I wrote the piece (below) originally for High-Def.Org Magazine. It concerns the high-definition DVD format war High-Def.Org is a printed monthly magazine read by 20,000 professionals working in television and motion pictures. The article contains a highly personal view (certainly different from my partner Shane's) and one which I ask no one to follow...nor is it some official stand taking by HDTV Magazine. It would be misleading to say, however, that it was written without the hope of being an influence to putting to rest this dual format problem. How it falls is not too much of a concern for me (even if I push one way and it falls back to the other) but to end this "strike" a side must to be taken. I know some of you will think I am blindly biased for the side I did take and far too simplistic in my view while others will say that I finally see the light. The technology and arguments behind either format are challengingly good. But I have been in this predicting business for 25 years with a pretty good track record. I saw HDTV peeping up out of the ground in 1984 and said to everyone who would listen that it was good enough to sweep the world, and it is doing just that much as foreseen. I stood in opposition against every commercial and public telecasting business in the world when I started out. In this particular article I made a decision, perhaps, also not popular, but at least it is for one side all in the hopes of moving us past the barriers that have been erected by having two battle weary formats created to do essentially the same job. We know how to live with one format. Thirty five millimeter film has been a standard for more that one hundred years, and still comes with yearly improvements. We don't need the added burden two formats working in parallel provides. We need just one format and that is why I wrote the piece below. __Dale Cripps

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The motion picture industry and consumer electronic manufacturers have asked me to decide which high definition DVD format will be used in the future. What? Why me? Well, I am a consumer. I read in the newspapers that the consumer, of all people, is to decide on which high-definition format will be used in the future. The professionals who developed it could not make up their minds before they went to market. I keep asking why they would leave such an important decision up to moi? They didn't offer me (the consumer) any such decisions for HDTV. After everything was decided they offered some compatible transmission/reception formats, such as the 720p and 1080i, but the selection of either did not isolate me nor leave me a potential technical orphan as does a decision for either of the high definition DVD formats. It seems to me that this kind of decision should be left to the experts. I didn't decide to have 60 cycle power frequencies for my home either and I am not the worse for wear. So, why is my decision so eagerly sought for this high-definition DVD format controversy?

Well, since they insist that it is my job as the consumer I best get on with it decisively. The good news is that to me it makes very little difference which format is selected. Either has its own cost of entry to me and each has an advantage here or there. And, they are both getting cheaper. When I (the consumer) make a decision the big commodity makers will produce it at a fraction of what either sells for now. So, I cannot find "cost" as a reason to choose one over the other. Nor can I find...

Read the Full Article

So what IS Shane's choice/argument?

Well I would not have chosen you to pick a format as I see you are still using "60 CYCLES" instead of 60 Hertz.

Fancy features never have impressed me and I see by various surveys that I am not alone.

Can you cite any? Since this is a major pillar of the HD DVD camp, it's fairly important that you back up this claim.

The one Blu-ray machine I saw working as forming and stamping out 18,000 finished BD copies per day with a 16,000 copy good yield

Is this a typical yeild? How does this compare with HD DVD?

$1.50 to $2.00 each

What is the price difference? Why are some $1.50 and others $2.00? Are they different capacities? What capacity were they pressing? Is this what they sell them to the studios for? What does an equivalent HD DVD cost?

Let's end the needless controversy and get on with serving the public with a tight focus on one outstanding format.

So why would you be choosing the more immature format (your words)?

In all, this is a good article with a lot of good information on Blu-ray behind the scenes, but you come to the conclusion to support Blu-ray based only on this information, without adequately comparing it to the same information about HD DVD. It's like you're choosing one without seeing (or showing us) the other.

Good information, but unconvincing.

- Miller

What happened? Did you get called for dinner? Finish the article and explain why.

Dale clearly stated his reason for Blu-ray. As far as Dale is concerned, both formats are functionally equal in quality, cost and features.
HD DVD is a format at the end of it's growth, Blu-ray has just begun. Thus Blu-ray is his choice, just like HDTV was his choice over EDTV. Does any body here think EDTV would have been a better choice?

btreth wrote:Does any body here think EDTV would have been a better choice?

Not a valid analogy. There is a clear visual difference between EDTV and HDTV that most people recognize. There is no such visual advantage of Blu-ray over HD DVD.

- Miller

I doubt that with every bit of material dredged up from all archives from both sides that I could convince you one way or the other. What I can do is make a choice and by that act end my argument. I do make a choice in this case because the public is burdened with the extra cost associated with making two competing formats popular. Both are workable and satisfactory for the job to be done as it is presently defined, i.e., to deliver movies and features about the movie. All I have done is choose the format which will most likely have a longer future and which offers more wiggle room to innovators (so that new or expanded uses can be made for the medium). There is an old adage in the communications business that says, "No matter how much bandwidth you have now, you will always want and need more tomorrow". The first hard drive I bought had a whopping 20 Megs of magnetic memory, for which I had to pay $1000. I thought I would never use all of that hard disk capacity since I was successfully working at the time (1987) with two floppies, each limited to 800 K. One floppy held the system and program I used and the other contained the data I was creating. Just last month I bought a 500 Gig USB axillary drive to supplement the 100 Gig internal drive already in my desktop. Actually. this was the third one of that capacity I acquired this last quarter -- one for a lap top and another for my DISH DVR. They are fast filling up with video, a use for a hard drive that I never anticipated when I bought that first 20 Meg disk. As a side note, I paid just $150 each for the last three 500 Gigs!

So, when I see one of the two high def DVD formats will always have an advantage over the other in terms of capacity-- today it's 200 Gigs Blu-ray vs 50 Gigs HD DVD -- and there is nothing else to dissuade me, I have to take capacity as the deciding factor. By no less of an authority than Mark Knox, who Toshiba hired to "sell" the HD DVD to the world, did I learn in a casual conversation at the Displaysearch HDTV conference, that as far as features go, Blu-ray could replicate (or with more capacity exceed) the features of HD DVD if they needed to for competitive purposes (or just found the will to do). It's a huge investment in authoring software. So, we may not get all of those features found today in HD DVD. We will get the ones we most demand. There is one thing you can always rely upon and that is that engineers will keep on engineering. They will make things they think we will embrace. If we don't give a damn, those features once used to beef up the appeal for HD DVD won't have a re-birth elsewhere. If we make a decision for Blu-ray (and I am not saying we will, or that it is in the cards) we should review the features offered by HD DVD and request the ones we love to be incorporated into BD.

Is choosing "capacity," even if at a slight premium, a good choice? I really don't know, but what I do know for sure is that I will never buy another 20 Meg hard drive for $1000.

Dale, I really love your writing and miss it. I hope to see more of your personal take on HDTV!

Dale:
No, you don't have to choose one; at least not until you have done sufficient research so as to make an informed judgment. Let me help you in gathering relevant information: while there is no perceptual difference in video performance; for the majority who do not have an HDMI processing receiver, HD-DVD 1st & 2nd generation players have clearly superior audio (1.5mpsDTS). Hence, only one format offers a relevant and perceptual superiority, and it isn't Blu-ray.

So let me get this straight: You believe that the capacity of Blu-ray, which is unrealize in any practical way at present, outweighs the price and feature advantages that HD DVD has today?

So your advice is that consumers should pay 2-4x more for what? Because they'll need the capacity in 1 year, 2 years, 5 years? You can't sell the consumer on that, even if it's true.

Using your logic, would you have been convinced to pay $4000 for 80MB rather than $1000 for 20MB? Knowing that you had no immediate need for the extra 60MB in the forseeable future? I think not.

- Miller

I have found that my hearing is impaired above 10k cps. So, the suggestion of making a choice for something I can't hear fails to sway me, personally. I believe I will benefit more from the added capacity which gives room for innovation in things I may be able to use. I will certainly benefit where my personal video shot in HDTV is concerned. This is becoming a huge sector and capacity is welcome. That outweighs the argument, at least in my mind, that I should choose on the basis of audio superiority which is beyond my hearing. Again, this is a personal choice and one which when made would likely incorporate all what is missing in the other.

It would be interesting to know now if there is anything in the Blu-ray hardware or software or licensing that permanently prohibits Blu-ray from adopting what it is you seek? I will say that my guests in my home theater have never once mentioned audio as being insufficient or disappointing and I am still using an optical connection! I will soon upgrade to a audio system that accepts HDMI for the benefit of those who may have audio acuity. Again, this is my choice of Blu-ray, not your's. nor am asking you to join me in any quest other than the settling of this issue one way or the other. I do hope you will join that effort. As to formats, I would be just as pleased if all of you who read this gather up enough sound reasoning to make the obvious choice that of the HD DVD. If you do not want the issues settled at all and are one of those who benefits from such divisiveness, then that is another story. HDNet told me they were personally delighted that there are two formats because that channel is benefiting from two separate ad campaigns for the same movies (at least those coming out on both formats). If you can follow we can end this costly contest of wills we will all benefit. Some of you know that I was part of the leadership of the HDTV movement for many years and I can tell you that we made trade offs in order to arrive at a system. Dick Wiley (chairman of the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Services) formed the Grand Alliance out of the surviving (of the testing) proponents where the best features of each were brought together in one system. Out of that unity has come all the rest that we see being done today in displays and even more advanced parameters. None of it would have happened if we had been left divided. As it was we barely had the energy to get over the hump, but we did. I see a micro parallel in this high-definition war and all my choice says is that we should now take the best of each system and apply our talents to melding them together where possible and accepting what is not possible and then move on with one system. The fellow who argues that the added capacity will not find use and that its cost is too great makes a good point until one realizes that the cost is not to us at retail but is part of the fabrication cost which has no chance of being passed on to the consumer BECAUSE the clearly recognized threat to either format is the existing DVD format and upconverting playback equipment. A well mastered DVD is quite acceptable to a huge quantity of people. Remember that survey which pointed out that 45% of the HD equipment in use is NOT attached to a HDTV source? This was very distressing news to the studios for they want the added content protection that comes with either high-def DVD format. But with so many satisfied with DVD performance on their HD sets they realized that they had an uphill battle with a high def DVD format, especially where cost is concerned. They would like to get rid of the DVD format as soon as possible and doing it with added cost is a poor marketing choice when people are happy with what they already have.

Does this mean the studios will take a small hit in margins? There is nothing more inherently costly in the pressing process other than raw materials that are not yet being purchased in large enough quantities to reduce their costs. Already manufacturing engineering has reduced one of the layering cost in the pressing process. Is there anyone who thinks that supporting two separate formats in the global marketing channels is cheaper than only pressing Blu-ray?

Dale wrote:The fellow who argues that the added capacity will not find use and that its cost is too great makes a good point until one realizes that the cost is not to us at retail...

Umm, that is my exact point ... it is being passed on to us at retail. Why else would Blu-ray players be 2-4x more expensive than HD DVD?

Dale wrote:They would like to get rid of the DVD format as soon as possible and doing it with added cost is a poor marketing choice when people are happy with what they already have.

So now you are saying that we should go HD DVD because that is the least resistant path to replacing standard DVD?

Dale wrote:Is there anyone who thinks that supporting two separate formats in the global marketing channels is cheaper than only pressing Blu-ray?

What about pressing only HD DVD? Even cheaper still, yes?

I don't mean to keep arguing, but the only reason you've given us for picking Blu-ray is capacity, and you haven't provided any reason at all why paying more for that capacity is to the consumers benefit.

- Miller

I am going to let Dale handle the issue of his choice, because is his choice.

Which I happen to agree with, is mine as well, I will keep investing in just Blu-ray content, even if I could get an HD-DVD player for free, but I keep my personal reasons out of forums.

This note is because I just wanted to make a clarification about the comment made about audio:

"HD-DVD 1st & 2nd generation players have clearly superior audio (1.5mpsDTS). Hence, only one format offers a relevant and perceptual superiority, and it isn't Blu-ray."

Actually, DTS 1.5Mbps was and still is for many years a "legacy" multichannel lossy audio, as Dolby Digital is at much lower resolution (384Kbps), both used even for DVD.

DTS 1.5Mbps is not a new format for either blue-laser format, but both new blu-laser players have to have those legacy audio decoders as backward compatibility.

If you have a quality audio equipment it has been and still is very obvious the superior quality of DTS over Dolby Digital (both legacy) specially when playing DVD concerts. The overall clarity and the tight bass were always better on DTS.

You might be refering to the newer hi-bit audio codecs DTS-HD and DTS Master Audio with resolutions many times over the 1.5Mbps of legacy DTS.

Both blu-laser formats have those codec capabilities, regardless if the audio formats are mandated or optional in the specs for manufacturing either player. And it has always been the option of the content provider to include any of those on the discs, of either blu-laser format.

If you like to read about the details please check the Glossary of this magazine, or the articles and reports I have written about the subject, also available on this magazine.

By the way Dale, do not disregard your ability to hear quality audio due to age. Just remember when you and Shane attended a demo I did on my HT of Blu-ray Leyends of Jazz, and for some tracks I was just playing Dolby TrueHD downconverted as Dolby Digital at almost 700Kbps (whereas the typical DD on DVDs is usually peaking at 384Kbps.)

You and Shane thought that the sound was so clean that I was playing TrueHD on that part of the demo. Make that audio 30 times that resolution and loseless, and it will blow your mind, even when you still playing 5.1.

You would not need a hearing aide to recognize that level of quality, because even when you would need higher dB on the upper frequencies for your hearing to hear the highs above 10KHz, the overall clarity is overwhelming at any frequency.

In fact I would be cautious about using a hearing aid for this type of purpose considering that all of them are designed to deal with frequencies below 8KHz for the primary purpose of helping with speech recognizion.

Additionally, you would not want a miniature amplifier in or out of your ear having specs above 2% Total Harmonic Distortion and an equalizer on it, located between your timpany and your 0.0002% THD HT amplifier. You would be better off by closing the door of your HT and raise the volume to the level you need, to tolerable levels indeed, you do not want more damage.

In summary, I agree that sound quality is a great step forward for both blu-laser formats, but DTS 1.5Mbps is not that step forward.



Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

I will address your last comment first. Capacity leads to the unknown, the still-to-be-developed and to-be-engineered. It is a doorway to the new. I don't want to close that door on everyone, which I do by leading a choice to HD DVD. Maybe no one will ever find a use for all of that capacity. Perhaps the idea of putting games alongside a movie will never catch on or the idea of selling four movies on one disk will never get legs, but I learned from 25 years of constant study of this industry that every door opened is used and every capacity made is engaged. Find me any spectrum that is not being used (if it can be and is not used for interference protection) The cost of entry is going to soon be equal. Maybe one side will continue to subsidize a player more so than the other, at least for a time. But there is nothing inherently more expensive in one over the other once the items are turned over to the major commodity producers. I learned in the HDTV business that what we rely upon today as dogmatic fact in terms of engineering and cost can be swept away with one new manufacturing process. There are hundreds of thousands of people the world over working constantly on reducing cost through manufacturing advances. Neither you nor I can guess what that innovation or confluence of innovations is going to be which will drive the cost of these devices and their disks down, but we best not make the bet that it won't happen. The first lasers used in the development of the CD cost Philips $10,000 each! They are now pennies each. Intense manufacturing engineering will be applied to every aspect of these high def DVD players and the medium they use. You may recall that the first VCRs were $1200 (in the 70s yet!). Do you recall which -- the Beta or the VHS -- was the more costly machine in those early hours? I do recall that the tapes were $90 to $120 each. History doesn't allow me to believe that either choice we can make will, due to manufacturing cost, be out of reach of the average consumer. It will get cheaper and cheaper and just like the VCR it too will fade with the appearance of the next new thing to come along. That is the way it has historically been and I can't see any reason to depart from that thinking when contemplating the future.