HD VMD Shows Up Late For the Format War

Fourth by The+Iso · 2007-09-09 09:39 · Score: 4, Informative

Fourth contender.

--
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows." - Bob Dylan

Re:Fourth by Perseid · 2007-09-09 09:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ooh! The same crap with MORE DRM on it? Sign me up...or not.
Re:Fourth by NickCatal · 2007-09-09 10:38 · Score: 1

Bringing a new meaning to "pumping him full of lead"

--
-nick
Re:Fourth by Trogre · 2007-09-09 12:09 · Score: 1

I think I'd rather have EVD.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Fourth by Bonobo_Unknown · 2007-09-09 14:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sad times when the discussion about the media and file format is more interesting than the content that they carry.

--
We don't believe in radical loony monotheistic religions from the middle east -- we're Christians.
Re:Fourth by Casandro · 2007-09-09 17:37 · Score: 1

Sad times when the discussion about the media is not about picture and or sound quality, but on the limitations the studios impose on us.
Re:Fourth by mav[LAG] · 2007-09-09 17:49 · Score: 1

Entirely natural though when they're still fledglings. The discussions about DVD and DeCSS raged for a good while when it was being adopted but I don't see much discussion about either of them now.

--
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
Re:Fourth by Wiseman1024 · 2007-09-09 19:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Of course, that's the reason why there are new formats in the first place. The mafiaa corporations (Hollywood, Sony, etc.) want to spike every human life with AIDS, installing supposedly-illegal surveillance units at every home, and turning everyone into the perfect consumer: only buy the crap they make, at your local most expensive price, buy it several times if possible, and don't share anything with the next consumer.

Now I have to admit I'm surprised and disappointed about the Chinese format; I had a bit of hope that it'd be DRM-free. I guess the days when China was any good regarding this matter are long gone; they are now another America. Nobody outside the dictatorship will want their "television watches you" format.

And the problem is people is too stupid to actually buy their crap. Snobs, "early adopters", and other sufferers of human stupidity make this attack on your freedom successful. If Hollywood didn't have any AIDS-ridden format to publish their crap in, and Sony didn't sell any of their obnoxious, overpriced and premature technology, they'd be forced to use fair use formats. Or they would fold, which would be even sweeter.

There are many better alternatives to all of this crap; we can use it ourselves for any of our content. A solid state memory with a Matroska video, using Theora or H.264 for video encoding and Vorbis or MP3 for audio encoding.

--
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
Re:Fourth by Wiseman1024 · 2007-09-09 19:48 · Score: 1

Because they have been cracked and now you can restore the rights the mafiaa took from you. Every time I have a DVD I watch it through a player that does DeCSS, even if only for the moral value of the act.

--
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
Re:Fourth by Aqualung812 · 2007-09-10 00:27 · Score: 1

Remember, DRM isn't evil or greedy, companies are. No DRM, no content from big names.
Also, any company that chooses to could put their video on there DRM-free. Don't blame the engineers that create DRM (or the format that supports it) for the misuse of DRM.
Or, as the saying goes, guns dont' kill people...I do (or something like that)

--
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
Re:Fourth by SpecTheIntro · 2007-09-10 01:23 · Score: 1

Okay, not withstanding your obvious (and, I will admit, somewhat justified) anger at media corporations, is AIDS an acronym for something besides Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome? Or are you saying that Sony et al. want to give me an STD? I would normally consider hyperbole to be in the vein of an angry rant but the mention of AIDS doesn't quite follow naturally from DRM. Then again, I may just not be caught up to what the kids are saying nowadays.
Re:Fourth by Lord+Apathy · 2007-09-10 02:46 · Score: 1

Same here. But what does it matter? This fucker is dead before it gets out of the starting gate. At least HD DVD and Bluray have some movie companies behind it. What does this fucker have? Mel? Granted, Mel is worth at least 2 of the unnamed movie companies but not worth enough to me to support another format.
No please and thank you here. My 400 dvd changer is only half full and I have 3 years left on the warrenty. Till then (un)holywood and their DRM infested crap can kiss my ass.
[yeah I know dvd have drm on them but that is just some people option.]

--
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Re:Fourth by uncoveror · 2007-09-10 04:52 · Score: 1

The VHS vs. Beta format war had a winner because VHS was ubiquitous, and Beta from a single source. The high def disc war is not like that. I think that this is more like the format war over AM stereo and quadraphonic records. They will all lose. "None of the above" is the choice the market makes when the waters get muddy.

--
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Re:Fourth by lordofthechia · 2007-09-10 04:56 · Score: 1

Fifth coming down the line:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc

And for those that can't wait there's always the Divx HD players.

--
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Re:Fourth by eiapoce · 2007-09-10 06:03 · Score: 1

I don't know the context he was refferig to, but picking AIDS out of many plagues makes actually more sense than expected.

The AIDS patient is the perfect patient. He's in constant need of farmaceuticals drugs provided by the industry. If he does not buy he dies, so you can sell any price and those drugs are provided under patents...

I report this quote from the CNN website:
It was the first time Brazil has bypassed a patent, but Lula da Silva said Brazil would consider doing so again on any drug sold at unfair prices. "Between our business and our health, we are going to take care of our health," he said after signing the decree.

"We're profoundly disappointed with Brazil's decision to expropriate our intellectual property. They are sending a chilling signal," said Jeffery Sturchio, Merck's vice president for corporate responsibility, in a telephone interview. "We are considering our course of action but that will take some time."
Re:Fourth by Perseid · 2007-09-10 17:07 · Score: 1

But the mere use of DRM is evil in itself. Ergo, there is no use that is not a misuse. I suppose it wouldn't be bad if it were there and no companies used it, but what's the likelihood of that?
Re:Fourth by Aqualung812 · 2007-09-11 00:21 · Score: 1

But the mere use of DRM is evil in itself.

B.S.
If I use DRM to make sure that no one can forward an internal email that contains private customer information, that is evil?
What if I DRM a DVD so that it only plays on my home DVD player (for those "special" home movies). Is it evil to make sure that no one sees my hairy ass? (I think I'm doing a public service if I prevent that!)

--
Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.

I hope it wins! by aliquis · 2007-09-09 09:39 · Score: 1

That will serve them fine.

Re:I hope it wins! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:07 · Score: 0

It surely beats the Microsoft/Toshiba format HD DVD, the 45 mbit bandwidth is 25% higher than HD DVD (and not that far from Blu-ray Disc actually). The capacity is on pair with HD DVD but the 50GB Blu-ray Disc still has a huge 66% advantage, especially for recording.

Could this be the last nail in the HD DVD coffin? Based on the tech specs one should actually prefer HD VMD over HD DVD for prerecorded stuff!

But should one go for the cheap HD VMD today or support BDs more expensive route (which surely will be cheaper tomorrow)?
Re:I hope it wins! by aliquis · 2007-09-09 10:51 · Score: 1

Since I don't have a HDTV and aren't intrested in buying movies anyway the choice is rather easy for me. Wait and get the technicaly better format once prices has fallen due to mass production.

A more advanced format will last longer. (Well, atleast as long as it doesn't lose vs a cheaper one that is :D)

I don't think this format have any feature because the other ones are already known and as someone said Toshibas HD-DVDs aren't that expensive either anyway. Personally I would just had prefered if Microsoft (?) didn't managed to get more people over to HD-DVD back when everyone except one studie supported blu-ray and this whole thing would had been solved.

Worst case scenario is paying two (or three) licenses for hd-dvd/bluray/dvd/hdvmd combo player =P
Re:I hope it wins! by click2005 · 2007-09-09 11:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

But should one go for the cheap HD VMD today or support BDs more expensive route (which surely will be cheaper tomorrow)?

It will take much larger numbers to be produced for BD to even get close to HDDVD/HDVMD in manufacturing cost. HDDVD/VMDs can be produced using existing equipment with small modifications. Manufacturing BD requires new equipment and is a much more complex process.
BD Players also cost about 10 times as much to manufacture as a HDVMD player does.

There is also the issue of media longevity. The recording surface in a BD disc is very close to the underside of the disc. This will increase the likelihood that scratches will cause errors and also increase the chances of warping. The HD format discs are manufactured the same way as DVD and are much more resistant to scratches & warping.

The only advantage that BD really has over HDDVD is the amount of data storage. Dont forget that both BD & HDDVD are still only generally using 1 or 2 layers. HDVMD uses 4 layers to reach 20Gb.

--
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Re:I hope it wins! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 16:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Four layers? Cheap to manufacture? Are you on crack?

Sure, the players might be relatively cheap to manufacture. But the big studios avoid pressing even two layer discs whenever possible, because the manufacturing cost of creating two layers, gluing them together with a semi-transparent layer in the middle, and throwing out the rejects is still a lot higher than a single layer, where you stamp it out, cover it with silver, and glue a non-critical bit of plastic to bring it up to 12mm.

Crank that up to 4+ layers, and we're talking about a pretty insane manufacturing process here. And you'll likely never get that sort of density in recordable technology--recordable dual layer discs today still carry a hefty premium over single layer discs, because now you need to add a recordable layer that you can also shoot the same recording laser through to record the other layer. You can't even get re-recordable dual layer DVDs; the technology simply does not commercially exist.

Blu-ray is the best hope for future computer interchange needs, because the 25 GB single layer recordable and re-recordable discs are going to be dirt cheap compared to anything else. It'd be awfully nice if it turned out to be the HD video disc format as well, since it'd mean fewer components. While I'm sure plenty of people would just argue for dual format players, long term I think that's a horrible solution. :-(

And no, HD-DVDs are not necessarily superior to Blu-ray in terms of durability. The hard coating process on BD has done a lot to address any scratching issues (HD-DVD could also benefit from hard coating, of course, but it's not mandatory, and thus usually skipped--making HD-DVD actually more susceptible to scratching issues), and keeping the data layer closer to the surface actually has a lot of positive benefits in terms of readability, improving robustness. In fact, it's the main reason Blu-ray can achieve higher densities than HD-DVD to begin with. Keep in mind that with a relatively thick disc, any warping in the transparent medium is going to affect the ability of the laser pickup to track, especially at the laser frequencies used by HD-DVD and Blu-ray. With a thin optical layer, it almost doesn't matter.
Re:I hope it wins! by evilviper · 2007-09-09 18:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

The recording surface in a BD disc is very close to the underside of the disc. This will increase the likelihood that scratches will cause errors

Which is why the BD standard absolutely mandates scratch-proof coatings on the surface of the discs, instantly making them the most durable (bare) disc format anyone has ever seen. HD-DVD, OTOH, is the most dense disc format, and without such a scratch resistant layer, the most easily susceptible to damage anyone has seen.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:I hope it wins! by Serengeti · 2007-09-09 23:53 · Score: 1

"Could this be the last nail in the HD DVD coffin?"

Could we please put a nail in the coffin of that expression?? We've been talking about the nails in coffins for both formats for about a year now. We have, at LEAST, until the end of THIS year to see whether either side will falter enough to warrant investment in the nail and coffin markets.
Re:I hope it wins! by Anpheus · 2007-09-10 07:31 · Score: 1

Just because a scratch-proof coating is mandated doesn't mean it meets any standards, and the requirement could be so poorly implemented as to allow any arbitrary coating to be considered scratch-proof. Without a thorough experiment to determine which disc is more scratch-resistant, you can't say either way, can you?
Re:I hope it wins! by Guspaz · 2007-09-10 09:39 · Score: 1

That's not the point. The point is that BD aren't necessarily any more susceptible to damage than HD-DVD, removing that advantage.

Besides, maybe they do mandate a specific coating. When BluRay first moved out of the caddy, it was TDK's coating that was cited as to how it was possible. Sony may have required the use of TDK's technology for non-caddy BluRay discs. If that's the case, then they would be better off than uncoated HDDVD discs.

So, what we really need to know is what the required standard is.
Re:I hope it wins! by evilviper · 2007-09-10 14:37 · Score: 1

Ignorance isn't an argument. The fact that you don't know how good something is, doesn't mean it must be bad.
Without a thorough experiment to determine which disc is more scratch-resistant, you can't say either way, can you?

Yes I can. A simple $20 experiment will do it. The difference is HUGE.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

I don't care about HD Video... by Perseid · 2007-09-09 09:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

...but I do want a cheap burner I can throw 30GB at. Sell THAT to me at $150 and I'll buy.

Re:I don't care about HD Video... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

...but I do want a cheap burner I can throw 30GB at. Sell THAT to me at $150 and I'll buy.

Oh they'll sell you the burner for $150 but the discs will be $35/ea.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by gbulmash · 2007-09-09 10:13 · Score: 0, Redundant

...but I do want a cheap burner I can throw 30GB at. Sell THAT to me at $150 and I'll buy.

<AOL>Me Too</AOL>

--
Start a happiness pandemic
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by dattaway · 2007-09-09 10:22 · Score: 2, Funny

I just wanted the cheap burning laser, but $150 is a bit much for 250mW.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by Kjella · 2007-09-09 12:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Don't count on a four-layer burner ever becoming cheap, or even possible. They've been at it with these multi-layer discs for a long time, and while readers are doable the laser power required to burn that 4th layer is just insane. Pressed discs don't have this problem, but unless you got a stamping press at home, well...

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by GreggBz · 2007-09-09 14:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

I've seen this every time HD-DVD/Blueray comes up on slashdot and perhaps I have no imagination, but I don't get the application for a 30GB burner. Not any time soon anyway. Hard drive backups? I can't see that being a big application for Desktop systems. If you're backing up many systems, a centralized server with this might be nice, but then again, the gist I get is you all want this for personal applications. LT0-1 and 2 drives are not that much more expensive, hold more and are faster anyway.

MP3's? I have about 12GB, which = 350CD's. I backed up the whole thing once on 3 DVD's. I sort my folders by date and back up changes on a single CDR about once every 4 months.

Video, perhaps, but I can't see the appeal in archiving video (with youtube etc..) unless it's pirated movies.
Software? Maybe your putting 6 linux distros on one of these things, instead of 4 DVD's etc.. But how often do you need 6 Linux distributions? I guess you could carry your whole software library around on a few disks, you silly pirates, but I've never needed more then a DVD full of utility applications. Besides, a single flipper holding my original stuff can travel just as easily as a 30GB nex-gen DVD thingy for which no one has a reader (yet)

I don't know, I just can't think of anything reasonable, right now or even soon, that would make a 30GB burner desirable. I don't think giant space in disc media is the future. I think ever increasingly large flash drives are the preferred and established technology.

To me, Planet Earth and NIN live in 1080i on a 42" LCD is a much more fun. I claimed I didn't want HD video either, until I saw it done well on a big enough screen.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 15:21 · Score: 0

No application?!

I have to put all my goddamned porn somewhere!
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by GreggBz · 2007-09-09 15:44 · Score: 1

Oh yea, forgot about that..

These LTO tapes are useless for the porno.
Good: no one thinks to look there.
Bad: searching for that just right jerk off material is maddening, being linear media and all.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by terjeber · 2007-09-09 15:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is too easy.

- The world will never need more than 4 or 5 computers.
- Nobody will ever need more than 640K of memory.
- We can close all patents offices now, everything is invented (ca 1890)

You can go on and on. I do HD video with my very inexpensive HD camcorder. 30G is nothing. Nothing at all.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by kungfujesus · 2007-09-09 16:55 · Score: 1

How the hell does 12 gigs work out to 350 cds? should be about 13
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by Inner_Child · 2007-09-09 18:44 · Score: 1

How the hell does 12 gigs work out to 350 cds? should be about 13 In what fantasy world are you using 945 MB cds?

--
Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by prbt · 2007-09-09 19:11 · Score: 1

A couple of weeks back, I made a (very amateruish) video for a song - 3 minute song, 720x576, 25fps. Retaining some of the critical intermediate steps (as I was doing some custom frame-by-frame processing), I ended up with 15-20Gb of files - and it would've been a LOT more had I not sacrificed speed to keep the disk usage down (I was keeping the intermediate frames as PNGs not BMPs).

Also, I like to backup my FLAC files. The more burnable disc-space, the better!
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by 6th+time+lucky · 2007-09-09 20:44 · Score: 1

Easy... When was the last time you purchased a CD that actually had 72 minutes (700mb odd) of music on it?

12 GB = about 12000 minutes of MP3 = only 200 CD's with 60 minutes on them...

That makes OP's collection an average of only 34 minutes on a CD... (at a really really rough guess).

A lot of singles? or just marketing crap not (even nearly) filling the damn disks, yet charging the same...
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 21:57 · Score: 0

I have 2TB of MP3s... (Granted most of it are 'popular' bands which I probably don't like - I don't know, I haven't had time to play them all yet!) I have about 800 DVDs backed up to DVD+Rs. I would like to reduce the number of discs I have to store in my bedroom. I would like to back up all of my important data (about 50GB) every week, to TWO discs, instead of relying on a hard drive.

You sound like Bill Gates... (640k... remember?)
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by Fred_A · 2007-09-09 23:26 · Score: 1

I don't know, I just can't think of anything reasonable, right now or even soon, that would make a 30GB burner desirable. I don't think giant space in disc media is the future. I think ever increasingly large flash drives are the preferred and established technology. Edit your own video or do some real work with digital photography and you'll very soon see that a 30GiB burner is not only desirable but might already be tight for the video bit.

My not very large (I switched to RAW only recently) archive of personal photos is already too big :
fred@neverwhere:~$ du -sh /media/sdc1/Photos/ 59G /media/sdc1/Photos/ fred@neverwhere:~$

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by Serengeti · 2007-09-09 23:59 · Score: 1

"I don't get the application for a 30GB burner. Not any time soon anyway."

Really? My iTunes folder is now over 16Gb large. I'd rather have that all backed up to one nice location than broken apart.

And don't get me started on my video folder... mind you, I'm a video editor, but that's just another argument for increasing backup format size. I'd love to put an entire project on one disc...
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-10 00:22 · Score: 0

Dude... 30Gb is not enought. You have no ideia how much porn I need to backup.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by alphamugwump · 2007-09-10 01:32 · Score: 1

With 30GB discs, I would be able to store several seasons of anime, encoded at DVD quality, on a single disc. Which is a good thing, because it's a pain in the ass to split a series over several discs, and then find which disc you need.
Maybe your putting 6 linux distros on one of these things, instead of 4 DVD's etc..
Debian takes up four DVDs alone.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by GreggBz · 2007-09-10 02:31 · Score: 1

I think you are misunderstanding my post here.
- The world will never need more than 4 or 5 computers.
- Nobody will ever need more than 640K of memory.
- We can close all patents offices now, everything is invented (ca 1890)

I was not foolish enough to say never ever, like your examples. I thought I made that clear.
but I don't get the application for a 30GB burner. Not any time soon anyway.....
I don't know, I just can't think of anything reasonable, right now or even soon.....
as a 30GB nex-gen DVD thingy for which no one has
a reader (yet)........
increasingly large flash drives are the preferred and established technology.

Ok, I see you have a use.
I do HD video with my very inexpensive HD camcorder.

You care about HD video. Does the parent? No. I was replying to the parent, not you.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by MrSteveSD · 2007-09-10 04:23 · Score: 1

I know what you mean. The gulf between hard drive sizes and burnable disc sizes has become too large. The concept of making a DVD-R backup of my stuff is laughable.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by GeckoX · 2007-09-10 05:29 · Score: 1

Yes, but you discredited the original posters need for 30GB discs, and tried to show that there is no need for it.

Then someone else comes along and shows a good use for it.

It does not matter WHO showed a need for it, it still counters your argument, and is completely valid. Remember, the article isn't about providing this tech for 'perseid' only.

Just because you wouldn't use it doesn't mean no one will or should, and definitely doesn't mean no one should feel welcome to provide counter examples to your post.

--
No Comment.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by PitaBred · 2007-09-10 08:04 · Score: 1

Dude. 2TB? Of shitty music you admittedly haven't listened to? And you back it up? Why? Go outside, enjoy yourself. Spending your time managing crappy media only for yourself is no way to live your life, son.

--
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Re:I don't care about HD Video... by Discoflamingo13 · 2007-09-10 10:22 · Score: 1

I ended up buying a DAT72 tape drive (36GB storage without compression). I got sick of waiting.

Sounds good... by exploder · 2007-09-09 09:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

...but how many giant media corporations are behind it? None? Bummer.

--
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD

Re:Sounds good... by aliquis · 2007-09-09 09:57 · Score: 0

Just market it with cheap HD porn and the customers will follow.

Personally I'd rather wait for the next-gen format, this one are to little to late now anyway =P
Re:Sounds good... by NevarMore · 2007-09-09 10:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

As another responder mentioned the porn moguls aren't too pleased with either Blu-Ray or HD.

This probably won't work in the US, Europe, or the Far East. However the one interesting bit from the article that I would like to know more about is that Bollywood might be interested in this. Though not as large as the Western movie market it is still a huge group of people to sell to and that group is probably excluded from the other HD formats because of price and piracy concerns.

So I say, bring me my 1080 Indian porno!!!
Re:Sounds good... by zakezuke · 2007-09-09 11:51 · Score: 4, Funny

So I say, bring me my 1080 Indian porno!!! I for one don't welcome our 60 inch HDTV vagina overlords.

--
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Re:Sounds good... by TheMCP · 2007-09-09 15:43 · Score: 1

SAFEWORD!
Re:Sounds good... by monsted · 2007-09-09 19:50 · Score: 4, Funny

That's Alotta Fagina!

Yeah baby, yeah!
Re:Sounds good... by Pollardito · 2007-09-10 05:21 · Score: 2, Funny

because cheap porn is something that i want to see in high definition...

Poor Sony by psychicsword · 2007-09-09 09:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sony just pissed themselves.

$487.99 for Blue-ray Vs. $150... wonder who will win that aspect to the format war?
The only thing that may limit this format is whether the movie companies will pick it up, and more importantly the porn industry.

Re:Poor Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 09:46 · Score: 0

Movie studio support vs ...?

I don't think Sony, Toshiba, or anyone is pissing themselves over this. (Nor the CH-DVD from the Reds)
Re:Poor Sony by MBCook · 2007-09-09 10:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Can we give up that stupid porn argument yet? I've posted this more than once, but that keeps coming up. Porn will not decide the new format.
First, when VHS and Beta appeared, the only real way to see porn films was in a XXX theater. You couldn't watch them in the privacy of your home.
Today, I can watch porn on VHS, or DVD. Or pay-per-view. Or satellite. Or the 'net. Or video-CD. Or I could play a porn related video game. Porn helped VHS because it was really the first time you could watch porn in the privacy of your home, so the inability to do that on Beta was big. That's not an issue today.
Please, can we just drop that stupid argument? It doesn't hold much water any more.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:Poor Sony by urbanriot · 2007-09-09 10:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just because you keep posting, doesn't make your opinion true, or make the argument hold any less water.

Regardless, the point is moot, since porn *is* being released on BD with the first release being Debbie Does Dallas. Since the porn industry generated considerable amounts of media attention, the BDA has relented.
Can we give up that stupid porn argument yet? I've posted this more than once, but that keeps coming up. Porn will not decide the new format.
First, when VHS and Beta appeared, the only real way to see porn films was in a XXX theater. You couldn't watch them in the privacy of your home.

Today, I can watch porn on VHS, or DVD. Or pay-per-view. Or satellite. Or the 'net. Or video-CD. Or I could play a porn related video game. Porn helped VHS because it was really the first time you could watch porn in the privacy of your home, so the inability to do that on Beta was big. That's not an issue today.

Please, can we just drop that stupid argument? It doesn't hold much water any more.
Re:Poor Sony by Suicyco · 2007-09-09 10:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

Umm, the argument holds as much water as it ever did. Pornography has driven new technologies since porn was invented. It wasn't only vhs. It was Super8. It was the cinema. It was PHOTOGRAPHY. Cheap printing. PAINT. Etc.

Porn will drive new content mediums as long as people are into porn. So you have more choices now. So what? The porn industry produces more video content than all other non-porn video content producers put together. Some porn houses release upwards of 10-20 titles a WEEK.

Also, Super8 projectors were the first time you could watch porn in your home. Err, or was that postcards? Playing cards? Plain old photos? Oil paintings? Fucking stone statues?

So your argument holds no water at all. He who produces the content drives the market.
Re:Poor Sony by matazar · 2007-09-09 10:31 · Score: 1

He's right, if it wasn't for porn, we'd have no need for such fast internet connections.
Re:Poor Sony by FauxReal · 2007-09-09 10:51 · Score: 1

Nah... I remember when I was a kid my dad had porn on 8mm reels. I remember watching Puff the Magic Dragon on 8mm as a kid.

--
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)
Re:Poor Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:54 · Score: 0

> Just because you keep posting, doesn't make your opinion true,

Nor does continually asserting the same old debunked urban legends regarding porn. Porn was very much on Beta, it just didn't have a thriving rental industry until VHS had thoroughly (ahem) penetrated the market. There was no restriction against it on the Beta format.

The extent of Sony's "no porn" restriction on Blu-Ray is that they won't contract to use their own manufacturing facilities to press porn discs. Purely a matter of what customers they choose. Now given that Blu-Ray does need different manufacturing lines while HD-DVD doesn't might indeed sway adult video companies to choose the latter, out of economics -- it's just cheaper to press HD-DVDs. But they'll press whatever format the market demands, and it isn't the porn industry that steers it. If that were the case, we'd all have ditched physical media in favor of streaming video years ago.
Re:Poor Sony by AV+Enthusiast · 2007-09-09 11:00 · Score: 1

Nobody is scared of this, least of all Toshiba or Sony. HD VMD only holds 20gigs a side, contrary to the incorrect info in this post. No studio support. Porn will not drive adoption of an HD optical format because nobody rents porn anymore, they get it off the internet. HD DVD is already at $199 and offers visual performance that is equal to or surpasses Blu Ray, and had finalized specs to boot. I honestly don't know what New Media thinks their market is for this format. It brings nothing new or better to the table, which is foolish in the face of an already heated format war. Obscure hardware collectors snag your HD VMD players fast, they won't be here long. http://aventhusiast.com/
Re:Poor Sony by Dogtanian · 2007-09-09 11:21 · Score: 3, Funny

I remember when I was a kid my dad had porn on 8mm reels. I remember watching Puff the Magic Dragon on 8mm as a kid. OMG!!!!! Puff the Magic Dragon did porn??!!

--
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Re:Poor Sony by The+Master+Control+P · 2007-09-09 12:00 · Score: 1

I'm not sure whether to run away screaming and burn my eyes out with an acetylene torch, or post this with "rule 34" to 4chan to see what happens...
Re:Poor Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 12:12 · Score: 0

"The only thing?" That's a pretty big "only". Considering that several of the major studios have already signed exclusive deals for either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD releases...

For data storage, a new format is great news. But for the home entertainment market, the price of the player isn't really an issue. As with VHS/Beta, the deciding factor will be the availability of content.
Re:Poor Sony by MBCook · 2007-09-09 12:25 · Score: 1

My argument holds water. Let's not forget that BluRay and HD-DVD are just higher resolution DVD formats. The ability to record a moving picture of pornography was a big leap over printed pictures. The ability to take pictures instead of having people paint them was a big leap. The ability to print many prints of something instead of having to hand-make them was a big step bringing costs down.
I'm not saying porn won't have an effect, I'm saying it won't be the deciding factor. That's the difference here and the heart of my argument. Both formats have porn on them... so I'd say both comparisons to the VHS/Beta argument are seriously flawed.
PS: First time you could watch porn at home referred to convenient on-demand moving pictures. VHS was much easier than 8mm film. Postcards and Playboy weren't moving pictures. I'm sorry I wasn't perfectly specific. I figured people would get my point.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:Poor Sony by AI0867 · 2007-09-09 12:49 · Score: 1

You forgot rule 34?
Re:Poor Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 14:13 · Score: 0

"Debbie Does Dallas" is hardly representative of the porn market. It's only being released for the campy classic it is... and because it's so mainstream as porn titles go. I'd imagine that other mainstream crap is soon to follow- Playboy and other softcore productions. It may be "adult", but it's not very exciting to porn addicts.
Re:Poor Sony by senatorpjt · 2007-09-09 14:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, they even have Debbie Does Dallas, along with Deep Throat, in my college library.
Re:Poor Sony by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 14:50 · Score: 0

Pics or it didn't happen.
Re:Poor Sony by Firehed · 2007-09-09 16:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

How much of that media attention turned into sales? They may have made the allowance after everyone assumed that would kill the format, but did it really make any difference?

Rephrase: How much porn have I bought on DVD? None. How much have I downloaded? Let's... uhhh... I'm sure my mom doesn't read Slashdot, so let's say "more than none". Of that more than none, how much is already in HD? All of the pics, and with the price of HD camcorders dropping, expect video to move that way. But how much of that will even make it to an HD format once they make the change? Considering the cost of pressing discs versus bandwidth? I'd expect very little.

So yeah, the parent is pretty safe in saying that porn will have very little or no impact this time around.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:Poor Sony by evilviper · 2007-09-09 17:09 · Score: 1

Porn helped VHS because it was really the first time you could watch porn in the privacy of your home,

Film wasn't cheap, but never the less, a great many people watched porn in the privacy of their own homes. I've found several reels myself when looking through old boxes. Just don't try to slow or pause the film, lest it instantly melt.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Poor Sony by evilviper · 2007-09-09 17:11 · Score: 1

$487.99 for Blue-ray Vs. $150... wonder who will win that aspect to the format war?

Me... I have a high def player that fits 100GBs on a 2 cent disc, and the player costs $20.

Or perhaps the holographic disc format coming out any time now that will fit terabytes of data on a cheap disc, and be given away in cereal boxes...

Vaporware is fun.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Poor Sony by lmpeters · 2007-09-09 17:22 · Score: 1

Regardless, the point is moot, since porn *is* being released on BD with the first release being Debbie Does Dallas.

I don't think any porn video that are more than maybe 10 years old are going to have any impact on the HD format wars; older videos were designed for standard definition, and just can't take advantage of the new format in any significant way.

That being said, I think that if/when a porn video comes out that uses HD to the same sort of stunning visual effect as Planet Earth, one MIGHT argue it would have some role in the format wars. Of course, that's all contingent on such a video coming out BEFORE bandwidth gets cheap enough that it becomes more economical to transfer HD video over the Internet.

(I can't believe I just referred to both "Planet Earth" AND a porno movie in the same context!)
Re:Poor Sony by urbanriot · 2007-09-09 17:41 · Score: 1

Of course it's not representative; I was posting it as an example.

I almost want to accuse you of being "anal" but I'm not sure if that might be a little risque within the context of this conversation.
"Debbie Does Dallas" is hardly representative of the porn market. It's only being released for the campy classic it is... and because it's so mainstream as porn titles go. I'd imagine that other mainstream crap is soon to follow- Playboy and other softcore productions. It may be "adult", but it's not very exciting to porn addicts.
Re:Poor Sony by rts008 · 2007-09-09 17:50 · Score: 1

"...so the inability to do that on Beta was big..."

I'm assuming you are referring to Betamax. I can assure you there was a lot of porn available on Betamax.
When I worked at Goddard Space Flight Center in 1976 and 1977 there was a Betamax tape library of porn that had over 400 tapes...I know, over time I watched quite a few of them on graveyard shift.

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:Poor Sony by enrevanche · 2007-09-09 17:51 · Score: 1

BEFORE bandwidth gets cheap enough that it becomes more economical to transfer HD video over the Internet.
In the US, they have until 2040.
Re:Poor Sony by ardin,mcallister · 2007-09-09 21:21 · Score: 1

Actually, its Debbie Does Dallas... Again . its a remake shot in HD. It does have the old one with it, but the new one is whats being hyped.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Below is a link to the cover art just for proof that it is not the old one.

NOT SAFE FOR WORK http://img9.imagepile.net/img9/506gSL18273.jpg NOT SAFE FOR WORK!! you have been warned!!

--
"Some men just want to watch the world burn..."
Re:Poor Sony by Tony+Hoyle · 2007-09-09 22:49 · Score: 1

You consider *that* NSFW?? Wow... I've seen worse things on the screensavers around here.
Re:Poor Sony by TheRaven64 · 2007-09-10 00:02 · Score: 1

How much porn have I bought on DVD? None. Since we're into anecdotal evidence, I'll point out that the only people I know who have bought porn on DVD (or VideoCD, for that matter) are female. If this is at all representative, then the DVD porn-buying habits of Slashdot readers are likely to be lower than the general habits of the population.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Poor Sony by poot_rootbeer · 2007-09-10 01:50 · Score: 1

First, when VHS and Beta appeared, the only real way to see porn films was in a XXX theater. You couldn't watch them in the privacy of your home.

Dear child, have you really never before heard of an 8mm film projector?
Re:Poor Sony by itlurksbeneath · 2007-09-10 02:12 · Score: 1

Sony may have pissed themselves, but I just see consumer winning. Enhanced downward pressure on the price is a good thing. If this new format picks up ANY steam at all, I'd expect to see the fourth gen BD players to halve in price - maybe. They are still adding features to current players, though. Some of the third generation stuff is pretty spiffy in the BD camp.

--
Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
Re:Poor Sony by Abreu · 2007-09-10 08:54 · Score: 1

Fucking stone statues? Ouch! no, thanks!

--
No sig for the moment.
Re:Poor Sony by ardin,mcallister · 2007-09-10 11:07 · Score: 1

If I hadn't labeled it NSFW, I'd have got yelled at by the ones that thought it wasn't safe. So, I labeled it NSFW. Pick Yer Poison.

--
"Some men just want to watch the world burn..."
Re:Poor Sony by FauxReal · 2007-09-11 18:34 · Score: 1

Eh... let me rephrase that... my dad played Puff the Magic Dragon for us kids... but I was aware of his porn stash, also on 8mm film. But I wouldn't be surprised if Puff was into Porn. Too bad the Broken Memories site has been broken for most of the year at this point.

--
Deltron 3030 - Virus (music video)

Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 09:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

...how bad is its DRM? That's really the only thing I care about. Whichever format will give me - a paying customer - the freedom to do what I want with my movies will get my money. If none do, I'm sticking with regular DVDs.

Re:Yes, but... by aliquis · 2007-09-09 10:04 · Score: 1, Offtopic

True that, I guess you can count out anything supported by Apple to begin with. Not all that related but their vendor lockin is stronger than anyones and now when they released iTunes with ring tone supports for the iPhone you have to PAY for being able to transfer over the ringtone which are made of a piece of music you already owned!?

People came around this by simply renaming the files but then Apple updated iTunes, so someone came up with a new idea, and we'll see how long that one works ..
In that regard Apple really suck and are worse than even Microsoft.
Re:Yes, but... by psychicsword · 2007-09-09 10:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

I didn't know regular DVDs let "a paying customer - the freedom to do what I want with my movies" Isn't circumventing the encryption illegal because of the DMCA?
Re:Yes, but... by RDW · 2007-09-09 10:18 · Score: 4, Funny

From the article, it looks like they're using a unique and theoretically uncrackable new form of DRM. All movies released on this format will be encrypted as Bollywood remakes.
Re:Yes, but... by gad_zuki! · 2007-09-09 10:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

>Whichever format will give me - a paying customer - the freedom to do what I want with my movies will get my money. If none do, I'm sticking with regular DVDs.

DVDs certainly do not give you any freedom, they locked down with css. Oh right, so becuse css is crackable makes DVDs the idealized format. You are ignoring that the DVD people think just as little of you as the HD format people. Hollywood will not give you what you want. If you want to be mr copyleft then address your hollywood addiction, give up on companies that force format makers to do this, and enjoy your reams of public access television HDDVDs. Sad that mr activist will never boycott hollywood or the music industry. Why should they change their ways if you keep handing them your paycheck? Thats like going into a mcdonalds, buying a value meal, and then complaining that there's too much fat in the McLean while biting down on a Big Mac.

There's nothing worse than a complainer who wont get off his ass. The collective lack of action has led to the acceptance of DRM in our lives: dvd, hddvd, apple music store, etc. Lets not pretend DVDs are some magical drm-free format. Thanks.
Re:Yes, but... by yabos · 2007-09-09 10:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Apple doesn't own the music they sell you, they license it from the music labels. If the music labels say they can't use the same songs for ringtones then Apple can't easily let you do it under the terms of their contract. Why don't you blame the labels because it's their fault not Apple's.
Re:Yes, but... by johnkzin · 2007-09-09 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think his point wasn't "DVD's are good", I think his point was "I'm not going to shift to a NEW format unless it is good". In essence, he's saying "I'm not going to shift from smoking cigarettes to smoking cigars, because cigars can cause cancer, so I'll stick with the carcinogen I've got until there's a non-carcinogen alternative".

You could argue, as you seem to, that "if you don't stop smoking cigarettes while you wait for a non-carcinogen alternative to come along, then you're still at risk of cancer" ...

But I think his perspective is "I'll keep the devil I know, instead of adopting the devil I don't know".

I see your point: if none are good, then pick none (not even DVD's). But, I also think it's not very realistic. The only people who are going to pick that option are people who aren't enamored with the movies in the first place. So, saying it to someone who clearly is enamored with movies is just pissing into the wind.

How's that for a mixed bag of metaphors :-)
Re:Yes, but... by radish · 2007-09-09 10:39 · Score: 1

It's not the format which gives (or doesn't give) you the right to do as you please with the movies, it's the copyright holders.

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Yes, but... by l3prador · 2007-09-09 10:44 · Score: 1

Apple doesn't own the music they sell you, they license it from the music labels. If the music labels say they can't use the same songs for ringtones then Apple can't easily let you do it under the terms of their contract. Why don't you blame the labels because it's their fault not Apple's.

Maybe, but what about music from CDs I bought and imported myself into my library?
Re:Yes, but... by yabos · 2007-09-09 10:48 · Score: 0

I don't know, they may have limits with AT&T on what they can put on there. No one really knows what the contracts between the companies are so I would find it hard to take a guess. But it seems you HAVE to buy the song from iTMS to even put it on the phone you can't use any self-ripped songs without going around the iTunes way of doing it.
Re:Yes, but... by BalanceOfJudgement · 2007-09-09 10:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

I didn't know regular DVDs let "a paying customer - the freedom to do what I want with my movies" Isn't circumventing the encryption illegal because of the DMCA?

You have the RIGHT to format and time shift, but the MEANS to do so is made illegal to you by the DMCA. It's such an artful contradiction written into the law; you'd admire the artistry if it weren't so evil.

--

We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:51 · Score: 0

Apple doesn't own the music they sell you
However,
Apple owns the hardware they sell you. Apple also owns the software they sell you.
Why don't you blame the labels because it's their fault not Apple's.
I think that would be convenient for Apple's tactics.
Re:Yes, but... by aliquis · 2007-09-09 10:55 · Score: 1, Flamebait

In the world where I live when I have bought a tune I can do whatever I want with it, if I want to make it shorter and crappy quality and play it as ring tone on my phone why should I be allowed to? Are you sure this is because of music labels? Maybe because so many retards buy stupid ring tones for massive cash. That blue frog and shit. During swedish adds "jamba" or whatever it's called tries to sell you ringtones with poo humor, it's so awful.

And as another answer had said what about CDs? Not that I understand why CDs and electronic music would be different.

Also what about if you make your own fucking tune and want to transfer it? Or if the tunes are public domain? Or if Apple doesn't sell them?

This is just bullshit, and Apple are so fucking gay. (Not to compare gays with Apple, you're great! ;D)

(All I want is software which works in whatever OS I prefer =P)
Re:Yes, but... by nomadic · 2007-09-09 11:10 · Score: 0

...how bad is its DRM? That's really the only thing I care about

Really? The only thing? I kind of care about image quality too.
Re:Yes, but... by obeythefist · 2007-09-09 12:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

How bad is the DRM? Great question. But step a little deeper. We know the MPAA coke snorters firmly believe DRM works. We can therefore assume that they will only support formats that use "strong" DRM (that means, DRM that has a lot of marketing behind it to make the coke snorters believe it actually works).

So, either it has equivalent DRM to Blu-ray and HD-DVD, and then there's really no benefit over this technology than the others apart from maybe cost or whatever, and the MPAA cartel still might not invest in it because they already have new revenue streams from the other formats anyway.

Or it has no DRM, in which case no MPAA support. It might be an awesome product, but if you can't buy new movies on it, it won't reach mainstream acceptance and the economies of scale that drive the retail costs down, so it will not compare with the other formats in terms of features and price.

--
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Re:Yes, but... by niktemadur · 2007-09-09 12:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

GPP: In that regard Apple really suck and are worse than even Microsoft.

PP: Apple doesn't own the music they sell you, they license it from the music labels.

I have to agree with the second quote. Due to the current laws as well as unnegotiable terms of contract drafted by the giant labels, either Apple complies or gets locked out of the market, so in this respect Apple is a gear in a vast, putrid machine they did not create.

Remember that Napster corporate and legislative hysteria preceded the iTunes Music Store, which is important to emphasize, offered the first legitimate and user-friendly music download option. And even now, after massive and prolonged negotiations, the major labels keep on flexing muscle, so that at all times, fleets of lawyers remain deployed by all sides. And then there are countless nuances, such as Led Zep wanting customers to buy the full album, as opposed to individual songs, etc.

In this sense, the consequences of the success of the iPod has placed Apple in a tightrope, navigating between bad PR and loss of content for sale. Technological uncharted waters may be a fine thing, but legal and corporate... yuck.

BTW, I'm not trying to apologize for Apple, which pisses me off in several other respects, it's just that I see an unholy maze out there, and I have to call this one for Apple.

--
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Re:Yes, but... by TheEldest · 2007-09-09 13:11 · Score: 1

That was one good bag....
Re:Yes, but... by slyn · 2007-09-09 13:59 · Score: 1

If you have a phone that supports bluetooth transfering, then hook yourself up.

http://wateronlydries.com/2005/11/make-a-razr-ring tone-with-itunes/
Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 14:17 · Score: 0

Yep. The sad thing is that majors don't pay artists for ringtones, because they had a ruling that said it was not derivative work.

Nonetheless, the license between majors and Apple have this 'hole' fixed, and Apple had to sign away the right to make ringtones.

The fun thing is that when you buy a CD, you have the right to make ringtones from it. Of course iTunes doesn't let you do so.

Looks so much like the original uncraked DVD: you have the fair use right to make copies of portions of the DVD, but you cannot sell legally any software that does that. The Jack Valenti desposition about that was totally surreal.
Re:Yes, but... by prockcore · 2007-09-09 14:26 · Score: 1

Don't hurt yourself stretching to blame everyone but Apple.

Every other phone manufacturer gives you a way to create your own ringtones. The only reason Apple doesn't is because Apple doesn't want to.
Re:Yes, but... by tlhIngan · 2007-09-09 14:40 · Score: 1

...how bad is its DRM? That's really the only thing I care about. Whichever format will give me - a paying customer - the freedom to do what I want with my movies will get my money. If none do, I'm sticking with regular DVDs.

DVDs have DRM... just it's been broken. Funnily enough, one of the "losing" parties in this high-def wars also has their DRM broken. (Yes, it's HD-DVD... AACS has been broken, all that can be done is they change the keys. Blu-Ray has also been broken, but there's many more forms of DRM that still can be applied).

"losing" because it's difficult to tell who is actually losing the high-def format wars. Just generally considered that it'll be a dead format these days despite it's lower costs.
Re:Yes, but... by rho · 2007-09-09 14:57 · Score: 1

If none do, I'm sticking with regular DVDs.
Hell, you'd better come up with a really compelling reason why I should re-buy my video library all over again. I just finished doing it going from VHS to DVD--and dropping a lot of titles, BTW, 'cause I didn't want to plunk down $20 for Under Siege. If I have to do it all over again with HD-DVD/BR, I'm going to buy Seven Samurai, Casablanca and The Godfather, and nothing else. I'm sick of re-buying the same fucking movies.
And anyway, a goodly portion of my movies are really old. Like the Thin Man series. There's no way that an HD-DVD copy of that is going to be significantly better than the DVD version.
Stop debating new formats and start hiring better writers, Hollywood.

--
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Re:Yes, but... by maglor_83 · 2007-09-09 15:28 · Score: 1

Oh quit mincing words. If you are no longer legally able to, then you don't have the right to.
Now lets all fight for Stan's right to have babies, even though he can't, not haveing a womb, which is no-ones fault - not even the Romans'.
Re:Yes, but... by Whiteox · 2007-09-09 17:17 · Score: 1

"And anyway, a goodly portion of my movies are really old. Like the Thin Man series. There's no way that an HD-DVD copy of that is going to be significantly better than the DVD version."

Yep. I've got massess of old movies/series too, some of which are digitally remastered (eg Gerry Anderson). The rule of thumb here is that you can't get better than the original stock. Now IF HD media process can get better resolution of old film stock with superior digital remastering, then I'll consider it for a few titles, but that would really be rare and occasionally pointless.
Also, (legal) DVD rips I made 5 years ago are beginning to fail, so I'm stuck with masses of DVD folders on larger HDs just for the sake of preservation. Ripping to DivX sucks due to loss.
There's no guarantee that any form of optical media is going to last more than 20 years - unlike vinyl or bakelite (so far). So trying to preserve digital media is 'backing up the backup'.

--
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
Re:Yes, but... by enrevanche · 2007-09-09 18:01 · Score: 1

copyright holders try to prevent you from doing things that are completely legal (like backup, transfer to a different format, exercise fair use rights etc.). so that unless the DRM is broken, you cannot do what you're legally allowed. they cannot prevent you from doing things that are legal except through the use of draconian technological measures. thus, it is also the format which effectively takes away your rights.
Re:Yes, but... by enrevanche · 2007-09-09 18:14 · Score: 1

many old movies have substantially better quality than even these new formats can provide. 35mm provides resolution far beyond 1080p.
some older movies (Lawrence of Arabia, 2001 etc) were filmed in 70mm which is way beyond any digital video format available to the consumer (and maybe even to professionals)
so technically, there are a lot of films which would benefit from the high def formats.
the thin man series was mid 30s to mid/late 40s. i'm sure at least some of these films have pretty high quality
Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 23:17 · Score: 0

GPP: In that regard Apple really suck and are worse than even Microsoft.
PP: Apple doesn't own the music they sell you, they license it from the music labels.
I have to agree with the second quote. Due to the current laws as well as unnegotiable terms of contract drafted by the giant labels, either Apple complies or gets locked out of the market, so in this respect Apple is a gear in a vast, putrid machine they did not create.
However, although GPP didn't make it clear, GPP was also referring to music ripped from CDs. Almost every other music-playing phone allows the use of ripped music as ring tones (for free, of course). What's Apple's excuse for disallowing this?
Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2007-09-10 01:17 · Score: 1

AFAIK, you have never had the right to format shift in the US. Fair use is an affirmative defence, not a legal right. (Translation: If you can do it, they can't do you for copyright infringement, but there's nothing that says they can't try to prevent you doing it in the first place.)

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Re:Yes, but... by that+IT+girl · 2007-09-10 02:38 · Score: 1

Aren't all forms of DRM called "uncrackable" by the man? At least for about a week until someone actually cracks it?

--
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
Re:Yes, but... by aliquis · 2007-09-10 03:45 · Score: 1

It should had been "shouldn't" of course.

I guess the flamebait was for the Apple comment, but they really ARE. Major vendor lockin with all of their products and it suck.
Re:Yes, but... by aliquis · 2007-09-10 03:51 · Score: 1

Yeah, in this case Apple doesn't even offer anything for your money, since it works as simple as just renaming the file by yourself...

And now some people argue that it's because they need to pay for the license of the tunes but still, what license do they pay for MP3s not bought on Apples iTunes store? For music you made yourself? For voice recordings?

It if was only on their own tunes I guess they could check it thru DRM somehow and make another copy with another identifier or whatever is needed. But for everything else?
Re:Yes, but... by aliquis · 2007-09-10 03:53 · Score: 1

With a phone not from Apple maybe ... The Razr aren't.
Re:Yes, but... by BalanceOfJudgement · 2007-09-10 06:59 · Score: 1

You might want to check US Code section 17 before you claim Fair Use isn't codified in law. It is now.

Besides, there are other posts in this thread more insightful than mine that shed light on the supposed different between an affirmative defense and a right.

--

We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Re:Yes, but... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2007-09-10 09:07 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, I missed your point. I didn't say it wasn't codified in law. I just said it was an affirmative defence and not a right. Looking on the official House web site, there is no indication that title 17 section 107 has been amended to say otherwise, and as you point out yourself, it is unlikely to be so given that such a change would invalidate substantial parts of the DMCA, which doesn't sound like a move likely to get much support from Big Media-funded senators and congresscritters. Are you referring to case law from a higher court or something?

--
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.

Waste of time by DrXym · 2007-09-09 09:46 · Score: 4, Informative

No studios are going to support the format, and I doubt many rippers will either. I could see the potential of a DVD player that could play H264 HD content from a DVD. But yet another HD physical format? The field is already crowded.

Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 09:53 · Score: 0

Unless the piracy industry adopts it.
At least they could be more relevant in places like russia and china where they don't give a shit about copyright and don't want to be bothered by all that DRM crap.
Re:Waste of time by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2007-09-09 09:54 · Score: 1

There are a few studios that said they would introduce on the format, but most of them are Bollywood and Asian studios. They claim to have several of Mel Gibson's movies, but it's not much. As it is, the A2/ A3 HD-DVD player includes 5 movies in the deal, making it close to the price of this VMD deal, and HD-DVD has an active product pipeline.
Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 09:55 · Score: 0

It could be the media of choice for computer data.... Ie., HD/Bluray movies that you rip from NetFlix and then give to all your friends and family.
Re:Waste of time by DrXym · 2007-09-09 09:58 · Score: 1

I doubt the pirates would give a crap either. It would probably suit them to use DVD-9 for burning. 9Gb is probably more than sufficient to get a very acceptable image quality even in HD.
Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:09 · Score: 0

From "the studios", I can watch a gay version of "GI Joe" who fights for the New World Order.
Or, I could just stay home and watch a porno where an unapologetically American couple fuck the heterosexual shit out of each other.
Who's gonna win that "format" war?
The game's over for Hollywood. There's no more shoving stupid, crappy content on consumers.
Re:Waste of time by TubeSteak · 2007-09-09 10:26 · Score: 1

I could see the potential of a DVD player that could play H264 HD content from a DVD. So Why doesn't it yet?

"The format uses MPEG-2 and VC1* video formats to encode at 1080p resolution for the time being, and will possibly move to the H.264 format in the future."

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1
"VC-1 is the informal name of the SMPTE 421M video codec standard initially developed by Microsoft. WMV3, better known as Windows Media Video 9 codec, served as the basis for development of the VC-1 codec specification. On April 3, 2006, SMPTE announced the formal release of the VC-1 standard as SMPTE 421M. Its most popular implementation is Windows Media Video 9."

I didn't realize Microsoft had their fingers so deep into the HD/Blu-Ray/VMD pie. If you compare VC-1 and H.264 you'll see they had different goals in mind.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Waste of time by DrXym · 2007-09-09 11:11 · Score: 1

So Why doesn't it yet?
Give the Chinese manufactures some time. We've already seen HDMI upscaling players as well as those that can play MPEG-4 ASP (otherwise known as DiVX, XVid etc.). Sooner or later some manufacturer will do the same for H264. And then some more and some more.
VC-1 is probably one reason Microsoft is propping up HD DVD. It doesn't give a damn about HD DVD, but keeping the format wars going mean more sales of its VC-1 codec, authoring tools and also opportunities for the MS XBL download service. I doubt that VC-1 will take off outside of professional authoring tools. After all, who the hell wants to rip to a proprietary format when H264 does such a good job and is widely supported by software and hardware?
Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 11:41 · Score: 0

Who cares about "next generation" media formats? The MPAA and RIAA can't figure out how to watch a movie or listen to music over the internet, but I figured it out years ago.
Re:Waste of time by Divebus · 2007-09-09 12:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

One thing to keep in mind about Microsoft's success at "requiring" the VC-1 codec was that neither HD-DVD nor Blu-ray had a VC-1 requirement at first. That was a long, painful battle for Microsoft which was typically used to dictating standards to everyone. Ultimately, Microsoft skillfully played the game of leverage between competitors to shoehorn themselves into both disk standards. With the future of digital media unfolding in the early 2000's, Microsoft simply offered High Definition equipment manufacturers and movie studios the whole Windows Media system [for a fee] expecting a quick surrender to the obvious victor of any technical battle - themselves. Microsoft envisioned their Windows Media player as the basis of all future television with themselves in control, dispatching all their competitors to oblivion and erecting a global toll booth between media creation companies and viewers. However, manufacturers tend to avoid these traps and SMPTE wouldn't touch Windows Media with a 10 foot pole for exactly that reason, recognizing that the Windows Media Player wrapper was fairly treacherous ground under Microsoft's control. Microsoft was informed by SMPTE that the codec inside Windows Media could be accepted if it was split out and properly standardized like all the other codecs. Leave the "player" wrapper with undocumented controls out of it. Although the DRM offered by Microsoft was attractive to Hollywood, it became clear that manufacturers would not simply hand their future technical path over to Microsoft, nor would the Hollywood production studios hand over control of their assets to an organization with a history of modifying the terms of an agreement to benefit themselves. Manufacturers and content creators knew that Microsoft could suddenly replace VC-1 with VC-2 and demand a ransom to stay in business. Windows Media 10 was on the horizon and everyone knew what that meant. Microsoft wasn't trustworthy in either of those circles and proper SMPTE standardization was the only road to considering any products from Redmond. Microsoft finally did separate the codec from the Windows Media player and offer it for ratification expecting a rubber stamp approval by SMPTE while refusing to release the source code, refusing to define the royalty conditions in advance, promising to deliver finished codecs while retaining control of the current and future source (and a few other tricks). This all prevented ratification by SMPTE. It was Microsoft's first foray into the workings of a real standards body and they thought they could simply bully their way through it. They weren't used to anyone standing up to them like this. Microsoft was very much out in the cold and basically entered panic mode as they watched other formats develop, deploy and gain momentum. Manufacturers were not going to commit to a proprietary codec which would later hold them hostage. No SMPTE standardization? No use for VC-1. Period. End of codec. End of Microsoft's influence on media. PANIC! As Microsoft was slowly releasing control of VC-1 and approaching SMPTE compliance, Microsoft released premature press releases claiming SMPTE ratification months before they were in actual compliance. SMPTE had to smack them down at least once for this tactic. Finally, Microsoft did what was needed for SMPTE ratification and gained acceptance by the HD-DVD camp [support and funding had something to do with this, I'm sure]. I don't personally know the back story of HD-DVD very well but VC-1 incorporation into Blu-ray had everything to do with the greed of MPEG LA. More on that later. I can say that the buzz at the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) show floor was that HD-DVD was a Microsoft backed entity which didn't do it any favors. The NAB members are typically only interested in repeatable standards. Looking around the 2006 NAB show floor, the only people using Microsoft video standards were their direct "partners" in a confined area. Everyone else was using AVC/H.264. Meanwhile

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Re:Waste of time by Divebus · 2007-09-09 12:35 · Score: 1

Shit. Big "sorry" to everyone for that huge block of unreadable text. I can't believe I didn't put all the paragraph tags in there and missed the Preview button.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Re:Waste of time by NeMon'ess · 2007-09-09 14:16 · Score: 1

So you left out just how much Microsoft gave up to get it's standard into Blu-ray?
Re:Waste of time by Divebus · 2007-09-09 14:41 · Score: 1

It's in there somewhere but I'll extract it so you don't have to read through the monolith of text:

First Microsoft dropped the planned use of the Windows Media Player wrapper because the industries were only interested in the codec, not the advertising portal / "phone home" laden / consumer dictating / system call making player interface.

Second, Microsoft gave up control over the Windows Media 9 codec itself, revealing the source code so anyone can roll their own instead of relying on (trusting) Microsoft to do it for them. That's huge since it removes the keystone of "embrace, extend, extinguish".

Third, Microsoft relinquished the ability to suddenly change the licensing terms of VC-1 by publishing a binding royalty structure in advance.

All of these things are completely foreign to Microsoft and were a tremendous loss compared to their normal methods. However, those actions saved the VC-1 codec from early extinction and Microsoft pulled out a great victory by remaining relevant in the world of standards. Otherwise, Microsoft would have remained an "also ran" in the world of big boy media.

Notice Microsoft didn't offer Windows Media 10 into the fray. I'm certain Microsoft is trying to figure out how to entice manufacturers into adopting that codec on their equipment without standardization (coupled with enticing content providers into using it) so they can regain control of the entire distribution chain again. Microsoft lost the first round to SMPTE but still have that foot in the door with VC-1 as the trojan horse.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Re:Waste of time by Divebus · 2007-09-09 15:06 · Score: 1

I could see the potential of a DVD player that could play H264 HD content from a DVD.
So Why doesn't it yet?

HD-DVD does this. Just plop an AVC/H.264 HD video file on blank red laser media and drop that into an HD-DVD player. It will play the video. The Blu-ray, idunno... haven't tried that yet. Talking to Sonic about pro authoring systems, there's apparently a licensing issue; the BDA wants a $1,500 license fee to encode a Blu-ray title, even if it's a check disk. Has something to do with the encryption key you have to buy to make it play. Haven't confirmed details but may explain why Apple's DVD Studio Pro will encode HD-DVD media but not Blu-ray.

The irony, given Microsoft's position on VC-1 vs H.264, is the Xbox contains the ability to decode H.264. Perhaps they had to do that to call the player an HD-DVD player.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 16:02 · Score: 0

Using this fear, Microsoft's angle was to offer the BDA a finished codec with higher efficiency than MPEG2 which could be put to use immediately so that Blu-ray would not miss the window of competition against HD-DVD. So, microshaft was playing both players against each other? That really says it all. Self interested bastards. How the hell do you know this to be true?
Re:Waste of time by Kuciwalker · 2007-09-09 17:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

What the FUCK. Paragraphs, please.
Re:Waste of time by Divebus · 2007-09-09 17:29 · Score: 4, Informative

SORRY!!!! SORRY!!! That's what happens when the wife yells "dinner's ready". Yes, there's a wife here and she's a geek. Who else has a wife who comes running home from Costco saying "Hey, they have compressors on sale! Didn't you want air tools?" or "I think the 42" flat panel would look great in the bedroom". If you missed it, an apology for the Big Block O'ASCII was posted right after that. For those of you who want paragraphs, I will now REPEAT the entire blah blah right here. Karma be damned, send me to Remedial Preview School if you like:
---------
One thing to keep in mind about Microsoft's success at "requiring" the VC-1 codec was that neither HD-DVD nor Blu-ray had a VC-1 requirement at first. That was a long, painful battle for Microsoft which was typically used to dictating standards to everyone. Ultimately, Microsoft skillfully played the game of leverage between competitors to shoehorn themselves into both disk standards.
With the future of digital media unfolding in the early 2000's, Microsoft simply offered High Definition equipment manufacturers and movie studios the whole Windows Media system [for a fee] expecting a quick surrender to the obvious victor of any technical battle - themselves. Microsoft envisioned their Windows Media player as the basis of all future television with themselves in control, dispatching all their competitors to oblivion and erecting a global toll booth between media creation companies and viewers.
However, manufacturers tend to avoid these traps and SMPTE wouldn't touch Windows Media with a 10 foot pole for exactly that reason, recognizing that the Windows Media Player wrapper was fairly treacherous ground under Microsoft's control. Microsoft was informed by SMPTE that the codec inside Windows Media could be accepted if it was split out and properly standardized like all the other codecs. Leave the "player" wrapper with undocumented controls out of it. Although the DRM offered by Microsoft was attractive to Hollywood, it became clear that manufacturers would not simply hand their future technical path over to Microsoft, nor would the Hollywood production studios hand over control of their assets to an organization with a history of modifying the terms of an agreement to benefit themselves. Manufacturers and content creators knew that Microsoft could suddenly replace VC-1 with VC-2 and demand a ransom to stay in business. Windows Media 10 was on the horizon and everyone knew what that meant. Microsoft wasn't trustworthy in either of those circles and proper SMPTE standardization was the only road to considering any products from Redmond.
Microsoft finally did separate the codec from the Windows Media player and offer it for ratification expecting a rubber stamp approval by SMPTE while refusing to release the source code, refusing to define the royalty conditions in advance, promising to deliver finished codecs while retaining control of the current and future source (and a few other tricks). This all prevented ratification by SMPTE. It was Microsoft's first foray into the workings of a real standards body and they thought they could simply bully their way through it. They weren't used to anyone standing up to them like this. Microsoft was very much out in the cold and basically entered panic mode as they watched other formats develop, deploy and gain momentum. Manufacturers were not going to commit to a proprietary codec which would later hold them hostage. No SMPTE standardization? No use for VC-1. Period. End of codec. End of Microsoft's influence on media. PANIC!
As Microsoft was slowly releasing control of VC-1 and approaching SMPTE compliance, Microsoft released premature press releases claiming SMPTE ratification months before they were in actual compliance. SMPTE had to smack them down at least once for this tactic. Finally, Microsoft did what was needed for SMPTE ratification and gained acceptance by the HD-DVD camp [support and funding had something to do with this, I'm sure]. I don't personally know t

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Re:Waste of time by evilviper · 2007-09-09 17:32 · Score: 1

How the hell do you know this to be true?

Something like 90% of what he said is all public record... If you were following news of the subjects at that time (just a couple years ago or so) you'd know just about all of it. There's been plenty of stories about the numerous troubles Microsoft got into with the standardization process, and the changes to the supported codes of the BluRay format.

The rest are things you could more or less assume, The statements of intention, ie. what those involved "felt" "feared" or "wanted" to have happen.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Waste of time by Divebus · 2007-09-09 17:39 · Score: 1

How do I know this? Through acquaintances in the industry. Some were on the SMPTE committee, I was on an unofficial email discussion list about this [plus other DTV stuff] and I personally know one of the vapid yet arrogant Microsoft product pushers - haven't seen him in a few years, though. It was a slow motion train wreck. And, yes, the goal was to deploy the codec, not back one disk standard over the other. Microsoft seriously needed to hedge their bets and the potential failure of HD-DVD would have taken VC-1 with it. Diluting the influence of H.264 was (is) vitally important to Microsoft.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Re:Waste of time by vuffi_raa · 2007-09-09 19:18 · Score: 1

yes, but if this were out as data disc and burners were affordable it would be awesome, so long as they can keep the media cheap- also I can see this taking off in asia where studio support doesn't matter since vendors don't care so much about copyright- which means that xvid and divx compatible players wouldn't be far behind
Re:Waste of time by DrXym · 2007-09-09 19:26 · Score: 1

I think you have to look at the way MS is selectively propping up HD DVD and buying studios to realise they don't give a stuff about either formats. They don't believe in HD DVD, they don't even care. It just suits their purposes to keep it alive so they can watch Blu Ray and HD DVD suffer fighting each other. I suppose the longer they prolong the war, the more time MS has to build out download standards which will focus favourably on VC-1.
Re:Waste of time by seanseansean · 2007-09-09 19:33 · Score: 0, Troll

Learn to proof read you fucking idiot.
Re:Waste of time by gbutler69 · 2007-09-09 22:16 · Score: 1, Informative

Learn to be more tolerant Jackass!

--
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-10 02:23 · Score: 0

Gee.... I bet your wife's really attractive too...

You sick pig fucker.
Re:Waste of time by aminorex · 2007-09-10 02:23 · Score: 1

I don't really care about studio support, because I will never willingly buy a studio release. But 22.5 GB of storage in 3 layers would make me a recorder buyer!

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:Waste of time by Divebus · 2007-09-10 03:36 · Score: 1

Actually, she is. A six footer, 130lbs, semi-pro Volleyball player who looks like Jodie Foster. So go fuck your mother, jackoff.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-10 04:22 · Score: 0

Change your default commenting to use "Plain Old Text"
You don't have to use html tags for page and line breaks & it automatically turns links live
Re:Waste of time by Divebus · 2007-09-10 04:37 · Score: 1

Good tip. Thanx.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Re:Waste of time by benwaggoner · 2007-09-13 15:38 · Score: 1

An intriguingly spun confection of conspiracy theories, but you state as fact a lot of things that are conjecture on your part. And factually, the above is wrong at least 80% of the time.

Really, "greed on the part of MPEG-LA" - citation? Do you understand how MPEG-LA is structured, and why, and how very odd it is to ascribe motivations it as an entity? Citation for anything you said about MPEG-LA? Citation on these SMPTE press releases? Citation for H.264 negotations being done later than VC-1?

Lastly, you're missing the very important fact that VC-1 does have compelling technical advantages for HD optical disc. To whit, it can hit transparency to the source at lower bitrates than H.264 with content with film grain, and it has lower decode complexity (more pixels/MIPS). The later is important if you want decode inside a computer, a rather important scenario for us!

A much more pertinant fact is that in the initial DVD Forum tests for codecs for what became HD DVD, VC-1 came in first, MPEG-2 second, and H.264 last. Much of what followed came from that.

--

My video compression blog
Re:Waste of time by Divebus · 2007-09-13 19:23 · Score: 1

Of course you would think that but these were the facts back then if you didn't work for Microsoft. I have to ask you how long it will be before Microsoft offers an unstandardized extension to VC-1 to the studios. If anyone could speculate, you could and I'm thoroughly curious. I've long since stopped believing that all this technology is for fantastic image quality, ease of use and achiving digital nirvana. No, it's about getting royalties. The rest is a side show.

VC-1 and the road it took is now history subject to interpretation. However, I was on several news groups as a fly on the wall with some very connected people where all this was under daily discussion. A lot happened between 2002 and 2006. It was a group I had known during the early days of the ATSC and my ITS affiliations with people coming and going. Also in the group were people I didn't know who appeared to crystal ball what was going on in SMPTE. The proof was what I read in these groups is what actually occurred and was publicly known a few days later. There was no reason to doubt what was being said or what constantly changing pressures were occuring. There were more political hurdles with adoption than technical ones. A fascination for the process is what kept me engaged.

The statements that H.264 outperformed VC-1 were from them and I've confirmed it myself with my own tests. Not in the 2002 DVD Forum era but in 2007 with present day hardware. (yes, H.264 is still a pig to compress) There were plenty of fans of VC-1 as well but standardization was the biggest roadblock to acceptance. The holdup with MPEG LA was real with their onerous licensing terms which would make H.264 unaffordable. That went on for a long time. Microsoft created their own controversy over licensing terms for VC-1 but that ony slowed ratification. The delay the MPEG LA created was the only reason VC-1 had time to get standardized for final inclusion in Blu-ray. Otherwise, Blu-ray would have been finalized much earlier without VC-1 - back when Microsoft was still stonewalling and filibustering SMPTE. VC-1 was apparently in, out, then in again.

If you don't remember the Microsoft announcement about VC-1 entering Final Committee Draft (and a rubber stamp away from ratification) before the actual vote, that occurred when a trigger happy PR person extended an upcoming vote to mean Final Committee Draft Status had occurred and told the trade rags. It was later retracted but not for a week. There was intense pressure to get VC-1 ratified by NAB'06 and someone jumped the gun.

Microsoft had a big booth with lots of partners which would be irrelevant at NAB if VC-1 wasn't at least in FCD. I no longer have these references and you're welcome to doubt me if you like. You can also read this which has been roundly refuted by Joe Kane but encapsulates most of the chatter I was witnessing in real time.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
Re:Waste of time by benwaggoner · 2007-09-14 05:29 · Score: 1

I'm not sure why you put VC-1 on the list of things holding Blu-ray back. The big problems were 405nm diode manufacturing and BD disc replication (which remains a big problem, especially for dual-layer discs).

VC-1 and H.264 have different strengths, so one or the other can come out ahead depending on what is being tested for. And, of course, implementation quality makes a much bigger difference than anything else.

Anyway, I manned the VC-1 pod at NAB 2006, so I can definitely state it was far from the major story for our booth! Silverlight and MSTV (now MediaRoom) were the big pushes.

Working on the codec team, I certainly wish that Microsoft overall made VC-1 as high a prority as you think it is :). Being a stockholder, I understand that there are much bigger fish to fry.

--

My video compression blog
Re:Waste of time by Divebus · 2007-09-17 16:02 · Score: 1

I'm not sure why you put VC-1 on the list of things holding Blu-ray back.
I'm not. I actually don't give a hoot about Blu-ray or HD-DVD. The planet is moving toward digital delivery anyway. The only issue I have with VC-1 is as the potential trojan horse to be used later by Microsoft to recapture what they actually wanted - full control over all media exchange. This is all about profit and control, not good pictures.

VC-1 and H.264 have different strengths, so one or the other can come out ahead depending on what is being tested for. And, of course, implementation quality makes a much bigger difference than anything else.
You've got that right. Outside of the lab, there are a hundred things that could tip the scales of quality and usability one way or the other.

Anyway, I manned the VC-1 pod at NAB 2006, so I can definitely state it was far from the major story for our booth! Silverlight and MSTV (now MediaRoom) were the big pushes.
Those two things are intriguing, and would be more so if it weren't for the history of the parent company. It really appears to me that some really bright folks at Microsoft come up with fabulous ways of doing things which embrace function, interoperability and extensibility. Then, a team of specialists swoop in to "cleanse" the project of anything Microsoft doesn't get paid for and design a development path to ensure interoperability becomes a poison pill to make all the competitors fail... the competitors who thought they were part of the team. After that, another team comes in to figure out how to entrap a bunch of developers to use the product by seeding free tools and licenses to anyone who will take them. All the things that initially made the technology promising now feel like quicksand. The rest of the industry suffers for years trying to get this odd duck to swim in the common pool. Some of Microsoft's products wouldn't be half bad if they used actual interoperable standards (not the ones standardized by ballot box stuffing). They could make the best damned tools to use H.264 or ODF or real Java or AJAX or dozens of other technologies, but instead Microsoft chooses to bend everything toward themselves and beat the interesting parts of the technology into second place. Again, a great business model on paper but everyone is really tired of that game.

Working on the codec team, I certainly wish that Microsoft overall made VC-1 as high a prority as you think it is :). Being a stockholder, I understand that there are much bigger fish to fry.
I also wish Microsoft made VC-1 that high of a priority - as a codec. Without the Windows Media Player wrapper, it's kind of neutered as a lock-in technology which makes it less interesting for advancing the business. Enter Silverlight - the new VC-1 Trojan Horse...

Incidentally, I was in the Microsoft booth in 2006 looking at this great little media asset management system. Enter some search critera and up comes a bunch of thumbnails. Click on a thumbnail and it plays - unless the media was unavailable and a QuickTime logo pops up on the viewer pane. Oops! The small crowd around the display (a dozen or so) all chuckled and left. I said "wow, so it works in the real world!" What was that system all about?

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.

VMD? by Daniel+K.+Attling · 2007-09-09 09:48 · Score: 5, Funny

Videos of Mass Destruction!?

Re:VMD? by m1sha · 2007-09-09 09:58 · Score: 1

Nyet Ve haff creeated Veapons Of Mass Destruction Or haff they created us? I vorget how this joke goes..
Re:VMD? by JonJ · 2007-09-09 10:12 · Score: 1

Almost, it's Videos of Mass Distraction, but close.

--
-- Linux user #369862
Re:VMD? by Loconut1389 · 2007-09-09 10:19 · Score: 1

at least its not HD-VD. Thats a fever i dont want to catch!
Re:VMD? by mux2000 · 2007-09-09 11:36 · Score: 1

link?
Re:VMD? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 12:07 · Score: 0

Anybody thought Video Marc Dorcel?
Re:VMD? by archen · 2007-09-09 14:24 · Score: 1

Megadeth claims prior art.
Re:VMD? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 16:25 · Score: 0

I guess that explains why I haven't found any on store shelves.

What's the point? by spooje · 2007-09-09 09:51 · Score: 1

If you could actually find a company to release movies in that format you might have a good plan. If they really want to sell this thing they'd make it play HD-DVD and Blueray.

--
Tea and kung-fu. Life is good. Rising Phoenix

Re:What's the point? by NeuroManson · 2007-09-09 11:13 · Score: 1

Considering that for the last 30 some odd years, that the movie industry's goal after TV started stealing viewership, and that their solution was to ensure that they charge people multiple times to watch the same movies over and over again? I think you already know what their plan is.

--
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Re:What's the point? by vuffi_raa · 2007-09-09 19:21 · Score: 1

I don't think you could make it play hd-dvd and bluray since it uses a red laser

At least it beats... by thanatos_x · 2007-09-09 09:53 · Score: 1

CH-DVD, which is basically a HD-DVD plus more copy protection...

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2198290/china-de velops-definition-dvd

I've still yet to care about this format war, but this sounds more promising than either of the other two standards. Too bad it will never get off the ground.

--
I am not an expert. If I am misled in something, please correct me.

I have just invented another contender by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 09:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Since the field is obviously WIDE open... I, Anonymous Coward, have entered the fray with HD 8-Track... yes, that's right: High Definition 8-Track tape. As a big disco fan, I have accumulated lots of Bee Gees, and Donna Sommers 8-Track tapes over the years (for some reason, people kept throwing out these gold)... and I've managed to record video onto the tape. At first I had a lousy 100x348 resolution, but after months and months of work in my parent's basement, I have UPGRADED the resolution and so I am calling it High Definition. Yes, that's right, I have achieved 320x240 pixel resolution in 16-colour glory! And to make sure, this format catches on like wildfire, I am licensing the technology for $1 per tape.
I'm gonna be a millionaire! I love capitalism.

TDz.

Re:I have just invented another contender by camperdave · 2007-09-09 10:24 · Score: 1

You can encode four movies per tape, right? With the advantage that, since it is physically impossible to rewind, you never need to?

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:I have just invented another contender by iainl · 2007-09-11 22:49 · Score: 1

Bah. It's nowhere near as good as my new BluLaserDisc.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"

Will there be content? by Opportunist · 2007-09-09 10:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

That's the core question. Will there be any content for this player? Will the studios release content for it?

The only other chance, if the studios don't jump onto it, is to squeeze out a writer for it quickly and make this the next big thing in computer storage and HD content copying. If it can hold a full HD movie, people who don't care too much about DRM or buying content will be very interested in it. Then, and only then, you can get a standard into the market without the support of the content providers.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:Will there be content? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:18 · Score: 0

If you have RTFA it says it supports more formats than the standard DVD/CD/MP3/BBQ formats and is upgradeable by firmware. This suggests maybe AVI/MP4 files with H264 encoding and more might be available.

If there is also a burner, count me in! This sounds like a nice XBMC upgrade to me!
Re:Will there be content? by Midnight+Thunder · 2007-09-09 10:31 · Score: 1

The only other chance, if the studios don't jump onto it, is to squeeze out a writer for it quickly and make this the next big thing in computer storage and HD content copying. If it can hold a full HD movie, people who don't care too much about DRM or buying content will be very interested in it. Then, and only then, you can get a standard into the market without the support of the content providers.

Well at that price it could easily become a feature found on east Asian players and then submarine itself as a DVD replacement for computers, if they can sort out the burning issue. The movie companies will find that even if the do dictate the market to a certain extent, they aren't only influence.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Re:Will there be content? by Eponymous+Bastard · 2007-09-10 06:27 · Score: 1

That's the core question. Will there be any content for this player? Will the studios release content for it? Actually, there is another way to work it: Dual players.

If the technology is so close to a DVD's, you should be able to make a DVD/VMD/HDDVD player, or DVD/VMD/Blue Ray player with maybe just a little bit more expense that one without the extra format. This would give you a much bigger installed base for free.

If you can then upgrade older DVD presses to VMD, you can be the second tier in the market. Hollywood movies would release on HD-DVD, but straight-to-video movies and TV shows would be released on the cheaper but still-HD VMD format, rather than DVDs. Factories with older DVD equipment would probably provide this cheaper service so as not to throw out their equipment.

Bit chilly in hell right now? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:05 · Score: 0

A kdawson story that could actually be called "news for nerds"? Damn....

Whoever fight, we already know who has won.... by DrYak · 2007-09-09 10:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

who will win that aspect to the format war?

Be it BlueRay, be it HD-DVD, or HD VMD, or chinese EVD.
We don't give a fuck about who battling against who on the market.

We already know who won the battle :
- the unknown noname chinese hardware maker who'll market a cheap plastic reader, that'll read anything you'll put in it and that'll cost only a few dozens of .
Seriously.

whether the movie companies will pick it up

No, the only thing that will matter is if the cheap hardware maker will pick it up.

Last time, the whole DVD "plus" RW vs. DVD "minus" RW vs. DVD-RAM debate was made pointless once asian makers started to push multi format burners.

Before thatm the DVD (the hidef format) vs. SuperVCD (the cheaper with older hardware) vs. DivX (the internet alternative) was made obsolete now that you can pick-up a DVD/MP3/MPEG-4 reader for less than 50$ at your local store.

The exact same story will repeat it self the next few years with the HD format war. While marketoid will go at great lenght arguing which is better between BlueRay and HD-DVD and while you should pick *their* technology because most of the studio are backing *that one*, the public will quietly stand back, enjoy the fight, and wait patiently until cheap multi-format reader appear.

LG and Samsung have such movie players and media burners coming to their products line-up and others companies are to follow. The cheap brandless aren't far away.

--
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]

Re:Whoever fight, we already know who has won.... by samdu · 2007-09-09 12:34 · Score: 1

Er... no. They could give these things away for free, and if there is no content available for them, they'd still fail. There's a balance between cheap hardware and content support. Neither, in and of itself, is enough to win a format war.

Formats from hell. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:23 · Score: 0

Can you imagine what your next multi-format burner compatability chart is going to look like. It's bad enough now with all the types of CD's & DVD's and trying to figure out if your family memeber's equipment can read/play back anything you send them. It's gotten easier just to box up a external HD and mail that home with the raw files on them than to try to make DVD's for them to play.

Now as far as Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, the third one listed doesn't mean anything till they start actually releasing movies on it, if you've been sitting on the fence waiting for an easy DVD-decryptor style program to come along and break the DRM so you can do what you want with the movies, your wait is over. Check out anyDVD HD from Slysoft. It'll let you rip the movies or at a minimum break the DRM so you can play back the disc without having fully compliant hardware. Now all you need is a few TB of HD space to upgrade your media machine since the rips tend to be around 25gb each.

Agreed. by crhylove · 2007-09-09 10:24 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.youporn.com/
http://www.pornotube.com/
http://www.shareaza.com/

Um yeah, why are people still buying discs ???!? I agree with the above poster, there is no way porno is even going to effect this format war. The internet has taken over that industry and distribution completely.

--
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.

To the nay sayers... by doombringerltx · 2007-09-09 10:25 · Score: 1

...who say that there isn't much content out for this format, it has Welcome to LazyTown. Honestly, its the highlight of Icelandic children's shows. Between that and the Bollywood movies, who really needs choice?

Re:To the nay sayers... by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:37 · Score: 0

I bet all the pirate copies will start with this.

We Have a Winner? by morari · 2007-09-09 10:27 · Score: 1

From the quick, initial info list there, this sounds it might be the format to support (not that anyone can support Blu-Ray, just on basic principles, right?). While I don't care about HD content, per say, I wouldn't mind upgrading my DVD player and opening up such new possibilities at that price. Hell, my DVD player already cost about half that, since I try to get quality components that don't come from Wal-Mart's $20 electronics bin. That said, content storage is what is more appealing to me as far as the new formats go. It's not HD movies.

--
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune

VS DVD by future+assassin · 2007-09-09 10:28 · Score: 1

Now I might be missing something here and its probably just me but just like fancy graphics in video games I could care less about seeing my movie in Hi Def. I look at my tv and wonder how much better could this crappy move be in Hi Def. So the dvd will do just fine in my house for years to come. Now for data storage this would be great. I could backup my whole server and everyone elses website on the server in 4 discs instaed of 40 DVD's.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Re:VS DVD by Targon · 2007-09-09 10:54 · Score: 1

HD really comes into it's own on a larger screen. With lower resolutions, the lower quality video needs to be up-sized to fill the screen, and you can tell there is a distortion from the original.

If you really want to check out the difference in quality, rent a DVD of a movie, and then order the same movie on pay per view. The DVD will show a LOT more detail due to having a higher resolution from source to screen than the pay per view(unless you get it in HD where you live).

So, it's about the source image and how clear it is. Do you want to notice that there are jagged edges in the movies you watch, or would you rather see things as they are intended to look?
Re:VS DVD by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 14:34 · Score: 0

> I look at my tv and wonder how much better could this crappy move be in Hi Def

Why don't you throw out your TV then, since there's apparently nothing worth watching?

Throwing out your keyboard would keep us from having to read your haughty little epistles too.
Re:VS DVD by terjeber · 2007-09-09 16:02 · Score: 1

On a good 1080p HD TV, the visual resolution of HD rivals what you see in a movie theater. If you don't think there is a difference, I can recommend a good optician.
Re:VS DVD by vuffi_raa · 2007-09-09 19:26 · Score: 1

unfortunately a large screen tv is not anywhere in my future- I live in san francisco and space is a major commodity, so not only don't I have a place for it- I wouldn't be able to physically fit it up my stairwell to my apartment. possibly sometime in a few years I could move and make space for a projector, but that is way off, it'll be DVD for me till then
Re:VS DVD by Lord+Apathy · 2007-09-10 03:47 · Score: 1

I did exactally that a few years ago when I got my first HD setup. I synced up a HD movie on blowtime and the same move on DVD. I had them both coming in on the component inputs to my HD tv. I could switch back and forth with the push of a button.
My conclusion? There was no noticable, at first, differences between the HD movie an the one on DVD. When I got down and nit picked though the HD movie was clearer. Not much clearer but it was. In one scene there was a row of books on the back wall. In the HD movie I could barely make out a title. I couldn't make out the title on the DVD movie.
Not saying that HD doesn't rock, it does, but only for some content. Nature and sports it fucking rocks. Science shows it mostly just rocks. For television and most movies; its not worth the cost or the trouble.
For porn .... Fucking forget it. Porn is possibly the only media that benifits from fuzzy pictures from low rez sources. Low rez leaves something to the imagination. DVD takes all that away and your left with stark reality. Must face it, some of them people put the 'fuck' in fucking ugly.

--
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

Yes, but...will the real customer please stand up? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 10:35 · Score: 0

"Whichever format will give me - a paying customer - the freedom to do what I want with my movies will get my money."

I feel the same way.

Your neighbourhood pirate.

If it would only.. by wamerocity · 2007-09-09 10:38 · Score: 1

If it supported Matroska files, THEN we'd be in business, seeing as how you can download ALL HDDVD and Bluray movies from USENET and Bittorrent right now (in .mkv format). If they could get a burner to computers, I'd buy that standalone version right now. Then I'd burn all my HDDVD and Bluray rips onto them, and BAM! Problem solved.... 1080p content from all studios at a discount price.

Legal Disclaimer: Not that I would ever *really* do the aforementioned activities. I don't condone the pirating of overpriced and DRM-crippled movies. /snicker

--
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"

Re:If it would only.. by wamerocity · 2007-09-09 10:42 · Score: 1

Me again. I know that HDDVD burners and pretty rare, and BD burners are prohibitively expensive, but is there anyone out there that knows how well these players work with playing YOUR OWN CONTENT that may have been recorded from an HD camcorder, or your own works createdon computer? Or for example, if I took all my standard def south park episodes and burned them onto a single BD-R, trying to convert it into the correct format, would it play on a BD-player? AFAIK, I've never heard anyone mention how nicely those players cooperate with anything but legitimate HD movies.

--
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"
Re:If it would only.. by deftcoder · 2007-09-09 11:28 · Score: 1

I think you meant "I'd be in business".

Most people don't pirate movies.

--
Peace sells, but who's buying?
Re:If it would only.. by gwk · 2007-09-09 14:01 · Score: 1

Give it time. Ten years ago copying CDs was technically out of reach for most, CD burners were just starting to become affordable (and included with OEM machines) and the software really truly sucked. Most machines include dual layer burners now, and the software is here but still fairly unrefined (e.g. click->boom its ripped write it where?) DVDs are a little different because we are are unlikely to see Dell include point and click software to copy a DVD: because it can't be a disk to disk copy like a CD for technical reasons (the hidden keys) and processing power still hasn't caught up yet: trans-coding still takes way way to long (the old "its all about convenience stupid" :).
Re:If it would only.. by ConanG · 2007-09-09 19:04 · Score: 1

That was exactly my first thought when I read about this.

1. Rip HD-DVD/Blu Ray movie
2. Burn to VMD
3. ???
4. Profit!
Re:If it would only.. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-10 03:30 · Score: 0

Blu-ray/HD-DVD content authoring works just fine with your own content. Or even all that content that you're stealing, since it's been stripped of the encryption. Just like DVD with CSS, the DRM is optional.

The main problems would be that even a "cheap" Blu-ray burner drive costs something like $1000 right now, I'm not sure HD-DVD even has an official recordable format spec yet (they evidently didn't consider it a high priority, unlike the Blu-ray folks), and you'd need the right authoring software. Which you'd also probably steal, but the software probably isn't quite there yet, at least for consumer use.

Also, there's the media costs. Especially if you want to burn to dual layer media. It's not outrageously expensive for a one-off use (especially if you're going to re-use re-recordable media), but it's not something you would be doing regularly. And if you were using it to steal movies, the difference between buying physical media to burn downloaded content and just buying a nice boxed original seems pretty minimal.

You'd probably be better off building a media server. It'd be cheaper and more convenient. If you just want to distribute your high definition home porn videos to friends & family or something, might as well put H.264 or VC-1 on a regular DVD-R, or even a CD-R. It's unlikely you would need 2+ hours of HD video for that.

(Also, I think you're a bastard with the typical Slashdot/American entitlement attitude, but I know you don't care.)
Re:If it would only.. by wamerocity · 2007-09-10 06:52 · Score: 1

Well you are probably true about the bastard comment, but the real point of my question was to see if there was a way I could put all my TV's show DVD's onto one disc. Yes, I actually do own a lot of DVD's, especially TV series DVD's...

--
"Thank you for using Stop-n-Drop, America's favorite suicide booth since 2008"

Whoever puts out a cheap recorder wins by erroneus · 2007-09-09 11:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Once these recording devices make it into the hands of legislators and judges, nothing can stop them. Think about how RIM survived the injunction order. There were so many congress people and senators using crackberry, that nothing could shut them down. And if someone were to create better home recorders with the new "old" technology, no amount of lobbying, donating or influencing will force them out... now if we could just get this technology into the hands of legislators fast enough...

What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by Kris_J · 2007-09-09 11:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

My current DVD player will play high definition Divx files from DVD or from a flash drive or hard drive plugged into its USB port. The compression rate is plenty good enough to shoe-horn a full-length HD movie onto a dual-layer DVD. Lots of existing devices and pretty much every PC on the planet made in the last five years should be able to play that.

Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by sl3xd · 2007-09-09 11:51 · Score: 2, Informative

DivX on DVD also can't make use of the higher-bitrate Dolby Digital Plus or DTS audio, and definitely couldn't use Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio. The audio alone for TrueHD or DTS Master takes up most (if not all) of a DVD-DL's 8.7 GB.

The new disc formats all use newer and better codecs for video compression than DivX, providing better quality at lower bitrates. DivX was great when the only game in town was MPEG-2. But as ISO MPEG-4 (on which DivX is based), and now H.264 have come on the scene, DivX is showing its age. Both H.264 and VC-1 beat out DivX in quality, all while using less space on disc.

Simply using a slightly better video codec than MPEG-2 on a regular DVD does not make a good high definition player.

HD DVD and Blu-ray both use better codecs (H.264 and VC-1) than DivX on DVD, and then they use higher bitrates for both audio and video. The audio & visual quality of a DVD-DL+DivX doesn't even compare.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by gjenoppbygdhjerteigj · 2007-09-09 14:18 · Score: 0

DivX on DVD also can't make use of the higher-bitrate Dolby Digital Plus or DTS audio, and definitely couldn't use Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio. The audio alone for TrueHD or DTS Master takes up most (if not all) of a DVD-DL's 8.7 GB. The new disc formats all use newer and better codecs for video compression than DivX, providing better quality at lower bitrates. DivX was great when the only game in town was MPEG-2. But as ISO MPEG-4 (on which DivX is based), and now H.264 have come on the scene, DivX is showing its age. "Both H.264 and VC-1 beat out DivX in quality, all while using less space on disc." Actually they don't beat MPEG-4 part 2 (ie. divx/xvid) quality wise in practical terms at high bitrates. So unless you're trying to jam the greatest amount of extras or episodes on a high capacity disc, MPEG-4 part 2 is more than sufficient. "Simply using a slightly better video codec than MPEG-2 on a regular DVD does not make a good high definition player." Actually, in practical terms, MPEG-2 looks brilliant in high def given enough bitrate. Nobody sane would notice the difference between MPEG-2 and H.264 if MPEG-2 was fed with enough bitrate. "HD DVD and Blu-ray both use better codecs (H.264 and VC-1) than DivX on DVD, and then they use higher bitrates for both audio and video. The audio & visual quality of a DVD-DL+DivX doesn't even compare." Doesn't even compare? Surely you're joking.
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 15:09 · Score: 0

Which player do you use? My DIVX DVD player can only do 720x480. Also HD divx is only 720P. I have been looking for HD-DVD players that support x264, but have not see any yet.
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by sl3xd · 2007-09-09 15:21 · Score: 1

" Actually, in practical terms, MPEG-2 looks brilliant in high def given enough bitrate. Nobody sane would notice the difference between MPEG-2 and H.264 if MPEG-2 was fed with enough bitrate.
So does uncompressed video. The entire point is that MPEG-2 isn't as efficient as DivX, H.264 or VC-1. But 1080 video does look good in MPEG-2. ATSC television (North America) uses MPEG-2 to deliver 1080i video. Many of the first Blu-ray discs were MPEG-2 as well.

Actually they don't beat MPEG-4 part 2 (ie. divx/xvid) quality wise in practical terms at high bitrates. So unless you're trying to jam the greatest amount of extras or episodes on a high capacity disc, MPEG-4 part 2 is more than sufficient. "Simply using a slightly better video codec than MPEG-2 on a regular DVD does not make a good high definition player.

Unfortunately these "high bitrates" are too high to store a feature-length movie in HD on a dual-layer DVD. We're talking over six times the pixel data; DivX, H.264, VC-1 all go a long way to squeeze the image down, but none of them are able to compress a 2 1/2 hour movie at 1920x1080 onto a dual-layer DVD -- not if you want things like multi-channel surround sound, or any of the other "bonus" features that are on the DVD release of the same movie.

Make no mistake: I'm not saying you shouldn't use DivX. But what I am saying is that DivX isn't as efficient at compressing video as H.264 or VC-1, especially at the lower bitrates that would be required to compress a 1920x1080 movie onto a dual-layer DVD.

Doesn't even compare? Surely you're joking.
Considering that I have multiple displays capable of 1080p, an HD DVD player (I haven't gotten around to getting a Blu-ray player yet), a DivX-compliant HDMI DVD player, and an excellent 5.1 surround system, the ability to record 1080i television broadcasts, multiple H.264 encoders, DivX, Xvid, generic MPEG-4, MPEG-2, VC-1, Theora, and others, I'm quite well equipped to make comparisons.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by Nazmun · 2007-09-09 15:38 · Score: 1

I call bullshit, the gp was correct in stating that divx is not nearly as good H.264. Infact comparing them is ludicrous. I haven't used divx in two years for encoding but I do come across the format often while consuming content (like blizzard's starcraft two trailer). From what i remember two years ago xvid has been a slight step up from divx. Even at 1.4 gigs (two cd's) dvd-rips didn't look particularily good contrary to lots of opinions where people somehow deemed it to be almost as good as dvd quality.

XVID still can't do full dvd quality at 1.4 gigs about H.264 has come ridiculously close for me. Also it is possible to get nearly two hour films in 720p easily in a 4.7 gb disc. Trying the same thing in divx as I had in the past was horrid just like blizzard's trailer (the divx compression issues are highly noticeable).

--
Hmmm... Pie...
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by evilviper · 2007-09-09 16:51 · Score: 1

But as ISO MPEG-4 (on which DivX is based), and now H.264 have come on the scene, DivX is showing its age.

You're either being incredibly pedantic, or ignorant.

DivX isn't just "based" on MPEG-4, IT IS A MPEG-4 CODEC. It was slightly incompatible with version 3 some ~8 years ago, but that's ancient history. Next you'll be complaining it's an illegal codec stolen from Microsoft...

Players that claim to be "DivX compatible" can play any "ISO MPEG-4" video just as well, though you may have to forge the fourcc, and perhaps force closed GOPS, but are otherwise entirely compatible.
Both H.264 and VC-1 beat out DivX in quality, all while using less space on disc.

VC-1 is said to be good codec, but I certainly don't see it in anything I've tried. It does appear to be lower quality than MPEG-4 codecs, at least at low to medium bitrates.
and then they use higher bitrates for both audio and video. The audio & visual quality of a DVD-DL+DivX doesn't even compare.

I certainly agree with you there. People are quick to say X can do HighDef, but of course with lossy codecs, it's all a question of visual quality... I can stream HighDef video over dialup modem if you'd like, it'll just be ridiculously low quality.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by evilviper · 2007-09-09 16:54 · Score: 1

Even at 1.4 gigs (two cd's) dvd-rips didn't look particularily good contrary to lots of opinions where people somehow deemed it to be almost as good as dvd quality.

Lossy codecs aren't just a black box that you throw video at, and get magic out the other end. You need someone who knows what the hell they're doing to get halfway decent quality out of it, at a reasonable bitrate.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by sl3xd · 2007-09-09 17:18 · Score: 1

You're either being incredibly pedantic, or ignorant.

Pedantic. Guilty as charged. DivX also tends to use AVI instead of the 'standard' MPEG-4 container. I'm not implying that DivX can't use an MPEG-4 container; it's just that most DivX movies are in an AVI container.

As for the illegal codec stolen from Microsoft... if that were true, than DivX would have been sued into oblivion already.

VC-1 is said to be good codec, but I certainly don't see it in anything I've tried. It does appear to be lower quality than MPEG-4 codecs, at least at low to medium bitrates.

VC-1 is used in most HD DVDs, and many BD's (especially if it's from Warner). But that's at a fairly high bitrate. A big design goal of VC-1 was to be about as good at compressing as H.264, but requiring less processing power to decode.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by evilviper · 2007-09-09 18:34 · Score: 1

Pedantic. Guilty as charged.

Fair enough.
As for the illegal codec stolen from Microsoft... if that were true, than DivX would have been sued into oblivion already.

I was assuming you were going on information from the old Divx 3 days, when it was a hex-edited MSMPEG4 DLLs. Plenty of info in Wikipedia about it if you're interested.
A big design goal of VC-1 was to be about as good at compressing as H.264, but requiring less processing power to decode.

No doubt the goal was even more ambitious, and since WMV9/VC-1 predates h.264 by a good margin, it would be hard to have any such goal... Never the less, just because someone had a goal doesn't mean they succeeded.

I test with low/medium bitrates because there the difference between codecs is immediately apparent. I haven't yet seen a codec that does great at low bitrates while doing terrible at high, nor the inverse, so I sincerely doubt VC-1 is all that good... Much better than MPEG-2 no doubt, but probably used just to avoid h.264 licensing fees.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by Ilgaz · 2007-09-09 22:11 · Score: 1

I have problems with DivX management. Yes those suits.

Pasting from DivX for Mac (note,even Mac) EULA.

"NO TRANSCODING: You are prohibited from using the Software with software or hardware products whose purpose is to "transcode" or convert DivX video or DivX Media Format content into an alternate format." --> You know what it means

"PRIVACY POLICY: During the installation process and through use of the software covered hereunder, we may collect non-personally identifiable information, as well as personally-identifiable information, all as set forth in our Privacy Policy, available at http://www.divx.com/legal/privacy.php; please read it. " --> Actually does, sends data to some .cc domain via pingie.exe executable OS X app.
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by Lt.Loud · 2007-09-10 01:44 · Score: 1

That's spot on. I dont have much insight in the format wars, but it seems to me that a lot of people bark at the wrong tree. Why? Data storage aside, the new HD formats WILL change the home entertaiment industry and the way people enjoy multimedia content. Those who care enough to buy suitable equipment to faitfully reproduce the content (the way directors/bands/producers intented it to be seen/heard) couldnt care less for a divx encoded movie accompanied with a 128kbs stereo mp3 stream. Why the hell would i buy a movie and then watch it on my laptop, or [flame]bitch when i cant rip it to my home media server[/flame]. Its like making your coffee with 1/10 of a spoon as opposed to 2 full spoons.
So, the more players (as in goalkeeper) in the format wars the better. Someday it will end and we'll all use whatever proves best (more like when movie companies/record labels push their entire catalogs on it). And i hope that in the future bands will mix their music in surround.
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by sl3xd · 2007-09-10 04:06 · Score: 1

[VC-1 is] Much better than MPEG-2 no doubt, but probably used just to avoid h.264 licensing fees.

Depends on who you are, of course. If you're not Microsoft, then the licensing terms are pretty similar either way. Both H.264 and VC-1 licensing are handled through the MPEG-LA. There are some-odd 16 patent holders in the VC-1 patent pool, and 24 in H.264's, so there's some cross-company licensing either way, and I'd be willing to bet there are patents used in both codecs.

--
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by evilviper · 2007-09-10 05:21 · Score: 1

If you're not Microsoft, then the licensing terms are pretty similar either way.

You're quite correct. In fact VC-1 has a higher cap on maximum license fees than h.264. That certainly wasn't the situation before standardization.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? by evilviper · 2007-09-10 05:24 · Score: 1

I wouldn't trust the Divx installer either, but it's just another MPEG-4 codec, and not nearly the best of the bunch. Xvid and FMP4/Lavc are both freely available, and the license fees are the same whichever implementation you use.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

So, for $150... by Asterra · 2007-09-09 11:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait

So, for $150, I guess we can be assured that the hardware does essentially nothing besides play videos. No PIP, no exotic menus.. heck, probably no TrueHD or DTS-HD, for that matter. And, probably more to the point.. no movies.

If people are not caring for this new format now, they'll really stop caring when the third gen HD-DVD players drive the second gen prices to the same point as this new contender.

Go, Mel Gibson.

Targetting Bollywood might be a winner by Michael+Woodhams · 2007-09-09 11:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Coming late to the game, they need to establish a 'home ground', a niche that they can dominate and then grow out from. India could be that home ground.

A fine feature would be if it were possible to play the new HD VMD disks at DVD resolution on standard DVD players. Given they use the same lasers, it might be that DVD players will see one particular layer, on which the DVD data could be stored. This again would help greatly to break into the market.

However, they don't mention such a feature, and I'd hope they'd have thought about it, so probably it is technically infeasible.

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.

Re:Targetting Bollywood might be a winner by evilviper · 2007-09-09 16:42 · Score: 1

A fine feature would be if it were possible to play the new HD VMD disks at DVD resolution on standard DVD players.

That wouldn't be a "fine feature" at all, that would be an incredible waste of space.

Did anyone say DVDs need to play in VCD players? A "fine feature" needed to get a foothold and catch on?

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Targetting Bollywood might be a winner by Michael+Woodhams · 2007-09-09 17:02 · Score: 1

Stereo records played on mono turntables. Colour TV broadcasts displayed on B&W sets. Such compatibility is good, so long as you don't pay too much for it, hobbling the new format to the needs of the old.

So long as the manufacturing price of disks is low, this would allow DVD/VMD disks to be sold for the same price as a DVD. Then when you're buying DVD/VMD disks to play in your DVD player, you can later upgrade to a VMD player and instantly have a collection of HD content. This would appeal to consumers and the VMD drive manufacturers. The content sellers might want to charge more for HD, which could sink the proposition. (It relies on DVD/VMD combo disks costing the same as plain DVD.)

You lose about 10% of the disk capacity for DVD data which isn't used by the VMD playback. You might not even lose that 10% - if your data format is clever enough, you can use that 10% within the VMD playback rather than redundantly repeating it in the non-VMD data. I'm sure this is possible, but I'm not sure it is computationally feasible.

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Re:Targetting Bollywood might be a winner by evilviper · 2007-09-09 18:28 · Score: 1

You might not even lose that 10% - if your data format is clever enough, you can use that 10% within the VMD playback rather than redundantly repeating it in the non-VMD data. I'm sure this is possible, but I'm not sure it is computationally feasible.

You may be sure, but you're still wrong.

I explained some of the problems to someone else here who had a similar idea a short time ago: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=230181&cid=186 97119

What's more, you are almost certainly going to lose more than 10% of the storage space for it... Not that 10% would be acceptable to begin with.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Targetting Bollywood might be a winner by Michael+Woodhams · 2007-09-09 19:12 · Score: 1

Note that I said "if your data format is clever enough". Evidently you know enough to say that the current formats are not clever enough. I'm happy to accept the current situation as falling into "not feasible" (at present.) From an information-theory point of view, it must be possible to use the information in the DVD data to reduce the storage requirement for the rest.

These are 40Gb disks, and a DVD is just under 4Gb, hence the 10% figure. Whether this is acceptable will differ according to who you are.

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Re:Targetting Bollywood might be a winner by evilviper · 2007-09-09 19:35 · Score: 1

Note that I said "if your data format is clever enough". Evidently you know enough to say that the current formats are not clever enough.

It is pretty much inherent in any situation where you're trying to provide backwards-compatibility, that the older codec is going to be less efficient than the new. So, even in the ideal case, while you might be able to technically "use" that wasted "10%," the new (lossless) codec could instead redundantly store that same data again itself, in much less than 10% of the disc space. And yes, any small gain you get would be extremely computationally intensive, computations that could probably be put to better use by adding some more intensive video compression methods to the new codec instead.

When you get to lossy codecs, which is the situation now and into the foreseeable future, it gets immediately untenable, requiring more "space" to try and use the video stored by the old codec, than just duplicating that effort, which is the scenario I described. Any changes at all to the perceptual encoding methods between the old and new codecs, and it's really even theoretically unusable.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Targetting Bollywood might be a winner by evilviper · 2007-09-09 20:02 · Score: 1

These are 40Gb disks, and a DVD is just under 4Gb, hence the 10% figure. Whether this is acceptable will differ according to who you are.

Hate to post twice, but I neglected capacity, and thought I should explain this one a bit.

First, it's incredibly rare to see a single layer DVD sold commercially. They're almost always dual layer (~9GB) discs with the movie itself taking up 3/4ths of that and the extras taking the rest. So either you're taking up at least 20% of the new disc, or you're making the DVD version much lower quality than a normal DVD, which certainly wasn't a trade off made with the switch to color TV or stereo records.

And while it's only 20% if you purely compare GBs, the new format obviously isn't exactly like the old one. Trying to mimic an old format will require much more on-disc real estate than the equivalent amount of (GBs of...) space for the new format.

BluRay and HD-DVD at least had the potential to add a DVD layer, without losing any capacity, thanks to the different colored lasers (which this format does not) but even that didn't work out well thanks to the realities (rather than pure theory) of optical materials.

My point in all this is just that disc compatibility is very hard problem, and backwards compatibility of (new) players should be more than enough to make everyone happy. Even in the ideal case, the discs would have to cost a non-trivial amount more money, and the studios will have to work much harder to put out a highdef version also for no extra money, and so, it's very likely to never take off. Consumers that want the regular version will want to pay a few dollars less. Consumers that want a high definition version aren't going to want to pay a few dollars more for a disc with a lowdef copy they won't use, and 10%-20% lower video quality than the competition, when quality is what highdef is all about. Every percent you lower the bit rate is a few less stars in the sky (and other visual features) in your movie. HD is not like DVDs, where there's more space than they really need.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant

VC1 is supported by Blu-ray by Hobart · 2007-09-09 11:44 · Score: 1

What do you mean "The format wars mean more sales of VC-1"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluray#Codecs

Blu-ray *supports* VC1.

--
o/~ Join us now and share the software ...

Re:VC1 is supported by Blu-ray by DrXym · 2007-09-09 19:44 · Score: 1

Did you miss the second part? If HD DVD and Blu Ray beat each other to a bloody pulp it allows MS to announce their DLC infrastructure with great fanfare. The "confusion" of the HD format war will make DLC that much more attractive, even if MS were responsible for much of the confusion themselves. Naturally VC-1 will play a central part in this DLC infrastructure. And in the meantime they can buy industry support for VC-1 from Toshiba and studios in just the way they have been doing.
I doubt studios would touch the proprietary format with a 10ft bargepole if they hadn't been given monetary incentives to do so. It's probably an excellent codec, but so is H264.

PS3 is low-end? by perdue · 2007-09-09 11:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

for around $150 ... a quarter the cost of a low-end Blu-ray.

If it was intentional flamebait, no one seems to have taken it. Good on y'all.

It all comes down to $$$ by D.A.+Zollinger · 2007-09-09 12:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

I am of the impression that uninformed consumers do not concern themselves with technical details, and are far more motivated by cost. I believe this is why VHS won out over Beta, and why HD VMD will destroy both Blu-ray and HD DVD formats.

While movie studios will want DRM on their disks, ultimately they desire sales, and will go with whatever format dominates the marketplace, no matter how much or little DRM is in place. However, as the article mentions that the $150 player comes with HDMI, I suspect they have comparable DRM to the other HD competitors.

--
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...

Re:It all comes down to $$$ by zakezuke · 2007-09-09 16:15 · Score: 1

I am of the impression that uninformed consumers do not concern themselves with technical details, and are far more motivated by cost. I believe this is why VHS won out over Beta, and why HD VMD will destroy both Blu-ray and HD DVD formats. Was it cost or availability of media?

When I was a kid, my folks got their first VCR circa 1985/1986. I remember it was a Toshiba front loader. It was VHS. It was VHS as the rental store offered VHS tapes.

--
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Re:It all comes down to $$$ by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 22:51 · Score: 0

While movie studios will want DRM on their disks, ultimately they desire sales, and will go with whatever format dominates the marketplace ...

But why would a format dominate the marketplace in the first place if there is no content available for it?

Might sell in Norther Virginia by Secrity · 2007-09-09 12:22 · Score: 1

The large number of Bollywood titles might mean that there will be a good sized market in Northern Virgina.

MOD PARENT FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 12:23 · Score: 0

n/t

Criterion Collection. by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 12:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'll move to a high-def format as soon Criterion Collection moves to a high-def format. As it stands now, I couldn't care less about watching cars explode in 1080p.

I'm still betting Blu-Ray by DumbSwede · 2007-09-09 12:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

As someone that just purchased a PS3 for $350 (after $150 rebate) with free shipping and 8 free movies I'm not too worried about this development. In fact I rather welcome it as HD-DVD and VDM will battle to the death for the low end and most likely neither will survive.

If worst comes to worse I still have a great game machine and a Linux computer.

I must confess one bit of annoyance with Toshiba and the HD-DVD camp; I bought my PS3 primarily as an HD movie player, but the HD-DVD camp screams day and night that only standalone players count (except when they want to include the XBox 360 addon). Blu-Ray may not win, but it certainly has the largest installed base at 6 million plus; it is much less likely to just stumble and fail completely as HD-DVD was in danger of doing until the Paramount defection (strange doings that).

It will be a delicious irony to hear HD-DVD proponents now claiming low-price is not the biggest determining factor in who wins.

--
Letter To Iran

Re:I'm still betting Blu-Ray by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 14:55 · Score: 0

OK that's great for you, you like your PS3 as a movie player but it's pretty well accepted that Blu-Ray on the PS3 is a tacked on feature.
Here is why; It makes you look like a cheap bastard, doesn't fit in a standard space in a TV cabinet, no front display, you have to buy a remote and if it did fit in your TV cabinet runs too hot to be closed in. Now I am only trying to point out that the PS3 blu-ray player is missing some pretty important mass market appeal, so you can understand why most people will not buy it as a stand alone player.
Re:I'm still betting Blu-Ray by vuffi_raa · 2007-09-09 19:32 · Score: 1

in the end I think that the (sony ms)format war will end like the dvd+ and dvd- war- players will be compatible to both and no one will care what the format is because the player will play both- no one wants 2 players and no one wants a restricted library
Re:I'm still betting Blu-Ray by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-10 00:43 · Score: 0

Yadda yadday, wah wah, oh boohoo I'm still upset my precious BD lost Paramount.
Re:I'm still betting Blu-Ray by iainl · 2007-09-11 22:54 · Score: 1

On the other hand, the PS3 gives a better picture than many standalone Blu-Ray players and has the capability to be upgraded to version 1.1 of the format when that finalises at the end of October, unlike just about every standalone currently out there. Have you not noticed the number of 1.0 players being rushed out in October to save a few bucks?

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"

Who cares? by DogDude · 2007-09-09 13:06 · Score: 1

In all seriousness... who cares? We'll all be buying multi-format drives anyway. The only people this effects are the early adopters. Case in point: I don't care if I use CD-R or CD+R or DVD-R or DVD+R disks. Remember that big controversy, everybody? Where is that controversy today? Exactly. Yawn.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re:Who cares? by B_un1t · 2007-09-09 17:03 · Score: 1

Ahh yes, CD+R...huh?
Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-10 03:36 · Score: 0

Actually, my 1.5 years old Dell Laptop will not read DVD+R.

I had a lot of trouble when I wanted to try out Sabayon which ships their main version on DVD.

Not another one! by vladsinger · 2007-09-09 13:35 · Score: 1

Sheesh, talk about muddying the waters

CH-DVD?!? by certain+death · 2007-09-09 13:50 · Score: 0

Fourth format for sure, but it is either made with shoddy magnets, or contains lead paint.

--
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus

for god's sakes man! by Orthuberra · 2007-09-09 14:16 · Score: 1

Four formats now? And you know what, in the end their will just be the all-in-one player for CD/DVD/HD-DVD/Blu Ray/HD-VMD/CH-DVD/etc. And the thousands of man-years of effort developing the winning product will go to waste having tried to re-invent the wheel for the 6 or 7th time. And some crazy cracker will break their DRM features one-by-one, piracy will run rampant, and all the engineering effort will have been a waste anyways.

I'll just be waiting for ... by Skapare · 2007-09-09 14:25 · Score: 1

... the UV-ray players with 320 GB capacity ... or the X-ray players with 2 TB capacity. Oh wait. Even those will have DRM (Destroys Retail Movies, Damned Revenue Mongrels, Dirty Raunchy Managers, Disk Rot Method, and Distributing Rootkits Mainly). Forget it. Nevermind.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars

This isn't that big of deal. by RattFink · 2007-09-09 14:37 · Score: 1

I really doubt that the prices of payers has dropped this much since the person wrote the headline but HD-DVD players on the low end start at just over $200. More then likely by the time you are likely to see one of these in a store the Christmas and post Christmas price drops will likely push things within spitting distance of the price point if not beat it. There is absolutely nothing in these players holding them up to the current price points that ASIC, specialized processors and further integration will bring down considerably.

--
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan

Wrong focus. by Molochi · 2007-09-09 14:45 · Score: 1

It doesn't need to be HD porn, just 30GB of SD Porn. There's your winner.

--
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"

Re:Wrong focus. by aliquis · 2007-09-10 03:41 · Score: 1

lol, yeah, I guess more porn works aswell.

Thought I think I would go for higher quality anyway, you can always get more content anyway :D

MS Vapor, Blu-Ray already won by gig · 2007-09-09 15:06 · Score: 0, Troll

This is just a cheaper clone of HD DVD, it still has all the same problems that make it very unattractive to content creators. For example, a per disc license fee paid to Microsoft.

Blu-Ray is way ahead of HD DVD, orders of magnitude, right now. Microsoft is the only one still truly behind HD DVD.

Re:MS Vapor, Blu-Ray already won by DaveCBio · 2007-09-10 01:31 · Score: 1

Saying BR is ahead of HD-DVD right now is like saying that some indie band outsold another by orders of magnitude (which is BS) and comparing that to Justin Timberlake (DVD). Seriously, the HD formats sell so little in comparison to DVD it's not making much difference in the retail space. This Xmas I think there will be a marked increase in sales, but DVD will still own that market and will continue to for many years to come. Also, you are wrong when you say MS is the only HD-DVD supporter. Check your facts, or did you also miss the recent Paramount and Dreamworks announcements?
Re:MS Vapor, Blu-Ray already won by MLease · 2007-09-10 01:58 · Score: 1

Check your facts You must be new here.

-Mike

--
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
Re:MS Vapor, Blu-Ray already won by DaveCBio · 2007-09-10 02:20 · Score: 1

Right, I forgot. M$ $ucks, etc. and so forth.

Target Consumer by Molochi · 2007-09-09 15:10 · Score: 2, Funny

Finally we have the hardware that grand parents will buy for the kids that wanted an HD player.

--
"The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"

Been there, done that... by Count+Sessine · 2007-09-09 15:18 · Score: 1

Sounds like EVD, only with VC1 rather than VP6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Versatile_Di sc

What they can do to succeed by mendred · 2007-09-09 15:42 · Score: 1

If they really introduce the player at $150 as they claim and if the blank media is also available cheaply, then we will see a very strong contender to replace the DVD players/drives. The article mentions that it holds 30 GB single side. Dual layer discs should be able to hold 60 GB then.. Also another poster mentioned that it is probable that existing DVD player technology can be adapted to play this new disc since it uses the red laser..i am guessing that this is probably what has been done which is why it is so cheap compared to other comparitive technology. Heres hoping the movie companies don't screw up. In any case, it would be an excellent cheap backup medium for home users. As a price conscious guy i would definitely buy one, if the above conditions are met..and like another poster said even if this is not available commericially nothing prevents me from getting legal HD content from the net and writing it into the disc. I hope that the movie companies realise that content not the media would be the defining factor.

I'm unconvinced by solar_blitz · 2007-09-09 15:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

As far as I'm concerned, this new DVD format is nothing but vaporware until it's actually released. And even then, it could still go the way of the DIVX format. It seems like the Phantom of DVD players to me: cheap, using off-the-shelf technology, but able to do tons of really neat stuff. Remember, folks, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Re:I'm unconvinced by RAMMS+EIN · 2007-09-09 17:28 · Score: 1

``And even then, it could still go the way of the DIVX format.''

You mean, take the piracy scene by storm and become so successful that it eventually gets included in hardware players, due to popular demand?

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:I'm unconvinced by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 19:10 · Score: 0

give em a break, he's still watching pirated movies on youtube....

hello stage6.divx.com
Re:I'm unconvinced by bdleonard · 2007-09-10 02:11 · Score: 1

No that's "DivX". I believe this was a reference to the Circuit City / Hollywood Law firm abortion known as DIVX.
The early versions of DivX known as "DivX ;-)" were mocking this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIVX
Re:I'm unconvinced by conigs · 2007-09-10 02:12 · Score: 1

GP is probably referring to DIVX (Digital Video Express), not DivX

--
Slashdot: where repeating an article in a post is "+5 Insightful"
Re:I'm unconvinced by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-10 07:21 · Score: 0

Am I missing something or is noone bothered by the technical details of this technology? If they are using red lasers for a capacity of 30 GB per layer, the track density has to be 6 times larger than regular DVD *and* either the disc has to spin accordingly faster to reach the quoted bitrates or the player (and any home burner) has to use multiple heads to read multiple tracks in parallel (which pretty much precludes home burners). This at least means a much more precise optical tracking mechanism and a new chipset, at worst a multihead assembly (Kenwood tried this on CD and failed miserably), so not quite the same as existing tech, although it may be cheaper if you can keep using standard red lasers.

Or, -gasp- are the quoted bitrates/capacities marketspeak for original stream size/rate and are we really talking about a plain old DVD with high compression?

Technical details aside, someone finally got the bright idea of combining existing DVD technology with an MPEG4 (layer 10, or therabouts) class codec. Together with Bollywood this may actually have a chance at least in the Asian markets. It certainly looks better than a Chinese HDDVD format with extra DRM. Given success there and lack of progress on the blue laser war front, Hollywood too may eventually decide it's a good idea to back this instead.

Why are we even arguing about this? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-09 16:10 · Score: 0

This is all pointless. Unless we are talking about data storage, the PHYSICAL medium, wont last another decade. Digital distribution, increasingly cheaper magnetic storage, and the fact that hollywood is putting out such CRAP that noone wants to go see it in a theatre anymore and its pushing dvd release and other direct distribution methods come SOONER AND SOONER, all mean that we wont NEED the physical media much longer.

That's only in the USA by Joce640k · 2007-09-09 16:37 · Score: 1

Outside the USA this will be a massive hit.

It may be a massive hit in the USA if a writeable version becomes available - what better way to pirate Blu-HD movies?

Price is everything to consumers. It might catch up yet....

--
No sig today...

Call me frugal by DumbSwede · 2007-09-09 16:48 · Score: 1

I have no trouble being called cheap, but prefer frugal. I guess I'm cheap to buy a PS3, but HD-DVD keeps bragging it is the cheapest. Wouldn't buying HD-DVD make me look cheap?

Since you can play movies with the untethered Bluetooth controler you already have a remote.

I don't plan on keeping the PS3 cooped up in a cabinet, but if I did it would last MUCH longer than an XBox 360 with its heat related problems.

Linux doesn't have mass market appeal yet, but being able to use it for Linux is also a plus.

I had seen PS3s in stores behind windows, but was surprised how sturdy and elegant mine seemed once I took it out of the box. The finish looks and feels like ebony. I'm very proud to have this on the AV stand, it definitely doesn't look cheap or toy-like. The only downside is the finish does show fingerprints easily, so you do have to wipe it off every so often to keep it looking nice.

--
Letter To Iran

Why? by Hitchcock_Blonde · 2007-09-09 21:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why are we still buying discs? I, for one, will not get sucked into yet another "hard" media format. All the time and energy wasted on developing these dead-end formats should be put into making the content available online quickly and easily.

--
Karma Schmarma

Re:Why? by DaveCBio · 2007-09-10 01:24 · Score: 1

Because not everyone has high speed access, there are no real DVD style menus other than Divx for most media formats, not everyone has a PC hooked up to their TV, a media box to record/playback movies from a hard drive is still more expensive than a simple disc player and lastly some people still want a piece of physical merch when they buy a movie.
Re:Why? by thepontiff327 · 2007-09-10 03:29 · Score: 0

And regular DVD should be good enough for those types. I would say a majority of Slashdotters don't/shouldn't care about which format will win as we are currently using shady means to download hidef movies until these morons wise up in Hollywood and offer a cheap, legal alternative.

Do read this. by Fross · 2007-09-09 23:46 · Score: 1

Wall of text crits you for 5126 damage.
You die.

Seriously, a good read, thank you.

Re:Do read this. by Divebus · 2007-09-10 03:40 · Score: 1

Wow. Thanx for the props.

--

Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.

China has chosen a side by DaveCBio · 2007-09-10 01:56 · Score: 1

Looks like China has thrown i's weight behind HD DVD - http://www.n4g.com/industrynews/News-66305.aspx

This could be bad for Blu-Ray. A third format is not needed and I don't see why anyone would put money into it now that cheap HD-DVD will be coming.

Re:China has chosen a side by DaveCBio · 2007-09-10 06:34 · Score: 1

Also, BR titles are available on HD-DVD in other countries and since most are region free it's all gravy - http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/blu-rays-dirty-little-secret

A third contender. by alienzed · 2007-09-10 02:37 · Score: 1

It's starting to get crowded in here.

--
Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!

MPEG2? by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-10 02:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

Using MPEG2 is a bit of a waste. If H264 was used, the same quality HD would fit on DVD9.

Perhaps the H264 addition will be Very Versatile Media Disc.

Or VVMD, or WMD for short.

Anyone remembers V2000 ? by nonos · 2007-09-10 03:40 · Score: 1

HD VMD is to Bluray and HDDVD what V2000 is to VHS and Beatmax

Already been done! by Anonymous Coward · 2007-09-10 05:25 · Score: 0

Just google around for Sanyo's V-Cord and V-Cord II systems from the mid 70's, with there "8-Track like" cartridges.

Horse, then cart. by hypnagogue · 2007-09-10 05:42 · Score: 1

I suppose the longer they prolong the war, the more time MS has to build out download standards which will focus favourably on VC-1.

Yes, they are deliberately crashing HD-DVD and BD into eachother -- but not to the benefit of VC-1. Ubiquitous VC-1 isn't their goal, it's just one of the strategies they've tried. The goal is to put MS in de facto control of media distribution. That happens through HD-IPTV -- and having tasted that soup, the consumer doesn't care what codec they use.

The competition isn't HD-DVD or BD, it's YouTube. The era of the polycarbonate-encrusted bit is over.

--
Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.

Does anybody remember by greywire · 2007-09-10 06:44 · Score: 1

.. double density CDs?

This sounds like the same sort of thing.

And we all know how well that worked out..

--
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.

Nobody ever said those things! by frieko · 2007-09-10 08:14 · Score: 1

Damn, do some research before you post (or worse yet, mod up) those urban legend quotes!!

It's a trap. Read-only format by aristotle-dude · 2007-09-10 15:32 · Score: 1

I know some of you don't like Sony because of the actions of their Sony BMG record label but Blu-ray (developed by Sony in partnership with Panasonic) is not just a read only format. There is single (25 GB) and dual layer (50GB) BD-R (write once) and BD-RE (Write erase) media and burners are already available as internal and external models from several brands already at speeds up to 3X I believe. HD DVD is stuck at 15 GB single layer burners at 1X speed and only in Toshiba laptops at the moment which effectively makes it read only for most people.

I doubt this 4 layer format will be cheap or write-able by consumers any time soon.

Hitachi is about to release two Blu-ray camcorders within a month. There are no plans for any standalone HD DVD recorders or camcorders.

--
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.

PQ DVD to Zune Converter by realgeorge39 · 2007-09-11 18:09 · Score: 1

PQ DVD to Zune Converter provides a One-Click, All-In-One solution to convert DVD to Zune Video.Super fast DVD conversion speed. Take up the very few system resources. zuneconverter.net/dvd-to-zune

Bottom Line is content. Period. by nobaloney · 2007-09-14 12:25 · Score: 1

So after all the shouting is done and over with are you going to buy a fancy new player without any content or any way to make any?

Selling this box in India may be the way to go, but selling it here is going to require agreements with the studios.

I can hardly wait until next month.

Then we'll see if this rumor turns into a selling product I'd buy.

Slashdot Mirror

HD VMD Shows Up Late For the Format War

280 comments