Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Consumer Problems with Blu-ray and HD-DVD

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the have-to-buy-fifth-element-again dept.

403

bart_scriv writes "Business Week looks at the upcoming Blu-ray and HD-DVD product launches and predicts problems and confusion for consumers. In addition to anticipated difficulties in distinguishing between the two formats, some studios will be using copy protection that will intentionally down grade the picture. When combined with Sony's plans to upconvert based on hardware configuration and the fact that most HD TVs aren't capable of displaying either format at full resolution, early adopters may be getting a lot less than they bargained for. As the article suggests, it may be that 'the best bet for either format to gain acceptance now lies with next-generation game consoles.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The key to acceptance: (5, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005743)

Which DRM is easier to crack?

Simple as that.

Re:The key to acceptance: (1)

irimi_00 (962766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005757)

Or maybe whichever is branded and publicized better.

Re:The key to acceptance: (1)

SeeMyNuts! (955740) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006142)


Everytime BluRay vs HDDVD comes up, someone mentions that good players will probably support both formats, anyway, so it'll end up like CDDVD+-=!%*RWRAMRWORMROMWhatever.

I go to a store and price out a $40 DVD burner, and it just has a bazillion acronyms in the "features" section. Good enough, I didn't feel like reading up on 40 different standards to see what I want. In ten years, the $40 BluRay/HDDVD burners will probably be the same (I hope).

Re:The key to acceptance: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005763)

True for me anyway.

All my downloads will be from whichever format is cracked :)

I couldn't give a flying fark about buying either of them till they come down to current DVD prices. EG. 10 - 15 euro for movies i want to see.

Re:The key to acceptance: (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005768)

10-15 for a movie?

Where are you, where do I have to go for cheap movies???

Re:The key to acceptance: (1)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006204)

Blockbuster. About 4-6 weeks after a new DVD release, you can get it for $10-15 easily.

I rarely pay more than $5 for a DVD. A local rental place regularly sells off their previously viewed stock at buy 2, get 2 free. I just find four at $10 (or less), watch them, and sell the ones I don't like for almost as much as I paid for them. I've even turned a profit a few times.

Re:The key to acceptance: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006265)

Dublin, a notoriously expensive city.

Go to HMV when they have sales on, they can be very cheap. Virgin can be very cheap with a sale aswell.

Other than that amazon.co.uk are pretty cheap. Also www.cdwow.com

Re:The key to acceptance: (5, Informative)

Keeper (56691) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005805)

The content protection scheme used for both HD-DVD and BluRay is the same (ie: neither is easier to crack than the other).

Re:The key to acceptance: (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005837)

The content protection scheme used for both HD-DVD and BluRay is the same (ie: neither is easier to crack than the other).

However, implementations will differ from manufacturer to manufacturer and maybe even from model to model of player. So we may find that a certain player has an exploitable weakness that others do not.

Re:The key to acceptance: (4, Insightful)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006154)

i dont think anyone outside of the geek communit cares about DRM. Most people dont mind. Most people dont even encounter the DVD DRM and dont even know about it.

Re:The key to acceptance: (4, Interesting)

DingerX (847589) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006289)

That's the way DRM is supposed to be. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DRM are going to make people care. The current path for HD player acceptance runs through the folks at the upper-end of the market who watch really big Bruckheimer explosions on their monster televisions.

The HD players coming out want to repeat the DVD player success story: the fastest adaptation of a new media technology ever. I mean, in the space of a few years, DVD video achieved something like 80 percent market penetration. Now here comes HD-DVD; only problem is HD televisions don't have that high market penetration numbers. But at the very least, someone who spent $3000 on a television will probably want to spent $500 on a player to watch something other than sports and CSI in hi-def.

Yet enter DRM: Sony and pals are so scared of nerds ripping off their signal and trading it peer-to-peer they're going to screw those who spent $3000 on TVs and who can afford and do purchase large amounts of DVDs.

So they're so afraid of the nerds in the basement and their 19" LCD screens, that they'll stop taking the money from those fat cats in their Bucky Balls wanting to watch Brucky Bombs go off.

Geeks don't particularly care about DRM ruining their access to stuff: it's a challenge that historically has been met every time. What bothers them more is the notion that DRM ruins cool technology by making it less attractive in the marketplace.

Re:The key to acceptance: (3, Insightful)

ender- (42944) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006349)

i dont think anyone outside of the geek communit cares about DRM. Most people dont mind. Most people dont even encounter the DVD DRM and dont even know about it.

That's the whole point. With the new protections in place, many people who have not had a problem up until now, will now have issues. Suddenly "average Joe" who bought an HDTV last year will realize that his 'hot new HD-DVD movies' don't look as good on his HDTV as they do on his buddy's [Rich John] HDTV even though average Joe's HDTV has no problem displaying 1080i video. Then he'll find out that his HDDVD's are being displayed at half resolution simply because the movie studio thinks he's going to steal the movie he just bought because he only has a component input.

I liken it to color TV's. Some old Color TV's don't have a coax [cable] input, they only have the two screws for an antenna. If the studios had suddenly told everyone that because they didn't have the new coax input they would be forced to watch TV in B&W, even though their TV displayed color just fine, the people who had purchased those TV's would have been pissed. This is the same thing really.

I especially think it's interesting that the main two entities involved in implementing this push to make people buy new TV's [for no real technical reason] are the very companies that stand to profit mightily by that new surge in HDTV purchases. [ie. Sony & Toshiba ]

I have an HDTV that only has component inputs. Only the most expensive TV's even had DVI inputs when I bought mine, and hdmi didn't exist yet. There isn't a chance in hell that I will be buying a BluRay or HD-DVD player until these companies are forced to ensure that all movies will display at the full resolution supported by the TV [1080i in my case] regardless of what connection is used. Until then I'll just have to keep getting DVD's from Netflix.

Re:The key to acceptance: (3, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006508)

Well, if you haven't found any non-skippable sections on your DVDs, you're lucky... but you're right, you don't really meet the DVDs DRM until you want to use a HTPC/Media Center. It's like CD players before iPod etc., you didn't really notice until you want to format-shift it. Of course, that doesn't include people like me that have DVDs from three regions (would be 4 if not the jap stuff was region 2&4, guess the HiDef stuff will add another twist since Japan is now lumped in with US). Most people get stuff with the DRM already broken though. In a recent survey here (Norway), 25% of males age 15-24 download TV shows. That tells me there's a huge demand (if not great willingness to pay) for seeing videos coming from a computer. That's quite a few people that "would care" whether or not ACSS is broken or not.

Surprising? (4, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005770)

Could this be any less surprising? I've been following it closely and I have a hard time keeping everything straight. As I work at a video store, I can safely say that average consumers are nothing less than completely screwed.

Re:Surprising? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005803)

My hope is that people are going to be SO confused that they won't buy at all. Especially after the first complaints are in that the quality sucks 'cause the system refuses to give you best quality because you don't have the "right" kind of display, cable or whatnot.

If they can't get this sorted out, customers will be pissed off, and both formats will bomb so hard that it measures on the Richter scale.

Re:Surprising? (1)

SengirV (203400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006064)

It hasn't hurt HDTV sales. Salesmen push whatever is best for THEM, not the consumer. Do you think your 60+ year old grandmother is going to know the difference? She just want one of those "nice" TVs. Whether she can actually view any HD content once she leaves the store is a whole other issue that does not effect the salesman commish on the TV.

Sure, the original poster will say he does the custome right, but 99% of the time, the salesman just screws his customers. Knowledge is power, and most folks will simply go into Best Buy and get whatever the salesman says to get.

Re:Surprising? (1)

CoderJoe (97563) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006328)

My grandmother is perfectly happy with her 21 inch or so SDTV/VCR combo with a cheap DVD player. She doesn't watch much TV, mostly stuff on PBS and such, or stuff she has on VHS or DVD, like Dr Zhivago and Anne of Green Gables/Avonlea. She doesn't care at all about HDTV and the high-def DVD format war.

Re:Surprising? (1)

SengirV (203400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006358)

I'm not saying ALL grandmothers are. I'm simply saying that they are the ones who hear about some new tech from other people and go to the store to buy it. They are also the same ones who salespeople LOVE to see come in the store

Chinese made dual players in how many years? (1)

tpgp (48001) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005806)

My prediction is that consumer will largely (ps3 being the notable exception) ignore both blu-ray & hd-dvd until dual players arrive.

Shouldn't take too long...

Re:Chinese made dual players in how many years? (1)

spxero (782496) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006139)

I agree. I have no desire to purchase an expensive player that limits my ability as a consumer. Aside from purchasing a ps3 (maybe 6 months after release), I am avoiding this war.

Although how long do you think it will take for dual players to arrive in the US (the US mainstream, that is)? I still haven't seen DVD players here that can do half the things players in the Asian markets can.

Re:Chinese made dual players in how many years? (1)

OneSeventeen (867010) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006404)

I agree. I have no desire to purchase an expensive player that limits my ability as a consumer.

Same here, which unfortunately means no DVDs for me. As soon as they trade Copy-Protection for Consumer-Protection I'll be back in the game. Until then, I'll watch movies on TV, burn them to non-encrypted DVD with my PC, and watch them as many times as I want, as is my right as a content-subscriber (via cable TV).

Who knows, maybe I'll give in to the stripping of my rights, but that would require them to make a movie worthy of my money and my rights. Gas prices have gone up so money is low, and I've got a fairly decent DVD/CD collection and a windows PC, so my rights are running pretty low too...

No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (5, Insightful)

abscissa (136568) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005808)

Neither of these formats will be accepted as easily as, historically, other formats have.

1. Cassetes --> CDs: CDs are thinner and higher quality that does not degrade. Even still, it took *almost* 10 years before cassetes were completely and fully replaced. Even to this day, unless you count, say, iTunes, CDs reign supreme and music on DVD is still a joke.

2. ?? --> Beta/VHS: No fromat existed for viewing movies at home... except maybe an 8mm projector!! But I can't remember video stores that had 8mm rentals... is it just me?

3. VHS --> DVD: DVD is smaller, thinner, and holds more at a better quality. Plus, like every previous post has pointed out, many people have invested in buying DVDs and, like me, see no reason to "upgrade" the quality of their movies... for... $30+??

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (4, Insightful)

hudsonhawk (148194) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005861)

You forgot about Videodisc. It was probably the only home format with any kind of penetration before VHS / Beta. And it sucked. Badly.

I don't think this analogy fits with those examples anyway. This is more akin to the following:

Stereo LP -> Quadrophonic LP
VHS -> Laserdisc
Cassette -> DCC
CD -> SACD / DVD-Audio

In other words, I think this is a specialized path, which only appeals to the high end consumer and won't get any broad market penetration. Even if Blu-Ray "wins" by piggy-backing on the PS3's market penetration, I don't think it will ever get much in terms of consumer acceptance.

DVD is here for at least a few more years.

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (4, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006122)

Stereo LP -> Quadrophonic LP
VHS -> Laserdisc
Cassette -> DCC
CD -> SACD / DVD-Audio


And the grandparent mentioned Beta, and I will add minidisc and DAT.

Lets take a look at the history here:

Beta -> killed, basically because of Sony
minidisc -> killed, basically because of Sony
SACD -> killed, basically because of Sony

DAT -> killed, basically because of the recording industry and SCMS

DCC -> not sure why that was killed. AFAIK, it did not have SCMS. I believe it was not that good of a format. Less than CD quality if I remember correctly

DVD-Audio -> don't know what the problem here is. I would love to get DVD-A in my car. CD+ quality with hours of content? I would love that.

Laserdisc -> killed because the discs were too big and scary looking, but good quality for the time.

Quadrophonic probably never took off because electronics were already expensive back then, so it was probably hard to overcome that hurdle.

Eeeehhhhnnnn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006169)

I would love to get DVD-A in my car.

I'm sorry everybody, but it had to be highlighted. I would weep for a future in which DVD-A was a common abbreviation, though there's little likelihood of that.

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (2, Interesting)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006224)

SACD -> killed, basically because of Sony

DAT -> killed, basically because of the recording industry and SCMS

DCC -> not sure why that was killed. AFAIK, it did not have SCMS. I believe it was not that good of a format. Less than CD quality if I remember correctly

DVD-Audio -> don't know what the problem here is. I would love to get DVD-A in my car. CD+ quality with hours of content? I would love that.

All four of the previous have one very important thing in common. You never saw any of them in walmart (or kmart of whatever the equivalent was at the time)

MiniDisc did well for a little while, but it was really a story of too little too late. They were nice but nothing earth shattering, and MP3s were just comming out. Beta fought well, but died from the porn issue as most know. And laserdisc were just too expensive for the average consumer, but did very well among the people who could afford one.

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006419)

Minidisc did well for a while, but it was really crippled by Sony - the software and DRM were horrible and very restrictive. MP3 players were just so much easier to use.

I see the same problems with the PS3 - it's success seems to be taken for granted, but as they say, prior performance is no guarantee, and they've already dropped the ball with the very long delay to market.

Microsoft did the same thing, they screwed up the launch, but decent games are coming to market now, and they will have had a long long lead time against the PS3.

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006445)

No, minidisc had a lot of potential. It was Sony, and nothing else that killed it. Ever tried using their shitastic software? That's what killed Minidisc, and that software was Sony's doing. Granted the lifespan would have been short with flash- and hard drive-based players coming out not long after, but I still can't understand how you could squeeze 50 hours of battery life from a single AA when no-moving-parts players can get maybe 15. That's the one thing I definately preferred about the MD players. But that software was a sanity-sucker.

Get an in dash DVD that supports MP3 etc. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006260)

Mine cost about $200 (with a cheesy amp built in). No screen though I could hook one up.

Each disk holds about 50 CDs worth of music. Not a bad way to carry around the collection.

Beats the crap out of DVD-A.

Quad never took off because there was almost no content for it. What content there was mostly sucked balls (e.g. the Beatles rev#9). Mastering quad with analog mixers was a nightmare.

Re:Get an in dash DVD that supports MP3 etc. (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006393)

Mine cost about $200 (with a cheesy amp built in).

My cd player in my car which cost $450 with a nice amp in the trunk plays MP3s but even 320 kbps MP3s don't sound good enough, there is no gapless or crossfade option, the "random" play feature is not random. I can predict each "random" song.

I downloaded something like 1.8 Gigs of "high quality" MP3s from usenet one night, and they are just not worth my time.

Yes, I realize that I'm picky, but MP3s are worse sonically than analog cassette tapes. DTS is the best lossy codec out there, but there is little content for it.

Right now, CDs are the best price/performance thing out there. They only cost $8 to $10 a piece used.

Re:Get an in dash DVD that supports MP3 etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006486)

I have but one word for you: FLAC

Re:Get an in dash DVD that supports MP3 etc. (1)

Orion_ (83461) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006515)

I downloaded something like 1.8 Gigs of "high quality" MP3s from usenet one night, and they are just not worth my time.

Yes, I realize that I'm picky, but MP3s are worse sonically than analog cassette tapes.


You do understand that downloading random files from Usenet is not a reliable indicator of the quality of a particular codec, right?

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (1)

NeMon'ess (160583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006374)

What car do you have with such good speakers that when driving you can tell the difference between CD quality and 256kbps VBR mp3? 99% of cars don't have that good fidelity. That's why DVD-A will never take off in cars. If you want hours of content, use mp3. If it's for audiobooks, you especially don't need CD+ quality.

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006446)

What car do you have with such good speakers that when driving you can tell the difference between CD quality and 256kbps VBR mp3? 99% of cars don't have that good fidelity.

Trust me. I have 5.25" drivers in my door with tweeters on the pillar, 8" drivers in the back dash, and a 10" sub in the trunk. 8 volt preamp outs from the head unit to the deck. The four in-cabin speakers are time aligned. The time alignment and parametric EQ on the deck is calibrated with a computer. Its cool stuff.

I would bet my car stereo is better than 99.99% of those on the road :)

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (2, Funny)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005940)

Just want to say on the 'better quality' argument: in general I can't tell the difference between VHS and DVD quality. (Unless the VHS is very old, of course.) The advantages of DVD are smaller size and random access. (No rewinding, the ablity to jump anywhere in the movie, and no rewinding. Did I mention no rewinding?)

I'm sure there are people who believe they can tell the difference. Most of them probably have their super-high quality flatscreens hooked up incorrectly so that they are are actually getting worse quality on it. But they still believe they can tell the difference. (I'm sure some actually can tell the difference.)

I'm hoping they don't decide to upgrade immediately. I see very little benifit to consumers in this new switch. If it bombs entirely I'll be perfectly happy.

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15005977)

DVD is much higher quality, the problem is you're watching it on your TV instead of a computer. You'll notice a big difference if you watch a VHS on a computer monitor vs a DVD.

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006020)

Your TV must really suck.

DVD is significantly higher quality than VHS. Across the board. VHS is crap even compared to standard broadcast video.

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (1)

kisrael (134664) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006126)

I think you're more or less right. I found that out when we were forced to rent LotR on VHS; in full motion, I wouldn't have noticed the difference on the 36" TV I had then.

Pausing was a different matter of course, and it's not just random access to the movie, but making "bonus features" more accesible. That's what DVDs offered, with no similar upgrade for the nextgen, except what the studios decide to force. It's an uphill battle.

I'm sure an A/B test could tell the difference between DVD and VHS (if not next gen and DVD), or even if you were just looking for the sake of it, but the raw truth is, it *just doesn't matter that much*. It's less prissy to want good image quality than, say, invest in highend DVD-audio, but I think a lot of people just like a nice big picture over being able to see the pixels.

I'll start worrying about highdef when it's cheap and easy to do so. 'Til then, I'll enjoy the giant image from my non-HD video projector and not sweat that I can't make out the blades of grass beneath the Patriots' feet on NFL Sundays.

Nice, but sadly misled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006377)

Well, it is a simple fact that there is a large difference in quality between VHS and DVD (e.g., fewer than 250 lines of horizontal resolution vs. 500+). I have years of experience in broadcast video engineering, two degrees in electrical engineering, and a current and correct prescription in my eyeglasses. I can be said to be knowledgeable in this area. Both in terms of electronics specifications and in terms of actual performance, the difference in quality between DVD and VHS is readily apparent to those with the opportunity to observe it. Expensive televisions are not needed.

  It is unfortunate that you cannot tell the difference. Probably, you either suffer from dramatically degraded vision (nothing wrong with that, some of my best friends are umpires, it's sad but probably not anything you can do anything about) or else you have a really bad television. Consider having a competent serviceman replace some of the vacuum tubes, they're undoubtedly getting gassy.

However, in either case your opinion about the relative quality of DVD and VHS is as relevant as my grandfather's opinions about the relative quality of reel-to-reel tape and CD. That is, not relevant at all (he lost his high-frequency hearing as a result of his service in WWII). By asserting that there is no significant difference, you have quite definitively shown that you absolutely don't know what you're talking about. By suggesting that those who claim to see a difference must be deluding themselves, you've also shown that you're a dimwit. We're used to that; this is Slashdot, after all. In the future, though, when posting shit based on complete ignorance, it'd be nice if your subject could include the phrase "Attention mods: ignorant post follows." Thanks. HAND.

Re:Nice, but sadly misled. (1)

NeMon'ess (160583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006430)

For movies, VHS has the downside of interlacing, but doesn't it basically have 480 lines, the same as DVD? 240 lines for each field, two fields per frame.

To Daniel_Staal, you're wrong in that DVD stores 720 pixels horizontally, and VHS only does about 352. The image is clearer on a decent TV.

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (1)

ADRA (37398) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006235)

^^ Poster took the words out of my mouth. We get it. They both suck. We aren't worthy for your precious formats now come abck in 8-10 years when regular people actually care about aliasing and mpeg artifacting. If you lookup something like 'mpeg quality loss', you'll notice very little or no reference to consumer based products, and all to to with mastering. The problem is that consumers just -don't- need that much quality in this day and age. Perdiod.

Now please editors, we -know- it won't be adopted, we know the storms are brewing around a format without much of a market. We know we'll buy it anyways cause we're sadistic techno-slaves. Please, let the next HD-* article be about: or . Just imagine this much waste of time debating over HDMI/Component/DVI. I'd have blown my brains out years about =) Well, maybe not so severe, but Slashot, you're really pressing my buttons!!

Re:No more HDDVD Blu Ray Stories Please (1)

hirschma (187820) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006327)

> But I can't remember video stores that had 8mm rentals... is it just me?

I don't know if it was commonplace, but you could definitely buy short clips of movies in 8mm/Super8 format before the advent of the VCR. I'm talking about Laurel and Hardy, 3 Stooges, some 50's/60's sci-fi, etc. You couldn't buy an entire movie as the reels would just be way too big for a home projector.

Porn was also sold this way (I remember being show the hidden stash that some kid's dad had hidden in a closet). I'd think that this made for some unhappy spouses, as the movies were typically 3-5 minutes long :)

Setting up a projector was such a drag, however, that the market was never likely to develop.

Translation: (4, Insightful)

cryptochrome (303529) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005810)

The Mass-Media-Powers-That-Be have succeeded in royally fucking themselves by taking a perfectly simple concept (watch videos at higher resolution) and turned it into a crippled, convoluted mess.

Ball's in your court, online video distributors (namely Apple).

Re:Translation: (3, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006225)

simple concept (watch videos at higher resolution)
It's even simpler than that, because DVDs today can already do higher resolutions. There's nothing in the DVD spec that limits you to 480 lines.

The only complexity is storage capacity. But with the improved compression of MPEG-4 over MPEG-2, you could probably fit 1280x720 (or maybe 1920x1080 in some cases) video onto the same DVD media we use today. Many DVD players today already can play MPEG-4 disks (WMV, AVI, MP4, etc.) so it won't be a big expense for the manufacturers.

So someone should just take MPEG-4, spec-out some new resolutions, and call it DVD-Ultra or something cool sounding. This might even happen as a de-facto standard before Blu-Ray or HD-DVD come-out, because there's no new technology or additional expense required.

Re:Translation: (1)

coldincalifornia (903694) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006443)

>> Ball's in your court, online video distributors (namely Apple). Ball's in your court, online video distributors? NO WAY! Since when can Apple, (or anyone else for that matter) distribute 25-40GB to a home computer? Who has the bandwidth to download a movie for HDTV?--Unless you're going to leave your computer downloading for a month. Distributing HD content over the internet won't be remotely possible until we have fiber to the premesis.

Technies needed for adoption but not wanted (5, Insightful)

Keeper (56691) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005844)

In order for a new format to be adopted, people need to buy it. Early adopters are typically technically minded people, and are generally "informed" about what it is they're purchasing.

The content produces are doing everything in their power to make the format unattractive to technically minded people. Meaning they're scaring away all of the early adopters. Which means that the format will never be adopted.

For me, degrading the signal over analog connections was the thing that pushed me over into the "not gonna buy it" category ...

Re:Technies needed for adoption but not wanted (1)

SengirV (203400) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006092)

For adoption, all you need is a decently priced HD-DVD/Blue-Ray player that can be sold in quantity in Best Buy. The sheeple will buy it as long as it is there and it's something new.

Re:Technies needed for adoption but not wanted (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006470)

"decently priced" = real cheap for the masses. The first year or so won't see any of that. The issue is whether or not they can get there, and do so just as quickly, if the early adopters choose to not buy into this. All the wise ones with analog displays won't because they know they won't get HD video that way; so why buy something that won't do any more than what you have now. OTOH, those who buy all new displays with HDMI and HDCP are probably going to be able to see the HD resolution (though the compression quality may still be an issue ... what I've seen on HD satellite so far has been some combination of fuzzy and blocky). I suspect it will be a slow uptake.

I plan to get go with Blu-Ray for storing computer data, and I might try to do some video creation myself (I haven't even jumped into DVD, yet). But this is still going to be at least a year after release.

Re:Technies needed for adoption but not wanted (1)

Stripe7 (571267) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006412)

Well SONY is saying that they are not going to signal degrade the first Blu-Ray movies out until market acceptance is in. Then they will lower the boom and turn it on consequently turning off HD on all the older HDTV sets.

Re:Technies needed for adoption but not wanted (1)

_Swank (118097) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006500)

i smell class action lawsuit

Price Cable (1)

ac3boy (638979) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005874)

Not defending HD and BD camps here but an HDMI cable is not a "Pricey Cable".

Re:Price Cable (1)

Brit_in_the_USA (936704) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005927)

you are correct. DVI-HDMi and HDMi-HDMI cables are under $10 if you mail-order.

The price in the big chain stores? - now that is a different 3 figure story.

Re:Price Cable (1)

engagebot (941678) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005980)

How about a switch? I've only got 1 HDMI in on my TV (sony grand wega) and its not old at all. To get a switcher (2 HDMI in, 1 HDMI out) costs over $100...

Re:Price Cable (1)

Spril (524430) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005985)

At Crutchfield the cheapest HDMI cable is $60. At Circuit City, they're $120 and up. To me, that's a mighty pricey cable.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-Xr97zu029xe/cgi-bin/P rodGroup.asp?search=hdmi+cable&skipvs=T&o=v&g=2310 0 [crutchfield.com]
http://www.circuitcity.com/rpsm/catOid/-12885/Ntk/ All/Ntt/hdmi%20cable/rpem/ccd/categorylist.do [circuitcity.com]

Re:Price Cable (1)

Rectal Prolapse (32159) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006032)

If you order online you can get very good quality cables at www.monoprice.com . The service is also fantastic.

Around $40 for a 25 ft HDMI cable is pretty darned good.

Consider the source (1)

Gruneun (261463) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006212)

This is exactly where the big chains make their money. The overpriced accessories, not the big-ticket items with slim margins. Online retailers have the luxury of putting slim margins on everything.

I was looking to buy a 20' component cable at Best Buy. The closest I could come was a 16' for just under $100. I borrowed a crimper, used a bunch of RG6 coax I already had, and bought the 6 connectors at $3 a piece. The result? An incredible picture through a 25' homemade cable that cost me under $20.

Two solutions to Blu-Ray and HDTV (3, Insightful)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005944)

Solution 1: Wait two years after product mass introduction to buy the same technology with all the bugs worked out, for one-third the price.

Solution 2: Don't buy DRM and other invasive products.

Either solution will work, the former assumes you're just a cog in the machine and you don't need this technology absolutely today but can wait until 50 percent of the population has switched over, the latter assumes you think a non-DRM OpenSource-friendly version will be adopted at some point.

Choose your poison.

Why can't these people just go out of business? (4, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 8 years ago | (#15005993)


Because they suck at what they do.

I mean, HDTV is what a late 90s thing? And we still don't have hidef content. They only hidef that I can get is from cable, satellite, or OTA TV. CDs are late 70s technology (maybe early 80s). The oldest digital recording I own is from 1978.

Why can't these people flood us with content at a reasonable price that we simply do not have the time or need to pirate the stuff?

My HD DVR has firewire output that I can copy the stuff to my computer. Supposedly some of the channels are encrypted, and it takes realtime to make a copy. But I never have made a copy, but I always have 80 gigs of fresh content on my DVR that I can watch anytime. I love it. Oh, and someone is getting the $70 a month or so that I pay for content, right? I mean, sometimes I even watch or listen to the commercials because I'm busy doing something else and don't feel like fiddling with the remote control.

What I don't understand is that the content "providers" dabble in all aspects of the modern era, but they insist on putting stuff on plastic disks and sell them at a brick and mortar store. I mean, Sony makes electronics, but they are talking about making the PS3 so that it does not play Sony movies. Huh??? Time/Warner owns a cable TV outfit and internet, but won't let you download their movies or with little streaming capabilities.

The movie industry lets TV channels broadcast their stuff. The music industry lets radio broadcast their stuff. When are they just going to get with the times and deliver modern day technology?

Oh, the funny thing is that I would assume most people would prefer the lower quality DVDs via DRM. Look how popular iTunes and AACs and MP3s are. Can't figure that one out.

Re:Why can't these people just go out of business? (1)

_PimpDaddy7_ (415866) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006155)

Look how popular iTunes and AACs and MP3s are. Can't figure that one out.

How about ease of use/ease of download/convenience?
All reason why people are flocking to iTunes for their music, and the quality, while audiophobes may sneer at, for the general public it's great.

erroneous (1)

apoc06 (853263) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006000)

sony has already announced that for the first generation of players, they will not be implementing the flag that signals an output downgrade. each studio has their own liberty whether to implement the flag or not. so far only two of the nine or so studios supporting blu-ray will implement that feature.

unfortunately, their stance is one where they are being lenient in regards to using the flag in order to woo new adopters of their product. they reserve the right to implement HDCP only full-HD output, as more sets reach market in a few years and HDMI becomes more commonplace.

Re:erroneous (3, Informative)

Silvers (196372) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006117)

I believe this is incorrect.

For their first generation of media they will not be enabling the flag. Their hardware players will still support it.

The flag is an optional feature which they will not use, initially.

The real key to acceptance: Adult Movies (4, Insightful)

imgunby (705676) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006037)

I'm surprised it hasn't come up more, but "pornography" has driven adoption of virtually all modern forms of media. Tin-types, 8mm movie film, VHS, DVD, DSL... you name it, and naked people (or their images) has been behind it. I'm gonna go on a limb and say whatever format is generally adopted by the adult industry is what will win out. Sony and the rest will quickly fall in line. imgunby

Re:The real key to acceptance: Adult Movies (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006109)

Oh, please. Are you really gonna watch pr0n on a device that phones home and reports your viewing preferences?

Re:The real key to acceptance: Adult Movies (2, Funny)

OldManAndTheC++ (723450) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006191)

I completely agree. Consumers have shown over and over that they will spend ridiculous amounts of money for porn (remember the cost of the first VHS porn tapes?)

And the quality of porn on these high-def formats is going to be incredible! Once guys see their first HD porn they will go apeshit. Stores should advertise porn bundles ("Happy Deals?") consisting of an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player, five or six porn titles, a lotion dispenser, and a rag.

Re:The real key to acceptance: Adult Movies (1)

benzapp (464105) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006410)

Do you really think this is true? High definition is going to really show the skin imperfections of these porn stars. The scars from drug injections. The cellulite from alternating between meth addiction and cookie addiction. The c section scars.

I dunno about you, but this is why I like to dim the lights a bit before I go at it... I'd rather have my perfect fantasy, than the less than perfect specimen I'm performing on.

Men are idealists... there is a reason we don't paint pictures of less than attractive women or create sculptures with imperfections.

I think porn will become less and less realistic, with even more computer enhancement. In time, I'm sure there will be no porn actresses at all anymore... the whole thing will be virtualized.

For men, sex has always been about the dream, not the realtiy.

Re:The real key to acceptance: Adult Movies (1)

toby34a (944439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006193)

That's true, fully. But the people buying porn (dirty old men with money) are also the people buying game systems for their kids or for themselves. With the PS2 having a built-in, no extra cost (ala Xbox) DVD player, it reached more people to try the new format and be able to view that type of medium. With PS3 coming up with the Blu-Ray, it will be in more living rooms then the HD-DVD player off the bat (as long as it doesn't suck and isn't insanely expensive... and the jury is out on both counts for that). For my own use, I'll probably get a PS3, and use that as my DVD/Blu-Ray player. And since I don't buy movies all that often, I'm not going to really see a big price difference (and being a poor student for the rest of my life, I won't have the money for a big fancy HDTV, and just go with a TV tuner card) but still ahve the early-adopter tag.

Re:The real key to acceptance: Adult Movies (1)

JL-b8 (862188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006356)

I disagree with the PS3 part of it. Old dirty men don't buy game systems for themselves or kids.. They're dirty old men... Have you ever been to a porn store?? The guys there don't play games, they drink in bars and can't program a VCR. I can see a $300ish HD-DVD player more succeptable to be getting picked up for their porn than a $400-500 swiss army game system. Pr0n will lead the way out of these war torn lands!!!

Re:The real key to acceptance: Adult Movies (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006227)

"you name it, and naked people (or their images) has been behind it. I'm gonna go on a limb "

Sounds like Slashdot is getting its share of the pr0n right there... thanks for the mental images.

Re:The real key to acceptance: Adult Movies (1)

Senobyzal (826207) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006228)

This time may be an exception. You can see some things in HiDef that can detract from the porn-viewing experience.

If anything, more soft filters are needed.

Re:The real key to acceptance: Adult Movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006255)

It's come up over and over again, but people are starting to realize how silly it is. Porn has never been a major driving force behind any new tech adoption. The porn industry, though, likes to inflate and overstate both its sales numbers and its importance.

The idea that porn drives media adoption is like the old idea that you'd catch a cold if you were out in the cold -- everybody says it (or used to), but a little critical analysis shows that it is false.

Re:The real key to acceptance: Adult Movies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006466)

Surely you don't believe this tripe after the success of porn websites...

Hopefully they continue foot-shooting procedure. (3, Informative)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006043)

If this is as stillborn as DIVX, then we'll get to keep using DVDs and ripping them to our hearts' content.

What's the best way to put your Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movie on your iPod? Oh, yeah. Right. Eat a dick, MPAA.

Re:Hopefully they continue foot-shooting procedure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006156)

Oh, yeah. Right. Eat a dick, MPAA

Dear Elwood P Dowd,

I did eat a Dick while in Seatte's lovely Queen Anne area and found it to be a totally unforfilling experence. Their meat is dry, the buns are stale, and I found their policy of charging for katsup unacceptable. Further more I spend most of my time in L.A. and there are no Dick's in a convenient.

Should you be interested in eating a Dick please use the following address to find the nearest location. http://www.ddir.com/ [ddir.com] It is perfectly acceptable for you to enjoy Dick's while watching the latest films on DVD. I however prefer popcorn.

Yours trully,

The MPAA

P.S. Don't copy that Movie.

Article seems a bit short-term memory challenged (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006047)

FTA:
"The new content-protection scheme would be the first time customers who have no intention of breaking copyright laws would be penalized because of piracy concerns."

What about all those people who had the pleasure to have Sony's rootkits installed on their computers? They got "penalized" up the ****.

Re:Article seems a bit short-term memory challenge (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006162)

"the first time customers who have no intention of breaking copyright laws would be penalized because of piracy concerns."

      Or people who bought TV-Out graphics cards thinking they could use their computer as a DVD-player...

expect new packaging (1)

zen611 (903428) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006048)

That's the only way most people tell the diference between cd's and dvd's anyway.

Early adopters and FULL HD resolution (2, Interesting)

emptycorp (908368) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006071)

The problem I have with this is the plain and simple fact that film lacks the quality and detail that actual high definition video captures. Simply, blowing a film picture up to 1920x1080, even from the original negatives, will not produce the same quality as HD video. The argument about enhanced definition (1280x720p) which most HDTV's can currently only do, vs. full HD (1080p) is a dead-end when talking about HD-DVD's. I for one am not waiting to see a film movie in full HD as the film grain and other artifacts will be more noticable than ever, versus the actual quality of the picture going up. I AM, however, waiting for full-HD produced movies such as Once Upon a Time in Mexico by Robert Rodriguez to come out in the full HD format. And I know a lot of slashdot readers would love to see those Lucas films that were shot in HD above the inferior 480p threshold they currently claim.

Re:Early adopters and FULL HD resolution (1)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006180)

I may be wrong, but supposidly we have yet to tap the full resolution of the film used in most movies.

Re:Early adopters and FULL HD resolution (1)

soupdevil (587476) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006320)

1080p is superior, or at least equivalent to 35mm film. But the best directors and DP's still shoot on film, because they know how, and they aren't going to risk their careers, and hundreds of millions of dollars by moving to digital too soon. As with audio, it will take a new generation of technicians and artists, who grow up with the new technology, to bring it mainstream.

Re:Early adopters and FULL HD resolution (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006403)

1080p isn't even close to equivalent to 35mm film. 1080p widescreen format is 1920x1080 resolution which is approximately 2 Mega-Pixels of information. 35mm film is rated between 8MP and 20MP depending on circumstance.

You are probably confusing the latest HD resolutions with the latest consumer camera resolutions. Consumer cameras have just started to hit the range where they are more accurate than film (12+ MP), which is causing a lot of professional photographers to finally make the switch.

It's not so much pixel count as bits per pixel (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006483)

Film is about 24 Bits per 'pixel' per color. CCDs typically have much lower color resolution.

But (and it's a big butt) film loses quality as it's edited, master positives and shipping prints are generated.

Also note that 70mm film is not unheard of amoung the best film makers (expensive but when you think about how much it cost to film movies like RAN it was very cheap). Some movies even had 70mm prints (though it was an unusual theater that had the projector).

Re:Early adopters and FULL HD resolution (1)

Tweekster (949766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006427)

First of all, film used for real movies is 50some mm. not 35

Re:Early adopters and FULL HD resolution (2, Informative)

NeMon'ess (160583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006492)

Then why is film scanned at 2K and now 4K for the AVID's and effects houses to work with? The 2K means 2000 horizontal lines, almost twice the 1080 you're claiming is superior.

Film holds more image data than 1080p, the projection is the problem. Watching a fourth generation print at the local multiplex may not look as good as digital projection. Until 1080p digital is projected in the largest theater, then people start noticing the sharp, square pixels.

Re:Early adopters and FULL HD resolution (1)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006326)

Actually, the original film stock usually does have enough information for "HD Quality". The problem is that going back to the original film stock is extremely expensive, because it hasn't even been editted. No special effects have been applied, the CGI stuff hasn't been rendered into the scene, etc. When the original films where transferred to the digital editors, they were converted at that point to digital, then the film was editted, etc. All that would need to be completely redone, and it's not cheep to do right (It's also labor intensive -- meaning even if it was cost effective, you're going to be quickly limited by how many a studio can redo quickly, without causing so much extra demand that prices skyrocket). They explained the whole process in the limited HD version of Terminator 2, and why they have to go back all the way to the original film stock in order to get HD-quality output. The whole thing about "HD cameras" isn't really for a better picture from the camera. It about how fast they can review/edit and the quality of the picture at the very end when the film loses quality in each A/D conversion (And apparently there are a few that have to be done in most studios). The new HD cameras record the movie in digital and it no longer needs to be converted at any step along the way. It's also much faster to go "All digital", but it's more costly. On the technical side, I'd have to say that's not 100% correct. I'm sure they could get new analog equipment that could also process/work with analog film and/or convert it from analog to digital just as quickly, but, why would anyone spend that kind of money when if you have to spend it, it just makes sense to go 100% digital.

Re:Early adopters and FULL HD resolution (1)

conigs (866121) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006450)

HD at full res (1080) is far from film quality. The closest I've seen is 4k resolution. And that's not coming to your home anytime soon.

And if I'm not mistaken, the Lucas films you mention were NOT shot on 1080 res. I believe it was actually a 4k camera. If I were to show you a 1080p projection and a 4k projection, trust me, you'd see a difference.

It should be noted, though, that 1080 is great for home use. Once you get to projections, though, that's where 4k shines. (That and doing any DI/effect work.)

Re:Early adopters and FULL HD resolution (5, Informative)

paulzoop (701446) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006452)

i'm sorry, but your talking complete rubbish. i work in the film industry and 35mm film is usually scanned in at 2k which is HD. even sometimes at 4k! i've shot on 16m, 35mm, super 35mm and on hd. film is a very mature technology while HD is still very young. i spend all day examining and working with BG plates shot on both. just because HD is new and digital doesn't mean it's *currently* better than the technology it's replacing. you sound like the early audio companies that said that CD's sounded better than LP's. they didn't then and have only just arrived recently. (listen to a lynn lp12...) the funny thing is that the new cameras have special "film grain" modes...

Re:Early adopters and FULL HD resolution (1)

Peteee (945896) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006516)

Film has far more resolution then you think, I imagine.

"The very short answer is that there are around 20 million "quality" pixels in a top-quality 35mm shot. That's a shot with a tripod, mirror-up, with a top-rate lens and the finest-grained film, in decent light. 12 million are more typical for "good" shots. There may be as few as 4 million "quality" pixels in a handheld shot with a point-and-shoot camera or camera with a poor lens. And of course if focus is poor, or light is poor, or the camera was not held steady, the number will drop down below the 1-2 million pixels of the modern consumer digicam." http://pic.templetons.com/brad/photo/pixels.html [templetons.com]

1920 * 1080 = 2,073,600

Granted, thats still photography, but its mostly the same film.

No problems .... (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006097)

No problems at all ...

Consumers hear the DVDs won't work with the HDTV they already have.

Consumers don't buy new HD DVD formats.

Media companies find themselves holding onto a billion dollar albatross they've made unpopular with people.

No problem.

Re:No problems .... (1)

LuxFX (220822) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006353)

That's right, it's no problem for the media companies. They just up the cost of the CD and DVD media we have now to make up for their HDDVD/BluRay loss, and their budget problems are solved. Of course, we're screwed then.

And then they blame piracy (1)

tekrat (242117) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006497)

Yes, exactly; they make the format unpopular, nobody buys it, but they interpret that as piracy losses.

Then their lawyers add up the costs of everything, and determine that piracy has resulted in a $100 billion dollar loss of business, which makes the MPAA run out and sue grandmas who don't even have internet connections.

Oh boy, I'm ready for that future.

No One Cares (1)

segedunum (883035) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006226)

No one cares about next generation DVDs. People already have huge collections of DVDs, and they will carry on buying them as they have done with CDs over DVD-Audio.

The Media Associations (3, Interesting)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006242)

The criminals at the RIAA and MPAA must be removed at all costs before they completely decimate all consumer rights. When I buy a recording of a movie or an album, I expect to have reasonable rights to copy it for use on various devices that I own. If I'm not going out and selling these copies, then I am not depriving them of any profit that they are entitled to. This is simple common sense. Whatever happened to the day when I could easily tape a selection of songs from various albums and play those songs in my car, on a walkman or a boom box? If anything, today's digital media should make these activities easier. And you know what? They DO. It's not the technology getting in the way, it's the lawyers and the artificial restrictions being assigned to playback devices and recordings devices by organizations like the MPAA and the RIAA. Those organizations are holding the artists, the distributors and customers for ransom. And why? Simply to keep their old, failing business model alive. Truth be told, MOST people would do the "right thing" and buy a legit copy of a song if the songs were reasonably priced (a few cents per track) and non-DRM. As long as there is DRM and unreasonable pricing there will be, otherwise honest people, trying to find a way to get "free" or "cheap" music. But as soon as some company offers high quality, direct from the artist to your ears, along with value added media (like liner notes in PDF and album art in JPG) full movie and music packages that are universally playable on all platforms, the DRMed crap will dry up. Kill off the dinosaurs. Show the RIAA and the MPAA that they are largely irrelevant to digital media. If you are an artist, work together with the P2P geeks to find a better distribution method that presents one file for a complete album or a television program or movie that you produced. If you are a user, spend some time exploring the alternatives that exist to big media. The quality is improving daily. Screw the fossils that are trying to control music, movies and television. Rescue YOUR media. Do it NOW!

Solomon's baby. (3, Insightful)

merdaccia (695940) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006247)

This format war is turning into a twisted modern day version of the parable of King Solomon. In that parable, two women both claim that a baby is theirs. Solomon guilefully says the only way to resolve the issue is by cutting the baby in half and giving a half to each woman. The first woman agrees, but the second woman pleads with the King to spare the baby's life and let the other woman have the child. Solomon knew the second woman was the real mother.

Today, that baby is high definition DVDs, and unfortunately for us, both women would rather see that baby slaughtered than give up potentially lucrative royalties from it. The HD-DVD and Blu-ray camps are trying to compete with each other for money, and their greed is about to kill what could be the successor of the DVD. So what happens now? Well, as other people have pointed out, most will wait for one format to beat out the other. Or wait for players that play both formats, assuming such a thing would be made. I don't see it happening. After this whole battle, why would you license a player if it will decode the competition?

In a way, we are Solomon. I think the only smart thing to do is to keep the baby ourselves and leave them both empty handed, by not buying the players or the discs. If the two camps could just get past their greed and see that their actions mean both of them will lose revenue, they might rethink their strategies.

Re:Solomon's baby. (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006457)

Nice idea.

I think this is what Sony is afraid of (that people will wait). I think this is also why they decided that Blu-ray *must* be included in the PS3 (even to the point that waiting for the spec to finalize pushed the ship date).

People may be willing to wait on the sidelines to watch who wins the HD format wars before committing, but quite a number of people will be interested in getting the PS3. They may not care about the Blu-Ray drive ... but they'll have it all the same, and if that happens to help drive up the total number of units sold, which in turn is something Sony can show content producers to prove "their format is winning"? hey, so much the better from Sony's perspective.

As for HD-DVD ... yeah, MS has talked about an Add-On module, but unless there is a killer game that needs it, I don't see people runing out to get one, especially since the 'early adopter' segment already has (will have?) an XBox360 at that point, and will be looking to the PS3 as the "new shiny toy". All in all, its a rather good strategy from Sony, and I bet it will probably work. Unless there are some serious missteps, the next generation format wars could be over before the first shot is really fired, or the first player ships.

Downgrading?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006272)

Just bought an HD set less than two years ago, but it doesn't have HDMI. If these formats downgrade the signal when using component, then this means that everyone who upgraded too early will have to buy a new TV just to get the most out this new technology. That's b@##$@%t...this DRM crap is going to make pirates out of more people than it will actually stop.

It's just data transfer... (1)

Paraplex (786149) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006273)

...isn't it?

or am I missing something?
I mean, I'm just going to get the data off these incredibily inconvenient, clumsy data storage devices and store them on (A) a Hard Drive or (B) a flash drive. Although I really will miss using the terminology... I'll miss how it makes me feel like i'm getting something special.

Blu-RAY!... HI-DEF!

Preaching to the converted maybe, but lets boycott this nonsense. It is just marketers working on the age old "milk the technology" strategy to eke out an idea over a much longer period. When disc's first appeared, there were two types, floppy discs and hard discs. These described the differing physical form of the two data storage devices. They were however, fundamentally identical. Each new release of a floppy disc could contain more information than its predecessor, but was called - you guessed it, a floppy disc.

Soon someone developed the compact disc, and it was good, but following this was a higher capacity compact disc. The marketers, having seen a profit in this industry decided that it needed another name change, and some functionality reduced. Digital video disc... "ooooh" sound exciting doesn't it Mr End Consumer. "Hell, i might even have to get myself a fangled 'DVD player' instead of the much smarter long term investment of a PC"

And now we're debating the pro's and con's of two competing 'products'. THEY ARE JUST STORING 0's & 1's! Theres no mystery to this. If i use bluray, it will be to store data files to play on whatever video player software I choose.

HDTV is late anyway (2, Insightful)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006406)

HDTV is over 10 years behind where the "experts" claimed it would be. It has been extremely slow to go mainstream becuase the consumer did not care about it or want it. The only reason I have one is because of the other features that the digital TV had that were handy. I don't even watch HD.

For movies, HD-DVD and BlueRay won't sell very fast becuase the studios have to still make the releases on standard DVD to make any money. The consumer won't care. Only the game machines will pick up the players and that is only for the kids and young adults that waste thier time doint that.

This just in: Bleeding edge is prone to problems (1)

netsavior (627338) | more than 8 years ago | (#15006512)

Early adoptors usually get screwed, how is this a suprise? This is the price you pay for being on the bleeding edge.

The pissing contest continues as electronic/movie companies work together to attempt to get consumers to compare television sets through pixel counting with magnifying glasses and rambling technical specs. Meanwhile mythical consumers are chomping at the bit to be allowed to purchase DVDs for more than $20 a piece and most don't know if they have an HD TV or not, and if they do have an HDTV the chance that they actually utilize it at all is even slimmer.

Videophiles are the only ones that will care, and they are going to buy a new TV the next time a better one is available anyway, so why worry about them.

1080p displays don't have 1080p inputs :( (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15006520)

I almost bought a sony 60XBR1 yesterday, but they don't have 1080p inputs (1080p requires dual link DVI and is not supported by HDMI.

The PS3 is going to output natively in 1080p. It doesn't make since to output 1080i and have the TV upscale it when the PS3 can do it from the start.

There are only 2-3 sets currently that have this feature. I guess I'll wait until Summer to buy.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?