 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Paramount poised to drop HD DVD format support | |
|
||
| Time: 04:19 EST/09:19 GMT | News Source: Press Release | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Paramount studios is poised to drop its support of the high-definition DVD (HD DVD) format after Warner Bros studio said it would back the competing Blu-ray format, the Financial Times reported on Tuesday. The loss of support from Paramount, which is owned by Viacom, would likely deal the final blow to the HD DVD format backed by Toshiba and put an end to the format war, the newspaper said on its Web site. Time Warner's Warner Bros studio on Friday said it would exclusively release high-definition DVDs in Sony's Blu-ray format, marking a major setback to the HD DVD camp. Blu-ray discs outsold HD DVD by nearly two-to-one in the United States last year, but HD DVD had secured major allies in August when Paramount Pictures and DreamWorks Animation SKG said they would go exclusively with HD DVD. But Paramount is understood to have a clause in its contract with the HD DVD camp that would allow it to change sides if Warner Bros backed Blu-ray, the Financial Times said, citing people familiar with the situation. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 47 of 47 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 2960 (72.196.195.185) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 07:43:18 AM |
|
Yep. Sad to say, that will indeed probably do it.
Consumers lose again :( Looks like those with the most fluff money won. TL |
| #2 By 24027 (72.188.103.245) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 07:58:57 AM |
| Cue the Whining 3...2...1... |
| #3 By 95817 (66.41.151.58) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 09:40:50 AM |
| http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aQMGgh2LV_bU&refer=japan |
| #4 By 2960 (72.196.195.185) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:41:08 AM |
|
I don't see how they would have much choice now. One company cannot sustain the format.
If Sony wanted to do right by consumers, they would allow them to trade in their HDDVD titles for BluRay versions, maybe charging mateiral and shipping costs only. It would be the right thing to do. But it's Sony. "Right" is not part of their vocabulary. TL |
| #5 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:46:09 AM |
| #2: Who's whining, except for a possible few HD-DVD users? I'll be glad to see either format take command of the market. I've been waiting Obiwan. |
| #6 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:21:17 AM |
| #4: I'm disappointed as well, but wouldn't the responsibility for trading HD-DVDs to BluRay versions be the responsibility of the studio, rather than Sony? |
| #7 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:54:56 AM |
|
Blu-Ray adds 30$ per PC drive in royalties. Plus royalties for each disc.
It should be Sun and Sony paying. They are the ones benefitting. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2005/12/18/bluray_royalties_30_per_pc_drive.html |
| #8 By 3 (86.1.38.147) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:36:33 PM |
|
#4 - there is talk today that they are going to annouce a trade in deal on HD-DVD hardware, no mention for HD-DVD titles - in fairness to Sony it isn't their fault you bought either of them so its just a gesture. Would Microsoft have done it if it was the other way round or the HD-DVD group, no probably not.
#7 - and adds 50% more space onto the disks too - oh but we forget that ;o) |
| #9 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 01:06:41 PM |
|
#8 HD DVD will do 51GB on triple layer discs.
However, I'm not too worried about that since I remember the promise of 18GB DVD on dual layer - double sided discs that never materialized. I can buy 30$ SATA DVD burners. With the royaly, that won't happen with Blu Ray. I can guarantee you part of the deal with Sony is that Sony will never allow cheap Blu Ray burners or cheap BR media to exist in order to make sure copying won't occur on any kind of scale. DVD's will be around a long, long time. |
| #10 By 3 (86.1.38.147) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 01:09:28 PM |
|
#9 - but you will need a new unreleased HD-DVD drive to do that. Just like you would need a new Blu-Ray drive when their 200GB disks come out. So again..good point, but not quite working out the way you hoped.
I'll wait and see on burners, all of them (HD and Blu) are over priced at the moment as most sensible PC buyers didn't go for them yet. |
| #11 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 01:20:39 PM |
|
#10 I'll wait for flash.
Right now I can buy a 16GB flash card for 70$. http://www.meritline.com/a-data-16gb-turbo-sdhc-flash-card.html A year from now, it'll be cheap enough to put a movie on it. And the player will be miniscule. Blu Ray is too expensive and too late. Flash and downloading will win. |
| #12 By 3 (86.1.38.147) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 01:22:20 PM |
| Downloading won't win anything still for the next few years...though in 4/5 years certainly it should do without a doubt. Services are still too slow right now and lower quality - Xbox Live's "HD" download service for an example, lower quality picture and basic sound. |
| #13 By 47914 (24.225.231.107) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 01:23:51 PM |
| #9 Talk about cheap! (me, that is) I still have never purchased DL discs as they are still generally over $1.00 apiece for blanks. Probably will never buy a blue ray player or burner unless blanks come WAY down in price. I don't have perfect vision anyhow, so the diff in quality of video is not that great to me. Besides, it's the plot, script, acting, game playability etc. that's important to me, more than anything else. |
| #14 By 8556 (12.208.163.138) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 01:54:21 PM |
| #12: You nailed it. Current "DVD Quality" movie downloads look more like compressed DVD copies burned to CD. Practical High Def downloads are years away. At my exising cable broadband speed of 9Mb/sec (when no one else is awake) it will take many hours to download a High Def movie. |
| #15 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 02:04:57 PM |
|
400MB 720P Divx encoded 1 hour TV shows look fantastic on my 22" monitor.
HD discs in consumer electronics stores (I don't have HD DVD or Blu Ray) don't look any better. |
| #16 By 3 (86.1.38.147) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 02:15:39 PM |
| Try it on a proper high definition TV designed for rea high definition content and try making the same statement again. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 02:19:59 PM |
|
#5: You pirate TV shows? Interesting.
|
| #18 By 37 (192.251.125.85) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 02:23:17 PM |
|
"Xbox Live's "HD" download service for an example, lower quality picture and basic sound"
My Xbox Live HD downloads are fast, high quality 720p, and have 5.1 surround. |
| #19 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 02:24:35 PM |
|
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/08/paramount-current-plan-is-to-support-the-hd-dvd-format-curre/
"Paramount has officially issued its denial of the rumor -- originally printed in the Financial Times -- that it is very close to ending its exclusive support of HD DVD." #16 The TV's I saw were playing HD content on HD TV's. Sure, the demo discs playing scenery look great. Movies look no better than the stuff I have. |
| #20 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 02:38:48 PM |
| #17: more surprising to me (considering the source) is that it's Divx rather than WMV. |
| #21 By 3 (86.1.38.147) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 02:56:21 PM |
|
#18 - I can create 720p content with 5.1 on my camcorder, doesn't mean the quality is that hot. I've used the live download service and comparing HD downloads on there (5gb) to HD-DVD titles of the same film is like chalk and cheese, there is a massive difference and I want HD sound from my HD films currently download services can't provide that.
#19 I guess my eyesight just seems a heck of a lot more quality than yours does. I'd like to see a comparison of exactly the same footage on a blu-ray or HD-DVD disk compared to the Divx file as it will clearly have far better quality, even you could see that I'm sure. But hey, if HD-DVD had won this war I'm sure you'd be spouting how fantastic that was. Oh and I'm judging it on the Blu-ray box set of Lost Series 3. ;o) |
| #22 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 03:00:15 PM |
|
Regarding DVD quality and HD movie downloads... I have to agree with AWBrian--the XBox Live HD downloads work really well for me... I have 6Mbps (12Mbps "burst"), and it's only 5-10 minutes or so before you can start watching (the rest of the download is finished before the movie is over). I'm really impressed with the service, and the quality looks very good to me. I don't have a really fancy TV, though, and I'm not exactly doing an A-B test.
However, even on DVDs, I've not been all that impressed with the quality. Not that it's bad, but there are a couple things that bug me: banded colors in gradients (low color bit-depth), and loss of fidelity during fast action scenes. I've brought this up before (lketchum explained it by saying that I have especially good vision, though I don't really think that's the case), but I'll give you an example. Take Casino Royale--during the street-running chase scene in the beginning of the movie, when they are running through the tall green plants, there is a considerable loss of detail... in fact, you can even start to see block artifacts (much like JPEG's block artifacts at high rates of compression) and other fidelity issues. It would appear that the content is changing too fast for the codec to encode everything adequately for the given bitrate (this seems to happen regardless of player, TV, etc.). Unfortunately, these are the types of quality issues that aren't easily identifiable, because you can't simply hit "pause" and closely examine the scene. Another thing that's interesting about movie downloads is that movies can, in essence, be patched. Once you buy a DVD, HD-DVD, BluRay disc, etc., that's it--those bits aren't changing. But take that Casino Royale example... if customers complained, the movie could be re-encoded at a higher bitrate, even if only for the fast action scenes. Or, when the day comes that 4k resolution screens are broadly available, the content could be "upgraded" for a reasonable fee. |
| #23 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 03:08:31 PM |
|
#21: 5.1 on your camcorder? How many mics does it have?
It would be interesting to do a side-by-side with HD downloads (~5GB) and BluRay/HD-DVD. I don't have either player type and haven't spent much time with any, so I'd be really curious to see the difference. It does make sense that the optical discs could offer better fidelity. However, that assumes that the movies are actually taking advantage of that extra capacity. Anyone have any stats on how much of the capacity of those discs is actually used today? Only the movie, not including any of the special features, of course. |
| #24 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 03:17:41 PM |
| #20: That's how I knew the shows he watches are pirated. Otherwise, if he was doing the encoding himself, it would be some MS thing for sure. Some drink the Kool-Aid, others breathe it but very few have it integrated into their DNA. |
| #25 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 03:19:56 PM |
|
#29 My DVD player plays Divx and Xvid without authoring. Just burn them as files. This post was edited by NotParkerToo on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 at 15:20. |
| #26 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 03:27:22 PM |
|
"#18 - I can create 720p content with 5.1 on my camcorder, doesn't mean the quality is that hot. I've used the live download service and comparing HD downloads on there (5gb) to HD-DVD titles of the same film is like chalk and cheese, there is a massive difference and I want HD sound from my HD films currently download services can't provide that."
I can also create 1080p content on a camcorder with 7.1 surround. My viewing of HD-DVD, BR and the Xbox Live HD downloads have been identical in quality. HD sound isn't even available on the Xbox 360 due to the lack of HDMI 1.3 output (360 is 1.2, which doesn't have TruHD sound). Download services do make HD sounds available, it's just the devices are not supporting. The PS3 supports this however, so they will be releasing their download movies in full TruHD sound as well. |
| #27 By 92283 (64.180.196.143) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 03:30:46 PM |
|
From reviews I've read, the most important thing in ensuring a good HD experience is that the encoding being in VC-1.
For those who pirate I think that works out to 9GB compressed. Not that I've ever downloaded a movie that size. Seriously. I doubt it would play on my Divx/DVD player thats connected to an old 19" CRT TV in my other TV room. There is no need for Blu Ray or HDDVD. They could have done it (without extras) on dual layer DVD. |
| #28 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 03:40:51 PM |
|
The end is near:
Comcast promising ultra-fast Internet "Roberts is expected to demonstrate a technology that delivers up to 160 megabits of data per second: It will allow him to download a high-definition copy of "Batman Begins" in four minutes. The technology, DOCSIS 3.0, will start rolling out this year." http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/01/08/ces.comcast.ap/index.html Let the HD downloading begin... Edit: That makes Batman Begins in HD about 4.7 GB in size. Easily put on a DVD9 disk. This post was edited by MysticSentinel on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 at 15:43. |
| #29 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 04:28:27 PM |
| You are dead on Mystic. I also believe the power companies will start using the power in homes more frequently for internet access, which is also pumping out amazing speeds in areas that are already supporting internet over the power in homes. |
| #30 By 3 (86.1.38.147) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 04:43:43 PM |
|
#23 - got an external surround sound Mic - it is one of the Sony 1080i HD Camcorders. Got it over christmas.
#22 - Don't get me wrong the quality of Xbox Live! HD is ok, its just I'd prefer to rent those films on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray from my local store for a few days than download what I feel is a low quality HD film, if i bought an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray and had the quality I have seen on Live on the Disk I'd probably never buy them again..You mention Casino Royal - check it out on Blu-Ray looks fantastic, especially in 24fps! |
| #31 By 3 (86.1.38.147) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 04:48:24 PM |
|
#28...yes look forward to that rolling out...but people should remember the world doesn't end in the US - to make Downloadble HD work, everywhere needs high spec broadbacd and that just isn't happening anywhere near soon.
Also proper HD of Batman Begins is nearly 25gb on HD-DVD. #26 - I know HD sound isn't out on HDMI, but I'm just stating from what I have personally seen of the films in HD - Compare 300 on HD on Live to Blu-Ray or the HD-DVD release, its once again chalk and cheese - better colour, less artifacts and 1080p! |
| #32 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 05:10:28 PM |
|
#28: not to mention upload speeds exceeding 100Mbit/s (provided they offer it). Given that the current max download speed is ~40Mbit/s and that most cable services don't offer anything near that, though, I wonder what we'll actually see for download speeds.
#30: cool. What kind of stuff do you record? #31: do you know what codec they used for the Batman Begins HD-DVD? My guess is the 25GB includes the extras, right? I wonder if the HD download was 720p, 1080i, or 1080p. |
| #33 By 3 (86.1.38.147) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 05:13:18 PM |
|
#32 - VC-1 was used for Batman. I can't see that 5gb download being 1080p or 1080i - It's 30gb inc extras so I'd say at least 15/20 for the film.
Oh and if helps anyone doing comparisons of films on Live! and on HD - Batman Begins is a good one - on Live it runs at 6.8Mbps in 720p, the HD-DVD version is 14Mbps at 1080p, I use the camcorder for just general recordings of partys and such like - though I plan to do video reviews for it whenever we get the new site up and running. This post was edited by Byron_Hinson[AW] on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 at 17:28. |
| #34 By 3 (86.1.38.147) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 05:38:06 PM |
|
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338
Great list of bitrates and codecs for blu-ray titles there if anyone is interested too. |
| #35 By 89137 (216.145.133.6) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 05:53:55 PM |
|
#33 - and when will that 'new' site be up? Should we be holding our breathe?
This site is already so far behind the times that by the time a new site launches, the rest of the world will have since moved on. This post was edited by bigjobs on Tuesday, January 08, 2008 at 18:07. |
| #36 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Tuesday, January 08, 2008 09:40:03 PM |
|
"#7 - and adds 50% more space onto the disks too - oh but we forget that"
and how many of your blurray discs are using that space right now? Hope you enjoy paying for the empty space. I find it interesting that those on the board that forever cry CHOICE in the marketplace... are the very ones that appear happy at the thought of losing CHOICE in this instance. Perhaps they just made up the argument to cover what is essentially HATE. |
| #37 By 2960 (72.196.195.185) at Wednesday, January 09, 2008 08:29:36 AM |
|
Movie Downloads......
Ok, I spend 12-14 hours a day at my PC. Every day. I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to download lower-quality media meant to be played on a PC and spend another 2-4 hours sitting upright in the same chair at the same computer I work at. Hail no! I want it on my 50" DLP, in full HD or DVD quality, where I can kick back with a beer, pet the dog, stroke the cat, and relax at the end of a hard day. Screw all this PC-based video download shit. TL |
| #38 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:01:02 AM |
| #37: gotta agree with you there--watching movies on my PC isn't my thing, either. But just because it's a download, that doesn't mean you have to watch it in front of a monitor... XBox Live HD for example, or any of the others via Extender (or Extender-like) or STB technologies. |
| #39 By 37 (192.251.125.85) at Wednesday, January 09, 2008 10:09:07 AM |
| TechLarry...the Xbox Live HD movies that you download in your living room are 720p HD movies with 5.1 surround. You get the full HD quality on your 50" DLP. |
| #40 By 2960 (72.196.195.185) at Wednesday, January 09, 2008 03:50:29 PM |
|
Yeah, I understand about the XBL movies. I'm more talking about all these companies that want to take over the world and make all distribution via download.
Look at what it has done to music. We've basically been tricked into accepting lower quality recordings at the same or higher price than CD's. Ain't we a bunch of bafoons :) TL |
| #41 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at Wednesday, January 09, 2008 05:33:11 PM |
|
Speaking of which, I just bought my first album on iTunes. Foo Fighters Skin & Bones acoustic live CD. It was a pretty quick experience. It downloaded 3 songs at a time, which took about 8 seconds for 3 songs. There are 17 songs on the album, plus the digital book. It literally took about 1 minute to download in to iTunes. I like that kind of service.
However, I haven't compared the quality of the files to a regular CD. |
| #42 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Thursday, January 10, 2008 02:13:22 AM |
|
AWBrian, why not download the entire discography, and tell apple to shove it...
http://preview.tinyurl.com/387vpp Thats a preview link. I don't want to trick anyone into going to a torrent site. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 02:15. |
| #43 By 12071 (124.168.174.216) at Thursday, January 10, 2008 05:19:45 AM |
| Whilst you're telling Apple to shove it... tell the studio to shove it too... and all the band members of Foo Fighters... |
| #44 By 37 (192.251.125.85) at Thursday, January 10, 2008 06:54:56 AM |
|
Mooresa56, what is the difference between me going to that website and download the album, and going into Best Buy and walking out of the store with the CD, and not paying?
If every artist gave away their songs to everyone for free, we wouldn't have any artists. I guess I am missing your point? |
| #45 By 3 (86.1.38.147) at Thursday, January 10, 2008 01:37:10 PM |
| #44 - agree completely, got to say that the itunes store is fantastic - obviously stick an MS logo on it and mooresa56 might use it. |
| #46 By 3653 (65.80.181.153) at Thursday, January 10, 2008 02:55:05 PM |
|
"stick an MS logo on it and mooresa56 might use it."
Not a chance in hell. "band members of Foo Fighters" Yeah, i feel sorry for those guys. lol. Nope. Not even a little. "what is the difference between me going to that website and download the album, and going into Best Buy and walking out of the store with the CD" Are you being dense on purpose? Obviously, downloading the album would be much faster. Duh. ;-) As I've said many times, torrents are my character flaw. I'm working it out with God, so pray for me. Now let me get back to my 1.1TB of mp3s. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 14:57. |
| #47 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at Thursday, January 10, 2008 03:50:53 PM |
| Shame shame Moorea56. At least your honest about being dishonest. It's the first step :-) |
