Why Slysoft has to conquer BD+

[sondeterra]

every thing old is new again

If you all will recall there was DVD technology that required connection to a phone line the disc was cheaper but would only play for 24 hours then was locked out unless you purchased a play key to enable regular play and to add to the confusion it was called DIVX and Circuit City was the main purveyor. This actually delayed my purchase of a DVD player for 2 years plus the $100.00 barrier.

 

[SamuriHL]

Yea, and fortunately it was a miserable failure. Consumers aren't going to tolerate that kind of stuff. They simply won't buy it. And if the BD camp makes BD+ and player compatibility too painful, they'll find their discs suffering from "Japanese inspection"*. Consumers aren't as stupid as the studios seem to think. And they only put up with so much.

*Japanese inspection: When the Japanese have a crate come in from overseas that they don't want, rather than reject it, they just let it sit on the dock until it rots.

 

[DrinkLyeAndDie]

If you all will recall there was DVD technology that required connection to a phone line the disc was cheaper but would only play for 24 hours then was locked out unless you purchased a play key to enable regular play and to add to the confusion it was called DIVX and Circuit City was the main purveyor. This actually delayed my purchase of a DVD player for 2 years plus the $100.00 barrier.

Yeah, I remember the furor about that. Ugh. There was a huge outcry but, honestly, I can't remember if it ever went live and then died or it died before it was officially released.

[SIDENOTE]

I didn't mean to offend anyone by saying people were allowing the Industry to screw them by purchasing HD or especially BD which will have BD+. My statement was about the people who on one hand vigorously condemn the practices of the Industry yet, at the end of the day, also quietly purchase said devices. There are many people out there that dislike the tactics of the Industry but accept them and also purchase the product because they truly love high definition media. I can't blame them. Once you see enough BD/HD on a nice large high definition TV/monitor it's hard to go back to regular old DVDs.

That said, I think in it's next evolution for media format releases the Industry may take a slightly different approach than they have thus far. For them it would be wise but for the consumer won't be so fun but it wouldn't actually require any direct form of copy protection but would make backing up a disc somewhat difficult. Of course they would still include some form of copy protection because I doubt they'll have seen the light yet.

I happen to detest the actions of the Industry and, as of yet, do not own either a HD or BD drive or players. I'm waiting to see how things pan out in the format war and also for prices to drop to what I deem an acceptable level. When that time comes I'll go with HD and hopefully it will be the winner.

Thankfully we have Slysoft to protect our Fair Use rights and our investments.

[/SIDENOTE]

 

[iansilv]

It went live. It was a terrible idea- Circuit City invested heavily on some sort of a gamble that idiotic consumers would pay every time they wanted to watch a movie in their won homes. I remember the promotional video in the store in Lakewood. It was painful to watch- people were standing around, asking sales people- "Why would I want that?" The only thing the salespeople had to come up with was that the disks were cheaper. That was when dvds first came out, then the dvds dropped in price and the point was moot.

Please please break BD+!

 

[SamuriHL]

"The discs are cheaper" argument annoyed me when they tried that nonsense. Yea, ok, the disc is cheaper...until I ******* watch the damn thing! Oh, I want to watch it more than once? Well, let's see, put the kids through college, or watch this movie....hmmmm. Dramatic, I know, but, really, what made them think that was EVER going to fly with consumers? And they're trying it again with digital downloads. "Rent" it for 24 hours "whenever you want". Yea, how about NO? I want to PURCHASE a movie so I can watch it whenever I want, thanks.

 

[deaacs]

Blu-Ray also offers the consumer more in terms of computer storage use as well, which is a much larger factor these days than it was in the early days of DVD.

Each to their own, but I feel BD-R would be significantly less reliable then either DVD-R or HD-DVD-R (or CD-R)

There still seems to be a lot of scrambling to try and get HD-DVD burners and stuff going, while Blu-Ray has had burners and media for quite some time now.

They just haven't rushed it. One thing at a time... players, and then burners.

I prefer Blu-Ray if only for the fact it's a technically superior format and definately better to use in a computer.

On a computer the difference would be smaller - but on stand-alone players, BD doesn't have to have internet access, PiP - and has more relaxed audio codecs, whereas HD-DVD requires more.

Technically Beta always had the superior picture quality and was the first to use encoding for Hi-Fi sound.

The resolution of VHS was increased to match Beta...

Now that we have better compression methods for both audio and video the mere statement that Blu-Ray offers more space on a disc means nothing.

True, and we're currently seeing first-generation encoders; the quality will undoubtedly improve while the required bitrates decreases.

i've never heard anyone say tha betamax was inferior to vhs, why do you think that?

They had longer tapes, the players had more features, and the resolution difference was 10 lines in the monochrome channel and 0 lines in the chroma channel! 10 measly lines was the only advantage Beta had, and it was beaten when VHS's resolution was increased - Beta went HiFi... VHS went HiFi, thus Beta lost all technical superiority.

I suggested to my boss that we charge 30$ upgrade price for AnyDVD BD+.

You know, that would be a good way to encourage people to buy HD-DVD instead.

 

[Stormlord]

Aractus,

actually - no: many people here would be willing to pay those $20-30 to be able enjoy Blu Ray BD+ movies from all around the world (region free) on their PCs. Personally, I have all the hardware to play it back properly (I have a Blu ray burner and a HD DVD reader) but I have two screens connected digitally and my main screen resolution is higher than HD (2560x1600) so HDCP is screwed (HDCP supports only single link and AFAIK only one screen connected at the same time, so no Dual head possible...).

Also: not all titles are currently available on HD DVD, in fact the offering on HD DVD in Europe is VERY poor IMHO... If the HD DVD version is better or no Blu Ray is available at the same or better quality than HD DVD, I will buy HD DVD - otherwise, I will buy Blu Ray... At the moment, I find there are not nearly as many interesting titles on HD DVD - though that may change as we approach christmas holiday season (LOTR? Potter? ...). At the moment it seems the studios are mostly releasing movies (especially over here, atleast in the USA and Asia you have more interesting titles available in general) that didn't do well at the boxoffice, with few exceptions (and then mostly titles that are also made available on Blu Ray, expcetions being maybe stuff like The Matrix ..)

Infact, many people here already confirmed they would be willing to pay 20-30 $ extra for BD+ support - probably for similar reasons as mine - and so would I if need be.

Your point appears to be that HD DVD will eventually catch up, even when they started out as the "little brother". Maybe they will, maybe they won't... I guess only time will tell.. But if it doesn't sell, and there aren't any more HD DVD only players, writers and media (good titles and blank media) available - maybe they never will... Over here you can get many blu ray writers and media, aswell as more models of standalone players than for HD DVD.

What I see is that some mfr. are now coming out with dual format models, and that basically one of the formats will be more successful - a bit as it is with DVD+-R, where DVD+R in the end appears to be the more successful one...

Note that the situation can be quite different from one region of sale to another... Over here in Belgium, Blu Ray is clearly in a much stronger position than HD DVD and also their marketing is much better.

 

[chenhua]

If you all will recall there was DVD technology that required connection to a phone line the disc was cheaper but would only play for 24 hours then was locked out unless you purchased a play key to enable regular play and to add to the confusion it was called DIVX and Circuit City was the main purveyor. This actually delayed my purchase of a DVD player for 2 years plus the $100.00 barrier.

How many times should I say it? bd+ does not need an internet link or f/w upgrade. So your idea is not right.

If f/w upgrade is for player reliability or bd-j performance, no complaining from you! Maybe you should consider that this is the case. Not a conspiracy.

 

[chenhua]

Yeah, I remember the furor about that. Ugh. There was a huge outcry but, honestly, I can't remember if it ever went live and then died or it died before it was officially released.

Everyone remembers the phone line req. But no one knows that divx security is better than dvd! dvd = css, divx = 3des. 3des is military encryption. So if content owners once figured out phone line is silly, maybe you would be watching divx now.

 

[Adbear]

How many times should I say it? bd+ does not need an internet link or f/w upgrade. So your idea is not right.

If f/w upgrade is for player reliability or bd-j performance, no complaining from you! Maybe you should consider that this is the case. Not a conspiracy.

Yes it does need a firmware upgrade so you can play BD+. At the moment people are having to update firmware on settop players to be able to use BD+, if they don't then the discs don't play. And why should you need to upgrade you're firmware everytime someone does something new with BD-j. They should have had set specs before they released the drive so everyday users don't have to risk breaking their player everytime a new wave of films come out

 

[chenhua]

Yes it does need a firmware upgrade so you can play BD+. At the moment people are having to update firmware on settop players to be able to use BD+, if they don't then the discs don't play. And why should you need to upgrade you're firmware everytime someone does something new with BD-j. They should have had set specs before they released the drive so everyday users don't have to risk breaking their player everytime a new wave of films come out

I agree with you that f/w upgrades can annoy. Both formats are too complex! I am saying that bd+ security was not cause of f/w upgrade, player bug was.

BD-J specs have been set long time ago also. But the specs are complex and discussion for clarification is ongoing. Some features not tested before player release. Remember dvd. Matrix disc was first real test disc and broke many players! Then it is used for test disc. :doh:

I think BD-J profiles is bad idea. But it is only way to make player perform. Microsoft can make HDDVD player have good iHD performance. BDA can not make player mfgr meet plan except some profile change. Not good for user.

 

[captain_video]

The reason VHS won the format war was the contracts they got with the major studios. Sony thought the major use of tape would be time shifting whereas Matushita thought the market would be pre-recorded film driven and M was proven correct. Technically Beta always had the superior picture quality and was the first to use encoding for Hi-Fi sound. VHS had to electronically do some things that Sony had patented and were actually implemented physically by Sony (head phase inversion for prevention of interference between tracks.)

Um, no it wasn't. Macrovision wasn't implimented on VHS until 1985. The real reason Beta died is - and always has been - because it was an inferior format, and VHS offered the consumer more. Now you have the situation where HD-DVD offers the consumer more, so I predict in the long-term Bluray will die out like Beta.

You're both wrong. The real reason VHS won out over Beta was marketing strategy. VHS harped on the fact that they could record 6 hours of programming vs. 4-1/2 maximum for Beta. VHS was able to increase that to as much as 9 hours with some tapes, although the quality was pretty shaky at best. The average consumer saw this as a no-brainer and chose VHS over Beta by a landslide. Couple that with the fact that besides Sony there were only a few manufacturers that marketed Beta machines (there were literally hundreds of VHS brands, although most of them were made by a handful of manufacturers like Mitsubishi, Hitachi, JVC, and a couple of others). Doesn't anyone find it ironic that Sony started to make VHS machines after realizing they had lost the format war (and they actually did it better than most of the VHS manufacturers)? That should have told you that they saw the writing on the wall and jumped in to at least try and salvage what piece of the pie there was left to be had.

Beta was a technically superior product in many ways. The tape transports were designed for better tape handling and the method of recording the audio and video was better than VHS. Beta was the first to come out with Beta Hi-Fi that could record both the video and Hi-Fi audio on the same layer of tape. VHS had to resort to a multi-layer recording scheme with extra heads for the Hi-Fi audio that was far more complicated than what Beta used. Sony just dropped the ball on marketing and the format died as a result.

There was no exclusivity with regards to one studio over another. All titles from all studios were released in both formats until it was painfully clear that VHS was outselling Beta by a wide margin. Video rental outlets didn't want to deal with the expense of carrying two separate libraries when Beta was only renting about 1/10th of what VHS rentals brought in. When the rental outlets stopped carrying Beta, the final blow had been struck. Many studios then stopped releasing titles in Beta to the mainstream, although I believe they were still available via special order from most of them.

VHS introduced Super-VHS while Beta had ED-Beta. ED-Beta was pretty much restricted to professional camcorders and S-VHS never really took off like the VHS camp hoped it would. The same technologies eventually spilled over into the 8mm and VHS-C camcorder formats.

I'm no big fan of Sony but it's clear that Blu-Ray is the better format, although I'm actually rooting for HD-DVD because I despise Sony and all their corporate arrogance. Blu-Ray has the potential to provide the best audio and video available, mainly because it has the capacity to provide uncompressed Hi-Def audio and video. HD-DVD still has certain limitations and has to compromise in some areas to get the data to fit on their 30GB discs vs. 50GB for Blu-Ray.

 

[kissel01]

Upgrade Fee For BD+

I would contribute $15 for a BD+ update, as SlySoft deserves it. They are the company that has a team of developers that can actually write software for this media. Forget Cyberlink, Intervideo, NERO, and Arcsoft. Even the hardware developers like Samsung and LG cannot get it right when this new copy protection sh*t is launched. I am so sick of the movie industry trying to prevent piracy. STAND ALONE media will always be vunerable to copy, as well as it being our constitutional right to back up all media purchased.

 

[TM2-Megatron]

Frankly, high definition is amazing but with AACS handled and when BD+ finally gets dealt with I, personally, think the next new technology isn't far off. I can see the current HD & BD formats being abandoned for a newer money-making format that is more spectacular and has even newer more controlling protection mechanisms.

I can certainly see the studios in favour of even more stupid copy protection schemes, but a new "better" home video format at this point, or in the near future, would be the stupidest move the industry (both film and electronics) could make. Even now, HD hasn't achieved that high a market saturation. And of all the HDTVs sold, the vast majority aren't even capable of true HD resolution... most are just 1366x768, which isn't that spectacular, IMO. A fair number of people are already irritated that they're attempting to subplant DVD so early... up until a couple years ago, many households in the U.S. were still using VHS. Upgrading from VHS to DVD was also more justifiable because in doing so, you'd see an increase in picture quality on your existing television... with HD formats you need to spend at least a grand, though considerably more if you want a good HDTV.

And finally, even most of the early adopters of HD (who don't usually relate common sense with such purchases) would be pretty pissed if a new format were released, as it would probably necessitate entirely new lines of TVs with resolutions far beyond 1080p.... though I can't see how such things would be remotely affordable to anyone. And even those people can't justify another massive purchase within such a short timeframe.

What resolution would the movies on an "improved" format be, anyway? 2K isn't really much of an improvement over existing HD resolutions, so I guess they'd have to release them to home video in 4K?

 

[talon95]

I can certainly see the studios in favour of even more stupid copy protection schemes, but a new "better" home video format at this point, or in the near future, would be the stupidest move the industry (both film and electronics) could make. Even now, HD hasn't achieved that high a market saturation. And of all the HDTVs sold, the vast majority aren't even capable of true HD resolution... most are just 1366x768, which isn't that spectacular, IMO. A fair number of people are already irritated that they're attempting to subplant DVD so early... up until a couple years ago, many households in the U.S. were still using VHS. Upgrading from VHS to DVD was also more justifiable because in doing so, you'd see an increase in picture quality on your existing television... with HD formats you need to spend at least a grand, though considerably more if you want a good HDTV.

And finally, even most of the early adopters of HD (who don't usually relate common sense with such purchases) would be pretty pissed if a new format were released, as it would probably necessitate entirely new lines of TVs with resolutions far beyond 1080p.... though I can't see how such things would be remotely affordable to anyone. And even those people can't justify another massive purchase within such a short timeframe.

What resolution would the movies on an "improved" format be, anyway? 2K isn't really much of an improvement over existing HD resolutions, so I guess they'd have to release them to home video in 4K?

:agree:

Most people can't take full advantage of the current HD formats. For one thing, your screen width to viewing distance ratio has to be pretty low (sitting close relative to the screen size). Something less than 2:1.