Will Warner support Blu-ray?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lysander said:
I do not know how patent regulations and royaltis are set in US, but Sony is putting all out for bluray acceptance and there must be a reason for this; my understandment is that Sony is the main owner of blu ray patent, and that they will take fees from everything sold on that.
Yes, that's how it works. Phillips got money for CD's as the patent holder, and Toshiba & Warner (as mentioned in this thread) get money for DVD's. As a major patent holder Sony would get royalties on every BRD sold.
Changing standards in future, why not? Any consortium manufacturing company does not want to comply? Good, it can go and be replaced with someone else. Any movie company does not want to comply? That will not happen cause they will have no other medium left.
Winning the support of the other companies who are going to pay Sony these royalities needs lot of negotiating and coming up with standards they are happy with. Sony can't change the standard once it's set because 1) they've singed contracts and 2) Any changes will just be ignored by companies. It'd be like Toshiba changing the DVD standard some way now. Who would accomodate those changes when they are already sellng an existing standard? And any attempt to extract to much money through licensing would see Sony on the pointy end of anticompetive lawsuits.

It's no more stupid for the US movie industries to allow a dominance of a Sony format then it was to allow the dominance of VHS, CD, or DVD.
 
Shifty Geezer said:
Yes, that's how it works. Phillips got money for CD's as the patent holder, and Toshiba & Warner (as mentioned in this thread) get money for DVD's. As a major patent holder Sony would get royalties on every BRD sold.

Lots of folks get royalties for CD & DVD's. Sony gets royalties on both. Just like lots of folks will get part of the Blu-Ray royalty. Although, the companies you mentioned (as well as Sony for BDR) get a bigger share obviously.
 
Although a lot of the initial resistance to Blu-Ray was from rival studios which didn't want to see Sony's studios and parent benefit by controlling the next-gen format.

Plus the story is, Toshiba developed HD-DVD to studio spec, probably Warners. If Warners does go Blu-Ray, it will apparently still support HD-DVD, if for symbolic reasons given their ties to Toshiba.
 
IIRC all Blu-Ray directors have an equal vote in the direction the format takes. In essence everyone has a veto.
 
There is no such thing as a CRT HDTV (not computer CRT monitor) All existing CRT HDTVs on the market, including the highest end ones you can buy, accept HDTV signals, but do not have the resolution to resolve the signal, specifically, the horizontal resolution. The best available HDTV CRT you can buy today has about 1400 resolvable pixels horizontally. This set can resolve neither 720p nor 1080i formats completely. But for the most part, you won't know.

Every single person I know has an HDTV, and bought it clearly knowing what HD was. Maybe you know a bunch of idiot blue collar types who walk into a store and slap down $2k without understanding the features of the product, but almost everyone I know knows the difference.

Even my friend's girlfriend, not technically savvy in the least, knows her Sony WEGA CRT is not a true HDTV, but merely "HD Ready" (can accept signal, but resolution not as good as HDTV spec)

If the consumers didn't understand what they were getting, manufacturers wouldn't go to such great lengths to increase specs like CR. I think most of the 15 million HDTV users are ALOT more savvy than the typical TV owner.
 
DemoCoder said:
There is no such thing as a CRT HDTV (not computer CRT monitor) All existing CRT HDTVs on the market, including the highest end ones you can buy, accept HDTV signals, but do not have the resolution to resolve the signal, specifically, the horizontal resolution. The best available HDTV CRT you can buy today has about 1400 resolvable pixels horizontally. This set can resolve neither 720p nor 1080i formats completely. But for the most part, you won't know.

The standard for 720 p is 1280x720 is it not? That's a few less than the 1400 those crts you speak of can resolve.
 
DemoCoder said:
There is no such thing as a CRT HDTV (not computer CRT monitor) All existing CRT HDTVs on the market, including the highest end ones you can buy, accept HDTV signals, but do not have the resolution to resolve the signal, specifically, the horizontal resolution. The best available HDTV CRT you can buy today has about 1400 resolvable pixels horizontally. This set can resolve neither 720p nor 1080i formats completely. But for the most part, you won't know.
Who the heck are you talking to?

If you are talking to me 1) I never specified the HDTV type (in fact, not 1 is CRT, so meh... typical ranting) and 2) certainly knowing the native signal your set works with is relevant.

Since the rest of the post appears to be a response to me I take it this must be as well. That being the case your are repeating irrelevant information to this case as I not once mentioned CRTs. You are ranting about nothing to prove what?

Every single person I know has an HDTV, and bought it clearly knowing what HD was. Maybe you know a bunch of idiot blue collar types who walk into a store and slap down $2k without understanding the features of the product, but almost everyone I know knows the difference.
Ad hominem.

"These people are idiots compared to me and my friends, and thus I can dismiss them".

Sorry, the day the began selling HDTVs in Costco, Sam's Club, and Walmart your arguement went flying out the door. As for knowing what they were... duh. "Its HD dude, its better". We live in an era where 2>1, bigger is better, more frequency > better, more memory > better, etc regardless of any other facts. We live in the era of 512MB FX5200s.

And that does not even delve into the entire demographic of people who are semi-familiar with a subject (i.e. HDTV is better) and rely on sales people at Circuit City, Comp USA, and other stores to direct them to the "right" product. The number of intelligent people who get ripped off buying PCs, in the year 2005, is incredible. Especially with this is their 3rd or 4th PC.

So either you are on cloud 9 or you are out of touch with the general consumer.

Further, your personal insults on people makes you like like an ass. Just an FYI. Your comment is about as mature as calling your friends, "Obsessive audio/visual freaks who hang out obsessing on online forums". :rolleyes: How would I know that? I don't OBVIOUSLY. But that is about as low and moronic as your comment is. Your demeaning attitude toward others and "Me and my friends are better, and therefore the people you know are idiots" is pretty sad commentary. Uhhh yeah. And yes, this is how you come off on the forums.

Summing up people who may not have a knowledge base that overlaps your interests as "idiots" really is a good show old chap. Do I sense some security issues?

Even my friend's girlfriend, not technically savvy in the least, knows her Sony WEGA CRT is not a true HDTV, but merely "HD Ready" (can accept signal, but resolution not as good as HDTV spec)
Irrelevant anecdote to justify character assassination.

I understand there are people who have been introduced to HDTV. I have no doubt about that. What you seem incapable to comprehend is that not all consumers run your circles or have been introduced to the topic--or have been fortunate enough to have had a friend, coworker, magazine, etc... explain the concepts.

The bottonline is HDTVs have become a mainstream product. They have been known about for about a decade and over the last three years more and more people getting new TVs--not an unknown practice as they break down--have looked for future proofing. Hard to avoid it when you walk into your local TV place and they are pushing HDTVs. Heck, the last time I was in a Circuit City (4 years ago) they were pushing HD sets heavily.

If you are going to invest $2-$4k in a TV you want to future proof it--regardless if you understand the lingo or not. What is so hard to understand about that?

If the consumers didn't understand what they were getting, manufacturers wouldn't go to such great lengths to increase specs like CR. I think most of the 15 million HDTV users are ALOT more savvy than the typical TV owner.
Non sequitur.

Just because your average HDTV owner may be more tech savvy than a typical TV owner, that tells us nothing. TV owners cover the entire gamut of people. HDTV owners tend to be people 1) with money and 2) spend time in front of their TVs and want wide screens/big screens.

You can have both of those interests and not necessarily be up to date on all the HDTV wranglings on this stalled technology. Yeah, I remember reading about HDTV in 1996 and how it was "here"... um yeah.

As for manufacturers, many things push them to increase their specs. Obviously the high end consumers want them. Further, even if a consumer does not understand the number they can frequently see a difference (although what consumers see as a difference on a show room floor is often BAD). Further, manufacturers are not just trying to impress consumers, but also they are competiting for floor space. If my show room has space for 10 sets and there are 20 vendors wanting space--I am going to pick the best 10 overall for my markets needs, ranging from low end products to the best high end products. Pricing is fairly stable across product categories, so offering quality features at price points is significant.

Finally, specs are constantly improved due to the obvious disparity between technologies. For the longest time LCDs lagged in many areas. If they wished to move into the space occupied by CRTs and Plasmas they needed to improve enough that any difference was moot when viewed by the average consumer.

So your justification that HDTV users must be more savvy based on manufacturer improvements does not hold water. The tech industry has been driven by bigger and faster for decades. Most HDTV technologies appear to be an offshoot of that industry mentality.
 
The simple fact is, the majority of HDTV owners today are early adopters. The non-existence of an HD movie format, paucity of HD content on broadcast, cable, and satellite, over the last guarantee that people who were dropping $3000-5000 for a TV over the last 4 years were pro-sumers. The price of a real HDTV until very recently was beyond the price range of the average consumer.

Your arguing as if HDTV is mainstream and the people buying them are your average schmoe. HDTVs have been an elite product, especially prior to to 2004. Over 50% of HDTV owners have incomes over $70,000/yr, and 39% have incomes over $100,000.

82% said they bought an HDTV for picture quality. 14% of people above $75,000 owner HDTVs, whereas only 5% below $75,000 own HDTVs. The most likely HDTV purchaser is someone with 30% above mean national income.

These are facts of the market, measured by the industry. HDTV, up until today, has been primarily in the hands of the elite and educated. I fail to see the need to question what is obvious to most people, about the nature and adoption of high end consumer electronics equipment.
 
Well, a CRT may only be able to resolve 1400 pixels horizontally but that was more than most other displays until the 1080p displays started appearing, only very recently.

But the other problem was that there weren't too many sources providing true HDTV signals. OTA is widely considered the best source for now but most stations are playing around with weather sub-channels so most appear to be using much less than the 19+ Mbps they're allotted.

And the situation is worse on satellite. Cable may be better. Supposedly Comcast in the Bay Area get the fiber feeds from the local stations here, instead of something downstream from the OTA transmission.

Really, the HD discs and maybe games (if there really are some 1080p games) will be the sources which push these displays.
 
I would like to extend upon your point, wrt the incredibly poor state of programming that exists for HDTV today. OTA is "passable", and like you said, digital cable and satellite perceptibly worse. Given that is the kind of feed that is demoed in showrooms, as well, that tells me quite a bit about how the average consumer is NOT capable of assessing "true" good picture quality and the actual benefits that HDTV brings to the table, in practice. They don't see the heavy compression artifacts, the poor color transitioning, the collapse of definition under motion, and realize there are some serious problems with HDTV transmission (and sometimes limitations of the display unit, itself). They see a picture that is incrementally sharper (when the right moment hits) on a large screen with some way overshot color bloom, and that constitutes the "look of HD". It doesn't matter if they are rich or poor, educated or not educated, it's still the same ole strategies at play (the appearance of improvement by suggestion, Wow torch mode, assurance of "it's the new thing, you need to buy this"). People cannot tell via their own senses, nor is the programming there to reveal actual differences, either...yet, they still sell. What does that tell you? I wouldn't be surprised if manufacturers didn't bother with more sophisticated display technologies, at all, and just slapped an HD label on the best SDTV's they already have and added some DVI/HDMI ports on the back- people would still buy them simply because they are labeled "HDTV".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DemoCoder said:
There is no such thing as a CRT HDTV (not computer CRT monitor) All existing CRT HDTVs on the market, including the highest end ones you can buy, accept HDTV signals, but do not have the resolution to resolve the signal, specifically, the horizontal resolution. The best available HDTV CRT you can buy today has about 1400 resolvable pixels horizontally. This set can resolve neither 720p nor 1080i formats completely. But for the most part, you won't know.

Actually, I haven't seen any LCDs in stores with more than 1366 horizontal pixels. Maybe some of the newest 1080p ones do better.
 
Something to drool on...

Take a look at this HDR display:

http://www.bit-tech.net/preview/hardware/brightside_hdr_edr/1.html

However, I think the unless HD displays come down in price neither BD or HD-DVD will be successful. And new technology like HDR display will drive BD and HD-DVD to obsolete. Personally, I'm in favor for HVD-DVD. But that will be a couple years off, so maybe when the consumer display catch up (in term of price for the mass). Then we can really settle on a standard.
 
TrungGap said:
Take a look at this HDR display:

http://www.bit-tech.net/preview/hardware/brightside_hdr_edr/1.html

However, I think the unless HD displays come down in price neither BD or HD-DVD will be successful. And new technology like HDR display will drive BD and HD-DVD to obsolete. Personally, I'm in favor for HVD-DVD. But that will be a couple years off, so maybe when the consumer display catch up (in term of price for the mass). Then we can really settle on a standard.

When has HVD stated that they are looking into the video business? When has movie studios stated that they are looking at HVD-DVD? I would like to know this info. Maybe you can link me to it. I'm just sick and tired of people bringing that weak @$$ arguement up. Stop talking about HVD-DVD when nobody has lab HVD players that are playing movies.
 
mckmas8808 said:
When has HVD stated that they are looking into the video business? When has movie studios stated that they are looking at HVD-DVD? I would like to know this info. Maybe you can link me to it. I'm just sick and tired of people bringing that weak @$$ arguement up. Stop talking about HVD-DVD when nobody has lab HVD players that are playing movies.

Well no one has any blu-ray or HD-DVD players that are playing movies either, so I suppose we should stop talking about them also. There are 200gb worm HVD drives out there now, but it's quite a ways off (2+ years) from being a consumer product.
 
TrungGap said:
Take a look at this HDR display:

http://www.bit-tech.net/preview/hardware/brightside_hdr_edr/1.html

However, I think the unless HD displays come down in price neither BD or HD-DVD will be successful. And new technology like HDR display will drive BD and HD-DVD to obsolete.

We got some conflicting logic here, imo. You are concerned that BR/HD-DVD may not be successfully adopted unless "regular" HD displays come down in price, yet a $50k HDR display has the slightest chance of outselling the regular HD's and subsequentially making BR/HD-DVD obsolete as a source format? I'm thinking the price tag maaaaay keep it from making any significant impact on other newcoming media circling the industry at the moment.

It's a neat device, though...but just as easily could bring about more problems along with the extreme good things it makes possible. I was going to type some bullet points, but I'll just be short and say it would not be unlike having that "1000 hp car". It sounds great, but finding practical and frequent situations to unleash all of it is another question altogether.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politics indeed:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005106_9074_tc024.htm

The image of Stringer and Gates having a showdown over Blu-Ray is the stuff out of a Hollywood movie.

So MS went into crisis mode when they got wind that Paramount and Warners were wavering, about to give the game away to Blu-Ray.

So how many of the stated reasons were earnest as opposed to driven by the fear of Blu-Ray winning before the war starts and thus, having Sony's decision to include the BD-ROM drive in the PS3 validated (increasing its value proposition relative to the X360)?
 
wco81 said:
Politics indeed:

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2005/tc2005106_9074_tc024.htm

The image of Stringer and Gates having a showdown over Blu-Ray is the stuff out of a Hollywood movie.

So MS went into crisis mode when they got wind that Paramount and Warners were wavering, about to give the game away to Blu-Ray.

So how many of the stated reasons were earnest as opposed to driven by the fear of Blu-Ray winning before the war starts and thus, having Sony's decision to include the BD-ROM drive in the PS3 validated (increasing its value proposition relative to the X360)?

Did you know today Peter Moore said that today on G4 that the PS3 would cost at least $1000 due to it's Blu-ray drive? And he seemed to question K.K's possiblity to launch the system at a competitve price. Things are getting heated baby.:devilish:
 
$1000 to manufactre, or $1000 to the consumer?
Certainly it won't be to the consumer, if he thinkd do he must be out of his mid.
Other than that, Moore is fabulous!!
 
rabidrabbit said:
$1000 to manufactre, or $1000 to the consumer?
Certainly it won't be to the consumer, if he thinkd do he must be out of his mid.
Other than that, Moore is fabulous!!

$1000 to the consumer. To be fair he did mean if it was coming out around this time (i.e. along side the Xbox 360).
 
randycat99 said:
I would like to extend upon your point, wrt the incredibly poor state of programming that exists for HDTV today. OTA is "passable", and like you said, digital cable and satellite perceptibly worse.

Passable? What are you talking about? OTA HDTV is superior to DVD, and Cable/Satellite HD transmissions. OTA HDTV has significantly less artifacting than either DVD, DirectTV HD, and Comcast HD. The same applies to OTA SDTV vs SDTV on Satellite/Cable.

There is a simple reason why. Comcast and DirectTV own hundreds of channels. They tune their compression codecs to permit more channels, instead of a fewer number of higher quality channels. That's why the DirectTV Spaceway satellites which are going to offer over 1,000 HD channels are most likely, crappy quality just like their SDTV channels. Cable and Satellite are interested in maximizing the number of channels they have available.

In contrast, local OTA broadcast stations own a single frequency alotment for their station broadcasts. They are denied by law/FCC regulations from subdividing those frequencies for other uses. Thus, if your local NBC/ABC/CBS affiliate is switching to HDTV, they have no incentive not to utilize the complete bandwidth they have alotted, since they can't resell extra bandwidth if they opted for a crappier compression codec.

The difference between HD and SD broadcasts is more than some minor sharpness improvement. If you watch HD broadcasts on a daily basis, and then switch to SD, the difference is striking. SD looks shitty. Blurry as hell.

I've been watching the Lost DVD Season 1 on my HDTV to catch up. Tonite, I watched the OTA HDTV broadcast. *Vastly* superior to upconverted DVD 480p. (and please, don't start this ignorant nonsense about upconversion again. The same result can be had by watching on a CRT).

You make a habit in these forums of being an HDTV denier. I suggest you get your eyes checked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top