Sony CEO Declares Stalemate in Blu-ray/HD DVD Battle

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

November 9, 2007, 10:50 AM

A widely circulated Associated Press report early this morning quotes Sony CEO Sir Howard Stringer, speaking before a "Captains of Industry" lecture at the Cultural Center of the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan yesterday, as having declared the format war between the Blu-ray format his company champions and HD DVD a "stalemate."

Sir Howard reportedly punctuated those remarks by saying things had been going well for Blu-ray until last August, when rival Viacom unit Paramount decided to end its support for both formats and support HD DVD exclusively.

"It's a difficult fight. We were trying to win on the merits, which we were doing for a while, until Paramount changed sides," the AP quoted Sir Howard as saying. He reportedly added that he wished he had been Sony's CEO several years ago, and if time travel were at all possible he'd use it now, to have brought both sides in the format war together sooner.

The AP report is the only one to emerge from the talk, which apparently no one else had expected would generate news. As such, not much else is known yet about what Sir Howard said, nor whether the 92nd Street Y keeps recordings of its lecture series. But if the AP report is accurate, he appeared to say Sony is now picking its battles, devoting more of its energy now to shoring up its lagging PlayStation brand. Not enough information from the talk is known to decisively conclude whether he directly implied that Sony will shift attention and resources to PlayStation 3 as a game console, away from the Blu-ray player that the PS3 just happens to include.

But given recent events and the format of the talk - which was more about how one runs a business than what products Sony expects to back over the holiday season - that may very well have been what Sir Howard was referring to. Last month, Sony closed a deal to sell one of its premier chip production facilities - where the Cell BE CPU is fabricated - to Toshiba. Talk persists about whether the company may go so far as to sell its intellectual property in Cell to Toshiba or IBM, one of its partners in chip design.

And then there was the incredible news of last weekend, showing evidence that the huge price markdowns for HD DVD players may have helped it close its entire sales gap with Blu-ray in as little as 48 hours.

A corporation can't win all its battles, but it would be nice for it to win at least one or two. Sir Howard Stringer may be aware of this now, and may be transitioning into a mode where he helps his company prepare - at least on this arena - for something less than a victory.

Add a Comment (190 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Setian^Stalker

edited Nov 13, 2007 - 10:12 PM

Hope to see a new article about his new comments on AP's handeling of this article soon :) Got some things to poke at it

Score: 0

By roj

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 4:33 PM

So now we're down form unabashed victory to a mere stalemate.

This shallow mouthpiece isn't fooling anyone.

Blo-ray is dead. Just like most Sony "innovations" of the last ten years.

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 1:00 PM

I bought an xbox HD DVD player and returned it the same day. Stand alone players are DEFINITELY the only way to go. Using the 360's HD DVD player was like having a dust buster constantly spinning up while watching the movie. Horrid noisy thing! What were they thinking with that? So yea, I love my new halo 360 (falcon baby!) but I'm still looking for the right TV to set it off. Think I'm gonna go with a panasonic 1080p since the first two I bought and now have returned failed at 360 over HDMI. Samsung and Element are sketchy.

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Nov 14, 2007 - 5:00 AM

Really? I can't hear my HD-DVD when I play movies.

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 9:22 PM

I read a lot of the comments here, but I couldn't get through them all. Two things I wanted to point out to the Blu-Ray fan boys here.

1. This article is based on an AP article which highlighted the SONY CEO's speech. Not an HD DVD supporter, but the CEO of the company that created Blu-Ray. HE called it a stalemate HIMSELF.

2. There were some comments about the Toshiba A2 sale from last week. I remember when Sony did this with the PS3, the fanboys all said that obviously they would replace the 60GB version once it was depleted with another version at that price point. I believe several insulting words were used to exclaim their point.

Those same people now are saying it was a Toshiba fire sale for a failing format and the price point will not be permanent. Which way is it folks? Just answer me that question.

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 1:05 PM

the replacement A3 model is going for 200 on black friday. what's more likely to happen is now that they've established awareness and demand levels, they'll get a run of players going somewhere they think is the sweet spot between $100 and $300 that will outsell all the bluray propaganda based on dvd upconversion. Next year will be the year of cheap 720p and the start of 1080p and I think we'll see a ton of cheap 720p stuff out just waiting to be scooped up, especially after the holidays

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 10:54 PM

Consider this: The problem about arguing with idiots is that they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. I hope that answers your question.

Score: 0

By RCS

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 9:07 AM

I drag idiots up to my level and beat them with a bat ;)

Score: 0

By PhoenixPath

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 9:37 AM

Heh...

...and not the cheap metal ones, either. Louisville is the only way to go.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

edited Nov 11, 2007 - 8:10 PM

I've never seen someone so scared that the game console / HD movie player he bought will go obsolete.

For someone so sure of BD victory, you are sure full of fear, uncertainty, and doubt. You somehow think by saying something, it will come true.

The signs of a completely scared little girl who's invested a months salary into an electronic device with a cloudy future. You are so sad, it's actually pathetic. I am truly embarrassed for you Joey.

Not only do your posts stink of desperation, but you also can't spell worth a sh!t.

You stupid jackass.

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Nov 13, 2007 - 1:08 PM

I thought about getting a ps3 as a bluray player after purchasing the xbox hd dvd player and absolutely hating the noise it made. maybe once they get the format sorted out and they release a low end ps3 with proper bluray support, i'll make that happen. until then, it's worth less to me than an old easily burn out gen1 360

Score: 0

By Joey Deacon

edited Nov 11, 2007 - 5:13 PM

"And then there was the incredible news of last weekend, showing evidence that the huge price markdowns for HD DVD players may have helped it close its entire sales gap with Blu-ray in as little as 48 hours."

Pathetic. The fact you even try and pretend you are journelists...

Even more pathetic, is your made up stats and statemtents are actually sucked up by the BetaPuppets.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 9:07 AM

I am waiting for the day that HD has a fire sale the way BD does with the buy one get. This seems to be a weakly thing. And yes I did mean to spell week that way. There must be some serious fears if they are selling some bd's at less than SDDVD prices.

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 10:42 PM

what?

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 11:01 PM

Oh, don't worry... he simply missed the entire point of the article.

It ultimately doesn't matter though, since Sir Howard Stringer is just a Sony CEO. What does he know? :)

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 1:59 AM

Well he didnt say stalemate himself. He strongly suggested it though and thats where AP cooked up that word.

But I agree with him, it's going nowhere fast and doesnt look like its going anywhere for at least another year.

As for Joey... I dunno what to say about him.

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 5:34 PM

Must have hit a 'raw nerve'?

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 5:19 PM

BWAAAAAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

Score: 0

By SlapShot

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 4:24 PM

"journellists"

and to think you criticized others for spelling :)

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 9:00 PM

Haha... he even 'corrected' it, and still got it wrong. :)

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 5:28 PM

Here's what he put if he trys to corrected it a second time: "journelists"

Score: 0

By SlapShot

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 10:54 PM

LOL

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 4:10 PM

Don't take your anger at Sony's failures out on the Betanews staff. It is very rude you know.

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 3:40 PM

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Nov 11, 2007 - 4:09 AM

I saw a rather interesting site at Wal-Mart last night...

There was an area cleared out in front of the HDTV wall with two chairs in the middle. An employee was sitting in one of them in front of all the displays with a PlayStation 3 on the top shelf hooked up to every one of them playing Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga.

That was his job, he said... to sit there and show off the PlayStation 3. Management had said they needed to spur virtually non-existent sales of the PS3 as the holidays drew near.

I suspect Sony is urging retailers to do something drastic, and is compensating them in some way to do so. Has anyone else seen this happening in their Wal-Marts or other stores?

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

edited Nov 11, 2007 - 11:08 PM

Too bad though they chose Lego Star Wars which is a multiplatform game. Come to think of it though, what's not a multiplatform game on the PS3.

If my local Wal-mart does that, I'll probably have too much fun asking him a bunch of stupid questions like where's Halo 3 or Gear of War, or how the online compare, or why pay more for less games.

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Nov 11, 2007 - 11:09 PM

"what's not a multiplatform game on the PS3."

Lair... thank goodness! :)

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 10:57 PM

"An employee was sitting in one of them in front of all the displays with a PlayStation 3 on the top shelf hooked up to every one of them playing Lego Star Wars: The Complete Saga."

Oh yes, if one game is going to beat Halo 3 this holiday season, it's definitely Lego Star Wars on the PS3.

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 10:45 PM

I did a simular thing with the PSP last year. I dont work for the store, I just do some promotional work on the side and sony happened to be one of our clients.

It's interesting to read sony's internal marketing documents though :) Didnt follow a word of them though, I dont feel right downplaying competing products.

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 5:36 PM

'A sign of desperation?'

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 11:54 AM

You found Dave!!! lol

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 10:06 AM

Zing!

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 8:53 PM

Haha, I wouldn't doubt it.

Talk about Sony shoving Blu-ray in everyone's face that doesn't want it, now it would seem they have retailers doing the same thing with their games.

That seems a little... well, desperate.

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

edited Nov 10, 2007 - 1:45 PM

Ironically i know some things with this article that could be picked up on.
And not one blu-ray supporter has picked up on it here. They choose instead to make the same old claims and speculation :(

Is a proper well informed discussion too much to ask for?

Score: 0

By kashin

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 2:44 PM

"Is a proper well informed discussion too much to ask for?"

When you're dealing with obsessed Sony fanatics, the answer is yes.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 3:28 PM

Sadly I would have to agree with you.

Score: 0

By superdynamite

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 11:21 AM

I just boycott Paramount. When they release on Blu-Ray I will start buying their products again.

The Nielsen HD sales report was released yesterday fri 9th Novemeber 2007.
Even with Transformers on HD they couldn't take the lead in sales. LOL

Blu-Ray 71% to HDDVD 29%

Here is the Nielsen report. www.thedigitalbits.com

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 5:44 AM

If you can't buy it from them how exactly can you boycott them? By your logic people that only have HD DVD players are "boycotting" Disney, Fox, Sony...

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 9:01 PM

I think that's a form of 'fuzzy logic'.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 6:16 PM

Awesome, that's how we move a mountain.

Boycott paramount (like they even noticed).

HAHA!

7 studios to 2, yet owning 29%. THAT is an impressive statistic.

Thanks.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 3:33 PM

That is by far the dumbest thing I have heard in a while not to mention childish.

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 1:23 PM

Yes very mature
I'm sure they can hear your cries from their office

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 12:37 PM

I boycotted thedigitalbits.com long ago.

Bill "Papa Smurf" Hunt is the Al Sharpton of the Blu-ray drones.

Score: 0

By Stormprobe

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 11:57 AM

I already boycotted Sony long ago.

Score: 0

By Anastasia2007

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 11:53 AM

You're a tard.

Score: 0

By Flapper1981

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 8:34 AM

Majority of the people don't care of the Damn disk size. Its all about the Price and right now HD DVD is the Right Price.

Score: 0

By Joey Deacon

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 1:38 PM

Yep, they are plugging in their brand new (well 12 month old) HD-A2, and wonding why they bothered with that $99 crap, when none of their favorite movies are apearing on it, it's noisy and slow, and looks dog ugly.

Bargain, not.

Score: 0

By pridewalker

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 3:39 PM

You may want to wipe your feet...you appear to have stepped in something.

"...none of their favorite movies are apearing on it..."

There's a fine catalog of movies for HD DVD, many of them available on both formats. And as I've pointed out before, many of the BR exclusives, in the US, can be imported on HD DVD with the price only 2 or 3 bucks more...plus shipping (T2, RE 1&2, Pan's Labyrinth when released...the list goes on).

The A2 is far from noisy, and I wouldn't call a 30 sec time-frame, from power-on until the movie is on-screen, slow. You've been preaching this for awhile now, but people who actually own the machine keep refuting it.

"...and looks dog ugly."

I know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but the A2 has a nice stream-lined look about it. It looks like a piece of AV equipment.

Score: 0

By wreckedchevy

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 3:03 PM

not any uglier than a ps3
not slow even downloading web content only takes a few seconds to start
noise? haven't heard a peep out of it
so far i've bought 12 of my favorite movies have another 20 picked out for the next couple weeks.... the kids wanted shrek 3 over rat any day kids like the disney movies but they never rewatch them as much as shrek.

thanks again for recommending the a2 we couldn't be happier with it.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 9:15 AM

None of their fav movies how do you know what they like idiot. Maybe they enjoy the large library f titles from Universal or the soon to be released titles from Paramount. Frankly I can't stand Disney movies so I could care less. Speaking of Disney didn't they back DIVX?

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 10:58 PM

Amazon had the Toshiba HD-A2 at the top of their best-seller list for months, remaining at #1 for quite some time... that same list where (as far as I am aware) not a single Blu-ray player made the Top-100.

Oh, but what do they know? They're insignificant, right?

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

edited Nov 11, 2007 - 11:14 PM

Your whole post was opinion. No facts.

Oh, by the way, what took you so long to get here? Did you have to talk amongst your fellow Blu-Blood Soldiers over at blu-ray.com to try to get some comebacks?

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 8:38 PM

Yep... all weekend, and that was the best he could come up with.

Tired old regurgitated remarks. How sad. :)

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 9:50 AM

Those buying HDTV displays do care about quality. They might not notice at first but if you point out the huge and clear difference in quality between a movie encoded at an higher bitrate and the same one at a lower bitrate you can be sure they would notice that.

Score: 0

By pridewalker

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 3:30 PM

"...but if you point out the huge and clear difference in quality..."

If the difference were as 'huge and clear' as you seem to believe it is, you wouldn't need to point it out.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 6:42 PM

LOL

Man, that's classic... you can't put a price on good comedy like that.

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 5:42 PM

Prove it!

Score: 0

By TSThomas

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 5:50 AM

No, they don't. Most people don't know the difference between 4:3 & 16:9, don't have a clue the difference between composite & component & were you to try show or explain to them the difference bitrate could make they would tell you that "It looks good enough to me".

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 1:25 PM

home theatre enthusias care, the rest (vast majority) dont. Otherwise you would see a very large adoption of the HD market, clearly thats not the case

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 1:14 PM

Point out the "huge and clear" difference? Perhaps you can give real-world examples of this? We're all waiting...

Score: 0

By siryak

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 12:42 PM

"point out the huge and clear difference"

It is hard to point out things that don't exist aredo. Also even if this was the case(which it is not) it doesn't matter. The average consumer is and always will be clueless about all the technical aspects of the 2 discs. The only thing they understand is the price and that it is in high definition. Anyway continue on with your dillusion that Blo-Ray actually looks any noticeable bit better than HD-DVD.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 2:09 PM

siryak: If you can't see the higher details and less noise offered by higher bitrate streams comparing the same codecs then it's your problem. Don't assume that everyone won't notice the artifacts that codecs do generate at lower bitrates (and on HDTV compression artifacts can be noticed easier than on SDTV for obvious reasons)

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 5:42 PM

Prove it!

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 10:49 PM

Hehe I don’t know which broken record is worse now!!
Him repeating the same speculated claims based on opinion or us asking him to back his claims up.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 3:39 PM

That is why 300 video got a better review on HD then bli ray, try again.

Score: 0

By siryak

edited Nov 10, 2007 - 6:06 PM

Better yet don't assume that everyone will notice. I personally have compared the two. Can you say the same? You have yet to give an example of where Blu-Ray looks better and we are all still waiting.

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Nov 9, 2007 - 10:17 PM

I believe AP has misquoted him saying 'stalemate' ? At least thats the impression I get reading this article elseware.
At least he admits he would go back and fix up everything :) Does that mean sony wouldnt have walked away?

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Nov 9, 2007 - 7:01 PM

I find it rather amusing that this has not yet surfaced on the front page of blu-ray.com.

Oh well, I wouldn't have expected it to. I'm sure it (as well as the 'Ban Button') is getting some exercise in the forums though.

I sense Sir Howard Stringer knows of some insider information to make a statement such as that.

Perhaps he knows of more studios defecting.

It is probably best that they focus on the PS3 as a game console, as I'm sure game sales could generate much more revenue than high-def movie sales. I imagine they have quite the challenge in front of them to repair relationships with long-time loyal supporters (developers) of their previous consoles. I know Kutaragi-san had a vision, but the PS3 should be a game console first and foremost... everything else should be icing on the cake, not the other way around.

Nevertheless, it's a statement that shows an almost exponentially more humble side of Sony than has been shown in many years, and is a very welcome breath of fresh air.

You still have a long way to go though, Sony.

Score: 0

By Setian^Stalker

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 2:03 AM

One has to wonder why has this not made blu-ray.com main page? It's blu-ray news and its BIG lol.
Or is it they are selective with the blu-ray content they put there because they are wary inform people correctly?

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 9, 2007 - 8:12 PM

They are to busy with a new buy a thon to combat Shrek next week. I find it amazing that they are talking about buying movies that they don't even like just to help teh format. That is totally pathetic. The movie in question is close encounters.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 9, 2007 - 9:57 PM

Yeah, I saw that too.

It's a pity that they do not realize that studios are just as likely to look at rental sales and not just retail purchases to accurately gauge preference of one format over the other. As of right now, HD DVD rentals are much higher than Blu-ray. That's because intelligent individuals know better than to waste money on a movie they do not like that much. People have done the same thing with DVD for years... why would it be any different for either of the high-def formats? Just because a movie is released on HD DVD or Blu-ray does not by default make it a good movie. Even if it is a good movie, that does not necessarily mean that everyone is willing to pay the exorbitant prices for either of the high-def formats just yet. Once prices start to fall for all titles, I'm sure people will start filling their shelves with "keepers"... at least that's what I did with DVDs.

Don't worry, Spielberg will see the light. We'll have Close Encounters of the Third Kind (along with the rest of his catalog) soon enough. The market is beginning to speak loudly... he'll go where the sales are like everyone else in his position.

Score: 0

By flake

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 10:21 AM

I don't know about elsewhere but I used to work for a video rental chain in the U.S. When I left about a year and a half ago they were shoring up the business by going with rentrak which is basically where most of the profits go to the studios (rent to rent in effect). Rentrak style agreements are also used extensively by other larger chains here. Compound that with the selling price of the DVD format which enables people to buy more movies instead of renting.

I was there when DVD was making the big push in 2000/2001 and went from 1 rack to 3/4 of the new release wall. This is where the HD formats are right now (1 rack in most places). A major difference is that, compared to VHS, a DVD looked and played substantially better. Neither of the HD formats can say that now when compared to DVD. Do a majority of consumers even have better than an ED capable screen? Doubtful in my eyes...

So basically rental is dead/dying and they don't really care much about format. They are mostly concerned about getting enough copies for the cheapest price to rent when a movie is fresh and then having a way to get rid of copies when it isn't. It's all about how many turns a single copy will do.

The two P's will be the deciding factor...price and porn. If one of the formats matched or undercut DVD and focused on porn they would spur sales of players and be an instant winner, game over.

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted Nov 9, 2007 - 5:52 PM

I don't think there's a stalemate. Unless there is a Blu-Ray player released by Christmas at a competitive price - the number of early adopters of HD-DVD will determine the outcome of the war.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Nov 9, 2007 - 8:37 PM

The number of HD-DVD units that Toshiba managed to sell in the US by clearing old stocks with limited low price offers is not going to change anything.
HD-DVD is a format the majority of people just don't want. It's an inferior format simply because it can't offer more than 30GB and the 52GB media is a joke, while Blu-Ray has been up 50GB from the beginning by design and it can easily go up to 200GB with 4-layers, and the media will surely follow as soon as it will be declared the only HDTV optical disc standard on the market.
Customers, the majority of people, everyone spending money on HDTV is going to need the best available optical format, the one that offers more space and has room for improvement. More space means higher bitrates which means better video and audio quality if only the producing studio decides to make use of the space. What is for sure is that if there is no more space they can't increase quality by raising the bitrate up to the maximum allowed limit, it just wouldn't fit on disc that way.

Score: 0

By pridewalker

edited Nov 10, 2007 - 3:24 PM

If the 50gb disc is such an advantage, why then did Spider-man 3 release on 2 25gb discs?

EDIT: According to the review on highdefdigest.com the actual release is 1 50gb disc for the film, and 1 25gb disc for the extras. A few other review sites list the release with the same specs. Just wanted to clear up my mistake at the top of this particular conversation...

And then you want to spout your nonsense about the ability to play a 200gb disc? Get real. The BDA rushed a product to market with an unfinished spec. This is a group that didn't even have the foresight to include an ethernet port as mandatory; never mind something as simple as true PIP support, for supplemental material.

In all honesty, there isn't a single valid reason to require a disc over 30gb presently. The video quality is damn near identical (with the main differences being a result of using different codecs for the transfer). The audio quality is similar (uncompressed audio on BR just means 'space hogging').

Blu-ray isn't a format with room for improvement; it's a format that's scrambling to keep up with the Joneses (and trying to offer up the things that HD DVD has had since DAY ONE).

It's beyond obvious that people want HD DVD...just look at how many players moved out last weekend.

Congratulations...you've just posted speculation and crap on par with Joey/Dave/Benjamin's best.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 3:46 PM

They do need the 50 gig disks so the movie can be on the disk twice with one having PIP. They don't seem to be able to get that working even though it's been on HD DVD since day one. Beta-ray

Score: 0

By pridewalker

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 6:02 PM

Good point...

Score: 0

By aredo

edited Nov 10, 2007 - 4:54 AM

Spiderman 3 is a 1080p H.264 Dual-Layer 50GB disc release. Don't spread nonsense and false info.

Telling people that no more than 30GB is needed it's just a silly statement. In only 30GB the bitrate is pretty limited, also HD-DVD specifications allow for way lower peak bitrate anyway so fast moving scenes will always look worse on HD-DVD than on Blu-Ray where the studios can encode with peak bitrates higher than that on HD-DVD even when still using only 30GB.. go figure.

You are the one spreading false info here. No one is buying nor producing HD-DVD hardware and media. Only a few Companies have joined the Toshiba/Microsoft/DVD-Forum bandwagon. 90% of manufacturers are on the Blu-Ray side. HD-DVD still doesn't have any PC burner on the market nor cheap available media, while Blu-Ray ones are many from various manufacturers and keep falling in price pretty quickly.
Toshiba has just cleared some old-stock in desperation mode and only in the US. In Europe the A30/A35 version players that are renamed as E30/E35 sell for 350-500Euros, that's nothing cheaper than a PS3 or many new BD players on the market.

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

edited Nov 11, 2007 - 5:48 PM

"so fast moving scenes will always look worse on HD-DVD than on Blu-Ray"

Not if they use the same [30gb] video on both disc's. And when it's not, it's probably the worse quality mpeg2 which takes more space so Sony can say 'you need more space'. Go figure.

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Nov 10, 2007 - 1:06 PM

"Spiderman 3 is a 1080p H.264 Dual-Layer 50GB disc release. Don't spread nonsense and false info."

Oh, it's "Do as I say, not as I do", eh?

Spiderman 3 is a dual-disc (BD50 / BD25) release. How about you follow your own suggestions, hmm?

The PCM 5.1 soundtrack is a 16-bit 48kHz encode. Tell me how that stellar quality is not marginally better than what DVD offers?

The Dolby TrueHD 5.1 24-bit 48kHz (bravo, finally!) soundtrack should have been the only English one included.

The PCM soundtrack is simply not needed, is redundant, and is a waste of space... especially since Dolby TrueHD is lossless and is converted to uncompressed LPCM anyway during the decode process, with zero loss of quality... oh, that is if your Blu-ray player can do that properly, as it's an optional codec on that format, as opposed to mandatory on HD DVD.

The rest of the space on that dual-layer disc is taken up with Dolby Digital 5.1 640kbps soundtracks in 4 other languages. I'm not knocking it for that, it's simply to point out that just because there is more space available on the disc does not mean that higher quality due to higher bitrate encoding is assumed by default like you seem to suggest.

The HD DVD release of Transformers has already garnered extremely impressive reviews. Sound quality was one notable area that impressed most, especially considering it used Dolby Digital+. It's all in the transfer, and proves that 20 GB of extra space is simply not necessary. It's a gimmick, and shows that HD DVD supporters are not the ones who have been brainwashed as you claim.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 2:14 PM

PCM lossless not needed ? Redundant ? If you don't care about audio quality then download divx/xvid copies with low bitrate mp3 audio encodes on the 'net... you surely won't notice any difference then.
Any lossy compression causes signal distortions of various kinds, filters are used to reconstruct the signal as much as possible but there is no way to get the original audio stream as it was before compression. Only lossless codecs (and not quasi-lossless ones that are still lossy) and plain simple uncompressed streams can deliver the original audio quality.
Any lossy compression scheme lowers quality (and this applies to both video and audio).

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 5:53 PM

"PCM lossless not needed ? Redundant ?"

Not when your using a lossless compression. Which is still.... [wait for it] lossless. So yes. It's rendundant. It's just a way for Sony to say that you 'need 50gb's' by using full uncompressed audio and Mpeg2 video.

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Nov 11, 2007 - 12:11 AM

Are you quite simply choosing to ignore what I posted? Do you even read comments?

I was talking about lossless compressed audio... Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD MA. They are true lossless audio codecs, and are better, more efficient alternatives to uncompressed PCM. Pay attention, please.

Spiderman 3 includes both Dolby TrueHD and PCM (both in 5.1, both in English)... in other words, redundant.

PCM is not needed, is redundant and is an extreme waste of space when compared to those two lossless compressed solutions that offer zero difference in fidelity. I offered Transformers as an example of how to do lossy compressed audio correctly, but it was not the main point of my comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_TrueHD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DTS-HD_Master_Audio

If you are so concerned with higher quality video, then it would stand to reason (to most intelligent individuals) that opting to use more efficient lossless compressed codecs for audio would yield more space for higher bitrate video.

The reverse is true as well. To get the most out of audio in a given amount of space, use more efficient video codecs.

Again, stop trying to impress with your 'vast knowledge' (what boils down to 'common knowledge' to everyone else here), and pay attention to what others are talking about. Then you might be able to respond accordingly with relevant statements.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 5:15 AM

It's quite obvious that it irritates you when others know something better than you, and references to wikipedia are far from any accurate truth about things anyway.
TrueHD and DTS-HD MA need new receivers/decoders with HDMI 1.3a connections. With PCM the majority of people with older receivers/decoders can enjoy high quality lossless audio track. That's the main point, ensuring backward compatibility.
You are the one not paying attention to things, you just think to be the smartest one around and the studios are just wasting space on BD titles, the fact is that it's not the case at all. There is no redundancy in providing both lossless versions audio tracks.

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 5:59 PM

"you just think to be the smartest one around"

Touche.

"and the studios are just wasting space on BD titles"

Exactly. Why else would use full uncompressed audio (when compressed lossless is available, which is still lossless) and using Mpeg2 (when H.264 and VC-1 is available). They're trying to make it look like you 'need' 50gb's for a movie when you really don't right now.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 1:13 PM

"TrueHD and DTS-HD MA need new receivers/decoders with HDMI 1.3a connections."

No, they don't. Please, stop spreading misinformation. It's people like you that give your preferred format a bad reputation.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 5:49 AM

You are the one spreading false info. You need HDMI 1.3a capable decoders for these new lossless codecs.

http://www.dolby.com/ass...s_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf

If you don't use HDMI 1.3 codecs like TrueHD will perform downmix, the quality will be reduced. It's not possible to achieve the same bandwidth on S/PDIF ports.

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Nov 12, 2007 - 8:37 AM

"You are the one spreading false info."

Okay, seriously... I'm used to your half-truths and ramblings that usually have nothing to do with the previous poster's comments, but this is ridiculous.

"You need HDMI 1.3a capable decoders for these new lossless codecs."

No, quite simply, you don't. You need HDMI 1.3 (or higher) to take advantage of raw bitstream output.

"If you don't use HDMI 1.3 codecs like TrueHD will perform downmix, the quality will be reduced. It's not possible to achieve the same bandwidth on S/PDIF ports."

HDMI 1.3 is only required to send the raw bitstream output to a capable receiver. All versions of HDMI support transport of multi-channel uncompressed PCM audio. Did you get that? It will only convert to a legacy format when forced to use S/PDIF.

If your player is decoding one of the true lossless compressed formats, what do you think it is being decoded into?

That's right... PCM. Not bad!

If your player is sending the bitstream output to a capable receiver for it to decode, what do you think the receiver is decoding it as?

Right again... PCM. Good boy!

There are numerous ways of getting Dolby TrueHD audio to a receiver:

* Unaltered - Over HDMI either as 5.1 or 7.1 uncompressed PCM (HDMI 1.0 or higher, up to 8-channel 24-bit 192 kHz) or bitstream (HDMI 1.3 or higher)

* Unaltered - Over multi-channel line-level analog outputs

* Down-converted to legacy formats (Dolby Digital or DTS) - Over S/PDIF if one of the above methods are not available

Did you notice all the ways it delivers audio as PCM? You know... the same PCM that you claim is necessary as a separate soundtrack wasting space?

There's your backward compatibility. Some studios are doing it correctly, others are simply being lazy during the transfer.

If you don't have a receiver capable of HDMI or multi-channel analog inputs, clearly you don't care about high-quality audio as much as you claim.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 9:38 AM

"HDMI-equipped players can internally decode TrueHD to LPCM, and output the LPCM over an HDMI 1.1 (or higher) interface, all HD DVD players currently support this. If a player can not internally decode TrueHD it can transport the bitstream over HDMI 1.3 to a receiver capable of decoding it, this feature is now supported on the Samsung 1400 BD player with a firmware upgrade. HD DVD players can also transcode the TrueHD bitstream into a different legacy format (such as Dolby Digital or DTS), providing a high-quality approximation of TrueHD audio over a legacy TOSLINK cable for those that do not have HDMI"

Again, the uncompressed is not needed and shows very little difference that only a/v enthusiasts may notice, the average movie watcher will notice no difference.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 5:50 AM

That's your opinion. You can't tell that no one would notice the difference since it's there and can be clearly noticed.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 12, 2007 - 8:27 AM

Good grief... you're like a punching bag, and about as observant as one, too.

He did not say "noone" would notice, if you bothered to read.

Average listeners would not notice. Enthusiasts would... that's why they're 'enthusiasts'.

Pay attention...

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 3:48 PM

I fond it funny looking at your buddies systems over on bluray.com they don't even have a system can play the lossless codecs so what is your point. In fact, most of your fellow trolls don't even have a center speaker so in reality what the hell do you even care since your I bet your system is just like the rest of them.

Score: 0

By pridewalker

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 3:38 PM

Yes, uncompressed PCM audio is redundant, for the very reasons that he listed. It's a space hog, and nothing more.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 9:52 AM

Fast moving scenes what a load of crap you have to prove that one JA. You can't because its not true. You might have blur on your cheap TV mine looke perfect.

Score: 0

By pridewalker

edited Nov 10, 2007 - 1:37 PM

Actually, we're both right on the SM 3 disc release...the film is on a 50gb disc, while the extras are 25gb disc (http://bluray.highdefdig...om/1042/spiderman3.html). I'll admit that mistake, but honestly...why did they need a second disc if they were using the 50gb in the first place?

There hasn't been the need for more than 30gb, unless you intend to hog the extra space up with an uncompressed audio stream. As for HD looking worse on fast moving scenes...I beg to differ. My copies of Silent Hill, and Fantastic Four have better transfers and encoding (which means a better picture) on HD DVD. Silent Hill (BR) in particular has some artifacts, which are most likely due to the use of MPEG 2. Don't get me wrong...the BR versions look nice, but the HD versions seem to be cleaner.

You can claim that no one is producing HD hardware all you want, but I'm pretty sure that the 90,000 units sold (not including Amazon) prove that wrong.

The market for BR burners is even smaller than the market for both HD and BR players at the moment. The lowest price that I could find was $461...hardly affordable to the average consumer (the media for it can't exactly be called 'cheap' either).

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 9:56 AM

By using two discs they ensured that the main movie had available space for an higher bitrate encoding. That's pretty simple.
Higher the average bitrate, higher the number of peak bitrates sequences and better the quality will be.

Claiming that there is no need for more than 30GB is telling lies. Blu-Ray market being small is just your and other pro-Toshiba/Microsoft fanatics spreading hype in favour of HD-DVD.
Toshiba, Microsoft and DVD-Forum can brainwash you people as much as they want but there is no way they could change signal theory,video coding and compression basic rules. There is no way a movie encoded in 30GB maximum space at a lower bitrate with the same codec and even the same parameters would look better than encoded at an higher bitrate to fill 50GB available space.

Score: 0

By bobthegoat2001

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 6:02 PM

"Claiming that there is no need for more than 30GB is telling lies."

You don't for a movie when you use the proper codecs. The extra's may make a difference, but that's a different story.

Score: 0

By pridewalker

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 2:04 PM

The 50 gb platter is also home to the space hogging uncompressed PCM audio...don't forget that.

While you're right that higher bitrates do provide a cleaner image, you have to take into account the point where the human eye/ear no longer detects the quality difference. For example, music in mp3 format may be of a much higher quality when encoded to 320kb/s, but the human ear stops detecting the difference around 160 kb/s. There comes a point where these numbers don't mean a damn thing, except on paper.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Nov 10, 2007 - 2:19 PM

You are wrong on your assumptions. Human eye and ear can detect compression artifacts, the truth is that on average many don't detect it but mainly because they don't focus and/or are not trained to. Those going at the opera and listening to classical music can notice audio distortion pretty easily usually, just for example.
Lossy codecs are developed looking at the average during design stages with a test audience, and algorithms and filters are fine tuned to give the average guy out of that statistics the best possible results, at least that's the main goal. Which doesn't mean that no one would notice compression artifacts, it's just that on average people should not, but it's still an average based on test audiences and statistics, in the real world many more people than what the design would like to achieve can notice compression artifacts, and lower the bitrates then higher the number of artifacts the encoder will produce.

Score: 0

By terminalx

edited Nov 11, 2007 - 9:42 AM

Itunes and the rush of digital music is a perfect example that the average person cannot hear any difference in how high a file is encoded and therefore pcm is a waste of space.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Nov 11, 2007 - 3:11 AM

Please stop assuming that just because someone suggests an alternative to uncompressed PCM that they are referring to lossy compression. It's getting really old...

You seem to be under the delusion that there is no lossless alternative to PCM (or seem to think that everyone else here doesn't know of one), and that every other option results in inferior audio.

Have you seriously not heard of Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, or are you simply choosing to ignore them?

Score: 0

By SGD

edited Nov 10, 2007 - 3:50 PM

Compression done well has from what has been posted at many sites no difference.

Score: 0

By siryak

edited Nov 10, 2007 - 3:30 PM

"the t