are quite a few discs that I'd have paid Netflix $5 to $10 to permanently keep a disc that I've rented.

Serenity HD quality

[Bluude]

Yeah, Joss Wheadon just couldn't keep those spaceships in focus. The guys floating around in space filming it must have had too much to think about besides camera focus. :)

I am just tired of everyone saying Serenity had bad cinematography. Joss intentionally did zoom focus shots and motion blur shots to make it look like there was a camera guy right there filming the action. But of course since all the action is usually done against a green screen, or no screen at all, these affects were purposefully added later just like the space ships that were zoom focused on. It was a creative decision, and while it might not have been the best one, it has nothing to do with crappy cinematography. In fact after watching the making of on the dvd, I realized he went to great effort to make those effects happen.

Making everything look crisp and clear is easy today. He wanted the old spaghetti western camera shots for his space western movie. Show some respect for his genius even if you are too ignorant to appreciate it.

Re:Serenity HD quality

[Anonymous Coward]

Genius... LOL

It never ceases to amaze me the acolades that some people desperately want to pin on that very average flop-film that's been totally rejected by the mainstream as being anything of significance.

Hey Whedon, keep that thread-bear 'Girl with Spooky Powers Kicks Ass' motif you have going... It obviously still impresses some people at least... no matter if it bombs again, the DVDs will still sell to the 'wow, it flopped that must make it cult' nerdlinger crowd...

Re:1080i vs 1080p for film-source content irreleva

[Avisto]

If you're in a PAL or DVB-T country you can simply weave deinterlace (equivalent to a 2:2 pulldown) to get back to the 25 full frames per second stored on the DVD/Digital TV/Analogue TV/VHS for any content recorded on film (or at 24 frames per sec).

Or in other words apply no deinterlacing to get 576p25 from a 'PAL' DVD.

Yawn...

[klingers48]

This whole Hi-Def debacle is overrated. We should all be happy watching 12 meg, 90 minute He-Man movies encoded in Realvideo at 320x240. Fullscreened. Anything more is an indulgence.