#*$)# Standards Wars.

[Crown]

I give it a few years before some bottom market Chinese company releases a player which can play old DVD's as well as the new standard, then I will be happy.

[Darth Fanboy]

this is all because rich people who paid sixty kajillion dollars for the first DVD players the size of Volkswagens are pissed that Joe Blow who works in the mail room can buy a player now for a hundred bucks.

Glad I never bought a DVD player, thank you PS2!

[Zoink]

I read that the new players (being developed in Japan) would play regular DVDs as well as new ones. As long as that's the case, I don't see a problem with introducing a new format.

[Vertigo1]

There are actually standalone DVD+/-R recorders you can record with, but they aren't too popular.

I dunno, the new Tivo DVD recorder has gotten alot of applause from the Tivo community...

[Darth Wong]

I give it a few years before some bottom market Chinese company releases a player which can play old DVD's as well as the new standard, then I will be happy.

I'm sure all of the new players will be able to play the old discs. There's not one DVD player on Earth which can't play CDs.

[Alyeska]

Fuck, I'd still be happy with my old VHS if DVD hadn't been thrown upon us. Now I'll have to upgrade again?

Not happy.

Total bullshit. DVDs are massively better then VHS. You were content with crappy quality and smaller footage (no wide screen)? I find that hard to believe.

[phongn]

You could get widescreen movies in VHS. The quality sucked, of course, but that's VHS for ya.

SVHS is better and DVHS is quite good.

[Tsyroc]

this is all because rich people who paid sixty kajillion dollars for the first DVD players the size of Volkswagens are pissed that Joe Blow who works in the mail room can buy a player now for a hundred bucks.

Glad I never bought a DVD player, thank you PS2!

I picked up an okay DVD player from Best Buy for $53 plus I got a $10 rebate. It's not the greatest but it plays more DVDs than the $200+ Panasonic I got years ago. Plus it plays CD's, MP3 and Picture Disks. It does have some quirks and it requires a lot of set-up by the user but it was only 40 bucks.

[phongn]

The unfortunate part about those super-cheap DVD players is that their chips onboard are pretty shitty. They don't do a very good job -- but it'll still look better than VHS.

[Tsyroc]

You could get widescreen movies in VHS. The quality sucked, of course, but that's VHS for ya.

SVHS is better and DVHS is quite good.

I thought the newer movies released on vhs had pretty good quality, at least for the first few times you watched them.

My probelm with vhs was that every so often your player might decide to eat a tape. A tape that you may not be albe to buy a replacement for.

I also hated how nasted dirty rented tapes were. They were always goobering up my player. I still see rental DVDs that have been seriously abused but other than being a pain in the ass to play they don't generally screw up my player.

[Tsyroc]

The unfortunate part about those super-cheap DVD players is that their chips onboard are pretty shitty. They don't do a very good job -- but it'll still look better than VHS.

This one does have it's quirks. It runs slower through certain functions than my old player and on most DVDs I have to manually shut off the subtitles. I also think it has difficulty with a specific sound channel but I haven't narrowed it down yet. My favorite glitch though has to do with the subtitles. I will have them shut off but for some reason in some movies they'll show a sign and the subtitles will kick in just for an instance to say what the sign says, even if it's already in English.

I'll probably end up buying a better player this year but so far I can't say that this one wasn't worth the $40.

[Gandalf]

Fuck, I'd still be happy with my old VHS if DVD hadn't been thrown upon us. Now I'll have to upgrade again?

Not happy.

Total bullshit. DVDs are massively better then VHS. You were content with crappy quality and smaller footage (no wide screen)? I find that hard to believe.

I was, the quality was decent enough for me. When I first saw DVD picture I had a hard time telling the difference.

[Rob Wilson]

BD-ROM: Blue-laser, will hold 25GB/layer. It will probably not be backwards compatible, but will continue to use the MPEG2 codec. It offers more advanced encryption (AES 128), better copy protection, key revocation schemes, Java for navigation menu programming and Internet-usage (grabbing subtitles, for example).

Blu-Ray or BD-Rom as it's now called has been in development for nearly 2 years now. It was pushed so that you could get more content on the disc's for recording purposes so you could get more recording time at higher levels. The players are designed to be capable of playing all DVDs that have been released to date, as they just need to incorporate a Second blue laser to record and play the BD-Roms.

Obviously as it requires a blue laser (much smaller width to the beam so the pits and grooves can be smaller and closer together - therefore more info for the same sized disc) the BD-Roms cannot play in a standard DVD player (which is what Phong meant by no backwards compatibility).

Ordinary DVD's will still be king in on the Sales shelves these are primarily a replacement for DVD+/- - though doubtless Peter Jackson will release the whole of LOTR in a Single Blu-ray the minute they are available... and won't that just help sales.

[Vertigo1]

Ordinary DVD's will still be king in on the Sales shelves these are primarily a replacement for DVD+/- - though doubtless Peter Jackson will release the whole of LOTR in a Single Blu-ray the minute they are available... and won't that just help sales.

And no doubt Lucas will eventually re-release the prequels in BD format. Possibly even the originals....

[phongn]

Ordinary DVD's will still be king in on the Sales shelves these are primarily a replacement for DVD+/- - though doubtless Peter Jackson will release the whole of LOTR in a Single Blu-ray the minute they are available... and won't that just help sales.

That's assuming of course, BD-ROM will be the standard. HD-DVD may well win, though we may well see decks playing BD-ROM, HD-DVD and perhaps even EVD (as well as the standard DVD).

[Vertigo1]

That's assuming of course, BD-ROM will be the standard. HD-DVD may well win, though we may well see decks playing BD-ROM, HD-DVD and perhaps even EVD (as well as the standard DVD).

Exactly. No doubt they'll compete for a while until some smartass comes along and releases a player that plays everything. Kinda like what happened with the DVD-R +R debacle. People got tired of it, and some companies took advantage of it. Of course, it'll be a moot point with dual-layer DVD-R disks coming out soon. (and of course, only the dual-format burners will be able to take advantage of both layers)

[phongn]

Exactly. No doubt they'll compete for a while until some smartass comes along and releases a player that plays everything. Kinda like what happened with the DVD-R +R debacle. People got tired of it, and some companies took advantage of it. Of course, it'll be a moot point with dual-layer DVD-R disks coming out soon. (and of course, only the dual-format burners will be able to take advantage of both layers)

Dual-layer DVD+R, you mean

[The Kernel]

One of the things I like about the Blue-Ray spec is that it calls for encasing the medium in plastic (much like mini-discs) to prevent scratching. Man, that right there is a revolution that has been too long in the coming.

At a guess, I'd say that any high-definition sucessor to DVD is going to be a tough sell to consumers. One of the reasons DVD was so popular was the fact that you didn't need rewind it and you could jump instantly to chapters, unlike VHS. This is much the same reason that people adapted CD over tape. Quality improvements go unnoticed by most of the users.

Notice that neither the DVD-audio or the SACD has had much success with mainstream consumers. The reason being that most people can't even tell the difference! I think it will be much the same with HD-DVD, worse even because most people don't even own an HDTV and even those that do often can't tell the difference between 480p DVD and 1080i programming.

[Vertigo1]

Dual-layer DVD+R, you mean

Thats not what I heard. I heard that they were going to be +/-, not ++. Either way, I don't care because my burner can read them.

[Rob Wilson]

That's assuming of course, BD-ROM will be the standard. HD-DVD may well win, though we may well see decks playing BD-ROM, HD-DVD and perhaps even EVD (as well as the standard DVD).

I don't think HD-DVD will win over BD-ROM, unless HD is also pushed as a primarily Recordable format. People really couldn't care less about the definition of the picture beyond a certain margin, and if HD-DVD does take get on the market place it will probably be as the next step up from normal DVD's provided it's backwards compatible (Ie playable on old machines, with maybe a software patch to get the higher quality picture if your TV can show it.

But BD-Rom should corner the need for a decent sized digital recording format (10+ Hours of HD quality recording) to finally nail VHS's coffin shut and complement TiVo-like devices for archiving your shows properly.

[Rob Wilson]

One of the things I like about the Blue-Ray spec is that it calls for encasing the medium in plastic (much like mini-discs) to prevent scratching. Man, that right there is a revolution that has been too long in the coming.

DVD-Ram has had that for years, but you don't see it outside of Computer back-up companies... unless its sales situation is different in the States.

It's being in a caddy won't mean squat - except you can't fit it in your old machine. It's the length of recording that matters in the Household market, and DVD-Ram would have held a maximum of just under 2 hous of HD quality recording... and not many people were interested in that, when you could store 6 hours of normal recording on a VHS tape.

With Blu-ray you get 10+ hours of HD quality or 20+ hours of vhs (or better) quality recording per disk. That's bound to sit well with the consumer, especially as you can precisely edit out ads and put in your own chapter stops as well.

[aerius]

Notice that neither the DVD-audio or the SACD has had much success with mainstream consumers. The reason being that most people can't even tell the difference! I think it will be much the same with HD-DVD, worse even because most people don't even own an HDTV and even those that do often can't tell the difference between 480p DVD and 1080i programming.

The average consumer can't tell the difference between FM radio, CD, and MP3. Also given how crappily the vast majority of recordings are mixed & mastered it doesn't matter if the damn thing is on cassette tape, CD, or SACD, it'll still sound the same. Also with audio the thing is most people care only about the bass and don't really know what to listen for in a good recording.

With HD-DVD and DVD I think the differences will be far more obvious. It's a visual medium where one can immediately see and describe the differences. For instance damn near everyone can instantly tell the difference between regular 35mm film and IMAX. You can't really do that with sound unless you're going from some crappy JVC system to a full out Krell/Levinson/Martin-Logan setup. Visual things are just easier to recognize & describe.

[phongn]

Thats not what I heard. I heard that they were going to be +/-, not ++. Either way, I don't care because my burner can read them.

There is probably going to be a DVD-R dual-layer standard, but to the best of my knowledge it's further out than the DVD+R dual-layer standard.

Notice that neither the DVD-audio or the SACD has had much success with mainstream consumers. The reason being that most people can't even tell the difference! I think it will be much the same with HD-DVD, worse even because most people don't even own an HDTV and even those that do often can't tell the difference between 480p DVD and 1080i programming.

The difference between CDA and DVD-A or SACD is arguably marginal, especially with matrixing technologies like Pro Logic II. The difference between a 480p DVD-V and, say, a 720p or 1080p BD-ROM or HD-DVD is quite another story. By the time either format comes out, much of Middle America will probably have HD sets (and everyone will have ATSC feeds)

DVD-Ram has had that for years, but you don't see it outside of Computer back-up companies... unless its sales situation is different in the States.

DVD-RAM never really caught on in the US but you can still find media in stores. In particular, most people knew that DVD-R was coming out soon anyways and would be more compatible with standalone players.

I don't think HD-DVD will win over BD-ROM, unless HD is also pushed as a primarily Recordable format. People really couldn't care less about the definition of the picture beyond a certain margin, and if HD-DVD does take get on the market place it will probably be as the next step up from normal DVD's provided it's backwards compatible (Ie playable on old machines, with maybe a software patch to get the higher quality picture if your TV can show it.

It like BD-ROM for its space, but MPEG2 is getting dated. MPEG4 (and varients H.264 and WM9) is more efficient. BD-ROM is almost certainly going to be storing HD data as well.

As for picture quality, no, the mass market doesn't care that much, but its the early-adopters will care. Whichever format gets entrenched in the early phase may well win. In addition, with HD-DVD's superior compression codec they might match BD-ROM in recording.

[Rob Wilson]

I like BD-ROM for its space, but MPEG2 is getting dated. MPEG4 (and varients H.264 and WM9) is more efficient. BD-ROM is almost certainly going to be storing HD data as well.

As for picture quality, no, the mass market doesn't care that much, but its the early-adopters will care. Whichever format gets entrenched in the early phase may well win. In addition, with HD-DVD's superior compression codec they might match BD-ROM in recording.

Which will be the important factor here, If HD-DVD can record a high enough volume of material to match Blu-ray and still be playable in todays machines it will win simply on ease of use. However to record on HD-DVD you're going to need a new machine anyway, the same for BD-ROM, If th BD-Rom machine has two slots, for Dvd's and BD-roms then your looking at a straight price contest, and there was talk of Blue-lasers being producable at a very cheap price point and the Blu-ray discs being cheap as well (though that could be loss leading).

I don't know how expensive the HD-DVD recorders and discs will be.

[phongn]

Which will be the important factor here, If HD-DVD can record a high enough volume of material to match Blu-ray and still be playable in todays machines it will win simply on ease of use. However to record on HD-DVD you're going to need a new machine anyway, the same for BD-ROM, If th BD-Rom machine has two slots, for Dvd's and BD-roms then your looking at a straight price contest, and there was talk of Blue-lasers being producable at a very cheap price point and the Blu-ray discs being cheap as well (though that could be loss leading).

HD-DVD is supposed to be competitive with BD-ROM by virtue of its superior compression, though I don't know much about the HD-DVD-R spec (or the BD-R one). From a manufacturing point of view, HD-DVD decks are going to be cheaper as they only need the tray -- no requirement for handling the BD-ROM caddy. Secondly, it appears that HD-DVD discs can be produced on current DVD lines with minimal changes.