Red vs. Blue Lasers Complicate DVD's Future 185
bnavarro writes: "The EE Times is reporting that the DVD Forum's Steering Committee voted this week to approve the use of low-bit-rate compression for high-definition DVD. The DVD Forum's decision, made at a meeting Tuesday (Feb. 26) in Tokyo, to stick with a red-laser-based scheme but switch to low-bit-rate compression, came only a week after nine of the world's biggest electronics companies agreed to promote a blue-laser-based format for next-generation video and computer optical disks."
Well thats good... (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps they should try talking to each other.
Just out of curiosity - could the electronics companies just go ahead and use what they want, or would they then be 'not allowed' to use the DVD name because it doesnt conform to the predetermined standards?
Re:Well thats good... (Score:2)
It's the same thing as a CD that can not play in a computer. If it does not follow the written spec, then it can not be labeled as the product.
Just out of curiosity - could the electronics companies just go ahead and use what they want, or would they then be 'not allowed' to use the DVD name because it doesnt conform to the predetermined standards?
I'm an idiot but... (Score:2)
Re:I'm an idiot but... (Score:5, Informative)
Light's color is a function of its frequency, which is inversely proportional to its wavelength. Higher frequency lasers can read pits which are closer together on a disc substrate, allowing them to put more data in the same areal density as lower frequency lasers. Blue is better than red for this purpose.
Alas, it's also harder (read: more expensive) to make blue lasers and the industry has already spent a lot of money on reds, so a blue-laser technology would require the writeoff of existing gear AND the purchase of new. Not an easy sell these days.
Makes perfect sense for HDTV (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I am in more favor of a new media with increased capacity, rather than seeing more and more compression on screen. Some DVDs in the likes of Magnolia or Titanic hurt my eyes, because you notice compression artifacts so much.
A new DVD format may take 10 years to become really widespread, but isn't this what happened to DVDs and audio-CDs. I'm ready to accept this change.
Re:Makes perfect sense for HDTV (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, the 16x9 formats usually have an enhanced mode for widescreen DVDs. So there's a lot of reason to have an HDTV now and use existing DVD technology. 480p is still pretty sharp compared to the crap we watch over cable.
Re:Makes perfect sense for HDTV (Score:1)
Re:Makes perfect sense for HDTV (Score:1, Offtopic)
The reason people accept 700MB divxs is because:
a) they are free
b) the quality is a league ahead of the mpg2 of the same file size
People damn-well want dvd quality if they're paying for it, but most people would prefer free divxs instead. With only mpg2 there were more people who were willing to buy the dvd because the mpg2 encoding that fitted on a cd was sub-optimal quality.
graspee
Re:Makes perfect sense for HDTV (Score:2)
Re:Makes perfect sense for HDTV (Score:1)
Re:Makes perfect sense for HDTV (Score:1)
Re:Makes perfect sense for HDTV (Score:1)
In each case the studio release is a large mpg2 file or files on a dvd disk, the pirates used to be also mpg2 but downsized to fit on a cd and were horrible quality- now the pirates still fit on a cd but use divx (mpeg4) and look a lot nicer (than mpg2, cd size). Therefore more people are dissuaded from buying dvds because the alternative is nearly as good quality...
Hope that clears everything up.
graspee
PS why does some motherfucker keep slapping offtopic and over-rated on my posts when their not? It's almost like someone out there hates me... sob sob
Re:Makes perfect sense for HDTV (Score:2)
How?
They run the video stream through A LOT of filters.
This is especialy true if the original DVD video is interlaced (480i). When you are doing your deinterlacing and pulldown on a computer you have a lot more resources to spare, and the fact that you do not have to worry about doing things in real time (VS deinterlacing and pulldown on a DVD player) means that you can go for the highest quality possible. (there are MANY ways to deinterlace film, though I think that when you are dealing with a digital stream that it gets a bit simplier. Not to sure on that part.)
Since indeed a lot of MPEG2 video DOES show noticable compression artifacts, a proper filter set can deal with some of those as well. Not all of the artifacts mind you, but some of them. (You can take a not-so-good-but-not-ruined JPEG image into your favorite fully featured image editor and run it through some filters and image adjusters to prove that DCT compression can be partialy fixed if you want too. Do note though that as it is your first time it may take you a few hours to find out exactly how to do this.
video then recompressed PROPERLY into MPEG4 (which is a lot of work) can then end up having less visable artifacts then its original MPEG2 stream.
Most of the people out there who strive for quality though for for 2*700Megabyte releases. I think that 655 megs is enough really, but hey, what ever.
Re:I'm an idiot but... (Score:1)
I agree it was a smart decision to go with red lasers, as they're much more mature. Nakamura's (sp?) work on nitrides notwithstanding, there's a long way to go before the material system is well understood.
P.S. Nakamura and the Nitrides - that sounds like a good name for a band.
Re:I'm an idiot but... (Score:2)
Actually I think a transition is inevitable but will be slower than they think. Maybe get started in something like a video game console, where people are used to new, non-compatible machines coming out every few years. And unlike audio CDs (or even DVDs, frankly, unless you own a teevee that cost thousands rather than hundreds of dollars, which some of us think is a pretty stupid thing to own), video games can really use that extra capacity as Moore's law pushes the data-craving boundaries of video game processors.
Something interesting about green laser pointers.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Green laser pointers use an infra-red laser diode, with a yag crystal to double the frequency. Also, they increase the brightness of the beam by turning in on and off at about a 60/40 duty cycle, while driving the diode at a higher current than it could handle at 100% duty. You can actually see this by moving the dot back and forth quickly - it appears as a dashed line.
They're a neat toy if you've got $400 to burn (last I checked).
Re:Something interesting about green laser pointer (Score:3, Informative)
Most of what you said was true a couple years ago, but it's been changing, mostly due to the entertainment industry (get to that in a second...)
Green DPSS lasers (frequency doubled solid-state, as opposed to dye or ion gas lasers) use a very powerful infra-red (either 800 nm or 1.3 um) laser diode, usually 250 mW or higher... fire that at a Yag crystal or rod. The Yag crystal absorbs the infra-red light and lases at 1048 nm. For those who don't know frequencies, 400 is a deep blue, 550 is green, and 650 is deep red. You can see a powerful enough 750 nm beam, but most of the light is invisible.
Anyways, the Yag crystal lases at 1048 and a KDP crystal in the optic resonator doubles the frequency, giving a wavelength of 524 nm. Though there are some loses in the KDP, this is more then made up for by the efficiency of the resonating cavity itself; one of the mirrors is totally reflective to 1048 nm, but totally transparent to 524 nm... any green light passes straight through it.
Most DPSS solutions these days are made for entertainment. Someone figured out that there was a way to take DPSS and make it Continuous Wave (CW), thereby making it suitable for laser light shows. This was more expensive than ion gas lasers at the time (though that's not true any more), but was still attractive because its a much simpler design, has no moving parts, does not require expensive and difficult to maintain cooling, and can be housed in a much smaller box.
As far as cost... if one looks carefully, one can usually find a 5 mW model for between $100-$200. Watts per dollar goes up sharply, I think hitting a peak at 60 mW somewhere around $400-500.
If anyone reading this wants to know more, or acquire one of these... e-mail me at merlin_jim [mailto] on hotmail.
Re:I'm an idiot but... (Score:1)
Re:I'm an idiot but... (Score:1)
Doesn't this mean (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't this mean (Score:1)
Also if you have a hardware MPEG decoder on a Video card, you just need to upgrade that. No CPU upgrade, as the outboard hardware handles the new demand.
Re:Doesn't this mean (Score:4, Funny)
So you're suggesting they use a purple laser instead?
*ducks*
Re:Doesn't this mean (Score:2)
I have the *perfect* name for the intensive, open-air six-month live-in training programme....
Re:Doesn't this mean (Score:2)
--
Evan
Re:Doesn't this mean (Score:2)
CD drives use an infrared laser. Cheap single-laser DVD drives can read the stamped CD's with the red laser, but cannot read CD-R or CD-RW. The dyes in CD-R/W go from highly reflective to almost back in infrared when written, but change very little in visible light. (Use about half a CD-R and try to see which part has been used; there is a subtle difference, but not at all enough contrast to read microdots.) Better DVD/CD drives have red and infrared lasers.
Likewise, you could probably read standard CD's and DVD's with a blue laser, but if you want to read the writeable formats, you might have to put three lasers in the system. This gets expensive.
OTOH, because there have been several competing writeable DVD formats, almost everyone has been waiting to see which one would win before buying, and so there isn't that big of an installed base to worry about. Get ONE blue-light writeable format that is capacious enough for hard drive backups, and I'll buy, even if I have to saw a hole in that damned fancy HP Pavilion case to mount it together with the CD-R/W drive...
Re:Doesn't this mean (Score:2)
Isn't that the point of this new standard - creating a standard for High Density DVD ( to coin a phrase, aka Blue-Ray) that is compatable for HDDVDs, HDDVD-RWs and HDDVD-Rs? Define the standard for all the variations so the players that are made to the spec work on the R and RW variants as they become affordable and widespread.
Oh, and a comment on your .sig - "When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know. - Mark Twain" "Man wrote the bible, God wrote the world" - Bob Kanefesky, in the lyrics to "Eternal Flame aka "God Wrote in LISP" (yes, a song about how God had a deadline, so he used Lisp rather than Ada, Basic or C. It's a good example of a filksong, and is available on CD and mp3 [prometheus-music.com]).
--
Evan
Re:Doesn't this mean (Score:2)
--
Evan
MS Involvement? (Score:2, Troll)
Re:MS Involvement? (Score:1)
Re:MS Involvement? (Score:2)
I burn them all the time, but you can't fit an entire movie onto one unless you drop to a really low bitrate (=crappy quality)...and even then I don't know if the format would even allow going to such low bitrates.
Re:MS Involvement? (Score:3, Interesting)
And what on earth makes you think Microsoft's patented DRM will ever allow you to do that? If you want to be able to move your content from medium to medium as you see fit, without restriction, your only real long term hope is to use free software. Of course, if the SSSCA is passed theres a good chance free operating systems, such as FreeBSD and GNU/Linux, will be outlawed as a result.
Re:MS Involvement? (Score:2)
I wouldn't put too much faith in Microsoft to make an uncrackable implementation of _anything_.... let alone something people care enough about to crack like DRM.
Re:MS Involvement? (Score:2)
They aren't going to make it uncrackable through technical expertise, they're going to make it uncrackable through legislation. If possession of such a utility is punishable by five years in prison and a $500,000 fine, no one in their right mind is going to have a copy of such a DRM cracking utility lying around. In effect, that makes DRM uncrackable from a practical standpoint, even if the "encryption" is the same as Adobe's laughable rehash of ROT-13.
Who modded this down? It's true-90% have signed on (Score:2)
Read the article! (Score:2)
wavelength (Score:2, Informative)
Re:wavelength (Score:1)
Remember, the code name for MS's Novell->MS conversion util was visine b/c it "gets the red out."
What's the point? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What's the point? - HDTV is the point (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is that while DVD looks great on most standard TV's, HDTV's are another matter. Suddenly you can see lots of compression artifacts. This isn't much of an issue now, but it will be soon enough.
I doubt DVD2, or whatever it will be called, will arrive in the next 5 years and if it does it will be in parallell with the current technology and cater mostly to videophiles and gadget freaks. There's a lot of money to be made from early adopters.
I for one think it's a great idea to decide on a standard before companies start producing their own technologies. That has caused problems again and again. Nice to see people are learning from past mistakes.
Re:What's the point? (Score:1)
Re:What's the point? - 3 Reasons (Score:2)
Really, how many versions of Star Wars and E.T. do you have???
Second, (I'm taking this on faith, never having seen 1080i HDTV) the current standard is "ok" only by comparison to the crap that is VHS analog playback. Now, whether or not low-bitrate red-laser DVD will be at the quality of 25mbit/sec broadcast HDTV... I dunno. I can hope, but I'm not exactly optimistic.
Third, don't think for a minute that this won't have a whole new collection of Son-of-CSS encryption built-in to prevent unauthorized copying.
Reasons enough?
Size matters (Score:1)
Going with a high-bandwidth encoding of HDTV would ensure that only the people buying the HDTV-DVD's would get the best quality. Choosing to go with a low-bandwidth encoding ensures that sharing full-quality HDTV-DVD's will become widespread quite soon.
I expect that Warner Bros will regret this decision in a few years.
But blue lasers are still expensive (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, the decision to not use blue lasers impacts those who use the disks for purposes other than what the DVD companies want. If you want to store data on the disk, the "new" DVD compression doesn't help you any. And if you want to play the new DVD's on your non-DVD-consortium-approved player, the new compression techniques will probably make your attempts more complicated (if not more illegal...)
Re:But blue lasers are still expensive (Score:1, Redundant)
Actually, DVD companies are more interested in selling hardware. Better visual quality, better sound - it's the same principle as hardware upgrades for the PC (get the consumer to buy new stuff every 3 years).
The only people who care about content are the content providers like movie studios, and they can care less what color laser you use (or even if there ends up being substantially more room on the disc). They cater to the mainstream (those who don't want to buy new DVD players every so often) and they're having a hard enough time filling the 4.7 GB they're being given now. Plus, it's at some companies advantage to use the limited space to create 2 DVD sets (for example, Star Wars 1) which they can sell for more money.
Re:But blue lasers are still expensive (Score:1)
Not that I have any financial interest in the blue laser companies, but in some respects it's a shame that their proposals (which really *do* pack more bits on a disk) may not be implemented sooner. Blue lasers are expensive right now, but the sure way to make them cheaper is to build them into every DVD player made. And the sooner that happens the sooner we see 20 or 30 or 50 GB DVD-ROM media for cheap prices in the mass market.
Re:But blue lasers are still expensive (Score:1)
The studios don't want it for two reasons:
I'm angry because HD-DVD is basically the holy grail of home theater, and they're gonna blow it. This whole "improved" MPEG-2 sounds like crap. Filtering before compression?!? ARGH! What the hell is that? Apparently they have no regard for fidelity. In my mind it's a very simple issue: uncompressed HD content can occupy as much as 3 times the space compared to non-HD content (720p signal versus 480i gives (720*2)/480 = 3 or 1080i vs 480i gives 1080/480 = 2.25).
If they keep red lasers, they're going to have to compress the data three times as much for 720p and 2.25 times for 1080i data (as compared to 480i). I don't care how good MPEG4 is, it isn't good enough to achieve that without throwing out some data. I don't even want to start on what MPEG2 would have to do to the data to fit it in the same space.
So while technically we're getting a lot more resolution, what does it matter when we're throwing away so much data?
Actually: (Score:2)
1080i is, as you said, 1920x1080. 720p is 1280x720, but progressive (obviously). Once the blanking lines are added in, 720p and 1080i use exactly the same bandwidth, which is very close to 6x that of NTSC.
Re:Actually: (Score:2)
- PAL -
((576/2)*768) = 221184 pixels/field
221184 pixels/field * 50 fields/sec = 11059200 pixels/sec
But nooo, the americans loove their NTSC
Get a PAL tv & DVD doodes... A PAL disk looks way better than the NTSC version.
Re:Actually: (Score:2)
MPEG4? (Score:1)
Is it just me, or are the content producers shooting themselves in the foot here? What's next, changing the CD standard so it supports MP3's?
different coloured lasers is good futureproofing (Score:5, Funny)
DVD standards are a mess... (Score:5, Insightful)
And now we're going to have TWO competing high-definition DVD formats? And HDTV itself, or do I mean "digital TV," is six or is it eight different formats, which are high-definition, except when they aren't, that is they are high-ER definition but not HIGH definition, only you can't get the high definition, and all the digital TV formats are about to become obsolete...
Anyone who buys ANY HDTV or DVD gear until the dust settles has gotta be nuts.
But you sure have to be amazed at the complexity and ingenuity the industry is using to shoot itself in the foot.
Re:DVD standards are a mess... (Score:2)
Re:DVD standards are a mess... (Score:1)
High def. TV looks great with a good signal. Unfortunately, last time I saw one (demo model in an expensive hi-fi shop), whilst the image was crisp and clear and all the rest of it, the signal it was displaying was lousy - it was showing a standard UK digital TV signal, if I recall, a news program. Every moving image displayed compression artifacts that were all too visible on the lovely clear screen.I haven't the least idea what compression/bandwidth it actually was, but it didn't look too good.
Re:DVD standards are a mess... (Score:1)
DVD is a standard there was some initial problem with first generation products, and many second gen were still shipping region free, but now that we're well past the third generation DVD is pretty solidly hammered out. BTW Dual layer was in the standard long before any drives were EVER built. Each hyphen/plus is an extention to the DVD standard. The extentions get to be a mess but at least DVD-R Tries to stick to the standard and is rewarded with media that will play in most standalone hardware. DVD-R also is DVD standard technology and carries the DVD logo because of that.
My take on the Blu-ray Vs. HD-DVD is that Blu-Ray is intended for use in recorders. HD-DVD seems exclusive to pre-packaged stuff. Afterall the fastest computers out there only recently became capable of real-time mpeg-4 compression. Also, playback doesn't really take that much CPU horse power. The jump to mpeg-4 decoding is more like the jump from mpeg-1 hardware decoders to mpeg-2 hardware decoders. They can fit a mpeg-4 decoder into a chip intended for cell phones nowadays so really there is no technological barrier to adding mpeg-4 decoding support. In fact some existing decoder cards are actually able to hardware accelerate the decoding of mpeg-4 now with some modifications to the software.
Also technically they only have to engineer for the highest resolution HDTV to ensure that they can support any resolution that becomes standard.
However since it's aimed at pre-packaged they can pick a resolution and say everything will be encoded at that resolution, the way they do with MPEG-2 for DVDs now.
I think blue lasers will eventually catch on. the only 'cost' that makes them prohibative is that there hasn't been any development in them. Given a few years on the market they'd be as cheap as red laser is now, but with far greater capacity.
the trick is to make all the DVD recorders blue laser or something that everyone 'has' to have. adding a red laser read diode or two shouldn't add to the cost much so backward compatability can be preserved, and anything capable of encoding mpeg-2 streams from HD sources in real-time should have no problem decoding mpeg-4 either. A properly designed Blue laser DVD recorder should be able to support any industry standard DVD, even the mpeg-4 ones, although first gen units might not have enough time to tack on mpeg-4 decoding due to timing.
Re:DVD standards are a mess... (Score:3, Insightful)
ALL DVD-V (DVD Video) players must support RSDL discs. It's been part of the specification for a very long time.
Whether the general public understands the details is almost irrelevant. They almost certainly didn't understand the details behind the various CD formats - CD-DA, CD-i, CD-MO, CD-RW, CD Extra, VCD, CD Plus, CD-XA (1 and 2), CD-RFS, CD-UDF - but this didn't stop CD from becoming a hugely popular format. You probably don't know (or care) that your Playstation uses CD-XA while your discman uses CD-DA. You simply buy a Playstation CD for a Playstation and an Audio CD for your discman.
The public knows that "DVD players" will play their "DVDs" from BlockBuster. They don't know or care that it's DVD-V. They just know that "DVDs have movies on them". People interested in the more exotic formats (DVD-A, DVD-RAM) will learn what they need to know. The system will look like chaos to people who know the details, but the general public won't give a flying crap.
Re:DVD standards are a mess... (Score:2)
Re:DVD standards are a mess... (Score:2)
Perhaps, but that doesn't invalidate my point. Almost certainly most of the DVD formats will become casualties. We're already seeing the possible death of DVD-A (SACD has had better marketting and now carries more titles). The 3 recordable DVD formats look like they're about to be replaced with a 4th. Only 2 DVD formats seem to be surviving at all: DVD-UDF seems to be doing OK and DVD-V is hugely successful.
And just a minor correction. Playstation popularised the CD-XA format. With over 100 million Playstations I'm willing to bet there's more than 100 million CD-XA discs out there. PhotoCD is still hugely popular in the graphics industry. VideoCD is popular enough considering the niche market it aims at (I can buy VideoCD silvers at my local Target, for example). CD-DA (RedBook) and CD-Data (YellowBook) certainly dominate the CD formats, but they're not the only 2 that made any numbers.
Re:DVD standards are a mess... (Score:2)
EG. He may not know what all's involved with DVD+RW vs. DVD-RW, but he will quickly get the idea that "DVD-RAM is the older stuff, that is really only good for backing up your files; people still buy it only because the discs come in cartridges that keep them from getting scratched up." He'll also probably buy (and return) either a DVD+RW or DVD-RW drive, once he makes a few movie discs with it and finds out those "darn re-recordable discs don't play in anything besides my computer!"
If he does a little more asking around, he will probably buy a Pioneer DVR-A03 drive that uses DVD-R discs, because his buddies tell him those are the most compatible ones around right now.
Why is the red being promoted? (Score:2, Informative)
I don't see a benifit especially in storage space for the red laser format.
Anybody have a reason other than politics?
Re:Why is the red being promoted? (Score:1)
That's basically it.
precision on previous post (Score:1)
If your question was, why is red being promoted, then I really can't see a reason other than lobbies.
Re:Why is the red being promoted? (Score:2, Informative)
>
>Anybody have a reason other than politics?
Blue laser diodes are expensive and have a very short lifetime compared to red ones, at least at the moment.
Re:Why is the red being promoted? (Score:2, Interesting)
But that's the confusion.
If the blue laser is better in doing the job but is more expensive for the manufacturers, then why: "...nine of the world's biggest electronics companies agreed to promote a blue-laser-based format for next-generation video and computer optical disks." The electronics companies are the ones who have to make millions of blue laser readers for all the people to read them, the dvd sellers only have to buy 10 writers to make millions of dvds, more if they have the throughput needs, in which case they have the money.
it would seem to me that it's backwards.
Also:
consumers want inexpensive larg capacity DVD burners. If the cost of the burner is $300 but could store on a 5 dollar disk more than most standard hard drives (50G), I'd buy it. It's like having 50g drives, which, I'm sorry but I only use for archiving anyway. there's no way I access over 50g activly, I compile it and store it, perhaps change around 20 gigs if I'm organizing or cleaning house. Tape drives aren't cheap and they're lame as far as tech and time. searching sucks and dvd is sooo much faster.
Waste of bandwidth (Score:2, Funny)
Today is Monday, and right now its 01:40, so you might want to go get your self a generous bowl of coffee and do something more constructive than this
Not Blue Already??? (Score:1)
Does anyone else think they're just digging a whole here in delaying a larger capacity format?
Re:Not Blue Already??? (Score:1, Informative)
Basically the mpeg-4 HD-DVD will look better on HD than normal DVDs do, but blue laser systems will look better still.
Re:Lossless compression (Score:1)
25 Mb/s
Re:Lossless compression (Score:1)
New DVD standard (Score:1, Funny)
Well, I didn't. I still don't have a DVD drive. So hah! I have fooled them all!
BTW, I will not purchase a 'blue' DVD drive either - I am waiting for it's successor.
Color is important! (Score:2, Informative)
Refer to this [usbyte.com] document for further information
Boo friggin hoo (Score:1)
If 9Mbit/sec is not enough for your 720x480 movies then "boo friggin hoo". I'd rather not be forced to upgrade all my equipment because some videophile wants a crystal clear 1600x1200x60fps picture. Personally I am not that obsessed with TV and movies to really care.
I'm of the league that watching 320x240 movies is considered ok and fun [specially when full screen].
Tom
Advice for a buyer? wait?... (Score:2, Interesting)
For the purposes of mass digital storage (like backing up many gigs) as well as dvd ripping.
What would you guys suggest I do? Wait until the "standards" become standards? How do I know when the right time is?
Should I wait for this fabled 28G on one disc?
Why bother? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Why bother? (Score:2)
Investments (Score:2, Interesting)
At the end of the day, it comes down to the analogous course that music has taken: the record to 8-track to cassette to CD to MP3 trip. How many times do I have to buy the White Album? How many times do I have to buy Top Gun? How many times are consumers willing? You have to space out these changes, with "mandatory" switches no earlier than ten years apart. Any more frequent and people get burned out chasing the technological carrot.
Red vs. Blue M&M's Complicate Candy's Future (Score:1, Offtopic)
The REAL reason why content providers want red (Score:4, Interesting)
BUT most important to consumers is the fact that MPEG-4 compression is just NOT SUITABLE for high-definition content which is meant to be seen on a decently large screen (29 inches and above). MPEG-4 simply produces too many artifacts (even today with low-bit-rate MPEG-2 you can see on cable how dark images in motion seen to leave a "ghost" behind).
So now the REAL REASON why they (the content providers) still want to pursue red-laser: They get to give consumers a low-quality version of the video image!!! By doing this they feel they are protecting their investment, while in reality they are simply giving consumers a low-quality solution.
If and once they provide this stupid red laser approach for high resolution video, what they effectively will have done is invite third parties to come with competing high-quality products (which sadly will probably will never be supported with popular content since there is a monopoly among the content providers and media player producers), OR some hackers will come up with a scheme to rip high-quality video out of HD broadcast (for TV or movie theatres) and distribute it in a competing format themselves over the Internet. In other words, Napster all over again because for the same reason as before: they industry is NOT thinking about what consumers want, and what consumers want is a high-quality display system to match their new TV.
Re:The REAL reason why content providers - wrong (Score:1)
Silicon is cheap, blue lasers are expensive (Score:2)
Re:Silicon is cheap, blue lasers are expensive (Score:2)
Re:Silicon is cheap, blue lasers are expensive (Score:2)
Moore's law takes care of the transistor problem everywhere. What, you think DVD players do MPEG2 decoding with a truckload of 7400-series logic chips? DVD manufacturers certainly do use specially-designed chips for DVD decoding; my DVD player uses one of ESS Technologies' [esstech.com] single-chip DVD solutions. MPEG2, DTS, AC3, and MP3 decoding all on one chip. Plus a MIPS CPU core.
Re:The REAL reason why content providers want red (Score:4, Informative)
I think this HD-DVD standard in question would use bitrates equal to current MPEG2 streams but with MPEG4 content. If your DivX video seems lower quality than MPEG2 DVD it might be that your DivX video has 750kbps bitrate compared to about 5Mbps bitrate of MPEG2 video. If you compare 1600x1200@5Mbps/MPEG4 with 768x576@5Mbps/MPEG2 stream it should be clear that the former one is much better.
And what comes to "ghosts" in low light scenes it's only issue with current encoder software. Basically current encoders are using linear comparision between original and compressed instead of logarithmic and they treat 2 to 4 in intensity like 244 to 246 even though the former one has 100% increase and the latter one has 0.8% increase. Obviously you're going to notice ghosting due to this in darker scenes only.
Though, I have to admit that when you consider the CPU power needed to even decode 1600x1200 resolution MPEG4 stream it might be cheaper to jump to blue laser. Not to speak anything about real-time recording/encoding! If only they could create single RW standard this time.
Re:The REAL reason why content providers want red (Score:2)
So now the REAL REASON why they (the content providers) still want to pursue red-laser: They get to give consumers a low-quality version of the video image!!! The content providers have probably already sold you Star Wars (for instance) on VHS and DVD both. If they go straight to proper blue-laser high density, they only get to sell it one more time. If they put out red-laser psuedo-high-density first, they sell it two more times. That's all...
Why is something needed so quickly? (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution of the Red laser camp seems to be better compression (good) better post processing (good) but on the same size disc (bad). Switching formats is a hard transition for everyone, why don't they really switch formats and go for something that will be good enough to last for 10 years. Put blue laser discs, Mpeg 4, and good pre and post processing together and you have something that just may stand the test of time, like CD's. CD's are the first technology that I can remember that could possibly be called 'good enough'. I still want DVD-Audio and SACD to do well, but CD's are the first consumer technology that was really limited by how well they were made and the equipment used to play them back then by the format itself. These technology companies have the chance to do that now, with video, but it doesn't look like they are going to take it.
Look back in history to other formats that were just better use of the same space. SVCD, HDCD (20 bit CD) SVHS, the list goes on. They didn't do too well did they? What makes these companies think that 7 Mbit Mpeg 4 is going to look good enough to make people want to switch? There will compression artifacts all over at high resoltuions. Now 1080p 24fps, that is a beautiful thing and will make people drool.
SVCD, HDCD, and SVHS (Score:2)
Look back in history to other formats that were just better use of the same space. SVCD, HDCD (20 bit CD) SVHS, the list goes on. They didn't do too well did they?
SVCD did well, but not in the United States.
HDCD was not a new format but merely a mastering technique. The label made sure that the master data had at least 20 bits of precision, then they quantized to 16-bit in such a way as to shove all the dither noise into the 16-22 kHz band where humans can't hear very well.
SVHS and Betacam SP are still used in professional television equipment.
Re:SVCD, HDCD, and SVHS (Score:2)
It still doesn't hide the fact that it isn't widely accepted.
SVHS may be used elsewhere but it isn't really a consumer technology in that movies are not distributed in SVHS.
SVCD is probably the closest parallel and it isn't really relevant to the United States since its predecessor did so poorly too. I still don't think HD-DVD's using simply Mpeg 4 will do well, but it looks like I can't back it up with history.
HDCD is widely used (Score:2)
It still doesn't hide the fact that [noise-shaped mastering] isn't widely accepted.
Ever look at your CDs through Cool Edit's spectrograph? If, during quiet parts, you see a lot of noise (up to -40 dB) in the 16-22 kHz band, that's noise-shaping. (I see this on lots of albums.) If during a song's fade-out, the audio remains relatively clear even down to -70 or -80 dB, that's noise-shaping. (I'm still impressed by how clean the fade-outs on Genesis - Turn It On Again The Hits sound.) About half of the CDs that my family has bought and ripped recently had been mastered with a noise-shaping technology.
SVHS may be used elsewhere but it isn't really a consumer technology in that movies are not distributed in SVHS.
Likewise, hard drives may be used elsewhere but it isn't really a consumer technology in that movies are not (legitimately) distributed on hard drives.
Re:Why is something needed so quickly? (Score:2)
Serious audiophiles are a tough group to rely on. They are the people who pay for an $8000 CD player that just has a SPDIF Toslink out. It is digital! A dvd player with optical out will sound the exact fucking same! It is the D/A converter, amp, and speakers that make the difference. That is the thing with digital, the quality is set and it is the analog components that are of varying sound quality, with the exception of post-processing.
Sounds like a technology in danger (Score:2)
Why Not Split The Difference? (Score:1)
MORE choices to confuse me... (Score:1)
Tape or LaserDisc?
Tape, LaserDisc or DVD?
Tape or DVD?
Letterbox or Pan&Scan (never a problem for me here...)?
Standard or HD?
Red or Blue laser?
480 or 1080?
Wife: I got that copy of _The Matrix_ you wanted...
Husband: Honey, you got the wrong one?
Wide: Whatd'ya mean? It says "The Matrix" right on it!!!
Blue Vs Mpeg4? (Score:1)
The industry always seems to aim for "Just Enough" technology to get the next planned innovation out the door. It would be nice to see them aim for the moon and just let innovations develop as a result of the technology.
Just imagining a new form of media entertainment, where you watch a movie from the perspective of each character independently. It would be extremely non-linear and very watchable (if well written (think the experimental film "Foor Rooms" but where each character is followed...not just the bellhop)). Just an idea but POSSIBLE if the tech companies would produce technology and let the content providers peddle there wheres on whatever platform exists.
Think about it, Blu Ray (w/ MPEG4)= 25-35 hours of video? Yummy....
Don't Forget about M$'s New Standards... (Score:1)
3 points:
Pirate copies could be *better* than legal ones (Score:2)
Interesting times.
thad
Microwaves and X-rays already! (Score:2)
Why not skip-to-the-end so to speak. I know they have x-ray lasers. And Microwave technology is pretty well known by now. Seems kinda silly to be in the visible spectrum at all anymore.
Re:Microwaves and X-rays already! (Score:2)
That chart you're looking at is incorrect. Microwaves are around 0.1 mm, somewhere between the infrared and radio waves. Microwave lasers (masers) have been around since the 50's. X-ray lasers currently require a nuclear explosion to operate. If someone ever figures out how to get x-rays to reflect efficiently, maybe then we'll have an x-ray laser.
Re:LDs, DVDs, MO (Score:2)
I do, however, like the price of DVD vs. Laserdiscs. New lasers were still running around CAN$70 to 80, whereas a new DVD will be around CAN$20 to 30. DVD's also don't have nasty sidebreaks every 30 minutes like CAV's do/did.
It was nice to see a movie fade to black without nasty compression artifacts/posterizing! Also, DVD's are smaller and lighter and a bit more convenient to carry around from place to place.
However, like with vinyl, I can guarantee there'll be movies on laser that simply never end up on DVD, mainly from studio apathy. I mean how many damn records do I own that are OOP and not available on CD?!
Ah well, at least I'll always have a copy of the original Star Wars trilogy without the crappy "special edition" footage! Mua ha ha!
Re:LDs, DVDs, MO (Score:1)
2.3GB on a 3.5" form factor? Only four times slower than a hard disk, and just as reliable?
And we're still using floppies.
Re:Its all about Hollywood and Piracy (Score:1)
Hm - that may be partially true; but look at something like DVD-Audio where the entire benefit of the format is very high bandwidth making it thusly hard to make an exact and *portable* (think p2p) copy. If Hollywood starts pumping out low bandwith media then they have done most of the hard work of media sharing for the pira... er, public.
Look at DVD's; more than half the battle of making a easily portable copy is converting the mpeg2 to lower bandwidth mpeg2 or mpeg. I would think there is a good deal to be said for making very high bandwidth items. Personally; I don't find svcd's worth the effort of watching. If I want to own a movie; I want 5.1 audio. I want a nice case. I want the extra features and commentary. I can't make a useful copy of that; so I don't bother downloading pirated movies. I also live about 50 feet from a Blockbuster, so rental is an option.
I have, however; downloaded episodes of TV shows that I missed. The only part of that experience that is different from TV is that the commercials have been removed from the downloaded version. Compared to a converted and shared DVD which would be lower audio and video quality; and missing all of the extras that, for me anyways, make it well worth the purchase of the DVD. Not te mention the frequent aggravation of downloading a really bad or flawed rip; wasting time looking for the movie in the first place; etc. How many people do you know who are proud of thier massive collection of stolen movies.. and yet haven't watched all of them?
Of course, once DVD writers (and media) become mainstream all of this gets turned upside down. Expecially if this blu-ray takes off. You can fit a lot of movies on a 27 gig disc; even a few DVD's in their native format.