HD VMD Shows Up Late For the Format War

Fishead writes "As the fight heats up between HD DVD and Blu-ray, and as consumers seem to care less and less, a new contender has entered the fray. Next month, New Medium Enterprises will be selling a 1080p player through Amazon and stores such as Radio Shack and Costco for around $150 — half what the cheapest HD DVD player costs, and a quarter the cost of a low-end Blu-ray. The difference this new HD VMD (Versatile Multilayer Disc) format brings is that the discs are created with the same (cheap) red laser as DVDs. From the article: 'HD VMD discs, which hold up to 30GB on a single side, are encoded with a maximum bit rate of 40 megabits per second... between HD DVD's 36 Mpbs and Blu-ray's 48 Mbps. 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.'"

Comments

Fourth

[The Iso]

Fourth contender.

Waste of time

[DrXym]

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

[Divebus]

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

Re:Waste of time

[gbutler69]

Learn to be more tolerant Jackass!

Agreed.

[crhylove]

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.

Re:What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD?

[sl3xd]

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.

Re:I don't care about HD Video...

[Kjella]

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...