CED VideoDisc and Player Discussion

[cedmagic]

One topic at CES 2005 was the impending release of the competing HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc formats. Some speculate it will be a repeat of Betamax vs. VHS or CED vs. LD, while others think the competing formats will be irrelevant if hardware manufacturers make players supporting both formats. Here's an article on the topic:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/050107/tech_1.html

--Tom Howe

[Reinhart]

[Phredreeke]

BluRay is more expensive, but has larger capacity.
HD-DVD is cheaper, but has less capacity.

Now, we're all forgetting something, SD-DVD. It has an already established base. Now, if I wanted to buy HD format, I wouldn't try to save a few bucks on getting the inferior format. If I wanted to go cheap, then I'd just buy the regular DVD (in fact, those people might still buy VHS) If it was up to me I'd say keep SD-DVD, market BluRay as a niche product a la laserdisc, drop the in-between HD-DVD format as well as VHS (the additional expense on DVD is a one-time cost in mastering, making menus, extras et cetera, in reasonably large scale, DVD is cheaper)

That's my two cents (or ören)

[Rixrex]

Reinhart make a good point about the Beta vs VHS format war being bad. It was bad in a way because the inferior format won out, not based on quality, but on money, advertising and availability. Sony blew it with Beta by being too stubborn with the technology, though it survives in many ways. The general public, at the time of the tape wars, mostly had no better than 25" mono TV sets, and the quality difference between Beta and VHS was nearly imperceptible, and either was better than most over the air broadcast signals anyway. I could see the difference, but then I had a 40" large screen and a background in broadcast technology.

CED and LD was not really a war because neither one was hot with the public in the way videotape was, mostly thanks to recordability of tape, although in this matter (and don't take this as a slam of CED) the better quality format lasted longer and has many more titles available. I'm convinced CED would have done better had the discs been priced right, as the players were.

Much of what the public in general decides to purchase is based upon availability, price, and perception. In this way, standard DVD is well entrenched, and any HD DVD technolgy will have a hard time taking off. The boom in widescreen HD TVs will also prove to be a factor in strengthening the hold standard DVD has with the public in these ways:

Price - DVDs are really inexpensive now, except for the big releases at first sale, then they drop significantly in a short time. They are less than half of what tapes used to sell for when first released.

Availability - You can't go anywhere without seeing a rack of DVDs for sale anymore.

Perception (meaning the perception of quality when viewing the source) - Anamorphic DVD on a widescreen TV in progressive scan can rival HDTV in perceived quality, though technically inferior. Technically, it is 480 viewable lines of resolution (with over 500 actual) with a progressive scan rate of 60 fps, which greatly reduces jaggies and motion artifacts for a significant increase in perceived quality. The anamorphic squeeze, when unsqueezed, increases perceived quality, though not actual resolution. In contrast HDTV is 1080 lines of interlaced scan, which is more than double the lines but half the fps, so it's an increase in resolution but then the scan rate brings it down a bit, and in actual perception, it's better than anamorphic DVD but not by a lot. Not enough to make the public clamor for hot new stuff on HD DVD, and turn in their current collections. Not yet anyway, as the DVD juggernaut marches on, and the general public will be cranky if confronted with yet another format to handle. The key to HD DVD success would be to make inexpensive players that play both formats over both an HDTV input, and a standard video input, so those who want to spend the $$ for HD DVDs can do so.

[7jlong]

I am intrigued by the notion that the quality improvement would be marginal. Please expand, as the numbers I have been seeing look pretty good as compared to DVD or LD.

Not to mention, the accompanying implementation/adoption of screens with higher resolution and refresh rates (or, as mentioned, the interlacing issue) sounds like a godsend.

Having done a lot of video editing since "the bad old days" of three decks and an edit controller, I am praying for the day that I don't have to preview my work on an NTSC-standard monitor. It sounds as if we are headed in this direction, not just with HD broadcasts of football games but a viable media delievery system that will eventually be writeable.

As far as wars, as the article mentioned it might not be long before dual-play machines make the argument useless, just like all the DVD players with built in SACD.

Speaking of SACD/DVD-A, I think one of the issues here is that most people are not, these days, willing to fuss with five speakers and then sit in the "sweet spot" to hear all that is have to offer. If you're not willing to do that and instead have the stereo on in the other room while cooking dinner, it makes no sense to get hyped up about 5.1 audio. I like the high resolution audio discs I've heard - quite a bit - but investing in the setup and committing myself to sitting and enjoying it is not going to happen.

With image delivery, however, all you have to do is sit with a true HD monitor next to an old-style (even if it's brand new) TV. The difference is clear, even to the "casual viewer". I have never understood why the big electronics stores group their TVs by type - they should have the old NTSC standard sitting right next to HDTV. I know which one I'd buy (if I had the money, which is a perpetual problem with HDTV).

[Reinhart]

[Phredreeke]

AFAIK, most people aren't able to hear above 15 khz, while some golden eared people are able to hear up to 20 khz.

Do you mean that Blu-Ray players would not be compatible with regular DVDs? Cause from what I've heard both format's players would play SD-DVD. To not be compatible would be a great mistake IMO. I've also read newsbits about hybrid discs, HD-DVD with SD-DVD on the opposite side, and Blu-Ray with SD-DVD on a deeper layer.

[Reinhart]

[Total Rewind]

Actually Beta vs. VHS wasn't the first format war. In the early days of music recording, the flat disc was in competition with the cylinder, and the war was every bit as fierce and with the same marketing shennanigans, dirty tricks and passionate loyalties. The two formats fought for the rights to the top stars (who had to perform live to cut each master!) and the current hits.

In the end disc won, partly because they developed a more sensitive system with a greater dynamic range - which could record quieter sounds with clarity. In this case, quality was a deciding factor!

After that, Baird's mechanical TV system fought against Farnsworth's electronic approach - not much of a war in the end, because just as the few people with TVs were deciding which to back the real war stopped TV transmissions. 6 years later everyone bought (or built!) electronic sets, partly because of the advances in CRT technology driven by Radar.

There was also the Sony EL-Cassette in competition with the Philips ACC we all know today, along with 8-track of course.

Andy

[constrictor]

You are correct, the Blu Ray laser pickup wont read a DVD signal, but the players themselves will have support. It would be suicide by Sony to release any Blu-Ray player that wasn't backwards compatible, and Sony is not that stupid. So, yes, technically the statement "Blu-Ray is not backwards compatible with DVD" is true, however it is misleading because the players will be able to play SD-DVD.

Another very famous format war that actually took over 10 years to come up with a winner was 4 channel audio cassette vs 8-Track. Most younger people don't know that both formats were released all around the same time. 4-track, 8-track, and reel-to-reel came a little earlier, but the cartridge based 8-track debuted in America around 1966. At the same time in England, the cassette tape was being released in England.

At first, the 8-track system caught on first because it had wider audio tracks for increased sound quality, and obviously the functionality of multiple programs on the same tape were appealing to many people.

As most of you would know, 8-track continued successfully all the way through the 80s when finally the cassette format finally caught up and passed 8-track in popularity. It remained the audio system of choice until the early 90s when CDs started to dominate the market. The death-toll finally sounded in the late 90s when recordable CDs became popular and inexpensive.

As for the HD-DVD / Blu-Ray topic, I agree with the statements, that either format is going to have a very difficult time catching on because the need is not there for a new format, like there was for DVD when it first came out. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray improve upon SD-DVD in the relam of high-res video and improved audio definition. However, in order to experience these higher quality A/V recordings, higher end A/V equipment will need to be used, whcih will be costly to the consumer. Joe-6-Pack is not going to see as much of a need to do this upgrade. I have a feeling that at least for the next 10 or so years, DVD will continue to be the dominant format for home video, with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD as a high end alternative, similar to how Laserdisc was in the 80s and 90s.

[cedmagic]

I thought it would be interesting to revive this thread after 2 years of inactivity, as a report indicates Blu-ray sales recently surpassed HD DVD for the first time, although they are still pretty close to being even. The Sony Playstation 3 helped Blu-ray with its playback support for that format:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/02/23/blu-ray-surpasses-hd-dvd-in-disc-sales-for-the-first-time/

--Tom Howe

[Caroline]

I think these two formats will be 50:50. The first two format players are on sale, and I think most people will buy them.
I dont will buy one, because they have a copy protection, the players are too expensive, and the movies.... Why should I buy old movies a second or third time. I think it is of no sense, to publish classics like "Citizen Kane" again. The masters arent HD, and it is useless to "blow them up".
I have the Citizen Kane CED, and it is almost as good as the DVD.

Here in Europe, we had a much bigger format war, than in the USA.
We had the dutch/german VCR and VCR-LP systems, the german SVR and LVR, the japanese VHS and BETA, and the german-dutch V2000 (VCC) system, where you can turn the side, just like music cassettes.
Technically the best - at its time - was Beta. Then came V2000.
And who won : the worst of them all : VHS.

[AilingRichMan]

Currently Sony's having a lot of problems getting their Java to work for picture in picture and some navigational features. Articles are stating that current Blu-Ray players (with the possible exeption of PS3) will not be able to play these features because of their lack of RAM. HD-DVD has now also surpassed Blu-Ray in capacity. Studio support and PS3 is a lot to battle with though. Also, those HD-DVD combo discs are a waste. A movie that would cost $25 goes to $35.

Personally I think both are niche and that downloadable HD files are the future "format" for home video.

[RT9342]

I just wonder though how long it will be before Sony releases another video disc format. How long after U-matic came out did they release Betamax, and then 8mm? And remember all of the audio disc formats? CD, MiniDisc, HD MiniDisc, PSP (I guess that was more of a game/video format, but still ANOTHER format by Sony), I'm sure I left some out.
I also never understood why DVD wasn't more HDTV friendly in the first place. I don't think it was a matter of the technology at the time, because I can remember asking that question back in the late 90s when I first read about the DVD technology (back when a $400 player was a pretty cheap one). I was sure it would have high definition video and that there wouldn't be a difference between NTSC and PAL discs, except maybe the region code, as I was under the impression that the signal was a high-definition RGB signal being down-converted by the player to NTSC or PAL. The ZOOM features helped lead me to this conclusion. I was shocked to find out that none of this was the case, and that the discs still had either an NTSC or PAL signal (or an NTSC compatible 24 fps signal, utilizing 3:2 pulldown in the player). Though I think it's dumb that they're bringing out all of these new video disc formats, I also think it's dumb that they made DVD as limited as they did. Maybe it was to keep the DVDs from being REALLY high priced (like some of the players for these new formats).

[cedmagic]

Here's an article on the current status of Blu-ray vs. HD DVD that also included a mention of SelectaVision:

http://www.betanews.com/article/Warner_Bros_Holds_Fast_on_Bluray_HD_DVD_Dual_Commitment/1190236933

--Tom Howe