Blu-ray, in General

[davebert]

I'm a little tired of studios suggesting that crappy C-grade action thrillers are somehow pushed to A-grade "must-have-on-BD library titles" by merit of increased technical/visual standards. I hit my wallet when I see a great movie (usually much older than the past-20-years bias we've been getting here) that I would love to see in more detail/more cinematic presentation. I will NOT hit my wallet just so I can wow my fucking eyes with how sharp the CGI wolves now look in The Day After Tomorrow, and I'm a little offended they even think I would.

I guess that's what seperates the AVphiles from the cinephiles, eh?

That said, the Fox/MGM announcement carries a few heavy-hitters that I could see myself going for... Robocop, The Fly, Die Hard, and depending on the day/month/level of alcohol in my blood, perhaps Red Dawn or 28 Days Later. WOLVERINES!

I'm just curious, not being a financial guru, but are these $150 million buy-offs from the HD-DVD camp considered absolutely legal? They are presented in such point blank terms that I don't see any other way to take it but as a corporate bribe, and I have to believe some agency would have a problem with that.

[Luke M]

I feel the same way about the movie selection. It's very, very poor. Casablanca is on HD-DVD and The Seventh Seal will be on Blu-Ray. What to do, what to do?

[TedW]

I'm a little tired of studios suggesting that crappy C-grade action thrillers are somehow pushed to A-grade "must-have-on-BD library titles" by merit of increased technical/visual standards. I hit my wallet when I see a great movie (usually much older than the past-20-years bias we've been getting here) that I would love to see in more detail/more cinematic presentation. I will NOT hit my wallet just so I can wow my fucking eyes with how sharp the CGI wolves now look in The Day After Tomorrow, and I'm a little offended they even think I would.

You're new to this planet, I see. Welcome.

[Antoine Doinel]

Losers

The general public who have to keep on enduring this "war".

[LionelHutz]

I will NOT hit my wallet just so I can wow my fucking eyes with how sharp the CGI wolves now look in The Day After Tomorrow..

I thought that was the whole point of High Definition!

[davebert]

I think actual third-rate CGI stands the most to lose from the hi-def presentation, like the wolves in Day After Tomorrow (which look cobbled together as is), replicated in 1080 might very well look alarmingly fake versus just amusingly fake...

[The Invunche]

I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks! They were progressive by having two formats. No Transformers 2 for me!

[Ted Todorov]

Winners:

*Microsoft -- Now much less likely that either disc format will catch on, paving the way for digital downloads.

This makes a big and IMO wrong assumption that Microsoft will benefit from digital downloads winning -- in my view the one company in a position to win (for the foreseeable future) is Apple. Not only have all download services that are not iTunes failed miserably, but Apple is the only company with a chance to bring digital downloads to average people's home theater systems -- AppleTV & MacMinis or MacBooks running Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) represent the first serious efforts in that regard. Windows "Media Center" editions have been a miserable failure for Microsoft.

That said, this whole thing stinks, because now Criterion will wait even longer before getting into the HD game. And my policy is, no wasting money on the Betamaxes of the future until Criterion jumps in & the format war ends. To hell with Blu-ray & HD-DVD -- a pox on both their houses.

[patrick]

I suppose I must be the only one who's not eagerly anticipating Criterion getting into the HD game - all the upconverted Criterion discs I've watched have looked perfectly fine and I'm not looking forward to replacing them, especially when they'd probably be exorbitantly expensive. I'm sure it's going to take time for Criterion to sort out licensing issues for a new format as well, so I doubt that this news is really delaying anything on their front.

I think HD could pull out a win after all, but I also think the key would be being the first to have a $100 player on the market. If they can hit that price point first there would be no reason for someone who owns an HDTV to not own one.

And from what I've gathered, the real money for Microsoft isn't in selling the movies as downloadable content, but instead providing the infrastructure for that to happen. They've already got their hands in both high-def formats, even if they're pushing HD-DVD.

[jedgeco]

This makes a big and IMO wrong assumption that Microsoft will benefit from digital downloads winning.

Good point. However, MS is already offering an HD downloading service through the X-Box 360 (which is semi-successful from what I hear), and MS certainly has a better chance profiting in a download world than in a disc world.

[jedgeco]

I suppose I must be the only one who's not eagerly anticipating Criterion getting into the HD game - all the upconverted Criterion discs I've watched have looked perfectly fine and I'm not looking forward to replacing them.

I'm not looking forward to replacing either, I'd just like to see new releases in HD. HD has made me a lot choosier about which titles I pick up (both CCs and others) because I can't help but think I may kick myself in when an HD version is released. (I went through the same thing ca. 1996-97 with LD.)

[Gigi M.]

I went through the same thing ca. 1996-97 with LD.

I understand your concern, but please remember that is not the same thing. The difference between DVD and HD DVD is not as impressive as it was with LD or VHS. Nevertheless, you point is well taken. I for one would not buy the same films again because of a better image.

[The Invunche]

This makes a big and IMO wrong assumption that Microsoft will benefit from digital downloads winning -- in my view the one company in a position to win (for the foreseeable future) is Apple. Not only have all download services that are not iTunes failed miserably, but Apple is the only company with a chance to bring digital downloads to average people's home theater systems -- AppleTV & MacMinis or MacBooks running Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) represent the first serious efforts in that regard. Windows "Media Center" editions have been a miserable failure for Microsoft.

Can you explain how exactly Windows Media Center has been a failure and point to the 1080p HD content that AppleTV is capable of playing? AppleTV is a horrible piece of crippleware that is only mean to extend iTunes to the TV. There no such restrictions on Microsofts Media Center software.

[Ted Todorov]

Can you explain how exactly Windows Media Center has been a failure and point to the 1080p HD content that AppleTV is capable of playing? AppleTV is a horrible piece of crippleware that is only mean to extend iTunes to the TV. There no such restrictions on Microsofts Media Center software.

Right -- I agree AppleTV at 720P max is crippleware compared to BD/HD 1080P just as iTunes AAC at 128/256kb is crippleware compared to SACD. Pop quiz -- which sells more - SACDs or iTunes albums?

And no, AppleTV is not the only means to extend iTunes to the TV -- a MacMini or MacBook, (both of which work at 1080P) will do just fine.

I wasn't talking about quality, I was talking about (potential for) market success. Windows Media Center is a failure, because it is expensive, not very user friendly and most machines it runs on are big and loud. You'd be better off buying an HD & BD player.

So far as 1080P is concerned, it will be a long while before anyone starts selling 1080P downloads. You can certainly upscale stuff to 1080P (like DVDs or 720P/1080i EyeTV recordings) with a MacMini, but other than trailers (or pirated HD media rips) 1080P is not available on the internet. Unfortunately for those of who want the best possible quality, the general public is unlikely to care enough about the difference between 720P & 1080P.

[The Invunche]

Right -- I agree AppleTV at 720P max is crippleware compared to BD/HD 1080P just as iTunes AAC at 128/256kb is crippleware compared to SACD. Pop quiz -- which sells more - SACDs or iTunes albums?

AppleTV is crippleware because it has been deliberately designed to only play the formats that Apple wants it to. Again, there are no such limitations on Microsoft's Windows Media Center.

And no, AppleTV is not the only means to extend iTunes to the TV -- a MacMini or MacBook, (both of which work at 1080P) will do just fine.

I meant it is its only purpose. Also, MacBook's aren't expensive?

I wasn't talking about quality, I was talking about (potential for) market success. Windows Media Center is a failure, because it is expensive, not very user friendly and most machines it runs on are big and loud. You'd be better off buying an HD & BD player.

Except Microsoft's Media Center will play any video file out there (container and codec) and while the setup can be tedious the daily operations are as simple as can be.

So far as 1080P is concerned, it will be a long while before anyone starts selling 1080P downloads. You can certainly upscale stuff to 1080P (like DVDs or 720P/1080i EyeTV recordings) with a MacMini, but other than trailers (or pirated HD media rips) 1080P is not available on the internet. Unfortunately for those of who want the best possible quality, the general public is unlikely to care enough about the difference between 720P & 1080P.

But they are likely to care about being locked into Apple's iTunes. And while 1080p content isn't really a factor right now the debate was surely started by pointing out Microsoft had something to gain from the format war.

[LionelHutz]

I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks! They were progressive by having two formats. No Transformers 2 for me!

Truly a sad day for cinema

[jedgeco]

I'm just curious, not being a financial guru, but are these $150 million buy-offs from the HD-DVD camp considered absolutely legal? They are presented in such point blank terms that I don't see any other way to take it but as a corporate bribe, and I have to believe some agency would have a problem with that.

It's been awhile since I've looked at antitrust law, but my recollection is that regulators are only interested in collusion that closes markets and/or is otherwise anti-competitive (price fixing, dividing up markets, etc.). Incidentally, this is the same sort of practice the HD Promo Group is complaining about to EU antitrust regulators.

I understand your concern, but please remember that is not the same thing. The difference between DVD and HD DVD is not as impressive as it was with LD or VHS.

In my personal comparisons, I've found BD to be a similar improvement over DVD as early DVDs were over LD. Of course, this is highly subjective, and YMMV.

[Ted Todorov]

And no, AppleTV is not the only means to extend iTunes to the TV -- a MacMini or MacBook, (both of which work at 1080P) will do just fine.

I meant it is its only purpose. Also, MacBook's aren't expensive?

Compared to MacMini's yes -- so unless you also need a laptop, get a Mini.

I wasn't talking about quality, I was talking about (potential for) market success. Windows Media Center is a failure, because it is expensive, not very user friendly and most machines it runs on are big and loud. You'd be better off buying an HD & BD player.

Except Microsoft's Media Center will play any video file out there (container and codec) and while the setup can be tedious the daily operations are as simple as can be. ...
But they are likely to care about being locked into Apple's iTunes. And while 1080p content isn't really a factor right now the debate was surely started by pointing out Microsoft had something to gain from the format war.

The average user doesn't know what a container or codec is and doesn't care. They obviously don't care about iTunes lock in, otherwise they wouldn't have bought 100 million+ ipods and billions of songs from iTunes. They might not be happy about DRM, but ironically Apple is the only company out there fighting against DRM. When Bill Gates starts sending open letters to the industry demanding the elimination of DRM, please call me.

Microsoft is all about lock in -- *their* lock in. At least Apple uses open standards like AAC & H.264 while MS keeps shoveling their proprietary Windows Media down our throats. At least Apple supports their DRM on Windows.

And if you do care about codecs and containers a MacMini will play all of them just fine -- except for DRMed Windows media -- i.e. that very same lock in...

[patrick]

Digitalbits.com editorial about Paramount/Dreamworks

I tend to agree with their point of view...Sony and Toshiba offering money to studios to pick one format over the other makes perfect sense (especially when it's "soft" money meant to promote the format and releases on whichever format), but Microsoft giving cash straight out to studios is problematic at best.

Also, fuck Harry Knowles for calling the format war a "fascinating chess game," not that it wasn't obvious he was somehow bought by Toshiba/Microsoft.

Also interesting to note that apparently Spielberg is loyal to Blu Ray and all of his films will be format neutral, regardless of who's releasing them.

EDIT: The Wall Street Journal article linked in the Digitalbits editorial claims that this "exclusive" could be for only a year, is this just the HD camp's way of competing with Blu Ray exclusives like Spider-Man 3 and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie this holiday season?

[Gigi M.]

Digitalbits.com editorial about Paramount/Dreamworks

I tend to agree with their point of view...Sony and Toshiba offering money to studios to pick one format over the other makes perfect sense (especially when it's "soft" money meant to promote the format and releases on whichever format), but Microsoft giving cash straight out to studios is problematic at best.

Also, fuck Harry Knowles for calling the format war a "fascinating chess game," not that it wasn't obvious he was somehow bought by Toshiba/Microsoft.

Also interesting to note that apparently Spielberg is loyal to Blu Ray and all of his films will be format neutral, regardless of who's releasing them.[/url]

Hmm... Don't like his tone. Looks like he's definitely in Sony's pockets.

In my personal comparisons, I've found BD to be a similar improvement over DVD as early DVDs were over LD. Of course, this is highly subjective, and YMMV.

I've compared a few movies on my system, 1080p vs. 480p, and while there's a big difference, it's not even close to what it was when DVD first came out. I guess I'm perfectly happy with the SD image as it is.

[patrick]

If you look earlier in the thread there's an excellent Digitalbits editorial that explains why they're in the Blu Ray camp (which appears to be their choice instead of being bought by either side). While I'm not necessarily on the BDA side of the fence, their arguments seem well thought out and reasonable, and they're coming from a home video consumer point of view.

[Ted Todorov]

The Wall Street Journal article linked in the Digitalbits editorial claims that this "exclusive" could be for only a year

Interesting -- the NY Times explicitly said 18 months. I wonder who's right. If we want to be paranoid, Murdoch owns the Journal along with Fox, so anything sounding pro Blu-ray in the WSJ may be suspect. But only if we want to be paranoid.

If you look earlier in the thread there's an excellent Digitalbits editorial that explains why they're in the Blu Ray camp (which appears to be their choice instead of being bought by either side). While I'm not necessarily on the BDA side of the fence, their arguments seem well thought out and reasonable, and they're coming from a home video consumer point of view.

The only reasonable, pro-consumer argument should be that the HD format war, be ended immediately and the resulting single format be region free. Sorry, but anything else is self serving clap-trap. Support for Blu-ray may be many things, but it sure ain't pro-consumer considering the region coding, higher prices and more draconian DRM.

[porquenegar]

I went through the same thing ca. 1996-97 with LD.

I understand your concern, but please remember that is not the same thing. The difference between DVD and HD DVD is not as impressive as it was with LD or VHS. Nevertheless, you point is well taken. I for one would not buy the same films again because of a better image.

Sound quality is also remarkably better, which matters to some people.

[Antoine Doinel]

I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks! They were progressive by having two formats. No Transformers 2 for me!

Michael Bay has revised his position on the matter.

[The Invunche]

The average user doesn't know what a container or codec is and doesn't care. They obviously don't care about iTunes lock in, otherwise they wouldn't have bought 100 million+ ipods and billions of songs from iTunes.

The average user already has to deal with these issues if he/she has any interest in digital video files. If you really want to make a comparison to the iPod then I would say AppleTV is like and iPod that doesn't play mp3's. I wonder how many units that would have sold.

For some reason Apple doesn't wanna talk about how many AppleTV's they have sold.

They might not be happy about DRM, but ironically Apple is the only company out there fighting against DRM. When Bill Gates starts sending open letters to the industry demanding the elimination of DRM, please call me.

The keyword here is "open letters". Jobs (he does know marketing) did that for one reason only. He wants to show the world he's on the side of the consumer, and if you buy that your naïve as hell. Both Microsoft and Apple support DRM because the content providers demand it.

And if you do care about codecs and containers a MacMini will play all of them just fine -- except for DRMed Windows media -- i.e. that very same lock in...

With what kind of media center interface does the Mini have? Can you stuff a tuner card into a Mini? Does it have an electronic program guide? Can you add a Blu-ray or HD DVD drive? Admittedly these issues aren't directly related to the HD download issue, but why would the consumer chose a platform that doesn't support the whole range features when he can get one that does?

The only reasonable, pro-consumer argument should be that the HD format war, be ended immediately and the resulting single format be region free. Sorry, but anything else is self serving clap-trap. Support for Blu-ray may be many things, but it sure ain't pro-consumer considering the region coding, higher prices and more draconian DRM.

Considering the majority of Blu-ray releases aren't region coded and the HD DV camp has said region coding is coming on their platform as well, I don't really see one format being more consumer friendly than the next. The whole idea that the HD DVD camp cares more about the consumer is (like Jobs and the DRM issue) incredibly naïve. Both camps care about one thing and that is profit.