Crutchfield wants one format: Polling customers

[JTK]

In the recent Crutchfield, catalog, I received, Crutchfield is asking for comments to be sent to them, which they will forward to manufacturers. Crutchfield feels that there should only be one HD DVD format. Use the email address below.

highdefdvd@crutchfield.com

If you feel like it, fire 'em off an email on how you feel about this subject. Can't hurt anything.

I wouldn't be surprised if you see other retailers, magazines, and such start their own "polls" like this as well.

[zombie]

I sent them an email saying that IMO, Universal could end this thing right now by agreeing to support Blu-ray.

[Excalibur-king]

why sentle for 15gb per layer disks when you can have 25gb per layer disk ,almost twice the data. nuff said.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by nyg

I sent them an email saying that IMO, Universal could end this thing right now by agreeing to support Blu-ray.

Pretty much what it all boils down to.

You realize, of course, if you posted this in an identical thread on a certain prominent forum right now you would be roasted into eternity for reminding folks of pesky facts like these that aren't to their liking or advantage.



Here's the email I sent them:

It's really very simple.

The only studio that's exclusive to HD-DVD is Universal. Were they to
even support both formats right now, it would give Blu-Ray 100 percent
studio support out of the gate and that alone ices it.

Beyond that, though, comes the obvious fact of overwhelming support on
the consumer electronics' company side in terms of hardware for
Blu-Ray. Known rivals like Sony, Panasonic, JVC, LG, Samsung, Pioneer,
Apple, Dell, etc. all found a way to somehow hold hands and agree on
Blu-Ray and for good reason. It is the superior format, technically,
at least on paper.


Were it not for Microsoft, HD-DVD would not have survived the debacles
of IFA 2005 and CES 2006. When HD-DVD is reliant solely on Toshiba for
their hardware, a company with a very inconsistent quality control
track record, they've got problems.

This information is widely available. It's really not even close. If
MS weren't backing HD-DVD, with its paltry 40 percent studio support,
we wouldn't be having this needless "format war", if you can even call
it that and we'd all be moving forward into HD with confidence right
now.

Instead, everyone's forced to wait until the nonsense is done unless
they are early adopters and money is no object to them.

Very disappointing. All thanks to Microsoft, who knows absolutely
NOTHING about home theater or audio/video.



I am a customer of Crutchield. I purchased the Sony KD34xbr960 from
Paul several months back. Name is ****

He'll probably know who I
am.


Best Regards,
EW

Five minutes after submission, the automated response:

Thank you for contacting Crutchfield. We'll include your comments
regarding high-definition DVD when we contact consumer electronics
manufacturers and Hollywood studios.

Please note: messages sent to this address will not receive a personal
reply. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact a
Crutchfield Sales Advisor by e-mail at solutions@crutchfield.com, or by
phone at 1-888-955-6000.

Again: Can't hurt at this rate.

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by shaka

why sentle for 15gb per layer disks when you can have 25gb per layer disk ,almost twice the data. nuff said.

Shaka,
Not one HD-DVD that been delivered has been 15GB. I'm sure they'll use 15GB discs but it'll probably be for program material that's under 90 minutes.

[phloyd]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Shaka,
Not one HD-DVD that been delivered has been 15GB. I'm sure they'll use 15GB discs but it'll probably be for program material that's under 90 minutes.

Yeah, even HD DVD content creators realise that the 15 GB disc was a joke and that it was never enough for its intended purpose.

[thunderhawk]

Yup. And they don't intend on planning releasing a double layered HD DVD-R...

[hmurchison]

Originally Posted by phloyd

Yeah, even HD DVD content creators realise that the 15 GB disc was a joke and that it was never enough for its intended purpose.

Why would it be a joke? The current movies seem to avg about 16-18Mbps in VC-1. Thus 15GB would hold 2hrs of video at 16Mbps and 1.85 Hrs at 18Mbps. Of course you need room for audio and other stuff thus you could probably safely hold a 90 minute movie on 15GB with all the extras you need. Not everything is feature film length. I don't think it's a joke to tailor the media size to fit the content. Sounds kind of like common sense to me.

[marzetta7]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Why would it be a joke? The current movies seem to avg about 16-18Mbps in VC-1. Thus 15GB would hold 2hrs of video at 16Mbps and 1.85 Hrs at 18Mbps. Of course you need room for audio and other stuff thus you could probably safely hold a 90 minute movie on 15GB with all the extras you need. Not everything is feature film length. I don't think it's a joke to tailor the media size to fit the content. Sounds kind of like common sense to me.

Sounds like a dead end format to me or like a format that will do mostly anything to save the manufacturer a buck while all the while charging the consumer for a new technology premium. Developers as well as hollywood studios will always need more and with HD DVD, the "more" is not there. Besides, content consolidation will be a big plus that Blu-ray will have given its higher capacity. Not to mention, from a gaming perspective this will provide ample space to provide games we can only dream of.

[hmurchison]

That whole premise that more space enables new stuff is a fallacy and runs contrary to what we'll really see.

For instance.

The cable you watch nowadays is likely Digital Cable. The advantage of going digital was not qualitative but rather efficiency based. Operators can now multiplex more channels into the same bandwidth that analog broadcasting consumed.

Digital Music is flourishing not because datarates have increased but rather just the opposite. iTunes and Naptster thrive because the smaller datarates enabled more efficient distribution.

My point is we should not look towards datarate increasing for either format but actually decreasing as encoding is mastered. Thus 15GB or 50GB is just a number that will not always equate to higher quality.


I don't think any tricks are involved here. If Sony can put a movie on a SL 25GB disc it would behoove them to do so provided the quality of the final product (e.g extras) is there.

[phloyd]

You said yourself that NOTHING released to date fits on 15GB.

15GB is the basic capacity of the format.

NOT EVEN ONE release fits on that.

Perhaps they should shorten films and drop extras so that they fit on the format?

It is clearly demonstrated that 15GB is not enough capacity for these releases at the current time. It is was enough, they would have used single layer discs.

Am I missing something?

[hmurchison]

You said yourself that NOTHING released to date fits on 15GB.

I did?

Not one HD-DVD that been delivered has been 15GB. I'm sure they'll use 15GB discs but it'll probably be for program material that's under 90 minutes

I said nothing about what "fits" I said all current released HD-DVD are 30GB. If you need clarification my post was intended to demonstrate how 30GB HD-DVD production was solid from day 1.

It doesn't matter. 15GB are likely the most affordable to produce but 30GB aren't much more difficult. There really isn't an issue here. 30GB gives content providers ample space for movie content, extras and multiple audio.

Blu Ray will eventually move to 50GB for special releases but the discs are harder to bond together than HD-DVD 30GB.

[phloyd]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

I did?

Not one HD-DVD that been delivered has been 15GB. I'm sure they'll use 15GB discs but it'll probably be for program material that's under 90 minutes

Sure, it was your intent to show that DL discs are no problem.

That is not the question...

If 15 GB was enough capacity they would be used. They have not been used to date as is noted from your statement.

If capacity is not the issue, why did they use DL discs? Are you saying that they could have fit these releases on 15GB discs?

My point is that 15GB, the target size for the HD DVD, is not enough. So they have used DL discs out of the gate.

And perhaps you are right... who cares if the discs are DL or SL... I am not sure that I do.

But it would have been more prudent perhaps to actually spec a decent capacity for the format in the first place...?

What is more interesting, perhaps, is that a number of the WB discs as they stand will not fit on a 25GB disc either... so perhaps that is also not enough.

[hmurchison]

Well yes, to a certain extent, capacity is important. However each codec has a particular sweet spot and after that point cranking up the bitrate leads to dimnishing returns. Some people tend to think there's some physics rule that states that increased bitrate always equals a better picture. Alas if life was only that easy and linear.

It'll be interesting to see how things progress. All in all I think we'll be pleased by both formats. I expect Samsung, Pioneer and Sony to hit the ground with solid product. It's their game to lose really.

[phloyd]

Certainly it could be possible for the other advanced codecs to adequately encode the movies to 15 GB in the future.

To be honest I think that it speaks well of HD DVD that they chose to use DL discs instead of potentially compromising image quality. I have been pissed since AOD was announced at 15GB since I never thought it was enough...

In any case, I think if either side loses the battle based on image quality it will be a sad day.

However it is done (DL/SL Blu or HD DVD), the picture should be so damn close to the D5 that nobody notices... As long as that holds true there should be no complaints

[benmbe]

hello and good day to you.

About five years ago i noticed that Home Theatre Forum carried out a survey, and asked all its members to comment on what they would like from a new format. and in general they all requested that the next format should be the best that it could be sound and picture without compromise (words to that effect) and also room on this format to expand and last.
Most if not all of the manufacturers are members of this website and organise Cruises Ship hols in US and carribian every year with seminars from major people in the industry researching and listening to the demands of the consumers. They are no doubt waching this web site very closely.
I personally want Blu-Ray to win and will be buying the pioneer Elite model as soon as funds allow.

Regards

Mark B-E

[Shadowself]

It's rarely the technology and it is even more rarely what people want that drives what is available on the market. It usually is a combination of corporate politics and cost.

Why is HDTV topped out at 1080 lines? The technology was available as far back as 1974 for TVs with 1325 lines. (I know, I used several in the U.S. military back then.) The debate came down to analog (pushed by many Japanese companies) versus digital (pushed by many U.S. companies) and the various different resoltuions several different companies were proposing. The Grand Compromise, as it is sometimes called, finally started to form when Microsoft weighed in. Yes, Microsoft. (There were several reports at the time that Bill Gates personally got involved, but I never saw any proof of this.) They pushed for a standard that would be reasonably computable and fit in nice little computational arrays this led to a maximum of 1920 x 1080. Notice how that fits nicely in a data set of 2 x 1024 x 1024. Microsoft most definitely did not force a solution, but many others climbed onto the bandwagon of a reasonable compromise after Microsoft started pushing for it. Field/frame rates similarly came down to what was historically available versus what people wanted and the failed attempt at resolving the NTSC versus PAL frame rates. This is why ATSC (the follow on to the historical NTSC) has at least 18 different variations allowed on the "standard".

I don't know about you, but my personal opinion is that a "standard" which allows that many variations is not much of a standard.



The same can be said of digital theater. The relatively new standard (ratified in 2005, IIRC) came out at "2K" (2048 x 1080) at 24 and 48 fps and with "4K" (4096 x 2160) at only 24 fps. It's not like there have not been cameras and projectors which can't handle higher resolution (e.g., Evans and Sutherland has been selling their "Video Wall" for several years and it's 8192 x 4096). the 2K and 4K formats were a compromise between the old film aspect ratios, the size and cost of cameras for film makers to use and the cost of projectors for the neighborhood theatres.

Can you tell the difference between a theatre showing a new film (within the first dozen or so showings of a certain set of film stock -- not after it's gotten to the dollar theatres and has been run through the projector several hundred times) and a theatre showing at 2K? I certainly can. I suspect most people can. However, we are stuck with the compromises.

So, while most people will ask for the best resolution and sound they can get, will they actually get it? I doubt it. If they can get it (e.g., buying a true high fidelity 7.1 sound system versus simple stereo or 5.1) will most people pay for it? I doubt it. In reality I see this as no different than 30 years ago when people could buy 1" open real tapes of many recordings (very expensive and difficult to find if you didn't have the right connections) but instead bought LPs. Ask for the best, but buy what is convenient and relatively low cost (notice I did not say "cheap").

[JTK]

This is nothing offical, but just to prove something myself over the past few weeks:

I've gone into live chats on Crutchfield and have hit 6-7 different employees.

Almost unanimously, after some decent chatting and all, they admit to me that they favor HD-DVD solely because of cost, even though some of them are well informed enough to know that BR is superior in every respect, including hardware and software support.

My point? This does not bode well or help out BR when you have retailers, installers, companies, etc. with preconcieved/misconceived notions and biases going into it like this.

[zombie]

Originally Posted by JTK

This is nothing offical, but just to prove something myself over the past few weeks:

I've gone into live chats on Crutchfield and have hit 6-7 different employees.

Almost unanimously, after some decent chatting and all, they admit to me that they favor HD-DVD solely because of cost, even though some of them are well informed enough to know that BR is superior in every respect, including hardware and software support.

My point? This does not bode well or help out BR when you have retailers, installers, companies, etc. with preconcieved/misconceived notions and biases going into it like this.

It doesn't bode well for BD now but once the price is comparible to HD DVD, which I believe will happen sooner rather than later due to the need to compete for the consumers money, most retailers will no longer have a format preference. They'll see that they can make money off of both formats.

[BOSS10L]

I find Bill's comments quite funny though:

Originally Posted by Bill Crutchfield

Like me, if you bought an HDTV several years ago, it can only receive high-definition signals through its component video input. It does not have either an HDMI or DVI input. Consequently, if some Hollywood studios have their way, we will not be able to watch DVDs in high-definition on these older HDTVs.

Like Mr. Crutchfield is really going to be hurting over having to purchase 2 separate players and I doubt he goes 5-10 years with the same display like most consumers. This boils down to him wanting things to be more accessible to the end-user, thus making his profit margins larger. Not that it is a bad thing, but c'mon Bill, let's call a spade a spade, okay?