HD storage format war is over

aMIGA_dUDE

BigBouncyBall wrote: »

d) do you have any idea about the drawbacks of blu-ray and how it is going to hurt small time indie film makers. Here's a hint - google "AACS"

So not talking about AACS on HD-DVD same "security" as on Blu-Ray. And how is AACS going to effect indie film makers? I really would like to know.

Blu-Ray can use AACS
HD-DVD can use AACS

tomsolomon

Way to go sony, you've done it again.
I could be in a bit of trouble here though. Not sure if my Tosh laptop has got a HD-DVD drive and runs on high def drivers, Well I know for a fact that it runs high def drivers so chances are the drive is high def ( but need to check ).
If this is the case then there is no way on this earth I am going to get any sense whatsoever from Toshiba regarding replacing the drive or getting any updated drivers for that matter...

BigBouncyBall

oh please, have a slightly wider field of view than the consumer market for 3 seconds.

This 'war' is quite different. For a start, neither Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is superior to the other. Both are fantastic. On the other hand Beta was a much superior, in terms of quality, than VHS.

secondly, Beta didn't die. It was used (and still is being used) by the professional industry.

HD-DVD markets itself as being a cheaper format. Blu-Ray is more expensive format than HD-DVD, has more restrictive DRM rules but has the benefits of larger capacity.

The difference this time? Neither is any different to the other in terms of quality.

A HD-DVD player for sub £80 is a fantastic purchase right now. Get one of those and a load of true HD-DVDs for peanuts and enjoy the upscaled regular DVDs while your at it.

Unless you want to spend so much more on a blu-ray player that will give you no better quality, will need to be replaced at the same time as a HD-DVD player (all electronics have a lifespan), when you'll have to buy another DVD player.

You'll have a stack of HD-DVD discs lying around you say? Then buy a dual format player, which will be coming out thick and fast now this war is over and people 'need' to convert.

aMIGA_dUDE

BigBouncyBall wrote: »

yes buts thats a looooong way off - as in 10-15 years until we do away with discs for content delivery.

People like discs. They're very easy, and quick to use. They're not dependent on a solid internet connection, they can last for years and years if you look after them, you can't accidently delete them, take almost no physical space to store (if you use slim line jewel cases), you can move them from one place to another very easily (how easily can you move 4GB+ size digital files?), good for backup purposes, and last but not least: very cheap!

Very true but both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray were going have to need Internet connection to work. It was so close to wire a few years back. What was been talk about was this :-
1) You buy HD movie disk.
2) You would not be able to play HD movie disk.You would only be able to play HD movie disk if HD movie player could do security checks over Internet.

So why didn't it happen then?
Software patents, for once they did something good. It would cost to much to licence this software patent and movie business was not willing pay for it.

Now Blu-Ray 2.0 or BD-Live will connect to Internet to download extra content. Also Blu-Ray 2.0 will be able transfer movies from Blu-Ray disk to PSP or iPod video player etc.

PS I am no way believer in software patents.

BigBouncyBall

aMIGA_dUDE wrote: »

So not talking about AACS on HD-DVD same "security" as on Blu-Ray. And how is AACS going to effect indie film makers? I really would like to know.

Blu-Ray can use AACS
HD-DVD can use AACS

AACS is a form of copy protection that is mandatory on Blu-Ray. At current spec it means film makers have to pay AACS licensing committee (or whatever they are called) a fee of about $2000 to use AACS on their film. This is $2000 'PER TITLE'. Film studios probably have a deal with AACS to give them a few million a year or whatever (it's in their interests to have a good DRM system in place)

Small time film makers wanting to distribute their material on Blu-Ray with DRM (as they all do and should!) at the moment have to pay $2000 a time for the use of the AACS.

Now, whether hardware/software manufacturers have plans to subsidise this is up in the air. They probably will. But as it stands Blu-Ray is not the format many small film makers wanted to use.

At the moment there is no costs to consumers to use Blu-Ray (though the online DRM checks you talk about might incure annual subscriptions in the future..., i doubt it, but now there is no competition, Sony can do what they like)

To the best of my knowledge (and i might be a month or two behind the times on this) HD-DVD has optional AACS.

It seems blu-ray has won because it offers the big hollywood studios everything they want.

toasterman

So me as an old cynic..

A question on this.... as the majority of Blu-ray players in existence are as part of ps3's.. does that mean, that the quality could be better than people are seeing?

I'll expand on this...
No offence to Sony, but the dvd player built into the PS2 was rubbish. Playback wasn't very good, some models had problems keeping video and sync in sound, etc...
People bought them because the PS2 was cheaper than the cheapest Sony standalone dvd player at the time (as I understand it). They could offer it as either a gaming machine, OR a dvd player.. OR a kinda dvd player with free console.. meaning its both cool and geeky at the same time.

Assuming that you're bundling a Blu-ray player into a console, and you're making a loss on every one (reportedly).. are they cutting corners on it?

Not that I suppose it makes much difference to me at the moment, sat watching a 20" 4:3 ratio CRT tv....lol

BigBouncyBall

lol - you need a good 1080p television to enjoy the full benefits of hi-def unfortunatly.

You could have a point with the quality of the blu-ray player in the PS3. I've always found Sony to make the very highest quality products however.

A dedicated Blu-Ray player might have additional technology to make the very best of the disc...

aMIGA_dUDE

BigBouncyBall wrote: »

AACS is a form of copy protection that is mandatory on Blu-Ray. At current spec it means film makers have to pay AACS licensing committee (or whatever they are called) a fee of about $2000 to use AACS on their film. This is $2000 'PER TITLE'. Film studios probably have a deal with AACS to give them a few million a year or whatever (it's in their interests to have a good DRM system in place)
At the moment there is no costs to consumers to use Blu-Ray (though the online DRM checks you talk about might incure annual subscriptions in the future..., i doubt it, but now there is no competition, Sony can do what they like)
To the best of my knowledge (and i might be a month or two behind the times on this) HD-DVD has optional AACS.

How strange I already have Blu-Ray disks that are 1080p and not using AACS.
Well I have never payed anyone $2000 for disk I produced. I used Nero 8 burning which only cost about £60. I should inform Wanor Brothes/Disney/Fox/etc as they will save a lot of money useing this software as use of AACS from AACS LA is mandatory on Blu-Ray.:eek:

As for DRM checks online it doesn't exists. As it was never implemented as part AACS. You can download AACS documents on line http://www.aacsla.com/

Why did I do it on Blu-Ray as part from fact I own PS3, well that was simple as it was only way at the time to burn media to it BD+RE kit. And yes I have pressed Blu-Ray disks at press run of 1200. Which didn't come anywhere near $2000 in total cost. Non of them using AACS to my knowledge but will I check latter on. I did save a lot of money just because I already know Java so didn't have pay someone to do that for me. Ow cost Blu-Ray as a Indi production business.

PS before you ask it disk that about computer security in Perl, PHP, Java etc and shows images from the computer screen and at lower resolution of DVD it would not be able show the full picture without 1080p.

aMIGA_dUDE

toasterman wrote: »

So me as an old cynic..

A question on this.... as the majority of Blu-ray players in existence are as part of ps3's.. does that mean, that the quality could be better than people are seeing?

I'll expand on this...
No offence to Sony, but the dvd player built into the PS2 was rubbish. Playback wasn't very good, some models had problems keeping video and sync in sound, etc...
People bought them because the PS2 was cheaper than the cheapest Sony standalone dvd player at the time (as I understand it). They could offer it as either a gaming machine, OR a dvd player.. OR a kinda dvd player with free console.. meaning its both cool and geeky at the same time.

Assuming that you're bundling a Blu-ray player into a console, and you're making a loss on every one (reportedly).. are they cutting corners on it?

Not that I suppose it makes much difference to me at the moment, sat watching a 20" 4:3 ratio CRT tv....lol

Sony PS3 is concertinaed by many as one best HD moive players around. In fact PS3 is one of the few systems that uses HDMI 1.3. Also PS3 has one best DVD up-scalers due fact Cell processors can do very high end work that non Cell processors will never be able to do.

It thow have sort of an issue with Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD that is really high end audio thing anyway. The PS3 can do it but you need extra amp that can handle it coming in about £1500, you can see why Sony isn't to bothered by doing it. This effects most HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players unless it seams unless you are willing spend over £2000.

The PS2 DVD player was good the issue was DA chip used in PS2 did not give a good RGB.

PS Also it currently believed that Sony is building PS3 at cost at moment.
Microsoft is believed to building XBox360 at a lost.
Nintendo is believed to building Wii as a going profit.

toasterman

aMIGA_dUDE wrote: »

Sony PS3 is concertinaed by many as one best HD moive players around. In fact PS3 is one of the few systems that uses HDMI 1.3.

Ah fair enough. Just wondered.

aMIGA_dUDE wrote: »

The PS2 DVD player was good the issue was DA chip used in PS2 did not give a good RGB.

I dunno. I have not-particularly-fond memories of watching a film round a friend's house on a ps2 and having to pause it every 20mins - at which point the sound and video would catch up, and then carry on watching another 20mins before it looked like it was a dubbed film again, pause, resyncs..etc.

At the time I mentioned it to various other friends, I was told it was a then-common problem. Picture quality was watchable, just not in sync with the sound.
As they must surely have been making it at a loss, I'm not really surprised.

aMIGA_dUDE wrote: »

PS Also it currently believed that Sony is building PS3 at cost at moment.
Microsoft is believed to building XBox360 at a lost.
Nintendo is believed to building Wii as a going profit.

I've heard the same rumours re: the Wii.
I do find it incredible the Wii is at a profit, considering what's in it. I know its not the greatest graphics, and its purely for gaming - no HD suggested or intended, and die hard oldskool gamers complain about the interface, but I love mine.
I'm not sold on the ps3 yet at all - I'm gonna need a new console to play GTA4, and I'm definitely swaying towards the 360...what with me not having a HD tv, nor plans (or room...or money) for one where I am now, the Blu-ray player doesn't mean much to me.
Plus now they've picked a format to support they'll get cheaper and cheaper like dvd players did - you'll be getting standalone ones in Asda for £25 in no time.