Mandatory v. optional features and BD profiles

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Does 2.0 mean that your player will bitstream DTS-HD MA? Nope. and the fact that a 1.1 profile player could have features like this that aren't required in the 2.0 spec just makes it more confusing.

How come that is confusing, but making sure you have a receiver than can decode it, is not?

The problem is not the inclusion/exclusion. It's the lack of general understanding about what the heck all this stuff means.

xvYCC != deep colour
HDMI 1.3 != HDMI 1.3a
Local decoding to LPCM != Bitstream
24p != 2:3 pulldown

Exactly where do you draw the line? And don't you risk stifling innovation if the cry is "stop confusing us with features we aren't sure about"?

If you really want bitstream DTS-HD MA, why can't you check for it on the player AND receiver?

Gary

[milou6]

Finding the balance between options and general understanding is not easy. The fact that you are using sql in your post means you are certainly not the average consumer
My good friend didn't understand how to get DTS to play back on his high-end system years ago -- he just kept pressing "dts" on his receiver's remote. Now we have a wholesale change to HD in both audio and video, PLUS networking.

PAIDGEEK: I like the brochure A Simple Guide to the World of High Definition Home Theater and Blu-Ray Disc that came with my free 3-pack of BDs (recent promotion at Best Buy when you buy an HDTV). I think it does a very good job of explaining HD to average users. Is this an example of what's to come in terms of consumer education? Was this a joint effort by the studios and Sony?

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

How come that is confusing, but making sure you have a receiver than can decode it, is not?

The problem is not the inclusion/exclusion. It's the lack of general understanding about what the heck all this stuff means.

xvYCC != deep colour
HDMI 1.3 != HDMI 1.3a
Local decoding to LPCM != Bitstream
24p != 2:3 pulldown

Exactly where do you draw the line? And don't you risk stifling innovation if the cry is "stop confusing us with features we aren't sure about"?

If you really want bitstream DTS-HD MA, why can't you check for it on the player AND receiver?

Gary

[DaViD Boulet]

How come that is confusing, but making sure you have a receiver than can decode it, is not?

The problem is not the inclusion/exclusion. It's the lack of general understanding about what the heck all this stuff means.

xvYCC != deep colour
HDMI 1.3 != HDMI 1.3a
Local decoding to LPCM != Bitstream
24p != 2:3 pulldown

Exactly where do you draw the line? And don't you risk stifling innovation if the cry is "stop confusing us with features we aren't sure about"?

If you really want bitstream DTS-HD MA, why can't you check for it on the player AND receiver?

Gary

Gary,

Honestly now. Nothing I've said has anything to do with holding back innovation. Please stop playing that debate card as though it has any connection with my discussion, because it doesn't.

I'm just staying that all BD players should be required to perform to the full BD specification and provide the full featurset of BD spec-software (profile 1.1 and 2.0) so that consumers can buy any BD player safely without having to get out a white-paper on the BD format and spend hours in threads like this to figure out if the player that they're buying has the features that they ultimately will want. Most average folks don't have a clue what "profile 2.0" is... but the minute they buy that AVP Fox Blu-ray Disc with the BD-Live game and they try to access and can't because their player wan't BD-Live capable, they'll learn the hard way that BD hardware is all over the map in terms of spec-compliance despite the hundreds of dollars that they paid in good faith to get a player that they assumed was capable of doing everything that BD does.

That's not about holding back innovation. It's simply about selling hardware that atually does everything that the BD spec *already has* so that consumers won't have to learn the hard way. If content providers and hardware manufacturers want to go above and beyond the BD 2.0 spec and provide new features (like 3-D encoding) that's fantastic. But I fail to see how the logic of mandating that the minimum level of profile 2.0 be required is anti-innovation versus letting hardware be sold that provides a reduced level of spec compliance.

No consumer should be required to take on the task of format-education necessary that the BDA seems to require if you don't want to waste your money. Consumers learn about features like PIP and web-access AFTER they get the player home and start to play with the software: expecting consumers to learn these details before-hand is unrealistic and a shortcoming of the BDA's approach. All HD DVD players provided PIP and web-access out of the box. So should Blu-ray Disc players. PERIOD.

As to your point about the added confusion of features and specs in audio receivers: of course that's confusing. But that's because a receiver is a *** FORMAT INDEPENDENT *** device that is designed to handle a wide-range of audio signals from a wide range of sources and media types. That may be a source of confusion and it may be worth discussing, but it has no bearing on whether FORMAT HARDWARE like BD players (which is what we're specifically talking about) should or shouldn't be designed to perform to the full format-specification. It's Blu-ray Disc hardware that we're talking about folks spending cash on and *adopting*, not receiver hardware. That's also an important conversation, but it's a different conversation.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Honestly now. Nothing I've said has anything to do with holding back innovation. Please stop playing that debate card as though it has any connection with my discussion, because it doesn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying all features defined in the spec should be mandatory, not optional, and that all players should be the most extensive profile.

If a new feature is to be added to the spec, your position would presumably demand that it must then be added as mandatory and included on subsequent player releases.

That would pretty much end any chance of any new features getting added to the spec, since it's a hell of a lot easier to get an optional feature added than a mandatory one.

Do people want BD locked in stone, and never expanded?

Gary