> -----Original Message----- > From: James Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 5:14 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: DVD Format Decided > > > 1) Blu-ray is not "anti-porn" - but at this point it is > > cheaper. In short the Porn industry is going to go where > > production is cheap. This price differential won't exist > > forever however - prices should come into line pretty quickly. > > Not true, not only is blu-ray more expensive to produce but also involves > royalty payments to sony.
The only reason it's more expensive now is because the lines are new - economy of scale will kick in (like it always does) and reduce costs. ALL formats entail royalties - CD, DVD, HD-DVD, etc - all of them. Sony is no different than anyone else in this regard. > > 3) Blu-Ray does store more, but more importantly it has a > > great potential to work better. The BD-J layer is > > potentially really cool (it's already pretty slick on discs > > like "Superman Returns"). > > > > With this special features can be overlayed on the movie > > itself, you can access menus, commentaries, etc at any point > > in the movie. > > On this point you are being mis-led. While it is true that Blu-Ray has > this > option, the Blu-Ray spec makes player support for all of these things > optional, this means if a studio uses these features there is no guarantee > that a player will support them. HD-DVD on the other hand also has all > these > features and the spec actually REQUIRES a plyer support them before they > can > stick the badge on it so the studios know that if they spend loads of cash > presenting these features there customers WILL be able to view them. Do you have a citation? Everything I've read says that Java support on Blu-Ray (BD-J) is a mandatory part of the spec for video players. I think it's you who may be being mislead. The Blu-Ray standard provides definitions for four profiles of players. ALL video profiles (three of the four) require BD-J support. The only format that doesn't is the "Audio-Only" profile (in other words the "CD Player" profile- which makes perfect sense). The differences in the profiles are feature-based and don't have anything to do with BD-J. The profile being used by all first generation players doesn't require picture-in-picture, local storage or network support. The next one up requires PIP and local storage while the final one (the "full one") requires network support. All three require full BD-J support. The iHD spec (used by HD-DVD) is definitely impressive as well - much better than DVD by any means. But while I would most likely prefer it (since it uses web technologies such as XML and JavaScript) it definitely seems to fall squarely into the "easier but more limited" category as do most scripting environments. (It's been suggested, somewhat seriously, that iHD could be easily implemented in BD-J - but the reverse definitely isn't possible.) I'm just looking at specs here - in the end this could be (even "most likely will be") a non-issue. Few discs today push the (very) limited DVD specs - perhaps the extended capabilities provided by the new interactivity layers will end up in the same boat. > It is also a little early to start comparing capacities, while you are > correct in stating HD currently has a dual layer 30Gb capacity while Blu- > Ray > has 50Gb you are incorectly comparing like for like. The current batch of > blu-ray discs are only single layer (25Gb) since dual layer discs are to > expensive to manufacture while dual layer HD-DVD (30Gb) is the bigger > format > in common production. I think that's a faulty conclusion... the current batch of discs are single layer because they've not needed dual-layer. Do you know of a release that was either reduced or pushed to two discs because of the costs associated in producing dual layer discs? It looks like there will also be practical and political issues at hand as well. For example it looks like "The Sopranos" will release four disc sets in all formats for Season Six - even tho' it's clear that fewer discs would have been possible in the newer formats. This is probably being done for packaging purposes, but could also be a mastering decision (both BD and HD-DVD CAN use DVD-authoring content, which is much larger than the new CODECs, but perhaps easier to produce). In any case the disc size issue is another potential red herring - it may not matter at all in the end or it could prove to be the tipping point. I personally find much more value in fewer discs (and smaller storage requirements) but the studios may use more discs to increase apparent value. The inability to let go of the "super-duper-multi-disc box set" may do more to nullify size differences than anything else. > HDDVD has already announced a tripple layer disc supporting 51Gb and Ritek > think they can get this as high as 10 layers. Multi-layering techniques are going to help both formats...eventually. TDK has already created 100 and 200 Gig BD discs (with up to six layers) for example and Sony is confident current production facilities can handle up to 8 layers. But both in the case of BD and HD-DVD this isn't an issue now. Neither BD or HD-DVD players can actually USE such discs - the standards will have to be extended to allow them. As I've said all of these feature differences could end up being non-issues or major coups - it's still much too early to tell. I still say, however, that by the time things begin to shake out this won't be a consumer decision any longer. Hybrid players will become the norm (I predict) and the format arguments will be left to content providers, not end-users. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:224689 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
