Is It My choice, Or Is It Yours?

[TomHuffman]

I own a HD DVD and a Blu-ray player, so I really don't much care which camp wins the format war. In fact, I think that the most likely outcome is that both formats survive side-by-side.

However, I have one serious concern about Blu-ray based on my purchasing experiences of the last year. The Blu-ray camp has a really disturbing tendency of announcing titles which are subsequently delayed or pulled entirely from release. Sometimes the offending studio offers an explanation, sometimes they don't. MGM and 20th Century Fox have been especially bad about this.

HD DVD simply has not had this problem. In fact there have been a couple of high-profile HD DVD-only releases--Batman Begins and The Matrix--by Warners, a studio that supports both formats. This all suggests to me that it is simply a lot easier to produce HD DVD discs. Perhaps the problem is the long-delayed interactivity Blu-ray has been working on. I really don't know.

In any case, the KISS principle seems particularly appropriate here. Unless you get something of comparable value (and I have experienced no added value to higher capacity), the simplest approach is the desirable one. If Blu-ray wins that fine with me, but if they do I hope they resolve whatever issues that have caused these maddening shifts in release schedules.

[Dale]

Hey Dale,

Thought this might be interesting for you to link to, from Sound & Vision Magazine http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/featur ... g-blu.html

Sam Raimi, the Spider-Man 3 director, gets high on high-def after his first foray into Blu-ray. "There

[Rodolfo]

I am not sure what is the purpose of the post under Dale's name, but the comment should NOT be misinterpreted as a disapproval of the other format.

The comment about Blu-ray is said within the context of what Hi-Def DVD media brings to the consumer as quality, not that one format is better than the other.

Additionally, one would be surprised of the limited personal audio/video setup many of these film directors/producers have compared to what many of us have. Including Sam Runco himself.

I say the above in total fairness, because I already said I prefer Blu-ray, for my own reasons.

Both formats have very high capabilities of video and audio.

If you want to read a deeper view of the subject of comparison WSR magazine issue 125 Nov 07 (the current issue, page 70) interviews Paramount Picures' Alan Bell, the executive that was SVP in Warner before switching to Paramount.

Paramount, as you know, just decided to produce content in only HD DVD format, after recording on both, and his assesment from that point of view (ignoring 150 miilion dollars of course), as well as coming from Warner point of view, is a unique angle that perhaps no other executive could provide, if you trust the statements.

One main item that he mentions is exactly opposite to Dale's, and matching my opinion, storage capacity is NOT an issue that a consumer of movies should be concerned with, and that comment is made on his condition of Warner and Paramount dual format experience.

He says that 95% of movies are 135 minutes or less and a 30GB HD DVD could hold 3 or 4 hours of HD, even with 3 hr max there is plenty of space for extra material. Or even a second disc with that material could be included if a lot of that extra material is desired, which is not uncommon, and is not considered an incovenience because it does not interrupt the movie, such as the niche laserdisc.

Unless one wants to get bold with multiple hi-bit advance audio codecs at 36Mbps or also store uncompressed PCM for all channels, either format has sufficient capacity for the basic purpose of movies, a single best choice of hi-bit audio by the content provider, and let the player do the PCM if necessary, or obtain the core of DD or DTS legacy from it.

There are two things that larger capacity could be a great benefit, large TV series in one disc, and computer backup/data purposes.

But more efficient video algorithms using VC1 or MPEG-4 downloaded to upgreadable firmware chips, and also the implementation of multilayer discs, which already invented and I covered on my reports for years, make disappear most of the capacity issues for those applications as well.

Capacity was brought as one of the differences since day one of the prototypes, and it was misused as a theoretical important factor when no content was available, now with actual content being recorded, there is no reason to doubt that capacity is an issue on either format for the purpose they both were invented.

Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[Dale]

The reason I chose capacity as the deciding factor was in order to not foreclose on future ideas that might find commercial or professional use out of that incrementally low cost capacity. That capacity comes with a very little price and to deny it because of lower cost of entry will always seem shortsighted to me. VHS won on capacity, if you recall, and this time we don't have to sacrifice quality. Rodolfo already introduces the idea of a season's TV series making up the content for the capacity. Let me suggest distributing movies as a "Double Feature". Oh, you say, how ridiculous! But the double feature was once a major marketing strategy for theaters and by doing that they insured box office attraction even if the main feature was weak in appeal. It was also a time when shorts and other features were included to introduce new stars or give older ones a fresh start with a new character. These things can easily be introduced using the added capacity and some will succeed and cause enormous sales and some will fail and be found on the discount tables at Walmart. But without capacity these things are not going to be an option, and that capacity comes at a tiny price. If one views things on a macro level, as one must with any analysis of the national economy, maintaining two separate standards comes also with a cost. is it not wiser to have the capacity so marketers can add attractions until we consumers are finally sold on his or her offering? If that is not suitable logic, draw your own conclusions, but my life's experiences tells me to bet on someone figuring out how to make happy customers and handsome money with added capacity. I don't want to be the judge in the marketplace who disallows expansive thinking when the price for making that decision is (on the macro level) little-to-none.

My choice had little to do with high-end feature tweaking because at the highest levels both are on par. I

With respect to Paramount, I find it a challenge to trust someone who is benefactor of $150,000,000 to say what he is paid to say. I don't know how we trust a company (Viacom) who with their Blockbuster division, supports only Blu Ray and with another of their holdings (Paramount) supports only HD DVD?

Bottom line is this: As long as you can successfully discredit capacity you can destroy Blu-ray. _Dale Cripps

[Rodolfo]

Bottom line is this: As long as you can successfully discredit capacity you can destroy Blu-ray. _Dale Cripps

With this logic HD DVD would have been already discreditted and destroyed, which is not the case.

The concept of TV series has been introduced since the first prototypes over 5 years ago, because of the theoretical games companies played with some elements they could easily identify, at that early time of the Hi Def DVD concept.

The same was said about using Blu-ray to record long HDTV content, and those $3000 recorders never made it to the US after several years of existence in Japan (Sony), and most probably never will.

Media capacity was the typical factor for VHS and laserdisc because it was a linear analog signal that has to be stored the same way, and the capacity of the blank media dictated the limits of such format capacity. There was no compression and no multilayer factors in analog as implemented, so players could not go too far either.

Capacity in the world of digital is subjected to newer variables, from improved video compression with more efficient algorithms dowloaded to legacy players, to multilayer discs. Both reusing current HW if properly designed, without even changing the pits density or the laser beam.

Although I am a lover of the sweetness of hi-end vinyl and turntables, for this discussion, we have left the world of analog with its fixed limitations and measurements long time ago.

Capacity in the digital world can not the measured by a single linear variable as analog was.

The 51GB HD DVD and the 200GB Blu-ray and many other multilayer solutions, have been with us for quite a bit to give the sense that capacity is and will be a moving target regardless of the format, which will grow within the format.

Besides, the intention of the article, to my knowledge, was to bring the point (and the storming of opinion) that the Joe-six-pack consumer was left to make a choice of a format, obviously without the benefit of an analysis based on technical knowledge he/she does not have, to conclude that capacity could/will/not be a factor down the line.

Therefore non-technical factors are most probably the most representative mass market selection criteria of either format, for example, a parent that wants Disney movies to be seen by his/her kids most probably would not choose HD DVD.

VHS was chosen not specially because it could store 6hrs of linear analog, and that was an analog world.

Unfortunately, regardless how technologically good the format could be, the main non technical reason that Blu-ray could fail within the next 12 months is due to Disney/Sony's resistance to support you-know-what-type of billion dollar industry content, again.


Best Regards,

Rodolfo La Maestra

[Dale]

I will accept your message since I knew all of what you say years ago. I am now in my 26th year in the analysis of this industry and was up close to all of the format wars. But none of that is relevant to me in this case because we ARE in a new technical and cultural world and if you can unerringly predict the future, or what ideas will rule in five years, ten, or more, you are a far, far better man than myself. What I have repeatedly said is that since there is so little penalty for gaining capacity we should accept any small cost like we do an insurance policy. There is always a price to pay for protecting one's self against an adverse future. I personally like insurance and have coverage on my home, personal property, auto, and my own health. Insurance we pay for having a good outcome in the future is part of the selling price. of the product. I still hold that the unknown future is something we for pennies can (and maybe for nothing) have Blu ray. Why do we need this insurance? in case someone learns how to fill and market the added capacity to us is the only answer I can think of. You always make a good point, however, about how people in the past tried things that consumed capacity and, well, they didn't work. I recall watching ten years of absolute market failure in interactive television (anything on demand). The test in Florida on a Time-Warner cable system and the one in Southern California (La Mirada) were dismal failures. But that didn't stop those who were invested and convinced in the concept and they kept on evolving until it was right enough that a market has now responded. So, while it would be foolish to not acknowledge that various disk applications failed to meet expectations, it would be equally dangerous to think that the last idea has already been conceived and applied to that.

I will buy the insurance of capacity and see it the key factor that consumers can clearly see and understand. I doubt we can get more than a handful to ever read our analysis since it is esoteric to most observers. I do want everyone to have a better life's experiece with all what we call HDTV, and I am comfortable recommending that we all accept Blu ray just to make a choice, if nothing else.

Now, with respect to the sex industry. I don't know where Girls Run Wild fits into the spectrum of category. Is it porn or is it not? But I did see an ad on television announcing the coming of the Blu-ray versions. Can Playboy be far behind? Is Howard Stringer going to pull licenses form those independant companies who press Blu Ray? From what I hear the sex industry is not thrilled with high definition. They are happy with standard DVD due to the cost of concealing distracting personal flaws. They also don't devote a whole lot of money to the cameras. Maybe what you suggest will be a factor and so the more liberal people at HD DVD can hop on that bandwaggon. I stick with capacity as the most understandable reason that the public can have to understand and choose once they realize they have to choose. Lastly, if capacity is destroyed in a solid argument I said that destroys Blu-ray. Let me add that it would leave Blu ray without any particular technical advantage and no capacity advantage and a costlier beginnning. So, I would think that setsBlu-ray to the back of the class HD DVD strides ahead with cost being the advantage. HD DVD is still swinging its war hammer on the basis that it is a lower cost entry because you can convert existing pressing plants and the medium is a few cents cheaper.

Warmest Regards,

Dale

[Rodolfo]

Dale,

I believe you are not reading the depth of the facts that I am writing.

Capacity is not an insurance because is a moving target, which does not depend on the disc alone, it grows on any format in the digital world at any given time.

Old analog formats were linear with the same limitation of specs all the time. New digital formats have more variables that improve/affect quality, capacity, etc, they are not linear; they are a moving target.

Regarding exercising a consumer

[miller]

That capacity comes with a very little price and to deny it because of lower cost of entry will always seem shortsighted to me.

I thought we already covered this. So you consider a 300% premium "very little price"? Sorry, I'm not paying that much more for something I can't see or hear. Tell me how that capacity will allow me to enjoy my movies that much more this Christmas and I'll reconsider, honestly.

Short-sighted, maybe. But I've waited almost two years to put my money on the table, and I don't want to wait any longer for them to decide what they're going to do with their extra capacity.

With respect to Paramount, I find it a challenge to trust someone who is benefactor of $150,000,000 to say what he is paid to say.

C'mon Dale, you seriously think no money has changed hands in the Blu-ray camp? It's business. It's also not all "cash", as you make it sound, it includes promotion of their titles in Toshiba HD DVD ad campaigns.

BTW, check your facts ... Paramount only received $50 million. The other $100 million went to Dreamworks. (New York Times article)

Blockbuster division, supports only Blu Ray

Not true. The 250 stores in which they originally offered both formats, will continue to offer both formats. And both formats are available in their online rentals.

Blockbuster press release

Sounds to me like they haven't "picked" Blu-ray, only expanded their offering. And they explicitly say that they will stock more HD DVD in more stores as demand increases.

As long as you can successfully discredit capacity you can destroy Blu-ray.

I disagree. You've explained why you're latched on to capacity, but I would think you would care more about manufacturer support, studio participation and increased bitrate. If you want to convince people to go with Blu-ray, give them things they can put their finger (or eyes & ears) on.

- Miller

PS. Dale, could you please start including references for some of the claims you've been making? I think you'd find that they're not as true as you'd like to think they are.

[Dale]

I don't think I can profit from further comments on this topic other than what I have below:

You are certainly free to make a decision on what you want without any thought of what I have to say. I only did what I could to provide some unifyihg direction to resolve a costly divisive stalemate. Without one format clearly pulling ahead there will continue to be two standards. LG believes that will be the case and they have long term plans for their dual format player. That is likely to be the lowest cost approach if access to all high def movies is one's goal. You cite a 300% price difference today between Blu-ray and HD DVD based on highly elastic factors that could change in a heartbeat. I respect that you want a high def DVD player of some kind now and the value proposition offered currently is slanted towards HD DVD. What would be your position if it was slanted towards Blu-ray? The financial power of the companies involved is great enough that cost of manufacturering need not be linked to market price. I read recently that Sony ships out about $400 http://www.news.com/Is-Sony-eating-hund ... 36204.html in subsidey with every PS3. Foreign nations ofen subsidize consumer electronics in order to retain manufacturing jobs (the subsidy is cheaper than a social security-like support of a laid off worker). The value proposition could change radically from the support of one system to that of the other in the blink of an eye. So, I am a little underwhelmed by your choice based on today's advertised loss-leader price.

Is there virtue in patience? Well, in one very real sense the human race has had to be endlessly patient for even electricithy much less a hi def DVD player. Getting electricity took what? a half a billion years or so? I can understand how waiting yet another couple of months to see if this movement of mine catches fire could be an intolerable wait. We can all understand the "I want it, when I want it" era--much of it enabled by consumer electronics. All who were responsible for making HDTV happen had to have patience. For nearly 10 years we labored without any gratification, instant or otherwise. Without the commercialization of HDTV none of us had an easy way to support a budget or living wage. I was down five million dollars at one point. And, history will show that we could have shortend that painful span by five or six years if only we would have abandoned HDTV and embraced the NTSC widescreen fix up being offered by the biggest names in the business. Their approach didn't require FCC approval since it was fundamentally the same signal still in the same alloted 6 MHz channel. But we didn't take that quick fix offer and as a result you have true HDTV today. Now, I don't know what that added capacity in Blu-ray is going to be used for anymore than you do, but I do know that if you give to future generations something to expand into, they are going to do that, and if it has commercial "legs" it will be to the public's benefit.

I am a little surprised that you think that the studios would not all jump over to a clearly winning side. What purpose would they have in supporting a divisive market with a faltering format? This approach where you get this movie with that format is going to continue until a winner is identified, which may be never.

Naturally, I would like you to join with me in this campaign so that we can get some momentum behind a single choice. I clearly see that is not going to happen now no matter what is said because you are fixed on buying that one hundred dollar player. That's fine and certainly within bounds. I will relax my campaign since it obviously is not compelling enough for even my own magazine readers. I do these things only as a pubic service where the greater good is first thing taken into considration. Not many people think in those terms any more. I do want to say in closing that I have no interest in Sony or Panasonic or whoever else makes or supports that standard. I have no connection at all to any of those who have patents or any other values associated with a commercial success. I truly picked it for the reason of capacity and nothing else. I judge both systems as technically on par with each other and HD DVD has a few credits due to some of its software features. But substantially more capacity offers too much creative latitude to be dismissed as a trivial consideration.

Yes, I should cite for you all of the references but I have been in the business for so long now that most people accept me as an authority. But it is lazy on my part. Maybe you study the news like I do. I go over every news item, press release every day and I never write what I have not seen. Oh, did you not hear that DreamWorks was taken over by Paramount? That was nearly a year ago as I recall. Here is the reference: http://www.filmgecko.com/dreamworks-now ... -property/

[pmalter0]

I only did what I could to provide some unifying direction to resolve a costly divisive stalemate.

I hope, and believe, that your concern is not necessary. This is not a repeat of Beta vs. vhs. Producing,shipping,stocking, and displaying both beta/vhs was far more costly than standardizing on just one. That is not the case with Blu-ray/HD-dvd. Much like the Lp and audio cassette, Blu-ray/HD-dvd can, and I predict will, coexist happily together. Once the studios start seeing significant sales of both, they will drop exclusivity and happily produce both.[/quote]