"TOKYO (Reuters) - Toshiba Corp is planning to stop production of equipment compatible with the HD DVD format for high-definition video, allowing the competing Blu-Ray camp a free run, public broadcaster NHK reported on Saturday."
Or too late not to get one! I'm guessing that titles which have been released only in HD-DVD will be re-released on Blue-Ray. Studios can't afford to have any important titles available only on a dead platform.
Funny though, still last week there were big campaigns to convince us that the HD-DVD format was not dead. And suddenly, boom, the major manufacturer stops producing the players.
16 comments:
Sony lost the classic Betamax vs. VHS war. Now, it seems, it was their turn.
But some say that the point is moot. That we have already all but discarded plastic as a distribution medium for video. And that it will be internet based delivery from now on.
I don't think I have ever loaded a full length HD quality video over the internet, so I can not comment on how feasible it is.
Internet delivery is were we are headed, for sure. But at this point the Blu-ray disc still seems to have some practical value. For one, the movie isn't taking up space on your hard disk. Also, you don't have to back it up.
"I don't think I have ever loaded a full length HD quality video over the internet, so I can not comment on how feasible it is."
At the typical speeds I get from file sharing systems, I would not try it, it would take days.
But with the speed I get from Apple/Akamai servers, it seems to download faster than viewing speed, which is frigging amazing with HD!
The problem with file sharing networks is the asymmetrical design of Internet pipes for consumers. For example, a typical North-American DSL is 5 Mbps down, but only 0.8 Mbps upwards. This was done to optimize download bandwidth in a client/server perspective.
But since file sharing is built on the assumption that you will return to the pool at least what you get from it, the effective long term throughput you get is the lowest of the two numbers, minus some if you still want to use your connection for browsing & email.
Since this situation serves the goals of the corporate world very neatly, I don't see things changing anywhere in the near future. A 20 GByte share (typical HD disk) is still going to remain a p.i.t.a. for a while. I believe that this is the main reason for the push to HD.
Note that, 20GB is still a lot of data to move. I would be extremely surprised if you really got the full HD contents from an online commercial service. It is more likely that they will increase compression for that purpose, effectively reducing image definition to some extent. After all, the only important thing in their mind is that filesharers don't get their hands on smaller, high-quality encodings.
"For example, a typical North-American DSL is 5 Mbps down, but only 0.8 Mbps upwards. This was done to optimize download bandwidth in a client/server perspective."
How would it do that?
(I never did get why uploads are slower.)
"How would it do that?"
The idea that made home broadband possible over existing infrastructures was to divide the available bandwidth on the media, be it a telephone copper pair or a TV coaxial cable, into a multitude of small independent channels, or slots, which are to be used simultaneously.
Previous transmission schemes considered the bandwidth as a whole, resulting in transmission reliability that was no better than what the worse of the slots would be capable of. Dividing the bandwidth allowed each slot to be evaluated independently of all the others.
This might be a little abstract, so I will use an example, in which the "conventional" way of using a communication link would be to directly transmit voice over it, like a phone line. Such a link would unfortunately be capable of transmitting only certain frequencies, but not others, along with parasitic noise at certain frequencies.
This would lead to a situation where some voices would get through quite well, while others would not. The sound would be severely distorted, parts of words would be missing, etc. Overall, not a very satisfactory arrangement, and certainly not one capable of the kind of reliability expected from digital systems.
Now, imagine we were to devise a system by which we could communicate using a number of notes produced by a piano, instead of voice. We could then test the reliability of the link for each note on the keyboard, assigning a relative merit to each tone. From that point on, all you have to do is use the notes that are transmitted well across the link to encode your message, and you have a reliable link.
The above may be simplified, but it does closely reflect how things work. Of course, the transmissions we are talking about occur at much higher frequencies than voice (which is why voice and DSL can coexist on the same loop).
Given such a map of the bandwidth quality, or spectral response curve, it is possible to determine how many bits can be reliably encoded on each of the available slots, and then divide the data stream accordingly. It is also worth mentioning that a spectral response curve is specific to a given physical link, so the actual frequency binning occurs every time the connection is made.
Any given slot can be used either upstream or downstream, but not both. Fancy protocols could have been devised to allow the slots to be dynamically allocated, but this was deemed too complex and unnecessary at the time. A symmetrical split was definitely possible, but since web browsing involves little transmission, it was proposed that a ~6:1 ratio would yield the best compromise, in terms of usability.
This line of thinking was also wholeheartedly embraced by the corporate world, as they have little interest in what you might have to say, but definitely are open to a fast and cheap delivery channel to you. And as they say, the rest is history.
P.S. I will leave the more detailed explanations to Pascal. ;-D
Having regained my breath after this marathon post, I realize that you might not have meant how, but rather why?
If that's the case, then your answer is simply that the 6:1 ratio was a deliberate choice, reflecting the needs of general web browsing.
I won't be satisfied with internet distribution of home video, no matter how quick or convenient it may seem.
Before the home video revolution of the late '70s, if I wanted to see a particular movie, I had to wait for a local theater or a TV station to schedule the movie. I had to pay close attention so that I didn't miss the movie if and when it came around, and I had to move other activities around to free up time to see the movie.
Home video gave control to me, and I don't want to give it back.
Video On Demand over the internet may offer a vast library of choices, but I don't control that library. When George Lucas decided to withdraw the original Star Wars movies and offer only the modified "special editions," I was glad I still had my own copy of the original versions. When Steven Spielberg decided to re-edit E.T., taking guns out of the hands of government officials and deleting the word "terrorists," I was glad I had the unmodified version.
Internet Video On Demand is no more "home video" than network television is, because control is back at the Mother Ship, not in the home.
I'm sticking with home video.
No-no, that was detailed enough! Very clear. :-)
Especially around the end.
"going to remain a p.i.t.a. for a while"
Lemme guess: that's NOT the acronym for an animal rights group, right? ;-)
If people everywhere are going to watch HD movies online, I foresee the internet will need to adapt to a massive increase in data transfer...
If there were any hope in this country to have decently affordable high-speed internet, I would agree wholeheartedly with Michael Burton.
I see ads on European TVs, for boroadband internet + satellite TV + free telephone calls, all for 29 euros monthly. Makes me drool like an underprivileged kid in front of a toy store at X-mas. Here, I pay $22 for my dial-up subscription (3 kilobytes/s), plus $1 for every 3 hours of connection. Because the rates have dropped.
But enough about THAT rant. We'd be glad if we just had civic rights and the prospect of a near future without military conflict. Forget Star Wars or HD wars, I can tell you about ME wars. A.k.a. "The Neverending Story". Live on your very own doorstep, delivery free of charge, 24/7 show guaranteed, high altitude fireworks included. Hunh. How cool is THAT?
In your face, John Rambo.
A little perspective sure can be humbling sometimes.
Peace be with you, let's hope.
Pascal, I hope you are familiar with Squid cache.
Actually no, I wasn't. All my computering knowledge is self-taught. So thanks for the tip.
Bert, thanks for the very interesting explanation. It's very interesting, I had never heard of that type of channel mapping.
You're welcome.
"I had never heard of that type of channel mapping"
As with all analogies, the one I used here has its limits.
Over the years, I have grown more and more distant from pure mathematical thinking, for I have come to recognize higher mathematics as a very insidious form of mental pollution. Or something that doesn't suit me, anyway.
But this is one very rare instance where I regret I could not share with you the pure elegance of the "real deal". The formal thought process behind such transmission techniques is truly beautiful in its simplicity. But the symbolism required to express this lies in the realm of advanced engineering mathematics...
[Please don't get me wrong here, learning that junk is seldom worth the effort. Not having been exposed to it is actually a true blessing for any sane person!]
The war is over? Thank God! I know I have spent many a sleepless night worrying over this.
To be honest I don't know if this was ever exactly on the same scale as the Betamax/VHS war.
I just read in the news that the "early defeat" of the HD-DVD camp would be the result of a strategic error from Toshiba, according to some Blu-Ray camp leaders.
Toshiba would have committed suicide by selling HD-DVD players for 99$ so early in the game. No other manufacturer would invest in production facilities for a new and uncertain product with such low profit margins...
Oops.
Post a Comment