"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I'm not glad that Blu-ray won because of any misinformation or war crimes on one side or the other; I'm glad it won because it's a better format.

Imagine that!!! I believe I said that at the time too. Why any true enthusiast would support HD DVD (in a format war) was beyond my comprehension. We were always pushing "more and better" to get the best it can be in our homes.

Instead, some people settled for less capacity and lower bandwidth which equaled low bit rate (in some cases) and no lossless, etc. Made no sense to me.

Of course, after a point, it just got to be some people arguing just to argue and prove themselves right. Kind of like a sport. In the end it didn't matter. Anyone should have seen, as Bill pointed out, the vast majority of the hardware and software industry was behind Blu-ray...

[DenonCI]

The only good thing that came out of the format war is that competition brings the best out in everyone, and this is no exception. HD DVD was a more finished product at launch, but it was clearly the inferior format on paper. As soon as Blu-ray started to deliver the goods (BD50s, Profile 2.0 players, etc.), HD DVD didn't stand a chance due to the overwhelming positives that Blu-ray brought to the table as Craig mentions in his post above (and the studio support).

If I had to choose between HD DVD and DVD, HD DVD clearly wins. But between a finished Blu-ray product and HD DVD, Blu-ray is my choice. HD DVD was an evolutionary technology where Blu-ray is more revolutionary and hopefully we'll have it around for many years to enjoy!

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Instead, some people settled for less capacity and lower bandwidth which equaled low bit rate (in some cases) and no lossless, etc. Made no sense to me.

That's what never quite made sense to me. Why would you settle for a format when a competing offered a roughly a 66% increase in both dataspace and bandwidth. Afterall we are purchasing bigger and bigger sets to view HD content.

I think what it was that some were so desperate to get HD content but did not want to pay the intial BD hardware prices. And HD DVD was not necessarily the best, but it was sufficient within its price range.

BUT... I think these people were overlooking the big picture. The reason HD DVD was cheaper was not because of the player, but Toshiba was trying to combat the fact they only had three of the seven majors releasing content. Even when Paramount went exclusive it was still the original studios that were behind it. They needed to swing a BD exclusive studio if they really wanted to make a statement.

In the end I think like you said that these buyers were desperate just to prove themselves right. Most came to terms with making the wrong purchase and moved on. Some will forever be moving the goalposts even after no one remembers that Blu had a competitor.

[Jeff Kleist]

Yes, Blu-rays are more scratch-resistant, but Netflix reported a high breakage rate than DVD. Sony was reported to be studying the problem with them according to the original report. Did anything ever come out of this?

Nothing public, but if you think about it, the likely answer is that the rigidity the hardcoat adds combined with the lack of padding means more discs going through the machines and mail handling will break.

And on the hardware side, once Toshiba started slashing prices so drastically so quickly, it was clear to me that they were NEVER going to win the support of any other manufacturer.

Basically every single player that shipped from a non-Toshiba company was a rebadged Toshiba player, because Toshiba slashed prices and lost so much money on every unit it became impossible to be profitable

Yet, the latest Walmart Blu-ray player is now down to $128.

Was that price drop on the other hardware vendor's radar screens? I'm not bashing anyone - just curious how much hurt this may cause in a race to the bottom.

That sounds like a clearance sale to me. Ain't bad for the format when the summer sequels are hitting either

[Deciazulado]

Originally Posted by Esox50

Anyone should have seen, as Bill pointed out, the vast majority of the hardware and software industry was behind Blu-ray...

And old relic, from the days before the PS3 existed:

[4K display]

Just one in a long old list of favorites...

Originally Posted by amirm

If they wanted to price the BD-50 properly, they would have to charge $100 to $200 per disc! Or even higher. This kind of subsidy is hiding the fact that they have not achieved what DVD has where the cost of goods is negligible (50 cents) to studios. And underperform their competition...

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

My favorite line always was, "My XA2 upscaling is so good and makes everything look virtually like HD that I don't need Sony, Disney, Fox, and Lionsgate."

lol, yeah their $800 player.. yet they *****ed about the price of blu-ray players.. PS3 being far less at time and far superior

[bt12483]

Originally Posted by 4K display

Just one in a long old list of favorites...

I am partial to this one regarding the lackluster audio support of the xbox:

Originally Posted by amirm

Hello everyone. Sorry for the late response. As I posted before, I was at a 2-day offsite with no net access (or time to use it!). Trying to catch up with all the questions asked.

Xbox 360 Elite supports HDMI 1.2 profile. For audio, you can select DD, DTS (at 1.5 Mbps), and WMA-Pro (Microsoft high fidelity multi-channel codec supported in some AVRs such as Pioneer). Since it is not based on 1.3, it will not support output of DD+ or TrueHD (even if it did, mixing would have been turned off).

PCM output is available but only for 2-channels (not 5.1). Please, please, don’t say you don’t like this. There is nothing you are going to say which we don’t know . Our goal was to provide a digital connection for video which people wanted for some of their TVs. And of course, single cable A/V connection. So if having analog video bothered you before, you can now use digital. If you lacked component/VGA on your TV, you are in business with Xbox 360 Elite.

He is basically telling people to shut up and enjoy the inferior audio capabilities of the xbox add on. Hilarious.

[Bobby Henderson]

Too bad about Pacific Title going up in smoke.

I guess that will translate into more work for younger movie title outfits like Scarlet Letters. I can't remember if R/Greenberg and Associates does titling work; they do a lot of graphically oriented ad campaigns and some cutting edge visual effects stuff.

Originally Posted by David S. Cohen, Variety

In recent years (Pacific Title) had moved into digital post, including visual effects and restoration. It was bought by private equity funds Celerity Partners and Ticonderoga Capital, which felt the company was well positioned to take digital work that would be outsourced by the major studios.

But the company ran into hard times after the new owners dismissed topper Phillip Feiner in 2007. In August of that year he sued for wrongful termination and breach of contract.

That plot sounds a little similar to that discussion we were having a few days ago about corporate bean counters taking over a company without really understanding how it works -and even having the audacity to cut loose the people who do understand the product and how the company works. Sort of like the guys who sent Steve Jobs packing back in the 1980s.

It takes a different approach in generating even more profit from a company than replacing its "earners" with cheaper salaried people who supposedly can get the same job done for much less money.

[CAB]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

And how many thousands of dollars that Bill Hunt and Jeff, etc. saved audio video enthusiasts who trusted in their judgment from the beginning. That is nothing to take for granted given these hard economic times.

I owe the credit for my decision to the Bits and the insiders here. I'm on my 4th BD player + my PS3. Failiing on the initial choice woulda been oh so painful. And I have 3 friends with my players that owe their thanks to ya'all as well.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by HeavyHitter

Sorry, maybe I missed your post on it, but exactly what were the "jockeying/obfuscation/shenanigans" on the Blu-ray side and how do they continue to persist? Grubert's list and others have been very specific on the issues, lies, and individuals on the HD DVD side. I would like to hear the specifics you may have for the Blu-ray side.

I tried to answer a similar question around here once.

I won't do that again.

Just a friendly warning.

[coolmilo]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Whatever happened to her, anyway?

Who knows??? You can probably find her somewhere in Florida wearing her Blu-ray jacket. I don't think that she lived up to her end of the deal though...at least not in this public forum.

She was a good poster back in the day.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

I tried to answer a similar question around here once.

I won't do that again.

Just a friendly warning.

Thanks my friend, I'm not an masochist.

It's clear that people have their happy memories, and that's great. I mean, look two posts up at the reading about the X-Box's lack of audio codec support... you -could-, if you choose, read that as him being open and explicit (if overly dramatic) in trying to stop the inevitable flood of idiotic comments complaining that the architecture was not modified to an extent to allow for this thing. A good thing? He's not saying that at all, just that a decision had been made, and complaining about it would do little at this stage. In fact, I'm prett damn sure -he- wouldn't say he was happy with that decision.

Now, while it's not apples-to-apples, the same could be said about the lack of bitstream capability on the PS3 (I'm very well aware at the uselessness of the request, but that doesn't stop the questions coming). Feel free to google the number of times that's asked about.

I do think there are those with short memories about the state of players back in the Samsung release days, how there really was a year and half of much, much better things happening on the -software- side on the competing format. Hell, even the PS3 at launch was more expensive and did some fewer things (lossless audio that wasn't PCM, for one IIRC). I often wonder the percentage of people with standalone players back that remain so imune to any suggestion that maybe, possibly, there was a time when it certainly wasn't anything more than specs on paper that held BD in higher steed.

Even now, there are still reasons to be happy the other format, one being Big Lebowski. Hell, I've got things on LD still, I never thought -that- format was going to beat VHS? There are lots and lots of things the other format did that didn't suck, the first being a player that I could buy with analogue outputs at the time that was 1/4 the cost and would play lossless audio.

Many, MANY of us just really kinda like movies, and found the whole thing so distasteful. I'm pessimistic to still think we won't see BD get anywhere -near- the 100,000 mark that DVD is hitting, that shiny disc will be gone long, long before we get close to a major fraction of that. The smart money has always been the 10 year window of either amazing VOD or amazing piracy.

But, yeah. Old, tired arguments.... In the end, I'm very, very pleased that one format came on top as we're seeing things blossom in ways that the previous stalemate (DVD-A/SACD) never did.

I certainly will never know how close Warner came to choosing to go the other way, but from what I've read on threads like this it was closer than not. The stalemate situation would have been horrible, save for one major thing - for me, the format was never a problem (save for some topping-out of space/bandwidth, resulting in lack of extras or lossless audio), the =players= were a poopy and slow (and bloody expensive - my -used- BD10, a great player compared to many, cost me $1200!). The irony of ironies is, of course, Tosh got its stuff together in the end, and we're left with fairly solid HD playback devices, quick enough (no 2+ minutes to access menus) and powerful enough.

I would find it amusing those that have never used day-to-day a player other than a PS3 or one made in the last year to rate their HD experience.

Anyhoo, have a good night, kids... Off to delve into yet another wonderous thing about a stable format situation, on to disc three of the NY Archives... My, what an achievement!

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by Grubert

If you have no idea, then you shouldn't pass judgment on it as you are doing.

Some nuggets:

- Dual-layer discs are science-fiction

- The Samsung BD-P1000 won't play dual-layer discs

- Lionsgate are now encoding in VC-1 (true) - therefore (OMG!) they might be preparing to support HD DVD!

- Ditto for Disney

- BD+ may brick your player if a pirate has used the same model you have

- VC-1 can give excellent results with 10 Mbps

- Profile 1.1 discs (maybe) won't play on 1.0 players

- Profile 2.0 discs (maybe) won't play on 1.0 or 1.1 players

- 30 GB is good enough [Transformers comes out without lossless audio] Hey, who needs lossless audio!

Need I continue?

how can you mention Disney and LG and not
- MGM: They dumped Sony as distributor so they will go HD DVD
and
- Fox: (after AACS was broken) look they have stopped releasing BDs, it is a sure signe they are going HD DVD (and then at the end they thought 2008 CES would be Fox going HD DVD it came from a reliable source)

but my favourite was when Amir was arguing that due to BDs being 25GB, HD DVD would be able to have multiple lossless tracks while BD would not. It went on for several days (Darin and I telling he is completely wrong because BW would be an issue on HD DVD) eventually he asked and expert and he told him we where right, came back said we where right but that multiple lossless tracks where useless.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by CraigW

That's what never quite made sense to me. Why would you settle for a format when a competing offered a roughly a 66% increase in both dataspace and bandwidth. Afterall we are purchasing bigger and bigger sets to view HD content.

you are not using HD DVD math, it is only 40% more and 40% more is not enough to be interesting

I think what it was that some were so desperate to get HD content but did not want to pay the intial BD hardware prices. And HD DVD was not necessarily the best, but it was sufficient within its price range.

I think a few could fall into that category, (except for the guys paid to BS) they assumed that what they where reading was correct, I also think for some, it was a question of piracy (they did not like that BD had BD+)

[Monkey]

Please, please, don’t say you don’t like this

[Eternal_Sunshine]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Thanks my friend, I'm not an masochist...

Translation: you cannot name any lies/FUD from BD insiders...

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

you are not using HD DVD math, it is only 40% more and 40% more is not enough to be interesting



I think a few could fall into that category, (except for the guys paid to BS) they assumed that what they where reading was correct, I also think for some, it was a question of piracy (they did not like that BD had BD+)

HD DVD... redefining math. If the difference was within 10% it would have been moot. 40% or 66% is not regardless on how you do the math.

As far as the piracy thing, I also think there were some users that got used to ripping every DVD they got their hands on and with AACS already being broken I think some of those users wanted HD DVD to win since HD DVD did not have any additional protection.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine

Translation: you cannot name any lies/FUD from BD insiders...

+1. I am sure things went on behind boardroom doors we are not aware of, but I think we can agree that the HD DVD backers had a much better organized viral marketing campaign.

Like I pointed out early, many of the BD proponents basically argued that higher dataspace and transfer rate related to a higher HD quality which is why we bought into a HD format in the first place. I was not that excited by HD DVD PiP commentaries or the internet features. I wanted the best video AND audio that could be delivered by a physical format. That's all I still really care about. For all these new PiP tracks and BD-Live features, I have probably used them fewer than 10 min for each disc that has these features. I am just not that impressed. Does any one remember Bill Gates at one of CES shows hyping on how he could now look up information during the middle of a movie to overlay on the video? That's the last ----ing thing I want. It sucks you out of experience and the only one who has control is the one with remote.

All we heard from the other side were lies and halftruths usually attacking what was wrong with Blu-ray not why HD DVD was better.

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Eternal_Sunshine

Translation: you cannot name any lies/FUD from BD insiders...

ah, it's come to that then, has it? I see you were a fine warrior for your "side"...

Yeah, I'm not playing that game, for either format you'll note, as that list was not mine, but the response to one of my novels... I'm sure there are others that could step up, but there's really little point, naturally.

Now, I'm sure you're right, "FUD" was -strictly- the purview of those on the "other" side, but it's all relative, isn't it?

To the victor go the spoils, and every hyperbolic, incendiary comment about HD-DVD purchasers I guess came true as soon as Warner flipped the switch, making prophets out of you all.

See, Penton? This is what happens when people skim posts.... Let the attacks begin! (or, preferably, not... I seem to be alone in thinking what I think, my point seems a little too subtle for my own good, and we could just respect our differences and leave it at that....)