New Ken Kutaragi interview (1) @ PC Watch

[one]

Not sure of actual cost per disc but the yeilds for Dual Layer HD DVD are over 90% and BD single layer hovering around 40%.

And when and where did you get that yield info?

EDIT: FYI, VR150T1, dual-layer 30GB HD DVD-R by Mitsubishi Chemical is estimated to be priced at 4,500 yen ($38.61) on the release day in July.
http://www.digitalworldtokyo.com/2006/06/mitsubishi_30gb_hd_dvdr_to_hit.php
LM-BR25D, single-layer 25GB BD-R by Panasonic is 1,403 yen ($12.04) at the lowest price today in Japan.
http://www.kakaku.com/prdsearch/detail.asp?PrdKey=07103011275

 

[SPM]

Current HDDVD's have higher capacity than current BRDs.

But which ones are they actually using for the movies you are talking about, the single layer or double layer ones?

This does not detract from my point. If the publishers are PLANNING to use MPEG 4 AVC on Bluray in future they would not want to pay to license VC-1 as well. This is the only logical reason I can see for using MPEG-2 over VC-1 since both are available for Bluray. They may well intend to do the same with HD-DVD but in the case of HD-DVD if MPEG-2 encoded movies don't fit on the 15GB disks, then they may be forced to do so. Going to dual layer HD-DVD to get 30GB may be a problem other than cost, for example supply may be a problem.

 

[RobertR1]

But which ones are they actually using for the movies you are talking about, the single layer or double layer ones?

This does not detract from my point. If the publishers are PLANNING to use MPEG 4 AVC on Bluray in future they would not want to pay to license VC-1 as well. This is the only logical reason I can see for using MPEG-2 over VC-1 since both are available for Bluray. They may well intend to do the same with HD-DVD but in the case of HD-DVD if MPEG-2 encoded movies don't fit on the 15GB disks, then they may be forced to do so. Going to dual layer HD-DVD to get 30GB may be a problem other than cost, for example supply may be a problem.

All HD DVD movies in the US have been VC1 and majority on 30GB media. HD DVD has no reason to use mpeg2. The Japanese releases have been AVC/Mpeg4 since MS did not focus too much on Japan but they'll soon be converting over to VC1 also.

Licensing doesn't work like that. There's no lump sum commitent or pay out just to use it up front. VC1 is free and MS will even help implement it. It's the royalties per disc that they make money from so studios could honestly pick and choose which titles they want in any format. But really, is that worth it to upset the rest of the group? I'm sure the decision is more politically motivated than anything. I'd really like to see Sony and the BD camp use something besides mpeg2 until they can properly use Mpeg2 on 50gb discs, if they still feel that Mpeg2 is the best.

One:
You'd need to look up HD DVD ROM and BD ROM not -R for proper studio pricing. The yield info has been of much discussion over at avsforum and to a certain extent on here also.

 

[patsu]

I do not track the development of HD-DVD vs Blu-ray, so I'm a little confused here.

* According to the forums, what are the reasons for the rumored/confirmed delay of BD-players till end of the year ?

* If VC-1 is superior (which I believe is the case), what are the rationale for distributing the movies on dual-layer HD-DVD ? Is single-layer sufficient ? If so, is dual-layer the minimum-spec'ed disks available on the market ? (i.e., The HD-DVD Association decided to ignore single-layer altogether).

* Apple Computer... another supporter of Blu-ray and inventor of QuickTime. Is there any public stand or news about their H.264 + Blu-ray support ? I am looking at their Final Cut Pro software already with H.264 support, which is used by some studios currently.

* Is there any other outstanding issue for Blu-ray Association to resolve ? Or are they all set to go now (i.e., only player and content issues to deal with as highlighted by the posts above).

* How bad are the existing Blu-ray content now ? Can I walk in to an AV shop today and ask for a Blu-ray demo ?

 

[mckmas8808]

* How bad are the existing Blu-ray content now ? Can I walk in to an AV shop today and ask for a Blu-ray demo ?

They are HORRIBLE!!! It looks very bad for High Defention. And yes BestBuy and Circuit City has them in stores on display.

 

[SPM]

All HD DVD movies in the US have been VC1 and majority on 30GB media. HD DVD has no reason to use mpeg2. The Japanese releases have been AVC/Mpeg4 since MS did not focus too much on Japan but they'll soon be converting over to VC1 also.

Licensing doesn't work like that. There's no lump sum commitent or pay out just to use it up front. VC1 is free and MS will even help implement it. It's the royalties per disc that they make money from so studios could honestly pick and choose which titles they want in any format. But really, is that worth it to upset the rest of the group? I'm sure the decision is more politically motivated than anything. I'd really like to see Sony and the BD camp use something besides mpeg2 until they can properly use Mpeg2 on 50gb discs, if they still feel that Mpeg2 is the best.

One:
You'd need to look up HD DVD ROM and BD ROM not -R for proper studio pricing. The yield info has been of much discussion over at avsforum and to a certain extent on here also.

I can't comment on what formats are on sale now since players are only just coming on the market in tiny numbers now, and the reviews carried out so far are based on two early models which will require firmware updates to fix issues. The Toshiba HD-DVD which is being reviewed favourably against the Samsung Bluray model apparently also had poor picture quality until a recent firmware update. It is necessary to wait until more players and movies come onto the market before making rash comments like some are making.

As for licensing, I believe, as you say that all formats are free on all players, but as you say there is a royalty to be paid in each disc that uses the format. MPEG-2 was designed for digital TV and not HDTV movies. I don't think there is anyone out there who would be able to argue that MPEG-2 is anything other than inferior in every way to VC-1, at least not without being laughed out of town. It is the media publisher, not Sony who chooses to use either VC-1 or MPEG-4 AVC.

Since all formats are available on both Bluray and HD-DVD, this begs the question - why on earth would a sane person choose MPEG-2 over VC-1 or MPEG-4 AVC? There is only one rational answer to that - as I suggested before, it is that MPEG-2 is an interim solution only until the bugs have been worked out of either the MPEG-4 AVC firmware, or authoring tools.

Regarding your comments about licensing, I do not believe you are right. The licensing may be per disk, but it is pretty certain that licensing is paid for on the basis of say numbers of hundred thousand disk units, and it is likely that license charges are negotiated with heavy discounts for large orders or long term commitments in order to encourage these things. In addition, what is to stop Microsoft or Sony or whoever owns the patents for the format from hiking prices half way through a production run? Media companies will negotiate prices for a year or more beforehand in order to avoid this. Also since both MPEG 4-AVC and VC-1 formats' patent owners will be keen to see their standard adopted as standard, a media publisher will get much keener prices by doing this and fixing prices for years ahead than by your suggestion that they pay a variable royalty to be decided by the format's patent owner at the time the disc is pressed.

As I said before, there is only one sane and rational explanation for picking MPEG-2 over VC-1 or MPEG 4 - AVC, that they have already paid for a long term license for MPEG 4 - AVC and using MPEG 2 as an interim measure with the intention of going to MPEG 4 - AVC when the tools/player formware is ready. Either this is the case or all the movie publishers have gone stark raving mad.

With regard to some posters comments about VC-1 being superior to MPEG 4 - AVC. this is not the case at all. I don't know whether there will be a perceivable difference between the two, but technically MPEG 4 - AVC is superior to VC-1 in picture quality but makes higher demands on the decoding hardware, while VC-1 makes some compromises on picture quality in order to reduce the requirements on decoding hardware (making it more suitable for PCs). Maybe this technical difference is not perceivable, or not perceivable only at 1080p, why knows. Both formats will also carry on evolving.

Besides technical issues, there are other reasons why MPEG 4 - AVC might be preferred by the film studios and hardware manufactures. Unlike Microsoft's proprietary VC-1 format, MPEG is created by a committee with multi-vendor input. This makes it difficult for any single vendor to manipulate the standard to create a monopoly which can be used extort "monopoly money" from. Given Microsoft's track record of using its proprietary 'standards' as a means of establishing and exploiting a monopoly lock-in and extortion mechanism, the film studios and hardware manufacturers may be justified to be wary of VC-1. This alone may be a good enough reason for some to adopt MPEG 4 AVC.

As for you claim about prices, where do you get your claims about prices from and what production run numbers, and media publisher company's figures is this based on? Since blank HD-DVD/BD ROMs are not sold on the open market (for obvious reasons) you will need access to information like that in order to make the claims you are making. I think it double layer HD-DVD ROMs probably are more expensive than single layer BD ROMs, as with recordable media.

 

[RobertR1]

I do not track the development of HD-DVD vs Blu-ray, so I'm a little confused here.

* According to the forums, what are the reasons for the rumored/confirmed delay of BD-players till end of the year ?

"Software issues" was what the Sony reps have been last caught saying when asked why their pre production models can only play Demo discs and not actual BR movies. I assume the lackluster response from enthusiast sites was quite alarming as a player simply cannot resolve media quality issues, which is what's plaguing BR right now. Remember, it was them who set the expectations so high for everyone.

* If VC-1 is superior (which I believe is the case), what are the rationale for distributing the movies on dual-layer HD-DVD ? Is single-layer sufficient ? If so, is dual-layer the minimum-spec'ed disks available on the market ? (i.e., The HD-DVD Association decided to ignore single-layer altogether).

Single layer exists but Dual layer is really needed for the best PQ. Thankfully, so far Universal and Warner have done a good job of ensuring that PQ is top priority so they used up space as needed. There are still some single layer discs out but they would have benefit from the higher transfer rates possible with dual layer media. VC1 is still very infant and will only continue to improve over time thus over time you could see the same PQ at much lower transfer rates and only using single layer space. The studio and MS' first goal seems to be to offer the best picture possible, which is what we all want.

* Apple Computer... another supporter of Blu-ray and inventor of QuickTime. Is there any public stand or news about their H.264 + Blu-ray support ? I am looking at their Final Cut Pro software already with H.264 support, which is used by some studios currently.

I have no interest in Apple so I cannot comment on this. Sorry.

* Is there any other outstanding issue for Blu-ray Association to resolve ? Or are they all set to go now (i.e., only player and content issues to deal with as highlighted by the posts above).

If Mpeg2 keeps being used, then no, the issues are not resolved until the BD50 discs arrive is mass quantities. The arrival of BD50 seems to be a big question mark for the moment. If they do opt for Mpeg4 or VC1, they'll still come up 5gb short which could be critical in longer movies, best audio or extras/interactive content. The whole thought process of Blu Ray was always "Mpeg2 on 50GB discs." I believe they were so stuck on this they did not have proper fall back plans. Toshiba basically forced them to the market by releasing HD DVD and having it receive such good feedback from the early adopters. Even if HD DVD fails in the long run, we still benefit. As long as HD DVD exists, it'll keep Sony and BD team honest by forcing them to deliver on promises in order to be accepted.

* How bad are the existing Blu-ray content now ? Can I walk in to an AV shop today and ask for a Blu-ray demo ?

You can goto Best Buy, Frys, Tweeters, etc..... When you go there, ask to watch actual movies not just demo's and have them connect the players to the same TV, using HDMI, for an apples to apples. Underworld: Evolution is the best BR movies out at this time where as Chronicles of Riddick seems to be the best for HD DVD.

Here's some good reviews of all the titles avaiable for either format:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As for licensing, I believe, as you say that all formats are free on all players, but as you say there is a royalty to be paid in each disc that uses the format. MPEG-2 was designed for digital TV and not HDTV movies. I don't think there is anyone out there who would be able to argue that MPEG-2 is anything other than inferior in every way to VC-1, at least not without being laughed out of town.

Of all the reoprts I've seen, MPEG2 is comparable with the other more advanced codecs at high bitrates of around 50+ Mbps. So if you have the storage capacity for that bitrate, quality of the codec isn't much of an issue and use of MPEG2 isn't as daft as it seems, especially if all your existing digital movie gear uses that standard.

Since all formats are available on both Bluray and HD-DVD, this begs the question - why on earth would a sane person choose MPEG-2 over VC-1 or MPEG-4 AVC? There is only one rational answer to that - as I suggested before, it is that MPEG-2 is an interim solution only until the bugs have been worked out of either the MPEG-4 AVC firmware, or authoring tools.

Why don't they use VC-1 as an interrim?

In addition, what is to stop Microsoft or Sony or whoever owns the patents for the format from hiking prices half way through a production run?

Contracts, and competition so that if you pee your clients off with such outrageous behaviour, they'll drop you like a hot stone and your rival gets all the codec fees.

As I said before, there is only one sane and rational explanation for picking MPEG-2 over VC-1 or MPEG 4 - AVC, that they have already paid for a long term license for MPEG 4 - AVC and using MPEG 2 as an interim measure with the intention of going to MPEG 4 - AVC when the tools/player formware is ready.

That sounds possible, but not conclusive. The whole thing seems very odd to me.

Ack, I'm posting movie talk in the console forum!

 

[RobertR1]

SPM,

Royalties and a commitment to Mpeg2 are what you're seeing. Mpeg-la controls the licensing pools for various formats. Depending on your share of the pool for the particular codec, you get that that percentage in royalties. Sony is the majority holder in mpeg2. If they were to start a trend of Mpeg4/avc or God forbid VC1, then later on, they stand to lose a lot of money from lack of royalties as it's much harder for them to convince the studios to switch back. MS is trying their hardest to draw studios. They'll happily split some of the pot with a studio as long as they use VC1 and Sony loses out on the royalties and they make money. With Mpeg2 already established and the pot split in Sony's favor, they have only to lose by having studios use a different codec. Sony has done a very good job of convincing the studios and just about everyone else that Mpeg2 is the way to go for 2+ years now. I can't recall who gets the most if Mpeg4 is used at this time but yes, it's sorely needed for this format until 50gb discs are available in mass quantities. Mpeg2 on DL BD media would look amazing and if that was what we were getting right now, we'd all be praising Blu Ray.

I never made a comment about the price of the media, simply yield issues. The reason I keep bringing up the yield issues is that if the single layer discs are at 40%, then what are we looking at for the DL media???

Sony's Mpeg2 patents:
http://www.mpegla.com/m2/m2-att1.pdf
AVC/H.264 patents:
http://www.mpegla.com/avc/avc-att1.pdf

That should give a better idea of why Sony is *really* persistant on pushing Mpeg2.

 

[patsu]

"Software issues" was what the Sony reps have been last caught saying when asked why their pre production models can only play Demo discs and not actual BR movies. I assume the lackluster response from enthusiast sites was quite alarming as a player simply cannot resolve media quality issues, which is what's plaguing BR right now. Remember, it was them who set the expectations so high for everyone.

Thanks for the quick reply ! Here're more questions to help (me) understand the current situation better ...

What final-spec'ed BD player is out in the wild today ? Is Samsung the only guy so far ? So the lackluster response is targeted towards the Samsung player ? I'll leave pre-production models out of the equation for the moment since they mean little to consumers.

To be compliant to the standards, every HD-DVD or Blu-ray player will need to support MPEG2, VC-1 and MPEG4 AVC decoding. Is this accurate ?

If so, are there any rumored issues getting VC-1 to work on BD player ? (i.e., Can MS rig VC-1 to perform less than ideal on BD player ? For that matter, is there an open source reference implementation of VC-1 like MPEG4 AVC ?)

Do both the HD-DVD and Blu-ray players available today support their respective "interactive extensions" ? (e.g., BD-J for Blu-ray, HD-DVDi for HD-DVD I think).

Single layer exists but Dual layer is really needed for the best PQ. Thankfully, so far Universal and Warner have done a good job of ensuring that PQ is top priority so they used up space as needed. There are still some single layer discs out but they would have benefit from the higher transfer rates possible with dual layer media. VC1 is still very infant and will only continue to improve over time thus over time you could see the same PQ at much lower transfer rates and only using single layer space. The studio and MS' first goal seems to be to offer the best picture possible, which is what we all want.

Ok, are you saying: The HD-DVDs today are using VC-1 over dual-layer for best PQ. These content cannot fit into a single layer HD-DVD ? So the pristine quality is due to VC-1 plus "extra space" ?

How much extra space is needed beyond 15 Gb ? Can they fit into 25 Gb (a single-layer Blu-ray disk) ? Since the studios obviously have encoded the movies for VC-1, they would be interested to transfer the same content to HD-DVD and Blu-ray to save $$$ and time. Is there any expected visual difference if the same content is on HD-DVD and Blu-ray ?

I have no interest in Apple so I cannot comment on this. Sorry.

Ok, I thought Apple Computer is offering reasonably good and cheap authoring tools to do H.264 encoding today. Since they back Blu-ray as well, they would be a viable provider for Blu-ray authoring tools. The same goes for Avid.

If Mpeg2 keeps being used, then no, the issues are not resolved until the BD50 discs arrive is mass quantities. The arrival of BD50 seems to be a big question mark for the moment. If they do opt for Mpeg4 or VC1, they'll still come up 5gb short which could be critical in longer movies, best audio or extras/interactive content. The whole thought process of Blu Ray was always "Mpeg2 on 50GB discs." I believe they were so stuck on this they did not have proper fall back plans. Toshiba basically forced them to the market by releasing HD DVD and having it receive such good feedback from the early adopters. Even if HD DVD fails in the long run, we still benefit. As long as HD DVD exists, it'll keep Sony and BD team honest by forcing them to deliver on promises in order to be accepted.

How big is a 3 hour VC-1 movie based on your guess ?

As for "MPEG2 on 50Gb disks", is there any official word on the unavailability or availability of dual layer BD disks ? Where does the 40% yield issue (for single layer) news comes from ? What is PS3 going to use ?

The fallback plan you mentioned is "just" the content transfer part ? Or am I mistaken ? (I'm thinking regardless what happens, all Blu-ray and HD-DVD players will have to play MPEG2, AVC and VC-1 content out-of-the-box).

The main issues seem to be:
* Freedom of choice and readiness of the 3 decoders in Blu-ray
* Whether mainstream Blu-ray players will support dual-layer disks right off the bat
* Any optional goodies available in Blu-ray players

You can goto Best Buy, Frys, Tweeters, etc..... When you go there, ask to watch actual movies not just demo's and have them connect the players to the same TV, using HDMI, for an apples to apples. Underworld: Evolution is the best BR movies out at this time where as Chronicles of Riddick seems to be the best for HD DVD.

Here's some good reviews of all the titles avaiable for either format:
http://www.highdefdigest.com/

That's great. Thanks again for helping to fill me in.

 

[one]

The yield info has been of much discussion over at avsforum and to a certain extent on here also.

So you can't answer exactly who provided the yield info and how old it is? It looks like TheInq journalism to me

IIRC studios such as Warner plan to release the same contents on both HD DVD and BD with VC-1. It means their HD DVD releases don't use up 30GB HD DVD space and are capped to 25GB.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If so, are there any rumored issues getting VC-1 to work on BD player ? (i.e., Can MS rig VC-1 to perform less than ideal on BD player ? For that matter, is there an open source reference implementation of VC-1 like MPEG4 AVC ?)

Performance of the codec depends on the implementation, but itself is just a standard. Like JPEG or PNG, the cretors of those formats don't determine how well a computer can decode them, and that's the responsibility of who provides the software to decode the format. If VC-1 performs badly on Samsungs player, it's due to the decoding software on that CPU, and MS have no influence (unless they are writing the software )

How big is a 3 hour VC-1 movie based on your guess ?

It depends on how much compression you use. These codecs are scalable, like JPEG, producing smaller files if you want but with lower quality. A 3 hour VC-1 movie could be 30 GB, 15 GB, and 5 GB, if the guy encoding it so chooses.

 

[patsu]

Performance of the codec depends on the implementation, but itself is just a standard. Like JPEG or PNG, the cretors of those formats don't determine how well a computer can decode them, and that's the responsibility of who provides the software to decode the format. If VC-1 performs badly on Samsungs player, it's due to the decoding software on that CPU, and MS have no influence (unless they are writing the software )

Right but in reality, Sony or any BD player manufacturer has a schedule to keep. Doing a VC-1 decoder from scratch will probably take time. Who is/are providing VC-1 decoder today ?

It depends on how much compression you use. These codecs are scalable, like JPEG, producing smaller files if you want but with lower quality. A 3 hour VC-1 movie could be 30 GB, 15 GB, and 5 GB, if the guy encoding it so chooses.

Yes. I was more asking about the actual movies out there right now. How big are they (given whatever compression spec they chose to use currently) ?

EDIT: ... forgot to say : and extrapolate the file size to a 3 hour movie (assuming we want to maintain the same encoding specs).

 

[SPM]

SPM,

Royalties and a commitment to Mpeg2 are what you're seeing.

Well, all I can say is that if this is true, it is crazy. How can Sony force media publishers to use MPEG-2 anyway when all three formats are part of the Bluray spec? Maybe they are paying for the MPEG-2 license with the intention of moving to MPEG-4 AVC later - maybe the MPEG-2 license gets them a discount on MPEG-4 AVC later. The only other explanation is that they want avoid VC-1 for some reason except as an interim solution. Maybe VC-1 isn't as good for 1080p, or maybe they just want to avoid Microsoft codecs where possible. Microsoft's behaviour with video players recently in the PC market which got the fined $750 billion in the EU and also in S. Korea, and got them a warning in the US from the judge monitoring the anti-trust settlement this year, might be a good reason for hardware vendors and media publishers to be wary. Frequently changing and incompatible formats which by design don't run on every platform, is precisely what the movie or HD player industry doesn't want.

 

[Sis]

How big is a 3 hour VC-1 movie based on your guess ?

Amir, a Microsoft VP in charge of VC-1, runs the numbers here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=7733344&&#post7733344

At 12 Mbit/sec for VC-1, video uses 20.1 Gigabytes.
Lossless track, using Dolby’s TrueHD average compression rate of 2.4 (per Dolby experts at Home Theater Cruise talk), gives us 4.1 Gigabytes.
Lossy audio track uses 1.1 gigabytes.
Total = 20.1+4.1+1.1 = 25.2 Gigabytes

Doing the math for VC-1 at 15 Mbit/sec, pushes the total to 30 Gigabytes.

 

[RobertR1]

Thanks for the quick reply ! Here're more questions to help (me) understand the current situation better ...

What final-spec'ed BD player is out in the wild today ? Is Samsung the only guy so far ? So the lackluster response is targeted towards the Samsung player ? I'll leave pre-production models out of the equation for the moment since they mean little to consumers.

Yes, Samsung is the only player out at the moment but the problem exists with the discs, not the player. Using lower bitrates on Mpeg2 to make it fit on a 25gb disc is the issue, not the player. The Samsung would do great if the same movie was on a 50Gb disc using Mpeg2 and higher transfer rates for a better picture. The unimpressive Upscaling ability from SD DVD's in comparison to the toshiba can however be improved upon by other players.

To be compliant to the standards, every HD-DVD or Blu-ray player will need to support MPEG2, VC-1 and MPEG4 AVC decoding. Is this accurate ?

Correct.

If so, are there any rumored issues getting VC-1 to work on BD player ? (i.e., Can MS rig VC-1 to perform less than ideal on BD player ? For that matter, is there an open source reference implementation of VC-1 like MPEG4 AVC ?)

The only issues is that Sony has not contacted MS to get help to implement VC1. There are more advanced tools that MS provides and works directly with the studios to help use VC1 properly. Other studios have been working with VC1 mastering but you have to understand the sensitivity of the politics involved. Put away the "best for the consumer" and think as a corporate exec. The cross platform supporting studios will likely use VC1 on both formats where as BD only studios will try to hold off with Mpeg2 as long as possible before switching to AVC or as a last resort, VC1.

Do both the HD-DVD and Blu-ray players available today support their respective "interactive extensions" ? (e.g., BD-J for Blu-ray, HD-DVDi for HD-DVD I think).

Theoretically, yes but there isn't enough space for Blu Ray to have extra content at the moment. Also, since the samsung does not have an ethernet port, the interactive content would have to be limited to on disc material only. Warner is announcing "interactive content" for HD DVD with "Dukes of Hazard" http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s..._In-Movie_Experience-Enabled_HD_DVD_Title/114 It is however limited to on disc activity and nothing online. The Toshiba does have an ethernet port but right now it's just used to update firmware.

Ok, are you saying: The HD-DVDs today are using VC-1 over dual-layer for best PQ. These content cannot fit into a single layer HD-DVD ? So the pristine quality is due to VC-1 plus "extra space" ?

The quality is due to VC1 being able to run at lower transfer rates than Mpeg2 and still provide the same picture. VC1 is still new as they'll learn to compress better over time so as time goes on, VC1 will run at even lower bitrates and still provide excellent PQ. The lower the transfer rate, the less space it takes up on the media. For right now though, yes, VC1 + dual layer media is why you're getting the good PQ. Mpeg2 is already matured and simply out of optimizations.

How much extra space is needed beyond 15 Gb ? Can they fit into 25 Gb (a single-layer Blu-ray disk) ? Since the studios obviously have encoded the movies for VC-1, they would be interested to transfer the same content to HD-DVD and Blu-ray to save $$$ and time. Is there any expected visual difference if the same content is on HD-DVD and Blu-ray ?

VC1 is VC1, regardless of format. Now they could use a different decoder which could make the picture look better or worse. 25GB is fine if they use VC1. They'd lose 5gb which could be used for better audio, extras/interactive content but the movie itself should be fine with 25gb. However, if a longer movies done right were to take up close to 30gb (including audio) I have a feeling that studios might cut corners to make them both fit for both platforms and under 25gb which would be disappointing if you were a HD DVD owner but understandable from a business perspective. Warner is releasing VC1 encoded media on both platforms so we'll see how each player handles it.

As for "MPEG2 on 50Gb disks", is there any official word on the unavailability or availability of dual layer BD disks ? Where does the 40% yield issue (for single layer) news comes from ? What is PS3 going to use ?

The news/rumors come from a lot of the industry insiders on AVS forum. Here's a logical thought. If they're not having issues with DL media, the quality suffers when using Mpeg2 on a 25gb disc, then why are we not seeing these films on DL 50GB media with the best picture, audio and all extras/interactive content promised? Needless to say, it'd be suicide for anyone at the BD camp to come out and say this. The PS3 will use whatever is available. If the BD is to be a certified blu ray player, it'll need to comply with all of the BD player specs. As for games, 25gb single layer media is PLENTY!

The fallback plan you mentioned is "just" the content transfer part ? Or am I mistaken ? (I'm thinking regardless what happens, all Blu-ray and HD-DVD players will have to play MPEG2, AVC and VC-1 content out-of-the-box).

The fallback plan would have been for BD exclusive studios to keep AVC and VC1 on standby. Now they pushed back their own players and likely hurrying to find a proper work around until they can get 50GB media in mass quantities. Also, whle they can support all 3 codecs the decoder hardware they use might be better at dealing with certain codecs over others. That's something to consider.

The main issues seem to be:
* Freedom of choice and readiness of the 3 decoders in Blu-ray
* Whether mainstream Blu-ray players will support dual-layer disks right off the bat
* Any optional goodies available in Blu-ray players

Spot on excpet that it's not the players will/won't support DL media, it's that DL media is not available.

That's great. Thanks again for helping to fill me in.

No problem. If you have time, read up on www.avsforum.com under the HD DVD/Blu Ray sub forums. Lots of good info there. This is certainly a much more entertaining war than even nvidia vs. ati or intel vs. amd.

 

[RobertR1]

Well, all I can say is that if this is true, it is crazy. How can Sony force media publishers to use MPEG-2 anyway when all three formats are part of the Bluray spec? Maybe they are paying for the MPEG-2 license with the intention of moving to MPEG-4 AVC later - maybe the MPEG-2 license gets them a discount on MPEG-4 AVC later. The only other explanation is that they want avoid VC-1 for some reason except as an interim solution. Maybe VC-1 isn't as good for 1080p, or maybe they just want to avoid Microsoft codecs where possible. Microsoft's behaviour with video players recently in the PC market which got the fined $750 billion in the EU and also in S. Korea, and got them a warning in the US from the judge monitoring the anti-trust settlement this year, might be a good reason for hardware vendors and media publishers to be wary. Frequently changing and incompatible formats which by design don't run on every platform, is precisely what the movie or HD player industry doesn't want.

It's simply a matter of "we don't want to pay MS." MS is putting the Codec up on Mpeg-la for royalties pooling so they'd have to get approval before making changes to the format. They simply cannot mess around with VC1 as they choose. They make money off royalties so it's in their best interest to make the studios happy and keep raking in the cash. Also, 1080p wouldn't be an issue with VC1. All HD DVD media is currently 1080p. It's just that the 1st gen Toshiba is limited to 1080i. However, the Toshiba laptop and the HD DVD recoder already output in 1080p (as will 2nd gen players) and VC1 works just fine.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The only issues is that Sony has not contacted MS to get help to implement VC1...

Again, why does responsiblity for this issue lie with Sony? If a movie studio wants to release a BRD movie authored with Sonic's system to play on Samsung's player, the codec responsibility is the movie studio, Sonic's software implementation, and Samsung's decoder. How does Sony fit into that? Are the only movies available Sony produced ones, or are Sony the only people authoring titles at the moment (in which case, why aren't tsudios using the alternatives, especially when they're from more experienced firms?)

 

[patsu]

I'm no AV expert. This is what I get from the various posts to discover Sony's rationalization process. What do you think ?

PLAYER IMPLEMENTATION
=================
* Sony has delayed its standalone BR player until October this year due to "software issues". These issues could be related to VC-1, AVC or any other BD spec'ed details. People are complaining that Sony refuses to get help from MS regarding VC-1 implementation.

* Sony PS3 is due a few weeks later but "no one" knows its progress.

AVC and VC-1 are non-trivial to implement (My friend next door worked on a AVC chip). I hope Sony can lick both in time. In any case, Sony may want to avoid relying on MS lest another Toshiba GPU incident replay itself. In the worst case, Sony will have to upgrade the firmware after release like the Toshiba HD-DVD player.

MEDIA
====
* The root cause of all these discussions seems to be the rumored yield problem of dual-layer BD-ROM. This actually reminds me of my first post here (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=513363&postcount=102). In that interview published 13 months ago, Sony R&D guys mentioned that their focus was read/write BD initially because it's the hardest to get it done right (and cheap). This R&D approach is the opposite of DVD's. BD-ROM gets lower priority because it's relatively easier: 25Gb or 30Gb "robust" single layer first, followed by dual layer. They seem to be working on single layer at press time. Dual layer BD-ROM had no production plan yet.

Given that kind of positioning, it is indeed possible that some slippage in dual layer development have caused embarrassment to BDA. However I wouldn't treat it like a "End of the BR World" kind of scenario. The BDA guys are probably working overtime to meet the delayed schedule and tie up all the loose ends. The first wave of single layer BD titles today probably reflects that gap (and also act as the single layer BD's milestone). We will have to see whether they make it to the second wave (end of the year ?).

* Availability of codecs. See PLAYER IMPLEMENTATION above.

* Choice of codecs. It's up to the individual studios to choose what codecs to use. Since all first wave BDs are done in MPEG2, it may mean that the dual layer BD-ROM is indeed the primary/preferred movie media. It has to make its debut soon despite low yield rumors.

I'm thinking once this foundation has been laid, we may see more open talks about VC-1 and AVC support. This is from project and product management perspective (Is that why people complained that Sony is too fixated on dual-layer BD-ROM ?).

CONTENT
======
* There are complains about the fidelity of MPEG2.

Assuming dual layer BD-ROM is BDA's chosen path (since PS3 specs, published interviews all point in this direction),

Given Sis's specs of 12 Mbps - 15 Mbps for VC-1, can the same movie of similar quality fit into 50Gb using MPEG 2 ? What would that MPEG 2 spec look like ?

My original question is more related to the actual HD-DVD media out there. Are they all encoded for 12 Mbps stream ? If so, given that LOTR (223 minutes, almost 4 hours) occupies 25.2Gb, then the same movie can be made on a single layer BD. Most movies are less than 2 hours anyway. So there may still be space for extras.

Essentially, first wave of BD content is just for timeline PR. I doubt many copies are made.

PROFIT MARGIN
==========
* Sony is greedy and is willing to compromise movie quality to maximize its gain.

Sony may have an interest to make sure MPEG 2 can still be used to produce high quality movies on BD. However I don't think it can prevent other BD members from using different codecs. It's a futile exercise and I think Sony knows that. So I believe they limit the initial scope intentionally to maintain full control of the BR rollout.

From another perspective, the initial BD volume will be (i) low, or (ii) relatively high, mostly attributed to PS3. So BD members are also using Sony to lay the groundwork. It's not a one-sided deal.

In fact, the BD members can start to make money off read+write BD since it was the first fruit of their R&D (if that interview is to be believed).

I don't really have strong urge for any particular movie title right now. I might check out 1 National Geographic type title, 1 blockbuster, and 1 pr0n (ok, may be some ) just to get a feel in November/December time frame.

EDIT: Changed unit from MB/s to Mbps.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Given Sis's specs of 12 MB/s - 15 MB/s for VC-1, can the same movie of similar quality fit into 50Gb using MPEG 2 ? What would that MPEG 2 spec look like ?

As I understand it, if you've got 50 GB to use you can go with 50+ Gbps encoding, and at that high bitrate there's no quality difference between codecs. The more advanced codecs come into play at higher compression, but at low compression they're all very similar. So it won't matter whether 50 GB BRDs use MPEG2, h.264 or VC-1, but lower sized footage will benefit greatly from not using MPEG2