-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hi-Def Media Lovefest: The war is over and we can all go home.
- Thread starter HyperionX
- Start date
- Status
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
Forsete said:
It won't be cost effective at all. But then again, neither is the TL51 disc for Toshiba. It really is mostly about bullet points, because neither the 50GB disc nor the TL51 is ready for prime time (in terms of mass market capacity). There are still issues with the BD50s, but the yields are getting better, even while they have spin-coating issues that apparently prevent them from using all 50GBs.
WORLDWIDEWII
Member
if you dont buy it, who'll fund the production?/Crayon Shinchan said:
NekoFever
Member
Yes, wherever will they find the money?WORLDWIDEWII said:
VanMardigan said:
Is that the new line now "not ready for mass market capacity"? There's someone at AVS who claims a very low yield with BD50s but let's not assume it's fact so easily or that it can't be resolved when the mass market is ready (Amir once claimed BD50 as 'science fiction'). At least consumers can enjoy 50Gb titles now. In fact Anchor Bay/Starz just released PR on their new titles - note the simiarities...
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
Oni Jazar said:
I never said the issue can't be resolved, did I? And Toshiba's yields are going to be even worse for TL51's initially as well. Of course the fact that BD50's are being produced now (which also helps improve yield rates) is better than just having the spec on paper. I was just pointing out that the type of subsidization required for mass market (millions of copies for just one title in just one week) isn't attainable by either disc type(BD50/TL51) at this point. I know that both will eventually achieve that goal, and I didn't state otherwise.
plagiarize
Banned
i love Anchor Bay... though i do have to wonder why Dawn and Day don't have a dolby digital 5.1 track on them. leaves me without anything but matrixed surround sound on those two titles.Oni Jazar said:
Who keeps spreading around the BD-50 FUD? Those discs were out on market with acceptable yields quite a while back already...
I won't say much about the 51GB HD-DVD discs, but only that aligning three layers is considerably harder than aligning two, especially with that pitch size.
I won't say much about the 51GB HD-DVD discs, but only that aligning three layers is considerably harder than aligning two, especially with that pitch size.
plagiarize
Banned
not true. both were produced in mono and both were released by anchor bay on DVD with DD5.1 and DTS. it's not like they don't have the tracks. i'm still hoping it's just a mistake in the press release. i'll be buying them eitherway, but as someone who can't use 5.1 pcm, it's kind of annoying.NekoFever said:
http://www.anchorbayentertainment.com/index.asp?p=CatalogDetail&SKU=N3005&PriCatID=3&GenreID=0
http://www.anchorbayentertainment.com/index.asp?p=CatalogDetail&SKU=N3008&PriCatID=3&GenreID=0
list 'Dolby Surround 5.1, Mono' as the only audio formats. if they listed PCM too, i'd be sure it was a mistake, but i remain hopeful all the same.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
SRG01 said:
What is "acceptable" and where is your source?
Quick Google search leads me to this AVS thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=897876
"8 factories now replicating BD50 discs (only 3 are Sony)"
"8 factories now replicating BD50 discs (only 3 are Sony)"
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
SRG01 said:
Oh, I see, you don't really have any info at all. Sony subsidizes the discs, so you can't extrapolate yield data from that.
Until you have a source on the yields being bad, you are at a stalemate and the entire "low yields for BD50" argument should be completely dropped until you have proof to back up that claim.VanMardigan said:
The logical assessment that BD50 yields are fine is obviously deduced from the fact that they are actively being used. If it wasn't dependable, I seriously doubt manufacturers would use them as much as they are using them now.
VanMardigan said:
Sure I can.
Logical deduction: Pirates is not the only BD-50 product out there. BD-50 titles have already been released/planned on movies and PS3.
Further: BD-50 has been in production for longer periods of time than TL-51. New printing fabs and development are inevitable in the future.
PS. Do you have any information on whether the TL-51 discs are subsidized too?
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
SRG01 said:
That's deceptive, according to David Vaughn's (HTS editor) research only 1 factory outside of Sony can get their BD50 yields above 10%. Sony is at around 50% depending on total data on the disk (higher GBs=lower yields).
(sorry, but Sony isn't surrendering official yield numbers, and you can guess why)
edit:
Logical deduction: Pirates is not the only BD-50 product out there. BD-50 titles have already been released/planned on movies and PS3.
Further: BD-50 has been in production for longer periods of time than TL-51. New printing fabs and development are inevitable in the future.
I see you went off on a tangent. I never argued that TL51 had higher yields (or were unsubsidized) compared to BD50. Apparently, the tactic from some BD supporters is to shift the goalpost when its obvious they have no argument.
Like I said, having BD products manufactured is not reflective of yield rates because Sony subsidizes the lost discs. This is beneficial for Sony in the long term because increased manufacturing can help them to secure better yields.
Another part of my laptop casing snapped off when I was contemplating my reply. :lol
At any rate, I read Dave Vaughn's replies and they seem reasonable. Considering that we were at one (or was it three?) fabs last year for the BD discs, 50% for Sony's fabs is perfectly acceptable. 10% for the other newer fabs is reasonable, considering how relatively new they are.
Remember: Blu-Ray is a different fabrication process than HD-DVD (since it works on old DVD pressing technology). This kind of fine-tuning is expected.
At any rate, I read Dave Vaughn's replies and they seem reasonable. Considering that we were at one (or was it three?) fabs last year for the BD discs, 50% for Sony's fabs is perfectly acceptable. 10% for the other newer fabs is reasonable, considering how relatively new they are.
Remember: Blu-Ray is a different fabrication process than HD-DVD (since it works on old DVD pressing technology). This kind of fine-tuning is expected.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
SRG01 said:
I don't disagree with any of what you just typed. My point (which still stands) is that, even at 50% yield rates, anything beyond the current sales wouldn't be fiscally viable to subsidize for Sony. That's why I made my original statement that neither BD50 nor TL51 are ready for mass market consumption. In terms of manufacturing, it would be disastrous.
But by simply questioning BD-50 yields and yet not raising any about TL-51 makes your argument hypocritical at best!
Except I DID point out how much worse TL51 yields would be initially. As has become typical here, people jump into the middle of debates without actually reading what folks posted.
DarkJediKnight
Member
StoOgE said:
Movies from the 70s and 80s on Blu-ray (John Romero stuff) have master quality audio, yet a Mega blockbuster like Transformers doesn't and it's on 2 discs. One for the feature and one for the extra. Can you name a SINGLE Blu-ray exclusive day and date release that made more than a $100mil without PCM, True HD or DTS MA?
30gb may not be the major issue, but bandwidth surely is. There's a reason why there is not ONE HD DVD title with seamless branching, yet DVD and Blu-ray can do it. When asked about to insiders, there's never a clear answer. We know BD-J pip is coming and titles have been announced with it, but I've yet to see anything that clearly outlines whether or not seamless branching is possible on HD DVD without taking a noticable hit on PQ, AQ, or extras.
IMO, seamless branching is as, if not more important than PIP, since it's an incentive to get the theatrical and unrated cut of movies in one purchase.
HD DVD's HDI is awesome and it's commended. They have a better implementation of their specs and players. However, I think the biggest issue is bandwidth, and unless TL51 or DL34 can somehow increase the bandwidth, it's not much of an improvement. For example, right now, if Disney wanted to go format neutral, they would have to re-do almost all of their discs as the peak bitrates exceed what HD DVD can do.
DarkJediKnight said:
Movies from the 70s and 80s on Blu-ray (John Romero stuff) have master quality audio, yet a Mega blockbuster like Transformers doesn't and it's on 2 discs. One for the feature and one for the extra. Can you name a SINGLE Blu-ray exclusive day and date release that made more than a $100mil without PCM, True HD or DTS MA?
30gb may not be the major issue, but bandwidth surely is. There's a reason why there is not ONE HD DVD title with seamless branching, yet DVD and Blu-ray can do it. When asked about to insiders, there's never a clear answer. We know BD-J pip is coming and titles have been announced with it, but I've yet to see anything that clearly outlines whether or not seamless branching is possible on HD DVD without taking a noticable hit on PQ, AQ, or extras.
IMO, seamless branching is as, if not more important than PIP, since it's an incentive to get the theatrical and unrated cut of movies in one purchase.
HD DVD's HDI is awesome and it's commended. They have a better implementation of their specs and players. However, I think the biggest issue is bandwidth, and unless TL51 or DL34 can somehow increase the bandwidth, it's not much of an improvement. For example, right now, if Disney wanted to go format neutral, they would have to re-do almost all of their discs as the peak bitrates exceed what HD DVD can do.
Tangent: Wasn't HDi going to be on Blu-Ray before it got vetoed?
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
SRG01 said:
Yep. It was actually approved by the BDA OVER Java, then overturned by Sony and the then 3c companies.
Imagine that, had BDA adopted HDi, Microsoft would essentially have been format neutral. :lol
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
theBishop said:
HDi is optimized for HD discs and is purposefully easy to code to free up studio resources, but you can probably find HDi vs. Java articles on wikipedia or something, I doubt we want to go through that here (again).
plagiarize
Banned
you talk like there aren't 30 gig HD-DVD's with Tru HD on them. Transformers has 3 languages. how many of those exclusive Blu-Rays you mention have 3 languages on them? 300 has 3 languages AND Tru HD AND a bunch of extras in high definition that by my count last longer than the 25 minutes extra running time of transformers.DarkJediKnight said:
Movies from the 70s and 80s on Blu-ray (John Romero stuff) have master quality audio, yet a Mega blockbuster like Transformers doesn't and it's on 2 discs. One for the feature and one for the extra. Can you name a SINGLE Blu-ray exclusive day and date release that made more than a $100mil without PCM, True HD or DTS MA?
30gb may not be the major issue, but bandwidth surely is. There's a reason why there is not ONE HD DVD title with seamless branching, yet DVD and Blu-ray can do it. When asked about to insiders, there's never a clear answer. We know BD-J pip is coming and titles have been announced with it, but I've yet to see anything that clearly outlines whether or not seamless branching is possible on HD DVD without taking a noticable hit on PQ, AQ, or extras.
IMO, seamless branching is as, if not more important than PIP, since it's an incentive to get the theatrical and unrated cut of movies in one purchase.
HD DVD's HDI is awesome and it's commended. They have a better implementation of their specs and players. However, I think the biggest issue is bandwidth, and unless TL51 or DL34 can somehow increase the bandwidth, it's not much of an improvement. For example, right now, if Disney wanted to go format neutral, they would have to re-do almost all of their discs as the peak bitrates exceed what HD DVD can do.
Transformer's represents a bizarre decision sure, and i'm not going to refute the notion that blu-ray allows more space for multiple languages, i'm just saying that picking on Transformers isn't entirely fair as i don't think it shows any limitations with the format.
seamless branching as you seem to note isn't prevented by HDi. i have no idea if it's possible on HD-DVD... but i would personally take HDi over seamless branching. not that that was the decision, and one that will hopefully be cancelled out when BD-J gets up to standard (hopefully soon) but there you go.
talk of bitrates always makes me roll my eyes though. until there's a quantitative comparison between a film encoded within HD-DVD bandwidth compared to the same film encoded maxing out Blu-Ray bandwidth that looks and sounds better, i'm not convinced that it's an advantage that really matters for movie playback.
in my personal opinion, i can't tell any difference between the best looking blu-rays and hd-dvds as someone who owns both platforms... and i've long maintained that i think using uncompressed pcm is stupid when you could probably fit multiple Tru-HD tracks on the same size disc, or potential drop down to a 25 gig disc without any loss in picture and sound quality. i couldn't care less if 51 gigabyte HD-DVDs ever come to light because like my 25 gig Blu-Rays, my 30 gig HD-DVDs look awesome.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
There are TONS of 50GB Blu ray movies available.....probably close to half of the newer movies release are on 50Gig dual layer disks....
But somehow yields are low?
These "low yields" are not really affecting overall consumer pricing of the movies (MSRP is the same as most 25 GB disks) nor are BD 50 movies exactly rare?
It doesnt affect availability
It doesn't seem to affect price to the end consumer either
All Blu ray studios have and are using BD50s
Please explain how isn't a non-issue again?
But somehow yields are low?
These "low yields" are not really affecting overall consumer pricing of the movies (MSRP is the same as most 25 GB disks) nor are BD 50 movies exactly rare?
It doesnt affect availability
It doesn't seem to affect price to the end consumer either
All Blu ray studios have and are using BD50s
Please explain how isn't a non-issue again?
Yes, yes it is. Especially when Paramount CEO's laud the benefits of HD DVD talking about having the highest quality video and audio even though a TWO DISC set doesnt have anything higher than dolby digital.plagiarize said:
I mean this is THE movie for HD DVD this fall, this would be like Pirates 3 or die hard 4 or spidy 3 not having high resolution audio.
On the contrary, it's a pretty good example of HD DVD's limitations. If they can't go all the way with freaking Transformers, HD DVD's biggest gun of the holiday season, it should be a pretty clear sign to high def enthusiasts that HD DVD isn't the right format for the job.plagiarize said:
plagiarize
Banned
you can only use it to knock the format IF you can prove that it doesn't have a Tru HD soundtrack on it because of the format which you can't.captive said:
i gave an example of a single disk film packed full of content that contains a Tru HD soundtrack, which to me indicates that the lack of such a soundtrack on Transformers isn't down to space limitations.
again, just as there's no evidence of this bd 50 gigabyte yield problem, i'm not seeing the evidence that transformers showcases the space limitations of hd-dvd.
You didnt read DJK post, he wasnt saying space limitations, he was saying BITRATE limitations.plagiarize said:
I dont know why Transformers doesnt have a high res audio track, but its pretty fucking stupid and i would not buy it because of that. And if you dont believe me, i also havent purchased the punisher, corpse bride, lord of war, and a few other movies because they dont have a high res audio track different from the standard dvd.
KachoMakura
Banned
captive said:
Well luckily enough it's HD-DVD exclusive so you have nothing to worry about!
plagiarize
Banned
yes i did. he was replying to Stooge saying he didn't think 30 gigabytes was a handicap to hd-dvd. he even bolded that part of stooge's post when he quoted it.captive said:
he only brought up maximum bitrates when talking about seamless branching.
i'm not buying transformers either, but it has nothing to do with the lack of high def audio.
I could buy hd dvd right now if i wanted to. And i wouldnt be buying Transformers anyway since i havent seen it and wasnt ever that interested to begin with.KachoMakura said:Well luckily enough it's HD-DVD exclusive so you have nothing to worry about!
I love it..
ONE HDDVD doesnt have TrueHD and suddenly everyone is blaming the format and not the studios choice.
WB has been able to do it for a while on most movies. Universal is starting to do it.. and Paramount is starting to do it as well. More than anything I think studios either underestimated demand for it or just didnt see a huge benefit.
Most likely the studios just dont see the need for TrueHD versus DD+, that has been Universals arguement from day 1. They just didnt see the point of TrueHD. Going by the blind listening tests at AVS (mentioned above) I think their decision was probably the correct one.
300 is a great example. The Matrix is another. Two long movies, with a ton of extras, PIP and lossless audio... its not the bandwidth.. hell, most HDDVDs reportedly dont come close to maxing out the bitrate at all. If Amir is to be believed King Kong hit somewhere around 15mb/sec
The truth is this is all sour grapes, and now that HDDVD has taken away the magical disk space advantage of BRD the BRD backers have to go after the last technical advantage they have left.. despite the fact that HDDVD has had just as good video quality, just as good audio quality and HDi features all running at once with its lower bit rate. Something BRD cant claim to this point.
ONE HDDVD doesnt have TrueHD and suddenly everyone is blaming the format and not the studios choice.
WB has been able to do it for a while on most movies. Universal is starting to do it.. and Paramount is starting to do it as well. More than anything I think studios either underestimated demand for it or just didnt see a huge benefit.
Most likely the studios just dont see the need for TrueHD versus DD+, that has been Universals arguement from day 1. They just didnt see the point of TrueHD. Going by the blind listening tests at AVS (mentioned above) I think their decision was probably the correct one.
300 is a great example. The Matrix is another. Two long movies, with a ton of extras, PIP and lossless audio... its not the bandwidth.. hell, most HDDVDs reportedly dont come close to maxing out the bitrate at all. If Amir is to be believed King Kong hit somewhere around 15mb/sec
The truth is this is all sour grapes, and now that HDDVD has taken away the magical disk space advantage of BRD the BRD backers have to go after the last technical advantage they have left.. despite the fact that HDDVD has had just as good video quality, just as good audio quality and HDi features all running at once with its lower bit rate. Something BRD cant claim to this point.
DarkJediKnight
Member
plagiarize said:
I can't name them off hand, but there have been several Blu-ray titles from Sony with 20+ subtitles and 3 PCM tracks - that's right, not DD, multiple PCM tracks.
I'm not picking on Transformers, I'm using it as an example of things to come. The biggest mistake people make is concentrate on runtime of movies. If you own a PS3, look at the bitrate of the opening company credits. The bitrate is very low. Why? Because it's not congested with multiple motion and other stuff. A movie like Batman Begins and V can have excellent PQ and True HD because it doesn't need massive bandwidth to look good. Very dark, slow moving films for the most part. A bright, action packed movie like Transformers is demanding.
That's why I'm a bit weary on the 51gb discs as there's been no mention of bandwidth increase.
StoOgE said:
Notice how I don't mention PQ as to me it's a moot point. I'm one of the few people on this board with a 1080p projector, sending an image that's 10 foot wide. I own both formats and I've scrutinized PQ of both formats. Some tech can tell me that the extra bandwidth and 20gb can make a movie look better. Theoretically, it's possible, but I doubt it is noticable on a 100" screen, let alone the average 50-60inch display.. I have seen 720p rips of high quality movies and it's not much different from the 1080p stuff on the disc. So when someone yaps about how Blu-ray's superior capacity and bandwidth will make a film better, it's BS. On some scenes, it can definately help with artifacts, but minor things like that don't bother me too much.
My argument is, Topgun, which comes out before Transformers have True HD, so why didn't Paramount put it on Transformers. They of all people should know how good the sound design is. Unless, it was due to limitation here. That's my beef.
Fair point, but 51gb discs don't exist unless there's a public demonstration that it works. Heck, has there even been an official press release from Toshiba or it just the internet fire from a rumor?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
captive said:
I have him on ignore, but not you...
I have no idea where Van gets his pressing yield data. I suspect it's long out of date. Costs of these sorts of things tends to drop quickly once facilities are online and kinks worked out of the system.
- Status