Author Topic: The War Begins... (Read 107110 times)

Munskie · « **Reply #480 on:** Dec 06, 2006 at 03:17 PM »

My take on the issue. I dont want to sound like a format fanboy (oh boy, im also setting myself to get a PS3 too, probably next year) but really, Sony blew it when it released those initial titles on BD25 with an inefficient codec like mpeg2. Nawawala yung size advantage ng Blu-ray by using Mpeg2. Take for instance yung Kingdom of Heaven....the PQ is good, but because bit-hungry ang mpeg2, that release was devoid of any extras and suplementary features. Isnt that bad for consumers?

In the end though, enthusiasts wouldnt care what codec is superior or not....they just want to see HD movies in its full glory. They want their R-O-I for upgrading. For now HD DVD does the job for me buhat nung nag upgrade ako. Blu-ray, with that consortium/studio support, should have kicked the HD DVD camp's a** from the start. But Sony blew it with those initial releases.....and "word of mouth" among enthusiasts is so fast that until now, HD DVD is hanging with the sales lead (http://www.thedvdwars.com/index.cfm).

av_phile1 · « **Reply #481 on:** Dec 06, 2006 at 03:18 PM »

Quote from: krazy on Dec 06, 2006 at 01:49 PM

The comparisons between VC-1 HD-DVD's and early MPEG2 BD releases are actually unfair because the early BD titles were in the BD25 format because BD50 discs were not yet ready at that time. Granted Sony made the mistake of using MPEG2 on BD25 discs, that does not mean that MPEG2 is inferior to AVC or VC-1 provided the correct bitrates for the respective codecs are used. Sure, fitting an MPEG2 encoded movie on a BD25 disc will make it look inferior to a VC-1 encoded HD-DVD15 because of the reduded MPEG2 bitrate to make it fit on the BD25 disc. However, now that BD50 disc production is available, there should be no difference between video quality on VC1 HD-DVD's and MPEG2 BD50 discs. In fact the reason why Sony is sticking with MPEG2 on BD50's is that MPEG2 is a simpler codec meaning there's less processing needed and results in less compression artefacts, albeit requiring more space which with BD50 discs is no longer an issue

It may seem unfair, but really not when you consider that both sides went into the war prepared and armed with the technologies behind their respective formats and knowing fully well they were meant to satisfy customer expecation on what high definition is all about. The fact the BD came out with a half-baked product, using BD25 knowing fully well only a BD50 using MPEG2 at their highest bitrates will do is an ignominous indictment of BD's underestimation of its target market and a failure to meet its promise to early HD adopters who promptly lambasted their pathetic launch performance. They must have thought the public wouldn't notice.

In the meantime, underdog To$hiba came out exceeding industry expectations that thought they won't hack it. It's now history. We all know the surprisingly well-deserved praises that HD-DVD got with the CONSISTENCY of picture quality on their releases where BD failed miserably precisely because of their use of a codec that required oodles of storage capacity it didn't have when it was released. That is why $ony insisted on a BD50 precisely because they knew their mpeg2 couldn't deliver with half the storage capacity.

Sure, mpeg2 films spread on BD50 can now look as good as a VC1 film on a single sided HD-DVD. It doesn't matter, that's like fitting an inefficient Cadillac Eldorado engine on a new BMW 7 chassis.

The disussions in many avforums blaming mpeg2 for the less than stellar performance of the BD launch is quite involved. And the fact the $ony is finally going to use MPEG4/AVC and possbily VC1 is a tacit acknowledgement of their culpability in letting their launch product fail customer expectations because of a video codec that has absolutely no place in a NEXT GEN video format on discs.

$ony stands to eat its pride if and when it adopts VC1 which is unabashedly a Micro$oft product. $ony owns many patents to mpeg2 so it must insist on using it. But surprisingly, To$hiba also owns a number of patents to mpeg2 but wisely opted to use the more state-of-the-art compression codec when it had to. Ofcourse its association with Micro$oft helped but it's all history now. Micro$oft has made its VC1 technology available to both camps, that is why Warner have used it since Day1 of releasing titles in both formats. And I think Paramount/Fox is likewise adopting it in their newer releases.

Like what Munskie said, BD blew its chances to win the format war. Had it come out with the BD50 for its bloated mpeg2 requirements or used VC1 at launch, things could have turned out differently. As it is, BD is now on a catch-up mode. Just my observations.

pchin · « **Reply #482 on:** Dec 06, 2006 at 03:56 PM »

Though I'm not a techno geek but juding from the scenes, reading from av_phile1 & Munskie's posts I do agree with them too (I hate to say it but I'm a BD supporter)

av_phile1 · « **Reply #483 on:** Dec 06, 2006 at 04:15 PM »

Quote from: Munskie on Dec 06, 2006 at 03:17 PM

In the end though, enthusiasts wouldnt care what codec is superior or not....they just want to see HD movies in its full glory.

True. The average consumer doesn't understand nor care. It's just that this early, and among early adopters are video gurus who know about codecs. These are the people who will spread the word around and allow deeper market penetration among early adopters for the format that does the job right the first time. And we know which format did just that and which one crapped on market expectations.

Munskie · « **Reply #484 on:** Dec 06, 2006 at 05:34 PM »

Im gonna correct myself....enthusiasts like us do care what codecs are used. And sir AV is right...the average consumer..the joe 6 packs..the average guy dont. Thats why we debate over the matter. Im kinda proud as an early adopter and enthusiast, that this group will be the one to voice out their concerns through reviews and forums on how a product is made right.

krazy · « **Reply #485 on:** Dec 06, 2006 at 07:37 PM »

Quote from: av_phile1 on Dec 06, 2006 at 03:18 PM

It may seem unfair, but really not when you consider that both sides went into the war prepared and armed with the technologies behind their respective formats and knowing fully well they were meant to satisfy customer expecation on what high definition is all about. The fact the BD came out with a half-baked product, using BD25 knowing fully well only a BD50 using MPEG2 at their highest bitrates will do is an ignominous indictment of BD's underestimation of its target market and a failure to meet its promise to early HD adopters who promptly lambasted their pathetic launch performance. They must have thought the public wouldn't notice.

In the meantime, underdog To$hiba came out exceeding industry expectations that thought they won't hack it. It's now history. We all know the surprisingly well-deserved praises that HD-DVD got with the CONSISTENCY of picture quality on their releases where BD failed miserably precisely because of their use of a codec that required oodles of storage capacity it didn't have when it was released. That is why $ony insisted on a BD50 precisely because they knew their mpeg2 couldn't deliver with half the storage capacity.

Sure, mpeg2 films spread on BD50 can now look as good as a VC1 film on a single sided HD-DVD. It doesn't matter, that's like fitting an inefficient Cadillac Eldorado engine on a new BMW 7 chassis.

The disussions in many avforums blaming mpeg2 for the less than stellar performance of the BD launch is quite involved. And the fact the $ony is finally going to use MPEG4/AVC and possbily VC1 is a tacit acknowledgement of their culpability in letting their launch product fail customer expectations because of a video codec that has absolutely no place in a NEXT GEN video format on discs.

$ony stands to eat its pride if and when it adopts VC1 which is unabashedly a Micro$oft product. $ony owns many patents to mpeg2 so it must insist on using it. But surprisingly, To$hiba also owns a number of patents to mpeg2 but wisely opted to use the more state-of-the-art compression codec when it had to. Ofcourse its association with Micro$oft helped but it's all history now. Micro$oft has made its VC1 technology available to both camps, that is why Warner have used it since Day1 of releasing titles in both formats. And I think Paramount/Fox is likewise adopting it in their newer releases.

Like what Munskie said, BD blew its chances to win the format war. Had it come out with the BD50 for its bloated mpeg2 requirements or used VC1 at launch, things could have turned out differently. As it is, BD is now on a catch-up mode. Just my observations.

I will admit that Sony and co. did make the mistake of fudging up BD's launch (before I get accused of being a BD fanboy

) but with the speed of advances in technology these days, the launch hiccups will be all but forgotten now that the BD gang has learned thier lesson. what matters is now and not "what happened during the launch" so there's really no point in dwelling on what happened months ago when those problems have now been fixed. While Sony does own some patens in the MPEG2 (as well as MPEG4/AVC) codec, all MPEG2/4 licensing is done through a separate organization called the MPEG Licensing Authority so neither Sony nor Toshiba have any "vested interests" in sticking with MPEG2 as the licensing for MPEG technology are pooled together (represented by the MPEG LA) and royalties are shared among the members of the MPEG patent pool, saving time and money for companes that wish to use MPEG technology. I highly doubt Sony will be using VC-1 for thier titles anytime soon as they already have MPEG4/AVC developed by Apple (who is also in the BD consortium) which provides the same quality as M$' VC-1 for low bitrate (ie. BD25 discs) applications. Remember, the launch is just the first round and the ones playing catch-up can (and sometimes do) win if they play thier cards right

Munskie · « **Reply #486 on:** Dec 06, 2006 at 07:58 PM »

Looking at the DVD wars site..Ive noticed that the BD camp has gained ground in terms of titles and sales. Its just unfortunate that this has become a matter of sheer number of CE and studio support, and not of product superiority. Being a movie fan first, (and second a HT/HD enthusiast) theres no doubt in my mind that Ill eventually get myself a BD player too.....but definitely within my terms. But before that, let us see this January in the 2007 CES....some insiders are speculating on some studios crossing the line.......

barrister · « **Reply #487 on:** Dec 06, 2006 at 09:32 PM »

Review links:

1. The first ever BD-50 disc (MPEG-2): Click

2. Fox's first BD-50 disc (MPEG-2): Kingdom of Heaven

3. One of the first 2 titles to use MPEG-4 encoding (BD-25): Eight Below

4. The first ever BD-50 disc to use the VC-1 codec: Superman Returns

Superman Returns was the first title to be released simultaneously on DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray used dual layers and VC-1 codecs.

Now that we have one title encoded on both formats, both dual layers, using the same masters, under the same studio and using the same video codec, which fared better?

---- It looks like it's another draw: Superman Returns (HD DVD)

av_phile1 · « **Reply #488 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 11:21 AM »

Quote from: barrister on Dec 06, 2006 at 09:32 PM

Now that we have one title encoded on both formats, both dual layers, using the same masters, under the same studio and using the same video codec, which fared better?

---- It looks like it's another draw: Superman Returns (HD DVD)

For video yes. But in toto, not entirely.

Amid great relief after early info from Warner indicated otherwise, 'Superman Returns' did indeed come with a Dolby TrueHD 5.1 surround track on the HD DVD release. Alas, Blu-ray fans aren't so lucky. For whatever reason, Warner decided to drop the track from the Blu-ray release, even though more players, particularly the PlayStation 3, can now decode Dolby TrueHD. That's a very unfortunate omission, because while the Dolby Digital 5.1 track that is included is perfectly fine, such decisions continue to rate Blu-ray as a second-best format in the eyes of some early adopters.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/supermanreturns.html

Apart from video quality, there's still the audio track codecs where the two formats still have some disparities. Not that it really matters because the two audio codecs can sound just fine. BD can accommodate a bitrate-miximized DD5.1 track which HD-DVD cannot so it has to use the next gen DolbyTrue HD which is LOSSLESS compression that DD is not. Again, another issue of using NEXT GEN technologies.

Also there's Mission Impossible III released by Paramount in both formats. Again, almost identical, except:

Now, here's the only aspect of the 'Mission: Impossible III' experience where the Blu-ray is outshined by the HD DVD. Included on the HD DVD only is a picture-in-picture interactive commentary, again anchored by filmmaker J.J. Abrams and Tom Cruise. That's due to what Paramount says was a lack of a "fully-functioning authoring toolset" for the Blu-ray format's BD-J Java environment, so it wasn't possible to include the feature on the Blu-ray release in time for 'M:I III's home video launch date.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/missionimpossibleiii.html

av_phile1 · « **Reply #489 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 12:07 PM »

Quote from: krazy on Dec 06, 2006 at 07:37 PM

I will admit that Sony and co. did make the mistake of fudging up BD's launch (before I get accused of being a BD fanboy ) but with the speed of advances in technology these days, the launch hiccups will be all but forgotten now that the BD gang has learned thier lesson. what matters is now and not "what happened during the launch" so there's really no point in dwelling on what happened months ago when those problems have now been fixed. While Sony does own some patens in the MPEG2 (as well as MPEG4/AVC) codec, all MPEG2/4 licensing is done through a separate organization called the MPEG Licensing Authority so neither Sony nor Toshiba have any "vested interests" in sticking with MPEG2 as the licensing for MPEG technology are pooled together (represented by the MPEG LA) and royalties are shared among the members of the MPEG patent pool, saving time and money for companes that wish to use MPEG technology. I highly doubt Sony will be using VC-1 for thier titles anytime soon as they already have MPEG4/AVC developed by Apple (who is also in the BD consortium) which provides the same quality as M$' VC-1 for low bitrate (ie. BD25 discs) applications. Remember, the launch is just the first round and the ones playing catch-up can (and sometimes do) win if they play thier cards right

The MPEG licensing authority consists of 24 companies of which $ony and To$hiba are part of and is just sort of a centralized clearing house so anyone interested in commercially authoring MPEG coded discs can just talk to one entity, not 24. And the patent owners still have vested interest because they still get the royalties at the end of the day.

Sure, $ony will most likely use AVC/MPEG4 rather than VC1. It's understandble for the reasons you've cited.

And yes, sooner or later, the launch brouhaha can all be forgot. And if and when BD gets its act right, I see no reason why it can't be at par with HD DVD.

Munskie · « **Reply #490 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 01:55 PM »

OPTICAL HD BATTLE MAY BE OVER-- a prediction with analysis....

Clondalkin · « **Reply #491 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 02:38 PM »

Those analysts are either stupid or simply well paid or both, and they're getting boring to read. Always the same plot? Anything new? How can anyone make a valid prediction in a time when there are barely 200 titles for each format, most of which I didn't even bother to buy in their previous DVD versions?

As somebody who has already bought an HD player, all I care about is a steadier and timely supply of honest to goodness HD movie titles that are worth owning or at least renting. And I'm definitely pissed that some of the better titles are available only in the other format that I don't own.

barrister · « **Reply #492 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 02:58 PM »

Excellent article, sir Munskie. Thanks for the link.

Quote from: Clondalkin on Dec 07, 2006 at 02:38 PM

How can anyone make a valid prediction in a time when there are barely 200 titles for each format, most of which I didn't even bother to buy in their previous DVD versions?

Yes, it's still too early ---- that's why it's a prediction. Otherwise, it would have been a news report.

Quote from: av_phile1 on Dec 07, 2006 at 11:21 AM

For video yes. But in toto, not entirely.

Oo nga, ano. It might be draw on the video department, but including other aspects, HD-DVD still wins over-all. (And we haven't even started discussing the price difference yet).

av_phile1 · « **Reply #493 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 03:11 PM »

Quote from: Clondalkin on Dec 07, 2006 at 02:38 PM

Those analysts are either stupid or simply well paid or both, and they're getting boring to read. Always the same plot? Anything new? How can anyone make a valid prediction in a time when there are barely 200 titles for each format, most of which I didn't even bother to buy in their previous DVD versions?

Predictions are just that, predictions. They did predict that Blu Ray will win well BEFORE either formats were launched. The facts at that time pointed to it. Now more than 6 months after the launches, they are reversing their predictions.

Quote

As somebody who has already bought an HD player, all I care about is a steadier and timely supply of honest to goodness HD movie titles that are worth owning or at least renting. And I'm definitely pissed that some of the better titles are available only in the other format that I don't own.

Don't worry, just be patient. I hear studios like Disney just might cross over and support both like warner and many other studios now do. The only hold-out would most likely be Sony/Columbia/Tristar.

Clondalkin · « **Reply #494 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 03:33 PM »

Now these are undeniable effects of actually buying into one of these formats at this stage. Predictions on who's gonna win the format war become irrelevant; claims of avid supporters are becoming boring and painfully repetitive; and I'm getting more impatient waiting for actual HD movie releases. And the reason for that is clear. I'm extremely satisfied with what I've got but bitin na bitin ako sa available contents!

Buti nalang I still have a life other than watching my 3 HD movies repetitively before going to bed.

av_phile1 · « **Reply #495 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 03:42 PM »

Quote from: barrister on Dec 07, 2006 at 02:58 PM

Oo nga, ano. It might be draw on the video department, but including other aspects, HD-DVD still wins over-all. (And we haven't even started discussing the price difference yet).

Price difference is perhaps the one factor that pissed off many early adopters. Why spend 50% to 100% more for standalone BD players from Samsung, Panasonic and Sony that potentially can only do as good as the cheapest HD DVD player? The BD premium simply doesn't justify any PQ or SQ inprovement. There's none.

There's also the issue of region locking. BD came out with region locks from day 1. HD DVD is still region free. Ofcourse they are talking about region locking it next year.

Clondalkin · « **Reply #496 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 03:53 PM »

One thing about region coding of HD-DVD, if you look closely at the list of titles in Amazon, some of them are indicated as Region 1 only. I happen to buy one of those titles and it works just fine with my Japanese HD-DVD drive. So I guess at least the current gen HD-DVD players are region free. Thus, even if they implement region locking on future releases, it would not be a problem. On the other hand, based on experience with different generation region free DVD players, compatibility/playability is not 100% guaranteed.

av_phile1 · « **Reply #497 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 04:09 PM »

I think there are HD DVD titles with standard DVD format on the flip side which merit region coding, mostly from warner. But, HD DVD is region free. For now.

But region coding still applies for their SD-DVD playability.

Clondalkin · « **Reply #498 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 04:28 PM »

Quote from: av_phile1 on Dec 07, 2006 at 04:09 PM

I think there are HD DVD titles with standard DVD format on the flip side which merit region coding, mostly from warner. But, HD DVD is region free. For now. But region coding still applies for their SD-DVD playability.

.

Yeah, that's correct. I have one of those combo types. HD DVD side is region free, but the flip side is locked to region 1 and won't play in my Japanese unit.

On the other hand, baka inaccurate lang ang labeling ng Amazon on MI3- HD DVD as region 1. But not a bother because it plays just fine. So the player itself appears to be region free.

av_phile1 · « **Reply #499 on:** Dec 07, 2006 at 04:58 PM »

Quote from: Clondalkin on Dec 07, 2006 at 04:28 PM

On the other hand, baka inaccurate lang ang labeling ng Amazon on MI3- HD DVD as region 1. But not a bother because it plays just fine. So the player itself appears to be region free.

Well, it could be their database system which at this time is still designed for describing standard DVDs. Labelling regions can just be default value they haven't bothered to address for so few items in their inventory.

Munskie · « **Reply #500 on:** Dec 08, 2006 at 09:08 AM »

another link guys... A Consumer opinions and Trends Report in pdf

barrister · « **Reply #501 on:** Dec 08, 2006 at 02:06 PM »

With this Cymfony report, we now have statistical data to back up claims of market preference for HD DVD at this time.

Things are looking pretty bleak for Sony. The company might be dangerously close to bankruptcy.

Clondalkin · « **Reply #502 on:** Dec 08, 2006 at 02:24 PM »

Statistical data on contents of DISCUSSIONS as back-up of market preference??? You have got to be kidding me.

Amusing read though.

barrister · « **Reply #503 on:** Dec 08, 2006 at 02:57 PM »

The statistical population is video enthusiasts and gamers;

Random sample from blogs, discussion boards and other social media sites by Cymphony's Orchestra platform;

Orchestra technology tagged posts for references to HD DVD, Blu-ray and 12 specific models of high definition players;

Sample size is 17,664;

Subset sample size of of 2000 posts tagged with more detailed data on the tonality and discussion topics included;

Descriptive statistics from Cymfony as an independent study.

===============================================

If you can show us a more accurate descriptive/inferential statistical analysis, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, you're the one who's got to be kidding me.

Clondalkin · « **Reply #504 on:** Dec 08, 2006 at 03:10 PM »

Quote from: barrister on Dec 08, 2006 at 02:57 PM

If you can show us a more accurate descriptive/inferential statistical analysis, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, you're the one who's got to be kidding me.

I can't. Nobody can at the moment. Let's just be real men. It's just too early. This kind of article reminds me of those college feasibility studies with forced positive conclusion no matter how unfeasible.

I appreciate the links though and like I wrote, it's amusing. Contents wise, o'cmon.

barrister · « **Reply #505 on:** Dec 08, 2006 at 04:07 PM »

OK. You seem to be in good faith. For a moment there, I thought you were just trolling!

akyatbundok · « **Reply #506 on:** Dec 08, 2006 at 05:03 PM »

there are 125 HD-DVD and 119 BD releases so far, that's hardly "Game Over" if either one of them want to displace DVD's 67,000 titles..... SACD has had only 4,000 titles after 6 years.

nels76 · « **Reply #507 on:** Dec 08, 2006 at 10:36 PM »

That is always what I say.

It is too early to tell who wins.
Let us sit back and watch the War.

More people may be talking about the HD-DVD since it launched ahead of the Blu-Ray.

Remember, the first BD Player to launch is the buggy Samsung which has
problems on the pix because of a defective chip.

Why would cymphony come up with this report anyway at this early stage of the war?

av_phile1 · « **Reply #508 on:** Dec 09, 2006 at 11:22 AM »

Never too early to make predicitive assessments. Business does it regularly to make revenue and market forcasts mid and long term. If there are enough facts, trends and valid assumptions, one can make sound predictions or forcasts. Ofcourse, such predictions can always be upset by unforseen conditions. Like when they predicted that BD will win LONG BEFORE either formats were launched.

Seems to me that whenever there are fearless forcasts saying that BD will lose, there are always BD defenders who will say it's too early to say - a common observation across the avforums I've visited. I am sure if the opposite were hapenning, there'd be HD DVD defenders who'd retort likewise.

Let me just echo here a sentiment of one early High Def adopter in another forum that I agree with. BD has always aimed to be the ONE and ONLY ONE format for the next gen video format. That has been made clear in their press releases since last year. (And I don't recall Toshiba doing the same, but they may have too. ) The BD camp never envisioned to have any stiff competition from anyone. They have the studio and manufacturing muscle to kill the competiion. That is why they never seriously accommodated Toshiba's overtures to merge technologies for a single format. That is why they never licensed dual format players that Samsung was quite enthusiastic about early this year. And that is why they thought all along that MPEG2 would be sufficient for the job at this time, reserving AVC or VC1 for latter reincarnations of their titles to further milk the market with title reissues.

Their overconfidence has caused them so much. They launched late and when they finally launched every indication points to half-baked products. Their launch products just weren't at par with the competition in terms of value. Now what is happening is that, at best, BD is catching up but will have to live with a not-so-strange bed fellow for the rest of its natural life. And what is ironic, by all indications, BD might just now be running for dear life.

Is it too early to tell? Maybe. But IF the trend continues, the safest predition will be that both formats will coexist. There is now no way that Toshiba and Microsoft won't or can't do to match whatever Sony et al might have up their sleeve. The die is cast, so to speak, for HDDVD to achieve critical mass ahead of BD. Their Xbox360 add-on answers the PS3. They have licensed HD DVD technology to the the world's biggest DVD makers in CHINA, which the BD camp adamantly refuses to do. It is plain as day that BD has failed to neutralize HD DVD - a monumental failure of their goal to become the sole next gen video format meant to supplant DVD. It was never their goal to coexist with any other format, but to be the one and only one.

Clondalkin · « **Reply #509 on:** Dec 09, 2006 at 01:17 PM »

In my opinion, the results thus far are not as relevant as which camp will eventually have the richer HD content library within the next few seasons. The missteps taken by BD camp up to now are in no way irreversible but they clearly have to work on reducing their manufacturing costs as much as reasonably possible. The standalone makers would not take and cannot afford the same gamble that Sony is attempting on the PS3.

I still don't know much details about the potential differences in quantities of HD titles between the 2 sides even though it is common knowledge now that most of the studios and giant electronic makers are supporting BD. I heard most of the rental video shops in Japan will commence HD movie rental in BD, and if that actually happens, there goes one extremely HUGE and lucrative market on the BD side. Curiously, there are actually more BD titles on shelves in major retailers like Bic Camera than HD DVDs. I don't think MS and Toshiba can produce movies on their own, but MS certainly has the moolah to buy some studios, if they deem necessary. But why would Microsoft do that? It is easier and more economical for them to simply switch sides at their own convenience.

Whatever, I just look forward to more HD DVD title releases NOW.