Support NeoGAF

[borghe]

ok, here is the difference between console competition and home theater competition.

In any single console generation the limiting factor is the console itself. PS1 and N64 could only push out so many polys, PS2 and XBox and GCN can only push out so man as well, etc. So for each of those to want to make their consoles better, they need competition.

DVD, VHS, etc... The format is not really the limiting factor. The movies that are being shown on those formats are indiscriminent on which format they are displayed on. Furthermore, the formats are limited by what kind of displays are out. So movies will keep improving even if we are stuck with DVD. And the best you will be able to display on HDTV is 1080i (or eventually 1080p which is arguably not a substantial increase).

So here is what happens. Sony releases PS2 and MS releases XBox. Sony's profits start to decline so they work on PS3. MS knows Sony is working on PS3 so starts work on XBox 2. Sony knows MS will plow ahead on XBox 2 so they make the PS3 as powerful as a $300 MSRP will allow for, and the cycle goes on.

But what about home theater? BRD releases blue ray. It supports MPEG1/2/4, Windows Media, AAC, DD+, DTS+, etc. It supports 25-40GB of data. and so forth. but at the end of the day, for home video, what is it going to be capable of? Showing movies on HDTVs. and will we be able to show movies better than HDTV for the next many years? No, probably not. And what does HD-DVD do? Samething. And will they be able to improve HD-DVD over the next many years? Not really. Therefore competition between formats serves NO purpose because each really can't get better for any foreseeable time.

Consoles and home video formats are apples to oranges. Consoles are the limiting factor on how good things look. They need to advance for the medium to look better. Home video can really only advance as fast as display capabilities advance, which isn't that fast. In that case competition just segments and stunts the market's growth.

Would one console be good? Sure, for 3-5 years one console would be great... The problem is after those 3-5 years the manufacturer would have no reason to upgrade. Surely the licensing revenue they would continue to receive would would be way more attractive than R&D costs for a new system. Sure they might upgrade when a new display format comes out. "Buy a PS4 for your 4K TV." The problem is for years 6 through 12 we would still be playing games at PS2 quality graphics..

 

[jedimike]

thx borghe... my milk analogy was shit, but I was having a hard time trying to put my thoughts into words.

 

[maskrider]

Most people are happy with the current DVD format, much like the people are happy with CD (a large part of them settled for the lower MP3) and they are not going to get the significant higher quality SACD/DVD-Audio disc (if mastered adequately).

I think the case for the next gen DVD format war will be similar, they are happy with their working TVs, until their TVs are broken or no one manufacture HDTV tuner that can output to 480i, you just cannot force people to buy HDTV. Even the DivX/Xvid/WMV whatever at NTSC resoltion can still make them happy.

The higher end will just be a niche, unless DVD is phased out or the players are as cheap as the DVD players. The next gen DVD has come too soon to the be adopted by the mass.

 

[Falch]

I was wondering, is it even possible to play BR or HD-DVD's on a non-HDTV? If so, is there any improvement over DVD's?

As stated before, here in Europe, hardly anyone has a HDTV. So when Xbox2 and PS3 hit the scene, not many people will be able to take advantage of the fact that those consoles will be able to play movies of HD quality, and therefore it won't be a real selling point (like the dvd function was for PS2).

 

[maharg]

What are you expecting to happen in 5-10 years that would require us to "go again"? We're in the first major overhaul to TV broadcast standards and TV display technology since, what, Color? Max resolution is getting bumped to 1920x1080 and the high def formats past muster to hold feature-length film content at that resolution plus the latest in digital surround sound, just like previously successful prerecorded video formats have done for their time and the standards of the day presented to them. Unless you're proposing that there will be another jump in video broadcast and display standards to something significantly higher than 1080p in a much shorter timeframe than has ever happened before, I don't see how the two high def formats aren't a good fit.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of the possibility of new formats with significantly higher capacity being viable around that time. Are people going to settle with the then 5-10 year old lackluster brd or hddvd when they can have ten times the special features and audio tracks, or an entire tv series on one disc, or whatever with the new format? When it comes time that hdtv penetration is going to be worthwhile, these formats are going to look almost as old as dvd, and it's going to be marketing hell to get people to buy in.

Also, keep in mind that visual appearance is not the only improvement possible. New audio encodings (which we've gotten new ones of much faster than TVs have upgraded) with more tracks, and as Playstation fans are fond of reminding Nintendo fans, more space is always a good thing.

What these are is a stopgap. They'll sell to the people who want the stopgap, but when the mass market is ready they aren't going to cut it.

 

[Cooper]

I was wondering, is it even possible to play BR or HD-DVD's on a non-HDTV? If so, is there any improvement over DVD's?

The HD-DVD/BR players will probably have S-video and 480i component outputs for connections to older TVs. I have an HD receiver connected to an NTSC-only TV via S-video. The HD broadcasts do look better than standard broadcasts. It's not night and day like it is on a large HDTV, but the color is better and the picture has an overall smoother look.

 

[borghe]

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of the possibility of new formats with significantly higher capacity being viable around that time. Are people going to settle with the then 5-10 year old lackluster brd or hddvd when they can have ten times the special features and audio tracks, or an entire tv series on one disc, or whatever with the new format? When it comes time that hdtv penetration is going to be worthwhile, these formats are going to look almost as old as dvd, and it's going to be marketing hell to get people to buy in.

Also, keep in mind that visual appearance is not the only improvement possible. New audio encodings (which we've gotten new ones of much faster than TVs have upgraded) with more tracks, and as Playstation fans are fond of reminding Nintendo fans, more space is always a good thing.

What these are is a stopgap. They'll sell to the people who want the stopgap, but when the mass market is ready they aren't going to cut it.

let's look at this realistically. with BRD or HD-DVD, you will foreseeably be able to fit a feature length movie with between presumably easily 6+ audio tracks. This is including "current day" special features.. i.e. if there wil be 3-4 hours of special features they will probably need to span over onto a second disc.

so my question is, what more do we need? I mean I am not trying to sound like a ludite hear, but really, what more do we need? Do we need the capability to stuff 3-4 movies on a single disc? Hollywood certainly might not like that plan. Sure 3-4 movies on a single disc might be good from a cost perspective. Sell us a single disc but charge us for 4 movies.. But will WE settle for that?

So arguably more movies on a single disc won't work from a logisitical standpoint. So what else then? 10+ hours of special edition material? Special edition material is always a cost to the company, and if we are happy with 2-4 hours of it, why would they possibly spend more for another 6-8 hours of it? Maybe for a criterion laserdisc like release with a criterion laserdisc like price tag. Aside from that though, I can't see the reason.

So no. I argue that there isn't much else they can do with the formats aside from what they are proposing. From a home theater level that is. Sure jacking up storage sizes after the fact would be a boon for the PC market, but this thread is not about the data merits of BRD or HD-DVD.. it is about the home entertainment merits.

BRD and HD-DVD are not stop gaps. They are the real deal. Frankly that kind of scares me. The technology is fantastic, but bringing two virtually identical yet incompatible formats to market will kill it. I've said it once I'll say it again; unless CE manufacturers work quickly to release affordable universal HD disc players, the formats will flounder and DVD will continue to reign supreme. If Joe Blo is forced to go to the store and decide between King Kong 2005 on either BRD or HD-DVD, or even worse forced to decide between either LOTR:Complete on HD-DVD or Spider-Man 3 on BRD, the formats will flounder. Note I am not saying fail. SACD and DVD-A have not truly "failed" despite both forums' damndest to make sure of it. But certainly neither will ever elevate their status above niche market, and if things don't change in the upcoming video war, beither will either of those formats.

 

[maharg]

Another thing I'd like to add to the "this is not the pinnacle" argument is that compression levels can be lower on larger media -- this is in fact one of the arguments for BRD over HDDVD, that lower compression levels are necessary to fit the same amount of information. Or GC discs vs. DVDs on the PS2 and XBox. These arguments never die.

The idea that we have reached some kind of maximum threshold for storage capacity has always been a tough sell. And it will remain a tough sell.

 

[borghe]

this is not true. Compression levels are diminishin returns, in both directions. The more you compress the worse it will look and eventually compressing just a little bit more will cause it to look a lot worse. On the other hand, reduce the compression and it will look better but eventually you will have to reduce a whole ton just to get a noticeable difference.

DVD this rate seems to be about 6Mbps. Anything over 6Mbps and even a decently trained eye will have to search for the improvements, and anything under 6Mbps and even J6P will start to see lowered quality.

MPEG4 SD seems to be about 2.5Mbps..

Most feel that MPEG4 HD is about 12Mbps (at 1920x1080). 12Mbps is about 5.1GB/hour. So as long as BRD and HD-DVD can hold 15GB each, they will be able to fit almost all movies on a single disc at "optimal" bitrates. To go beyond that bitrate will do realtively nothing for the quality.

edit - one thing that I didn't think about until just now, in regards to my previous post.. I had said that 3-4 hours of special edition material will have to be put onto a second disc.. well, it didn't occur to me until I posted that MPEG4 SD info that this could in fact be circumvented by simply providing the special edition material at SD resolutions. So provide a two hour movie on disc which will take up 10GB, and use the other 5GB of a single layer disc for bonus features at 2.5Mbps.. you could fit roughly 4 hours of material doing it that way... I mean is anyone really going to complain that SE material isn't in HD? I doubt it.

 

[maharg]

People will always complain.

 

[OmniGamer]

But what about the fact that Blu-Ray is supposed to offer playback/record capabilities like VHS VCRs did. DVD's introduction was strictly for playback, and now even though there are DVD recorders, the recording media is paltry for upcoming HD stuff, plus there are PVRs as well. Blu-ray would seem to incorporate pre-recorded playback(ala current DVD players, only now in hi-def), recordabilty(ala current DVD recorders, only now in hi-def), AND high storage capacity(a dual-layer BRD at 50GB would be more space than a standard 40GB PVR, not to mention it's not "locked inside" on a hard drive).

Blu-ray as strictly a "prettier" playback-only format wouldn't make sense as trying to replace DVD, but as a playback/record device with high-capacity media, it does IMO. So all of that space doesn't necessarily have to be used for cramming 3 movies together or 15 hours of special features, etc....people who do personal recording will have lots of use for the space. 10 years ago or so, not many PCs shipped with hard drives with the capacity of a single-layer DVD. I'd always prefer something that looks like it can keep up with storage needs in the relative long term, than just thinking about what would be "good enuff" for now. HD-DVD just feels limited in scope.

 

[Phoenix]

None of these are exclusivity agreements. This is all pomp and circumstance. The content providers will provide content to any platform with sufficient market. At some point one of the platforms will reach a tipping point and everyone will go with that.

 

[borghe]

omnigamer - I argue with many on these boards, but I just don't buy that the average consumer will give up his DVR, already installed in almost 10% of homes and growing exponentially, to go back to having to record on removable stoarge.. I mean BRRs will sell akin to DVD recorders today.. but no disfc recorder will ever be what the VCR was... that is what DVRs are for. Why search through 10-100 discs when you can just sort a menu and press a button to start the show?

With 500GB on my HD Tivo I get 63 hours of HD and 427 hours of SD. Take that up to 1TB within the next two years and that will be 126 hours of HD and 854 hours of SD. How many RECORDABLE Blueray discs will it take to get me 1TB worth of data?

 

[kaching]

Omnigamer, I agree with you all the way.

ok, here is the difference between console competition and home theater competition.

The pace of technological progress on the home theater front is generally more gradual, largely in part because of strong ties to "mature" mediums such as TV and Movies which are themselves evolving at a very gradual pace. Meanwhile, the pace of technological progress on the console front is postively breakneck, by comparison. Higher rates of change inspire higher levels of competition. Its no coincidence that most of major sea changes on the HT front initially involve fiercer competition among factions: BETA vs. VHS, two formats for CD, two formats for DVD and now, two formats for next gen optical media.

 

[sonycowboy]

A few comments from Disney regarding their choice of Blu-Ray:

I think the part about an additional "applications" layer again shows why superior capacity will be important in this next generation of entertainment delivery.

Just in case it is though, Chapek said Disney had no choice but to go with what it regards as the superior technology.

"At the end of the day, the consumer has to be happy with this thing", he said. "We think Blu-Ray offers a more enhanced entertainment experience. If there isn't a unified standard and you believe the best format will win, then you have to go with the more capable format."

Helping to tilt the balance in Blu-Rays direction, he said, was Sony's openness to Disney's desire for an additional "applications" layer in the disc that would allow the studios to add interactive features to their hi-def discs.

He also cited Blu-Rays greater support among hardware manufacturers, which he said would help build the installed base of Blu-Ray players more rapidly. "The larger the installed base, the bigger market for us", he said.

Chapek said Disney did not receive any payment or any other monetary inducement to side with Blu-Ray. "I know there have been rumors out there about this kind of thing, but it just didn't happen"

 

[teiresias]

Yeah, people that have seen demonstrations of Blu-Ray make a point of talking about the enhanced interfaces they saw demonstrated due to what I believe is a Java VM application layer able to used on the discs, or something like that.