HD VMD Shows Up Late For the Format War 280
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.'"
Fourth (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fourth (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it wins! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A more advanced format will last longer. (Well, atleast as long as it doesn't lose vs a cheaper one that is
I don't think this format have any feature because the other ones are already known and as someone said Toshibas HD-DVDs aren't that expensive either anyway. Personally I would just had prefered if Microsoft
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.
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.
I don't care about HD Video... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't care about HD Video... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
MP3's? I ha
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.
Re: (Score:2)
These LTO tapes are useless for the porno.
Good: no one thinks to look there.
Bad: searching for that just right jerk off material is maddening, being linear media and all.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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!!!
Re:Sounds good... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds good... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah baby, yeah!
That's only in the USA (Score:2)
It may be a massive hit in the USA if a writeable version becomes available - what better way to pirate Blu-HD movies?
Price is everything to consumers. It might catch up yet....
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.
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.
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
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think any porn video that are more than maybe 10 years old are going to have any impact on the HD format wars; older videos were designed for standard definition, and just can't take advantage of the new format in any significant way.
That being said, I think that if/when a porn video comes out that uses HD to the same sort of stunning visual effect as Planet Earth [wikipedia.org], one MIGHT argue
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Porn will drive new content mediums as long as people are into porn. So you have more choices now. So what? The porn industry produces more video content than all other non-porn video content producers put together. Some porn houses release upwards of 10-20 titles a WEEK.
Also, Super8 project
Re: (Score:2)
My argument holds water. Let's not forget that BluRay and HD-DVD are just higher resolution DVD formats. The ability to record a moving picture of pornography was a big leap over printed pictures. The ability to take pictures instead of having people paint them was a big leap. The ability to print many prints of something instead of having to hand-make them was a big step bringing costs down.
I'm not saying porn won't have an effect, I'm saying it won't be the deciding factor. That's the difference here and
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Poor Sony (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Film wasn't cheap, but never the less, a great many people watched porn in the privacy of their own homes. I've found several reels myself when looking through old boxes. Just don't try to slow or pause the film, lest it instantly melt.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Me... I have a high def player that fits 100GBs on a 2 cent disc, and the player costs $20.
Or perhaps the holographic disc format coming out any time now that will fit terabytes of data on a cheap disc, and be given away in cereal boxes...
Vaporware is fun.
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:2)
Maybe, but what about music from CDs I bought and imported myself into my library?
Re: (Score:2)
Every other phone manufacturer gives you a way to create your own ringtones. The only reason Apple doesn't is because Apple doesn't want to.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
And as another answer had said what about CDs? Not that I unde
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)
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:2, Insightful)
I think his point wasn't "DVD's are good", I think his point was "I'm not going to shift to a NEW format unless it is good". In essence, he's saying "I'm not going to shift from smoking cigarettes to smoking cigars, because cigars can cause cancer, so I'll stick with the carcinogen I've got until there's a non-carcinogen alternative".
You could argue, as you seem to, that "if you don't stop smoking cigarettes while you wait for a non-carcinogen alternative to come along, then you're still at risk of cancer"
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
DVDs have DRM... just it's been broken. Funnily enough, one of the "losing" parties in this high-def wars also has their DRM broken. (Yes, it's HD-DVD... AACS has been broken, all that can be done is they change the keys. Blu-Ray has also been broken, but there's many more forms of DRM
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, you'd better come up with a really compelling reason why I should re-buy my video library all over again. I just finished doing it going from VHS to DVD--and dropping a lot of titles, BTW, 'cause I didn't want to plunk down $20 for Under Siege. If I have to do it all over again with HD-DVD/BR, I'm going to buy Seven Samurai, Casablanca and The Godfather, and nothing else. I'm sick of re-buying the same fucking movies.
And anyway, a goodly portion of my mov
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: (Score:2)
Give the Chinese manufactures some time. We've already seen HDMI upscaling players as well as those that can play MPEG-4 ASP (otherwise known as DiVX, XVid etc.). Sooner or later some manufacturer will do the same for H264. And then some more and some more.
VC-1 is probably one reason Microsoft is propping up HD DVD. It doesn't give a damn about HD DVD, but keeping the format wars going mean more sales of its VC-1 codec, authoring tools and also opportunities for the MS XBL download
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Waste of time (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's in there somewhere but I'll extract it so you don't have to read through the monolith of text:
First Microsoft dropped the planned use of the Windows Media Player wrapper because the industries were only interested in the codec, not the advertising portal / "phone home" laden / consumer dictating / system call making player interface.
Second, Microsoft gave up control over the Windows Media 9 codec itself, revealing the source code so anyone can roll their own instead of relying on (trusting) Microsoft
Re:Waste of time (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Something like 90% of what he said is all public record... If you were following news of the subjects at that time (just a couple years ago or so) you'd know just about all of it. There's been plenty of stories about the numerous troubles Microsoft got into with the standardization process, and the changes to the supported codes of the BluRay format.
The rest are things you could more or less assume, The statements of intention, ie. what those involved "felt" "fear
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?
HD-DVD does this. Just plop an AVC/H.264 HD video file on blank red laser media and drop that into an HD-DVD player. It will play the video. The Blu-ray, idunno... haven't tried that yet. Talking to Sonic about pro authoring systems, there's apparently a licensing issue; the BDA wants a $1,500 license fee to encode a Blu-ray title, even if it's a check disk. Has something to do with the encryption key you have to buy to make it play. Haven't confirmed details but may explain why A
Re: (Score:2)
VMD? (Score:5, Funny)
What's the point? (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Well at that price it could easily become a feature found on east Asian players and then submarine itself as
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
Re: (Score:2)
You're either being incredibly pedantic, or ignorant.
DivX isn't just "based" on MPEG-4, IT IS A MPEG-4 CODEC. It was slightly incompatible with version 3 some ~8 years ago, but that's ancient history. Next you'll be complaining it's an illegal codec stolen from Microsoft...
Players that claim to be "DivX compatible" can play any "ISO MPEG-4" video just as well, though you may have to forge the fourcc,
Re: (Score:2)
Pedantic. Guilty as charged. DivX also tends to use AVI instead of the 'standard' MPEG-4 container. I'm not implying that DivX can't use an MPEG-4 container; it's just that most DivX movies are in an AVI container.
As for the illegal codec stolen from Microsoft... if that were true, than DivX would have been sued into oblivion already.
VC-1 is said to be good codec, but I certainly don't see it in anything I've tried. It does appear to be lower quality t
Re: (Score:2)
So does uncompressed video. The entire point is that MPEG-2 isn't as efficient as DivX, H.264 or VC-1. But 1080 video does look good in MPEG-2. ATSC television (North America) uses MPEG-2 to deliver 1080i video. Many of the first Blu-ray discs were MPEG-2 as well.
Actually they don't beat MPEG-4 part 2 (ie. divx/xv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lossy codecs aren't just a black box that you throw video at, and get magic out the other end. You need someone who knows what the hell they're doing to get halfway decent quality out of it, at a reasonable bitrate.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That wouldn't be a "fine feature" at all, that would be an incredible waste of space.
Did anyone say DVDs need to play in VCD players? A "fine feature" needed to get a foothold and catch on?
Re: (Score:2)
So long as the manufacturing price of disks is low, this would allow DVD/VMD disks to be sold for the same price as a DVD. Then when you're buying DVD/VMD disks to play in your DVD player, you can later upgrade to a VMD player and instantly have a collection of HD content. This would appeal to consumers
PS3 is low-end? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid, my folks got their first VCR circa 1985/1986. I remember it was a Toshiba front loader. It was VHS. It was VHS as the rental store offered VHS tapes.
Might sell in Norther Virginia (Score:2)
Criterion Collection. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Call me frugal (Score:2)
Since you can play movies with the untethered Bluetooth controler you already have a remote.
I don't plan on keeping the PS3 cooped up in a cabinet, but if I did it would last MUCH longer than an XBox 360 with its heat related problems.
Linux doesn't have mass market appeal yet, but being able to use it for Linux is also a p
I'll just be waiting for ... (Score:2)
... the UV-ray players with 320 GB capacity ... or the X-ray players with 2 TB capacity. Oh wait. Even those will have DRM (Destroys Retail Movies, Damned Revenue Mongrels, Dirty Raunchy Managers, Disk Rot Method, and Distributing Rootkits Mainly). Forget it. Nevermind.
Target Consumer (Score:2, Funny)
I'm unconvinced (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, take the piracy scene by storm and become so successful that it eventually gets included in hardware players, due to popular demand?
Re: (Score:2)
If you really want to check out the difference in quality, rent a DVD of a movie, and then order the same movie on pay per view. The DVD will show a LOT more detail due to having a higher resolution from source to screen than the pay per view(unless you get it in HD where you live).
So, it's about the source ima
Re: (Score:2)