backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 152 comment(s) - last by ViperROhb34.. on Aug 28 at 3:52 PM

"Transformers 2" is still a go with Michael Bay at the helm despite Paramount's $150 million USD HD DVD deal
There's plenty of cash to go around in the HD wars

The decision by Paramount and DreamWorks to go HD DVD exclusive set off an aftershock when most people thought that the high definition war was starting to favor Blu-ray.

The news was so profound that it caused director Michael Bay to go ballistic with a post to his official website. "I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks," exclaimed Bay. Bay even threatened not to direct "Transformers 2" after learning of the HD DVD exclusive deal.

Bay later had a change of heart and said that he took one too many sips of Kool-Aid from the Blu-ray camp. "Nothing good ever comes out of early am posts mind you - I over reacted," said Bay. "I heard where Paramount is coming from and the future of HD and players that will be close to the $200 mark which is the magic number. I like what I heard."

To see Bay go from raging anger over the decision to lockout Blu-ray to reaching an epiphany to going full-bore with HD DVD and discarding his threat to leave “Transformers 2” shows that there is more than enough Kool-Aid to go around on both sides of the aisle.

When it comes to the movie industry, dollars and cents are everything. The HD DVD exclusive deal made with Paramount and DreamWorks was valued at $150 million USD according to The New York Times.

According to two Viacom executives who wish to remain anonymous, the payout will come in the form of cash and promotional guarantees. Despite rumors to the contrary circling the Internet, Microsoft claims that it played no part in the $150 million USD payout.

"We provided no financial incentives to Paramount or DreamWorks whatsoever," said Microsoft consumer media technology group head Amir Majidimehr.

Supporters from the Blu-ray camp were quick to dismiss the deal. "This seems like a move of desperation," said Andy Parsons of the Blu-ray Disc Association, while Disney Home Entertainment President Bob Chapek simply said "This is not in the best interest of consumers."

HD DVD may have won this latest round in the high definition wars, but unfortunately for consumers, it looks like we're all in for a long fight.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I laugh when I read all of this
By jrb531 on 8/22/2007 10:58:57 AM , Rating: 4
While I enjoy my $9.95 DVD's that I upconvert to HD.

I admit that this is not "true" HD but who cares?

The jump from VHS to DVD was "huge" - the jump from a "good" mastered DVD to HD is no so huge.

Some day I may get HD DVD but not until the players cost under $100 and the media is under the $15 mark like most DVD's.

So they can war all they want and I (and I suspect most others) will be happy to keep playing and renting quality plain old DVD's.

Remember that the overwhelming majority of people just want to watch a movie or recordings of old TV shows and paying extra for high resolution, comentaries or other extras are wasted on them.

For movies that I just "have" to see at the best quality... well I go to the show to see those :)

So yes someday I'll move over to HD DVD but it will not be for a long long time.

-JB

P.S. Blu-Ray, to me, is no different that beta was. Sony trying to ram their format over others so they can get a windfall on the patent money. I bet that if everyone got together and waived "any" money to be gained by whoever owns the patents in each camp... well then we could have one format. This is all about money and if not for patents and who will get a few pennies for every HD DVD sold we would not be in this boat.

And you all thought this had anything to do with picking the best format for the consumer ROTFL!




RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By michal1980 on 8/22/2007 11:06:55 AM , Rating: 5
How is hd-dvd and toshiba any different then sony and blu-ray?
all it is:
company A Forcing their format.
company B Forcing thier format.

Any one that does not see this is very short sighted.

Of all the formats sony tried to release they tried to do everything different this time. Lots of studio support, lots of manufacture support. Lots of 3rd party support.

Thosbia just did one thing. They went cheap.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2007 11:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
> "How is hd-dvd and toshiba any different then sony and blu-ray?"

While you have something of a point, you have to remember that the DVD Group chose HD-DVD as the successor format. Upset over the decision, Sony and a few other companies left to promulgate Blu Ray instead. Toshiba and the other HD-DVD supporters are the ones who stayed.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By michal1980 on 8/22/2007 11:47:05 AM , Rating: 1
dont twist facts, Most companies left the Group. Toshiba was one of the few that remained.

If theres a company that did not want to work with others its toshiba. There would have been no war if they went blu-ray, and if they went blu-ray i'm sure they'd have a cut of the money as well. But they wanted the whole thing.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/22/2007 12:02:43 PM , Rating: 5
I would trust Toshiba over Sony any day of the week given Sony's track record.


By ViperROhb34 on 8/28/2007 3:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
I agree !

And to the original poster who said -

"How is hd-dvd and toshiba any different then sony and blu-ray?
all it is:
company A Forcing their format.
company B Forcing thier format.

Any one that does not see this is very short sighted."

And you're not factoring in that alot of people See that SONY also pushed this down our throats in PS3 .. they couldve had Bluray as an add-on and PS3 would've flown off shelves at a chaper price without forcing a format on us !

Last time I checked Toshiba wasn't making a gaming console. MS had the option to use either format.. they still have the option to use Bluray if the other would fail.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2007 12:05:09 PM , Rating: 4
If "most" companies in the DVD Forum had supported Blu Ray, they wouldn't have needed to leave to found a new group-- they simply would have voted it the new standard.

The true story is that Sony pushed BD over HD-DVD for two reasons. One, as an owner of several film studios, they felt its region-locked discs and additional content protection mechanisms were an advantage over HD-DVDs non-locked discs and less intrusive AACS. Two, they felt BD-Java and the greater storage capacity dovetailed better with their interests in the computing sector.

Had Sony managed to convince a majority of the DVD Forum, there would have been no format war. Instead, they drummed up enough disgruntled support to found a wholly new group.


By FITCamaro on 8/22/2007 12:37:26 PM , Rating: 3
But the untrue story is far more saucy. Full of deception and betrayal. If only I could do the voice the movie commercial guy has.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By omnicronx on 8/22/2007 12:42:54 PM , Rating: 1
3. History likes to repeat itself and sony likes to go against the flow.

VHS vs BETA -- lost that battle even though it was superior

toshiba DVD vs Sony next gen format -- sony lost that battle and were forced to incorporate their technology into the dvd format. And lost a big piece of the pie in royalties received.

HD-DVD vs BD-- superior technology, but with a higher manufacturing costs will history repeat itself?

Sony wants their format to reign supreme without compromise, always has always will. Until they are ready to compromise they will never win outright. This of course leaves the consumer with two formats, thanks sony!


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By FITCamaro on 8/22/2007 12:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot the flash memory route. In a world that already had 2-3 formats, they created yet another one that they still price over the cost of other formats. And since their devices only support their format, you get to pay that higher price.


By omnicronx on 8/22/2007 1:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
tell me about it <--PSP owner..
Ebayed it and still paid 70 bucks for a 4 gig card a while back. If it were SD i could have got one for 20 bucks.
I still don't know what the adapter converts too haha.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By mdogs444 on 8/22/2007 1:26:49 PM , Rating: 5
You both forgot "Minidisc". The minidisc was great - same quality sound as CD, but small and scratch proof. What happened? Sony wanted it all for themselves - so the only artist you could buy on minidisc was signed with sony recording studios, and only sony players were available for the longest time. They dropped the ball on

Betamax
Next Gen Video - DVD Competitor
Minidisc
Memory Stick
....soon to be BD-DVD? Who knows.

But what i do know is they are much better at making high quality parts for things that already exist - standard dvd players, they were the kind of the DiscMan back in the day too. The Sony Walkman - great!


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By VIAN on 8/22/2007 2:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
MDs were awesome.

That was my first MP3 player. You could put a crap load of songs, at the time, on both sides of the disc. But Sony F'd that up very easily.

First, the controls on my MD player went started to malfunction within a year, at least on mine. The software that came with player sucked mighty ass. It had many bugs, and was bloated, and used up resources, wasn't easy to use... etc. And IIRC, it only allow you to use Sony's compression format which wasn't as easy to understand as MP3.

The implementation may have sucked, but the medium is still a great idea. A CD in a slim protective case. It is very futuristic as well. You can still see MDs alive today in the form of UMDs, although UMDs have substantially more space, while at the same time being smaller, the casing isn't as robust as MDs and they can break much easier.

Another great idea gone to crap.


By enlil242 on 8/22/2007 4:58:37 PM , Rating: 3
Man, I bought into the Betamax hype only to be srewed out of my $400 in paper route funds... Thanks Sony.

Then I was screwed out of my Many, Many more dollars in Mini Disc purchases only to have a lot of my Mini Discs become unreadable, and now obsolete. Thanks Sony...

Then the whole Memory Stick farce. Can't use any of those in my new Canon DSLR... Thanks Sony.

So now I say: No Thanks Sony. I hope BluRay finds its way to the obsolete bin as well. In the meantime, I'll support HD-DVD ... although I bet Video On Demand / Subscription Downloading will be the true winners in the long run. Who knows...


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By erikejw on 8/22/2007 5:17:08 PM , Rating: 2
Aren't they part of DVD-Audio(most likely) or SACD.
A superior format to CD but never got anywhere.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By Oregonian2 on 8/22/2007 1:39:41 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
VHS vs BETA -- lost that battle even though it was superior


Not true. Had a higher video quality when it was playing, but as a VCR system Beta was inferior in a big way. It originally could not record a movie unattended (and even attended it would have been a pain with a gap in the middle). Beta was one hour per tape. Not long enough to record a movie off of TV -- a very major reason for buying one. VHS was two-hours which was long enough the vast majority of the time (esp. on TV "versions"). Sony reportedly did not want to compromise it's video quality so that it could record a movie onto a tape. That is what killed them. They eventually was forced to have longer modes by the market, but by then it was too late and VHS had become much more popular (Sony did learn and is using PS3 to try and gain this early leverage!). Also rental movies were one tape for VHS and two for Beta. Also somewhat of an inconvenience for Beta users. So yes, Beta had better video quality, but was an inferior VCR system (in the early days).


By omnicronx on 8/22/2007 2:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
heh, when sound quality and video quality is better, i would say the format is superior regardless of how much space it had. While i agree with you the tape times made a difference, by the time VHS/BETA became popular VHS tapes had long play which enabled 4 hours of recording, while BETA had 2, but at superior quality.

This wasnt even the backbreaker though, JVC made the decision to essentially make VHS an open standard, therefor anyone could create and market the VHS player for a fraction of the price that sony demanded in fees. Also it was said that (kind of like today) sony would not allow pornographic material on their media.

In the end, it was probably a mix of 4 or 5 things that resulted in the failure of betamax not just the recording size. Its just too bad sony keeps making the same mistakes.


By mushi799 on 8/22/2007 10:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
beta wasn't superior, in quality yes? but practicality? No.

Beta was limited to one hour recording when it first arrived. That killed it literally. VHS 2+ hrs, no contest.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By Felofasofa on 8/23/2007 8:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
VHS vs BETA -- lost that battle even though it was superior


Beta didn't die, and is still with us today. Sony just developed it into Broadcast formats such Betacam, then Betacam SP and then Digital Betacam, Betacam Sx etc, which eventually wiped out 1inch tape and led to the demise of that great American Company "Ampex" although still around today, it's a shadow of what they used to be in Broadcast Television.


By Oregonian2 on 8/24/2007 1:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
Sony VHS machines used their Beta transport mechanisms too.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By walk2k on 8/22/2007 2:41:08 PM , Rating: 3
Wow completely and totally wrong. It's like you wrote the exact opposite of the truth.

Get your facts straight please.

I suggest you start here:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/soapbox/soa...

quote:
Back when it was time to negotiate the details of the DVD format between all the industry players, there were also two competing candidate formats. But Philips and Sony caved and abandoned their MultiMedia Compact Disc, and agreed to go along with Toshiba's SuperDensity Disc. The result was DVD - a single unified format from which we've all benefitted. What was the result of that? Toshiba made millions off the patents for the DVD disc structure, which Sony lost out on. At an industry conference last year, Warren Lieberfarb revealed during a panel that, right after standard DVD launched, Sony approached him about the need to start working on the high-def version (understandable given that HDTV broadcasting was already taking off in Japan and Europe), but the DVD Forum felt it was too early and wasn't interested. So Sony started working on their own high-def format. It's hard for us to fault Sony for not wanting to lose out on such massive royalty profits a second time. Certainly, Toshiba had no interest in sharing some of those royalty fees during the attempts to negotiate a single high-def standard. In any case, as a longtime manufacturer of video equipment, at least Sony has a legitimate reason to be in the game.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By theapparition on 8/22/2007 3:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
I find absolutely nothing in your post that contradicts the OP. Only a slight history lesson.

Fact is, the DVD Group, comprised of hundreds of members, chose Toshiba's HD Solution over Sony's. Sony (still a member) didn't like that decision and started their own group. Everything the OP stated was correct.

I'm not going to debate the merits of why it was, or who is right because it's pointless. But it is like an election, where you don't like the results, so you start your own government and try to outlast the other regime.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By omnicronx on 8/22/2007 3:27:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yay your both wrong!

Sure sony started developing BD first but they were a bunch of idiots and decided not to propose the format to the dvd forum and start their BDA assiciation with many of the same manufacturers in the DVD forum supporting the format.

So sure HD-DVD was chosen by the dvdgroup as the next generation format. But it was really a one man race, since sony never submitted bd for consideration, technically they were never rejected or approved.

Best part is 6 or 7 out of the 10 original (the big players) of the DVD forum now support Blueray as the format of choice. Sony was just too stupid too submit BD for approval.

So if sony fails, once again they have nobody to blame but themselves.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By jrb531 on 8/22/2007 3:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sony figuered that if they put a Blu-Ray in every PS3 that they would win just by the 10's of millions of PS3's that they "thought" would have been sold by now.

This entire PS3 mess is not only screwing up their gaming division but their hopes for what they thought would be an easy Blu-Ray win.

Sony can be pretty arrogant. They are always right and everyone else wrong. They are getting a rep like Microsoft has as being a big bully.

Everything they do seems to buck a standard.

Those stupid memory sticks serve no reason other than to be "not" SD.

-JB


By afkrotch on 8/22/2007 9:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
Sony and such are still part of the DVD Forum. That's simply cause of DVDs. They are pushing their own Blu-ray through the Blu-ray Disc Association.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By jrb531 on 8/22/2007 11:25:01 AM , Rating: 2
I was not saying that either side was the "good" guy.

If both sides a year ago waived all licensing fees then we would have one format.

I just find it funny that people are taking sides in this because this is nothing but big business fighting over who will get the right to make more $$$ off of us.

Besides I learned when DVD came out that the 1st and 2nd gen players would be crap compared to the ones made later. My $350 (and I was glad to pay only $350 at the time) 1st gen DVD player performs worse than a $30 player does today.

The demand for a random access format with good quality was "huge" when DVD came out. It was so much better than VHS Tape that anyone could see in a second why we needed DVD and it still took a long long time for change.

Today the need for HD (or Blu-Ray) is not so apparent. I am going to guess that most people (as in 51%+) see no reason to move to somethign other than DVD.

Now the studios see this as a cash cow. Yet another chance to get us to re-buy all our old favs.

You want people to buy the new tech? Simple

$100 players that play both DVD and the new format
$15 and under movies.

Even if you sold the players for $100 as long as the new format movies cost $5 or $10 (more?) than standard DVD then I'm not interested.

Funny thing is that buying movies appeals to the collectors in most of us. Most people do not watch these things over and over to justify even buying DVD when they could rent them online for about $1 a movie.

So the price point is a very sensitive issue. I never forgot the entire CD Music scam in which it cost $4 to make a cassette tape and $2 to make a CD yet the tape cost $8 and the CD $15

They told us in the beginning that it was all about the CD costing them more to make then when it became cheaper to make a CD they told us it was because of the higher quality of a CD... eventually they just admitted that they charged whatever the market would bear (IE they charged whatever they could get away with) which is what all businesses do but I learned then as I know now that if HD costs more than DVD it's only because they think they can convince me and you that the new recording is somehow worth double the price for something we might only watch once or at best a few times before it gets put on the collectors shelf.

-JB


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2007 11:48:26 AM , Rating: 3
> "eventually they just admitted that they charged whatever the market would bear (IE they charged whatever they could get away with)"

When you sell your house, your car, or (just guessing here) your collection of rare Guatemalan bednobs-- don't you follow the same rule? You base the price on what you think you can get? Take a gander at Ebay; you don't see people asking for what *they* paid for those items. You see millions of people asking the public to bid, so they get the highest possible price the market can bear.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By jrb531 on 8/22/2007 11:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
I agree but "I" will not pay one penny more for an HD version over the regulat version.

I wonder how many other people feel the same as I?

-JB


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 12:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
Not very many, I would guess. Hi-def movies probably add a little value relative to DVD, but I would expect that difference to narrow as time passes and hi-def movies become more popular. Right now, they are the latest and greatest new thing, and so they will command a bit of a price premium, which most people will pay.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2007 12:08:54 PM , Rating: 2
For me, it depends on the film. I'd pay $100 if I had to for a HD cut of a film like Bladerunner. For your average drama or comedy, I'd be hard-pressed to pay more than an extra dollar or two.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By codeThug on 8/22/2007 1:35:41 PM , Rating: 5
A $100 dollars for Bladerunner HD eh?

Would you be willing to take the Voight-Kampff test on that one?

;)


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2007 1:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
No, but I think your post deserves a six :)


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/22/2007 4:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By xphile on 8/25/2007 1:28:12 AM , Rating: 2
This seems like it must surely be an error, either that or there is some serious format campaigning going on, but the Blu-Ray 5 disc version is on Amazon at $27.95. Quite a price difference.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UBMWG4/ref=am...


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By xphile on 8/25/2007 1:36:05 AM , Rating: 2
My mistake - you can get the HD DVD 5 disc version for $27.95 too - the other $42 is for the Ultimate Edition case and a few other goodies. Got to say 30 bucks isnt bad for a 5 disc high def set either way.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By jrb531 on 8/22/2007 12:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
Look at how long it took for people to move from VHS to DVD. There was a huge huge reason to make the jump and it still took a long time.

In fact people would still be using VHS if the tapes were still in stores and DVD still cost $25+ as well as the DVD players costing $300+

It was not until the stores dropped VHS and DVD players dropped under $100 as well as the movies dropped under $20 that the general public made the move.

So you can "force" the issue by simple stopping sales of regular DVD's :)

-JB


By theapparition on 8/22/2007 2:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was not until the stores dropped VHS and DVD players dropped under $100 as well as the movies dropped under $20 that the general public made the move.

You have cause-effect backwards. Retailers stopped stocking VHS because it wasn't selling, period. Do you really believe they were making a decision in the format war? If 70% of sales came from VHS, and 30% from DVD, are you certain they would drop stock. No, the real reason is the market changed, VHS lost it's appeal, and so they changed with it.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By wallijonn on 8/22/2007 3:19:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
you can "force" the issue by simpl[y] stopping sales of regular DVD's


I heard a rumour that Spiderman3 will be BR only, no regular DVD. Would that be a smart move on the part of Sony? (when BR is only 1% of all DVD sales).


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By jrb531 on 8/22/2007 3:27:39 PM , Rating: 1
That POS movie? I had a hard time staying awake!

LOL

-JB


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By omnicronx on 8/22/2007 11:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
Do you know how long it took for quality DVD players to hit the 100$ mark? Let alone do people understand the need for much more powerful players. They are essentially cheap computers, being 50-100 times more powerful than the original dvd units.

Personally as soon as it hits the $200 mark I am there. 100 dollars is no reason to 'wait'. I would be more concerned with the movies themselves costing more money than the original investment of the player. Hell i am more worried about having a dual format player, than i am for the price of the player.
If $100 means that much to you, then you shouldn't be buying an HD player at all, because obviously you don't think its necessary.

Weird part is, you will probably spend hundreds more adding to your dvd collection, all in the name of waiting for a hundred dollar player.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By jrb531 on 8/22/2007 12:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
$100 is it. I have 6 DVD players in my home and if I have to replace them all then I'm not paying more than $100 each.

I'm also not going to regulate viewing the new format in only one room.

Yes it took a long time for them to reach $100 but then again I have little reason to switch from cheap and "good enough" DVD right now.

VHS really sucked. The quality was crap, I hated rewinding the tapes, cleaning the darn players all the time and not being able to find scenes easy.

DVD does everything the new formats do but at slightly less visual quality.

So wait I will and I suspect many others feel the same.

-JB


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/22/2007 12:06:59 PM , Rating: 4
Depends on the sizes of TV's. If I had a smaller TV I would be ok with it, but anything larger than about 40" and there is a considerable difference between Upscaled DVD's and native high def.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By Hoser McMoose on 8/22/2007 1:27:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are essentially cheap computers, being 50-100 times more powerful than the original dvd units.

The first DVD units came out about 12 years ago. Going by standard "Moore's Law" doubling an equivalent number of dollars today should buy you about 100 times as much processing power. Just look at what the fastest PC chip you could buy in 1995 was (Pentium 133) vs. today (Core 2 Extreme, 3.0GHz quad-core). If you compared these two on something like Spec FP_rate you find about a 100-fold difference in performance.

Point being, there's no reason to think that current HD-DVD or Blu-Ray players should be any more expensive then early DVD units. They're much more complicated but all the technology has evolved considerably over the past decade.


By omnicronx on 8/22/2007 1:41:09 PM , Rating: 2
Although i see where you are coming from, doesnt moore's law only have to do with cost of them minimum components? and has nothing to do with how fast say a cpu will scale? Just consider this, we hit the 3ghz barrier 3 or 4 years ago, that was then dropped back to 2.6 with the newest version of processors and brought back to 3ghz.

consider this quote from wiki:
quote:
Moore's law is not about just the density of transistors that can be achieved, but about the density of transistors at which the cost per transistor is the lowest[1]. As more transistors are made on a chip the cost to make each transistor reduces but the chance that the chip will not work due to a defect rises.
So yes the theoretical transistor count should have rison 100 fold, but the price will not neccessarily follow suit, just look at the blue laser diode from the BD player, moore's law does not take into account the efficiency in which the part is made. If only 40% of the diodes are usable, the cost the produce them greatly increases.


By wallijonn on 8/22/2007 3:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I learned then as I know now that if HD costs more than DVD it's only because they think they can convince me and you that the new recording is somehow worth double the price for something we might only watch once or at best a few times before it gets put on the collectors shelf.


Super-Bit DVDs had excellent quality. It was just the movie and the audio. When they start putting in trailers and director commentaries, then space starts to get eaten up. Enter the higher capacity of HD... Chances are that a HD movie, sans trailers & commercials and director, actor and production personnel extras will fit very neatly on 15GB - 25GB discs, even with HD-Dolby (True-Dolby).


By ViperROhb34 on 8/28/2007 3:48:38 PM , Rating: 2
How is hd-dvd and toshiba any different then sony and blu-ray?
all it is:
company A Forcing their format.
company B Forcing thier format.

Any one that does not see this is very short sighted.

And you're not factoring in that alot of people See that SONY also pushed this down our throats in PS3 .. they couldve had Bluray as an add-on and PS3 would've flown off shelves at a chaper price without forcing a format on us !

Last time I checked Toshiba wasn't making a gaming console. MS had the option to use either format.. they still have the option to use Bluray if the other would fail.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By SlyNine on 8/22/2007 12:06:03 PM , Rating: 3
The jump from VHS to DVD was "huge" - the jump from a "good" mastered DVD to HD is no so huge.

while the adverage person may not agree to me the difference is just as big.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By abhaxus on 8/23/2007 12:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
The mere fact that you can compare an upscaled DVD to actual HD-DVD or BD quality is ludicrous. There is no comparison. The fact that you are whining about $250 HD-DVD players makes me think it very unlikely that you are not an owner of a decent quality upscaling DVD player, and thus are basically watching a macro-blocked and overly edge enhanced nightmare of jaggies and motion artifacts. Nevermind that an HD-A2 would most likely do a better job upscaling your current movies while getting your foot in the door on new ones.


RE: I laugh when I read all of this
By P4blo on 8/24/2007 10:11:57 AM , Rating: 2
Heh, who cares about HD? I dont know what you're watching your movies on but if it was a large 40"+ flat panel or a projector (like I use) then you'd care! I wouldn't go back to standard def if you paid me. Sky HD in the UK offers about 12 HD channels now and I groan if I have to watch anything else.

With respect, you're obviously a pikey. And so are all the people that rated you up :OP


Fox deal?
By Ramshambo on 8/22/2007 10:50:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bay even threatened not to direct "Transformers 2" after learning of the HD DVD exclusive deal.


Oh shucks...

Anyway, I thought I read somewhere that BlueRay got an exclusive deal with FOX in reaction to this. Anybody know if thats true?




RE: Fox deal?
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 10:53:39 AM , Rating: 3
Who cares, Michael Bay proved he is an idiot, and the movie studios could find any number of other talented directors to do a sequel.


RE: Fox deal?
By Ramshambo on 8/22/2007 10:57:17 AM , Rating: 2
lol, my point exactly.


RE: Fox deal?
By mdogs444 on 8/22/2007 10:58:14 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Everyone looks at Bay as the genius behind the movie.......but how about the CGI guys? Bay didnt write the script, and he didnt do the CGI.


RE: Fox deal?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/22/2007 11:35:36 AM , Rating: 3
The CGI was courtesy of the one and only Industrial Light & Magic, but that was practically a given. Nobody can do special effects like ILM, if you want the best, they are second to none.


RE: Fox deal?
By theapparition on 8/22/2007 3:10:25 PM , Rating: 3
I've always been a big fan of ILM, but sadly, other effects houses have caught up and even surpassed them, like Weta Digital.


RE: Fox deal?
By probedb on 8/22/2007 11:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
Both Fox and MGM are BR only. Note the last comments in Paramounts statement excluded all Spielberg's films from being exclusive, Close Encounters is BR only.

IMO before this announcement it only mattered that Universal were HD-DVD only. If Universal had gone neutral then there would have been no war, all content would have been available on BR and only some on HD-DVD. Basically if you wanted a movie on hidef you'd have gone BR. Now we really do have a format war and this may go the way of DVD-A/SACD or DVD+R/DVD-R I guess. Most recorders are multi-format now as none of them won but DVD-A/SACD isn't used by the vast majority of people so it's a failure really.

Microsoft don't want either to win, they want to sell movies through xbox live marketplace so it's in their interests to prolong a format war so in the end they win and no-one else. In my opinion anyways ;)


RE: Fox deal?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/22/2007 12:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft would prefer HD DVD to win.

Microsoft provided the .net framework that is used to write the interface and menus present on HD DVD movies.

Sony decided to use a java based framework to write the interface and menus present on Blu-Ray titles.

Microsoft does not like java. I can't say I blame them, I hate java as well. But thats another matter entirely.


RE: Fox deal?
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 12:20:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft provided the .net framework that is used to write the interface and menus present on HD DVD movies.

I don't believe that is correct - HD-DVD uses XML, HTML, CSS, and JavaScript (ECMAScript). The standard doesn't require .NET AFAIK.

Of course, you could use .NET to render the content, but you could also use C/C++ or even Java for that matter.

But BD does require Java - you're right about that.


RE: Fox deal?
By FITCamaro on 8/22/2007 12:42:41 PM , Rating: 2
He's right that Microsoft designed the framework.

The .NET part you're right on.


RE: Fox deal?
By omnicronx on 8/22/2007 12:46:19 PM , Rating: 3
why do you hate java? whats wrong with a multi platform OO language? java can pretty much do what any other language can achieve, the same can not be said the other way around.


RE: Fox deal?
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 12:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
He probably tried to do a high-quality, performant GUI in Java. Being cross-platform is nice, but having your app perform slowly and look sub-standard on every platform is what sucks.

If you use Java for other things, it's probably tolerable, but I very much prefer the C# language, the .NET runtime, and Visual Studio as a high-productivity development environment. I've used both Java and .NET enough to recognize the strong advantage Microsoft has when targeting Windows.

But of course, if you have to do cross-platform, then Java is probably still your best bet.


RE: Fox deal?
By omnicronx on 8/22/2007 1:10:28 PM , Rating: 1
Java is only slow if you program badly, I am currently working on a huge project making a 'high-quality performant GUI' using completely java. If you write sloppy inefficient code, its just not going to perform well, if you design your program correctly and efficiently it should. It's just sad Java isn't natively supported by windows, but you can only blame Microsoft for that =P

And what do you think C# is, its essentially Microsofts version of Java because they knew how much c++ was lacking. I can go from Java to C# and pick it up pretty damn quick.

And by crossplatform i do not just mean windows/nix/mac, java works great on just about anything, whether it be your telephone, or pretty much any electronic device you can think of.


RE: Fox deal?
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 1:45:08 PM , Rating: 2
I would guess that you're right, that creating a high-quality, performant GUI in Java would be a huge project. And my point is that making GUIs with those characteristics are easy with WinForms (.NET). :o)

The real problem is that there is a tension between performance and portability. Simply, native OS and third-party components targeting only Windows can take lots of optimizations that are not available on other platforms. Java, at least in the case of JFC/Swing, contains its own cross-platform code that implements the entire control. This code and the JIT compiler is not mature enough to take into account all of the possible optimizations available in the Windows environment.

So, while I agree that user code can mess up the GUI on any platform, Java GUI writers start out "in the hole" compared to WinForms.


RE: Fox deal?
By mars777 on 8/24/2007 9:25:43 AM , Rating: 1
What does winforms have to do with next gen DVDs?
Wanna put windows in players? Yes off course. 50$ more for every player would be good ..... to microsoft :==)


RE: Fox deal?
By Rampage on 8/25/2007 3:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
.Net is multiplatform to.
Java is what I would consider a legacy language, nothing wrong with it. But it is legacy compared to the .Net platform.

Yeah MS stole it, but they did a good job refining and packaging what Sun came up with.
It doesn't bother me, because I have no horse in the race like pubescent teens out there who who hate MS.

Just give me what works best and I'll use it.
Getting involved with corporate politics (Sun vs. MS, or the world vs. MS) is silly and pointless.

We're all just little mooks, give in to the best product (whatever that may be) and maintain maximum productivity.


RE: Fox deal?
By omnicronx on 8/22/2007 1:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
what i will give you is that java IDE's are much slower than the vs.net ide. But at the same time many IDE's support many more features (eclipse).


RE: Fox deal?
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 1:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I agree - and Java IDEs are slow because they are written in Java. Even though the developers have gone to extraordinary lengths to make them look good and performant (esp. in the case of Eclipse), they are still lacking.


RE: Fox deal?
By aos007 on 8/22/2007 1:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
That was long time ago. The performance has improved in leaps and bounds in every version. I was reading an article a few weeks ago about multithreading improvements and 1.6 was over twice as fast as first revision of 1.5, for example. Java is not slow today. And you have lot of alternatives to nasty and difficult parts such as EJB's (say Spring, Hibernate etc.). If you're working in IT you know that a few years can make a huge difference (and Java had over 10). Besides, ease and speed of development are far more important in today IT than the performance of the software (as long as it's sufficient).

P.S. my company is also doing very complex GUI's in Java (with DB back end) and I can attest that while 1.4 felt somewhat sluggish (but perfectly useable), with 1.5 it has reached the point where it's not an issue any longer (and 1.5 is several years old). However most software nowdays uses web front ends anyway.


RE: Fox deal?
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 2:23:28 PM , Rating: 2
Not that long ago, for example, 1.6 was released just this year. In addition, Java has benefitted from significanly faster computers as well, which tend to mask the design tradeoff. Under the hood, however, the design is still the same, and the tradeoff is still present.

Maybe it's now "good enough," to compare Java to native GUIs, but native GUIs are starting to make the next step and using this additional power available in today's computers towards greater inteactivity, animation, look-and-feel, etc. (e.g., Vista). Java will still be behind going forward, by design.

Also, I disagree that "most software uses web front ends anyway." Web front ends suffer from poor interactivity and poor utilication of local computer resources. There are tons of applications that have these requirements that are staying local to the desktop.


RE: Fox deal?
By aos007 on 8/22/2007 3:14:41 PM , Rating: 2
1.5, where many big improvements were made to both language and performance, was released what can be considered "ages ago" in IT terms, however. Just around that time ditching the EJB's became pervasive as well, from what I gather. Java - in terms of language, development tools, architectural frameworks and performance - is a far cry from what it used to be even 5 years ago. Just this week I've been coding with generics from 1.5 for the first time, and I feel I'm well behind the times.

I see where you're coming from (and for sure Java benefited from faster machines), but wherever I worked applications needing native GUI were a minority. Fancy desktop animation features are even less in demand, not in the least because corporate desktops are years behind the cutting edge. In the end no language is perfect nor it fits all needs. In the business environment though, I have not found Java lacking. Except I can't find a good visual tool to build GUI, but I'm old school so I don't mind typing everything - plus for really complex stuff like I need now it's easier anyway.


RE: Fox deal?
By Rampage on 8/25/2007 3:55:30 PM , Rating: 2
You are missing the point though, .Net is superior online as well as offline..

it is true in the business world that web front-ends are far more popular, for many practical reasons. It's the only way to go for 90% of business work today.
Anything that needs to be "less clunky" or faster would probably be something that honestly needs optimized C++ coding anyway.

.Net for local and network is the way to go in 90% of cases in today's world, where RAD rules the roost.


RE: Fox deal?
By Flunk on 8/23/2007 10:35:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'm a computer programmer specializeing in managed code and I often program in both Java and .NET. I have not found any interface libraries equal to .NET Windows.Forms in performance. The libraries that ship with Java (swing and AWT) both perform abysmally especially with large graphics heavy applications. SWT (by IBM, Eclipse uses this for its interface) is much better because of it's ability to use native hooks but still not close to Windows.Forms.

But to compare .NET and Java is to overlook the most important aspects of the runtimes. Java is designed to be cross platform and portable while .NET is designed to replace C++ for programming Windows applications (and replace ASP). Mono is trying to change this but they have yet to produce a fully interoptable version of the framework.

.NET is not a useful standard for Blueray discs because of it's Microsoft centric nature. Java is the natural choice and in the future will really allow Video produces more license in the interactive content of the discs.


RE: Fox deal?
By wallijonn on 8/22/2007 3:13:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Both Fox and MGM are BR only.


Sony owns MGM, along with Columbia, Tri-Star, Mandolay, Screen Gems, 7-Arts, Sony Pictures, Orion, Samuel Goldwyn, Jim Hansen, Triumph, United Artists, Destination with probably a half dozen lesser studios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_film_studio

THat represents about 21% of all movie studios.

The other majors would be 20th Century Fox, Universal, Warner, Paramount and Disney.


Not in the best interest?
By peritusONE on 8/22/2007 10:45:36 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
while Disney Home Entertainment President Bob Chapek simple said "This is not in the best interest of consumers."

I guess I could be wrong on this, but isn't Disney firmly aligned with Blu-ray? Why would this guy then try to say that other companies aligning with the "competitor" isn't in the best interest of consumers? If I'm right on this, another classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.




RE: Not in the best interest?
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 10:51:21 AM , Rating: 4
That's right, because in their view, what's best for consumers is Blu-ray. Anything that chips away at that, or any competition for Blu-ray, is therefore not good for consumers. In other words, a totally BS self-serving comment on their part.


RE: Not in the best interest?
By Hawkido on 8/22/2007 11:09:57 AM , Rating: 3
Unless, of course, he is merely talking about the prolonged format war not being good for consumers. Which I whole heartedly agree with also.

I really don't care who wins, as I have purchased neither player, and won't until one format wins. This prolonged struggle increases the number of people who will be hurt once one format finally does win. A dual-format player will be more expensive (due to added hardware and licensing fees), even after ecomonies of scale, which will hurt consumers. The schism of formats hurts the adoption of HD tech as people don't know which way to lean. This whole BrewHaHA is creating more trouble than it is worth. All because Microsoft didn't want to pay royalties to someone else over Blu-Ray player software, but knew that it was important to have a HD media player integrated into the Next OS (Unlike DVD which requires a 3rd party software package to play DVD's on their current OS's).

I think one camp should suspend all royalty fees for 3 years, which will make more harware and publishers lean their way and help end the war.


RE: Not in the best interest?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2007 11:18:56 AM , Rating: 4
> "A dual-format player will be more expensive ...which will hurt consumers."

I disagree. I think dual-format players will save consumers money. The situation I see 5-7 years from now is every household with a dual-format player. Most movies will ship on (cheap) HD-DVD media, more than counteracting the tiny additional cost of the player. BD, however, will dominate for extremely long movies, series, and PC data needs.

This gives consumers much more flexibility than having a single format "win".


RE: Not in the best interest?
By ATC on 8/22/2007 11:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
You make a good point and two formats might well be the inevitable. But I still prefer one over two.

Merely the thought of having two formats confuses consumers and will drive many away from adopting either one.

But it just looks so unlikely that either one would win now. It looks like it will be a stalemate. But you never know; everyone, including myself, thought BD was on an unstoppable roll. And then one announcement seems to have taken the wind out of it.

Whether it's HD-DVD or BD that wins, I really hope just one wins and does so in the next 6-12 months, otherwise they're both in trouble.


RE: Not in the best interest?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2007 11:54:18 AM , Rating: 2
> "Merely the thought of having two formats confuses consumers and will drive many away from adopting either one"

True...until they start seeing players at their local Best Buy with big, friendly stickers on them saying "Guaranteed to Play All HD Formats!"

As near as I can estimate, the relatively minor differences between the two formats means dual-format players can eventually be manufactured with a ~5% price differential over a standard player. That doesn't include the royalty situation, will will probably sock another 20% on. Still, that means by the time you're seeing $100 players at Walmart, there will likely be dual-format versions right beside them for $125.


RE: Not in the best interest?
By TomZ on 8/22/2007 12:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
Good points, and I agree. It's been said before, but I think this is just like the DVD+RW vs. DVD-RW where in the end, we don't care which format we're using at a particular moment.

I would also suggest that the license fee is something that Sony will probably have to reduce in order for their format to remain competitive. BD is only going to not lose the format war if it is cost-competitive relative to HD-DVD. The license fee is pretty significant.


RE: Not in the best interest?
By ATC on 8/22/2007 2:07:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I think this is just like the DVD+RW vs. DVD-RW where in the end, we don't care which format we're using at a particular moment.

This begs the question; how can HD-DVD or BD survive without total market domination? They've both thrown in so much R&D, resources, money, time etc... into it that anything less than a total win is a huge loss.

Also, after it all cools down with dual-format for all, there would be no more incentives for studios to align with one format over the other. How will that change the dynamic? Will studios then scramble to align themselves with the cheaper-to-manufacture, at the time, format? Who knows, that might be BD, although chances are that will be HD-DVD.

I just cannot see them co-existing long term. IMO, there's going to be either one loser or two losers. I cannot imagine them both winning and therefore co-existing like DVD+/-.


RE: Not in the best interest?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2007 2:49:16 PM , Rating: 4
> "how can HD-DVD or BD survive without total market domination? They've both thrown in so much R&D, resources, money, time etc...I just cannot see them co-existing long term"

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. Those investments are sunk costs now. The money is already spent, and the format already exists. Neither format is going to fold up based on whether they ever regain those sunk dollars. The only thing that matters is current profitability-- does current income exceed current overhead?

One interesting twist is the (highly unsubstantiated) rumor that at least one studio is considering abandoning DVD-only releases entirely, in favor of the hybrid DVD/HD-DVD disc. The hybrid is apparently only slightly more expensive than a standard DVD, and allows them to cover two market segments with a single product.


RE: Not in the best interest?
By ATC on 8/22/2007 2:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only thing that matters is current profitability

Maybe I am looking at it the wrong way but, not unlike consoles, is that profit already factored into the equation to be the balancing act for the losses they've incurred (R&D, time etc...) and will continue to do so in the near future?

So if one format doesn't become the one and therefore not be able to make up for the losses, then why continue with it, even if it eventually turns a small profit in the distant future?


RE: Not in the best interest?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/22/2007 3:06:24 PM , Rating: 3
> "So if one format doesn't become the one and therefore not be able to make up for the losses, then why continue with it"

Because losing $500M is not as painful as losing $1B. Once you're already gambled and spent the up-front costs, you're going to get as much back out as you can. You'd obviously prefer to turn a hefty profit, but if you can turn a huge loss into a small loss, you're going to keep going as long as you can.

In any case, all this is moot. If either side thought they might lose, they wouldn't be investing huge new sums in advertising or marketing deals like this one with Paramount.


RE: Not in the best interest?
By ATC on 8/22/2007 4:52:29 PM , Rating: 2
True.

I guess it'll be an interesting next few months leading up to this critical holiday season. I just hope one format, be it HD-DVD or BD, blows the other out of the water so we consumers can get on with it and adopt.


RE: Not in the best interest?
By rsmech on 8/22/2007 11:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
If this format war wasn't going on where would the competition be for being first out with a $200 player. I think this has only made either format lower the price of existing players & shoot for lower prices in the future. If there was no competition you would be paying more for an exclusive.


RE: Not in the best interest?