• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Star Wars: ORIGINAL DVDs TO BE RELEASED!!!!

Turns out that when it finally shows up in production, Blu-Ray will debut with both playback only units and burners, while HD is initially read-only in both stand-alone players and computer drives. This may be one reason why HD was first-to-market, they just set aside the whole burner question and concentrated getting software and hardware to store shelves to build market share.

Regards,

Joe
 
You and JJ seem to know a lot more about this sort of thing than me, so I was wondering about your opinion on this.

Does it matter who "wins" the format war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray? Will we have moved onto non-physical formats to deliver movies (and other content) by, by the time there is a victor? With King Kong being released legally over the internet, it looks like film companies are waking up the the fact that they can deliver their content from the internet.
 
Does it matter who "wins" the format war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray? Will we have moved onto non-physical formats to deliver movies (and other content) by, by the time there is a victor?

Did Andrew sign up for a new account under another name? :)

There is going to be a winner in this format war (or an armed truce where backers of both formats cross-license their technologies so that universal players can be built) within two years, three tops.

Is everyone going to have gigabit internet connections by then? Hardly.

Various on-demand movie systems, delivered by cable, satellite and broadband technologies like DSL, can barely handle regular resolution TV, much less 1080p HD. Cable TV HD signals (which originate as either 720p or 1080i from the networks) are heavily compressed. You can movie on demand systems via cable are self-erasing. (So forget about rewatching a movie, or sharing it with somebody else.)

Physical media remain the most efficient, cost-effective and portable means of delivering certain forms of information and entertainment. That's why books still exist and are selling better than ever, despite computers and periodic declarations that "print is dead". I don't know anybody who would rather pay more money to download King Kong - without extra features - and then wait for the download instead of just buying the disc for less. (I preordered it and it was waiting for me at home on the release date when I finished work. How would downloading the movie been any more convenient for me?)

I love having 100s of DVDs at my fingertips in my own system, ready to be played whenever I want without delay and without taking up huge amounts of storage space on my computer network. For that matter I like to be able to noodle around on the net while rewatching a favorite film on DVD, which wouldn't be possible if I were streaming/downloading a huge data stream.

I just don't see any of the non-physical delivery systems taking over anytime soon, if they ever do at all. I know the studios would actually like it, because it cuts out manufacturing, delivery and storage, while giving them the illusion of more control, but I don't seen enough benefit to enough consumers to generate any demand. The industry tried to do a pay-per-view version of DVD back in 1997 and it died because it was a solution to a problem the studios perceived, but not to any problem that consumers were having. They voted with their wallets for "open" DVD and the pay-per-view version (called "DIVX", from which the compression codec derived its name as an in joke) died a quick and inglorious death.

Like I said - give me a call when everyone has a seemless and massive data connection from the source to their computer and we'll talk. Until then bet on the discs.

BTW, Sony's strategy is becoming clearer with the introduction their first Blu-Ray laptop capable of playing, capturing, editing and recording hi-def DVD content. I thought HD-DVDs earlier launch, lower price and broader hardware support might give it the early edge, but if Sony captures the desktop and the laptop markets, that could change the battle for the living room. And $500 for a recordable format with greater data density is not a big premium to pay over Toshiba's read-only HD-DVD laptop offering, especially for first-generation technology. Sony could well make up in the computer market for its higher price in the CE market and push early adopters (who tend to be tech junkies and gadget freaks, and therefore as likely to buy a drive for their HT-PC as a stand-alone player) into the Blu-Ray camp.

Should be interesting to watch this play out. From my comfortable spot on the sidelines. :)

Regards,

Joe
 
Should be interesting to watch this play out. From my comfortable spot on the sidelines.

See that's the thing- if tech-heads like us aren't buying into these new formats, than can such a small niche market- the ultra-hardcore first adaptors- be enough to make these things power players in the home entertainment market?

The attitude of most people, I think, is that they just want to watch their damn movie. You're right in that they're not looking to download them (those who actually have that technology at home), but now that the novelty of commentaries and special features has worn off, how many are looking for even more information?

And frankly I've becoming more and more in that camp.

Yes I know prices will drop and more titles will come out, but it would take a lot to make people re-buy their DVD collections.
At least, I hope, in a time of record-breaking consumer debt, people will refrain from doing just that.
 
but it would take a lot to make people re-buy their DVD collections.
Which is why I think that the market will demand that Blu Ray or HD-DVD players / burners be backward compatible enough to able to play existing DVD's.

I think that most people will call their existing DVD's "good enough" even if they aren't as good of a picture as their new HD-TVs and HD resolution disk players can provide (at least for the vast majority of the titles in their collections).
 
It's not a given that they'll be backwards compatible?

I thought that's why everything was coming out in 16:9 widescreen now, so it was compatible with HDTV, which stands to reason it should also be compatible with HD-VD?
 
Did Andrew sign up for a new account under another name? :)

Hmmm. I asked a question as opposed to just stating something and I acknowledged that I wasn't very knowledgable about this subject. So how does that make me sound like Andrew? :p

I didn't realise King Kong was more expensive via download than in a shop. Why would anyone buy it via download then? That's odd.

I'm quite happy with DVD for some of my movies, but there are a few that I would definitely upgrade to HD. We'll just have to see what happens I guess.
 
Screen size has little to do with it- my mom has an HD non-widescreen TV.

Really? Wow, color me ignorant.

I thought HD was a higher resolution that required the widescreen shape to fit the resolution parameters.
 
It's not a given that they'll be backwards compatible?
It's not a given, technologically.

IIRC, at least one (and possibly both, I don't recall off hand) of the high def formats uses a different wavelength laser than current DVD's. (Light toward the blue end of the spectrum has a shorter wave length and therefore can use less physical space to store a bit of data. I believe that's where a fair chunk of the extra data density comes from.)

For initial test prototypes, I'm sure they made some that were not backward compatible. It's just simpler when you're first figuring out what's feasible. It's possible to bring such non-backward-compatible versions to market.

However, I think that *if* anybody is silly enough to actually come bring such machines to market then they'll be a major fiasco (in terms of sales). From a practical marketablility POV, I think that they'll all need to be backward compatible. However, whenever I get around to buying one (and I don't have an HDTV yet, so it'll be a fair while), that is certainly one thing that I'll make sure to double check.
 
So how does that make me sound like Andrew? :)

The idea that downloadable films are the future and will replace physical media any minute now has been one of Andrew's particular hobby-horses for a couple of years now. (I suppose more often on usenet than here.) So when I saw you bring it up, I naturally thought of him. :)

Joe
 
It's not a given, technologically.

Players for both formats will be backwards compatible with existing DVDs. I don't know the technical details, I just know they do. (I think HD-DVD can inherently read standard DVDs because the laser wavelengths are the same and the data layer is at the same depth on the disc. I think Blu-Ray either has a second laser or that it uses some kind of prism/filter system to modulate its blue light when reading / burning SD discs.)

See that's the thing- if tech-heads like us aren't buying into these new formats, than can such a small niche market- the ultra-hardcore first adaptors- be enough to make these things power players in the home entertainment market?

Hi-def DVD does not need to be a revolution - it can just gradually absorb the regular DVD market as HDTVs gradually replace regular TVs through normal attrition over the next 10 to 20 years. The market for the players and discs will expand naturally as the installed base of HD sets expands. It is less likely that people will replace their existing DVD collections with HD versions because SD DVD looks pretty damned good scaled up on an HDTV (I was comparing my widescreen CSI DVDs to some recent HD episodes on my DVR and they hold up pretty well.) It is more that people will be inclined towards buying new films in HD and replacing a few titles that will really benefit from the upgrade. People replaced their laserdiscs and VHS tapes with DVDs because DVD offered an astonishing improvement in picture quality from normal viewing distances, saved space and didn't wear out with repeated playings the way tape did. Hi-Def DVD does not offer any similar compelling reasons to drive people to replace what they already have. But that's OK with the studios. As people with HDTVs and hi-def players buy their new releases in one of the new formats, they will be happy. Also remember that digital home video is very much moving in the direction of HD and that's going to drive demand as well.

Already the studios are starting to let people hedge their bets by releasing discs with the HD version on one side and the SD version on the other. Warner Bros. issued a couple of these hybrid discs in the past two weeks, and Blu Ray may follow suit. So people can buy the movie today and watch in SD, and have the HD version ready to go when they upgrade in a couple of years.

Screen size has little to do with it- my mom has an HD non-widescreen TV.

And I had a widescreen TV that wasn't HD - in fact, I bought it before the specs for HDTV in the U.S. had been settled and only gave it away last year when I bought my first HD set.

Regards,

Joe
 
The idea that downloadable films are the future and will replace physical media any minute now has been one of Andrew's particular hobby-horses for a couple of years now. (I suppose more often on usenet than here.) So when I saw you bring it up, I naturally thought of him. :)

Joe

To the big studios, downloading with DRM will not be a replacement for DVD sales but for DVD rentals. It has to be priced accordingly.

The big advantages of downloading is that a full stock of films is available day and night. It is most disconcerting to go out on a cold and wet night to find that you have seen all 200 movies the local village shop stocks.

Tiny independent produces can use downloading to distribute their movies world wide. Being tiny they cannot afford to buy a DVD manufacturing machine or pay the labour cost of burning 200,000 DVDs. They can afford to pay $500 for a computer that charges $5 via PayPal.

$5 * 200,000 = $1,000,000

To the big studios sales of only $1,000,000 is less than their administrative expenses; however some one man bands can pay the actors and pay the rent on a million.
 
Already the studios are starting to let people hedge their bets by releasing discs with the HD version on one side and the SD version on the other. Warner Bros. issued a couple of these hybrid discs in the past two weeks, and Blu Ray may follow suit. So people can buy the movie today and watch in SD, and have the HD version ready to go when they upgrade in a couple of years.

That's nice... until the the Special HD-DVD/Blu-Ray Superbit Ultra-Fantabulous Edition is released...
 
Pobman, in reply to your original question, and the discussion that has followed, I agree with pretty much everything Joe said.

A couple of quibbles:

I'm not so sure that the format war will be over in 2-3 years, although I hope it will be, but Joe's "armed truce" producing multiformat players in that time frame seems almost inescapeable.

Backwards compatibility: I have read that both systems will have to have added red lasers to play existing DVDs and CDs, but that virtually all sets will have them, except studio equip. I believe he's right about HD-DVD having the same layer thickness as SD DVD, and I'm certain that Blu-Ray layers are thinner. Both HD systems use blue lasers, but I don't think they are identical. I do think they are close enough that one laser can read both, if designed to do so.

Blu-Ray advantage: It holds much more info. When used in computers as storage devices, they'll hold a lot more. When used in DVDs, less compression is needed, and more storage space allows more features. At least, that's what they claim. :D

I had just read that Sony's Blu-Ray laptop player/recorder was due out this summer. That, and the fact that Joe hipped us to here, that the Blu-Ray machines will record, as well as play, might well tip the scale to make that format win.

Oh, yeah... the Blu-Ray disadvantage, that the HD-DVD people like to harp on, is that the Blu-Ray discs can't be manufactured on the same (modified) equipment that DVDs are currently made on, because B-R discs are thinner.


Edit: now that I've read the Washington Post article that Joe linked to, I find that much of what I wrote above is in there, including that both HD systems use blue lasers, and both need red lasers for backwards compatibility. HD-DVD is 15GB per layer, and Blu-Ray is 25GB per layer.
 
This just SUCKS!

Back on topic, and with bad news, I'm afraid. The Digital Bits, an extremely reliable source for DVD news, is reporting that the upcoming Original Trilogy discs will be non-anamorphic ports of the old laserdisc transfers to DVD.

You know, I've been arguing both here and over at the HTF that Lucas couldn't *possibly* be this stupid, that in 2006 no one in his right mind would release a major feature on DVD in hard-matted letterboxed widescreen or try to palm off a laserdisc port on today's sophisticated DVD buyer. But once again, the man has surprised my by being even more clueless that I would have guessed was humanly possible.

My apologies to whoever mentioned this possibility earlier in the thread. You were right, I was wrong. And Lucas is an asshole.

All I can say is "No anamorphic, no sale". If I wanted my THX laserdisc copies transferred to DVD I could do that myself - *without* having to buy a second copy of the SE that I don't want. In fact, I now *will* copy the LDs over myself, something I've only put off on the theory that a *real* DVD release was inevitable at some point.

I'm firing off a letter to the Lucas Asylum tomorrow, explaining why I won't be buying the set. Hell, I'd like to see an organized boycott of the things and in store protests on the day they street. OK, I'd really like to see a mob of peasants with pitchforks and torches level the Skywalker Ranch, but do you have any idea what a pain in the ass it is to round up that many peasants in this economy? And don't even get me started on the price of pitchforks and torch fuel...

OK, I've vented, and I feel better now.

But Lucas is still an asshole. :D

Excuse me, I have to go design an alternative to that "Han Shoots First" T-shirt he's hawking.

Regards,

Joe
 
Re: This just SUCKS!

So, I was right, it IS a hoax, but it is George Lucas doing the hoaxing! :eek: :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

I'm with you, Joe, this is just incredibly stupid... Would doing new transfers really cost THAT much? Does Lucas really think few will buy them, so new transfers aren't financially justified? This makes no sense whatsoever. How about a "Han Shoots First" T, where Lucas is the target?
 
Re: This just SUCKS!

This is super-dumb, although I am glad to see that the print itself is not being messed with too much, I would not want anything like Matte-line tweaks in this...

Hopefully fan opinion can swing the widescreen thing around...
 

Latest posts

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top