The format war is over...Warner goes BluRay exclusive!

[Irishman]

There will always be an ideological divide between those who want more stuff in less storage space, and thoe (like myself) who want the best quality, space be damned.

That's why Digital downloads won't do away with purer, less compressed or otherwise lossless music and films. DD markets to the least common denominator.

 

[USS KG5]

Irishman said:
There will always be an ideological divide between those who want more stuff in less storage space, and thoe (like myself) who want the best quality, space be damned.

The nice thing is that with the superb leaps that both compression technology and storage space have made - we can all have both!

That's why Digital downloads won't do away with purer, less compressed or otherwise lossless music and films. DD markets to the least common denominator.

There are lots of excellent lossless compression algorithms for music, FLAC for example. That said with high bitrate MP3s and AAC files you would be hard pressed to pass a blind test to tell the difference.

Digital downloads currently do not provide the quality that a lot of people want, with 128kbps MP3 and AAC files rather too common. That is changing however, and the difference is between 4MB per song and 5MB, so music can be downloaded at very high quality with current technology.

I doubt we will ever see lossless video on a disc, they do not make discs big enough to store uncompressed bitmapped images at high resolution at 24fps, and frankly that is probably a good thing.

But if you can get the same quality from a compressed file, why bother trying to use an uncompressed one?

Digital downloads will one day cater to everyone from the hi-fi enthusiast to the most casual consumer of entertainment.

 

[Philo]

USS KG5 said:

Take a 96/24 encoding and downsample it to 44.1/16 and do a double blind ABX test on the converted track versus the original. All I can say is good luck. I've never been able to pass the test myself.

Indeed - with a double-blind test there are probably very few people who could pass.

My roommate is in an electroacoustics program at the local university and he says he can definitely tell the difference. That said, he actually gets sneered at a lot by his snobby teachers and classmates because he only records his work in 44.1.

As far as Blu-ray/HD-DVD goes, I'm pretty ambivalent to the whole format war, as I'm sure most consumers are. I doubt that it will really affect much more than the niche technophile market. This isn't another VHS/Beta thing going on, It's another laserdisc. So just imagine if laserdisc had had a competing format.

 

[USS KG5]

Philo said:
My roommate is in an electroacoustics program at the local university and he says he can definitely tell the difference. That said, he actually gets sneered at a lot by his snobby teachers and classmates because he only records his work in 44.1.

Well if everyone on his course could pass a blind test I would be extremely surprised. Unless it was maybe a class of superhumans or five year olds, who could hear the differences in frequency response.

One big advantage of 24 bit encoding is it increases the maximum dynamic range of music recordings to 105db from 96db, which does make a difference when listening to symphonic music very loud (I have found).

But again - this can be put down to good recording and clever reproduction equipment as much as to encoding.

 

[Noname Given]

Philo said:
So just imagine if laserdisc had had a competing format.

Actually, there WERE two competing Laser Disc formats (CLV and CAV). What eventually happened was that all the second and third generation LD players could play them both.

 

[Philo]

USS KG5 said:

Philo said:
My roommate is in an electroacoustics program at the local university and he says he can definitely tell the difference. That said, he actually gets sneered at a lot by his snobby teachers and classmates because he only records his work in 44.1.

Well if everyone on his course could pass a blind test I would be extremely surprised. Unless it was maybe a class of superhumans or five year olds, who could hear the differences in frequency response.

Well, that was kind of my (and his) point. If he, one of the few who can actually hear the difference, would rather record in 44.1, isn't that enough?

Noname Given said:

Philo said:
So just imagine if laserdisc had had a competing format.

Actually, there WERE two competing Laser Disc formats (CLV and CAV). What eventually happened was that all the second and third generation LD players could play them both.

Well, I stand corrected but that just goes to show you how much historical weight this current format war is likely to have.

 

[wws]

This just in from Paramount: (as posted on www.imdb.com)


Paramount Makes Last-Ditch HD DVD Stand


Paramount sent out mixed signals at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas Monday about whether it will abandon the HD DVD format. Following word that Warner Bros. now intends to release high-definition movies exclusively in the Blu-ray format and a report in the London Financial Times that Paramount would make a switch to Blu-ray, the Viacom-owned studio issued a statement saying, "We are still supporting HD DVD." A short time later, however, it said that, unlike its competitors, it would not be making any announcements of future HD DVD releases at the show. In its report about Paramount's reported plans, the Financial Times observed, "Paramount joining the Blu-ray camp would leave HD DVD likely to suffer the same fate as Sony's now obsolete Betamax video technology, which lost out to VHS in a similar format war in the 1980s."

 

[USS KG5]

Philo said:

USS KG5 said:

Philo said:
My roommate is in an electroacoustics program at the local university and he says he can definitely tell the difference. That said, he actually gets sneered at a lot by his snobby teachers and classmates because he only records his work in 44.1.

Well if everyone on his course could pass a blind test I would be extremely surprised. Unless it was maybe a class of superhumans or five year olds, who could hear the differences in frequency response.

Well, that was kind of my (and his) point. If he, one of the few who can actually hear the difference, would rather record in 44.1, isn't that enough?

There is little doubt in the minds of the industry that it is enough it seems, certainly SACD and DVD-Audio were sold in an extremely half-hearted way and seemed to be more about copy protection than absolute quality.

 

[Irishman]

Philo said:

USS KG5 said:

Take a 96/24 encoding and downsample it to 44.1/16 and do a double blind ABX test on the converted track versus the original. All I can say is good luck. I've never been able to pass the test myself.

Indeed - with a double-blind test there are probably very few people who could pass.

My roommate is in an electroacoustics program at the local university and he says he can definitely tell the difference. That said, he actually gets sneered at a lot by his snobby teachers and classmates because he only records his work in 44.1.

As far as Blu-ray/HD-DVD goes, I'm pretty ambivalent to the whole format war, as I'm sure most consumers are. I doubt that it will really affect much more than the niche technophile market. This isn't another VHS/Beta thing going on, It's another laserdisc. So just imagine if laserdisc had had a competing format.

I disagree about hte niche market thing. Wanna know why? Because all TVs are moving to HD. The next time your regular ole tube TV breaks for the last time, you'll HAVE to get one, because it';ll end up being all that's available. Then, what are you going to watch on it? Upconverted SD DVDs sure, but you'll have friends and familt who have HD content that you'll eventually be won over by. It's inevitable.

 

[Deleted 2]

Irishman said:
I disagree about hte niche market thing. Wanna know why? Because all TVs are moving to HD. The next time your regular ole tube TV breaks for the last time, you'll HAVE to get one, because it';ll end up being all that's available.

They'll have to come down in price first. If my tv breaks, and I have the choice between forking over a shitload of cash for an HD-TV, or having no tv, guess what I'll choose?

 

[Starbreaker]

The logical choice since WB helped develop Blu-Ray...

 

[Noname Given]

wws said:
This just in from Paramount: (as posted on www.imdb.com)


Paramount Makes Last-Ditch HD DVD Stand


Paramount sent out mixed signals at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas Monday about whether it will abandon the HD DVD format. Following word that Warner Bros. now intends to release high-definition movies exclusively in the Blu-ray format and a report in the London Financial Times that Paramount would make a switch to Blu-ray, the Viacom-owned studio issued a statement saying, "We are still supporting HD DVD." A short time later, however, it said that, unlike its competitors, it would not be making any announcements of future HD DVD releases at the show. In its report about Paramount's reported plans, the Financial Times observed, "Paramount joining the Blu-ray camp would leave HD DVD likely to suffer the same fate as Sony's now obsolete Betamax video technology, which lost out to VHS in a similar format war in the 1980s."

What 'last ditch stand"? looks like Paramount management is still wieghing its options - it technically could still claim to support HD DVD while ALSO deciding to put things out on Blu-Ray format (ie it would no longer be a HD-DVD exclusive studio - but would technically be nuetral like a few of the other studios).

Nothing in that blurb shows that Paramount is making a 'last ditch' stand with HD-DVD. If they were one would have thought they WOULD have announced future HD-DVD titles at the Vegas CES; and stated outright they would not be doing any Blu-Ray titles period. They COULD eventually do that, but your blurb there doesn't read that way.

 

[wws]

Noname Given said:

What 'last ditch stand"? looks like Paramount management is still wieghing its options - it technically could still claim to support HD DVD while ALSO deciding to put things out on Blu-Ray format (ie it would no longer be a HD-DVD exclusive studio - but would technically be nuetral like a few of the other studios).

Nothing in that blurb shows that Paramount is making a 'last ditch' stand with HD-DVD. If they were one would have thought they WOULD have announced future HD-DVD titles at the Vegas CES; and stated outright they would not be doing any Blu-Ray titles period. They COULD eventually do that, but your blurb there doesn't read that way.

I didn't write it. I just copied and pasted it here.

wws

 

[Daedalus12]

Zero Hour said:

Irishman said:
I disagree about hte niche market thing. Wanna know why? Because all TVs are moving to HD. The next time your regular ole tube TV breaks for the last time, you'll HAVE to get one, because it';ll end up being all that's available.

They'll have to come down in price first. If my tv breaks, and I have the choice between forking over a shitload of cash for an HD-TV, or having no tv, guess what I'll choose?

Support your friend at Philips and grab one of those upcoming 3d holographic TV?

 

[Ronald Held]

So when does TOS appear in Blu-Ray format?

 

[USS KG5]

Ronald Held said:
So when does TOS appear in Blu-Ray format?

I would guess just in time for Xmas 2008...

 

[Brolan]

Noname Given said:

wws said:
This just in from Paramount: (as posted on www.imdb.com)


Paramount Makes Last-Ditch HD DVD Stand


Paramount sent out mixed signals at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas Monday about whether it will abandon the HD DVD format. Following word that Warner Bros. now intends to release high-definition movies exclusively in the Blu-ray format and a report in the London Financial Times that Paramount would make a switch to Blu-ray, the Viacom-owned studio issued a statement saying, "We are still supporting HD DVD." A short time later, however, it said that, unlike its competitors, it would not be making any announcements of future HD DVD releases at the show. In its report about Paramount's reported plans, the Financial Times observed, "Paramount joining the Blu-ray camp would leave HD DVD likely to suffer the same fate as Sony's now obsolete Betamax video technology, which lost out to VHS in a similar format war in the 1980s."

What 'last ditch stand"? looks like Paramount management is still wieghing its options - it technically could still claim to support HD DVD while ALSO deciding to put things out on Blu-Ray format (ie it would no longer be a HD-DVD exclusive studio - but would technically be nuetral like a few of the other studios).

Nothing in that blurb shows that Paramount is making a 'last ditch' stand with HD-DVD. If they were one would have thought they WOULD have announced future HD-DVD titles at the Vegas CES; and stated outright they would not be doing any Blu-Ray titles period. They COULD eventually do that, but your blurb there doesn't read that way.

I think they are just waiting around for a cash offer from the Blu-ray folks. They can see the writing on the wall the same as the rest of us...

 

[Outpost4]

Noname Given said:
Actually, there WERE two competing Laser Disc formats (CLV and CAV). What eventually happened was that all the second and third generation LD players could play them both.

Not true. First generation discs were all CAV (Constant Angular Velocity) but this was just a limitation on the making of the discs themselves. Those first generation machines were capable of playing CLV discs, too (Constant Linear Velocity). There just weren't any CLV discs made for the first couple of years of LaserDisc. CAV discs were only 1/2 hour per side but gave you all the best features like frame by frame advance, three times speed and frame number access (go to a frame by its number). CLV discs were 1 hour per side but had shitty freeze frame, no frame step, and generally poor effects. Still, most movies were on CLV discs because you didn't have to flip the disc so often. I still have some porn CAV discs, though.

There was a competing system to LaserDisc made by RCA called Selectivision. It may be what you were thinking about. It, too, was a disc system but instead of being read by a laser, the disc was read by a stylus. It never worked right. It's nickname was Skipovision.

RCA Selectivision was one of those great corporate fuck-ups. RCA made a very conscious choice to push it rather than the other new video format, VHS. Talk about betting on the wrong horse.

BTW, on a completely unrelated issue, I've done enough live recording to be able to easily hear the difference between a 96K sampling/24 bit recording and a regular 44.1/16 bit CD. It's not even close. Anybody, on a system using audiophile equipment, can hear the difference once you know what to listen for. The higher end format images much better, for one. It also has much more depth and is smoother. It's easy to hear these differences once they are pointed out.

 

[Candlelight]

Bob The Skutter said:

Babaganoosh said:

Irishman said:
"Better" product hasn't triumphed? Please explain.

In BluRay vs. HD-DVD, there really was no "better" product. As far as the consumer was concerned, both were exactly the same.

The fact that BluRay won the format war wasn't an instance of the superior product losing, since neither format was 'superior' to the other in any way that mattered to the end user.

In my opinion, HD-DVD is the "better" format, which has a feature that does matter to a lot of consumers, there is no regions locking on them.

That means nothing in Australia and New Zealand, where region encoding is not an issue. Multi-region players are the norm, and single-region players are very hard to find.

 

[Noname Given]

Outpost4 said:

Noname Given said:
Actually, there WERE two competing Laser Disc formats (CLV and CAV). What eventually happened was that all the second and third generation LD players could play them both.

Not true. First generation discs were all CAV (Constant Angular Velocity) but this was just a limitation on the making of the discs themselves. Those first generation machines were capable of playing CLV discs, too (Constant Linear Velocity). There just weren't any CLV discs made for the first couple of years of LaserDisc. CAV discs were only 1/2 hour per side but gave you all the best features like frame by frame advance, three times speed and frame number access (go to a frame by its number). CLV discs were 1 hour per side but had shitty freeze frame, no frame step, and generally poor effects. Still, most movies were on CLV discs because you didn't have to flip the disc so often. I still have some porn CAV discs, though.

There was a competing system to LaserDisc made by RCA called Selectivision. It may be what you were thinking about. It, too, was a disc system but instead of being read by a laser, the disc was read by a stylus. It never worked right. It's nickname was Skipovision.

RCA Selectivision was one of those great corporate fuck-ups. RCA made a very conscious choice to push it rather than the other new video format, VHS. Talk about betting on the wrong horse.

BTW, on a completely unrelated issue, I've done enough live recording to be able to easily hear the difference between a 96K sampling/24 bit recording and a regular 44.1/16 bit CD. It's not even close. Anybody, on a system using audiophile equipment, can hear the difference once you know what to listen for. The higher end format images much better, for one. It also has much more depth and is smoother. It's easy to hear these differences once they are pointed out.

Nope, while I remember the RCA 'Selectavision' (I can't believe anyone actually bought the thing after seeing how it worked); I was thinking the two LD formats were different. I got into LaserDiscs late (as I got heavily into Anime collecting back in 1987)- and had heard various stories about why some players wouldn't play CLV, etc.