"HD DVD" Capacity Increase Challenges "Blu-ray Disc"

[Jerry Jones]

But can he watch these downloads in the comform of his lounge or does he have to sit infront of his Mac??

He has a high definition flat panel TV, which he uses as his "monitor."

He drives it with a Mac Mini.

In other words, his living room TV doubles as his computer.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Who knows what will happen but I tend to think HD-DVD, BR or both will replace the DVD.

Well, both "Blu-ray Disc" and "HD DVD" have been out now for several months and they haven't replaced the DVD at all.

One reason I think the "HD DVD" camp has been more innovative is the "combo" disc, which you can now buy in Best Buy retail stores.

This combo disc features a high definition "HD DVD" version of the movie on one side and a standard definition version on the other side.

That's innovative.

But will it be enough?

I doubt it.

I think the reason is that most people are content with DVD quality.

Very few people with whom I'm acquainted are saying things like "Wow, my DVD discs just don't give me enough quality."

It's the other way around.

People are still saying "Wow!" when they view a DVD version of an old television show or movie.

My family just bought the original COMBAT episodes that were filmed in the 60s.

The DVD quality is so good it's amazing.

They look like they were shot yesterday.

Mark, when do you predict that high definition DVDs will gain widespread adoption?

Which specific year in the future?

How much longer will we have to wait?

I doubt they will ever gain widespread adoption.

And I think Clint DeBoer hit the nail on the head with his "10 Reasons Why High Definition DVD Formats Have Already Failed" article here:

http://tinyurl.com/f2zzs

What do the new high definition DVD formats offer consumers over DVD? Technology and more storage. Is this enough? Not on your life. Consumers, most of whom rarely know how to properly configure their players or home theater systems, are perfectly content with their current DVD players (and indeed some have just jumped on board to DVD in the last several years). While the potential for more extras and alternate endings exists due to increased storage on the new media, there is no compelling reason for consumers to migrate over to the new high definition DVD formats in large numbers.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

http://tinyurl.com/2675cg

Itiva (pronounced 'eye-tee-va') Digital Media is a Video Content Delivery Network (vCDN) service provider headquartered in Palo Alto, CA. Founded in 2005, Itiva’s advanced vCDN service is based on a breakthrough technology that enables delivery of high definition video over the Internet to the masses, in a secure fashion, and at a cost that was previously unachievable.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Well, both "Blu-ray Disc" and "HD DVD" have been out now for several months and they haven't replaced the DVD at all.

One reason I think the "HD DVD" camp has been more innovative is the "combo" disc, which you can now buy in Best Buy retail stores.

This combo disc features a high definition "HD DVD" version of the movie on one side and a standard definition version on the other side.

That's innovative.

But will it be enough?

I doubt it.

I think the reason is that most people are content with DVD quality.

Very few people with whom I'm acquainted are saying things like "Wow, my DVD discs just don't give me enough quality."

It's the other way around.

People are still saying "Wow!" when they view a DVD version of an old television show or movie.

My family just bought the original COMBAT episodes that were filmed in the 60s.

The DVD quality is so good it's amazing.

They look like they were shot yesterday.

Mark, when do you predict that high definition DVDs will gain widespread adoption?

Which specific year in the future?

How much longer will we have to wait?

I doubt they will ever gain widespread adoption.

And I think Clint DeBoer hit the nail on the head with his "10 Reasons Why High Definition DVD Formats Have Already Failed" article here:

http://tinyurl.com/f2zzs

Jerry Jones
http://www.jonesgroup.net

You say people are content with DVD quality.

They were also content with VHS quality.

I had a DVD player about 3 years before they were mainstream. I remember walking into my local Blockbuster and seeing the DVD section growing a little larger and the tape section grow a little smaller. Finally tapes were all but gone. How long did that take? I suppose about three years.

Seeing how HD discs just appeared and that most people are happy with DVD I think it will take until 2010 for HD content discs to outpace DVD's. There I'm on record with a prediction.

There is a reason I see this happening. Unlike the SuperCD and DVD hi-end audio discs that failed I think HD discs won't fail. You see hi end audio is a niche market and you have to have really good ears and quite expensive equipment (or really know how to pick your gear) to build a system that really benefits from the upgrade to hi resolution audio discs. And even then the jump from CD to the higher res formats is not as significant as that from SD to 720p or 1080i.

So, the first thing is that people can actually SEE the difference between SD and HD. And it may be cliche but seeing is believing.

The second thing in favor of some HD format mainstreaming is the fact that day-by-day more and more HD capable monitoring devices are replacing non-HD monitoring devices in homes around the world. That is people are buying HD TV's so they already have the playback device.

The third thing is that there is quite a bit of high definition content available over the air, via cable TV, and Satellite. People with HD sets are seeing the difference HD can make. Sure not all HD content is great, but enough of it is so that people can see the difference.

Fourth, Hollywood want to re-release all of their titles again. They've already done the initial release, the "mastered" release, the "widescreen" release, the "special features" release, the "extended" release, the "special features-extended" release, etc... i.e. they milked it as much as they can. In addition they want a better form of copy protection. The DVD copy protection is so broken it's not even funny. Despite the recent HD-DVD cracking developments I think the formats will be more secure than DVD. And the enormous size of the content will make copying less appealing than with standard DVD's. So Hollywood has a HUGE catalog of movies they can start the release process with. First the "HD" version of the movie, then with "special features," then another release that is "mastered" etc... they can do it all over again. So Hollywood will continue to put out these HD discs. The content is already there for them, it's just a matter of encoding.

So it seems illogical to me that with people (1) owning HD playback devices, and (2) enjoying HD live content, that they will continue to be content with SD recorded disc quality forever. It might take three years it might take four but eventually it will happen. Now there is a possibility as you previously stated that we'll skip physical media all together and move to some streaming format or electronic storage etc... but I personally think that less likely to happen than the move to HD optical discs.

Once people start to see what these HD discs can do they will want them. It is hard to get "ignition" on a new format, especially with a format war to start things off, but once things get in motion the switch will take place quite fast.

So, like I said my prediction is 2010 and I'm sticking with it!

[Jerry Jones]

My prediction is 2010 and I'm sticking with it!

Well, that's interesting.

You're saying it's only going to take three (3) years for high definition DVDs to dominate.

Allow me to explain why I'm skeptical.

1. The ATSC digital television broadcast standards themselves do not contemplate the eventual abolition of standard definition programming.

Of the 18 ATSC digital TV formats, 12 -- a clear majority -- are "standard" or "enhanced" definition formats. Gateway's ATSC Table: http://tinyurl.com/3jfvl

Those who created these 18 formats clearly did not intend or contemplate the eventual demise of standard definition TV because they knew that bandwidth constraints would not permit all 18 ATSC digital TV formats to be "high definition." I see no practical way for bandwidth constraints to be lifted within three years.

2. The quality leap between analog VHS and digital DVD was the quantum leap.

Good standard definition DVD quality is good even on high definition screens. Yes, high definition DVD formats can yield even greater quality, but it's not as great as the leap between crummy analog VHS and digital DVD.

3. How many consumers are willing to buy their DVD movies and TV shows perhaps for the third or fourth time?

In my case, the answer is "No way." There are good reasons why I would not do this. The first reason is the cost. But beyond that, the second reason is that it would be virtually impossible to create a decent "HD DVD" or "Blu-ray Disc" of older programming that exists only on aging film stock with obvious visual problems that don't lend themselves to high definition restoration. The appeal of "HD DVD" or "Blu-ray Disc" -- for me -- would only be in connection with new programming content. So -- by definition -- that would mean I would only be interested in new documentaries or the new programming generally produced by organizations such as PBS or the BBC. As Doc has pointed out in other threads, so much of today's programming being churned out by the traditional, mass market ABC, CBS, NBC networks is truly awful -- not good enough to justify an investment in high definition playback equipment.

4. As far as I can tell, high definition isn't even being contemplated within the next three years for distance learning here in my state.

5. As far as I can tell, high definition isn't even close to being implemented in local newscasts here in my state.

6. If consumers are content to listen to highly compressed digital downloads in connection with their music, then it would stand to reason they would likewise be content with DVD quality for their visual programming consumption.

7. The "HD DVD" vs. "Blu-ray Disc" format war.

Consumers are tired of being ripped off every time they turn around. They're getting smarter.

I see high definition as a "niche" format.

Here is where I see high definition slowly gaining ground within the next three years:

1. News. If one local newscast goes "high def," it gains a "promotional edge" that allows the marketing department to crow endlessly. This could begin to happen within the next three years, but it's not going to happen immediately. Viewership has been steadily eroding since 1996 and it's doubtful if a massive investment in high definition will reverse that trend.

2. Public Presentations. Local governments and businesses will want high definition because it does improve the picture of "projected" presentations if one upgrades the projection system to take advantage of the extra resolution. But for this to happen, the cost of high definition acquisition and playback will have to drop. It's currently too expensive and processing power hasn't improved to the point really needed to make high definition editing a "snap."

3. Documentaries. They are educational and -- consequently -- a more affluent, educated audience will appreciate the extra resolution.

4. Sports. Sports fans will appreciate the extra resolution.

Conclusion:

Mass acceptance of high definition is going to take much longer.

I'd say 2012 at the earliest and high definition DVDs may never gain widespread adoption.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Good points Jerry.

#1 - SD will be a subset of HD. Just as color TV's could play B/W programs. I have tons of HD channels over cable and so does satellite. As compression gets better more channels will fit the available bandwidth. Bottom line is that HDTV is available today over air, on cable, and satellite. It's already there. The Feds will be mandating digital tuners on all TV's or add-on boxes.

#2 - Not so sure about leap from VHS to DVD being larger than DVD to HD. But if pressed I'd say VHS to DVD leap was a 8 out of 10 while DVD to HD a 7 out of 10. It's close. Lots more pixels in HD.

#3 - Only the industry knows but I know a lot of people that buy DVD's like crazy. I'm not one either but they are out there.

#4 - Education is always behind the curve. Just have a look at the average computer in most schools. This is as it should be as I pay enough taxes for the schools already. Kids need to understand they go to school to learn, not to be entertained. For all the new methods in education kids today can read and write, much less speak English, or do basic math. A little more basics and a little less TV would be good for them.

#5 - Like schools local stations don't have the funds or risk tolerance to be cutting edge. I don't think they drive the tech market anyway.

#6 - You are missing a big point here. As I said before in this case they can SEE the difference, not hear it.

#7 - Definitely slowing things down but dual format players will help tremendously.

I say HD discs overtake DVD discs in 2010. You say 2012 at the earliest and we may skip optical delivery. We're not that far off actually.

If there is a margin of error in both of our predictions of +-1 year then we can almost agree on 2011!

Interesting discussion it'll be fun to see how it plays out.

[Jerry Jones]

#4 - Education is always behind the curve. Just have a look at the average computer in most schools. This is as it should be as I pay enough taxes for the schools already. Kids need to understand they go to school to learn, not to be entertained. For all the new methods in education kids today can read and write, much less speak English, or do basic math. A little more basics and a little less TV would be good for them.

Mark, on this point, you seem to misunderstand.

You wrote "kids need to understand they go to school to learn, not to be entertained."

Mark, I'm not talking about trivial "entertainment."

I'm talking about distance learning at the university level, Mark.

I'm talking about a distributed university campus like the one where I work.

It works like this:

- Some professors might live in Idaho Falls; they teach from Idaho Falls.

- Some professors might live in Pocatello; they teach from Pocatello.

- Some professors might live in Boise; they teach from Boise.

Likewise...

- Some Idaho university students might live in Boise; they sit in a Boise classroom.

- Some Idaho university students might live in Pocatello; they sit in a Pocatello classroom.

- Some Idaho university students might live in Idaho Falls; they sit in an Idaho Falls classroom.

All are connected -- in real-time -- via standard definition videoconferencing technology.

The professors wear either fixed or wireless microphones as they deliver their lectures.

Meanwhile, each student sits in front of a fixed microphone in every classroom.

When a student wishes to talk, he/she simply pushes a button on the microphone.

Virtually all geographic regions of Idaho are connected in this way because we are a relatively large state with a scattered population and this is a cost-effective way of delivering courses in engineering, mathematics, business and medicine.

This is how our system works today.

We have two EVI-D30 Sony cameras mounted in all of the classrooms and these cameras are trained on the students and the professors and we use Panasonic switchers to switch back and forth between the professors, the students, computer-based presentations, and standard definition video presentations.

The EVI-D30s -- pictured here: http://tinyurl.com/75get -- are controlled remotely by operators using toggle switches in each classroom.

Trivial "entertainment," as you suggested, has absolutely nothing to do with distance learning in our state's higher education system.

This system works amazingly well.

When I worked in local TV, we had to cross our fingers and hope for the best when we attempted a live shot using microwave and satellite trucks.

This university system -- IP-based -- is amazingly dependable.

High definition would improve the resolution of PowerPoint presentations that are often the basis of a professor's lecture.

High definition would also improve the resolution of video content that is sometimes the basis of lectures.

However, high definition requires much greater bandwidth.

So there are both financial and physical obstacles that preclude an upgrade to high definition in a distance learning environment.

Sony is already marketing high definition videoconferencing cameras -- called IPELA -- as described by the AkihabaraNews.Com Web site here: http://tinyurl.com/tfcuz

But these systems are not inexpensive.

I doubt they'll be adopted within three years by many universities because of budget limitations.

High definition is going to be more widely adopted, eventually.

But that doesn't necessarily mean high definition DVDs will be widely adopted.

By the time high definition gains widespread adoption, the optical disc formats might both be considered obsolete.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Despite the recent HD-DVD cracking developments I think the formats will be more secure than DVD.

It's not just "HD DVD" that's been cracked; looks like they've done the same with "Blu-ray Disc," Mark:

Doom9 Forum Link #1: http://tinyurl.com/2cftqs
Doom9 Forum Link #2: http://tinyurl.com/2labaq

That muslix64 character claims he broke the Blu-ray Disc protection in fewer than 24 hours!

Better copy protection?



I'm skeptical.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Dr Mordrid]

"By the time high definition gains widespread adoption, the optical disc formats might both be considered obsolete."

And replaced by either holographic or laser nanoantenna discs.

[Jerry Jones]

And replaced by either holographic or laser nanoantenna discs.

That's definitely possible, Doc.

I've read recent articles that indicate the holographic technology is much farther along than most imagine.

I also agree that it's possible that we haven't seen the last of the cheap Chinese DVD format.

If that floods the market, it could really matter.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

To clarify, in my previous post, I made reference to the "cheap Chinese DVD format."

I was, of course, talking about EVD (Enhanced Versatile Disc).

According to Wikipedia:

On Wednesday, December 6th, 2006, 20 Chinese electronic firms unveiled 54 prototype EVD players, announcing their intention to fully switch to this format by 2008 in an effort to decrease dependency on foreign electronic products and establish a niche in the market. Although earlier attempts have been made, none have had such widespread support as this.

Wikipedia link: http://tinyurl.com/yeccr6

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

Of course, there is also the VMD (Versatile Multilayer Disc).

Link to Wikipedia Web Page About VMD: http://tinyurl.com/3yzeqz

Versatile Multilayer Disc (VMD) is a high-capacity red laser optical disc technology designed by New Medium Enterprises, Inc.. VMD is intended to compete with the blue laser HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc formats and has an initial capacity of 20 GB to 40 GB per disc.

At CeBIT in March 2006, NME demonstrated a prototype VMD player and announced that they were expecting to launch the format in the third quarter of 2006. Rather than competing head-to-head with the HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc formats, they intend to market their format in China and India initially with a possible expansion into Eastern Europe, Russia and South America coming later. With this in mind, they have signed a deal with Bollywood production company Eros Group who intend to release 50 Bollywood features on the format before the end of 2006.

The VMD format is capable of HD resolutions up to 1080p which is comparable with Blu-ray and HD DVD.

With "HD DVD" and "Blu-ray Disc" battling each other, I suspect either VMD or EVD could enter the ring and -- possibly -- steal the thunder.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Hulk]

Jerry,

Please forgive me if I'm a little jaded with the current education system. I used to teach high school physics and chemistry. And I may go back to it one day. I can be very rewarding. But the ideas that started to permeate the education system 20 years ago that were good ideas have gone too far in my opinion. It's a case of a little is good so more must be better. In the quest to move to higher levels of Bloom's cognitive scale. Yes it's great to integrate high school chemistry into things the student can relate to but it's impossible to have a meaningful discourse if the students don't the the symbols for the elements, oxidation numbers, orbital shell configuration, etc.. they have to have a language for chemistry before they can evaluate and analyze. Today, if teachers actually try to ground their students with a foundation the administators will accuse them of filling the students minds with useless facts. For example, they'll know no dates in history and have no idea of how one event has impacted another. Yes, I am really burned out with what I see teaching has become. I am just 9 credits from a master's in education, then I got disgruntled with the profession, or rather those that are running it.

There does have to be a balance of organizing centers in the classroom, no doubt. Some lecture, some hands on, some cooperative learning, etc... but things have really gotten out of control.

As a student of mechanical engineering at Rutgers it seemed a chalkboard, book, and a professor were good enough. You get to class on time, bring your book and a notebook, sit there and concentrate to process what the professor is saying.

Teaching eventually comes back to the desire of the student to learn and no matter how good the video or computer presentations or computors, or computor notebooks, or techno gizmo's in the classroom. If the student can't see the objective of the lesson and the class in general then all of that technology will only further obviscate the goal of learning and provide the students with excuses. "I couldn't see the numbers, my computer won't boot, this program isn't working..." Blah blah blah. The best activities I ever did with my students didn't involve computers at all. Things like shooting rockets and predicting height and distance, labs to determine compounds, things like that.

Don't get me wrong, technology is great in the classroom when used properly as another tool in the teachers toolbox. But more and more young teachers and students think it is a magical way to learn without discipline, focus and hard work. It adds variety to the organizing centers for the educator, different ways to explain concepts.

In our rush to move ahead every now and then we should take a look back to make sure we didn't lose anything valuable.

You mention Powerpoint presentations. That's a good example. I know so many teachers that stumbled across them and that is their WHOLE agenda for teaching. Every day another PPP. After a year or two they have them all on computer and thier lesson plans stay the same forever. Every now and then, fine, but everyday..no way. I remember when I was lecturing at the seminars at NAB in 2005. They told me to stay away from PP as much as possible. They warned me I'd get a lot of groans if I used them. I tried to explain to them that I am an educator and know how to vary the organizing centers in a lesson. I don't blame them but they are used to people creating static lessons.

Anyway I could see HD definitely helping in long distance learning to remove some of the "distance" between educator and student.

Nothing you or I say will influence the fate of HD discs. We'll just have to see what happens. I just hope I can have some HD movies in my home theater sooner rather than later.

[Jerry Jones]

Well, Mark, my basic point had nothing to do with the complaints you've aired about the education system in this country.

It seems you may not be familiar with the problems experienced by Rocky Mountain states that are geographically much larger than the states in the East where you live.

We have relatively sparse populations spread out over a large area.

Our Western states are having to rely on technology to overcome these geographic hurdles.

My basic point relates to university-level distance learning in geographically difficult Western states and whether high definition has any chance of being integrated into that learning model anytime soon.

High definition won't be integrated into that learning model anytime soon, in my view.

There's not even a conversation about it.

Cost and bandwidth are two reasons.

Another reason is that the existing standard definition system works well enough.

I don't know enough about your state's universities to know if they utilize distance learning.

But distance learning in my state -- which is geographically large with a scattered population -- solves the problem of how to connect students in diverse locations with professors who are also in diverse locations.

I think the days of the old-fashioned "brick and mortar" approach to university education are coming to an end.

More and more adults are taking university courses while they work full-time.

In Rocky Mountain states such as Idaho, state funding for higher education has been steadily eroding.

As a result, the universities have to use every opportunity that technology provides to cut the costs.

State universities in most Rocky Mountain states can't afford to put a live professor in front of every student that might be scattered to the four corners.

So they have to rely on video/audio technology as a means of keeping costs under control.

I suspect the model is going to evolve, however.

As bandwidth increases to individual home and apartment dwellings, then I see more and more university-level courses being delivered directly into the home.

Kaplan owns the Concord University law school in California where -- as an online law school not yet approved by the ABA -- students are still able to graduate and then qualify for the California Bar Exam and practice as lawyers in that state:

http://tinyurl.com/2u53au

I suspect the ABA might eventually approve this learning model.

Our professors don't rely on PowerPoint presentations excessively, in my view.

That's just one of their tools.

They make use of the full spectrum of tools commonly used in connection with the personal computer.

Most of the professors where I work are involved in health education... nursing, pharmacy, psychology, etc.

It's been a very interesting learning model to observe.

I really enjoy the distance learning field.

High definition would be nice, but I don't see it widely adopted in distance learning... not yet.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[Jerry Jones]

So, the first thing is that people can actually SEE the difference between SD and HD. And it may be cliche but seeing is believing.

I really disagree with what you've suggested here.

Look, I've seen 720p and 1080i.

There are far too many obstacles between...

a. pristine source material

...and...

b. production

...and...

c. playback

...for all high definition material to really look the way it's supposed to look.

First of all, the stuff they show on the salesroom floor too often looks like CRAP!

Are you kidding?

Technically, it's 720p or 1080i.

But a lot of it is like looking at those poor clips from the SANYO HD1:

http://tinyurl.com/mqt9l

Download those suckers and see if you really love 720p!

Now maybe the Sanyo HD2 higher pixel count will lift the performance of the camera to yield at least *decent* 720p clips.

But I want to see some samples first.

And then there's multicasting.

When you compress the living daylights out of a high definition signal to transmit it to viewers, then it's going to look like CRAP -- even if it technically meets "high definition" specifications.

And then there's the badly-produced, early Blu-ray Discs we've all read about where they've done a poor job with the encoding and all kinds of visual problems make the output look like... CRAP.

If you really think you're convincing anybody that 720p and 1080i are "quantum" improvements over standard definition DVD, then you had better show us something better than the high definition CRAP we've seen to date.

I've seen very good 1080i video -- produced well -- shown on very expensive high definition Sony screens and it does look great.

But that's still not the norm.

Face it.

A lot of what we're being shown technically meets high definition specifications, but still looks like digital CRAP.

With analog VHS, we had to suffer through...

1. lack of random access;

2. "tearing" within worn out tapes;

3. drop-out;

4. duller colors.

The jump from analog to digital was the big jump.

And it's going to take at least five years -- probably longer -- for quality control issues to be worked out of typical "high definition" video.

The problems we face are legion: weak computers, limited bandwidth, beta software, and on and on and on.

Oh, wow, my head aches as I contemplate the frustration and the expense that confronts consumers in the years ahead.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net