Hd_dvd producing, standard, running, correct, reports

andy

First post so be kind!

Having avidly read the Doom-9 news as always:

'As time is slowly running out for a compromise in the HD format battle, the HD DVD camp reports successfully producing HD DVD-R discs on a standard DVD-R production line'

quot;DVD-Recordable has grown to be a major market, and we expect to see the same substantial growth in demand for HD DVD-R. We will prepare for mass production to support the forthcoming launch of HD DVD products.quot;

Now correct me if I am wrong....

I suspect that the major sales of DVDr's as a family is for DVD backup purposes. (assumption)

We buy DVDr's to back up our media ---gt; manufactures produce these to sell
to us. ----gt; Hence the growing market.

Hollywood et al want 'high end' encryption / copy protection on HD-DVD - So no copying ----gt; No copying mean no purchasing of HD-DVDr's for backup. ----gt; No mass market for new discs.

Where does HD-DVD go from here!?

I dont need that size of disc to author my own DV etc

Thought?.....

There are no good reasonings currently whether HD-DVD and Blu-ray will properly quot;lift offquot; or not.

If the entertainment industry successfully makes us believe that we need high-definition beamers/TVs/monitors there will be a demand for HD content. It's all a matter of the price, early adopters will always fetch the stuff -- but they don't give enough money to the entertainment racketeers, that they can only rip-off the mass market.

If you get high-definition hardware (in europe there will be a raising demand caused by the soccer world championship i guess) you will need HD media as well for your selfmade content, I think you want to you your equipment.

Just some thoughts of mine.

Cheers
Koepi

Our SD tv sets are based on 1930's technology, pepped-up with color and flat screens, but it's still basically 1930's technology...
Nobody has to convince me it's time for HD, I was already convinced the very first time I heard of it

I already have a 1080i hdtv 700CAD worth of tv
and I wil buy blu/hd disks for data back-ups also but 15gb wil take a while to get enough to back up


Originally Posted by theRealOur SD tv sets are based on 1930's technology, pepped-up with color and flat screens, but it's still basically 1930's technology...
Nobody has to convince me it's time for HD, I was already convinced the very first time I heard of it
1080i HD is no quantum leap in the way you speak of. It, too, is mired in the 30's, if what you say is true. Personally, I think you overstate the case that our TVs are still quot;basically 1930's technologyquot;.


Originally Posted by neuron21080i HD is no quantum leap in the way you speak of. It, too, is mired in the 30's, if what you say is true. Personally, I think you overstate the case that our TVs are still quot;basically 1930's technologyquot;.

Agreed...

There's not a lot wrong with tube technology anyway (apart from it's physical size and weight).... And high resolution tube technology has been around for years. The French were even playing around with 819 line (VHF) TV in the early 1970's... but the world (well France) was not ready for that technical innovation   Cheers

There's no reason HD would need to support interlacing though, it's just that so often that producers are afraid to piss off customers that are unwilling to replace outdated equipment. I say force them to their luck. We have to replace PCs every couple of years, cars should be written off by 10 years, so there's nothing wrong in scrapping an old TV. It's not like a purely progressive TV (plasma, LCD) costs an insane amount of money anymore. Yesterday, I was in the biggest CE store in my region, and their flatscreen to tube ratio is probably already up to 70-30, so my guess is that within two years tube TVs will be pretty much there where pre-recorded VHS tapes are now (I've only had a quick glance but I couldn't spot any tapes anymore.. for a long time they had a 95 - 5% ratio but the space traditionally occupied by tapes has now also been filled up with DVDs).

Self-made content is a good argument, recording as well. I think the industry at this point doesn't even realize what they're trying to do by trying to lock out recorders.. timeshift has been a basic right since recording devices were invented.. most people are at this point completely oblivious to what the industry is trying to do. Recording a TV show is much more of an everyday thing that even something as basic as making a copy of an audio CD is.. even people that have no PC will want to do that.. and you'll have a much harder time arguing piracy with a 70 year old granny than with a 20 year old college kid that has tons of downloaded MP3s.

From what I've heard from some broadcoasting people 1080i certainly still has its place in high-motion events like sports, since they say there simply is not enough bandwidth/processing power for 1080p at 50/60 fps.

Other than that... people somehow will find something to waste so much storage capacity. It's not the first time in computer history someone wondered: quot;What do we need all that space for?quot;

since they say there simply is not enough bandwidth/processing power for 1080p at 50/60 fps.

You shouldn't buy into such cheap excuses.. there are fast DSPs for hardware devices, and hardware acceleration for PCs is coming. And as far as bandwidth goes, what are highly efficient codecs good for? If 20 mbit is enough for 1080i coded in MPEG-2, if you use AVC for that, you can get away with a lower bitrate and still go 1080p.

I'm curious which affordable solution can do h264 @ 1080p60? It seems to me its rather silly to call it a cheap excuse.

I'm curious which affordable solution can do h264 @ 1080p60?

Effectively none, but that's not surprising considering neither the ATSC nor DVB standard support that progressive content at that resolution and framerate. Considering what sport fans are happy with (crappy analogue interlaced broadcasts), they certainly don't need that resolution and framerate. There's always the possibility to using 720p60 if you really need the doubled framerate, rather than going interlaced if you know in advance that the playback device is a progressive one.. it's plain stupid to go interlaced in this scenario (there's no TV that can natively display 1080i60 because there's no tube TVs that support that resolution, and there most likely never will be one). But for movies, there's 1080p24 which is a perfect match.

I assume you never watch sports which makes arguing any further pointless, certainly since you know what all sports fans want and are happy with anyway. I can only say you are absolutely right.

Let's see.. hockey on a national and international level, soccer on an international level, but I wouldn't consider myself a sports fan. What mostly bothers me with sports on TV though is a) it's interlaced, b) it's 4:3 and if they shot in 16:9 they wouldn't have to pan as much just to keep the ball/puck in the picture. After all, if you go to a stadium (yes, I've even done that), you have your usual human perspective to which 16:9 more closely corresponds than 4:3 c) the usual 3-4 mbit bitrates on european DVB-S broadcast are just not enough for sports. I don't mind the resolution much though, it's more about the action than high resolution. I much rather have the woah effect with movies.
Oh yeah, then there's tennis which I watch every now and then, but very seldom.