Blu-ray & HD-DVD already failed formats?

[lordsmurf]

another (-R) format. Still around, but slowly being replaced.

Since when is DVD-R being replaced?

[DJRumpy]

Many of my local retail outlets like Best Buy do not carry -R anymore. I said slowly. I didn't say it was gone. As I said ealier I suspect this will turn out the same. A dual-format burner will become available and both will linger.

[lordsmurf]

Many of my local retail outlets like Best Buy do not carry -R anymore. I said slowly. I didn't say it was gone. As I said ealier I suspect this will turn out the same. A dual-format burner will become available and both will linger.

It's just your local Best Buy. The one near me is often out of stock of DVD+R, and it's not due to sales. The B&M stores are finicky that way. DVD-R is not being replaced, slowly or otherwise.

[DJRumpy]

B&M?

[Cornucopia]

IIRC,
"Bricks & Mortar" = real, as opposed to virtual (internet) store.

Scott

[DJRumpy]

In either case, I see the same thing happening with HD-DVD and Blue-Ray. I'm betting we'll get a dual-format burner and the point will become mute. There are differences though, as Blue-Ray has a higher capacity and higher bandwidth capability. Once the industry has accepted it, costs associated with upgrading to blue-ray will be absorbed and there would be no need for HD-DVD. It offers nothing technically that can't be accomplished with Blue-Ray, much as -R offers nothing that can't be done with +R while the reverse is not true. There are capability's in Blue-Ray that are not downward compatible with HD-DVD just as there are +R capabilities that are not available with -R.

[Rich86]

I am a fairly recent convert to high definition and thought I would share my impressions and intentions. I have a 1080p lcd tv, high definition service from my cable service provider, a high def capable dvr from that cable service provider and a dvd player capable of upconverting standard dvd's to 1080i.

I am very happy with high definition and enjoying it thoroughly. That being said, some of my frustrations and other thoughts follow:

1. why do stations think a standard definition picture with high definition sidebars counts as high definition? I avoid these stations and shows. There is a hint there if anyone in the industry actually cares. Provide high quality programming - from the source!

2. I am very pleased with the video quality of my dvd's when played via my upconverting player. I will never buy another dvd player or recorder that cannot upconvert to at least 1080i. That basic requirement applies to any high definition player I would ever consider also - it must upconvert standard dvd's to at least 1080 - preferably 1080p. The only standard dvd's I find disappointing when viewed via my upconverting player are those that were mastered poorly in the first place - such as dvd's with grainy video that hasn't even been made anamorphic on the dvd. Try watching "The Getaway" (the uncut remake version) on an upconverting player on a large screen high def tv - I lasted 10 minutes and took it out of the player. It is unwatchable. I will most certainly never buy another dvd that is not clearly labeled as being anamorphic on the packaging.

3. I have no intentions of getting into a high def dvd player because the industry is so paranoid about copy/use prevention (which is really just their way of trying to satisfy their greed) that they have forgotten about their customers. And this isn't about copying - it's about the industry wanting to sell us the same movie 2 or 3 times! When high definition settles down to a single format, that concerns itself mostly with satisfying what consumers want from their purchased dvd's - then I'll consider purchasing a player. The industry expending all their attention and resources on "securing" this media does absolutely nothing for me - it has no value to me - I don't care about copying high definition dvd's - if I am able to - fine. if not - also fine. However, I do care about entertainment media and players that give me the best possible convenience and performance.

4. I enjoy the convenience of recording programs in high definition on my dvr for later playback. It is unfortunate that once again, the industry artificially limits our ability to transfer said recorded programming to different media for playback elsewhere. Why not let the video be transferred electronically via the eSata port to a dvd recorder or computer so I can watch stacked up shows when traveling? Yeah - I know the answer - because the industry cares more about their copying paranoia than their customers, which serves to simply limit what I am willing to expend on such systems. I can play back programming to record via analog to tape or dvd, but I didn't invest all this money to watch standard definition programming. The more the industry limits my portability and time shifting ability - the less I subscribe to or buy. It's that simple.

In summary, I am thoroughly enjoying high definition tv and video viewing, but the industry is going to have to make some significant changes in direction before I get involved with any high definion dvd format or player or invest anything further. They need to sell me on all the wonderful quality and conveniences and flexibility being made available, instead of trying to limit and lock down everything. They also need to eliminate the possibility that I back the wrong horse in the high def dvd player race - because I'm not spending a nickel on either one until there is a clear, long-term standard that we can count on.

[DJRumpy]

I agree completely with you there. DRM has left a sour impression on everyone. You are no longer able to make basic copies of property you own. I like to rip video to my Media PC and I'm unable to do so (legally) with my HD media.

[SatStorm]

Regarding DVD-R/+R, in my area (Hellas, Greece) -R are much more common +R.

@Rich86: Upscaling is the enemy of HD those days. People start discovering this alternative and that hurt the HD sales. That's why with HDMI 1.3 they lock the internal filters on the TV Screens, when upscaled video signal is detected. Samsung and Sony does it already with there very latest models.

[gshelley61]

It's true about upscaled DVD... I mean, I certainly see a clear difference between HD DVD (or cable/broadcast HD) and upscaled standard DVD - but I am watching them on a 62" 1920x1080p DLP from about 10 ft. Noticing the improved clarity and superior detail of HD sources is very easy. It's obvious.

However, many HDTV owners have the smaller screen sizes, plus lots of them are 1280x720p or 1366x768p native resolution. Watching a well mastered upscaled DVD on a 37" 720p LCD flat panel from normal living room size viewing distances one would be hard pressed to see any difference when viewing HD sources like HD DVD or cable/broadcast HD. Maybe a bit clearer picture, etc.

[DJRumpy]

Not really. The differences are still there. Detail and texture are missing. They would be easily obvious if two displays were side by side and one was an HD version and the other was upscaled. The upscaled versions are always softer or if they are filtered there are obvious signs of bleeding or ringing from the resample.

Unfortunately most people don't have dual displays to check it out on You could always try a local electronics store to see if they have something like that setup.

[gshelley61]

From a few feet away, side by side... yes. But in a typical living room viewing scenario (8-10 ft viewing distance) with the average person (not a videophile) watching one display - like I said, they would probably not see much difference between upscaled 720x480 and downscaled 1920x1080 on a 37" 720p screen.

Not enough to get them to spend $900 on a new Blu-Ray player.

[DJRumpy]

$900? Neither player costs that much. They are down in the $400 range for both the HD-DVD and Blue-Ray stand alone players.

I beg to disagree. Even my father, who is definitely NOT a videophile can see the difference when they are played one after another.

[SatStorm]

Well, since I'm an editor on a technical magazine, I'm able to do those kind of tests.

On less than 42" LCD screens, the difference between upscaled DVDs and HD DVD / Blu Ray / DVB S2 (HD) is not noticable, when the panel is 1366x768. There is some "softness" on the DVD, but by rising the sharpness, you have near the some picture (enough not to care about upgrading to HDTV...)

The difference is more noticeable on full HD 42" LCD screens. But again not fair enough to make you wish to upgrade to HD sources.

With the plasma screens, only few are 1080p under 42". Most of them are 50" or more. On those ones, the upscaled DVDs and HD sources have a notable visuall difference

Oh, and in Greece, HD DVD and Blu Ray Players cost more than 800 Euros per unit... I don't know for the rest of Europe

[DJRumpy]

SatStorm, what about textures? I've noticed a lot of the upscalers use sharpening and edge enhancement filters to bring back edge detail while neglecting the actual textures of surface materials.

Are there noticeable differences side-by-side for textures?

[Rich86]

@Rich86: Upscaling is the enemy of HD those days. People start discovering this alternative and that hurt the HD sales. That's why with HDMI 1.3 they lock the internal filters on the TV Screens, when upscaled video signal is detected. Samsung and Sony does it already with there very latest models.

I can clearly see on my 46" 1080p TV that full high def (from my cable provider, when it is a high def signal all the way from the source) is superior to an upconverted dvd signal from my dvd player. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. But the viewing experience from my upconverted regular dvd is very, very good! My point was that the industry needs to focus on and accent and improve the advantages of full high def over other alternatives, rather than throwing themselves at ways to limit usability as a way to force consumers to buy. When I have the level of flexibility and portability with a high def dvd, that I now enjoy with a standard dvd - and the industry settles on a format - and the high def player supports full upconversion of my existing dvd collection - I'll make the jump. I expect I'm not the only who feels this way.

[DJRumpy]

Ricoh announced a dual-format HD player on the 12th. It's about time!

[DJRumpy]

Actually, make that Ricoh, Samsung, Pioneer, Hitachi, and LG. All in the last few days.

[vhelp]

Evening guys.

I think that there is another element to consider here. But, let me explain..

I was in Best Buy over the weekend, and I was browsing the HD isles of
televisions. In one of the isles, I couldn't help notice something piculiar
about one of the screens. It was like, "randome noise" or something.

Ok. Now here's where I think the missing element is. Its my theory that
this (the above) is an effort to manipulate/deceave the eye's field of
view, that when you are watching the tv, you have to be at a certain
distance (or, you're actually suppose to be at a minimal distance, and prob
in some instances, in order for the man/dec eye technique to be realized or
fooled) but if you are too close, you will obvisiously see this random noise
pattern and not appreciate it. But, again, stand back 5' or farther, and you
will not notice this limitation and consiquentially appreciate the pictures quality
attributes. I actually *did* appreciate it when I stood further back. But
everytime I got up close, I didn't like it. So, it would seem that the desgn
is to be at a minimal distance to begin with. Anyway.

So, I took advantage of the opportunity and briefly studied it to the best of
my ability, and realized that this (lack for a better word/terminology) trickery
was pattern based and not truely random noise. Thus, it was a combination
of various Filter and Upscaling (upsampling) methodolity incorporated into
the sceme of things. And I began to note those things that I am acustomed to
seeing in my own personal processing of imaging, and cataloged what I could
(in my head) and one that stood out most, was the familiar groups of patterns
of the pixel detal throughout the image due to the obvious Temporal and Spacial
image processing, which seems to be what is employed (in one form or another) of
all these hd televisions today.

So, on account of the above, they have the opportunity to hide some of the tv's
(be it upsampling or NR, etc) weaknesses from those unknowledged in these things
and more.

-vhelp 4355

[SatStorm]

@DJRumpy: Textures? Samsung created a technology called "motion drive". They add fake frames (created by morphing technics, not pulldown ones) between the true frames, so you don't have those problems.

This feature is locked on the latest TV sets (Tulip series, etc) when an "Upscaled signal" is detected using HDMI 1.3. They "bitstream out" the signal and deactivate all those filters that could make it look better. So, it's only your abilities of your DVD player that shows on the screen, the TV set does nothing to make it look better.

IMO a cheap technology trick to force HD sales...

@Rich86: I'm with you on this. I even plan to use my HD DVD player only for watching my 720x576 H264 material authored as HD DVD burned on regular DVD-R discs, so to have around 8 hours of DVD-Like quality on regular DVD-R discs...

@vhelp: Panasonic some months ago, called the EISA members to announce them, that on less than 50" screens, when you watch from 3 meters distance, you won't notice any difference between 720p and 1080p . I already mentioned that on another post, but feets perfect here, since you somehow agree with that announcement.

[Rudyard]

just as there are +R capabilities that are not available with -R.

What can +R do that -R cant? I used to avoid +R as my burner couldnt do it but since I switched burner I dont care what is before the R as they both work and ive never once seen anything advertised in the capabilities of 1 v the other.

[DJRumpy]

In 2002 a new format was developed called DVD+R (or "plus" R). Created by a coalition called the DVD+RW Alliance, this format uses a number of improved technologies that, while generally unnoticeable to the end user, make a more reliable technology. One example is the ADIP system of tracking and speed control used by DVD+R being less susceptible to interference and error than the LPP system used by DVD-R, which makes the ADIP system more accurate at higher speeds. In addition, DVD+R(W) has a more robust error management system than DVD-R(W), allowing for more accurate burning to media independent of the quality of the media. Additional session linking methods are more accurate with DVD+R(W) versus DVD-R(W), resulting in fewer damaged or unusable discs due to buffer under-run and multi-session disks with fewer PI/PO errors.[1]

If you want a more detailed technical description, you can see more in depth detail here:

http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/Why-DVDRW-is-superior-to-DVD-RW

[MozartMan]

just as there are +R capabilities that are not available with -R.

What can +R do that -R cant?

DVD+R, +RW, and +R-DL disks can be set to "DVD-ROM" book type to be compatible with much more DVD players. And these days, as far as I know, everybody burning DVD+R-DL instead of DVD-R-DL.

[kingsley]

I have also got two new HDTV's and when first connecting my original dvd player with a scart
the picture was vey good, so couldn't wait to get dvd player with upscaler but the picture
is not better you don't get the blocks in the picture because it just seems to soften the picture
the more you go up the scale from 480p to 1080p.(looks like a oil painting)

My conclusion is that LCD and Plasma are only any good with true HD def input.
Most normal Tv Freeview in england looks just like the old Video cd's we used to
make.

TV Panasonic TX-32LXD70
DVD Samsung 1080P7
DVD SIGMATEK XS-700 Pro

[DJRumpy]

Not so. I have a smaller 42" plasma in my bedroom. It actually does a superior job on my old analog channels than my original analog TV, and it also does better on analog than my 60" XBR2. It's all about the electronics and the filtering. Of course it does a lesser quality job on the digital at least compared to my XBR2.

Chances are you simply have an upscaling DVD that simply does a poor job. Check in the DVD Players section and online reviews to see how yours stacks up.

Your TV may also be interfering. I think someone mentioned in the above post that some manufacturers are fudging with the HDMI signal on upscaled input.

[Rudyard]

Hmmm, I may have to pick +R from now on (I normally take whatever is there from a good brand)

[MozartMan]

Hmmm, I may have to pick +R from now on (I normally take whatever is there from a good brand)

And when I burn full 4.35gb DVD video compilation for testing purposes on DVD+RW at 8x it only takes about 8~9 minutes. Sweet!

[Rudyard]

Hmmm, I may have to pick +R from now on (I normally take whatever is there from a good brand)

And when I burn full 4.35gb DVD video compilation for testing purposes on DVD+RW at 8x it only takes about 8~9 minutes. Sweet!

Cool, I wish my Burner didnt stop recognising RW media, my old test discs used to burn at 1 or 2 speed and it sucked. 8x test discs would be great.

[SatStorm]

@MozartMan: Me on the other hand, I don't know someone that actually use dual layer discs overall. They are too expensive compared single layer discs (the bulk T.Y. discs now cost around 15 eurocents per disc. Dual layer starts on 1.2 euro....).

@kingsley: This is exactly what the "big ones" wants you to believe: That you need HD sources for your LCD/Plasma TV. That way, they force you to buy HDDVD/BD, a HD TV service, etc.
Well, the true is far from that. Blame the big ones for locking the technology, so when the TV Sets detect upscaled singnal, to de-activate all the internal filters...

[DJRumpy]

I'm curious. How would it detect an upscaled DVD/TV signal @ 1080P as opposed to a true HD signal at 1080P?

Do you have a link to this? I'd be curious enough to read up on it.