Toshiba Tailors Video Compression Technology to HD DVD Format

[BJ_M]

Asia Pulse Businesswire
via NewsEdge Corporation

TOKYO, Sept 14 Asia Pulse - Japan's Toshiba Corp. (TSE:6502) has developed new video compression technology specifically designed for the HD DVD format for next-generation optical discs.

Conforming to the MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 video coding standard, this technology can operate on a personal computer without the need for special hardware and it can encode the data in near real time, meaning that the encoding takes around as long as the time of the actual recording. This promises to make software development much easier for content developers, given that the existing encoding procedures can take anywhere from 10-100 times as long as the recording.

The new technology is based on Toshiba's two-pass VBR (variable bit rate) encoding technology for the processing of high-resolution video on the existing generation of DVDs, which use red lasers. Modifying the algorithm for HD DVD, Toshiba has devised an encoding procedure that first automatically checks the video and then compresses and encodes the data scene by scene.

Toshiba plans to start licensing the technology to production studios in Japan later this month and to studios in the U.S. before the end of the year.


<<Asia Pulse Businesswire -- 09/15/06>>

[Conquest10]

Sounds good. Will this be available to the public or just studios?

[FulciLives]

Bring it on ... I want it!

I'm starting to lean very heavily towards HD-DVD rather than Blue-Ray right now if for nothing else than based on reviews I have read ... the Blue-Ray discs aren't looking nearly as good as they should nor as good as HD-DVD titles.

Plus it helps that HD-DVD is cheaper!

Perhaps this annoucement is "too good to be true" but it's even more good news for HD-DVD especially if someone makes a home PC user version of this encoding software.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[yoda313]

Plus it helps that HD-DVD is cheaper

BINGO!

I think that will ultimately determine the winner. If BLURAY gets to the same price as hddvd then it may take longer to decide a winner. BUT if hddvd can consistently sell players for less than BLURAY more and more people will adopt hddvd.

[Conquest10]

Plus I sure if Blueray drops the price, HD-DVD will follow with their own drop. As long as its cheaper, it will out sell Blueray. The studios will see that there is no point in remaining Blueray only as it isn't selling as well and will start seeing the light.

[gotnotime]

I would not count blu ray out yet.

Blu ray is a superior format, period. Based on shorter wavelength blue light lasers this system allows more data to be stored / area on a DVD, 25GB vs 15GB with HD-DVD. The latter format "cheats" by adding a second layer to their DVD to get 30GB to put capacity on par with blu ray. This is an improtant point as 1080p will continue to gain ground, HD-DVD recordeable disks will require 2 layers to record a movie in 1080p over 2 hours and will drive up the costs just as they currently do with DVD-DL which still costs about 5 times the price of DVD-R. In addition, the hastle of layer breaks on DL disks is still an issue. Already they are talking 3 layer DVD's for the HD format to match dual layer blu ray. Imagine the problems we would have with that in recording.

If HD wins the battle, it would only set the stage for a 3rd generation DVD that will be forced to go back to blu lasers and we will again get stuck with yet another collection of outdated HD DVD's.

[gotnotime]

Oops hit submit before I finished

As for the coding of MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 video, this is not a new format and can be fully supported by blu ray

[CubDukat]

I don't know about Blu-Ray making it in the long run. There have been some serious mistakes made, most if not all of them by Sony themselves.

Admittedly, the Blu-Ray demos I've seen haven't exhibited the problems everybody seems to have with it, but if I were to go on price and availability of media, I'd say HD-DVD is where I'd go.

Sony has managed to engender a whole lot of ill will in the US over the past year, and I think that that alone will sink Blu-Ray, whether it's a technically superior format or not. Betamax was a technically superior format, and look what happened there...

Guess they're not so proud to proclaim "It's a Sony" anymore...

[gotnotime]

Good point about Sony and betamax.

Our family was one of those that bought one when I grew up. They were better then VHS and at least as good as Super-VHS. If more people would have reconized the difference, it could have been the dominant format.

Likewise, I think people need to be informed of the real differences between blu-ray and HD-DVD then chose. The consumer can still make a difference when it comes to deciding which format will prevail even if the big companies are pushing for HD-DVD. A good example is the automotive industry, the car manufactures make huge profits on SUV's, but when gas prices when up, the consumers stopped buying them, and now for the first time if 30 years they are forced to make vehicles that are more fuel efficiient.

Likewise, I think that blu-ray is a better product and will prove to be cheaper because they will not need the more expensive dual or 3 layer disks.

[gotnotime]

I think I must be hungover or something, thisis my last post here and I apologize for the double posting, but I wanted to correct my previous post in this thread:

Correction: Both HD-DVD and BluRay use the same wavelength for their formats.

The difference in capacities is however, correct and I think my argument for the added cost of dual and 3 layer HD-DVD's will be significant when we start to use them for home recordings and should be considered when chosing between the two formats.

[FulciLives]

To me the only advantage of Blu-Ray is higher capacity which makes it easier on us home recording types I agree but when it comes to pressed discs I see little need to worry about HD-DVD not having enough room. I just hope that a single layer HD-DVD has "enough room" when it comes to home recordings.

For me the reason to go HD-DVD is price and quality. It has both (lower price and better quality than Blu-Ray). Of course there is no real reason why Blu-Ray discs are looking less good than HD-DVD discs ... and yet it is happening.

But who knows ... it is early yet ... and I haven't bought either a HD-DVD nor a Blue-Ray player yet ... although I am very tempted to get a PS3 I doubt I will be a very early adopter. Hell I just bought a PS2 in March of this year LOL and never got an Xbox or Xbox 360 ... but I imagine that sonner or later I will find myself with both a PS3 and a Xbox 360 (me needs to play DEAD RISING).

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[lordsmurf]

betamax.....They were ....at least as good as Super-VHS.

Not even close. S-VHS has far more bandwidth and resolution. It's really no contest.
Betamax was only slightly better than VHS. But that's not saying much.

BluRay will fail because Sony is at the helm.

[Conquest10]

Plus Sony thinks that its saving grace will be the PS3.

[Jester700]

betamax.....They were ....at least as good as Super-VHS.

Not even close. S-VHS has far more bandwidth and resolution. It's really no contest.
Betamax was only slightly better than VHS. But that's not saying much.

BluRay will fail because Sony is at the helm.

Just a little more detail about Beta, for no reason other than to feed my own ego...

There were two other developments at the end of Beta's misbegotten lifespan. "SuperBeta" was a revision of beta that had better resolution than the regular formats but not as good as the "S" versions, and it used regular tape. There was ED Beta, which was similar to S-VHS.

And yes, Sony *will* find a way to screw up Blu-ray.

[FulciLives]

betamax.....They were ....at least as good as Super-VHS.

Not even close. S-VHS has far more bandwidth and resolution. It's really no contest.
Betamax was only slightly better than VHS. But that's not saying much.

BluRay will fail because Sony is at the helm.

Just a little more detail about Beta, for no reason other than to feed my own ego...

There were two other developments at the end of Beta's misbegotten lifespan. "SuperBeta" was a revision of beta that had better resolution than the regular formats but not as good as the "S" versions, and it used regular tape. There was ED Beta, which was similar to S-VHS.

And yes, Sony *will* find a way to screw up Blu-ray.

As I recall (I was a bit "young" then) ED Beta was aimed at the prosumer but the first ED Beta VCR was ... again if I recall correctly ... something in the range of $10,000 US Dollars.

Even for a prosumer that is a hell of a lot of cash especially considering that was a good 20 some odd years ago.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[BJ_M]

Beta lives on in Beta SP -- which is still used in 100s of 1000's of studios and broadcast applications

[normcar]

For video quality, most people don't care. They only want cheap. That is why HD TV is not taking off as it should. I want HD as I am a TVaholic, but the extra cost is not worth it yet. When the cost is comes down to the old format, and will then become widely used. However, it will still take about 8 years or so for everyone to change their tvs/dvd players, which is the time that their old stuff wears out. The first color TV my parents bought was in 1984, when the B&W tv wore out. (I bought a color TV in 1979 with my own money when I was 17).

A friend of mine used the lowest quality setting for VHS, and recorded many movies from HBO etc. He never understood the quality difference, and didn't care.

So never underestimate the public when it comes to quality, always bet on price. Sony will keep the price high to make more profit, kill its newest golden goose, and lose out, even if their product is better.

[BJ_M]

So never underestimate the public when it comes to quality

that is a for sure judging how many people are happy enough to listen to some crappy mp3s - even over a decent sound system ....


or how i see people saying "what a great picture" when they are looking at a bad LCD pic (or plasma) with SD picture and it is just one big mess .... and they think its fine ////

[FulciLives]

For video quality, most people don't care. They only want cheap. That is why HD TV is not taking off as it should. I want HD as I am a TVaholic, but the extra cost is not worth it yet. When the cost is comes down to the old format, and will then become widely used. However, it will still take about 8 years or so for everyone to change their tvs/dvd players, which is the time that their old stuff wears out. The first color TV my parents bought was in 1984, when the B&W tv wore out. (I bought a color TV in 1979 with my own money when I was 17).

A friend of mine used the lowest quality setting for VHS, and recorded many movies from HBO etc. He never understood the quality difference, and didn't care.

So never underestimate the public when it comes to quality, always bet on price. Sony will keep the price high to make more profit, kill its newest golden goose, and lose out, even if their product is better.

For Christmas of 2005 I bought myself a 51" 16x9 HDTV (CRT Rear Projection) at a cost of somewhere between $1,600 and $1,700 US Dollars which included the TV price plus a delivery fee plus an extended 2 year warranty plus all applicable sales tax.

I remember when these things were $5,000 or more and people bought them left and right. Now you can get an HDTV model for well under $2,000 ... in fact I just saw the same make as mine on sale ... but in a 57" version ... for cheaper than what I paid for my 51" version all of 9 or so months ago.

Also you can buy a tube HDTV for $599 last time I looked so it's probably cheaper now. Granted that is for a 26" 16x9 WS ... not the biggest ... but big enough for those that really want HDTV but are on an extreme budget.

So don't give us the bullshit that it's the price. I'm so sick of hearing that. Anybody saying it's the price has a very short memory (or are too young) to remember how much stuff used to sell for. Yes HDTV is more than SDTV is now yet many HDTV displays are either cheaper or the same or not that much more than what SDTV used to sell for ... not all that long ago either!

Granted at one time I complained about the price as well but that was when I was very broke and could barely pay my rent and electric bill and stuff like that. Thankfully I'm not in that situation now (knock on wood) but you have to realize that being broke and complaining that HDTV is expensive is a diservice to the reality of the situation.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[SingSing]

For video quality, most people don't care. They only want cheap. That is why HD TV is not taking off as it should. I want HD as I am a TVaholic, but the extra cost is not worth it yet. When the cost is comes down to the old format, and will then become widely used. However, it will still take about 8 years or so for everyone to change their tvs/dvd players, which is the time that their old stuff wears out. The first color TV my parents bought was in 1984, when the B&W tv wore out. (I bought a color TV in 1979 with my own money when I was 17).

It is harder to ignore HDTV.

Analog NTSC color TV broadcast system was designed, so your B/W analog TV can still display the video.

Analog NTSC color TV broadcast system are scheduled to switch off in 2009, so your current TV as it is is rendered useless. The HDTV broadcast is digital, and you need a converter to watch your old TV. The other choice is pay for cable, which will provide both format, at least for a while. And then, we don't know ?

[gadgetguy]

So don't give us the bullshit that it's the price. I'm so sick of hearing that. Anybody saying it's the price has a very short memory (or are too young) to remember how much stuff used to sell for. Yes HDTV is more than SDTV is now yet many HDTV displays are either cheaper or the same or not that much more than what SDTV used to sell for ... not all that long ago either!

All pricing is relative to the priorities of the individual. As you pointed out when you didn't have the money, it was too expensive. I have never paid more than $200 for a TV set in my life and I'm not inclined to spend more than that on another one. All of the HD examples I have seen in the stores are completely uninspiring. This may be due to poor setup on the retailers part, but it doesn't matter. I watch TV to see a story being told and as long as I can see the faces and places being portrayed, I'm satisfied. The difference between SD and HD is not sufficient to raise the priority for me at the current prices. If the prices fall to around $200US for a screen at least as large as my current largest set (27"), it may change my priorities on the subject.

[lordsmurf]

A friend of mine used the lowest quality setting for VHS, and recorded many movies from HBO etc. He never understood the quality difference, and didn't care.

Visually, and data wise, SP mode, LP mode and EP/SLP modes had very little difference, in terms of visual quality. It's really quite nominal.

It was the VCR, both recording and playback, that was the true culprit. I have quite a few older SLP mode VHS tapes, made on an excellent VCR, and these days I play them back on a JVC S-VHS with TBC and all. They look better than many SP mode tapes I get from other people.

Modes took a back seat to the VCRs.

[normcar]

[quote="FulciLives"]

So don't give us the bullshit that it's the price. I'm so sick of hearing that. Anybody saying it's the price has a very short memory (or are too young) to remember how much stuff used to sell for. Yes HDTV is more than SDTV is now yet many HDTV displays are either cheaper or the same or not that much more than what SDTV used to sell for ... not all that long ago either!

Granted at one time I complained about the price as well but that was when I was very broke and could barely pay my rent and electric bill and stuff like that. Thankfully I'm not in that situation now (knock on wood) but you have to realize that being broke and complaining that HDTV is expensive is a diservice to the reality of the situation.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Using that kind of word makes you look like you don't have the intellect to make a good argument, and is quite unnecessary.

Millions of people in this country are living at a level of " very broke and could barely pay my rent and electric bill and stuff like that", and they will not buy a new TV until their old one dies. Also, if price was not the issue, then why is anyone buying the low def version at half the price when they know that HD is better? Price is king. That is why Walmart is kicking the heck out of everyone else. Very few people purchase based on quality, unless quality prevents problems that they have to deal with by using time or money such as having to take their car in for repair. They regularly purchase $25 cheapo DVD players, when those players are not playing the DVD video at the same high quality as a $100 player will. As long as the player does not break down, they really don't care.

Conversion boxes will be sold for about $25 dollars, and even given away to those who can't aford them when the HD conversion happens. And I'll bet that congress will get involved in the conversion timeline, when millions of people realize that their TVs will be obsolete "next month". There is nothing that energizes congress more than millions of their voters being mad at them over the same issue across both parties.

[lordsmurf]

Price does play a role, as long as the quality of a product is good enough.

For example, a few days ago, somebody in my family was suggesting I go buy fancy kitchenware. I'm sitting here thinking, why the hell do I care how fancy my dishes looks? I can buy a great set of dishes and kitchenware at the dollar store for under $25 total, and they look quite nice, matching too. Why would I even be tempted to buy something that runs $1000? The warranty does not have $975 in value, and I can go buy another $25 in dishes if the old ones die fast. That's still a savings of $950. I can spend the $$$ I saved on something else.

So why would you spend huge amounts of money for HD/BD when you are perfectly content with DVD tech as it is now?

Ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm all for advancing technology, but this is not even half a baby step forward. And as this news piece clearly shows, the technology is still developing, nowhere near maturity. What you can buy now is a rushed-to-market mistake that should still be in R&D for more years while they perfect it.

[stiltman]

Beta lives on in Beta SP -- which is still used in 100s of 1000's of studios and broadcast applications

Not here anymore. We have 1 beta deck left. We now require all vendors to send via DVD or DVCPro


You know what it costs to keep a Beta deck a live??? Screw um

[BJ_M]

but you know they are still being used all over .... lot of stuff archived on Beta SP (well for that mater - prob. a lot more archived on u-matic)

[normcar]

A friend of mine used the lowest quality setting for VHS, and recorded many movies from HBO etc. He never understood the quality difference, and didn't care.

Visually, and data wise, SP mode, LP mode and EP/SLP modes had very little difference, in terms of visual quality. It's really quite nominal.

It was the VCR, both recording and playback, that was the true culprit. I have quite a few older SLP mode VHS tapes, made on an excellent VCR, and these days I play them back on a JVC S-VHS with TBC and all. They look better than many SP mode tapes I get from other people.

Modes took a back seat to the VCRs.

Trust me, my friend bought the cheapest no-brand tapes, and his VCR was not very good either. Perhaps cheapo tapes on a good VCR are alright, but his tapes had static, and poor color. A year ago when he moved, he admitted that he did not understand why he thought they were ok, and through out about 100 of the tapes.

[lordsmurf]

Yeah, the tape has a good bit to do with quality too. Cheap no-name tapes, cheap no-name VCRs .... they never looked good. SP mode or not.

[normcar]

But at the time my friend created it, he thought is was good enough. And I'm sure that millions of others thought the same thing. As these cheapo tapes sold in the millions.

[SingSing]

"How good" the video look often depends on the expectation and the size of the TV. Many child care centers use a 10/13 in TVs with VCR playing old VHS tapes, and the kids are absolutely glued to the program.