Why no HDTV DVD player/media?

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:26:43 GMT, Ed T wrote:
I am not so sure that the majority of movies available for transfer to H-DVD
would be visibly improved over what is available on DVD today at 480p.

Isn't DVD 480i? Just comparing HDTV movies to DVD, I would say that it is
visibly better but only marginally. The content that really makes HD shine
(sports, nature programming, concerts) isn't the content that shows up on
the majority of DVDs currently sold. This could be an issue in generating
sufficient demand for HD-DVD (and there'll likely be a corresponding price
impact). Back to the chicken-and-egg of price vs content that HDTV had,
but HDTV vs NTSC was MUCH bigger improvement than HDTV vs DVD.

--
-BB-
To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)

I am not so sure that the majority of movies available for transfer to H-DVD
would be visibly improved over what is available on DVD today at 480p.
Particularly on smaller screened HDTV's, say those in the 48" and under
category. Star Wars II Clones might be an exception but that was shot using
digital cameras. Are there HD copies of movies available to consumers on
any media that could be used to compare with a high quality standard DVD?
How would films like "Blade Runner" or "Dark City" noticeably benefit from
an H-DVD transfer vs standard DVD?

well...not to *consumers*...but

The vast majority of recent Hollywood movies (1998 or later) are
telecined to HD-video (1080-lines or better.) This lets the studio use
a *single* video-master to create multiple-format releases (PAL, NTSC,
anamorphic, 'full-frame', etc.) ... instead of re-transferring the
movie for each format.

(Note that P&S transfers still requires an extra operator-step
regardless of whether the input-source is film or video.)

In many cases, different HD-video transfers of a movie exist, because a
customer (like HBO) has such 'special needs.'

Someone in this newsgroup said that the HD-video transfer-quality varies
from movie to movie (as you'd expect.) Some are excellent -- easily
suited for any future HD-DVD home-video releases. Some are mediocre,
and would make mediocre HD-DVD releases. And a few are 'bad', so bad
that the studio would have to order a re-transfer (from film) of the
entire movie.

In article ,
"Randy Sweeney" wrote:

"jakes452" wrote in message
...
I would think movie provided on HDTV would be the biggest shot in the arm
that industry could do.

Why dont you think there are DVDs or other media recording in HDTV format
and the players to play them?

any thoughts?

1. The content intermediaries (the studios) are afraid of HD digital
recordings because they are so good that copies could be "perfect" - thus
they OPPOSE HD-DVD unless they have 100% control of the content. This is why
they opposed radio, tried to stop non-studio owned movie theaters, opposed
TV, fought the tape recorder, killed the DAT, tried to kill the CD-R. In
other words, the are self-absorbed idiot toll booth operators who make their
money by standing betweent the creative content makers and the consumers,
taking as much as they can from both ends while keeping them apart to
preserve their own power.

2. 100% control of the content means:
a. that an impossibly high standard of encryption is needed
b. that the encryption will be VERY intrusive and markedly reduce
consumer rights such as fair use and privacy.
c. that agreement between everyone is needed
d. that the media companies probably will simply go slow out of
ignorance, fear and mostly greed.

3. There are a number of very good competing compression algorithms and
laser/optic/media designs... making consensus slow.



Even before all that, Hollywood is making a mint on DVDs right now so
they're going to milk that cow as long as they can until they're forced
to go to HD-DVDs. The installed base of HDTVs is still too low and the
installed base of HD-DVD players is even lower. So what is their hurry?

When they do come out with them, expect to see a premium in the HD-DVD
discs. So it may not have the big uptake people expect, at least not
initially.

S-VHS exists now for those that want HDTV content now. Very pricy.
Limited home consumer market.

The DVD makers are working on an a format for HDTV DVD. Too bad for all
of us it will take them a while to agree and get it to market. Good for
all of us that they will (hopefully) have an agreed apon format.

From a technologist's standpoint, it's probably *beter* that HD-DVD has
been delayed as long as it has (so far.) If the studios and electronics
industry had charged "head first" into HD-DVD, then we might be stuck
with a HD-DVD standard inferior to what's possible now.

For example, we could have been stuck with a purely red-laser HD-DVD
format (Warner's proposal.) Now that the DVD-Forum steering committee
has finally approved Toshiba/NEC's AOD, it looks like the emerging
HD-DVD product will be *exlusively* blue-laser. (Even though Warner's
proposal hasn't been struck down -- so it's theretically possible for a
studio to release HD-content on red-laser.)

On the other hand, people will always complain that if we'd waited 1
year longer, we could have gotten 20-30% more capacity, or a smaller
form-factor.

My personal opinion is that the future market will steer
disc-improvements to smaller form-factors (3" vs the current 5.25") --
then the disc-players could be treated like truly mobile-devices.

In article [email protected], says...
I am not so sure that the majority of movies available for transfer to H-DVD
would be visibly improved over what is available on DVD today at 480p.
Particularly on smaller screened HDTV's, say those in the 48" and under
category.

Since I watch all of my movies on a 19" PC monitor, it is indeed very easy
to tell the difference between a VHS / DVD / HDTV movie. (And I've only
seen 2 HDTV clips so far.)

Having seen a bit of HDTV on the PC, I'm amazed at how *bad* DVD looks in
comparison.

Karyudo wrote in
:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:35:13 GMT, Bulk Daddy
wrote:


S-VHS exists now for those that want HDTV content now.

I'm sure you mean D-VHS...

Yes. Thank you for the correction.

In article ,
says...
They haven't even released Star Wars on DVD yet.... I want my Star Wars
DVD, dammit! All I have is a VHS recording.
Finally announced for late next year.

"Isaac Kuo" wrote in message
om...
The problem is that it's the morons renting the discs who are
using them as coasters. Most of my friends who are very
technically knowledgeable regularly disgust me by placing CDs
and DVDs directly on surfaces. My paranoid attitude is that
unless it's in a CD storage case/spindle, it's not safe!


True, but in fairnes, it's far better to place a DVD with the data side
down, than the other way around. The top is relatively thin and in many
cases, unprotected. I've seen alot of DVD's and CD's with scratches on the
data side that played just fine, but I've never seen one with a few
scratches on the top layer that played well.

I've stopped buying used videogames because they tend to be
severely scratched with strange splotches of unknown subatances
on them.


Yeah, I buy alot of used games for both PC and PS2, but if the price
difference is small... I'll buy a new copy for that reason alone- the disk
in a new game is almost always unscratched. I have a Disk Dr., but it's
simply not worth it to have to repair half the used disks you buy.

Personally, I wish the next DVD replacement should have some
sort of "cartridge" like MD, but I can see why the industry
doesn't want that. Not only are unprotected optical discs
cheaper to manufacture, the lack of durability is a FEATURE,
not a flaw. It gives them a continued revenue stream as
damaged discs need replacement--particularly for rental outlets.

The cartridge might also hurt backwards compatability, unless they built a
cartridge adapter.

"Steve Bryan" wrote in message
om...
"jakes452" wrote in message
...
There are at least three groups (with some overlap) vying
for their standard to be adopted to deliver HD content on a DVD size
disc. I believe two of them use lasers that operate at a higher
frequency (blue lasers) and a third uses current lasers. All three
involve considerably more storage space than current DVD's but each
uses a different compression technique.

I think you're a bit confused. A current DVD-9, using either Divx4 or WMV9,
can hold a 2 hour 720p (minimum) quality movie.


I know I'd buy some but I still suspect it is a risky market, like the
proposed successors to the CD for audio. The industry will tighten up
the restrictions (at least initially) so that while videophiles are
assembling their video on demand libraries on terabyte servers of
ripped DVD's, they will see one or more formats that are tied to
fallible and comparably clumsy discs. Given the choice between
rippable DVD's that can be on fault tolerant RAID drives and HD-DVD
that is clearly better but possibly fragile, which do you purchase? I
have too many laserdiscs that are slowly deteriorating. If the
laserdiscs were as good as when I bought them (like they promised) I
might feel different. Allow me to backup what I purchase and I might
be more interested in future developments.

Totally agreed. Its quite fortunate that CSS was broken and consumers
can now make inexpensive backup copies of their expensive DVD investment.

BTW, its not out of the question that DHCP will be broken. There is a
technical paper detailing what the authors say is a practical approach.

"magnulus" wrote in message
...

For smaller screen HDTV's, the difference will be slight. It will also
depend on the seating arangements relative to the TV. Folks who sit
closer
to the TV will notice it more, and since HDTV's have very small scanlines
or
pixels, some people will tend to sit very close to the screen and will
notice flaws more.

Star Wars II Clones might be an exception but that was shot using
digital cameras.

Woah... wait a minute. Film is capable of resolving a surprisingly high
level of detail. In fact, a film shot on digital camera might have less
detail than one shot on film.

Having said that, film can have a very soft look compared to high
definition video.

Only due to a poor transfer. Film still has the upper hand in resolution
over HD by at least 4:1. Contrast

Most film cameras have a more limited focus, too. Soft
focus will tend to reduce resolution.

Au contraire. HD image sensors are currently all smaller than 35mm film.
Depth of field is directly related to to the focal length of the lens and
the size of the film.
Cinematographers commonly complain of an inability to get the same depth of
focus results with HD. Some of this can be made up for with very expensive
lens
like Lucas used in Star Wars, but often these lens are either too expensive,
unavailable or not approproiate for a particular shoot. Pro HD camers are
moving
to larger sensors to aleviate this.