New Ken Kutaragi interview (1) @ PC Watch

[mckmas8808]

New Blu-ray news?

Not ready yet!?!? That study I linked is from 2004!

Maybe they got caught with their pants down, ass-u-ming that DL-BR disc would be ready by launch, and now they have to scramble...still they should've have a much better 'Plan B' then this nonsense.

Well I just seen these new details.

Press Release Source: Panasonic

Panasonic Launches BD-ROM Authoring Service in the US
Thursday June 22, 11:01 am ET
New MPEG-4 AVC Encoder and Blu-ray-Java Authoring System Expedite Production of Blu-ray Titles with 1080p-quality Pictures and Advanced Interactivity

SECAUCUS, N.J., June 22 /PRNewswire/ -- Panasonic, the brand for which Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. is known, announced today that it will commence Blu-ray Disc entertainment title (for Blu-ray Disc read-only media, or BD-ROM) authoring service for movie studios at Panasonic Hollywood Laboratory (PHL) in Universal City, California on July 1. Optical discs, like Blu-ray Disc, or conventional DVDs, need to have their content authored as a step toward physical replication of the disc as an entertainment title.

The new Panasonic encoder and authoring system support the Blu-ray Disc Association's BD-ROM specification, and take advantage of the disc's benefits including very high data compression, interactive menus and highly-advanced copyright protection. The Panasonic MPEG-4 AVC encoder, capable of more than twice the compression of conventional MPEG-2 encoding, maintains the highest- resolution 1080p image quality of the source. The result is a stunning picture which Hollywood studio experts have reckoned comparable to the original.

"Panasonic plans to offer Blu-ray Disc authoring-related services to major movie studios and other content providers to accelerate the releases of more Blu-ray titles," said Mr. Tsuga. "The introduction of the Blu-ray authoring services and Blu-ray players completes the creation of an environment in which consumers can enjoy stunning High Definition video on their Panasonic HD plasma TVs at home."

Link


I'm not sure if you guys have seen this or not. I thought I'll post it anyway.

 

[mckmas8808]

Agreed
-Memory stick, Bluray, Minidisc, UMD, BetaMax

Actually UMD doesn't count. There was nothing there to conform to.

 

[SPM]

Ouch"]http://news.com.com/Critics+Microsoft+server+license+snubs+open+source/2100-7344_3-5555078.html[/URL] First, as noted in a previous post, SMPTE is the standards body for VC-1. If Microsoft wants to create a VC-2, which they have every right to do, they can. But it won't be used by HD DVD or Blu-ray, so it has no bearing on anything in this discussion.

It has a bearing because it means that improvements - even those made by others can be blocked. For example Microsoft's license for OpenXML Office 12 document format provides for a royalty free patent grant to allow others to implement the "standard". However that grant is subject to the implementations being exactly as specified in the standard and doesn't cover future versions of third party improvements. If you make any of your own extensions or improvements to what they have licensed out, then Microsoft will sue your pants off. What this means is that any vendor who implements OpenXML will find he is left high and dry come Office 13. Smart huh?

Second, asking one corporation to give up patent rights while everyone else in the patent pool doesn't is a tad hypocritical.

It is not a question of giving up patents, it is a question of cross licensing patents. If you have an industry wide consortium who get together to create a standard, they have to cross license their patents. This means that any one vendor can't control the standard through exercising their patent rights other than as agreed between themselves. If they attempt to do so then the overlapping patents will ensure that they will not be able to use the standard either because the other members of the consortium will retaliate. This safety net is not present when you have a proprietary standard (ie IP controlled by one party) like Microsoft in VC-1.

Third, breaking anti-trust laws is not actually illegal in the criminal sense, so Microsoft is not actually a felon.

Oh yes it is a criminal conviction - one serious enough to warrant a $750 million fine with further daily fines, and the corporate equivalent of capital punishment - the break-up of a company. Ask any lawyer. A civil case is carried out to obtain compensation for loss. Criminal prosecution is carried out with the aim of punishment. Fines and other punishments can only be imposed for criminal convictions. Microsoft is indeed a convicted felon .

 

[scooby_dooby]

Well that's good, it seems like they'll be using MPEG-4 within a couple of weeks, crisis averted....maybe.

 

[scooby_dooby]

This safety net is not present when you have a proprietary standard (ie IP controlled by one party) like Microsoft in VC-1.

You are wrong.

Although widely considered to be Microsoft's product, there are actually 15 other companies in the VC-1 patent pool (as of April 2006). As a SMPTE standard, VC-1 is open to implementation by 3rd parties which in turn have to pay licensing fees to the MPEG-LA licensing body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1

 

[mckmas8808]

Well that's good, it seems like they'll be using MPEG-4 within a couple of weeks, crisis averted....maybe.

Seriously Scooby if I don't see Blu-ray movies using MPEG-4 by the time the PS3 is released I might turn against Blu-ray my damn self. There shouldn't (keyword being shouldn't) be any reason why movies on Blu-ray aren't MPEG-4 encoded 4 months from the time this authoring process is released.

I heard that it should only take 1 month for this Hollywood studios to have MPEG-4 movies on store shelves at the minimum.

 

[SPM]

Although widely considered to be Microsoft's product, there are actually 15 other companies in the VC-1 patent pool (as of April 2006). As a SMPTE standard, VC-1 is open to implementation by 3rd parties which in turn have to pay licensing fees to the MPEG-LA licensing body.

The question is how much of the key patents would the 15 others control. Not very much I would suspect since VC-1 is a Microsoft product. Anyway, Microsoft is a member of the MPEG-4 AVC committee. That would seem to be the way to go to get a vendor neutral standard rather than VC-1. The point I am trying to make is that I don't think the reason why media publishers seem reluctant to use VC-1 in place of MPEG-4 AVC is anything to do with technical inferiority, but because they are smart enough to be wise to the dangers of going with standards that can be controlled by a single vendor. In fact that is the only reason Microsoft went with SMPTE for VC-1, not because they needed to license patents from others, but only because they needed to convince others that one vendor doesn't control VC-1.

 

[one]

One, which vendor today offers high quality and robust VC-1 decoder (chip/software) ? Would like to know more since we are here talking about it.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/apr06/04-24VC1PR.mspx
Toshiba's HD DVD player uses a Broadcom chip.

And yes. The em... Java extension. I hope simple BD title can continue to use BDMV just for interactive menu. Java is really only needed for network access and DRM right ?

Java is required for the whole rich functions such as PiP and games AFAIK.

Well I just seen these new details.

It was Panasonic that got the biggest praise in terms of image quality back in CES, even Kutaragi moaned the poor quality of Sony's showings citing what Matsushita could show. They are the people who created the High Profile of H.264/AVC (MPEG-4/AVC Version 3). It's a fairly new codec adopted in the standard in late 2005. I have no idea why some people are crazed about VC-1 which is an MPEG4 variation optimized to run fast on x86 processors.

 

[patsu]

If this is like all the other "standards" bodies that Microsoft works with, the other members are only able to make suggestions and implementations, and Microsoft controls the show. Implementations are irrelevant. Unless it is secret, anyone can create an implementation of any specification. What is important is who owns the patents that control the standard. I bet Microsoft and nobody else owns all the patents relating to VC1 - no cross licensing, no others contributing IP.

SPM, according to wikipedia and the associated resource links, there are already 15 other companies in the VC-1 patent pool. MS probably owns a large part of it since they invented it from scratch.

I hear what you're saying regarding MS's infamous "standards" practices throughout its history. In this case:

(i) VC-1 was already adopted by some telcos for streaming VoD. Then it's also accepted by Blu-ray and HD-DVD as a mandatory codec. These large entities, in particular the telcos, are experts in playing the "standards vs vendor lock-in" game. MS would have to "disarm" VC-1 long ago in order to get into the game. My cursory check in this thread is amateurish compared to what these guys (and their lawyers) do for a living. I am certain they are also aware of MS's tactics elsewhere.

(ii) VC-1 also has a worthy competitor, AVC, in Blu-ray and HD-DVD. So the parties involved always have a way out moving forward. I remember even for AVC, MPEG-LA had to do some amount of damage control when the AVC terms were revealed to the public a few years ago. So perhaps having another option, VC-1, can provide the needed counter-balance.

While I'm not familiar with SMPTE's standardization process, I think they have quite a few successful models to follow. In addition, as long as reference source is always provided. Someone can take it and run from there. So I think I am comfortable.

I would worry more about the Java extensions, DRM and dual layer BD than VC-1.

Getting the necessary cash-flow to fund the Blu-ray effort is also difficult. In fact for the sake of next-gen portable media storage, I consider "Adopting MPEG 2 initially for Blu-ray" a plus if it provides Sony the drive and some cash (really not much !) to move forward to dual layer BD asap.

VC-1 and AVC will thrive in an ideal networked environment. It would be a waste if people compromise affordable nextgen optical storage because of in-fighting, and then lose out to faster networks (online distribution) in public acceptance. That's just my thoughts.

 

[Sis]

It has a bearing because it means that improvements - even those made by others can be blocked.

With regards to VC-1, HD DVD and Blu-ray, it doesn't matter. Improvements cannot be made to the format. The only thing that can change is the encoder, and what it outputs has to fit within the spec.

It is not a question of giving up patents

Yes, it is, when you expect one company to give up it's right to patent royalties (the term I used was "patent rights", one of which is the right to see monetary compensation for patent use).

Oh yes it is a criminal conviction - one serious enough to warrant a $750 million fine with further daily fines, and the corporate equivalent of capital punishment - the break-up of a company. Ask any lawyer. A civil case is carried out to obtain compensation for loss. Criminal prosecution is carried out with the aim of punishment. Fines and other punishments can only be imposed for criminal convictions. Microsoft is indeed a convicted felon .

Eh, IANAL, but there seems to be a distinction between criminal law, civil law, and antitrust laws which could fall in either bucket. However, spending a few minutes online searching, I couldn't find definitive conclusion as to whether the Microsoft case was a criminal case or not, so I'll let it drop.

 

[patsu]

I have no idea why some people are crazed about VC-1 which is an MPEG4 variation optimized to run fast on x86 processors.

Yes I have heard of this before, but when I read Amir's comments in the AV forum, it seems like a different animal

I do not know who to believe at this point. No time to probe further.

 

[Sis]

Yes I have heard of this before, but when I read Amir's comments in the AV forum, it seems like a different animal

I do not know who to believe at this point. No time to probe further.

The answer to why people are "crazed for VC-1" is simple: it does what it says and any consumer can confirm that by viewing what it can do. MPEG2 has proven to be less than desirable on a 25 gig disc and h.264 is not yet here. We can spend all day twisting this left or right, but the undeniable fact remains that VC-1 produces a great picture, as many movies on HD DVD show. I'm not sure why One wishes to cloud this fact.

 

[patsu]

Sis, I was talking about MPEG 4 AVC and VC-1 in my last post. MPEG 2 is not in the same league as these two.

EDIT: I'm refering to this paragraph:

"Of course not. VC-1 and H.264/AVC are very different algorithms, optimized differently.

In the design of VC-1, we were very careful to preserve high frequency (high texture) information. We noticed that some techniques that we use at lower data rates for internet streaming for example, backfired on us at > SD resolutions. H.264 on the other hand, went through the entire standardization process with test clips of SD and lower in resolution so they did not catch this. It was not until it lost out to VC-1 (and MPEG-2 in some cases), that AVC was enhanced with VC-1 like features such as adaptive block sizes to improve its performance (in the so called HP profile)."

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7890408&&#post7890408

EDIT 2: In other application areas like VoD, cellphone video or PSP video, AVC/H.264 is already a deployed component on millions of units (The 3GPP format include a different profile of H.264 stream). The HP profile probably won't take long to complete if it's demonstrated by Panasonic.

 

[one]

It was not until it lost out to VC-1 (and MPEG-2 in some cases), that AVC was enhanced with VC-1 like features such as adaptive block sizes to improve its performance (in the so called HP profile).

What Blu-ray adopted is this so-called High Profile which Matsushita developed.

As for VC-1, it's discovered that it's actually based on MPEG-4 Version 2 when it was submitted to SMPTE as source code, so MPEG LA began to make a patent pool for it. According to this April 7, 2006 article:
http://www.tvtechnology.com/dailynews/issue.php?w=2006-04-07

Meanwhile, the six- to 12-month turnaround that Microsoft anticipated for getting its codec standardized dragged on as MPEG proponents objected to its ratification. The squabbles appeared to be settled early last year when a final committee draft was released. However, a procedural appeal was raised and summarily voted down.

Patent licensing terms for VC-1 are still up in the air, but an announcement should be forthcoming in the next couple of weeks, according to Larry Horn, manager and CEO for MPEG LA, a patent-licensing firm based in Denver. Horn said the VC-1 patent pool now consists of 16 companies, but besides Microsoft, the identities of the remaining 15 will not be released until a consensus is reached on licensing terms.

The absence of licensing terms hasn't stopped VC-1 from reaching the street. HD DVD players, which have just been rolled out in the retail market, use VC-1. Blu-ray players will as well. Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta are expected to incorporate VC-1 into set-top boxes for the AT&T Project Lightspeed initiative, which is being deployed with the Microsoft IPTV platform.

Harmonic has been incorporating VC-1 into its encoder line for more than a year, and Tandberg Television also offers encoders with VC-1. Both handle AVC as well, and under the licensing terms for that codec, the companies can make up to 100,000 units per year before incurring royalty fees. After that, units 100,001 through 4,999,999 cost 20 cents per; and quantities 5 million and above cost 10 cents each. Royalties on encoders and decoders kicked in Jan. 1, 2005.

Until licensing terms for VC-1 are revealed, it's not certain if these existing VC-1 devices will be grandfathered in or charged for back royalties. However, Horn said, "typically, these licenses provide coverage for the past."

FYI, the MPEG-4 patent pool consists of these 20 companies, including Matsushita, Microsoft, Sony, Toshiba.
http://www.mpegla.com/news/n_02-07-15_m4v.html

The MPEG-4 Visual Patent Portfolio License includes essential patents owned by Canon Inc.; France Télécom; Fujitsu Limited; GE Technology Development, Inc.; General Instrument Corp.; Hitachi, Ltd.; Hyundai Curitel, Inc.; KDDI Corporation; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Microsoft Corporation; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.; Philips Electronics; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.; Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha; Sony Corporation; Telenor AS; Toshiba Corporation; and Victor Company of Japan, Limited

 

[SPM]

Eh, IANAL, but there seems to be a distinction between criminal law, civil law, and antitrust laws which could fall in either bucket.

I'm pretty sure about this one. You are confusing the civil lawsuits against Microsoft eg. by Novell in which $2 billion was paid as an out of court settlement with criminal prosecution by the state prosecutor as in DOJ vs Microsoft, EU vs Microsoft and S. Korea vs Microsoft in which Microsoft was convicted.

Being able to undertake both civil and criminal cases is not unusual. For example OJ Simpson was prosecuted by the state in a criminal case for murder and was let off, but sued under a civil case and lost. You can be prosecuted for criminal negligence and fined or jailed, and also be sued for compensation for negligence in a civil suit.

 

[Sis]

I'm pretty sure about this one. You are confusing the civil lawsuits against Microsoft eg. by Novell in which $2 billion was paid as an out of court settlement with criminal prosecution by the state prosecutor as in DOJ vs Microsoft, EU vs Microsoft and S. Korea vs Microsoft in which Microsoft was convicted.

Being able to undertake both civil and criminal cases is not unusual. For example OJ Simpson was prosecuted by the state in a criminal case for murder and was let off, but sued under a civil case and lost. You can be prosecuted for criminal negligence and fined or jailed, and also be sued for compensation for negligence in a civil suit.

No, I definitely get the distinction. The problem I'm having is that a lot of descriptions say, "states brought a lawsuit alleging antitrust practices". Calling it a lawsuit makes it sound like a civil suit versus a criminal proceedings. But I'm willing to conceed the point...

 

[Sis]

Sis, I was talking about MPEG 4 AVC and VC-1 in my last post. MPEG 2 is not in the same league as these two.

EDIT: I'm refering to this paragraph:

"Of course not. VC-1 and H.264/AVC are very different algorithms, optimized differently.

In the design of VC-1, we were very careful to preserve high frequency (high texture) information. We noticed that some techniques that we use at lower data rates for internet streaming for example, backfired on us at > SD resolutions. H.264 on the other hand, went through the entire standardization process with test clips of SD and lower in resolution so they did not catch this. It was not until it lost out to VC-1 (and MPEG-2 in some cases), that AVC was enhanced with VC-1 like features such as adaptive block sizes to improve its performance (in the so called HP profile)."

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7890408&&#post7890408

EDIT 2: In other application areas like VoD, cellphone video or PSP video, AVC/H.264 is already a deployed component on millions of units (The 3GPP format include a different profile of H.264 stream). The HP profile probably won't take long to complete if it's demonstrated by Panasonic.

I'm speaking in relationship to Blu-ray and HD DVD. AFAIK, only VC-1 and MPEG2 are so far in use, allowing real comparisons by real consumers on real products. VC-1 so far has delivered all that's been promised of it which is why people are excited about it.

 

[RobertR1]

Patsu,

The best example of the AVC not being as good as VC1 (for now) is comparing the HD DVD demo disc which runs at higher rates using AVC/Mpeg4 and looks worse than good HD DVD movies using VC1.

The AVC/Mpeg4 encoded Japanese films are also inferior to their VC1 counterparts and infact, the Japanese films will be switching over to VC1.

What Amir is saying is that the problem occurs at > SD resolutions but AVC was tested and passed through at SD resolutions so later on, they discovered issues and patched some of them up.

VC1 is still very infant and will only improve so I rather they stick with a format that will not only get better over time but is already superior to the other two. Mpeg2 for all intent and purposes is a waste of spaced compared to VC1 and AVC.

 

[zed]

food for thought, fi dont know if anyones mentioned this, how about a new codec?
cell is built for decoding codec's, with this new extra available computing power new previously to coimputably expensive decompression routines become possible.
the only mark against this though is all br players would have to have cell within them

 

[patsu]

I'm speaking in relationship to Blu-ray and HD DVD. AFAIK, only VC-1 and MPEG2 are so far in use, allowing real comparisons by real consumers on real products. VC-1 so far has delivered all that's been promised of it which is why people are excited about it.

Patsu,

The best example of the AVC not being as good as VC1 (for now) is comparing the HD DVD demo disc which runs at higher rates using AVC/Mpeg4 and looks worse than good HD DVD movies using VC1.

The AVC/Mpeg4 encoded Japanese films are also inferior to their VC1 counterparts and infact, the Japanese films will be switching over to VC1.

What Amir is saying is that the problem occurs at > SD resolutions but AVC was tested and passed through at SD resolutions so later on, they discovered issues and patched some of them up.

VC1 is still very infant and will only improve so I rather they stick with a format that will not only get better over time but is already superior to the other two. Mpeg2 for all intent and purposes is a waste of spaced compared to VC1 and AVC.

Is there any comparison between VC-1 and AVC (HP Profile) ?

Also I believe the attractiveness of VC-1 comes from its availability, HD performance and price. VC-1 is a solid performer. AVC will gain momentum over MPEG 2 also. Many vendors provide both VC-1 and AVC support.

EDIT: What I wanted to say was: Keeping both VC-1 and AVC in active use should foster healthy competition (and reasonable royalties) in the long run. I assume that VC-1 and AVC (HP Profile) have comparable quality because they share the same MPEG4v2 foundation, and have similar HD optimization strategy as mentioned by Amir. Do correct me if I'm wrong.