Slashdot Log In
HD VMD Shows Up Late For the Format War
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Sep 09, 2007 04:37 PM
from the other-guys-will-kill-each-other-off-see dept.
from the other-guys-will-kill-each-other-off-see dept.
Fishead writes "As the fight heats up between HD DVD and Blu-ray, and as consumers seem to care less and less, a new contender has entered the fray. Next month, New Medium Enterprises will be selling a 1080p player through Amazon and stores such as Radio Shack and Costco for around $150 — half what the cheapest HD DVD player costs, and a quarter the cost of a low-end Blu-ray. The difference this new HD VMD (Versatile Multilayer Disc) format brings is that the discs are created with the same (cheap) red laser as DVDs. From the article: 'HD VMD discs, which hold up to 30GB on a single side, are encoded with a maximum bit rate of 40 megabits per second... between HD DVD's 36 Mpbs and Blu-ray's 48 Mbps. The format uses MPEG-2 and VC1 video formats to encode at 1080p resolution for the time being, and will possibly move to the H.264 format in the future.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Fourth (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fourth (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope it wins! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It will take much larger numbers to be produced for BD to even get close to HDDVD/HDVMD in manufacturing cost. HDDVD/VMDs can be produced using existing equipment with small modifications. Manufacturing BD requires new equipment and is a much more complex process.
BD Players also cost about 10 times as much to manufacture as a HDVMD player does.
There is also the issue of media longevity.
Re:I hope it wins! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sure, the players might be relatively cheap to manufacture. But the big studios avoid pressing even two layer discs whenever possible, because the manufacturing cost of creating two layers, gluing them together with a semi-transparent layer in the middle, and throwing out the rejects is still a lot higher than a single layer, where you stamp it out, cover it with silver, and glue a non-critical bit of plastic to bring it up to 12mm.
Crank that up to 4+ layers, and we're talking about a pretty insane manufacturing process here. And you'll likely never get that sort of density in recordable technology--recordable dual layer discs today still carry a hefty premium over single layer discs, because now you need to add a recordable layer that you can also shoot the same recording laser through to record the other layer. You can't even get re-recordable dual layer DVDs; the technology simply does not commercially exist.
Blu-ray is the best hope for future computer interchange needs, because the 25 GB single layer recordable and re-recordable discs are going to be dirt cheap compared to anything else. It'd be awfully nice if it turned out to be the HD video disc format as well, since it'd mean fewer components. While I'm sure plenty of people would just argue for dual format players, long term I think that's a horrible solution.
And no, HD-DVDs are not necessarily superior to Blu-ray in terms of durability. The hard coating process on BD has done a lot to address any scratching issues (HD-DVD could also benefit from hard coating, of course, but it's not mandatory, and thus usually skipped--making HD-DVD actually more susceptible to scratching issues), and keeping the data layer closer to the surface actually has a lot of positive benefits in terms of readability, improving robustness. In fact, it's the main reason Blu-ray can achieve higher densities than HD-DVD to begin with. Keep in mind that with a relatively thick disc, any warping in the transparent medium is going to affect the ability of the laser pickup to track, especially at the laser frequencies used by HD-DVD and Blu-ray. With a thin optical layer, it almost doesn't matter.
Parent
Re:I hope it wins! (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is why the BD standard absolutely mandates scratch-proof coatings on the surface of the discs, instantly making them the most durable (bare) disc format anyone has ever seen. HD-DVD, OTOH, is the most dense disc format, and without such a scratch resistant layer, the most easily susceptible to damage anyone has seen.
Parent
I don't care about HD Video... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't care about HD Video... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't care about HD Video... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is too easy.
- The world will never need more than 4 or 5 computers.
- Nobody will ever need more than 640K of memory.
- We can close all patents offices now, everything is invented (ca 1890)
You can go on and on. I do HD video with my very inexpensive HD camcorder. 30G is nothing. Nothing at all.
Parent
Sounds good... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sounds good... (Score:4, Insightful)
This probably won't work in the US, Europe, or the Far East. However the one interesting bit from the article that I would like to know more about is that Bollywood might be interested in this. Though not as large as the Western movie market it is still a huge group of people to sell to and that group is probably excluded from the other HD formats because of price and piracy concerns.
So I say, bring me my 1080 Indian porno!!!
Parent
Re:Sounds good... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sounds good... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah baby, yeah!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Poor Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
$487.99 for Blue-ray [bestbuy.com] Vs. $150... wonder who will win that aspect to the format war?
The only thing that may limit this format is whether the movie companies will pick it up, and more importantly the porn industry. [engadget.com]
Re:Poor Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
First, when VHS and Beta appeared, the only real way to see porn films was in a XXX theater. You couldn't watch them in the privacy of your home.
Today, I can watch porn on VHS, or DVD. Or pay-per-view. Or satellite. Or the 'net. Or video-CD. Or I could play a porn related video game. Porn helped VHS because it was really the first time you could watch porn in the privacy of your home, so the inability to do that on Beta was big. That's not an issue today.
Please, can we just drop that stupid argument? It doesn't hold much water any more.
Parent
Re:Poor Sony (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, the point is moot, since porn *is* being released on BD with the first release being Debbie Does Dallas. Since the porn industry generated considerable amounts of media attention, the BDA has relented.
First, when VHS and Beta appeared, the only real way to see porn films was in a XXX theater. You couldn't watch them in the privacy of your home.
Today, I can watch porn on VHS, or DVD. Or pay-per-view. Or satellite. Or the 'net. Or video-CD. Or I could play a porn related video game. Porn helped VHS because it was really the first time you could watch porn in the privacy of your home, so the inability to do that on Beta was big. That's not an issue today.
Please, can we just drop that stupid argument? It doesn't hold much water any more.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rephrase: How much porn have I bought on DVD? None. How much have I downloaded? Let's... uhhh... I'm sure my mom doesn't read Slashdot, so let's say "more than none". Of that more than none, how much is already in HD? All of the pics, and with the price of HD camcorders dropping, expect video to move that way. But how much of th
Agreed. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.pornotube.com/ [pornotube.com]
http://www.shareaza.com/ [shareaza.com]
Um yeah, why are people still buying discs ???!? I agree with the above poster, there is no way porno is even going to effect this format war. The internet has taken over that industry and distribution completely.
Re:Poor Sony (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Whoever fight, we already know who has won.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Be it BlueRay, be it HD-DVD, or HD VMD, or chinese EVD.
We don't give a fuck about who battling against who on the market.
We already know who won the battle :
- the unknown noname chinese hardware maker who'll market a cheap plastic reader, that'll read anything you'll put in it and that'll cost only a few dozens of .
Seriously.
No, the only thing that will matter is if the cheap hardware maker will pick it up.
Last time, the whole DVD "plus" RW vs. DVD "minus" RW vs. DVD-RAM debate was made pointless once asian makers started to push multi format burners.
Before thatm the DVD (the hidef format) vs. SuperVCD (the cheaper with older hardware) vs. DivX (the internet alternative) was made obsolete now that you can pick-up a DVD/MP3/MPEG-4 reader for less than 50$ at your local store.
The exact same story will repeat it self the next few years with the HD format war. While marketoid will go at great lenght arguing which is better between BlueRay and HD-DVD and while you should pick *their* technology because most of the studio are backing *that one*, the public will quietly stand back, enjoy the fight, and wait patiently until cheap multi-format reader appear.
LG and Samsung have such movie players and media burners coming to their products line-up and others companies are to follow. The cheap brandless aren't far away.
Parent
Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
People came around this by simply renaming the files but then Apple updated iTunes, so someone came up with a new idea, and we'll see how long that one works
In that regard
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
PP: Apple doesn't own the music they sell you, they license it from the music labels.
I have to agree with the second quote. Due to the current laws as well as unnegotiable terms of contract drafted by the giant labels, either Apple complies or gets locked out of the market, so in this respect Apple is a gear in a vast, putrid machine they did not create.
Remember that Napster corporate and legislative hysteria preceded the iTunes Music
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You have the RIGHT to format and time shift, but the MEANS to do so is made illegal to you by the DMCA. It's such an artful contradiction written into the law; you'd admire the artistry if it weren't so evil.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
DVDs certainly do not give you any freedom, they locked down with css. Oh right, so becuse css is crackable makes DVDs the idealized format. You are ignoring that the DVD people think just as little of you as the HD format people. Hollywood will not give you what you want. If you want to be mr copyleft then address your hollywood addiction, give
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, either it has equivalent DRM to Blu-ray and HD-DVD, and then there's really no benefit over this technology than the others apart from maybe cost or whatever, and the MPAA cartel still might not i
Waste of time (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I could see the potential of a DVD player that could play H264 HD content from a DVD.
So Why doesn't it yet?
"The format uses MPEG-2 and VC1* video formats to encode at 1080p resolution for the time being, and will possibly move to the H.264 format in the future."
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1
"VC-1 is the informal name of the SMPTE 421M video codec standard initially developed by Microsoft. WMV3, better known as Windows Media Video 9 codec, served as the basis for development of the VC-1 codec specification. On April 3, 2006, SMPTE announced the formal release of the VC-1 standard as SMP
Re:Waste of time (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Waste of time (Score:5, Informative)
SORRY!!!! SORRY!!! That's what happens when the wife yells "dinner's ready". Yes, there's a wife here and she's a geek. Who else has a wife who comes running home from Costco saying "Hey, they have compressors on sale! Didn't you want air tools?" or "I think the 42" flat panel would look great in the bedroom". If you missed it, an apology for the Big Block O'ASCII was posted right after that. For those of you who want paragraphs, I will now REPEAT the entire blah blah right here. Karma be damned, send me to Remedial Preview School if you like:
---------
One thing to keep in mind about Microsoft's success at "requiring" the VC-1 codec was that neither HD-DVD nor Blu-ray had a VC-1 requirement at first. That was a long, painful battle for Microsoft which was typically used to dictating standards to everyone. Ultimately, Microsoft skillfully played the game of leverage between competitors to shoehorn themselves into both disk standards.
With the future of digital media unfolding in the early 2000's, Microsoft simply offered High Definition equipment manufacturers and movie studios the whole Windows Media system [for a fee] expecting a quick surrender to the obvious victor of any technical battle - themselves. Microsoft envisioned their Windows Media player as the basis of all future television with themselves in control, dispatching all their competitors to oblivion and erecting a global toll booth between media creation companies and viewers.
However, manufacturers tend to avoid these traps and SMPTE wouldn't touch Windows Media with a 10 foot pole for exactly that reason, recognizing that the Windows Media Player wrapper was fairly treacherous ground under Microsoft's control. Microsoft was informed by SMPTE that the codec inside Windows Media could be accepted if it was split out and properly standardized like all the other codecs. Leave the "player" wrapper with undocumented controls out of it. Although the DRM offered by Microsoft was attractive to Hollywood, it became clear that manufacturers would not simply hand their future technical path over to Microsoft, nor would the Hollywood production studios hand over control of their assets to an organization with a history of modifying the terms of an agreement to benefit themselves. Manufacturers and content creators knew that Microsoft could suddenly replace VC-1 with VC-2 and demand a ransom to stay in business. Windows Media 10 was on the horizon and everyone knew what that meant. Microsoft wasn't trustworthy in either of those circles and proper SMPTE standardization was the only road to considering any products from Redmond.
Microsoft finally did separate the codec from the Windows Media player and offer it for ratification expecting a rubber stamp approval by SMPTE while refusing to release the source code, refusing to define the royalty conditions in advance, promising to deliver finished codecs while retaining control of the current and future source (and a few other tricks). This all prevented ratification by SMPTE. It was Microsoft's first foray into the workings of a real standards body and they thought they could simply bully their way through it. They weren't used to anyone standing up to them like this. Microsoft was very much out in the cold and basically entered panic mode as they watched other formats develop, deploy and gain momentum. Manufacturers were not going to commit to a proprietary codec which would later hold them hostage. No SMPTE standardization? No use for VC-1. Period. End of codec. End of Microsoft's influence on media. PANIC!
As Microsoft was slowly releasing control of VC-1 and approaching SMPTE compliance, Microsoft released premature press releases claiming SMPTE ratification months before they were in actual compliance. SMPTE had to smack them down at least once for this tactic. Finally, Microsoft did what was needed for SMPTE ratification and gained acceptance by the HD-DVD camp [support and funding had something to do with this, I'm sure]. I don't personally know t
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
VMD? (Score:5, Funny)
What's the point? (Score:2)
I have just invented another contender (Score:5, Funny)
I'm gonna be a millionaire! I love capitalism.
TDz.
Re: (Score:2)
Will there be content? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only other chance, if the studios don't jump onto it, is to squeeze out a writer for it quickly and make this the next big thing in computer storage and HD content copying. If it can hold a full HD movie, people who don't care too much about DRM or buying content will be very interested in it. Then, and only then, you can get a standard into the market without the support of the content providers.
Whoever puts out a cheap recorder wins (Score:5, Insightful)
What about HD Divx from a normal old DVD? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The new disc formats all use newer and better codecs for video compression than DivX, providing better quality at lower bitrates. DivX was great when the only game in town was MPEG-2. But as ISO MPEG-4 (on which DivX is based), and now H.264 have come on the scene, DivX
Targetting Bollywood might be a winner (Score:3, Interesting)
A fine feature would be if it were possible to play the new HD VMD disks at DVD resolution on standard DVD players. Given they use the same lasers, it might be that DVD players will see one particular layer, on which the DVD data could be stored. This again would help greatly to break into the market.
However, they don't mention such a feature, and I'd hope they'd have thought about it, so probably it is technically infeasible.
It all comes down to $$$ (Score:5, Insightful)
While movie studios will want DRM on their disks, ultimately they desire sales, and will go with whatever format dominates the marketplace, no matter how much or little DRM is in place. However, as the article mentions that the $150 player comes with HDMI, I suspect they have comparable DRM to the other HD competitors.
I'm still betting Blu-Ray (Score:3, Interesting)
If worst comes to worse I still have a great game machine and a Linux computer.
I must confess one bit of annoyance with Toshiba and the HD-DVD camp; I bought my PS3 primarily as an HD movie player, but the HD-DVD camp screams day and night that only standalone players count (except when they want to include the XBox 360 addon). Blu-Ray may not win, but it certainly has the largest installed base at 6 million plus; it is much less likely to just stumble and fail completely as HD-DVD was in danger of doing until the Paramount defection (strange doings that).
It will be a delicious irony to hear HD-DVD proponents now claiming low-price is not the biggest determining factor in who wins.