backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 28 comment(s) - last by Yawgm0th.. on Mar 19 at 3:57 PM

The fall of HD DVD will cost Toshiba $986 million

Wars of all sorts are a costly matter. Countries engaged in war have to divert many of their resources away from usual spending towards the effort. While the companies behind the high-definition format war didn’t have as much at stake as traditional warfare, there are still heavy losses associated with losing.

Toshiba officially surrendered in the high-definition optical format war on February 19, 2008. As the only major hardware manufacturer of HD DVD players, Toshiba stood the most to gain if its format proved victorious, but ultimately lost out to the format backed by Sony, Panasonic, Samsung and others.

The losses incurred by the exit from the HD DVD business will cost Toshiba 100 billion yen ($986 million) on its yearly report, according to the Nikkei business weekly. Toshiba is also expected to post a 250 billion yen ($2.49 billion) loss, falling short of its business outlook.

The fall of HD DVD was a highly undesirable outcome for Toshiba, but the Japanese electronics maker said that it had to get out of the business to cut its losses. “One has to take calculated risks in business, but it's also important to switch gears immediately if you think your decision was wrong. We were doing this to win, and if we weren't going to win then we had to pull out, especially since consumers were already asking for a single standard,” said Toshiba president and CEO Atsutoshi Nishida in an interview.

Regarding the loss of HD DVD from the company portfolio, Nishida said, “It was just one avenue of growth. It was one of 45 strategic business units that we have. This just means we now have 44.”

Although the loss is significant, Toshiba is diversified well enough into other electronics businesses, such as televisions and chip production, to stay afloat. Rather than switching over to Blu-ray Disc, Toshiba said that it would continue to push its standard DVD upconversion technology.

“If you watch standard DVDs on our players, the images are of very high quality because they include an "upconverting" feature. And we're going to improve this even more, so that consumers won't be able to tell the difference from HD DVD images,” Nishida said. “The players would be much cheaper than Blu-ray players too. Next-generation DVD players are in a much weaker position than when standard DVD players were first introduced.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Huh?
By kondor999 on 3/17/2008 5:15:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
consumers won't be able to tell the difference from HD DVD images


Please. How is upconverting going to create information that wasn't there in the first place?

On my 60" Sony at least, the difference bewteen an upconverted DVD and it's HD (BR or HDDVD) counterpart is quite striking.




RE: Huh?
By ninjit on 3/17/2008 5:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
Another way to look at that statement is maybe HD-DVDs didn't contain any more information that a regular DVD in the 1st place...


RE: Huh?
By steven975 on 3/17/2008 5:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
That may be a fair assessment for some titles, but Blu-Ray shares that honor, too (XXX, Fifth Element, etc). HD-DVD was 1080p just like Blu-Ray.


RE: Huh?
By theprodigalrebel on 3/17/2008 9:17:58 PM , Rating: 5
Don't know why you are being rated down. You are just calling the CEO's BS comment. Until now, they were trying to educate the consumer on how HD DVD picture quality is much more than an upscaling DVD player. Now that they are out of the HD business, they will tell you how their upscaling DVD player passes blind tests and is 99% as good as BD (and, in effect, HD DVDs).

You gotta love the spin corporations can put on anything. :-D


RE: Huh?
By tuteja1986 on 3/18/2008 2:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
They will easily make it up if their Nuclear power plant division takes off.


RE: Huh?
By Golgatha on 3/18/2008 6:12:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, this is their trump card. Include PG+ (power grid +, which even sounds kid friendly) DRM (all DRM needs a fluffy name...like "trusted computing" or something similar) to prevent power from reaching all Blu-Ray players and get in bed with MS to deliver downloadable HD content.


RE: Huh?
By TheDiceman on 3/17/2008 5:27:06 PM , Rating: 5
For you that may be true, but the average house hold does not have a 60 inch television and for them an upconverted DVD will look quite nice.


RE: Huh?
By steven975 on 3/17/2008 5:31:44 PM , Rating: 4
It does depend on the equipment. A $5 scaling chip and a $100 scaling chip are worlds apart. Of course, the entry HD-DVD players used basic-midrange scalers...nothing special.

Toshiba makes (or did make anyway) the world's best DVD player, the HD-XA2. There are many DVDs that were handled so well that I was hard-pressed to tell a difference. Of course, The Silicon Optix chip it uses won't be found on a commodity upconverting player.

So, yea, it's information that wasn't there, but some chips are much better than others at guessing the detail. On my 50" SXRD, a well-mastered DVD and a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD are really pretty darn close..."Crank" (a well done BD) was not distinguishable at all! A badly mastered DVD is another story, but it's a good improvement.


RE: Huh?
By Oregonian2 on 3/17/2008 7:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
My Panasonic 58" Plasma (TH-58PZ750U) looks really good with a high quality well mastered DVD when upconverted by our OPPO DV-981HD (Faroudja Video Processing).

As good as the same movie on Blu-Ray? No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying VERY VERY good, and a *LOT* better than a DVD might be thought to look. It guesses at the missing data really well and if one didn't know where the data was coming from, one might think it was an HD source.

Now crummy DVD's still look crummy.


RE: Huh?
By JAB on 3/17/2008 9:12:16 PM , Rating: 3
One bad choice in parts can ruin the whole thing but even on my 37 inch few DVD's look good enough when unconverted and some HD content not any better no matter what the equipment garbage in garbage out. Some of the early BlurRay movies even look worse than the DVD but they are learning.

All the extra effort and money is worth it when it all comes together. Sadly untill recently it took some effort to get it all right even now it is not automatic. Some of the movies look incredible and the high quality audio doesn't hurt either. It is getting far easer to get it right though and everyone will be thinking of upgrading when they see how good it can look.

BTW the remastered version of The Fifth Element looks worlds better than the first Blue ray release. (with the right equipment and settings)


RE: Huh?
By gramboh on 3/18/2008 3:16:13 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, the remastered Fifth Element looks absolutely amazing (using a Samsung LNT-4665F 46in LCD here). No Country for Old Men is also really good.


RE: Huh?
By Marcus Yam on 3/17/2008 5:51:30 PM , Rating: 4
Agreed. No matter how good the scaler is, you cannot make up for 6x the resolution.


RE: Huh?
By winterspan on 3/17/2008 8:05:54 PM , Rating: 3
You surely don't need a 60" TV to notice the difference. I have a 46" Samsung LCD, and even on the Playstation 3, which is a notably good upscaler, DVDs JUST DO NOT COMPETE with good Blu-ray discs. That argument is crazy talk.. It's like comparing SDTV to HDTV.

Bluray (1920x1080) has ~2,000,000 pixels and DVD (720×480) has ~350,000 , or 6X THE RESOLUTION.

An upscaler cannot add this missing information in, it just fills in the gaps with interpolated information.


RE: Huh?
By TP715 on 3/17/08, Rating: 0
RE: Huh?
By deeznuts on 3/18/2008 5:47:51 AM , Rating: 5
Say wah? Get out of here with that fuzzy math.

You do know they put that "x" in the middle of resolutions for a reason right? call up some basic algebra, you know what that "x" does.

And image resolution isn't "linear." There is always two axis (excuse me if that isn't the correct term).


RE: Huh?
By TP715 on 3/18/2008 11:02:25 PM , Rating: 1
Look up the definition of "resolution" as it applies to imaging or display. It refers to how well a system can resolve lines, as in lines per mm. It is almost never given in "dots per square mm". The "X" in 720 X 480 is short for "by" not "times". That is 720 pixels in the horizontal direction by 480 pixels in the vertical. So my math is not fuzzy. But if you have paid an enormous amount of money for your Bluray, they you are welcome to substitute your own reality for... well.. reality.


RE: Huh?
By Yawgm0th on 3/19/2008 4:32:27 AM , Rating: 2
Why did this post get rated up? Seriously...

For starters, in Algebra, "x" would be a variable. In this context, the "x" means "by," which is a very static meaning, wouldn't you say?

Regardless, multiplying a given frame resolutions horizontal axis by vertical axis gives you the total number of pixels. This is not the same as the resolution.

In any case, let me try to explain the other poster's positions in a more understandable manner.

The resolution increasing by 6x would mean both the vertical and horizontal resolutions were multiplied by six. Mathematically:
Vertical as V, Horizontal as H
x6 increase in resolution = V6 x V6
640 * 6 = 3840
480 * 6 = 2880

I don't know of any 3840x2880 displays.

Now the idea of a x6 increase in resolution comes from the pixel count.
Vertical as V, Horizontal as H, Pixel Count as P
V * H = P
so for SD 480p on a 4:3 display: 640 * 480 = 307200
or for a full 720p: 720 * 480 = 345600
For 1080p: 1920 x 1080 = 2073600

2073600 / 307200 = 6.75, for a x6.75 increase in pixel count.
2073600 / 345600 = 6, for a x6 increase in pixel count.

Of course, taking into consideration native resolutions vs. capable input resolutions of given monitors; varying broadcast standards; differing aspect ratios of monitors; interlacing vs. progressive scan; different bitrates, codecs, and resolutions of HD and SD media, simply doing some math with resolution and pixel count as a means of objectifying the difference between several non-uniform standards is quite misleading. There are many, many different variables to consider, and the numbers really don't tell the full story.

To say, for example, "Blu-Ray is 6.75 times better than standard definition video" wouldn't be false if you go by pixel count, but there's a hell of a lot more to it than that.


RE: Huh?
By Blight AC on 3/19/2008 9:44:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, cept DVD's are 480i, not 480p, which means the actual per frame resolution (1/60th) is 240 lines. Yes, modern players typically upscale, but still, it's not true 480 and still can contain artifacts.

A good example is the image shown on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced

Linked directly:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/Inte...

You can see in the Interlaced picture, the interlaced image made progressive (the one on the right) still has artifacts because each 1/60th of a frame is from a different time. Meanwhile, HD formats are full 1080 lines of resolution per 1/60 frame.

Course.. none of this matters anyhow if you don't notice the difference. It's all about personal preference. The detail in the movie 300 in HD looks phenomenal compared to anything I've seen from DVD's. My wife on the other hand, doesn't notice the difference.


RE: Huh?
By Yawgm0th on 3/19/2008 3:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, some movies are in 480p, but you're right in that most TV and DVDs are 480i. I was just explaining where the misconception of "6 x the resolution of DVD) comes from.


Late News...As usual
By zaki on 3/17/2008 5:52:32 PM , Rating: 5
is it just me, or is dailtytech not so "daily" these days, it seems that all the news items have already been covered elsewhere at least 1 to 2 days ago already.

and this topic is last week's news.

Come on dailytech, I know you have the resources to do better.