I posted a longer thing about this below, but you've got your facts wrong.
There is HD over component. It's just slightly softened (scaled down to 960x540 and scaled up again).
And it's only on titles where the studio has decoded to use it. A number of studios have announced they won't be using it, including Disney. There's a requirement to mark the package if this is used, so you can just boycott those titles instead of boycotting the whole technology.
HD DVD is going to look incredibly awesome. 6.5x the pixels as DVD! Much, much better quality than HD broadcasts today. If you're really a big home theater nut, you're not going to want to be without it.
Lots of folks are talking boycott here, which isn't needed.
The analog downrez technology is called ICT - Image Constraint Token. The basic idea is if a disc uses it, the analog output gets scaled down to 960x540 and scaled back up again. A few important things to note:
Even with ICT, the image will still be better than DVD, since it's more pixels (960x540 v. 720x480), and since the pixels are scaled down from 1920x1080, they'll be pretty much perfect. Many of the 720p displays that don't support HDMI won't look much different with or without ICT.
It's optional! Content publishers can choose to use it or not on a given title. And several studios, including Disney and Fox, have stated they won't be using it on any discs.
And there is a labeling requirement - any disc that uses it will need to be so marked.
So, don't boycott HD. If you have a display that doesn't support HDMI, you might decline to buy discs that use ICT. But HD rocks, and we shouldn't through the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, that's really a question for the content companies.
A oouple of things to point out, though. First, the "analog hole" is fundamentally unclosable. There will always be room to do fair-use work with video and audio assets, even if it won't be as easy as DVD Shrink in the future.
Also, right now the content companies are fighting a painful war against outright piracy. It isn't that they're against paying customers using content in new ways, it's just that they don't want that to open up a huge piracy hole. Good DRM opens up new avenues for them to offer customers new ways to pay for content to use in different ways.
The existance of the analog hole will help keep them honest, since there will always be the threat of piracy if the usage models DRM provides aren't consumer friendly. And Microsoft really, really wants to see a lot of media center-enabled Vista copies, so we're working hard to get content creators to use more consumer-friendly DRM models. And we're doing stuff on the technological level as well. For example, our current DRM versions have REMOVED the ability to restrict a DRM-encrypted piece of content from being usable on a wireless network, because that was a feature that hurt consumers more than it helped content providers.
So, I encourage folks not to view it as DRM v. non-DRM. The weaker the copy protection, the lower quality the assets that Hollywood will release. The real battle is, and should be, between consumer-friendly DRM and DRM with bad business rules.
So, if you hate analog downsampling, you'd be much better off boycotting discs that use ICT than boycotting HD DVD entirely. With HD DVD, we have the potential for the home theater experience to exceed that of theatrical projection! I want the format to succeed, so I can watch it myself.
DRM is a feature of the OS that applications can access. Apps that don't want any part of the DRM don't have to use it. Stuff like VLC, DVDShrink etcetera keep working fine. Think of it as a new API, and infrastructure in the OS to let stuff that calls the new API to work securely.
The DRM in Vista lets new types of apps run, but you don't lose ANYTHING you had before on the consumer side.
If there's a particular scenario you're concerned about, tell me what it is and I'll give you a more authoritative answer.
Folks are talking like Vista's support for more DRM technologies means it'll be able to play less media than XP. In fact, it's the other way around. Vista will support every monitor and every display that XP does. All the DVD ripping software will still work, VLC will be as good as XP ever was (and they could add DX10 support for better yet). Nothing is lost.
What's different is that Vista's new DRM support means it can be certified for new kinds of input not previously supported. What's already been announced includes:
Comcast PVR support DirectTV PVR support CableCard support HD DVD support
Due to the content vendors security requirements, none of that would work on XP. So, from the consumer perspective, Vista will be much more capable than XP. You don't lose anything, and you gain a lot.
Yes, if you try to use a CRT monitor via VGA, and the the content uses the Image Constraint Tag flag, it'll be downrezed. But the same content WOULD NOT PLAY under XP, or Linux, or Mac OS X, or any PC OS other than Vista anyway. Downrezing is obviously not ideal but it's better than a big black rectangle.
Re:How are schools supposed to manage this?
on
Why Vista Won't Suck
·
· Score: 1
Well, they might not be able to run Aero Glass, but they'll likely run Vista, and at least you'll get the advanced security features.
Yeah, I must admit it seems like a form of copy protection much more likely to annoy legitimite customers than it is to deter pirates. If compelling content winds up being ICT protected, it'll certainly get more hacker eyeballs on the technology trying to find a workaround. I hope most content providers won't use it (at least three have said they won't be using it for the time being).
The technology you're talking about is called ICT - Image Constrained Token. When it's on, and there isn't a secure path to the player, output resolution is limited to 960x540 - still a good bunch better than DVD's 720x480. And since that 960x540 will be a nice downscale from the source resolution, every pixel should be just about perfect.
More importantly, ICT is determined on a title-by-title basis. Some movie studios have said they won't use it at all. I'm hoping that ICT won't be used much or at all in the first generation of HD discs, just because it's a big pain for early adoptors. There is a labeling requiremnt (at least for HD DVD), so you'll be able to find out which titles do or don't have ICT before you buy.
That's a little overstated. It's not surprising my Dell XPS m170 will do Vista - it's only a couple of months old. But my Windows XP video workstation is well beyond Vista's requirements, and I bought it (as currently configured) back in 2004.
My personal plan is to hook up a 360 + HD DVD to the old Aquos in the bedroom, to watch movies, serve as a Media Center Extender, and to play games on when the wife is asleep.
It won't be my MAIN HD DVD player, but it makes a ton of sense for a bedroom system.
I'm glad to have it as an option. And I'm doubly glad that we didn't hold up the 360 launch until we could build HD DVD support into the main SKU affordably.
1. Can you back up that assertion with something? Blu-ray discs require much more precision in manufacture - it's hard to see how it won't reamin substantially more expensive than HD DVD indefinitely, assuming similar volumes of both.
2. Yes, Blu-ray the spec supports VC-1 and H.264 as well as MPEG-2. But Sony's authoring tools only support MPEG-2. If the format survives, at some point it'll be possible to use advanced codecs, but it won't be for a while.
3. The interactivity is optional, FWIW. You'll still be able to just play a movie if you like. I hope the better DRM means we'll have less intrusive FBI warnings and such at the start.
4. Can you reference an announced product with pricing and schedule like you discuss here.
5. Oh, I imagine that there will be a few low-volume movies, made in a lab at a manufacturing cost per disc a multiple of what SL discs cost to make, shipping in limited numbers this year. You still can't actually buy a DL Blu-ray production line for high-volume production.
As for your latter point, I've been posting about compression issues on Slashdot for the better part of a decade at this point. In the capacity issue, if you care mainly about movies, with 30 GB with VC-1 is enough for LOTR:ROTK:EE, in awesome quality with lossless audio. Beyond that, I'm not sure what else you need.
And for 2006, HD DVD has 30 GB w/ VC-1, versus 25 GB w/ MPEG-2. Blu-ray is the one playing catchup right now.
I've never seen a flying chair, or even heard an inappropriately raised voice. I can't speak for all of the company, but so far, I've met a lot of really smart, quite humble people who work very, very hard to make good products. And Microsoft is willing to admit to mistakes - Vista is probably a year later than it would have been if the company hadn't decided that it needed to put everything on hold to improve XP security.
Apple does have more people with cool hair, though:).
To be more specific, my goal for HD DVD is that it have no visible compression artifacts or other visible degradation, when viewed on a 1080p display, at 24p, compared to the D5-HD source.
We get a new generation of home video about once a decade. I'm expecting a 12-bit 4K format for the home to hit around 2015:). That's what's going to be going into digital theaters in a few years (the DCI format).
Well, I was being recruited by Amazon and Google at the same time, and I picked Microsoft as the place I felt was doing the most good stuff, and where I could help the most. I'm glad to I didn't go with Google - it would have been heartbreaking to be associated with the horrible video experience that is Google Video.
I also was being recruited by Apple a while back. They can make great products, but it seemed like a pretty paranoid and egotistical place to actually work at.
The industry joke about Sony since they decided to get into content after losing the Betamax war is that:
"Sony is less than the sum of its parts"
What's the opposite of synergy? disynergy? The stuff the hardware division does to help the content division hurts hardware more than it helps content, and vise versa.
HD DVD as a format supports perfect 1080p output. And you can get all of LOTR:ROTK:EE on a single side of a dual-layered HD DVD using the VC-1 codec. Don't worry - it's really well engineered as a HD replacement for DVD. The risky technologies that Blu-ray adopted won't actually do anything to make movies better, and is currently making Blu-ray a much worse format for movies until they get some stuff fixed.
Even if Blu-ray gets dual-layer and codecs other than MPEG-2 working eventually, there still isn't any movie that it'll be able to do that HD DVD won't.
Note that the anlog degradation is decided by content providers on a case-by-case basis. Several studios have announced that they won't be doing it at all. Feel free to boycot titles with ICT (Image Constraint Token), but there will be plenty that support full HD over analog. And yes, there's a requirement that the box tells you if the title has ICT.
Also, even with ICT you get 960x540, so it's still a fair amount better resolution than DVD.
Well, yes, if HD doesn't matter, than we'll have DVD for another generation. Having seen real 1080p playback of HD DVD content, I can say that the 6.5x as many pixels definitely pays off for a much better end-user viewing experience for me. Bear in mind that VCD to DVD wasn't as big a jump (about 4x the pixels).
There are tens of millions of HD displays in homes already, FWIW.
In the game case, no one will argue that graphics trump gameplay. But I pick gameplay+graphics over gameplay. I've been playing my XBOX 360 on my Aquos display at 720p, and HD rocks, even for simple games like Mutant Storm or Geometry Wars. I can see a lot more detail on the little buggers as I waste them:).
1) Yes, the players will support it, but there are no facilities that can mass produce the discs. That's what I'm talking about.
2) You'll be able to buy dual layer discs for HD DVD very very soon.
3) Could well be true. I'm talking about purchased movies.
4) Correct.
5) I'm not saying that Java can't do good stuff. I am saying I haven't heard any examples of something interesting for movie playback that Blu-ray Java can do that iHD can't do. I am saying that, for what you get, asking contnet creators to write Java code instead of using a markup language is a REALLY high barrier.
6) Yes, but with a markup language. HUGELY easier to develop for.
7) And how many of those four things are actually currently available to ship to a PS3 assembly plant?
8) No, launch date is March 28th. You'll be able to get your hands on Toshiba players that day if you put in a preorder.
Specifically, Blu-ray players support both our VC-1 codec, and the H.264 High Profile 4:2:0 codecs as well as MPEG-2. However, no authoring tools exist for either of those so far for Blu-ray (they do for HD DVD).
Also, have you looked at much ATSC on a 1080p display? I find almost all ATSC overly compressed, with visible blocking in hard sections (especially cross-dissolves).
As for a better DVD standard, both formats support using DVD-9 red-laser media for titles, so for short content (like an IMAX) film. And you can make it looks surprisingly good. Still, for big titles with good detailed, it's worth it to go blue laser, especially if you've got a lot of audio tracks, or want lossless audio.
Yes, a few low-volume titles have been ANNOUNCED. Indications are that they're being made in low runs in a lab. I think it'll be quite a while still (2007? later?) before there's enough dual-layer Blu-ray capacity for, say a Harry Potter movie.
There are serious, real physical engineering problems in making these discs.
It costs millions to set up a Blu-ray single layer plant. You can't buy a dual-layer plant at all yet.
Sales projections are all over the place. Not sure what's there I could share, or would trust.
Physical media will matter to some folks for some time, and offers really high bitrates. When we get fibre-to-the-home pervasively would be a good time for it to stop mattering. Certainly a few years left.
I agree that the cheaper and backward-compatible facilities (you can make normal DVD with a HD DVD line, and can upgrade to HD DVD pretty cheaply from a DVD line) is a big advantage of the technology.
First, yes, there have been lots of demonstrations of deep multilayer disc technologies. I personally did the compression for a six-layer test disc back in 2003. But the standards for Blu-ray and HD DVD are 1 or 2 layer only. Movies won't ever use anything else, since they're not in the standard today.
As for the captial investments, it definitely effects the cost of production, especially early on. And beyond that, you simply can't buy a line that can do dual-layer Blu-ray yet. They can be made in a test lab, but there are simply 0 production lines for it in the world today.
As for Sony as MPEG-2, yes I presume that all Blu-ray players will support the advanced codecs. But the fact is that Sony won't be releasing any titles with them, nor any company using Sony's current authoring tools. And no one else is selling Blu-ray authoring tools yet. Sure, that could change, but not yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I posted a longer thing about this below, but you've got your facts wrong.
There is HD over component. It's just slightly softened (scaled down to 960x540 and scaled up again).
And it's only on titles where the studio has decoded to use it. A number of studios have announced they won't be using it, including Disney. There's a requirement to mark the package if this is used, so you can just boycott those titles instead of boycotting the whole technology.
HD DVD is going to look incredibly awesome. 6.5x the pixels as DVD! Much, much better quality than HD broadcasts today. If you're really a big home theater nut, you're not going to want to be without it.
Lots of folks are talking boycott here, which isn't needed.
The analog downrez technology is called ICT - Image Constraint Token. The basic idea is if a disc uses it, the analog output gets scaled down to 960x540 and scaled back up again. A few important things to note:
Even with ICT, the image will still be better than DVD, since it's more pixels (960x540 v. 720x480), and since the pixels are scaled down from 1920x1080, they'll be pretty much perfect. Many of the 720p displays that don't support HDMI won't look much different with or without ICT.
It's optional! Content publishers can choose to use it or not on a given title. And several studios, including Disney and Fox, have stated they won't be using it on any discs.
And there is a labeling requirement - any disc that uses it will need to be so marked.
So, don't boycott HD. If you have a display that doesn't support HDMI, you might decline to buy discs that use ICT. But HD rocks, and we shouldn't through the baby out with the bathwater.
Well, that's really a question for the content companies.
A oouple of things to point out, though. First, the "analog hole" is fundamentally unclosable. There will always be room to do fair-use work with video and audio assets, even if it won't be as easy as DVD Shrink in the future.
Also, right now the content companies are fighting a painful war against outright piracy. It isn't that they're against paying customers using content in new ways, it's just that they don't want that to open up a huge piracy hole. Good DRM opens up new avenues for them to offer customers new ways to pay for content to use in different ways.
The existance of the analog hole will help keep them honest, since there will always be the threat of piracy if the usage models DRM provides aren't consumer friendly. And Microsoft really, really wants to see a lot of media center-enabled Vista copies, so we're working hard to get content creators to use more consumer-friendly DRM models. And we're doing stuff on the technological level as well. For example, our current DRM versions have REMOVED the ability to restrict a DRM-encrypted piece of content from being usable on a wireless network, because that was a feature that hurt consumers more than it helped content providers.
So, I encourage folks not to view it as DRM v. non-DRM. The weaker the copy protection, the lower quality the assets that Hollywood will release. The real battle is, and should be, between consumer-friendly DRM and DRM with bad business rules.
So, if you hate analog downsampling, you'd be much better off boycotting discs that use ICT than boycotting HD DVD entirely. With HD DVD, we have the potential for the home theater experience to exceed that of theatrical projection! I want the format to succeed, so I can watch it myself.
I think you're misunderstanding how DRM works.
DRM is a feature of the OS that applications can access. Apps that don't want any part of the DRM don't have to use it. Stuff like VLC, DVDShrink etcetera keep working fine. Think of it as a new API, and infrastructure in the OS to let stuff that calls the new API to work securely.
The DRM in Vista lets new types of apps run, but you don't lose ANYTHING you had before on the consumer side.
If there's a particular scenario you're concerned about, tell me what it is and I'll give you a more authoritative answer.
Folks are talking like Vista's support for more DRM technologies means it'll be able to play less media than XP. In fact, it's the other way around. Vista will support every monitor and every display that XP does. All the DVD ripping software will still work, VLC will be as good as XP ever was (and they could add DX10 support for better yet). Nothing is lost.
What's different is that Vista's new DRM support means it can be certified for new kinds of input not previously supported. What's already been announced includes:
Comcast PVR support
DirectTV PVR support
CableCard support
HD DVD support
Due to the content vendors security requirements, none of that would work on XP. So, from the consumer perspective, Vista will be much more capable than XP. You don't lose anything, and you gain a lot.
Yes, if you try to use a CRT monitor via VGA, and the the content uses the Image Constraint Tag flag, it'll be downrezed. But the same content WOULD NOT PLAY under XP, or Linux, or Mac OS X, or any PC OS other than Vista anyway. Downrezing is obviously not ideal but it's better than a big black rectangle.
Well, they might not be able to run Aero Glass, but they'll likely run Vista, and at least you'll get the advanced security features.
I mean my circa 2004 workstation will run Vista very nicely, Aero Glass and all.
Yeah, I must admit it seems like a form of copy protection much more likely to annoy legitimite customers than it is to deter pirates. If compelling content winds up being ICT protected, it'll certainly get more hacker eyeballs on the technology trying to find a workaround. I hope most content providers won't use it (at least three have said they won't be using it for the time being).
Well, it isn't as bad as all that.
The technology you're talking about is called ICT - Image Constrained Token. When it's on, and there isn't a secure path to the player, output resolution is limited to 960x540 - still a good bunch better than DVD's 720x480. And since that 960x540 will be a nice downscale from the source resolution, every pixel should be just about perfect.
More importantly, ICT is determined on a title-by-title basis. Some movie studios have said they won't use it at all. I'm hoping that ICT won't be used much or at all in the first generation of HD discs, just because it's a big pain for early adoptors. There is a labeling requiremnt (at least for HD DVD), so you'll be able to find out which titles do or don't have ICT before you buy.
That's a little overstated. It's not surprising my Dell XPS m170 will do Vista - it's only a couple of months old. But my Windows XP video workstation is well beyond Vista's requirements, and I bought it (as currently configured) back in 2004.
My personal plan is to hook up a 360 + HD DVD to the old Aquos in the bedroom, to watch movies, serve as a Media Center Extender, and to play games on when the wife is asleep.
It won't be my MAIN HD DVD player, but it makes a ton of sense for a bedroom system.
I'm glad to have it as an option. And I'm doubly glad that we didn't hold up the 360 launch until we could build HD DVD support into the main SKU affordably.
1. Can you back up that assertion with something? Blu-ray discs require much more precision in manufacture - it's hard to see how it won't reamin substantially more expensive than HD DVD indefinitely, assuming similar volumes of both.
2. Yes, Blu-ray the spec supports VC-1 and H.264 as well as MPEG-2. But Sony's authoring tools only support MPEG-2. If the format survives, at some point it'll be possible to use advanced codecs, but it won't be for a while.
3. The interactivity is optional, FWIW. You'll still be able to just play a movie if you like. I hope the better DRM means we'll have less intrusive FBI warnings and such at the start.
4. Can you reference an announced product with pricing and schedule like you discuss here.
5. Oh, I imagine that there will be a few low-volume movies, made in a lab at a manufacturing cost per disc a multiple of what SL discs cost to make, shipping in limited numbers this year. You still can't actually buy a DL Blu-ray production line for high-volume production.
As for your latter point, I've been posting about compression issues on Slashdot for the better part of a decade at this point. In the capacity issue, if you care mainly about movies, with 30 GB with VC-1 is enough for LOTR:ROTK:EE, in awesome quality with lossless audio. Beyond that, I'm not sure what else you need.
And for 2006, HD DVD has 30 GB w/ VC-1, versus 25 GB w/ MPEG-2. Blu-ray is the one playing catchup right now.
Correct. And you can also make a disc without AACS at all if you want, which would allow anything.
I've never seen a flying chair, or even heard an inappropriately raised voice. I can't speak for all of the company, but so far, I've met a lot of really smart, quite humble people who work very, very hard to make good products. And Microsoft is willing to admit to mistakes - Vista is probably a year later than it would have been if the company hadn't decided that it needed to put everything on hold to improve XP security.
:).
Apple does have more people with cool hair, though
4K? How about 6K? Do I hear an 8 :)?
:). That's what's going to be going into digital theaters in a few years (the DCI format).
To be more specific, my goal for HD DVD is that it have no visible compression artifacts or other visible degradation, when viewed on a 1080p display, at 24p, compared to the D5-HD source.
We get a new generation of home video about once a decade. I'm expecting a 12-bit 4K format for the home to hit around 2015
Well, I was being recruited by Amazon and Google at the same time, and I picked Microsoft as the place I felt was doing the most good stuff, and where I could help the most. I'm glad to I didn't go with Google - it would have been heartbreaking to be associated with the horrible video experience that is Google Video.
I also was being recruited by Apple a while back. They can make great products, but it seemed like a pretty paranoid and egotistical place to actually work at.
The industry joke about Sony since they decided to get into content after losing the Betamax war is that:
"Sony is less than the sum of its parts"
What's the opposite of synergy? disynergy? The stuff the hardware division does to help the content division hurts hardware more than it helps content, and vise versa.
HD DVD as a format supports perfect 1080p output. And you can get all of LOTR:ROTK:EE on a single side of a dual-layered HD DVD using the VC-1 codec. Don't worry - it's really well engineered as a HD replacement for DVD. The risky technologies that Blu-ray adopted won't actually do anything to make movies better, and is currently making Blu-ray a much worse format for movies until they get some stuff fixed.
Even if Blu-ray gets dual-layer and codecs other than MPEG-2 working eventually, there still isn't any movie that it'll be able to do that HD DVD won't.
Note that the anlog degradation is decided by content providers on a case-by-case basis. Several studios have announced that they won't be doing it at all. Feel free to boycot titles with ICT (Image Constraint Token), but there will be plenty that support full HD over analog. And yes, there's a requirement that the box tells you if the title has ICT.
Also, even with ICT you get 960x540, so it's still a fair amount better resolution than DVD.
Well, yes, if HD doesn't matter, than we'll have DVD for another generation. Having seen real 1080p playback of HD DVD content, I can say that the 6.5x as many pixels definitely pays off for a much better end-user viewing experience for me. Bear in mind that VCD to DVD wasn't as big a jump (about 4x the pixels).
:).
There are tens of millions of HD displays in homes already, FWIW.
In the game case, no one will argue that graphics trump gameplay. But I pick gameplay+graphics over gameplay. I've been playing my XBOX 360 on my Aquos display at 720p, and HD rocks, even for simple games like Mutant Storm or Geometry Wars. I can see a lot more detail on the little buggers as I waste them
1) Yes, the players will support it, but there are no facilities that can mass produce the discs. That's what I'm talking about.
2) You'll be able to buy dual layer discs for HD DVD very very soon.
3) Could well be true. I'm talking about purchased movies.
4) Correct.
5) I'm not saying that Java can't do good stuff. I am saying I haven't heard any examples of something interesting for movie playback that Blu-ray Java can do that iHD can't do. I am saying that, for what you get, asking contnet creators to write Java code instead of using a markup language is a REALLY high barrier.
6) Yes, but with a markup language. HUGELY easier to develop for.
7) And how many of those four things are actually currently available to ship to a PS3 assembly plant?
8) No, launch date is March 28th. You'll be able to get your hands on Toshiba players that day if you put in a preorder.
Specifically, Blu-ray players support both our VC-1 codec, and the H.264 High Profile 4:2:0 codecs as well as MPEG-2. However, no authoring tools exist for either of those so far for Blu-ray (they do for HD DVD).
Also, have you looked at much ATSC on a 1080p display? I find almost all ATSC overly compressed, with visible blocking in hard sections (especially cross-dissolves).
As for a better DVD standard, both formats support using DVD-9 red-laser media for titles, so for short content (like an IMAX) film. And you can make it looks surprisingly good. Still, for big titles with good detailed, it's worth it to go blue laser, especially if you've got a lot of audio tracks, or want lossless audio.
Yes, a few low-volume titles have been ANNOUNCED. Indications are that they're being made in low runs in a lab. I think it'll be quite a while still (2007? later?) before there's enough dual-layer Blu-ray capacity for, say a Harry Potter movie.
There are serious, real physical engineering problems in making these discs.
It costs millions to set up a Blu-ray single layer plant. You can't buy a dual-layer plant at all yet.
Sales projections are all over the place. Not sure what's there I could share, or would trust.
Physical media will matter to some folks for some time, and offers really high bitrates. When we get fibre-to-the-home pervasively would be a good time for it to stop mattering. Certainly a few years left.
I agree that the cheaper and backward-compatible facilities (you can make normal DVD with a HD DVD line, and can upgrade to HD DVD pretty cheaply from a DVD line) is a big advantage of the technology.
A couple things,
First, yes, there have been lots of demonstrations of deep multilayer disc technologies. I personally did the compression for a six-layer test disc back in 2003. But the standards for Blu-ray and HD DVD are 1 or 2 layer only. Movies won't ever use anything else, since they're not in the standard today.
As for the captial investments, it definitely effects the cost of production, especially early on. And beyond that, you simply can't buy a line that can do dual-layer Blu-ray yet. They can be made in a test lab, but there are simply 0 production lines for it in the world today.
As for Sony as MPEG-2, yes I presume that all Blu-ray players will support the advanced codecs. But the fact is that Sony won't be releasing any titles with them, nor any company using Sony's current authoring tools. And no one else is selling Blu-ray authoring tools yet. Sure, that could change, but not yet.