HD-DVD Doooomed! Doooomed I say

[stray]

Nothing wrong with DLP, no need to change, but there's a noticeable difference in pq. Guess that's the tradeoff for the benefits in size/price.

[Murgos]

Meh, I generally get comments that my DLP has a better picture than most plasma's and pretty much all LCD's.

[HaemishM]

Long-range, a physical media is just inefficient. It requires storage, it requires expensive shipping, it's just plain not an efficient way to have media delivered. Yes, 10 years out, we'll still have physical media. Hell, maybe 30 years out. But really, the future is in downloaded content that can be transported/stored on small, rewriteable media like flash drives. It's going to take time to get there, and Blu-Ray may be the bridge there, or there may be another technology. Most of the shit that comes with the physical copy (box, inserts) are superflouous anyway. So long as the rewriateable medium is reliable, eventually not enough people will give enough of a shit about having a box to make it worthwhile.

I disagree with you.  Virtual = NOT REAL.  No ownership.  People like having collections of things.  Virtual has no sense of ownership, and only lasts as long as the drive or machine doesn't conk out.  And DRM on Xbox Live Arcade games proves how dick virtual copies of things really are.  Hell, Wii VC titles.  You can't lend or share or even show off a game.

But there's a whole generation growing up on MP3's and downloaded movies and YouTube videos. For YOU, virtual != real. For them, in 10 years? It'll be just as real as anything else, and have just as much ownership, especially as DRM technologies improve. You are jaded by your experiences with Steam. For me, Steam is a great first step, since I can download a small executable to a new computer, login and download all the games I already own again without having to fuck about with a CD. Plus, smaller groups can sell me games at cheaper prices without having to fight through the Gamestops and the Best Buys of the world. Oh, and there's an actual back catalog of games I may have missed. And it all makes the developers feel good, because they don't have to worry about piracy as much, don't have to dick about with Safedisc or other onerous fuckup to "combat piracy."

Just like the generation that grew up with videogames have now made videogames mainstream, the generation that grows up with digital distribution and some form of DRM will make digital distribution more ubiquitious.

[Sky]

The same mechanism that allows you all that allows me to just order the DVD online.

[HaemishM]

Yes, and that won't change. It just won't be the most prevalent method in TEH FUTURE.

[stray]

Even if there's eventually a widespread acceptance of the idea, I still don't see where all of that bandwidth is coming from. The whole idea of delivering collections upon collections of movies at a true hd bitrate and resolution would neither be more practical than portable media or cheaper than it. Not in the near future, and not even in a speculative one. Not enough to bother making any kind of argument for it now at least. Even if everyone had one of the faster types of broadband connections out at the moment, they'd still be suffering trying to download that shit (and this goes without mentioning their personal storage requirements for it). And all the while, they'd have at least 3 best buys and blockbusters within 5 miles of their homes -- it'd just be quicker and easier getting a movie that way.

[HaemishM]

Do you really think there doesn't now exist the bandwidth to do all of those things without much of a sweet? Guess what, there is. It's just that most home connections haven't been allowed or tuned to receive it, nor has it been cost-feasible to allow that sort of thing. We're talking about TEH FUTCHUR here. Think about how shitty our bandwidth was just 10 years ago and compare that to the sub-$50 6 MB DSL I have now.

[Morat20]

You are jaded by your experiences with Steam. For me, Steam is a great first step, since I can download a small executable to a new computer, login and download all the games I already own again without having to fuck about with a CD. Plus, smaller groups can sell me games at cheaper prices without having to fight through the Gamestops and the Best Buys of the world. Oh, and there's an actual back catalog of games I may have missed. And it all makes the developers feel good, because they don't have to worry about piracy as much, don't have to dick about with Safedisc or other onerous fuckup to "combat piracy."

I tend to agree -- fuck the discs. Fuck whether or not I can find the damn booklet with the CD key or whatever. Hell, makes getting a new PC a hell of a lot more trivial -- just boot up steam and reacquire my copies. When they finally start storing save games on Steam, then I'll be even happier. :)

Heck, I'm about to move to a fully online backup system (Anyone use Mozy?) so I can stop hassling with removeable hard drives. The future is storing all your shit on someone else's servers, and just keeping your local copies up to date on an as-needed basis.

A giant collection of HD-DVDs? Nah -- try players that just access your entire library remotely, streaming whatever you want to watch straight to you.

[stray]

Do you really think there doesn't now exist the bandwidth to do all of those things without much of a sweet? Guess what, there is. It's just that most home connections haven't been allowed or tuned to receive it, nor has it been cost-feasible to allow that sort of thing. We're talking about TEH FUTCHUR here. Think about how shitty our bandwidth was just 10 years ago and compare that to the sub-$50 6 MB DSL I have now.

The future is that we're approaching a bandwidth crunch. Not some magical digital download heaven. 10 years from now, providers will probably just have finished their upgrade path to really start allowing these services with fewer bottlenecks. But it'll all be outrageously expensive getting there. And that's just the US.. The country with the most advanced network backbone out of anybody. Other countries are even more fucked, when it comes to delivering high quality content. Portable mediums are still going to be relevant for either for awhile.

I know we'll get there eventually... Everyone will have on demand access to entertainment databases like in star trek or something. I just don't see the point of talking about it right now. 5 years ahead is about all I care to talk about.

Also, there's a big fallacy in comparing it to downloadable games. Games, no matter what method you deliver them by, are the same game through and through. Right now, delivering movies in any sort of sane way requires you to reduce the bitrate and pq by a significant amount. That stuff on appletv or xbl isn't any better than dvd quality, other than having hd resolutions. And even hd broadcasts are compressed and encoded. It's not comparable to hd-dvd or blu-ray either.

[HaemishM]

And I tell you that most people don't give a shit about higher than DVD quality resolutions anyway, which is why HDTV is only now getting any kind of serious market penetration and why neither HD-DVD or Blu-Ray has made DVD obsolete. Just like MP3's don't sound as good to audiophiles but sound just fucking fantastic to most people, DVD resolution looks great to most people, who won't see ENOUGH of a difference to care.

[Nebu]

Just like MP3's don't sound as good to audiophiles but sound just fucking fantastic to most people, DVD resolution looks great to most people, who won't see ENOUGH of a difference to care.

If you listened to MP3's on good equipment, I think most people could readily hear a difference between that and vinyl or redbook cds. 

I do, however, think you did hit it the point of it though.  The audio quality in most moves seems to vary more greatly than the video quality and I've never cared much for having the state-of-the-art video.  Granted, my 27" crt could have something to do with that. 

[stray]

There's only so much to the human ear can hear in audio files. The sampling rate of cd quality audio is 44.1 hz for example -- but the human ear typically can only hear in the 20hz range. And chances are, most people's speakers are shit anyways, not capable of outputting to either range.

Point being though, there's a lot of stuff you can sacrifice in audio without people noticing.

Eyes work differently. There's no point in comparing the two.

[Riggswolfe]

Walmart dumping Hd-dvd

This could actually be the biggest blow yet. Netflix hurt but nothing like one of the nation's largest chain stores.

Edit: I had an attack of moronitis. Sorry about the broken link.

[Engels]

Your link es muy broken. Comes out to http://walmart%20dumping%20hddvd/

[Jeff Kelly]

Do you really think there doesn't now exist the bandwidth to do all of those things without much of a sweet? Guess what, there is.

Then explain to me why most of your big internet providers talk about bandwidth throtteling because they are totally being swamped by on demand video access via iTunes and others.l

Even then, on demand access might be viable for the urban dweller (even there you'd need to get the high speed DSL access necessary) but if you are not curently living in New York, San Franscisco, Berlin, Munich or any other big western city, chances are that you won't have the amount of DSL bandwidth necessary for HD-Video on demand.

[Merusk]

To underscore the 'bandwith outside of cities sucks'  bit;  a guildie in WoW was complaining about his ping the other day.  He lives in bumfuck Iowa and is paying $110 a month for a 'high quality' 720mbps connection.   I pay $40 for the same speed in Cincinnati.  I'll wager anywhere in the back-end of nowhere like that will ensure we're going to have physical media for a long, long, LONG time. 

We've got OTHER infrastructure to worry about that's more important than laying new 'net cables. Unless the companies feel like laying it themselves out of the goodness of their heart those remote areas are going to remain remote for a good long while. 

[Morat20]

Then explain to me why most of your big internet providers talk about bandwidth throtteling because they are totally being swamped by on demand video access via iTunes and others.l

Because they're greedy fucks?

I mean, that's really it. They're greedy fucks. They don't want to invest a penny in infrastructure (not even replacing routers, much less renting more bandwidth or laying new cable), and as long as they can even fake a scarcity they can charge more?

Fuck, it was Enron's entire business model -- gin up a shortage, jump prices through the roof, lock people into long-term contracts, then magically "fix" the shortage for free while everyone pays three times as much and thanks you for it.

[bhodi]

Don't forget getting the infrastructure they have now courtesy of government subsidies and handouts.

[stray]

HD is taxing on the cable providers as well... It's not just an internet issue. That's not something that'll be solved overnight either.


Anyways, I'm not sure why anyone is even bothering to argue in defense of hypotheticals and "things not here"... Just because umm... Wait.. Why is it that some of you guys are against physical mediums again? That never was clear. Or are you even against them for any reason at all? Are you just stomping your foot, and being stubborn for the time being (that's OK if you are...)?

[SurfD]

And that's just the US.. The country with the most advanced network backbone out of anybody.

Correct me if i am wrong here, but while the US may have the most advanced backbone, i was under the impression that the vast majority of the rest of its infrastructure sucks ass, as compared to places like japan, and developing cities in places like china / india and europe (all mainly due to corporate greed, and unwillingness to expand said infrastructure while they can still milk customers for everything they have until the current one pretty much collapses)

[naum]

The future is that we're approaching a bandwidth crunch. Not some magical digital download heaven. 10 years from now, providers will probably just have finished their upgrade path to really start allowing these services with fewer bottlenecks. But it'll all be outrageously expensive getting there. And that's just the US.. The country with the most advanced network backbone out of anybody. Other countries are even more fucked, when it comes to delivering high quality content. Portable mediums are still going to be relevant for either for awhile.

Same argument was blathered 6-7 years ago about music and digital downloads… …and today, just look at sales charts of CD sales v. digital (even with the music industry being total fucktards and not capitalizing to even greater effect — it took Apple & iTunes / iPod success to knock them out of a slumber they still haven't come out of totally…)… …people DL'ing a movie every other night (or less, consider average consumer statistics…) isn't going to cascade a "bandwidth crunch"…

[stray]

I don't remember that argument. People have been downloading things in roughly the same range before itunes showed up. The average album size is maybe 50-60mb at best. That isn't anything revolutionary. Comparing that to the jump it takes to download or deliver hd movies is a big jump. The average hd movie size is 20-25gb. That's bigger than an entire music library that most people have.

[naum]

I don't remember that argument. People have been downloading things in roughly the same range before itunes showed up. The average album size is maybe 50-60mb at best. That isn't anything revolutionary. Comparing that to the jump it takes to download or deliver hd movies is a big jump. The average hd movie size is 20-25gb. That's bigger than an entire music library that most people have.

Compressed HD on iTunes is in 10-15G range for DL…

Which will be nothing on TB sized drives…

[stray]

Hmm, they're up to 10-15 now? Not so bad, I guess. Used to be around 3gb movies, I believe? Like a fourth the quality of hd-dvd or blu-ray. Less even.

HOWEVER... Few people have the connects to bother with that. I mean, a fast cable connection without many hiccups would take at least 16, 17 hours to download it. I think? And that's with the connection at top speeds, without interferences, without it cutting down productivity in whatever else you're downloading/doing.

So... Taking the industry "bandwidth crunch" issue out for a sec, why the fuck does anyone want to do that anyways? Whether it was for a temporary rental or a permanent "ownership" on the hard drive, it's a waste of time compared to just getting off your ass and buying a disc -- a disc that will not only look better, but be physical, have some other fixin's, not take any space on your drive, not make you get bigger hard drives over time, and not make you wait 16 hours in a best buy line just to watch it. What the are the positives here? Why does it even have any market penetration as it is? Sounds like the marketing is simply betting on some people being stubborn asshats to me.

[edit] Oops, forgot the most important reason against it. 

"Hey Joe, do you have 3:10 to Yuma?"

"Yeah"

"Dude, can I borrow it?"

"Sorry. I'm not allowed to do that. And technically, I don't really have it. Sorry, I lied."

"..."

[naum]

Hmm, they're up to 10-15 now? Not so bad, I guess. Used to be around 3gb movies, I believe? Like a fourth the quality of hd-dvd or blu-ray. Less even.

HOWEVER... Few people have the connects to bother with that. I mean, a fast cable connection without many hiccups would take at least 16, 17 hours to download it. I think? And that's with the connection at top speeds, without interferences, without it cutting down productivity in whatever else you're downloading/doing.

I estimated from this page as I don't have an Apple TV… …here is the chart showing DL time…
http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html



Doesn't everybody have a >5M cable connection (at least for DL speed) now? Heck, I wasn't able to even get cable broadband until like 2002 (and no DSL at my location available either), and now I have >5M DL speed…

[Merusk]

Oh, in case anyone missed it about the original topic.  It's dead.

Yeah, not an official release, but hey damn near enough.

[stray]

Well, I have a 7M service, I believe. Realistically, I download at 700 kiloBYTES per sec at best. Whatever that translates into kiloBITS, I don't know.

That's no so bad, but even that rate, a 15gb movie should take long enough to irritate the shit out of me.

[bhodi]

Well, I have a 7M service, I believe. Realistically, I download at 700 kiloBYTES per sec at best. Whatever that translates into kiloBITS, I don't know.

That's no so bad, but even that rate, a 15gb movie should take long enough to irritate the shit out of me.

7M = 7,000,000 bits/sec; 8 bits to a byte (plus 2 for tcp overhead and math laziness) = 10; 7,000,000 / 10 = 700,000 bytes; 700,000 / 1000 = 700 kilobytes = 700KB/sec

Movies aren't 15gb; look at a "fan encoding" (I'm being generous) and you'll see that movies are about 800mb. No, it's not absolute top quality but it's plenty "good enough". If someone can get a "good enough" movie on demand, without getting up out of the couch, they are going to take it. You can encode in HD, with the same drop in quality (but still more pixels) and it's only one or two gigs.

Netflicks is another good option, however that requires foresight and as we all know Americans are impulse buyers.

[stray]

Dude. Those 800mb rips are lower resolution versions of dvds (which are low res 480p themselves). Hell no it isn't top quality. And if it isn't, I don't see the point in talking about it in an hd-dvd vs blu-ray thread. Top quality is the theme. Anything else is practically a different product altogether (if you want to call fan rips "product" that is), not serving the same market at all.

Thanks for clarifying the bit/byte thing though.

[stray]

Oops.. Hopefully I didn't come off as too much of an asshole there..

I just want to clarify. By different market, I basically mean people with hdtv's -- who actually want to take advantage of the capabilities of their tv's. What's the point of having them if they were gonna settle for 800mb dvd rips in the first place?

Some kid sitting in fronting his computer, watching stuff he downloaded from limewire isn't really the same crowd.

[Venkman]

I'd like to reiterate what I said on page one about content ownership. That's changing. Why would I buy multi TB drive to store movies when I can just stream them on demand? Sure you could then take it with ya, but then you're limited by the device anyway.

Lots of people will have home theater eventually, but I'm personally convinced their movies will largely stream in, for the same reason their TV shows do and will. Retailers love distributed media, and we'll get a few more years out of that here. Then that'll be exported to other countries as we continue going digital.

It's important to consider today's tech limitations. But for the above I'm going by expansion of FiOS and WiMax. Cable was a great answer to dialup, but there are pretty hard limits. At the same time, it will be consumer habitthat drives where the tech goes, and for most, even on normal size HDTVs, DVDs are fine.

This next format war felt rushed by the wrong motivations and understanding of what was really important.

[bhodi]

I've watched Heroes and Stargate Atlantis HDTV rips, each episode is about 350mb for ~40 minutes of run time. They look great on my HDTV, and are directly from HD source.

Remember that half the people who own a HDTV can't tell the difference between a standard definition and a hi-def broadcast. The fidelity is PLENTY for your average user and I think they are on par if not better looking than 480p.

Add to the fact that you can watch any show *instantly* and you've got quite a market base. Hell, pay-per-view did VERY well, and it was a single movie! This is the exact same base market with a superior product. Pay-per-view was a great first glimpse of where the technology is going.

[Polysorbate80]

Remember that half the people who own a HDTV can't tell the difference between a standard definition and a hi-def broadcast. The fidelity is PLENTY for your average user and I think they are on par if not better looking than 480p.

I think that's a half-truth.  I believe a lot of people *could* tell the difference, but aren't aware of what HD is or what they're looking at on their TV.  To many, as long as the picture fills up the screen of their HDTV then it must be HD, right?

My wife is a fairly typical unsophisticated viewer.  By that, I don't mean her choices are simple (although she does watch American Idol), I mean she's not technologically literate.  She wanted to watch "Lost" the other night, and automatically tuned in channel 4.  I took the remote, and switched it to 704, where the HD version was.  Her reaction was "Oh....wow!"  She forgets that the standard channels don't magically become HD.

Regarding 800mb (or 1-2gb) rips, sure, you can *watch* it, but that ain't my definition of "good" video.  Still scenes might just look fuzzy, but the moment you get action on the screen the picture's got to macroblock all to hell.

[Venkman]

I agree with Poly on the viewing thing. There is as much a jump in quality from SD to HD for even standard crap like The View and some dramedies as there was from VHS to DVD. The challenge is the price point. Nobody just buys a Bluray players and connects it to their CRT. This is either a medium (TV, Bluray) or big (TV, Bluray, HD cable) investment, and then that HD cable portion is limited by the nuts who consider an "HD lineup" to be some of the networks (how the crap do I still not have freakin' NBC in HD?!). At least with DVDs, you could see the improvement on the set you already had.

[bhodi]

Well, look at it as a case of convergence then. Bandwidth and storage space keep going up, and we're almost at a point where we can stream normal-def DVDs with very minimal loss in quality. Yes, media fidelity continues to go up, and streaming will likely be one step behind. Add some compression into the mix and it becomes very, very possible even with the bandwidth we have today. Look at things like multicast and other things that IPv6 enables, and that solves a lot of your 'peak/popular hits' bandwidth problem as well. (I know there's multicast with IPv4, but it's not as flexible and not all that workable for this)

That doesn't mean that it won't be widely available, because the general public is also (at least) one step behind as well.

It's not a product that would be marketed to HD users, it's a product that's marketed to people who hit the "pay-per-view" button on their remote to watch a movie in the evenings with the wife and kids.