Burning Questions: Why the Rush to Blue?

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,122553,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,122553,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div><i>"For more than a year now, those who follow the future of optical drive technology have heard blue-laser this, and blue-laser that. We've watched a new format war brew over these blue-laser based technologies, with both the Blu-ray Disc and HD-DVD camps battening down the hatches for a long, drawn-out conflict. At stake for the industry is who will control the market for delivering entertainment content in the future; that is, whose next-generation DVD format will win out. For those of us who'll be consuming that entertainment, the conflict is more about which technology to invest in for the long haul."</i> <br /><br />Now that DVD has fairly universal market penetration, the consumer electronics industry is looking for their next hit, and what would be better than replacing all those DVD players that they sold in the last few years with new high-definition players. Great plan, but wait, two different groups of players in the industry have their own ideas for how to go about doing this, uh oh, problem. So, we are left with Blu-ray and HD-DVD as to competing standards on the verge of being released. <br /><br />Competing standards have never been good for the consumer. Doubly so in this case, because neither standard has a clear technical advantage over the other. But still, pick the wrong one and you are out in the cold if it is the loser. So, what to do? <br /><br />Here are my thoughts. I think most people will stay away from either until there is a standard. While HD looks great, current DVDs look pretty darn good and frankly, most people don't even take advantage of the quality offered by DVD (how many people do you know who just use a composite cable to hook up their DVD player to their TV). Also, can current content that was not recorded in HD be improved much over what we currently have on DVD? I know I am not keen to be replacing most of my DVD's unless there is a compelling reason to do so. <br /><br />So, who knows what will happen, but I think the PS3 will tip this battle for Blu-ray. For the reasons noted above, people will hold off on buying players, but they will still purchase PS3s and end up with a Blu-ray player and by default, that will become the standard.<br /><br />Anyway, these are just my thoughts, what do you think.

[karinatwork]

(how many people do you know who just use a composite cable to hook up their DVD player to their TV)

Why, is there another cable I'm supposed to use??

I just learned how to work with DVDs (or, obviously, I didn't yet), don't give me another standard now. :oops:

K.

[Philip Colmer]

I've read quite a few articles whose opinions are that there will be a resolution to this next year. I think everyone agrees that a format war won't do anyone any good - this is largely going to be a face saving exercise.

I do want it resolved though - I need the higher storage capacity :D

--Philip

[Pony99CA]

(how many people do you know who just use a composite cable to hook up their DVD player to their TV)
Why, is there another cable I'm supposed to use??
It all depends on what kind of inputs your TV/monitor has and what kind of outputs your DVD player has.

If your monitor only has Composite inputs, then using Composite cables makes sense. However, many newer monitors support S-video and Component (ColorStream) input.

S-video inputs were created when Super VHS came out, and separate the color (chrominance or C) and black-and-white (luminance or Y) signals. Component cables basically separate the red, green and blue signals (it's a bit more complicated, actually, but I won't bother with that now).

I think almost all DVD players have at least S-video outputs and most newer ones have Component outputs.

So, quality-wise, Component is better than S-video is better than Composite.

Now, there are also Progressive Scan DVD players, which are even better if your monitor supports progressive scan inputs (so-called 480p).

Worse, there's a new standard starting to appear called HDMI, which is meant for High Definition signals, I think, but most players and TVs don't support them yet.

I hope that helped you more than it confused you. :-D

Steve

[Pony99CA]

I've read quite a few articles whose opinions are that there will be a resolution to this next year. I think everyone agrees that a format war won't do anyone any good - this is largely going to be a face saving exercise.
Don't count on it. Since when has Sony ever backed down from a proprietary format so quickly? Look how long they kept Beta around. Look how long they only supported MemoryStick in devices.

As Chris said, I think the PS3 will help make Blu-Ray a winner. (I also think that if Sony had supported MemoryStick in the PS2, its higher capacity than the lousy PS2 memory cards would have made it much more popular than it is today.)

However, it may not be a two-format race. Microsoft is investigating Forward Versatile Disc (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000913058097) (FVD), a red laser technology. (I think they're blowing smoke, and, even if they aren't, they'll only push this for data storage, not video.)

I do want it resolved though - I need the higher storage capacity :D
You don't need this resolved to get higher capacity. If you're talking about computer storage (not video), an external drive in either format will give you a lot of storage and be relatively portable to other computers. As long as drivers and blank media are available, who cares how many formats there are (unless you want to swap disks with others, of course).

Steve

[[email protected]]

I don't get the "PS3 will tip the scales" thing. How many people will buy a $500 PS3 instead of a $70 DVD player? I get that tech-savvy people who are hidef enthusiasts and also gamers will get the PS3, but who else? To put it into perspective, how many regular DVD players are there per PS2's? Why didn't all the people buying DVD players get the PS2 instead?

[jeff]

Here are my thoughts. I think most people will stay away from either until there is a standard. While HD looks great, current DVDs look pretty darn good and frankly, most people don't even take advantage of the quality offered by DVD (how many people do you know who just use a composite cable to hook up their DVD player to their TV).

The difference between DVD and high def on a high def TV is night and day. I know the vast majority of consumers don't have that HD TV, but technology isn't driven by the mass market; it's the early adotpers. That said, I still won't purchase any HD video equipment until there is a standard. I don't want to have to buy two players just to deal with incompatible formats.


Also, can current content that was not recorded in HD be improved much over what we currently have on DVD? I know I am not keen to be replacing most of my DVD's unless there is a compelling reason to do so.


For TV shows, probably not, but for movies, definitely. Anything done on film has probably already been digitized at better than HD quality for the DVD release. The HD movie channel I have through RCN was showing My Fair Lady last night. The movie was filmed in 1968, but looked fantastic in high def, far better than it would on DVD.

I'll buy the competing incompatible standards argument against going to blue, but not the claim against picture quality.

[Chris Gohlke]

I don't get the "PS3 will tip the scales" thing. How many people will buy a $500 PS3 instead of a $70 DVD player? I get that tech-savvy people who are hidef enthusiasts and also gamers will get the PS3, but who else? To put it into perspective, how many regular DVD players are there per PS2's? Why didn't all the people buying DVD players get the PS2 instead?

I would not expect the first HD DVD players to be $70. Back when I bought my PS2, it was not much more expensive than a DVD player and I know lots of people bought a PS2 because of how it compared in price to a stand-alone DVD player. In general, I don't think there will be a big rush to purchase HD dvd players until there is a standard. There will be a rush (albeit a smaller market) to purchase the PS3 that will end up giving Blu-ray a bigger user base than the competition.

[Chris Gohlke]

The difference between DVD and high def on a high def TV is night and day. I know the vast majority of consumers don't have that HD TV, but technology isn't driven by the mass market; it's the early adotpers. That said, I still won't purchase any HD video equipment until there is a standard. I don't want to have to buy two players just to deal with incompatible formats.

For TV shows, probably not, but for movies, definitely. Anything done on film has probably already been digitized at better than HD quality for the DVD release. The HD movie channel I have through RCN was showing My Fair Lady last night. The movie was filmed in 1968, but looked fantastic in high def, far better than it would on DVD.

I'll buy the competing incompatible standards argument against going to blue, but not the claim against picture quality.

I've got a HD set and HD movie channels and there is a great variety in how much better a movie looks in HD. Attack of the Clones looked phenomenal even compared to the DVD, for a lot of other movies, the difference between the HD version and the DVD is less spectacular. All I am really saying though is there is a diminishing return on improvement in picture quality to the average consumer. VHS to DVD offered a huge improvement, but also offered a lot of other value besides just picture quality. DVD to HD-DVDs will only offer better quality and like the author of the original article, except for Star Wars, Star Trek, or LOTR, I am unlikely to replace any titles with HD titles, which lessens my desire to jump on a new format.

[klinux]

Why, is there another cable I'm supposed to use??

This is a gross simplification but here is my suggested way of connecting video devices.

HDMI >= Firewire >= DVI > BNC >= VGA >= Component/SCART > S-Video > Composite (aka RCA) > Coaxial

HDMI, Firewire, and DVI are all digital. I put HDMI first because it carries both video and audio and the plug is small and it most likely support HDCP (future-proofing). Firewire is good as well, carry both video and audio but found in only few devices. While DVI can be analog (aka DVI-A), in today's devices it is mostly digital. All three connection methods, in my opinion, provide very similar and the best video quality.

BNC is mostly in commerical products and like VGA, it is a one-cable way of delivering analog video. Its quality is good but not quite as good as the digital methods. Component uses the familiar RCA plugs but just more of them (you can find more details in wikipedia but I am simplifying here). SCART is found mostly in Europe.

Composite/RCA is the familiar three wire solution - yellow (video), red/white (audio). Coaxial has one wire that combines both video and audo.

Hope this helps!

[Jason Dunn]

Worse, there's a new standard starting to appear called HDMI, which is meant for High Definition signals, I think, but most players and TVs don't support them yet.

You forgot DVI, and HDCP - what an ugly mess. :roll: I'm actually quite irritated that my Samsung TV doesn't have more high-end connections: it has one DVI, and one HDMI.

[Felix Torres]

HDMI, Firewire, and DVI are all digital. I put HDMI first because it carries both video and audio and the plug is small and it most likely support HDCP (future-proofing).

Pretty good summation of the plug issues.
But...
The standards that go with those plugs have...issues...

Specifically with HDMI:
1- HDMI does not automatically imply HDCP support. Quite a few name-brand vendors sell HDCP-less HDMI products, so the future-proofing is not really there.

2- HDMI is supposed to be electrically equivalent to DVI, but the spec for HDMI+HDCP appears to be less than fully precise (as opposed to the older DVI+HDCP spec) and the ambiguity has resulted in compatibility problems. At least one vendor has equipt its 2005 SOA display with DVI instead of HDMI to side-step the compatibility issues.

Best guess here is that for maximum HDCP compatiblity, it is actually safer, in future-proofing terms, to go with DVI instead of HDMI until the implementation issues are ironed out.

As always, your mileage may vary. ;-)

[Felix Torres]

You forgot DVI, and HDCP - what an ugly mess. :roll: I'm actually quite irritated that my Samsung TV doesn't have more high-end connections: it has one DVI, and one HDMI.

The solution for both problems seems to lie in HDCP-compliant switchboxes; they come in 2 and 4 port versions and they handle the HDCP-handshaking on the upstream side while ignoring it on the downstream side. :-)

The downside?
A couple hundred $$$$US... :cry:

[Jeremy Charette]

For all the stink about HDCP, it's actually just a fart in a windstorm. HDCP (as noted above) is already being circumvented by convertor or splitter boxes, and there's no way to tell if it's a display device (TV) or a splitter, as the HDCP chip comes from the same supplier.

HDCP is yesterday's news. What's coming? AACS (http://www.aacsla.com/what/default.htm).

[Jonathon Watkins]

8O I had no idea it was so complex. 8O

Here I am, only having used SCART up to now. :lol:

[[email protected]]

Worse, there's a new standard starting to appear called HDMI, which is meant for High Definition signals, I think, but most players and TVs don't support them yet.

You forgot DVI, and HDCP - what an ugly mess. :roll: I'm actually quite irritated that my Samsung TV doesn't have more high-end connections: it has one DVI, and one HDMI.

A pretty slick solution to that is to get an amp that also switches video, leaving only two cables to connect to the TV, HDMI and power.