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

[Nick Graham]

I don't think any new profiles should be introduced until the end of 2010 at the latest. And at that point, you're going to have some mainstream consumer resentment, as I would hope holiday 2008 and 2009 see a significant upswing in mainstream adoption.

If good 3D can't be done with Profile 2.0, it would probably be best to not go down that slippery slope. Even if 3D were doable with a new profile, wouldn't the cost of hardware and the premium likely placed on the software relegate it to permanent niche status?

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I also received some PM’s in regard to 3D and Blu-ray.
There have been in-house discussions and a recent more diverse *formal* meeting of the minds.

To those interested in this subject, would you be amenable to purchasing a BD 3D Profile player sometime down the line in the future….. or do you feel that technological research and development in this area should be restricted/terminated as to avoid any possible *consumer confusion* regarding a future Profile or intentional *double-dipping* on the part of the C.E. companies?

Right now, I'm very happy with my PS3. Later this year, I'll probably upgrade to the Sony S550. In the next couples of years (the economy willing), I'll probably be buying several more Blu-ray players (for other rooms, etc... or there may just be one that has some cool feature the S550 won't have). That's the way it was with DVD, I see no reason why it shouldn't be that way with Blu-ray. Of course, depending on how the technology was done, I might not have a TV capable of that... but should I be able to take advantage of that, I wouldn't have a problem upgrading... depending on the price.

That being said, as DVD evolved to add additional features, I don't remember there ever being any talk of "Profile 1.0", "Profile 1.1", "Profile 2.0" and such, and if there were, they weren't known to the public... which I think is better as you didn't feel quite like you were cheated as much... you just knew that if you wanted those additional features/specs, you had to upgrade to them. So please don't make a BD 3D Profile player a Profile 3.0 player, just make up a spec for a 3-D capable Blu-ray player, and CE's can adopt those features should they want.

YES, I am aware that Profile 1.1 is mandatory, Profile 2.0 is optional, and so there's nothing really different from what I said than what you are already doing with 2.0, but as I said, I thinking naming the different profiles are the cause behind all this bad press.

BTW, I watched "Michael Clayton" on DVD last week or the last, and DANG it if I didn't have problems concentrating during the final scenes. My eyes kept going over to the credits even as I tried real hard to keep them on Clooney, but it was hard to do due to the scrolling movement of the credits and only his subtle movements to keep my eyes on him. I was glad I glanced at the credits once or twice though since I saw that David Lansbury (nephew of Angela, and husband of Ally Sheedy) played Michael's brother Timmy... which I wouldn't have known otherwise.

~Alan

[HeavyHitter]

Originally Posted by fitprod

Well what did you expect? There's nothing left to promote.

I wanted this silly format war over as much as the next guy, but jumping or pissing on it's grave is just stupid.

The same goes for those of you still trashing Ken Graffeo...

fitprod

Nobody is pissing on anything but you. Get over it.

[BillCable]

I've never had good experiences with 3D. I don't know what it is, but the image just appears out of focus to me (and yes, this is while wearing the glasses). The 3D elements are usually very blurry or I see them with double-vision, and I end up with a headache. I've tried just about every 3D theater in Orlando at one time or another... The Bugs Life ride, that newish Donald Duck symphony, and many others. Other people with me are wowed, but I just think my brain works overtime to rectify the conflicting data and ends up scattering it. As such, my fear is that if directors begin dedicating their focus to good 3D that we'll end up losing out on top-end 2D image quality.

[dakota81]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I also received some PM’s in regard to 3D and Blu-ray.
There have been in-house discussions and a recent more diverse *formal* meeting of the minds.

To those interested in this subject, would you be amenable to purchasing a BD 3D Profile player sometime down the line in the future….. or do you feel that technological research and development in this area should be restricted/terminated as to avoid any possible *consumer confusion* regarding a future Profile or intentional *double-dipping* on the part of the C.E. companies?

A 3D Blu-ray player would be a specialty item anyways, if Best Buy & Wal*Mart do not carry it, there shouldn't be any consumer confusion. If the product was only available through specialty retailers, and advertised in such places where the target audience are the people who know if they have a capable setup or not.

Even though I have a rather cheap DLP, it does have 3D capabilities, and I want to see what it can do. I certainly do not want a 3D player canceled because Joe across town thought he could get a 3D picture on a bargain 32" LCD.

[aygie]

BD 3D

Just rolls off the tongue doesn't it?

[bferr1]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I also received some PM’s in regard to 3D and Blu-ray.
There have been in-house discussions and a recent more diverse *formal* meeting of the minds.

To those interested in this subject, would you be amenable to purchasing a BD 3D Profile player sometime down the line in the future….. or do you feel that technological research and development in this area should be restricted/terminated as to avoid any possible *consumer confusion* regarding a future Profile or intentional *double-dipping* on the part of the C.E. companies?

The Crave/CNet article about the Mitsubishi 3D BD player from last summer (http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9764622-1.html) mentioned that Mitsubishi were in talks to integrate its 3D technology into a game system. The article speculates that this was the PS3. Just after the PS3's recent 2.20 firmware upgrade, I checked out the credits list at System Settings > About Playstation and saw a company logo there I had never seen before: Q Games, 3D Technology Research. Am I wrong in thinking these are related in any way?

[WickyWoo]

The Crave/CNet article about the Mitsubishi 3D BD player from last summer (http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9764622-1.html) mentioned that Mitsubishi were in talks to integrate its 3D technology into a game system. The article speculates that this was the PS3. Just after the PS3's recent 2.20 firmware upgrade, I checked out the credits list at System Settings > About Playstation and saw a company logo there I had never seen before: Q Games, 3D Technology Research. Am I wrong in thinking these are related in any way?

Mitsubishi is talking about their technology to fake 3-D from things not designed for it (and not very well). Samsung has a similar technology.

Any kind of 3-D MUST be sync'd with the display, and not the player to be truely effective. With CRT's you could do it in the device, because there was virtually 0 lag time between the shutter and the TV displaying. There's a relatively huge lag with LCD, the most common type of TV

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

YES, I am aware that Profile 1.1 is mandatory, Profile 2.0 is optional, and so there's nothing really different from what I said than what you are already doing with 2.0, but as I said, I thinking naming the different profiles are the cause behind all this bad press.

A profile is just a name for a set of specs.

Without a name, there is nothing to label the player to allow the consumer to know it supports what they need.

HDMI profiles have been an issue of confusion too. But, would you have the player vendor not mention which HDMI they use?

Gary

[Knight-Errant]

Oh yeah I'd buy a 3-D profile player. Absolutely.

I don't think we need fear confusing anyone for the time being; something tells me BD 3-D is quite a ways off.

Penton, is 3-D something that will be applied to older movies with the filmmakers' approval? I've no problem with 3-D versions of Nightmare Before Christmas and the Star Wars movies as they're given the blessing of the filmmakers for instance.

Certainly I think films shot in 3-D like Avatar ought to be available in that form for people

[Anthony P]

For the format war movie. I agree with most of the rest, I would buy it if someone made it, but I don't think the time is right. I think time is needed for two major reasons

1) it would be interesting to be farther along in BDs future
i.e. imagine in 2010 when everyone is using BD a movie comes out titled, "BD the format that almost wasn't", and it starts out with a narrator reading a few choice quotes from the HD DVD analysts, fan boys and shills saying how BD had no chance and HD DVD was going to win, and ends in the closing scene with Amir interviewed from the cardboard box he lives in moaning how he was a big guy at MS and now he is a homeless person.

2) I think it is too fresh and that means most won't be able to give the best and juiciest stories. I think BD plans are still in the making (let’s face it, this was a minor battle and the real war is the death of DVD) and HD DVD people are still too bitter and defensive

[TheRealBob]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

I also received some PM’s in regard to 3D and Blu-ray.
There have been in-house discussions and a recent more diverse *formal* meeting of the minds.

To those interested in this subject, would you be amenable to purchasing a BD 3D Profile player sometime down the line in the future….. or do you feel that technological research and development in this area should be restricted/terminated as to avoid any possible *consumer confusion* regarding a future Profile or intentional *double-dipping* on the part of the C.E. companies?

I'd suggest they hold off on that and other ideas for several years, then hit us with one big update that supports 1080p60, maybe 1080p120 (which would require an HDMI upgrade), 3D, etc., etc. Hopefully at that point the cost of a new player will be lessened to the point that people will not complain much, similar to how it was not a big deal when people were "forced" to upgrade to a new DVD player to support new audio formats. But right now is too early.

It pains me to say that, since I love 3D, but I think they run a real risk of doing major damage to the Blu-ray Disc market if they give people a reason to hold off on their purchases and also cause player prices to rise.

[Anthony P]

To those interested in this subject, would you be amenable to purchasing a BD 3D Profile player sometime down the line in the future….. or do you feel that technological research and development in this area should be restricted/terminated as to avoid any possible *consumer confusion* regarding a future Profile or intentional *double-dipping* on the part of the C.E. companies?

yes, yes , yes, and in case I forgot yes. I would love the opportunity to be able to purchase a profile 3 player that has real 3D.

[Anthony P]

I'd suggest they hold off on that and other ideas for several years, then hit us with one big update that supports 1080p60, maybe 1080p120 (which would require an HDMI upgrade), 3D, etc., etc.

if done right, you can add 3D to the disk and still remain compatible, but if a movie is 1080p60 it might not be compatible with a player that was not built for that purpose. The thing is that if you brake backwards compatability then you are in essence creating a new format.

[Anthony P]

Hi PM. I am not an engineer, but since you brought up 3D, I had this idea that I don't know if it is feasable or practicle.

The original discussions ofn 3D (the version I hope you are talking about) has two streams and the primary is used for one eye and the secondary video stream (usually PiP) is used for the other. With this scenario (as is) the max combined video rate would need to be 40mbps (or more precisely the two video+audios+subs would need to be 48 or else there would be issues on older players)

so here is the idea I had the other day.

BD has two layers so could a 3D profile player use the two layers to boost the bitrate.

I don't know about the replication side, nor the player side, but if
the right video is on layer 1 and the left video is on layer 2 (or vice versa) then to a regular BD player would, only read one layer while the movie is playing so it will still respect BD 1, 1.1 and 2.0 spec (i.e. 1.5x) but a BD 3.0 (3D) could be defined BDA at any video BW<=3x (i.e. instead of max video BR of 40mbps the BDA could allow for a combined video bitrate of 70). All you need is a way to sink both halfs of the disks together (which I am guessing is easier said then done.

i.e.

Layer 1:| main right video stream some audio tracks |extra 1|extra 2
Layer 2:| main left video stream other audio tracks |extra 3|extra 4


on a BD<3.0 you pick English losseless so it plays, the movie on L1 and if you want extra 3 it plays it from L2 (while someone else that watches the French version, they will get it off L2 and if they want extra 2 they will play it from L1) on the other hand on a BD 3D player it plays the video from both L1 & L2 but only one audio track ( I split the audio because the idea is that the videos need to be synched, so if all the audio is on one layer the other one will have a lot of wasted space)

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

A profile is just a name for a set of specs.

Without a name, there is nothing to label the player to allow the consumer to know it supports what they need.

HDMI profiles have been an issue of confusion too. But, would you have the player vendor not mention which HDMI they use?

I knew when I posted that, I'd be hearing from you Gary.

I want a new HDTV, the one I have is crappy and it's tearing up. Moneywise, I keep having to put it off, but I know what I want. A 1080p LCD, 24fps capability, a certain amount of HDMI hookups (though not really necessary since I want a HDMI receiver as well, but...), and a good picture. Since there are no HDTV profiles, I'm stuck with having to look for a TV with those features. Luckily, Circuit City (where I'm most likely to buy the TV) has a website where they list such features, and they often have some of them listed in the store as well.

A year or two ago, someone donated a "Progressive Scan" DVD player to a nearby fire department. Someone took a picture of the fire department being given said player. The box stated in big letters, almost as big as DVD Player, "Progressive Scan", so when the fire department wrote up something to go along with the picture for the local newspaper, they made sure to mention it was a "Progressive Scan" DVD player. Of course, the fire department didn't own a TV that was "Progressive Scan" capable, but the fire department didn't know that, so it was a big deal to them. You and me, we know what a Profile 1.0, Profile 1.1, and Profile 2.0 player is, but we're the type to look up and research our purchases. Those that aren't, listing something as Profile 1.0, Profile 1.1, and Profile 2.0 aren't going to help them much.

Given that Blu-ray was forced to go to market early, I can understand the reasoning behind Profile 1.0 and Profile 1.1. Given HD DVD's much-touted on-line features, I can even understand the naming of Profile 2.0, even though it's an optional feature... unlike 1.1 which is mandatory. But given that BD-3D... or 3D-BD is a feature that HD DVD didn't have and most people probably won't be able to use leads me to expect it to be an "optional" Profile, and "optional" (IMO) should always be a "feature" of the player, and NOT a new profile.

NOTE: I don't really care if the BDA makes a new profile for every feature added, but my suggestion was in regards to PM's comments regarding "any possible *consumer confusion* regarding a future Profile or intentional *double-dipping* on the part of the C.E. companies?" DVD didn't have any... or at least any public perception of "Profiles", and I don't see why (in a post-Profile 2.0 world) there shoud be a reason for there to be one for Blu-ray either.

~Alan

[Anthony P]

NOTE: I don't really care if the BDA makes a new profile for every feature added, but my suggestion was in regards to PM's comments regarding "any possible *consumer confusion* regarding a future Profile or intentional *double-dipping* on the part of the C.E. companies?" DVD didn't have any... or at least any public perception of "Profiles", and I don't see why (in a post-Profile 2.0 world) there shoud be a reason for there to be one for Blu-ray either.

I think his comment was aimed at the "all players should be 2.0" people. Like you pointed out with the fireman, it does not matter if we call them profiles or features, if poeple don't know what they mean they just don't know what they mean, but in the end you need a way to differentiate. Do you call the player BD-3D (logo for profile 3) or just BD but add Cool3D (logo for that feature but not as a profile kind of like D-box or DTS-HD MA...) does it matter? At the end of the day I think they need to keep the none 3D player for choice and cheaper devices for J6P and so there needs to be a clear distinction. In the end I think you need profiles (even if they are not additive) because they are not only one feature (i.e. BD-live player needs more storage and needs Ethernet....)
So to me a profile with logos make more sense i.e.

BD : 1.1 BD with PiP (profile1 is dead now)
BD-Live: 2.0 BD+ internet
BD-3D: 3.0 BD with 3d movies

now I don't know if things will be additive
(i.e. will BD-3D=BD-live + 3D or BD + 3D and so you need both if a player can do both)

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I knew when I posted that, I'd be hearing from you Gary.

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

I don't really care if the BDA makes a new profile for every feature added, but my suggestion was in regards to PM's comments regarding "any possible *consumer confusion* regarding a future Profile or intentional *double-dipping* on the part of the C.E. companies?" DVD didn't have any... or at least any public perception of "Profiles", and I don't see why (in a post-Profile 2.0 world) there shoud be a reason for there to be one for Blu-ray either.

Profile 1.0 was the unfortunate situation. It would have been preferable if BD launched with the FGP. Then everyone would be saying "oh BD-Live is just added features".

The problem is people are turning around a concept in other areas which are called progress and upgrades, and turning them into something else.

(1) Demanding mandatory 2.0 sets up a moving target of what BD player should be. When I expect the intent is exactly the opposite.

You can't wave a hand and declare BD 2.0 mandatory. It would take time, and the very concept would mean a schedule delay in adoption as people waited for "the real Blu-ray players".

And when several arrive, they will say "these are too expensive, I'll wait for cheaper real Blu-ray players".

(2) It creates a buzz of victimization around any new feature proposed. People will ask "why can't my player do the new stuff?" "Shouldn't the BDA offer a rebate for people stuck with the old crappy players".

New features, rather than being exciting new upgrades, instead become something to condemn makers for not planning support for in advance, with demands they suffer financially for planning it.

That culture will most assuredly end any new improvements in BD. CE and the BDA will simply not want the headaches, complaints, costs, and loss of goodwill.

Gary

[tvted]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

To those interested in this subject, would you be amenable to purchasing a BD 3D Profile player sometime down the line in the future….. or do you feel that technological research and development in this area should be restricted/terminated as to avoid any possible *consumer confusion* regarding a future Profile or intentional *double-dipping* on the part of the C.E. companies?

I certainly hope research continues, and I for one would be willing to pay a premium for specialized low run BDs. Assuming it would, in the future, be possible to enhance the BD spec, I would prefer other enhancements - anamorphic and/or 10 bit log encodes before 3D.

ted

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Profile 1.0 was the unfortunate situation. It would have been preferable if BD launched with the FGP. Then everyone would be saying "oh BD-Live is just added features".

While I would have liked it had BD-Live players been able to come out with BD-Live listed simply as a feature instead of a profile... I don't think the situation you described above would have been possible with HD DVD being released to the public as well. While a lot of people probably wouldn't have cared so much for BD-Live due to their lack of interest in on-line features and the lack of internet connectivity near their TV, the early adopters who sided with HD DVD see Profile 1.1 as less than a full-profile player... and some of them have blogs, or are journalists with even more reach who will try and convince consumers who don't know any better to wait for a Profile 2.0 player. No, HD DVD stopped the chances of the bolded line quoted above from happening.

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

The problem is people are turning around a concept in other areas which are called progress and upgrades, and turning them into something else.

(1) Demanding mandatory 2.0 sets up a moving target of what BD player should be. When I expect the intent is exactly the opposite.

I think naming the "optional" adoption of new features a new profile "sets up a moving target of what" a "BD player should be".

While I modded the Linksys WRT54GL, a wireless router as a bridge to hook up my DirecTV HD-DVR and my PS3 (I have wireless with the PS3, but I have my router up higher which gives it a little better signal over the PS3), most folks aren't going to go to so much trouble, but calling it Profile 2.0 makes Profile 1.1 players seem like an inferior player.

All I'm saying is that if the BDA makes 3D a feature, instead of a "Profile", I don't think many can say much regarding "double-dipping".

~Alan