Blu-ray folks will dismiss Paramount’s recent switch to HD DVD as nothing more than a money grab, and that’s to be expected. They now know how it feels to have a studio shun them for no apparent reason. Well, in this case, it turns out that there are actually quite a few logical reasons why Paramount might have wanted to go back to the side they originally started with.
Comments from Paramount’s Chief Technology Officer, Alan Bell, have appeared at PC World and Ars Technica, in which Bell lays out the business case for the switch. Many of these points have been made by other pro-HD DVD voices, and are probably not going to be new to a lot of you. What is new and refreshing to me is to hear it from a person so deeply involved with technology from the studio side of things.
You should definitely read those two interviews for yourself, but here are the highlights:
From the Ars interview:
- All HD DVD players have had their advanced features-defined from the start, whereas Blu-ray is a moving target whose only recently finalized features will cause heartaches for early adopters with decks that can’t be upgraded. Features on one Blu-ray deck are not necessarily available on another, and that limits the extent to which Paramount can offer content that’s universally accessible to their Blu-ray customers.
- All HD DVD players have online capability, but Blu-ray players do not. This uniform connectivity gives you ready access to “Managed Copy” which allows you to make legal backup copies of your discs. It also allows the studios to deliver extra content to update your discs, such as bonus scenes or commentary, long after a disc has shipped. The connectivity also enables “transactional offerings” such as links to commercial sites with items related to a movie.
From the PC World interview:
- HD DVD was launched with a stable set of specifications that all players are required to meet. Paramount can rest assured that every HD DVD player, regardless of model, will be able to handle their disc’s features. Early adopters are not left behind, as with Blu-ray.
- The extra storage capacity of Blu-ray discs is
overrated. 30 GB (the HD DVD standard) gives you 3 to 4 hours of capacity, and 95% of movies are less than 2 and a half hours long. There’s still plenty of space to do something with the nearly two hours left over. Overflow material is not a big deal because it’ll go on a second disc, and customers actually view that as a bonus, as has been done with DVDs all this time. - It’s easier and more convenient to program HDi (HD DVD’s interactivity system). HDi is compact and flexible, and Paramount feels that leads to improved compatibility, reliability and lower costs. As proof, Paramount has been able to offer more features with HDi on HD DVD than with BD-Java on Blu-ray. Some of the things they’ve done in HDi are not supported or difficult to do on BD-Java.
In the PC World interview, Bell said that some of these interactivity features are things that customers will grow into, and I’m going to agree with him on that one. My primary interest is in the movies first, and I turn to these extras only as I go back to look for new ways to enjoy the discs. These connectivity and interactivity features are going to be best enjoyed when they are well integrated into a movie, and that’s an area which has been getting better and better as studios use HDi for the umpteenth time.
I’m sure Blu-ray readers will have their own take on all of this which discounts every point that Bell has made (especially the one about disc capacity), and that’s to be expected. To them, this whole thing is always going to be about fiendish business schemes.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:59 am
I have a few comments to support Blu ray here, but I claim to obviously not be a technological genius….
With advanced features, people miss out on advanced features every minute of every day. People generally pay more money to get better features. TVs now are most common in 720p and 1080p. Well, those people that buy 720p TVs save some money, but they are missing out on better picture quality. Would I be wrong to say that these features could be put on a disc and possibly not be viewable? Or, with all the ‘extra useless’ space that’s on a blu ray disc, couldn’t they write it in several versions to enable all players to view the content?
In my opinion, the only thing that’s nice about online connectivity is being able to update drivers or firmware, if needed. The “legal copy” is only going to lead to piracy. What stops rentals from being copied? What stops one consumer from buying the movie and burning it for everyone else?
The HD DVD standard dual layer disc is 30 GB correct? Obviously dual layer discs are more expensive. So if the 50 GB dual layer Blu ray disc is obviously overkill when it comes to movies like this. But, if 30 GB is enough (4 hours of capacity, 95% of movies are less than 2.5 hours long), Blu Ray can easily catch up in production costs with the cheaper single layer disc.
I don’t really have anything to say about programming, as I have no idea what all goes into it. But, I’ve heard that it’s harder to make games on the Blu Ray because of processor, and I imagine this is similar. However, it may be difficult, but I can bet that they can do it, and it will be become easier and standard later on.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 am
Programming the PS3 has its own issues, but they’re not the same as programming for BD-Java. Afterall, buying a Samsung or Pioneer Blu-ray player doesn’t mean that you get PS3 game playing ability. From what I’ve seen of HDi programming, it’s much more like programming for the web. BD-Java is a Java implementation, and that kind of thing takes its toll on hardware requirements (maybe it’s one of the reasons that Blu-ray players are more expensive).
You have a point about the usefulness of going online, but I think there will be more and more compelling reasons to tap into that aspect of movie viewing as studios become more familiar with it (Blu-ray included).
In reading disc reviews, you often hear about how the studio failed to include some bonus that had been on the regular DVD version or on some special edition. I’m not saying that anybody has done this yet, but in the future, these kinds of omissions can be fixed easily by going online and streaming them directly. It’s kind of like software patches, but for movies.
In the PC World piece, Alan Bell mentioned that studios need to look into setting up servers for these purposes. Imagine viewing a movie, and then being able to follow up with fan-sites for that movie to view some more content, or getting a chance to have live bonus features that grow over time. I’ve found myself doing some of that on my own after I watched a few DVDs, but it would be nice to have it as an option from my player as soon as I finish the movie.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
As I understand it the difference in disc capacity between HD and Blue Ray is acutally not significant because Blue Ray is still using MPEG 2 compression while HD uses a newer and more powerful compression software VC1.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:45 pm
One thing Bell hit upon in his interview was the fact that HD DVD players are nearing the $200 mark. This is a key point. I purchased my HDA2 at Circuit City for $239 while the lowest priced Blue Ray player was over $500. I looked at both HD and Blue Ray being displayed on HD TVS in the store and there is NO difference in the picture quality. Given the fact that both formats produce nearly the same results it only makes sense to buy the less expensive player. This is ultimately why VHS beat out Beta and Windows PCs became dominant over Apple. Price.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:48 pm
That was true in the past, but current and recent Blu-ray discs use the same VC1 codec as on HD DVD. The H264 codec is also gaining in popularity.
Studios typically use the same VC1-encoded file for both of their HD DVD and Blu-ray versions of a movie. There’s not much reason for video quality to be any different on movies made for both formats, other than special image-enhancement stuff that might be added to a particular player.
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I do think the whole concept that there is a “war” to determine who will dominate home video is rather odd since combined HD DVD and Blue Ray don’t have 1% market penetration. Standard DVD is and will remain the dominant format for years to come. If either HD format was really going to threaten that you would expect that it’s growth would somewhat keep pace with HDTV sales which I understand is expected to top 50 million in the US by the end of 2007. For a videophile like me HD Video is a must but I think it is going to be a niche market because for most people SD DVD is more than good enough for their needs, especially with upconverting DVD players around for $60. Standard DVD took over the home video market because it was light years ahead of video tape and it still took years to supplant VHS. HD DVD and Blue Ray are more of an incremental improvement. Nice but not “gee whiz” nice when compared to SD DVD.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:47 am
Go see planet earth on hd dvd and then say that the improvement is incremental. Is much more than that. And the sound! Its better than by hd dtv box by a mile. I can’t wait tosee more concerts come out!
August 25th, 2007 at 6:46 am
While the HD DVD players are cheaper right now, and always have been, Blu ray is constantly lowering prices on their players as well. I think those that are really concerned about spending the extra money, or any money on a high def player will wait until there is a winner in this format war. Therefore, I think it will continue to be based on volume of movies rented and purchased in the format, i.e Blockbuster, current sales trends for blu ray.
I think the name of the product helps Blu ray as well. We are replacing DVD…when we replaced VHS, we didn’t call it Super VHS or anything like that. The Hi def consumers are moving away from DVDs. Blu ray just sounds better.
August 25th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Well, there certainly have been many people who mistakenly bought HD DVD discs thinking they’d work on standard DVD players, so you may have a little bit of a point there about format naming.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Bret says, “While the HD DVD players are cheaper right now, and always have been, Blu ray is constantly lowering prices on their players as well. I think those that are really concerned about spending the extra money, or any money on a high def player will wait until there is a winner in this format war.”
The thing is though, that they’re going to be waiting for a while if they’re waiting for a “winner”. More than one industry analyst predicted both formats existing until at least 2010, and that was before Paramount went HD DVD exclusive. Despite what others may say, I don’t see any end to the “format war” anytime soon. Both sides of the camp have too much invested in their technologies to just quietly let it die.
“I think the name of the product helps Blu ray as well. We are replacing DVD…when we replaced VHS, we didn’t call it Super VHS or anything like that.”
It’s a bit of a false analogy though. VHS and DVD had nothing in common. Of course it wasn’t called “Super VHS” because it physically looked nothing like a tape. HD DVDs (and Blu-Rays) look very much like DVD disks do.
“The Hi def consumers are moving away from DVDs. Blu ray just sounds better.”
That’s a bit of a subjective opinion though. You and I both know what “Blu-Ray” is, but to the uninformed consumer, it’s not going to be readily apparent. However, “HD DVD” is pretty much laid right out what it is. However, it can also cause it’s own confusion as Pravin points out.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Blu Ray is a sound technology and a true move into the future. Sticking HDDVD will only hold us back. This is another Betamax vs VHS. It would be a shame to see the greater technology lose again.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
One of the biggest advantages that HD DVD has over Blu ray I don’t believe to be price. I think it’s the combo HD DVD/DVD format, people are able to buy a HDDVD that will work on a DVD player in hopes of still having that movie in high def whenever they purchase a high def player, if HD DVD wins that is.
August 25th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
There are mixed feelings on those combos. The additional disc is not free and it actually makes your movie cost more. If your lifestyle can take advantage of having those additional discs (for example, you have a DVD player in your car or you watch away from home), then the additional disc is great. But if you have no such need, then you’re being forced to pay extra for something you don’t really want.
Warner proposed a solution which would have put the HD DVD and Blu-ray versions on opposite sides of the same disc. This might be something that’s more useful, but I think that things are probably too “political” for the studios to go ahead with this any more.
August 27th, 2007 at 6:25 am
The combo format is a bit of a mixed bag for me. On one hand, I can see the advantage of being able to take a disc and play it both in your HD player at home, or your regular DVD player on the road/plane/etc. However, this rarely happens for me, so I’m often getting charged extra for a format I’m not necessarily needing. It would be nice if they offered HD and combo formats so that you could choose, but I’m sure the cost would be a bit prohibitive for the companies. It is nice to see WB switching some titles to HD format only as was just reported.
August 27th, 2007 at 7:00 am
One of my friends is one of the people that says “blu ray just sounds better”.
that’s obviously an opinion.
He kept talking about the name and how he thinks HD DVD sounds generic.
it might, but it makes sense to everyone, especially the consumer. I also think the new HD DVD adds that have been popping up in theaters before movies play is also a good thing. I had alreayd bought my HD player a couple weeks before i saw the first ad, but the ad just made me more excited to see more of the movies I would be able to purchase.
August 27th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Bret:
we didn’t call DVD Super VHS for a reason. wanna know why? c’mon, guess!
alright, here’s why: cause it’s a digital video DISC
wanna know what makes sense to the consumer?
something with the name DVD in it.
August 27th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Maybe we can at least agree that “Blu-ray” sounds less technical than “BD-ROM”
August 28th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
why can’t they make a player that can bring the best of Both Worlds to the market
it can play HD DVDs and Blu Rays on one drive and download stuff.
August 29th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
The consumers suffer in the end. Basically, while the tycoons with the big bucks toy around with the future of Hi-Def home movie watching, we are left later holding the empty bag. These companies think very little of moral obligations and just go with the almighty dollar. To the man in the street who wants to buy a movie to watch at home this frustration really leads to piracy. It seems easier to just ignore the lust of great pic quality and save that money. Most people with either format would be disappointed to have to park the player.
It is about time companies include consumer impact in their decision-making process. Why can’t they just get along. It cost more for one format to fight the other. No one format should try to be dominant. They should not try and make a monopoly when there is no need to. If there is competition the products should be better. Both formats should co-exist.
I just bought a blu-ray and heaven knows that if it comes to the point where I will have to park it… Trust me… piracy will reign thereafter.
Sony and others have the history to make people waste money. I bought an expensive Sony DVD player in 2001 only to learn later that a $50 player has more capabilities and features. The Sony had the bells and whistles but I cannot (still cannot) play cds that I burn in it. It looks good but just an expensive showpiece. By the way. I hate to think I am up that creek again. I just bought a Blu-Ray player. Heaven helps us.