Hi-def war over?

[Nokl]

Well this was gonna happen at some stage, but to me it looks like the end of the HD/BluRay format war. Warner have announced (http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/04/warner-goes-blu-ray-exclusive/) at CES that they are goin BD exclusive, leaving toshiba truly out of the picture.

Most people probably wont rly care about this, but its rly pissed me off because I own a HD-DVD player, and did quite abit of research before committing to buy it. Now im left with a player that I soon wont be able to buy most films in HD for. This leaves the only studios still supporting HD-DVD as Paramount, universal, and dreamworks, and apparently newline will be leaving as well.

I still believe that HD is the better format but there has always been much debate about which camp is better. It doesn't help that BD supporters always use paramount as an example as to why their format is better, and thats because toshiba sorta payed paramount a large sum of money ($500 m) for exclusivity, and why would a format like hd-dvd need to pay for a studios support.

One of the only reasons why BD has won the upper hand is that the PS3 comes with a built in drive, and that obv reflects on the number of sales of BD movies (BD exclusivity of warner based on movie sales). Although microsoft did release the 360 ext player, this was too little to late tbh, esp considering that a PS3 is £280 with BD support and a 360 is at least £340 for the console + HD player.

Question is now, should I sell my player with my HD's OR sell just the player, keep my films and buy a dual format player?

[KingDaveRa]

It certainly looks like the Bluray camp have the upper hand. It doesn't help with the HD-DVD people retreating from CES as soon as Warner made their announcement.

TBH, I think we'll end up with a similar situation to DVD+/-R. LG already have a dual-format drive (altho it'll only read/write BD, HD-DVD is read only). I daresay one of the main DVD manufacturers will stick their necks out and make a dual-format player for the home. If that happens, it all becomes moot, although such a device could work out expensive, having to licence two formats. Plus, it wouldn't take long for one or the other to get stroppy and revoke the licences, causing all sorts of grief.

I don't think this'll be as clean-cut as the VHS/Beta thing. We might end up with something akin to what happened with Vinyl - 45s being used for singles, and 33s being used for albums. We might find BD going into gaming devices, and HD-DVD under our TVs and on our PCs, or something like that. Just a guess tho.

At first, I thought 'oh well, that's that decided then', but I'm not so sure. It could go on for some time.

[Jez_Gafys]

You say "This leaves the only studios still supporting HD-DVD as Paramount, universal, and dreamworks"

All three of those are very very big companies though and have the power to make HDDVD survive. And don't forget the porn industry decided to be exclusive to hddvd so its still got a big following and will continues to fight out for a while yet

[RocketKnight]

I'm all for both formats surviving if it means competition and lower prices for us. Also, they'll begin making cheap hardware to encourage consumers to switch to HD; they know they'll make more money form disc sales in the long run anwyay.

[Jobabob]

its another chink in the armour, but both formats have been firing shots at each other and gaining ground over the past couple of years. Id like to see what ps3 sales will do after the holiday period.

[kandy]

I really couldn't give a toss when its £20+ for a single HD film, what a complete ripoff.

[ez64]

and they wonder why people download 32gb Blu ray or HD DVD films without paying and playing them on a pc, instead of getting left in a corner with a useless £xxx player.

when will they learn?

[Gunsmith]

Blu-Ray was going to win, not because its a better format but because it have a 5 syllable prenounciation

[Nokl]

You say "This leaves the only studios still supporting HD-DVD as Paramount, universal, and dreamworks"

All three of those are very very big companies though and have the power to make HDDVD survive. And don't forget the porn industry decided to be exclusive to hddvd so its still got a big following and will continues to fight out for a while yet

Paramount were bought by HD-DVD for exclusivity rights, this means that after their contract ends its very likely they will up and leave. thats wot all the rumors coming out now are saying. also dont forget that paramount own dreamworks and if they do leave, that that it, bye bye HD-DVD. Interesting u mention the porn industry r HD exclusive lol, wouldn't most sane ppl do that online nowadays anyway.

/edit. Dnt forget that a big factor also to consider that what the retailers are gonna do. Already u can see in HMV and Zavvi that they have a ratio of something like 2:1 in BD's favour.

[Nokl]

anybody wanna buy my player?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Toshiba-HD-E1-High-Definition-Player/dp/B000I7IHHI

[Omnituens]

i have a HD DVD drive in my laptop. Didnt actually realise it did until i got it.

Not going to use it. my lappy can output to HDMI, but its the one input my monitor doesnt support.

[Hg]

My rock laptop has a HD DVD drive so i went and brought transformers in HD great film great picture etc, however thats it i dont really wanna buy into the HD DVD / Blu ray untill i'm able to buy the movies i want on a single format

[Mingtea]

Just got the HD-DVD drive for the 360, it's not great but it means i'm covered for any eventuality with this and my PS3.

[Elbonio]

wouldnt touch either with a bargepole for at least 3 years.

[rick_2k]

IMO hd-dvd needs to be killed now and let BD get on with it.

I dont care what player does what... Blu-ray is selling more and im sure there are more players due to the playstation so... that does it for me.

I hate this confusion...

[Tim^]

IMO hd-dvd needs to be killed now and let BD get on with it.

I dont care what player does what... Blu-ray is selling more and im sure there are more players due to the playstation so... that does it for me.

I hate this confusion...
Let me guess, you have a PS3 right? :P

[Elkeeed]

The whole porn thing is a myth based on a situation that lasted about a month way back when both format came out. Porn titles are available on both Bluray and HD-DVD.

Universal are the only big company that has stuck with HD-DVD of their own accord so I doubt they can keep it up single handed. We will have to wait and see if Paramount and Dreamworks go Bluray or release in both formats when their current contracts ran out. Personally I think the battle was over as soon as they included it in PS3s, its only lasted as long as it has because the PS3 was too expensive.

What made you think HD-DVD was a better format btw? Bluray was always bigger and more advanced, HD-DVD just came out first and was initially cheaper to produce.

[ez64]

there was the debate of better compression techniques on HD DVD, but 17gb vs 25gb isnt really much of a difference.

but I think sony have won this one.


but as always they missed the ball again since physical media is getting more and more pointless.

[rick_2k]

Let me guess, you have a PS3 right? :P

Correct! But still im saying my *guess* is there are many more blu ray drives in peoples homes. So lets just stop this stupid confusion and stick to one format. And it would make sence to be blu ray would it not?

Of course i personally would like it to be BD becuase i have a player but seriously... i dont give a **** where it comes from. afaik they both do the same thing and use the same technology just about so its just a retarded "war".

I cant watch transformers or the borne ultimatium because its on another format and that is what kills me inside..

[ez64]

and they wonder why people download 32gb Blu ray or HD DVD films without paying and playing them on a pc, instead of getting left in a corner with a useless £xxx player.

when will they learn?

[gemini]

I dont know which one will win. And neither do I particularly care. For two reasons.

1) Regardless of which one "wins" I still wont be buying either of them on an actual disc. I hate spending money on DVD's / Bluerays / HD DVD's to be greeted with the anti piracy "DO NOT DOWNLOAD THIS FILM" nonsense.

2) Almost all films released nowadays are rubbish anyway.

But, in the eventuality that I do eventually start caring, I wont be buying any of either until the war is well and truely over and one format has everything.

[bvark]

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2008/01/05/warner_300.png

Looks reasonably conclusive to me.

[KingDaveRa]

It's certainly looking that way now. It only takes Paramount or Universal to waiver, and that's it. Game over.

[snowblind]

It's certainly looking that way now. It only takes Paramount or Universal to waiver, and that's it. Game over.

By the same token, it would only take 20th century fox and Buena vista to waiver and its back where we started.

[Gunsmith]

i was walking around hmv earlier, i think it was a 80/20 to blu-ray on the HD shelf.

[Jobabob]

what the hell is that chart actually showing, you could make the 'paramount' wedge twice as big and hddvd would be winning

[bright_]

what the hell is that chart actually showing, you could make the 'paramount' wedge twice as big and hddvd would be winning


did you think about that before you posted? :P lol Its a chart to show the divide between companies, how big a chunk they have of the movie market, and which format they've decided to use.

[Nokl]

What made you think HD-DVD was a better format btw? Bluray was always bigger and more advanced, HD-DVD just came out first and was initially cheaper to produce.

From the start HD had the better product, which had several advantages to BD. First off the menu system was far superior, and allowed navigation during the film without having to stop the film (eg. watch blood diamond u can enable 'in movie experience', commentary, change languages etc), but sony soon changed that and followed suit.

Secondly its a fact that HD-DVD is a more simple and cheap technology to produce, reminiscent of the VHS/Betamax war when VHS was the same. To convert a DVD plant to make HD-DVD's is much simpler and cheaper to do than with BD technology, this ultimately means that customers save on the player prices and the movies.

Thirdly with the naked eye there is absolutely no distinguishable quality difference between the two formats, and this also leads to capacity. Films at say 1080p quality generally don't need more than about 20GB and that leaves an average of 5-10gb free on a HD-DVD and 20-30gb for Bluray. There isnt any need for that extra space apart from bonus features, but who watches them anyway??

forth Transformers was released on HD exclusively :D

and lastly region free encoding, there is a god. Dont wanna pay £25-30+ for a copy of that new HD film from HMV, pop online/abroad and save save save.

[RocketKnight]

what the hell is that chart actually showing, you could make the 'paramount' wedge twice as big and hddvd would be winning
Quoted because it made me giggle. :D

Source of graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HighDefShare_2008-06-01.svg

The size of the slice represents US box office market share for the year 2007, apparently. There's no link to where that data came from though.

[Pingman]

I wish *one* of the formats would just win, then we can all go and buy a player of the dominant format and get on with actually watching HD media.

No one's really buying either format at the moment because they don't want to get stung with a useless format in 6 months or a years time.

[Shazz]

It'll end up being the same as the Betamax vs VHS. VHS was the inferiour product, but won because it was cheaper then Betamax

[Elkeeed]

VHS beat Betamax because initially Betamax tapes were too short. It had nothing to do with price. Lots of people keep bringing that up but the situation isn't very similar at all and what happened then is pretty much irrelevant.

From the start HD had the better product, which had several advantages to BD. First off the menu system was far superior, and allowed navigation during the film without having to stop the film (eg. watch blood diamond u can enable 'in movie experience', commentary, change languages etc), but sony soon changed that and followed suit.

This is merely the implementation of the player, it has nothing to do with the standard itself. Bluray with its Java interface can do far more, it just hasn't been used much yet. This also brings up another advantage of Bluray players which is that they are far more capable and more easily updated with new features.

Secondly its a fact that HD-DVD is a more simple and cheap technology to produce, reminiscent of the VHS/Betamax war when VHS was the same. To convert a DVD plant to make HD-DVD's is much simpler and cheaper to do than with BD technology, this ultimately means that customers save on the player prices and the movies.

Only the initial conversion is cheaper. Once it is in place Bluray is not that much more expensive and due to the fact that neither HD format has made any dent in the DVD market, no one really wants to lose a DVD fab so the HD fabs are being added rather than converted. So this advantage of HD-DVD never actually materialised.

Also Bluray discs are not anymore expensive than HD-DVD in shops so the cost of manufacture is largely irrelevant to the consumer.

Thirdly with the naked eye there is absolutely no distinguishable quality difference between the two formats, and this also leads to capacity.

This is largely true. Both formats use the same codecs and in many cases the actual film is identical. However long films such as Saving Private Ryan would not fit on HD-DVD at full quality and you can see the difference at 1080p. Granted that doesn't effect most people who have lower res tvs and/or are happy with dvd quality anyway.

Your figures for space left for extras are a bit generous, I would say the average is about half that. Firstly a lot of people do watch the extras. I know people who have gone and bought different versions just for the better extras that they hold. Also you arn't really thinking about the future, just because there isn't a killer use for that space now doesn't mean it won't be useful later on.

Plus Bluray is a better data format technologically. I want it to succeed so that I can write Bluray data disks on my PC like I can burn CDs or DVDs now.

and lastly region free encoding, there is a god. Dont wanna pay £25-30+ for a copy of that new HD film from HMV, pop online/abroad and save save save.

Region coding is a non issue. Its not even enforced by players now and if it was we would soon see multiregion players like we have with DVD. Without region codes though the manufacturers have to price for the global market and they wouldn't be so much cheaper abroad in the first place.

Most titles seem to be around £20 from uk online shops which doesnt seem too unreasonable when a DVD is around £10. There isn't really a huge advantage from ordering abroad anymore, the manufacturers have learnt that lesson over DVD.

[Nokl]

sry, i was merly tryin to answer ur question but u got me on those answers;). anyway they were just the reasons I chose to go HD-DVD and why i bought my player, which is now on ebay :)

[Elkeeed]

Yeah well thats exactly the problem, theres a lot of hype from both sides about why this will be better in the future and why that wont matter after a few months and so on and it just confuses everybody. I think Bluray always had the better potential and HD-DVD had the advantage right now but in the end all that won't matter if the other one wins and you can't get movies for your player anymore. :)

[snowblind]

sony are evil. the end.

[Tim^]

sony are evil. the end.

Touché salesman.

[Afty]

VHS beat Betamax because initially Betamax tapes were too short.Not entirely true, the primary reason VHS won out over Betamax was the lower consumer price point of the players themselves... Greater consumer uptake simply meant studios went with the more widely available VHS as a means of distribution instead of Betamax.

The length was only an issue for very long films, and it was possible to buy them on two VHS tapes in two parts.

In case you're wondering, yes I've had both Beta and VHS players (though to be fair, they were my 'rents, I was a bit young to own a Beta) and I've taken em to bits too... much to the chagrin of my father.

The early VHS players were just much more simple and elegant in terms of design, the betas had enormous parts, were clunky and expensive to build.

[spraduke]

Well i know no1 who owns either players as standalone. The only people who seem to be after HD formats are doing so because they own a ps3 and want to make use of the player. Personally i feel that bluray is the better technology as it is a complete advance as HD DVD is more of a halfway house. New lasers for better track size = bigger storage versus jamming more info onto a DVD (or at least thats the general idea).

I wont be buying either until the price drops or there is a clear winner, but then again i didnt have a dvd player until fairly late on.

[no friends]

I wont be buying either until the price drops or there is a clear winner, but then again i didnt have a dvd player until fairly late on.

No one in my family owns a standalone DVD player yet. :P
Only because our VHS player is still working...

[Jez_Gafys]

That graph seems to have been updated and the results do show a different view due to two of the companies supporting both formats

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/HighDefShare.svg/300px-HighDefShare.svg.png


This graph also doesn't show the music industry where I have heard the bulk of those have gone exclusive HD-DVD such as EMI

[Tsung]

Blu-Ray has Lost, HD-DVD hasn't.

[Jazza]

Jez, that's the old graph, as Warner and NewLine will be Blu-Ray only from May

That graph seems to have been updated and the results do show a different view due to two of the companies supporting both formats

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/HighDefShare.svg/300px-HighDefShare.svg.png


This graph also doesn't show the music industry where I have heard the bulk of those have gone exclusive HD-DVD such as EMI

[Jazza]

HD-DVD has Heroes & Battlestar Galactica, Blu-Ray Doesn't :)

Although I'm sure it won't be long until it's on Blu

Blu-Ray has Lost, HD-DVD hasn't.

[snowblind]

who cares, none of these companies can create new content cause of the writers strike anyway :)

[RocketKnight]

Looks like Paramount might be switching to BluRay according to the Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea637496-bd8d-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

[spraduke]

Twas the PS3 that did it. Not to mention saying blu-ray is easier :P

[Inferno]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/01/08/blu_ray_to_the_world-we_won/1

apparently bluray have run out selling hd dvd 2 to 1 over the holiday period

[Murray-Mint]

I for one welcome our new blu-ray overlords.

[Hg]

Lol Inferno i was just about to link to that too,
Its nice to see that it may be over however that means my nice New HD-DVD rom drive in my Rock laptop will be obsolete within a few months, however if Blu Ray has won this means i can stock up on cheap HD-DVDs from ebay and the clearance shelfs of most stores soon lol

[KingDaveRa]

http://www.techconsumer.com/2008/01/12/hd-dvd-price-drops-while-blu-ray-screws-early-adopters/

Well, looks like the war's not over yet!

[rick_2k]

Well im glad i own a ps3!

[Devvy]

sony are evil. the end.

Bluray was developed and is backed by the Bluray Disc Association, of which Sony is only one company. Yay for co-operation....

The founding members behind the development are: Matsu5hita (commonly known as Panasonic), Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, Samsung, and Sony.

[EvilGav]

Bluray was developed and is backed by the Bluray Disc Association, of which Sony is only one company. Yay for co-operation....

The founding members behind the development are: Matsu5hita (commonly known as Panasonic), Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, Samsung, and Sony.

Surprisingly, the same group of companies that founded the DVD forum, which gave us the upgrade from VHS to digital media, which went swimmingly and everyone was happy (except for the stupid regional encoding).

[Portia]

The end of HDDVD, caught on film.

friS4OOcdgQ

[spraduke]

awesome :D

[Jez_Gafys]

My Wife: "Aint blue ray when you get texts when you walk past shops"

:P

[Jamz]

The vid is just a lame copy. The funny version was the xbox one where his console got blocked..

[Jez_Gafys]

Looks like Paramount might be switching to BluRay according to the Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea637496-bd8d-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1


Yeah it was released yesterday that Paramount are about to defect to Blue-ray. It was said that Paramount were only with HD DVD due to receiving a heavy subsidy from manufacturers.

[Portia]

The best system was V2000.
Far better than either VHS or Betamax.

[Jez_Gafys]

I still swear by laserdiscs, they own all, though the last film I bought for it was Terminator 2 which imo looked so much better then the dvd version, it just didn't sound as good, slightly crackly.

[TheDon]

This is merely the implementation of the player, it has nothing to do with the standard itself. Bluray with its Java interface can do far more, it just hasn't been used much yet. This also brings up another advantage of Bluray players which is that they are far more capable and more easily updated with new features.

Sorry but that is 100% pure and utter crap.

The HD-DVD spec was to start with FAR superior to bluray.
As such they released blu-ray 1.1 to bridge the gap, and are now releasing bluray 2.0 to actually close it. And guess what? Here's the real kicker! Early bluray players are UNABLE to update a newer spec. You say that bluray is easier to update, again, that's bull****. Right from the start HD-DVD has had a network port as standard, bluray hasnt. And right from the start hddvd had had to have space for future updates with all players being updatable, and bluray hasn't. As such most of the players are unable to update their firmware to cover the new features, and even if they could don't have the raw power to actually do them anyway.

Infact, at CES, the Bluray camp was saying that with bluray 2.0 coming soon the ONLY bluray player that they'd recommend buying is the ps3, because it's the only one can that update to the new spec and all the others will be left unable to use the new features.

To sumarise the different profiles:

1.0 is the launch profile, and secondary audio and video decoders are optional, as is local storage and network connectivity. The majority of standalone players fit into this category.

1.1 is the newer profile, and to take advantage of these discs, players need a secondary audio and video decoder to handle picture-in-picture, as well as at least 256MB of local storage for content.

(oh, look, they suddenly realised hd-dvd can do pip so thought "****, we better get that in there, lets release a new spec. Forget the early adopters, they were expecting to buy outdated tech anyway, we can just fleece them for more money")

2.0 is the profile of the future, requiring the two secondary decoders, 1GB of local storage for updates and content, and an Internet connection.

So, sure, bluray is the superior spec, dispite your stand alone players running an old spec with no chance to update to a newer one to give you the features that hddvd had from the very start.

The bluray camp were VERY shortsighted about what features they could put on disk, they basically went with "err, lets just make sure it can do everything dvds can, but with err, higher quality!" whereas hddvd actually looked at implementing new features like pip for special features and made sure that their devices can be easily updated.

Bluray deserves to die for having the nerve to assume that everyone will be happy with just buying a new player to make up for their inadequacies in designing a spec in the first place.

[KingDaveRa]

/me agrees with TheDon

[EvilGav]

Very true Don and indeed true that the v1.0 Blu Ray players cant be updated to the newer specs, but heres the kicker :

PIP - i've been using DVD's for a decade and have never at any point felt the need to look at the menu or whatever while the film was playing, i do that before it starts and sometimes after it's finished.

Ethernet - woah, look, we get on-line content on our TV's. Errrr, so ???

I'm not having a go at you Don, what you've said is quite correct. It just baffles me the level people are placing these additional options - they are, quite frankly, fluff that will probably get used once or twice to see what it does and then consigned to a small box in the back of the brain.

DVD's can do many things - branching, multiple-angles plus a couple of more obscure features. I own several hundred DVD's (from regions 1, 2 and 3) and in all of that, I have 2 that use branching (Terminator 2 Ultimate region1 edtion, which allows you to watch the extended or theatrical version of the film and Clue, which allows you to select either the VHS version or the theatrical release, where you get one of three different endings) and I have perused a single disc using multiple angles (yes, it was porn).

Again, just to re-itterate, i'm not having a go, it's just that for the vast majority of the time and the people, all they want is a machine that plays the film.

[Elkeeed]

Sorry but that is 100% pure and utter crap.

The HD-DVD spec was to start with FAR superior to bluray.
As such they released blu-ray 1.1 to bridge the gap, and are now releasing bluray 2.0 to actually close it. And guess what? Here's the real kicker! Early bluray players are UNABLE to update a newer spec. You say that bluray is easier to update, again, that's bull****. Right from the start HD-DVD has had a network port as standard, bluray hasnt. And right from the start hddvd had had to have space for future updates with all players being updatable, and bluray hasn't. As such most of the players are unable to update their firmware to cover the new features, and even if they could don't have the raw power to actually do them anyway.

Infact, at CES, the Bluray camp was saying that with bluray 2.0 coming soon the ONLY bluray player that they'd recommend buying is the ps3, because it's the only one can that update to the new spec and all the others will be left unable to use the new features.

To sumarise the different profiles:

1.0 is the launch profile, and secondary audio and video decoders are optional, as is local storage and network connectivity. The majority of standalone players fit into this category.

1.1 is the newer profile, and to take advantage of these discs, players need a secondary audio and video decoder to handle picture-in-picture, as well as at least 256MB of local storage for content.

(oh, look, they suddenly realised hd-dvd can do pip so thought "****, we better get that in there, lets release a new spec. Forget the early adopters, they were expecting to buy outdated tech anyway, we can just fleece them for more money")

2.0 is the profile of the future, requiring the two secondary decoders, 1GB of local storage for updates and content, and an Internet connection.

So, sure, bluray is the superior spec, dispite your stand alone players running an old spec with no chance to update to a newer one to give you the features that hddvd had from the very start.

The bluray camp were VERY shortsighted about what features they could put on disk, they basically went with "err, lets just make sure it can do everything dvds can, but with err, higher quality!" whereas hddvd actually looked at implementing new features like pip for special features and made sure that their devices can be easily updated.

Bluray deserves to die for having the nerve to assume that everyone will be happy with just buying a new player to make up for their inadequacies in designing a spec in the first place.

These are not different versions, they are different profiles. This is important because it means that people will be able to play Bluray discs no matter what profile they have. If you bought a 1.0 player you will never lose functionality, it is only the extra content that you wouldn't have access to. Much like standalone dvd players have never been able to play PC interactive content.

They didnt just add extra versions in reply to HDDVD, they had them in mind from the beginning. The idea to different profiles is that there can be models of different complexity/cheapness which gives more accessibility to the format. Anyone can watch a movie but this makes it possible for people to pay more for a more complex player and get more complex content. No one is being hung out to dry, there will continue to be 1.0 players for sale and supported by content.

The content provided and inteface that the user sees depends on the implementation not the spec. Many things possible in the 1.0 profile have not been used on titles yet. And you seem to be making much more of a deal of PIP than it is.

[RocketKnight]

Sony's profile idea is rubbish. Logically if you have a profile 1 player and you can only watch the film, you should pay less for a disc than people with profile 2 players? Except you won't, everyone will pay the same. Once again Sony just don't get it. As if it wasn't complicated for the average person enough, now you have to ask which profile your BluRay player comes with.

I just wish they'd hurry up and pick a format so they can get on with releasing the West Wing complete HD boxset, that's really all I care about in all of this. :(

[Jamz]

PIP is pretty cool, I use it all the time on my Telly.

[Unplugged]

I remeber playing with P&P when it came out on the Sony WEGA screens about 8 years ago. I also remeber looking and playing with it and thinking "lol that will be useful :psy:" its a nice gimmick but to me I never found any practical use dispite flogging sales speil about keeping the weather report or bringing up another channel when the adverts were on :)

[Jamz]

I have my PC connected to the Telly in the living room so in the mornings I use the PC as main and then have the news etc on the PIP.

[Portia]

I remember playing with PIP when it came out on the Hitachi, about 17 years ago...

[Jez_Gafys]

I use PiP now so that my Daughter can watch TV but I can play the wii in the corner of the screen :P

[TheDon]

These are not different versions, they are different profiles. This is important because it means that people will be able to play Bluray discs no matter what profile they have. If you bought a 1.0 player you will never lose functionality, it is only the extra content that you wouldn't have access to. Much like standalone dvd players have never been able to play PC interactive content.

They didnt just add extra versions in reply to HDDVD, they had them in mind from the beginning. The idea to different profiles is that there can be models of different complexity/cheapness which gives more accessibility to the format. Anyone can watch a movie but this makes it possible for people to pay more for a more complex player and get more complex content. No one is being hung out to dry, there will continue to be 1.0 players for sale and supported by content.

The content provided and inteface that the user sees depends on the implementation not the spec. Many things possible in the 1.0 profile have not been used on titles yet. And you seem to be making much more of a deal of PIP than it is.Versions/Profiles call it what you want, it still stops people accessing content on a disk that they have paid for because they made the mistake of believing they were buying a technology that had an agreed spec.

Even if they had them in mind from the beginning it is still screwing over the early adopters because how many of them knew that in time there would be content on the disk that they couldn't access? How many of them knew that they were paying over £500 for a player that was using the so called budget profile as you seem to be putting it.

HD-DVD is alot more consumer friendly for this very reason.

[Elkeeed]

How many people know that their DVDs contain content that can only be played back on a PC? Shouldn't they all be annoyed that manufacturers sold them a player for £20 that won't play back that content! Surely by your logic manufacturers need to sell PCs for £20 otherwise they are ripping off all those people with standalone players.

[[IOA]Madcat]

Havent read the entire thing but i bought a PS3 and a 360 with the HD-DVD drive (via HDMI)

The HD DVD was not as good a quality (to my untrained eye) so i sold the 360 as i dont use it and i buy my movies on Blu Ray. Die hard 4 was superb.

I use my PS3 for hardly mcuh else except a spot of assasins creed and i think its worth it.

I dont agree with piracy for films games or moveis purely because if nobody paid for anything then the artists / makers would not make the movies games etc we enjoy.

[Jamz]

Madcat;708752']
The HD DVD was not as good a quality (to my untrained eye) so i sold the 360 as i dont use it and i buy my movies on Blu Ray. Die hard 4 was superb.


All in your head my friend, all in your head!

[[IOA]Madcat]

Doesnt HDDVD only hold like 16gb and Bluray is 25 or more ?

[Jamz]

HDDVD 30Gb although they are currently trying to add another layer in and Blu-ray is 50Gb, but the films held on both are currently encoded to the same quality, after all 1080p is 1080p

[Elkeeed]

Madcat;708752']Havent read the entire thing but i bought a PS3 and a 360 with the HD-DVD drive (via HDMI)

The HD DVD was not as good a quality (to my untrained eye) so i sold the 360 as i dont use it and i buy my movies on Blu Ray. Die hard 4 was superb.

I use my PS3 for hardly mcuh else except a spot of assasins creed and i think its worth it.

I dont agree with piracy for films games or moveis purely because if nobody paid for anything then the artists / makers would not make the movies games etc we enjoy.

The PS3 has better postprocessing filters than the XBOX360 so this may well be the case. The difference wouldn't be so obvious if you watched HDDVD on a high quality standalone player.

Its the same as when you play a DVD on a PS2 or XBOX and compare it to a decent standalone player. The consoles looked much worse despite it being the same data going in. Fortunately Sony have learnt from that mistake and done better with the PS3.

[Jamz]

Well I've got both (PS3 and 360) and I've noticed no difference in testing it myself.

[VonFaceless]

HDDVD 30Gb although they are currently trying to add another layer in and Blu-ray is 50Gb, but the films held on both are currently encoded to the same quality, after all 1080p is 1080p

Actually Toshiba announced 51Gb disks just over a year ago <link> (http://www.dvdtown.com/news/hddvdgoesbeyond50gbwithnewdisc/4260)

[EvilGav]

Blu-Ray is technically capable of holding 200GB per disc . . .

[Jamz]

Blu-Ray is technically capable of holding 200GB per disc . . .

Please support that with fact, perhaps a URL?

[EvilGav]

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=94

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,117867-page,1/article.html

http://www.redherring.com/Home/18293

That alright :p

[Zenith]

They think it's all over?

It is now....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKL1643184420080216

Toshiba has thrown in the towel on HD-DVD. Blu-ray has won.

[Elkeeed]

About time, now they just have to fight DVD itself. :)

[EvilGav]

DVD didn't become the power-house home format anywhere near as fast as some people seem to think - I was an early adopter and bought my player in December 1997, when you still had to fork over £500 for a decent multi-region player. Most of the DVD's from the early days came from the US, as they had 4 times the number of films, they came out sooner and usually had better extras.

It was a number of years before DVD's started picking up sales and not until the early 2000's before you saw the same as we're seeing now - Fire Sale prices. In the dying days of VHS you could pick pretty much anything up for a few pounds, much like DVD's today.

Same will happen this time, it'll be another couple of years before we start seeing parity across the formats.

Hell, I remember getting my first CD player in 1986 and being told by *everyone* at the time "that'll never catch on".

And anyone who thinks that downloads are the way forward is, today, living in cloud cuckoo land. The only real place to do so just now is on the 360 (legally) and thats to have a compressed 720p picture and stereo sound, which is no comparison to 1080p and 6.1 discrete sound.

[rick_2k]

They think it's all over?

It is now....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKL1643184420080216

Toshiba has thrown in the towel on HD-DVD. Blu-ray has won.

:worship: blu-ray

[Elkeeed]

And anyone who thinks that downloads are the way forward is, today, living in cloud cuckoo land. The only real place to do so just now is on the 360 (legally) and thats to have a compressed 720p picture and stereo sound, which is no comparison to 1080p and 6.1 discrete sound.

Indeed, the only reason its possible now so cheaply is because its not mainstream. The internet doesn't have enough bandwidth to scale up to it being the main distribution method unless the music industry pays for ISPs to upgrade their infrastructure.

[ez64]

Indeed, the only reason its possible now so cheaply is because its not mainstream. The internet doesn't have enough bandwidth to scale up to it being the main distribution method unless the music industry pays for ISPs to upgrade their infrastructure.



Are you kidding me?

were one of the slower countrys and 24mb synced is pretty wide spread and its getting further and further, not to mention the 100mb trials going on over the country.

The internet was a great distribution system for HD content 4 years ago, proper 8gb 1080p movies that most peoples monitors dont support in just over 1 hour is what I call more than acceptable.

When it takes more time to watch than download it I think that warrants a succesful distribution system bandwith wise.

[EvilGav]

Are you kidding me?

were one of the slower countrys and 24mb synced is pretty wide spread and its getting further and further, not to mention the 100mb trials going on over the country.

The internet was a great distribution system for HD content 4 years ago, proper 8gb 1080p movies that most peoples monitors dont support in just over 1 hour is what I call more than acceptable.

When it takes more time to watch than download it I think that warrants a succesful distribution system bandwith wise.

Errr, where were you finding HD content 4 years ago ?? I could be wrong, but I certainly don't remember it available anywhere.

And as I said previously, it never includes the digital sound-track. Whats the point of an uber picture if all your going to do is watch it on ****ty stereo :confused:

[ez64]

Cameras have been recording in way over HD 1080 for many many year's.

"HD" isnt a new technology just a marketing buzzword for substandard televisions.

[rick_2k]

I have to agree with digital HD stuff over the net.. i just dont think the ability is there yet.
Coming from my point of view as a user, ISPs are going crazy with all of us torrenting youtubing.... OK what happens when we ALL (as in everyone.. not a 0.1 % of the net who allready dl HD content) start trying to download some HUGE high def movies. I just cant see it happening anytime soon. I really cant.

Also the state of streaming over the net is dire... youtube is just a shambles sometimes and thats some bad quality 400x300 video or something stupid.

I cant see 1080p video being streamed to the masses or downloaded anytime too soon i really cant.

Im not saying i dont want any of this though! If only!

edit: how on earth did this get bumped to the 4th page? somone put a extra post in before my post even after it was submited? wtf :p

[EvilGav]

I wasn't disputing that it was being created, technically a technicolour camera has an almost infinite resolution, my question was, where were you downloading 1080p content 4 years ago, as I wasn't particularly aware of it being available and I am a techno-whore so tend to keep track of such things.

[Elkeeed]

Are you kidding me?

were one of the slower countrys and 24mb synced is pretty wide spread and its getting further and further, not to mention the 100mb trials going on over the country.

The internet was a great distribution system for HD content 4 years ago, proper 8gb 1080p movies that most peoples monitors dont support in just over 1 hour is what I call more than acceptable.

When it takes more time to watch than download it I think that warrants a succesful distribution system bandwith wise.

Are YOU crazy? Most of the country is on 'upto' 8Mbps getting a grand total of less than 1mbps for most of the day. Last year you could happily download an HD movie and watch it. Now it takes 2 or 3 days to download and then the DRM give you 3 days if you are lucky to watch it before it is useless.

Now, bearing in mind that it can just about cope with the current strain. If you take all of those people buying dvd copies, the total bandwidth is far far less than what would be required to purchase all content at SD quality via download. Seeing that there isn't even enough bandwidth to download purchases at SD quality, what chance do you think there is of downloading HD movies that are 3 or 4 times the size in the foreseeable future?

Jobs has been saying how downloads are going to eclipse Bluray or HD-DVD sales pretty quickly, but he is in a land of total make believe.

Downloads will simply not be viable until multicasting is in place.

[ez64]

the "near future" my balls could be a wifi aerial, increased bandwith will happen very fast in the next few years that's a ez64 guarentee.

and really to say the majority of the UK has 1mb down is a outright lie.

[Freelance]

there's also the issue of contention. i'm not going to claim to be an expert on adsl, but isn't it oversold on the assumption that not everyone will try to use the full whack of their possible max bandwith at the same time. fine for 50 people websurfing, but if 50 people decide to download a film instead of buying/renting the dvd then bad things happen i guess

[EvilGav]

Currently I have Virgin Media's 20mb connection, which, with it's fair use policy, means that i'm restricted to 3GB of data between 4pm and 9pm and would drop to around 1mb for 5 hours once i've exceeded my limit.

So, to get the same quality as BD or HD DVD, I need to dl around 20GB of data, which I cant do on a whim in the evening, as it'll crap out my net connection, so you have to plan your movie watching in advance.

Equally, if I want to stream HD content at the sort of level the current physical media allows, I need an uninterrupted 36mbps connection and to be able to utilise the full extent of that connection for around 2 hours (the length of the film).

The final nail in the coffin for (current) downloading, is two fold. On one side, we have DRM or some sort of limitation on use and on the other we have the volatility of the storage media. If I dl something, only watch half before the HDD dies, do I get another go free ?? If I buy something out-right, rather than renting it, what happens if my HDD that stores all my films craps out, do I have to dl the TB's of data all over again ??

There is a *long* way to go before downloading films will become the norm, the music studios still haven't managed to convince the majority that the emperors new clothes that is downloaded, low quality songs is the way forward, the movie studios have an even bigger hill to climb, since they require so much more data to be downloaded.

[rick_2k]

EvilGav hit it on the head

I agree

[Elkeeed]

There is also the fact that with DRM you rely on the service carrying on in order to get at the films which you have purchased. There have been two high profile cases where Google and Virgin have shut down their services and locked people out of content they purchased outright overnight.

[spraduke]

There was a leaked announcement that Toshiba have pulled out of backing HD-DVD. Looks like Blu-ray has just received an unconditional surrender.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6230960.html

[MaDmAx]

personally i reckon Beta Max will win :P

[FL1X]

looks like its over....
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/02/18/tosh_shares_jump/

[BugAlugs]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=292&tag=nl.e622

Bowing to the inevitable - finally! - Hollywood Reporter says:

The format war has turned into a format death watch.

Toshiba is widely expected to pull the plug on its HD DVD format sometime in the coming weeks, reliable industry sources say, after a rash of retail defections that followed Warner Home Video’s announcement in early January that it would support only the rival Blu-ray Disc format after May.

The marketing VP for HD DVD, Jodi Sally, says no decision has been made officially, but

Given the market developments in the past month, Toshiba will continue to study the market impact and the value proposition for consumers, particularly in light of our recent price reductions on all HD DVD players.

That’s marketing speak for “we’re done.” Even Microsoft’s HD DVD evangelist isn’t returning phone calls.

Update: Wal-Mart announced yesterday that it is dropping HD DVD as well. Retailers are concerned that downloading will replace buying. While I’m skeptical that will happen any time soon, some of the reviews of the new Apple TV suggest it could happen, especially as network speeds improve. End update.

[Jez_Gafys]

DVD didn't become the power-house home format anywhere near as fast as some people seem to think - I was an early adopter and bought my player in December 1997,


What did you use your DVD player for back then, I got my first player October 1998 when there was only 16 dvd titles available. I am not sure how long those few movies had been out but it deffo wasn't much more then 2 or 3 months. Two of the titles I know were HellRaiser and Batman and Robin (cause I bought them). In December 1999 there were only 128 Region 2 DVDs available the number of DVDs were so small that the only online UK retailer at that time (DVD World) was able to send out the entire list of DVDs via an email.
DVD writers didn't exist back then and I don't think PC media was really utilising it, other than the technoligy existing it was very limited support?

[Zenith]

There was a leaked announcement that Toshiba have pulled out of backing HD-DVD. Looks like Blu-ray has just received an unconditional surrender.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6230960.htmlDo keep up old chap! :)
I posted about this on Saturday.
They think it's all over?

It is now....
http://uk.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUKL1643184420080216

Toshiba has thrown in the towel on HD-DVD. Blu-ray has won.

[EvilGav]

What did you use your DVD player for back then, I got my first player October 1998 when there was only 16 dvd titles available. I am not sure how long those few movies had been out but it deffo wasn't much more then 2 or 3 months. Two of the titles I know were HellRaiser and Batman and Robin (cause I bought them). In December 1999 there were only 128 Region 2 DVDs available the number of DVDs were so small that the only online UK retailer at that time (DVD World) was able to send out the entire list of DVDs via an email.
DVD writers didn't exist back then and I don't think PC media was really utilising it, other than the technoligy existing it was very limited support?

Not if you imported the player from the US :) By christmas 1997 they had something like 530 titles available. Most of my purchases were done via the web from a site called DVDExpress.com which doesn't even exist anymore (though i still have a post-it pad they gave away free at one point).

Deliberately did that, the first Pioneer model to support DTS, a 606D model, which was chipped for multi-region. From memory the first film was Starship Troopers, the original single layer, double sided disc - for the extras you have to flip the disc. Cant even get that version anymore, it's now a dual-layer version thats listed that was released in Mar 1998.

[Elkeeed]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/20/iplayer_isps_broke/

[Jez_Gafys]

DVDExpress.com which doesn't even exist anymore (though i still have a post-it pad they gave away free at one point).


I know the site well that was my main site I used to get Region 1 DVDS from, region 2 were from DVD World (again doesn't exist anymore). One of the first DVDs I bought fromm DVDExpress was Matrix paid $14.99 which back then worked out about 9 quid which was a bargin when compared to the average region 2 dvd at the time which was about £18.99.

Good ole flippers ... I have two disks that you need to flip over half way through the film, Starship troopers and Armageddon. There was an opportunity to swap (for free) the Armageddon for a dual layered disk but I wanted to keep my soon to be come colectable :D

[ez64]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/20/iplayer_isps_broke/



Then surely there needs to be a standardised upload cost to make the internet be economically viable for ISP's and big content distributer's, what should not be done but most likely will happen is the cost to the user's download rate go up.

[bvark]

Then surely there needs to be a standardised upload cost to make the internet be economically viable for ISP's and big content distributer's, what should not be done but most likely will happen is the cost to the user's download rate go up.

Wouldn't help - what they upload, users download - all the traffic that contributes to costs has to cross the expensive middle-mile, even when it's peer-to-peer.

[Elkeeed]

What we need is for the RIAA, MPAA to stop sueing everyone and instead pay ISPs to upgrade their infrastructure. :)

[KingDaveRa]

Not that the RIAA or MPAA matter one jot to us.

WE DON'T LIVE IN AMERICA. PLEASE REMEMBER THAT.

Anyway, the Beeb have been working on Multicasting (http://support.bbc.co.uk/multicast/)with peered ISPs. Could be useful.

[Elkeeed]

Name one Blu-ray or HD-DVD title that was not made by an American film company then.

[Afty]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/20/iplayer_isps_broke/"If you use more of the resources, you need to pay more money".
Nothing to see here, move along.

[Elkeeed]

The story really is that content providers have been taking it for granted that they don't have to pay for delivery of their content and ISPs have promised more bandwidth than they can provide. Someone is gonna have to pay to make up the difference if online distribution is going to become viable in the mainstream.

I very much doubt customers will be willing to foot the bill when they won't be gaining anything extra.

Plus the BBC have wasted tons of licence payers money on an unsustainable distribution method based on that assumption rather than concentrate on programming.

[TheDon]

I very much doubt customers will be willing to foot the bill when they won't be gaining anything extra.

Fine if they don't see on demand programing as something extra, personally I've been using on demand on VM for ages and would happily pay extra to get more content on there for the sheer convenience of it.

what should not be done but most likely will happen is the cost to the user's download rate go up.

Why shouldn't it?

If you start using the service more then be prepared for your bills to rise because of it.

If a restaurant runs an all you can eat buffet charging £10 a head, and then suddenly everyone starts eating more than £10 worth of food should they not increase the cost?

[Elkeeed]

You are missing the point. Lets put the BBC aside for the moment because they are an unusual case. Most content providers charge for content and it is not much cheaper over the net than on physical media. Now, if ISPs have to start charging more for bandwidth why should I as a customer foot the bill for delivery of that content in addition to the charge for the content itself rather than buy physical media?

Also looking at the all you can eat analogy. I went into an all you can eat restaurant, paid my £10 and now the restaurant is saying they don't have enough food to give me all I can eat. Shouldn't I get my £10 back?

[Afty]

Most content providers charge for content and it is not much cheaper over the net than on physical media.Therein lies the problem.

It actually is *much* cheaper to deliver bits over the net than via a truck...

[Elkeeed]

Aha! so the government should encourage piracy because it reduces 'entertainment miles' and so reduces carbon emissions :D

[Jez_Gafys]

But surely it isn't costing an ISP anymore if the ISP have traffic mangament polices in force (like 90% do)?

Seems food works well with this so, Its like being in a restaurent and told you can eat £10 worth of food, every day you eat only £9 but on Friday you missed lunch and eat £15 worth, they don't work with averages over a week, you receive a letter stating that you went over your budget and must pay £5, if this continues they are sorry you are no longer entitled to the £10 charge and must pay £15 but you will be gauranteed £15 worth of food.

ISPs would have already accounted for their users using a certain ammount of bandwidth per day if users go over this continuosly they get charged or removed so whats the difference, surely nothing is changing? It's not as if everyone has unlimited download limits and go stupid every day.

[SquireMuldoon]

"Oh Mr D'Arcy! My synapses have melted"

[Zenith]

I very much doubt customers will be willing to foot the bill when they won't be gaining anything extra.I can in fact see customers paying more for their internet bills in the future as the Govt, ISPA and media companies are thrashing out who pays for what with regard illegal file sharing and responsibility.

ISPA say their members are merely service providers and it isn't their job to police the content travelling over their networks.
IFPI/BPI are saying that it is the ISPs job to act when informed that one of their customers has been identified as sharing files illegally.
The Govt hasn't said much but it will legislate if the internet and media companies don't come to an agreement.

The bottom line is likely to end up similar to France where there is an "Internet Tax". It is a premium added to your subscription which is supposed to offset the losses the media companies are making. Chances are that we'll either have it called an Internet Access Tax or even an Internet Licence Fee. Then it will be combined with the TV licence so you have a TV and Internet Licence.
Then if you get identified as file sharing, you'll get an £80 "on-the-spot" fine billed through your ISP.
Too many of those and you get your Internet Licence revoked and aren't allowed online any more.

Maybe I'm being extreme about it, but the basic flavour of it all is likely to come true in the next year or so.

[ez64]

Dont mind me since when that happen's there will be a rise in cat5e sales and a major increase in lans.

Or even better a modded version of TCP/IP.

[Zenith]

What did I tell you about the Govt preparing to legislate?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7258437.stm