Your concern about CRT is incorrect at this point. All released HD DVD and Blu-ray titles don't use the analog downrez techology ICT (Image Contraint Token). Most of the studios have indicated they don't have any short-term plans to do so, either.
Also, it doesn't downrez to 640x480. It goes to 960x540, which is quite a bit more pixels.
Two big differences between DVD > HD DVD v. CD > SACD/DVD-A. First, people WATCH movies in a way they rarely listen to music. J6P will sit in a couch and watch something for two hours, but isn't going to sit in that couch just listening to a few albums back to back.
Also, Audio CD's got a lot of information - most consumers are limited by amp/speaker issues, not the source media. There's a much bigger gap between a DVD and what can be seen compared to Audio CD and what can be heard.
HD DVD is a huge jump from DVD - 6x the pixels, and with a higher average per pixel quality due to VC-1. That's a bigger jump than from VCD to DVD. Now, it'll take a little while for consumers to get used to what video should look like (HD owners are going to have to push their chairs in closer, since DVD needed a pretty high minumum distance before the scaling artifacts were seen). After spending most of my time working with HD the last year or so, I find even the best DVD with the best upconversion distractingly soft on a good display.
As long as you have component analog or better, you'll get the full resolution with your display. While there was a lot of concern about copy protection reducing resolution out of the analog outputs, there was a lot of consumer pushback on that, and there aren't any discs that use that mode.
Well, the Divx HD profile is 1280x720 and only 5.1 audio at best. Both advanced formats are 1920x1080, and support up to lossless 7.1 96KHz 24-bit audio. And I've never seen a Divx HD disc without palpable artifacts, while the standard for VC-1 encoded HD DVD is transparency to the D5 HD master.
HD DVD is at least as much of a jump from Divx HD as Divx HD was from DVD.
Well the two formats use the same codecs, which is a bunch of the royalties. Really, the biggest difference is in the OPU (the Blu-ray one is more expensive). Making a Blu-ray player hybrid is pretty cheap, so we may see a lot of HD DVD only players, and some hybrid Blu-ray/HD DVD players.
Well, in theory Blu-ray is 60% larger, because a HD DVD layer is 15 GB and a Blu-ray is 25. However, HD DVD dual-layer production is trivial (most titles in stores today are DL), but for Blu-ray, it's still theoretical. Word from replicators is they've still got a 70% failure rate making single-layer Blu-ray discs, and DL isn't mature enough for anyone to have gone on record for yield or open-market pricing.
At this point, HD DVD titles on the market are: 30 GB VC-1 compression (roughly 2x more efficient than MPEG-2) Dolby Digital Plus audio
While the first Blu-ray titles (which haven't even launched yet) will be: 25 GB MPEG-2 compression Uncompressed audio
Combine lower capacity with lower compression efficiency, either the discs aren't going to look as good as what HD DVD is already providing, or they're going to have to leave content off.
But as a busy guy with three small children, searching out the good stuff via those other means just isn't worth the time and attention involved. That was my problem with Napster back in the day - just too darn much of a pain in the butt to get a full album, well encoded, with correct metadata. Better to spend that time to write an article, get a check, and just buy the CDs. The scarcity isn't music. It's the music I wan't, in high enough quality that it doesn't bug me, with the right metadata, with a pricing model that doesn't penalize me for experimentation.
$15/month isn't even 10% of our monthly entertainment budget around here, but it's sure more than 10% fo my entertainment value right now.
10 years ago, I had a $200/month used CD habit. URGE gives me the same shopping experience for a lot less money and shelf space, and naked (it's a muggy night here in Portland...).
Oh, FYI, WMP does do lyrics (look in the Options), although I haven't seen much yet with that data populated.
I work for Microsoft (but not on Windows Media Player), so I got an early trial of the product, and have been using it for about a month now.
I didn't really get it when it was first pitched, but the hybrid subscription/paid model works great. In the years I was using iTunes, I never really did much purchasing of tracks, since it seemed ephemeral, and not really any cheaper than buying on physical media.
With URGE, I pay my flat fee, and can try ANYTHING - it isn't $9.99 ever time I want to give an album a spin to see whether or not I like it beyond 30 second previews. I can play it on any of three different PCs, and can even transfer songs to my Treo to listen to on the plane, or stream them live to my Xbox 360 for an entertainment experience. And if I like something, I can just buy it just like iTunes and burn it to CD or whatever.
As for pricing, $15/month for as much new stuff as I want to listen to? I've already got 20 new albums in rotation, stuff I likely wouldn't have bought before but found via the recommendation system, and really enjoy (I'm embarassingly obsessed with the Arctic Monkeys now). Ast $15/month, the amount I would have paid buying that music would have covered the fee for years.
A couple of cool little features: A good selection of music videos, linked to the songs. After setting up a new machine on your account, you can tell it to sync up to EVERYTHING you have on your other machines. Even though there are the three recommended machines, any PlaysForSure device seems to work fine, like my Treo 700w phone, and an ancient Creative MuVo I had laying around.
Anyway, I've been really happy with it, and after years of trying to get a good home-wide music experience out of iTunes, it's already working a lot better for me, in large part to support by a much wider selection of accesory vendors.
That said, the whole BD-ROM physical format is also something of an open question. Dual-layer replication isn't supported by commerical replicators, and even single-layer is having terrible yields. It seems like the recordible format didn't translate that well the ROM format.
Sony's had a rewritible media device in Japan for a while, but those devices aren't compatible with BD movies (they're meant for MPEG-2 transport stream archiving). There aren't any BD movie players for sale, anywhere.
AirPort Express lets you play audio out of your iTunes station remotely, but it's not a remote device. You need to have one computer driving one Express per audio device. Last I checked, you couldn't even get it to play the same audio on the computer and the Express at the same time - one or the other.
I can't really comment on why particular titles are chosen or not. I work with the compressionists, who just get handed a D5 and are told "make it look perfect."
HD is a bigger quality leap than laserdisc to DVD, or even VHS to DVD. We're talking 6.5x as many pixels, with a better average pixel than with DVD to boot.
I spent much of last week looking at the compressed VC-1 masters for the HD DVD launch titles, and it's astounding how much more detail there is compared to the DVD, so many little details you never would have noticed on a DVD.
The triple-layer HD DVD isn't part of the movie spec, so we won't see it used for prerecorded titles.
The >2 layer BD discs are also not part of the movie spec, so won't be used for those either. Also, the two-layer BD format isn't yet practical for mass manufacture. BD launch titles will be single-layer 25 GB discs. Dual-layer HD DVD is working fine, and will exist in launch titles.
Reach around. You'll find it's a paperclip in your back, not a knife.
If you have a 4-5 year old set, it's probalby a 720p display, or a 1080i CRT.
If you have a disc that uses analog downrez (ICT), your image will get scaled down to 960x540 before being scaled up for output. Still more image data than DVD (720x480), with every pixel perfect (since each is nicely scaled down from 4 soure pixels). For a set of your vintage, you probably won't miss much with ICT.
Also, ICT is optional on a per title basis. Several studios have said they aren't going to use it at all. And there is a labeling requirement - you can just avoid buying discs that use it.
So, if you want to boycott, boycott ICT discs. Tell the studios you won't buy any discs that use it. But if you love HD, don't deprive yourself of the first good HD format for consumers! HD DVD stuff looks great, completely devoid of the ugly MPEG-2 blocking artifacts seen in off-air or cable HDTV.
Again, analog works just fine out of the players. The only problem would be if you played a disc that uses ICT. However
Several studios have announced they won't be using it. The ones that are can decide on a title by title basis
The discs that use it will be clearly labeled, so you can avoid them.
Even if you have a disc with ICT, it just scales the video down to 960x540 and up again before outputting. If you have an analog-only HDTV, you likely won't really notice that big of a difference quality wise (it's probably either a CRT, or a 720p display).
A good scaling algorithm can keep from introducing obvious artifacts, like blocks, when increasing resolution. But it can't make up data that wasn't there in the first place. I've been looking at what HD DVD can do, and the palpable detail is far, far beyond what the best upsampling DVD players can pull off.
Of course, the HD DVD standard supports hybrid discs, where it'll play in SD in a DVD player and in HD on a HD DVD player. So consumers can buy a future-proof title.
Slashdot Mirror
Your concern about CRT is incorrect at this point. All released HD DVD and Blu-ray titles don't use the analog downrez techology ICT (Image Contraint Token). Most of the studios have indicated they don't have any short-term plans to do so, either.
Also, it doesn't downrez to 640x480. It goes to 960x540, which is quite a bit more pixels.
Two big differences between DVD > HD DVD v. CD > SACD/DVD-A. First, people WATCH movies in a way they rarely listen to music. J6P will sit in a couch and watch something for two hours, but isn't going to sit in that couch just listening to a few albums back to back.
Also, Audio CD's got a lot of information - most consumers are limited by amp/speaker issues, not the source media. There's a much bigger gap between a DVD and what can be seen compared to Audio CD and what can be heard.
HD DVD is a huge jump from DVD - 6x the pixels, and with a higher average per pixel quality due to VC-1. That's a bigger jump than from VCD to DVD. Now, it'll take a little while for consumers to get used to what video should look like (HD owners are going to have to push their chairs in closer, since DVD needed a pretty high minumum distance before the scaling artifacts were seen). After spending most of my time working with HD the last year or so, I find even the best DVD with the best upconversion distractingly soft on a good display.
As long as you have component analog or better, you'll get the full resolution with your display. While there was a lot of concern about copy protection reducing resolution out of the analog outputs, there was a lot of consumer pushback on that, and there aren't any discs that use that mode.
Well, the Divx HD profile is 1280x720 and only 5.1 audio at best. Both advanced formats are 1920x1080, and support up to lossless 7.1 96KHz 24-bit audio. And I've never seen a Divx HD disc without palpable artifacts, while the standard for VC-1 encoded HD DVD is transparency to the D5 HD master.
HD DVD is at least as much of a jump from Divx HD as Divx HD was from DVD.
Both formats use AACS for copy production. In addition, Blu-ray uses BD+ on top of AACS.
Well the two formats use the same codecs, which is a bunch of the royalties. Really, the biggest difference is in the OPU (the Blu-ray one is more expensive). Making a Blu-ray player hybrid is pretty cheap, so we may see a lot of HD DVD only players, and some hybrid Blu-ray/HD DVD players.
Well, in theory Blu-ray is 60% larger, because a HD DVD layer is 15 GB and a Blu-ray is 25. However, HD DVD dual-layer production is trivial (most titles in stores today are DL), but for Blu-ray, it's still theoretical. Word from replicators is they've still got a 70% failure rate making single-layer Blu-ray discs, and DL isn't mature enough for anyone to have gone on record for yield or open-market pricing.
At this point, HD DVD titles on the market are:
30 GB
VC-1 compression (roughly 2x more efficient than MPEG-2)
Dolby Digital Plus audio
While the first Blu-ray titles (which haven't even launched yet) will be:
25 GB
MPEG-2 compression
Uncompressed audio
Combine lower capacity with lower compression efficiency, either the discs aren't going to look as good as what HD DVD is already providing, or they're going to have to leave content off.
Lots of the companies on that list are also supporting HD DVD. For example:
Warner has been one of the first two companies releasing HD DVD titles in volume. They have annonced many more HD DVD than Blu-ray titles.
Apple has been shipping HD DVD authoring and playback software for a year. Nothing for Blu-Ray.
LG is planning a hybrid HD DVD/Blu-Ray player.
URGE also offers $0.99/track purchasing as well as the subscription model.
Sure, there are lots of alternatives.
But as a busy guy with three small children, searching out the good stuff via those other means just isn't worth the time and attention involved. That was my problem with Napster back in the day - just too darn much of a pain in the butt to get a full album, well encoded, with correct metadata. Better to spend that time to write an article, get a check, and just buy the CDs. The scarcity isn't music. It's the music I wan't, in high enough quality that it doesn't bug me, with the right metadata, with a pricing model that doesn't penalize me for experimentation.
$15/month isn't even 10% of our monthly entertainment budget around here, but it's sure more than 10% fo my entertainment value right now.
10 years ago, I had a $200/month used CD habit. URGE gives me the same shopping experience for a lot less money and shelf space, and naked (it's a muggy night here in Portland...).
Oh, FYI, WMP does do lyrics (look in the Options), although I haven't seen much yet with that data populated.
Marketing? MARKETING? Oh, how you wound me :).
I'm a video compression nerd, officially Program Manager for Video Encoding in the Professional Content Group. Google me.
(and I note I forgot to take down my old web site, before I joined Microsoft...)
I'm happy the library works for you. It's worth $15/month for me to be able to rent music naked :).
Also, URGE is about 2M tracks, which I imagine is quite a bit more than even a large library.
I work for Microsoft (but not on Windows Media Player), so I got an early trial of the product, and have been using it for about a month now.
I didn't really get it when it was first pitched, but the hybrid subscription/paid model works great. In the years I was using iTunes, I never really did much purchasing of tracks, since it seemed ephemeral, and not really any cheaper than buying on physical media.
With URGE, I pay my flat fee, and can try ANYTHING - it isn't $9.99 ever time I want to give an album a spin to see whether or not I like it beyond 30 second previews. I can play it on any of three different PCs, and can even transfer songs to my Treo to listen to on the plane, or stream them live to my Xbox 360 for an entertainment experience. And if I like something, I can just buy it just like iTunes and burn it to CD or whatever.
As for pricing, $15/month for as much new stuff as I want to listen to? I've already got 20 new albums in rotation, stuff I likely wouldn't have bought before but found via the recommendation system, and really enjoy (I'm embarassingly obsessed with the Arctic Monkeys now). Ast $15/month, the amount I would have paid buying that music would have covered the fee for years.
A couple of cool little features:
A good selection of music videos, linked to the songs.
After setting up a new machine on your account, you can tell it to sync up to EVERYTHING you have on your other machines.
Even though there are the three recommended machines, any PlaysForSure device seems to work fine, like my Treo 700w phone, and an ancient Creative MuVo I had laying around.
Anyway, I've been really happy with it, and after years of trying to get a good home-wide music experience out of iTunes, it's already working a lot better for me, in large part to support by a much wider selection of accesory vendors.
I'm alwasy surprised that anyone on Slashdot has ever heard of me :).
= 104&STORY=/www/story/05-16-2006/0004362681&EDATE=
6 67705&&#post7667705
Sure. Here's an announcement from Sony mentioning that they're doing 25GB, only stating that some lines "will be capable" of 50 GB
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT
And this thread at AVSForum has a good analysis of the numbers (you can't go wrong on that forum by just searching for any post by amillians):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7
Gotcha.
That said, the whole BD-ROM physical format is also something of an open question. Dual-layer replication isn't supported by commerical replicators, and even single-layer is having terrible yields. It seems like the recordible format didn't translate that well the ROM format.
Sony's had a rewritible media device in Japan for a while, but those devices aren't compatible with BD movies (they're meant for MPEG-2 transport stream archiving). There aren't any BD movie players for sale, anywhere.
A rather cunning plan then. Make the thing you most strongly forbid your kids from doing something that isn't THAT dangerous.
Excuse me, I'm going to go belligerantly forbid my children from eating cabbage.
AirPort Express lets you play audio out of your iTunes station remotely, but it's not a remote device. You need to have one computer driving one Express per audio device. Last I checked, you couldn't even get it to play the same audio on the computer and the Express at the same time - one or the other.
I can't really comment on why particular titles are chosen or not. I work with the compressionists, who just get handed a D5 and are told "make it look perfect."
HD is a bigger quality leap than laserdisc to DVD, or even VHS to DVD. We're talking 6.5x as many pixels, with a better average pixel than with DVD to boot.
I spent much of last week looking at the compressed VC-1 masters for the HD DVD launch titles, and it's astounding how much more detail there is compared to the DVD, so many little details you never would have noticed on a DVD.
A couple of points:
The triple-layer HD DVD isn't part of the movie spec, so we won't see it used for prerecorded titles.
The >2 layer BD discs are also not part of the movie spec, so won't be used for those either. Also, the two-layer BD format isn't yet practical for mass manufacture. BD launch titles will be single-layer 25 GB discs. Dual-layer HD DVD is working fine, and will exist in launch titles.
I seem to keep posting this message :).
Reach around. You'll find it's a paperclip in your back, not a knife.
If you have a 4-5 year old set, it's probalby a 720p display, or a 1080i CRT.
If you have a disc that uses analog downrez (ICT), your image will get scaled down to 960x540 before being scaled up for output. Still more image data than DVD (720x480), with every pixel perfect (since each is nicely scaled down from 4 soure pixels). For a set of your vintage, you probably won't miss much with ICT.
Also, ICT is optional on a per title basis. Several studios have said they aren't going to use it at all. And there is a labeling requirement - you can just avoid buying discs that use it.
So, if you want to boycott, boycott ICT discs. Tell the studios you won't buy any discs that use it. But if you love HD, don't deprive yourself of the first good HD format for consumers! HD DVD stuff looks great, completely devoid of the ugly MPEG-2 blocking artifacts seen in off-air or cable HDTV.
Again, analog works just fine out of the players. The only problem would be if you played a disc that uses ICT. However
Several studios have announced they won't be using it. The ones that are can decide on a title by title basis
The discs that use it will be clearly labeled, so you can avoid them.
Even if you have a disc with ICT, it just scales the video down to 960x540 and up again before outputting. If you have an analog-only HDTV, you likely won't really notice that big of a difference quality wise (it's probably either a CRT, or a 720p display).
A good scaling algorithm can keep from introducing obvious artifacts, like blocks, when increasing resolution. But it can't make up data that wasn't there in the first place. I've been looking at what HD DVD can do, and the palpable detail is far, far beyond what the best upsampling DVD players can pull off.
Of course, the HD DVD standard supports hybrid discs, where it'll play in SD in a DVD player and in HD on a HD DVD player. So consumers can buy a future-proof title.