D-VHS to Hit The Market This Week 411
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Yahoo News is has an article stating that D-VHS is hitting the market this week. The upside: D-VHS supports full high-definition picture quality. The down side: $35 - $45 per movie (although available for less) and $2k for a player. Seems to me you'd lose a lot of that HD picture after a few viewings too. 4 studios are supporting it: 'JVC persuaded Fox, Universal, DreamWorks and Artisan to support the format after developing a new copy-protection standard it calls D-Theater to prevent unauthorized copying of the high-definition movies'."
Picture Quality (Score:4, Insightful)
Tape is the problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Tape streaches. It flexes. It gets worn. It gets demagnetized. It tears.
The problem with VHS degradation over time has nothing to do with the data format on the tape. The problem is with the medium itself: flexible magnetic storage.
It's great if you aren't going to use it often, but if it keeps getting wound and unwound, wrapped around rollers, and pressed against a read head, it will wear out.
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:5, Informative)
On the contrary, data format matters a lot, as it tells you how sensitive the content will be to medium degradation.
A (binary) digital tape - one with two levels of data per sample - can tolerate far more noise than an analog tape that stores a large number of levels per sample. Error correction codes can be applied to digital data, which allows you to correct one (or several) corrupted bits per code in the data stream. Analog encoding doesn't let you do this. In many other ways, digital encoding lets you map content space into signal space so that you can have large amounts of signal noise/degradation without the content degrading much.
Digital encoding also lets you reconstruct _perfectly_ the original content when only moderate degradation has occurred - letting you copy a worn tape on to a pristine one with no content loss. This isn't possible with analog video encoding.
So, data format does matter.
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:2)
I kinda think it would, but am interested in what others think...
Cheers,
-b
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
DEATH TO HELICAL SCAN MEDIA! <cough>
If you're using damnable helical-scan tape media (DAT, VHS, etc), repeated usage *will* get you to a point where low-level dropouts occur. Then life begins to suck. Yes, in principle one can use layers of ECC plus a compression algorithm and bitstream format designed for graceful degradation of the image in the presence of missing/corrupt data... but these tapes degrade relatively rapidly with just repeated regular use. Then consider the kinds of hell that tapes go through both inside and outside of the player... and this is even less appealing.
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
ECC can only get you so far- it is good for dealing with localized burst errors from the media. DVD's give you lots of errors too SUPRISE, but the ECC system (quite elaborate - much like that used for over the air transmissions by the way) is up to the task.
At some point - the tape WILL get messed up so that it exceeds the ability of the ECC to make up for the errors - and you get drop outs - nice BIG ones since it's going to be a compressed format!
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:2)
When analog media decays, you get bits of noise in the screen
When digital media decays, you get "Cannot play back the file. The format is not supported".
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:2)
At 45 bux per, Ill stick with DVDs at 15.99 from inet shopping. DVD looks damn good to me. If I had an HDTV I would just get a progressive scan DVD player (and plays Audio DVD and MP3s) at 1/10th the price of a DVHS. And I can copy my DVDs too!
-
Reminds me of the commerical where the kid puts his PB&J sandwhich in the VCR.
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:2)
Not enough DVDs munched to satisfy the industry? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure if it's your own recorded media you can make a backup before it's too late, but if it's a commercial video, sorry pal, be seeing you again at the video store soon (and your little wallet too)!
The days of Tape/VHS cassettes were glorious for the record and movie industries. They'd sell a cassette, and the customer's tape deck or VCR would promptly munch it. Back to the store where you're obviously not going to get a refund for mangling the merchandise. Instant repeat revenue.
Then CDs and DVDs were born. Cheap, durable, and reliable. TOO durable and reliable. Sure if you're a moron you can scrape them up, but if you're a moron you can scrape up your nose picking it too. Careful and responsible owners were no longer victims of freak munchings, and the industry never forgave themselves for not making the damn things shatters inside the players (most of the time [216.239.33.100]... hey, remember those gimmicky ads for 100x players back before DMA66?).
Right now, the movie and record industries are salivating all over themselves trying to figure out how to sell you the same damn thing over and over again (like teeny pop and the late 90's onslaught of natural disaster cinema). Like Circuit City's DIVX [fightdivx.com] (the scam disc format, not the codec [divx.com]) was one of the first examples. Now the music industry wants to let us buy digital music, in multiple proprietary formats, and pay for it for each playback device we own, even when we've already bought the physical album!
D-VHS probably will and should replace Beta, et.al. in the professional sector, but I don't think it would have ever seen the light of day in video stores if the media was as durable as some of the new high capacity DVD/optical technology coming out.
But maybe I'm just biased against magnetic media because of all the data I've ever lost!
Re:Not enough DVDs munched to satisfy the industry (Score:2)
Clearly, you know absolutely nothing. Beta is NOT used professionally. Betacam was; Betacam SP is dying; Digital Betacam is standard; Beta SX never really took off; IMX is new and HD-CAM is gaining momentum despite being seriously flawed. Al of those formats are Beta-related, though none ARE actually Betamax. As far as VHS is concerned, where to start? JVC has already given us pros the miracle of D-9 - which was their first stab at a digital VHS format. It was ignored to death despite being actually rather good. Panasonic also gave us the ill-fated D-3 and fine D-5 formats which are obviously (though never admittedly) VHS descendants. D-VHS will have exactly zero impact on professional video. Incidentally, I live in the UK where D-VHS was introduced about 2 years ago - I've never heard of anyone actually buying one, although I'm sure that they're very fine machines in their own right. I can hardly believe that D-VHS has just hit the USA NOW - surely some mistake?
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe I'm taking this out of context, but the format of the tape is exactly the point. With analog encoding on VHS, the s/n ratio declines as the tape streaches and the signal is corrupted. With digital encoding and CRC's, if a frame is too far out of whack you get nothing. Until then, the video is clean and you don't notice signal problems as you would with analog encoding.
It's a bit like the cell phone technology vs. digial cell phones. The older stuff cracks and pops and fades, while the digital sounds fine right up until the signal strenght is too low to trip the AGC on the tower receiver. Then it looses the channel and it looses the call.
I remember something called OnTrack, a backup system used on an old S100 bus computer. It used VHS video to make backups. You have an "interleave" factor, which was basically how many times the same frame was written to tape. The first frame misses? Don't worry, a copy will be along in a few seconds. I wonder if they are doing that in the new tape format.
And by the bye, the studios can encode all they want, but if it's mag tape, it won't be long before professional copyright violators have duplication machines for it. It will only foil the people that don't want to take the time to make their copies. And yes, it is fair use to make them as long as you don't sell them. IANAL.
Remember, fair use is a state of mind, and technology can't read our minds (thank God!). If someone says they can protect content but preserve fair use, it's not true. Period.
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:2)
Um.. digital cell phones go "fuzzy" to.. the result is a wierd matrix-ish sound.. like a saw-tooth wave. Perhaps you live in an area with perfect reception except for the occasional mountain that cuts off reception quickly.. but trust me, I've been on my phone when reception faded (but didn't die).. it's very neat sounding.
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:2)
I've never really had problems with tapes, even heavily rented ones. I'm not saying there aren't any problems, I am curious if the danger is overstated.
Re:Tape is the problem. (Score:2, Insightful)
and maybe i'm wrong, but if a d-vhs did get worn out, it wouldn't just start degrading in quality, it'd be perfect until it got to the point where it couldn't read it at all, and then be all static in the unreadable areas.
Video Tape vs Computer Tape (Score:5, Insightful)
The problems are streching, physical contact, and frequency of use.
If the reader expects each bit to be X distance from the next, but the tape streches, then the read head will read some other magnetic data from the extended area. The same goes for wrinkling and bending.
Tapes are more likely to sustain this kind of wear since the process of using them involves physical contact. Take a look into an open VCR as you insert a tape. Those metal rods can damage your tape. They pull and flex the tape. The head can also damage the tape. The motors can damage the tape if they pull to hard an the tape reaches its end, resulting in a harsh jerk.
The reason that these problems are less likely to plague backup tapes is because of frequency of use:
How often do you insert each computer tape? Remember that the act of inserting the casette into a VCR causes physical contact with the actual tape.
How frequently do you use the tape at all? Don't you just write to it in most cases?
Don't you only read from it infrequently and usually only once? When you re-write the tape, it can make up for some streching (within certain limits).
More importantly, how often do you "pause" a data tape? Pausing streches tape.
How often do you run the tape at high speed while the read head is in contact with it? That is exactly what happens when you scan tapes by pushing ff or rw in play mode. That is even more damaging to the tapes than just playing them.
Sure error correcting exists, but my point is that tape is more error-prone than other forms of storage since the simple act of reading or writing the data can degrade it.
Re:Picture Quality (Score:2)
If you're going to nitpick, do it on something germane to the issue, rather than spouting off a painfully obvious fact that has absolutely no relevance and making yourself look like a retard.
I give it six months (Score:4, Insightful)
How many people have sets capable of rendering the signal at full quality anyway?
Maybe it would have had a chance before DVD authoring equipment became cheap, (assuming the authoring equipment for this format even exists for consumers), but otherwise this looks to be DOA.
The development costs will just be translated to higher DVD prices in a year.
Re:I give it six months (Score:3, Insightful)
you can't stuff a HDTV movie onto a DVD.
Re:I give it six months (Score:2)
Re:I give it six months (Score:2)
Says who? 'Anamorphic' DVDs are HDTV quality. IIRC, they display on regular TVs by dropping every second or third vertical column of pixels. Just wait for HDTV quality video capture and more DVD burners. It'll happen.
Re:I give it six months (Score:2)
Re:I give it six months (Score:2)
In short, they can just define DVD 3.0
Re:I give it six months (Score:2)
You *can* get 720x480x30 progressive from DVD, but it requires manipulation of MPEG2 flags that is almost always done wrong. This is why the Progressive-Scan DVD players that actually work ignore the flags and watch the cadence of the fields to construct progressive frames. And this only works from progressive sources like film. If you shoot on video, it's interlaced. Game over. And the same applies to 1080i. If you have a display that can do 1080p, you can do the same inverse telecine that you can with DVD.
Yes, DVD supports 9.8Mb/s. ATSC HDTV supports up to 19.3Mb/s. 1080i looks like hell at 9.8Mb/s, and you only get around an hour per DVD layer at that rate. (Yes, 2hr movies will fit on SS/DL discs, but HD is still going to look like hell.)
Oh, and if you really want progressive, ATSC includes a few 720p resolutions (ABC uses 1280x720p) but they still require more than 10Mb/s to look good.
Oh, and DVD-Video is at v1.1.
ObLink: DVD FAQ: 2.9-Does DVD support HDTV? [dvddemystified.com]
Re:I give it six months (Score:2)
Absolutely not. Progressive scan DVDs are of EDTV quality, they have no more real resolution than HDTV. Anamorphic is simply an aspect ratio stretching, with takes exactly the same scan rate to display it. It may look better, but that is because it is simply a more efficient way to put widescreen video into the same 720x480 picture frame.
HD resolutions are considered to be 1080i and 720p. The lesser resolutions are in the ATSC standard, but are not considered HD, simply digital television.
Re:I give it six months (Score:2)
D-VHS uses the same MPEG-2 codec as DVD, just at about double the bitrate (the D-VHS streams I have seen are encoded at 15-20MBit/sec, versus 7-9MBit/sec for DVD). So there is only a factor of two difference in data rate, which will be made up for by the new MPEG-4 codec and/or higher-capacity DVDs (shorter wavelength lasers).
I haven't gotten the equipment I need (a nice HDTV monitor) to really evaluate the image quality of D-VHS vs DVD. (For those of you lucky enough to receive HDTV via satellite or over the airwaves, D-VHS will look virtually the same).
Re:I give it six months (Score:2)
All this with consumer level MP4 encoders that are transcoding from MP2 compressed data. I imagine that working with commercial-grade encoders and using the original uncompressed video data, this MP4 on DVD format will be very sucesfull from a performance and technology perspective. As for the politics of it, I expect the MPAA to kill it just to show that they can.
Compress hdtv onto dvd with DivX ;-) (Score:2)
you can't stuff a HDTV movie onto a DVD.
Are you sure? The MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Video codec (used in DivX 5) compresses much tighter than the MPEG-2 video codec (used in DVD-Video). Would it be hard to compress 1280x720p/24 video at a 1 MB/s bitrate?
DVD Advanced Video (Score:2)
To achieve guaranteed dvd-quality, I need to compress movies (in dvd-resolution) with at least 1 Mbit/s when using DivX. And HDTV is 1920 x 1024. That means at least 5 times the information. You'll need alot more than 1mbit.
I said 1 MB/s with a capital B, meaning megabytes per second. I apologize for not being clear enough that I meant 8 megabits per second. Now is 8 Mbit/s big enough for 1920x1024 pixels at 24 fps using MPEG-4 Advanced Simple Video?
And what about the ordinary dvd-players?
And what about the ordinary TVs? Those with ordinary TVs aren't going to need HDTV DVD players.
Not everyone got PC-dvd and just upgrade their software.
MPEG-4 is an international standard. When the DVD forum makes an MPEG-4 based HDTV DVD format, it won't be "DVD Video" anymore, but instead "DVD Advanced Video" or something. Set-top boxes will be sold that advertise "Supports DVD Advanced Video".
Anyhow, you might not even possess the CPU-power to decompress at this resolution realtime.
MPEG standards are written with ASIC decompression in mind. You won't need a set of Athlon processors.
noone is going to alter an established format, if it means that the entire public will have to buy a new dvd-player.
The typical DVD Video player outputs 480i only. Those who have the cash to buy an HDTV set will probably have the cash to buy a DVD Advanced Video player.
The difference... (Score:2)
-- CD's - with widespread adoption of tapes, what is the motivation for taping companies to provide widespread support for another format, with CD readers costing about $2000?
Random access, along with much-improved quality and durability.
-- tapes - with widespread adoption of vinyl disks, what is the motivation for sound companies to provide widespread support for another format, with tape recorders costing about $2000?
Cassette tapes made it possible to carry your music with you anywhere. LP's, 45's and reel-to-reel would never have been practical in a car or a portable music player.
-- vinyl disks -
Compared to what? That was really the first consumer-friendly music format (well, plastic disks, anyway. I don't think the kind of plastic matters much). Edison cylinders weren't really something the kids could use.
-- Internet Explorer/Word/Windows -
A little less obvious, but:
1. Explorer came with Windows, which is what killed Netscape, really. How the heck would you even manage to download Netscape in order to install it in the first place, if you weren't an uber-Geek?
2. I have no explanation for the success of Word - I never really used word processors during the time that Word replaced Wordperfect/Wordstar. I suspect that the rise of Windows did in Wordperfect, though. Which leads to:
3. Windows didn't replace MacOS, it just enabled people who had bought the wrong system in the first place to use a cheap knock-off.
-- WWW - with widespread
Ease of use, pure and simple. I could (and did) use Gopher, news, ftp, and all the rest, but my mother never could.
-Mark
Hey, I've been waiting for this! (Score:4, Funny)
While sarcastic, you're actually correct (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm lucky enough to live in Houston, where I've got 9 HDTV channels to watch on my HDTV. I think that'll be increased soon, Discovery's launching their HDTV channel on the 17th [guidetohometheater.com]
Also, lack of HDTV content does not stop people from purchasing the sets as they can gain an immediate benefit from their existing DVD collection. Most widescreen DVDs are recorded in an "anamorhic" format that shows 33% more detail when viewed on an HDTV set instead of a standard set. I host a movie night every few months and the people that attend are always amazed at what a DVD is capable of given the proper display.
Failed Formats of the Future (Score:2)
Re:Failed Formats of the Future (Score:2)
They were quite the failure. I'm tempted to think that this will fail for some of the same reasons.
If only the media was more permanent, then it would be cool. 1080i--yum.
Cheers,
-b
Re:Failed Formats of the Future (Score:2)
One of the best experiences in my life (pathetic, I know) was watching "TRON" on this dude's laserdisc/home theater setup in 1991, after not having seen the movie since it came out in 1982. This was before file-sharing, or the Super Nintendo. I can understand how nobody relates.
Re:Failed Formats of the Future (Score:2)
Re:Failed Formats of the Future (Score:2)
As for being permanent, well when I worked at a TV Studio, they stored everything on 3/4ths inch tape. It had an impressive storage time. Being digital, these tapes should withstand time a little better than your average VHS tape. If they're smart, and since they are charging a premium for the tape, it's possible they'll last considerably longer than VHS.
This is all speculation, though. This is, afterall, the same industry that thinks we don't have the right to back anything up.
On D-VHS and D-Theater (Score:5, Informative)
D-Theater is a content encryption system. D-VHS is a recording format (MPEG-2 aparently). A D-VHS recorder would allow you to record any HDTV broadcast directly - up to 4 hours of it in fact. Also, D-VHS supports full Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtracks at a bit rate of 576Kbps (higher than DVD's 448Kbps rate). This is being touted as the VHS for the HDTV generation.
Also, while the titles are listed at 35-40 USD Buy.com and BestBuy have them listed at 25-29 USD, so they aren't terribly more expensive than DVDs. Even so, DVDs have market edge on D-VHS (and a few other technological advantages including durability). It seems as if D-Theater is unimportant, but take notice of D-VHS.
Clarification... (Score:2, Insightful)
This new format is for DIGITAL video stored on a MAGNETIC TAPE. This is different from DVD, which is digital data on an optical disk. In terms of performance/quality, there is no clear difference; they are both digital video formats.
However, anyone with a $50 DVD drive in their computer can view/copy DVD discs at will. With D-VHS, there is no easy tape-to-computer interface, only a proprietary player controlled by the movie industry.
This is nothing more than the movie industry's latest attempt to take away accessibility with no real gain in the underlying technology.
This is very close to DIVX (not the video codec), which was a "throwawy DVD" format which was implemented by the movie industry and even sold at Circuit City for awhile. DIVX was a product that had no new technicaly features, and had restricted accessibility. Consumers saw that DIVX was an inferior product, and it quickly went under. D-VHS will no doubt subscribe to the same fate.
Re:Clarification... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Clarification... (Score:3, Informative)
It would be insanely cool if the D-VHS deck's MPEG-2 decoder could understand 3:2 pulldown flags, and generate a true 24fps output. With the right projection system you could essentially get the same image quality as a digital cinema movie theater in your own home! (but you'd need to play it at 1080p (60 frames/sec) or 24p (24 frames/sec), which are unfortunately beyond the range of consumer-level HDTV equipment...
Re:Clarification... (Score:2)
Yes and no. You can pick up a nice *used* CRT front-projection system that will support 1080p for about what a nice new RPTV costs - ~$6K. So many places are making the transition from CRT to digital that the market for high-quality used CRT projectors is approaching saturation. I myself have an electrohome marquee unit with refurbished 9" tubes that originally cost in excess of $30K about 5 years ago and has ended up costing me about $5-6K when all is said and done. This system is capable of fully resolving 1920x1080p and looks simply marvelous.
Also, we are on the cusp of new digital projectors that will do 1280x1024 or 1340x1024 for the same price range and require less hassle to operate 1024 is close enough to 1080p to be indistinguishable. I expect by x-mas or so these new units will be all over the market. Even on the RPTV side, Viewsonic (of all brands!) just announced a 4MegaPixel RPTV in the 40" range for around $4K using similar technology.
Now, if the MPAA would just self-implode on their own rhetoric so that we could get lots of hi-rez content at good prices, we would be set.
Re:Clarification... (Score:4, Informative)
In terms of performance/quality, there is no clear difference; they are both digital video formats
Wrong. DVD is 480i (720x480, interlaced), and can be translated into 480p (progressive scan) by the DVD player.
D-VHS supports HDTV resolutions, including 1080i (1920x1080, interlaced; the most common format), and 720p (1280x720, progressive scan). 1080i is over 4x the resolution/quality of a DVD. THAT is the reason people are interested in this.
With D-VHS, there is no easy tape-to-computer interface
Ever heard of IEEE-1394, aka Firewire? That is the interface that the D-VHS VCR's use. I have read reports of people using these with the Linux IEEE-1394 support, and they also work with XP.
This is very close to DIVX
How so? DIVX had all kinds of features to get more money out of viewers, like charging more if you wanted to view the movie again. D-VHS has nothing like this. It only has an encryption to prevent making copies of the movies (as do DVD's, albeit a very weak scrambling method).
More (clear) information here... (Score:2, Informative)
D-VHS Old News (Score:2)
Since it is in fact raw digital information recorded on the tape, the type of degradation would most likely be dropped frames, motion artifacts, "mosquitos," and the like, rather than the typical problems of "regular" VHS such as snow, color saturation problems, and reduced definition.
Perhaps what this really meant by the article is that High Definition DVHS movies will be available. I have my doubts as to whether or not this will really have an impact on the mainstream video market (perhaps the upscale home theatre market will embrace it). $45 bucks for a video; however, is just rediculous.
So much top tech, such a poor implementation (Score:2)
This thing would be excellent for backing up huge storage, I think it even beats DLT tapes in speed, and certainly it beats them in capacity.
But instead, it's used to store video, in uncompressed form (stupid) and with copy protection. Not to speak that tape devices that use media of this lenght are unsuitable for home usage, where a constant temperature and humidity are not guaranteed, and multiple viewing is the norm.
Plus, this is the age of direct access media (CD, VCD, DVD), will people who got used to DVD accept sequential access?
In conclusion: I think this technology will tank, and not many will shed a tear.
It's compressed. (Score:2)
Re:So much top tech, such a poor implementation (Score:3, Interesting)
D-VHS is an established standard. It has extremely limited acceptance at this point, as it's primary use is for HDTV.
It is not uncompressed HDTV. You can't deal with uncompressed HD in a consumer environment. You can't even deal with uncompressed SD in a consumer environment. Uncompressed HD is 1.5Gb/s, SD is 270Mb/s.
It does not beat DLT in speed, and it might beat it in storage, but it doesn't beat Ultrium.
The tape is physically identical to S-VHS, which works just fine in a home enviroment, thank you very much. It tops out at 28Mb/s, and the promise is that D-Theater releases will use all of that 28Mb/s, as compared to the ATSC (Broadcast HDTV) limit of 19.3Mb/s. And let me tell you that full 19.3Mb/s 1080i is very, very nice as it is.
Oh, HDTV is MPEG2 compression, just like DVD.
And how much random access do you really do on a DVD? Truly random access is locked out by most studio authored DVDs anyway. (It breaks scripting.)
-Z
compression comments (Score:2)
Uncompressed video is actually a good thing... especially for pros that want to do editing/compositing or want to convert to another format. You *don't* want to introduce compression artifacts and other compression ickyness early on in production. That's a *bad* thing. Compression is a last resort step often used to ease broadcast and/or delivery to the consumer. I have a major beef against overly-compressed HD... if I buy a TV capable of HD resolution, the last thing I want to see are high definition chunks of compression artifact crap on my screen. Compression on the standard television side of things is already bad enough --- look at a sub-par station on digital cable or DirecTV... compression artifacts galore. Not quite RealPlayer quality, but close.
I'm sure these will succeed. (Score:3, Funny)
Now, really, I see this taking the place of Beta, MiniDV, and D8 in the content-creation field. It could be rather good for them, because it provides digital video (something Beta doesn't) along with HD support, something MiniDV and D8 can't.
Re:I'm sure these will succeed. (Score:2)
Looking at the cost of media ($35-45 a tape) and equipment ($2k+ a deck), it's safe to assume that should this format flourish anytime soon, it will do so in the high-end consumer / low-end professional market.
Unfortunately, the features just aren't there.
First of all, no professional HD camera maker will ever support D-VHS. Why would one pay big money for a HD camera only to have it support a lossy compression scheme?
How about consumer cameras? There really is no point in using D-VHS over Digital8 or MiniDV when dealing with regular, consumer grade cameras (non-HD) - it's more expensive, bulkier (keep in mind how LARGE vhs tapes are!), unproven, and compressed!
I don't see it taking off in the archival market, either, as no one serious about video would ever archive footage on a lossy compression scheme or with media as susceptable to wear and tear VHS.
Wouldn't some sort of optical solution be much easier to successfully implement?
Re:I'm sure these will succeed. (Score:2)
Linux support on the way (Score:5, Informative)
Several people at avsforum.com have already gotten this working using MPEG2-over-FireWire support built into Windows XP.
Dan Dennedy and I are working on a Linux driver that will provide the same functionality as Windows XP. (it will appear at linux1394.sourceforge.net; it's not ready for release yet though).
D-VHS is a truly versatile format. The deck I have experience with (JVC) can record and play MPEG-2 streams at a wide variety of bitrates (up to 29MBit/sec) and formats (720x480 NTSC up to 1920x1080 HDTV)... The encoding is standard MPEG-2, so you can make and play your own HDTV content (I've done it already), and you could probably also do things like record a DVD to tape without re-compressing the video.
Note however that Windows XP and my drivers can only handle cleartext MPEG-2 streams (either home-made or recorded from broadcast/satellite HDTV). The new "D-Theater" standard is basically like DVD's CSS; the MPEG-2 streams will come in a scrambled format that is "impossible" to read without a licensed decoder.
Re:Linux support on the way (Score:2)
MMM black box decryption.
Re:Linux support on the way (Score:2)
Info on the player (Score:5, Informative)
Manufacturer's suggested retail price: $1999.95
JVC's upcoming HDTV-capable Dish Network receiver will also have a IEEE 1394 (FireWire) connection so it can transfer content directly to the D-VHS box.
Obligatory Link (Score:2)
Is it still considered Karma-whoring when I'm already at my cap?
The Real Story.. (Score:5, Informative)
D-VHS is currently the only format that allows true High Definition resolutions in a removable format. It allows you to record HD content from a HDTV Set Top Box (if the HD receiver is equipped with a firewire port). It also allows playback of pre-recorded movies at 1080i resolution.
DVD's don't have the storage capacity to hold an HDTV movie. Broadcast HDTV is about 9GB per hour. Pre-recorded movies on D-VHS will be even more than that, up to twice the bit rate of broadcast HDTV.
DVD's are at best 480p (720x480), the D-VHS VCR supports HD resolutions, 720p (1280x720) and 1080i (1920x1080). The HD movies are over four times the resolution/quality of DVD's. The difference is very dramatic.
This variant of D-VHS, D-Theater, includes an encrpytion, to stop the pre-recorded movies from being copied (much like CSS was supposed to do with DVD's). That is the only restriction that this format has, which is a welcome change from all the other attempts to control HD content.
The JVC unit also has analog component video outputs, allowing 1080i playback on all existing HDTV's. This capability is one that Hollywood has been threatening to disable in HD receivers (block the "Analog Hole").
If you look at the statistics for HD capable TV's sold vs. HDTV Set Top Boxes, you'll see that most people with the nice 16:9 HD-Capable TV's are not using the full capabilies of their TV's. They are just using them for DVD's. D-VHS could be the first chance for them to really use their HDTV.
Re:The Real Story.. (Score:2)
A couple of nits:
DVD is 480i for NTSC or 576i for PAL. "Progressive Scan" DVD players do inverse telecine either based on MPEG2 flags (which are often wrong) or watching the field cadence. It works under most circumstances, but it's important to note that you can do the same thing with 1080i to get 1080p.
D-Theater (and D-VHS in general) only goes to 28Mb/s. ATSC stops at 19.3, so it's not twice, it's more like 50% higher.
Re:The Real Story.. (Score:2)
Kewl! So where can i download the DeD-Theater code? Can I get it on a t-shirt?
:-)
Re:The Real Story.. (Score:2)
Chanting (Score:2, Interesting)
Besides the obvious nature of prayer has changed so radically from its original intentions to that of mind control. "Guilt, complacancy, and ignorance", that is the mantra from which every religion heaves its breath and rests its fleeced power. Prayer is to center one's self not to engage in the garbled self-referencing and socially distorted ruminations that are planted in religious minds. The only madness that may be worth keeping in this respect is the ritual of self-diety for we have powers that are far beyond the parlour-trick "miracles" of gods.
Alesis ADAT uses SVHS (Score:2)
So, yeah, that was my short answer to "Seems to me you'd lose a lot of that HD picture after a few viewings too."
Tapes shouldn't be more expensive in volume (Score:2)
Re:Tapes shouldn't be more expensive in volume (Score:2)
I spent a lot of time working with floppy duplication in the late eighties/early nineties, and conventional wisdom was that you couldn't duplicate data with the Curie-point process since the transitions were too closely spaced. (Ignoring the double-sided issue for the moment.)
I'm not sure that the contact printers are up to DVHS.
Were you a LaserDisc user? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not meant to replace DVD's.. They are still in the process of milking that market. And, D-VHS has obvious disadvantages in flexibility.
A few years down the road, we will have HD-DVD, which will have the storage capacity for a full HD quality movie. Until then, some of us will be recording HD, and viewing High Definition movies in this format.
I'll gladly retire the D-VHS at that point.. but I am not willing to wait the several years until HD-DVD is here to have my 1080i movies.
Re:Were you a LaserDisc user? (Score:2)
Remember, thousands of people purchased LD players and discs, despite their higher cost, only marginally improved video (although much better audio), slow start, and the limited releases. With D-Theater offering such a quantum leap in quality, I can't really see how it would possibly go away entirely.
Re:Were you a LaserDisc user? (Score:2)
I believe the video quality of LD to be quite a bit better than VHS, the resolution is about 68% higher, and there's often less line jitter and line drop-outs. The added resolution might not be as visible, but often only because of the mastering or the display used. Heck, I have a few LDs that are at least as good as the released DVD, but those are unfortunate cases where the company involved didn't understand DVD.
I never got into LD until after people started selling off their movies and players for cheaper than the equivalent VHS stuff.
I do agree, it's the high-end videophile that will care about D-VHS. Maybe I will look at them when players drop sufficiently in price, the tapes look cheap enough after discounts.
DVHS is already like the audio cassette (Score:2)
Just as the audio cassette has all but died, replaced by CD, CDR, CDRW, minidisk and memory sticks -- so the video tape cassette will also soon be dead.
Remember that several companies tried to breathe life into the dying audio cassette format by fancy analog and digital techniques designed to increase the dynamic range and frequency response -- but it was sheer futility.
And this is how it will be with tape-based video recording, be it analog or digital.
With writeable and rewriteable CD and DVD media cheap and still falling, it's only a matter of time before the video cassette (regardless of its resolution) joins that old turntable you've got up in the attic.
I'm already starting to record many of the programs I want to keep for posterity (such as Junkyard wars episodes) onto CDR or VCD.
Using this technique I can use low resolution (VCD/MPEG1) when I want compatibility with DVD players, higher resolution SVCD (for the DVD) or Divx for the PC.
I've been able to cram nearly two hours of near-VHS quality video and audio onto a single 700MB CDR and at the current price of CDRs, that's a media cost that is lower than for VHS recording.
I've also burnt a few movies using high bitrate Divx encoding and I can still get a near-broadcast quality recording of an entire movie on a high-capacity CDR.
Once DVDR/RW drives and their media get cheaper then tape will be well and truly dead -- thank goodness.
I'm actually really pissed right now that some rare music vids I taped about four or five years ago on a top-of-the-line Sony VCR will no longer play cleanly. I paid a premium for top-quality tape, stored them very carefully and they've only been played a handful of times but now, when I went to burn them to CDR, they won't all play without color and stereo sound drop-outs in a few places.
Give me disk-based media over tape anyday!
Of course there will probably be a whole clique of videophiles who'll come out of the woodwork and claim that analog recordings have a better "warmth" and color tones than their digital equivalents.
These sandal-wearing, yoghurt-loving, tree-huggers would also just love to have a VCR that was filled with vacuum tubes rather than silicon -- so that the sound was also good
True "Home Theater" (Score:2)
and top it off with a kick ass DD5.1 / DTS surround sound system, and you're getting dangerously close to the digital theaters that George Lucas was pushing for Episode 2.
Episode 2 was recorded in 1080/24p, HD resolution.
This equipment gets you pretty darn close to a digital theater in the comfort of your own home.
digital production (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Fast forward a year after your purchase... (Score:2)
DVHS's purpose is QUALITY, not convienence. Far superior to a DVD. If you enjoy jumping around to different parts of a movie, like being the remote jockey, or do not have a HDTV, then it is not for you. If you do have a HDTV and this does not at least spark your interest, you got burned by a TV salesman.
Some people would rather sit back in thier home theater room and watch a full resolution HD movie without interuption.
It very well may flop, you may not find enough of these people to keep it floating.
Fight Club Plot (Score:2, Funny)
The Market (walking alone): Du-de-du... Du-de-...*OUCH!* (somebody hit him)
The Market: Who are you?
The Stranger: I'm the D-VHS, and this is your last week on this planet...!
[to be continued....]
(I can see my karma fallin'...!)
Purpose of this whole thing (Score:2, Insightful)
My original thought when reading this was: "Okay, so they think that John Q. is going to buy a video for $35-45, instead of a $17 DVD at Best Buy; and a $2000+ player instead of a crappy (but still decent for John Q.) DVD player for under $100 (also at Best Buy). For a movie that might stretch out and fade in unspecified way after a few viewings.. And one you can't skip through real fast like a DVD, or copy (What? Did I say copy? John Q.'ll have to give it to his 10-year old son whose a DeCSS expert to do that.)
But then it dawned on me: what they want to happen is that the format will be used by a select few for movies now (I have no idea which select few this is, but I'm sure it exists - there are a lot of bored hundred-thousand-aires out there I think) Add the benefit that they (as well as John Q.) will be able to record HDTV at full quality, for 2006 when everything has to go digital (Yeah, RIGHT!!) And it'll be copyright protected. (oops, John Q. missed that. Or he doesn't care.)
But the prices will come down, if only becasue the production of the custom ASICs that are in it will get ramped up, or more people start making them.
People here say that for a movie, they'd much rather watch a DVD, and for recording, they'd much rather use Tivo. Yes, they would. They're parents might even prefer a DVD for movies. Depending on who they're parents are, they might prefer a Tivo to tapes (the advantage is very high, but until you have seen it, the percieved entry-barrier to techno-phobes is also high) But do you think you're grand-mother will prefer DVD or Tivo? I know mine won't. She won't even touch a VCR, and didn't tough a microwave oven for the longest time (until we bought her one
I also think that at some point they want to get rid of the VCR completely - not that that would be easy - not only would they piss off consumer groups, electronics makers, computer makers, civil libertarians, real conservatives (the ones for smaller and less-intrusive government), and some artists groups [RAC for one], they would go on to alienate the entire video rental industry - although it seems to be transitioning to DVD pretty well..
The industry (or at least some powerful people in it) think that Sony-Betamax was a mistake. They don't want to overturn it per se, they just want to make it obsolete. By introducing D-VHS, which includes copyright-protection, and the overbroad-DMCA which enforces it, and armies of layers to play whack-a-mole with the P2P operators, and.. and armies of cloned cryogenically-frozen G-Men from Nazi Germany to go after the entire Napster Generation! (Well, we're not quite there yet..)
Some say the Betaxmax base should still hold. And I agree, it should. But that's another court case, for another day, in a different age than it was in the '70s (or whever Betamax was decided), I think a narrower Supreme Court (though I really have no idea on this one), and a Conngress that was less monetary-influenced and "pro-active" (in the wrong way) on these matters. And a public that was less apathetic than it was today (of course, I was born in 1978 - maybe politics really has always been going to hell in a handbasket!)
Horribly Backwards Design (Score:2)
Gotta hand it to JVC for convincing them that their D-Theater isn't gonna be cracked like *every* other copy-protection standard.
You'd think with all the money they make the studios could hire someone intelligent for a change.
Switching back to tape!? (Score:2)
Is it still considered unbreakable... (Score:2)
Re:OMG (Score:2)
Tape sucks. It's obsolete. Case closed.
Re:OMG (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, discs are more convenient for the consumer, but with D-Theater provding such a vastly, vastly increased picture quality (and better audio to boot), there is going to be a market for this I think.
People have been declaring tape dead for years, and it hasn't happened yet. No doubt it eventually will, but there are places where other formats just can't compete.
Re:D-Beta! (Score:2, Interesting)
From the technical glossary of video terms:
Digital Betacam
Digital successor to the venerable Betacam SP format. Introduced by Sony in 1993, uses physically similar half-inch cassettes.
Camcorders with 40-minute capacity are available, making Digital Betacam the first component digital ENG (electronic news
gathering) format. Digital Betacam units play back, but do not record analogue Beta SP tapes.
Re:In the 'What Ever Happened To' Column.. (Score:2, Interesting)
It will be released then, ta dah!, on BETA tape, Digital BETA too. Why, because that's what the professionals use, and have done for years. (You thought the cable company digitized off 35mm film?)
The question has to be, why, given the existence of DVC and DVC-pro variants, do we need this new format? Oh, because it's copy protected... (briefly).
Flavors of Beta... (Score:3, Interesting)
True, most professionals still use Beta... however, and as you somewhat pointed out, they mostly use Digital Betacam ("DigiBeta") and Betacam SP. Both are uncompressed and are more than enough to store NTSC/PAL as good as they'll get. There is no need for anything greater unless you're ready to go to HD. (A side note... while Betacam SP is as good as uncompressed analog gets, DigiBeta came about as a lower cost replacement to D1, the original full-quality digital tape -- however D1 decks easily cost $400K+, an hour worth of blank tape - $400. DigiBeta is a dream come true for mid-sized video firms... NTSC as good as it'll get, uncompressed, and ready for the editing/compositing workstation. Betacam SP looks just as good, but because it's analog, requires time-consuming digitizing before it can be worked with on a workstation or PC/Mac.)
There are many other forms of Beta... including the new Betacam SX (which is compressed digital and suffers from the same compression artifacts that pop up on other similar compressed "DV" formats -- Digital 8, MiniDV, DVCAM, DVCPro. "DV" formats are great for home and small business use, with a compressed data stream of about 25Mbit/sec... but it's often loathed by pros due to artifacting and compositing work. Basicly, if you want full quality, go uncompressed. RAID storage is there, workstation hardware is there. Leave the comprssed stuff to Win/Mac users with their FinalCutPro-type software. Real users want DigiBeta and an Onyx3000 running Discreet Inferno or IFX Piranha.).
Anyhow...
Beta came (somewhat) popular with the release of 1/2" consumer Betamax, based off of the similar but much more expensive 3/4" U-MATIC decks. ED-Beta with 400 lines of resolution came out a few years later. Betacam followed with about 440 lines. Betacam SP with nearly 500 lines followed, providing more than enough quality for broadcast/archival NTSC. With the advent of Betacam SP (and competing Panasonic M-II) the video world began to improve optics as the tape side of things was already as good enough. Though you'll still see a lot of spec sheet padding and other BS when various vendors talk up their "lines of resolution".
Re:Flavors of Beta... (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong. Neither BetaSP or Digi are uncompressed. Frankly, it's depressing how often I need to disabuse people of this one, but here we go again. BetaSP records it's Luma component at 13.5Mhz, but it's 2 Chroma components at 6.75Mhz ie, half the bandwidth. Digibeta conforms to the 4:2:2 colour subsampling standard where it does the same thing as BetaSP, just in the digital domain. Digibeta aslo uses DCT intra-field compression of the order of 1.8:1. There is only ONE uncompressed tape format available, and that's the Philips Shadow (sometimes called D6) which allows proper 4:4:4 in RGB or Y,Cr,Cb. Panasonics D-5 format allows uncompressed 4:2:2 at 10bit and is also, therefore superior to Digibeta. And, erm, D1 machines certainly do NOT cost $400K - where'd you get that from? I saw a DVR-2100 for £20K the other day.
Re:frost pist (Score:2)
Is it silly to pay that much? I guess that's a matter of perspective. I think it'd be cool to make $200,000 a year, but I have trouble imagining what all I'd spend that on heh.
I do believe that if this format takes off that they'll get to the $100 to $200 range before too long.
Re:can't copy tape? (Score:2)
DVD, D-VHS - different markets. (Score:2)
Personally I do think that this will fail, but its because the hi-end Home Cinema fanatics are all used to the superiority of using a disc format - DVD, and before that Laserdisc and even in a few cases the HiVision laserdiscs that Pioneer produced in small numbers for demonstrating their HDTVs with in Japan (these are a thing of beauty and a joy to behold, by the way). They don't want to go back to tape, certainly not something with the VHS name on it.
So, it'll die, but through a combination of the inherent and percieved image problems of tapes, not because this doesn't offer anything over DVD.
Re:One acronym: DVD (Score:2)
Re:or superbit DVD (Score:2)
Where do you people get this crap? Superbit discs are DVDs, therefore they are DVD resolution.
What sets Superbit apart is that the films are transferred by people who give a shit about image quality. Which is admittedly quite rare.
-Z
superbit is dvd, it's not hd (Score:2)
It'll be huge in Japan (Score:2)
Re:DOA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:DOA (Score:2)
Personally, I think the D-VHS format could be mildly successful if it provides higher definition than DVD's. I have a concern that when I get HDTV my DVD's will look kind of soft when compared to the 1920 by 1024 format.
Re: DOA -- Definitely DOA (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason you have this attitude towards tape is that analog tape suffers degradation over time (tape becomes worn, quality degrades over generational copying, etc.). Keep in mind that nearly all music producers master to DAT first, which is similar to DVHS. D, being digital, means zeroes and ones are getting stored, and they don't degrade much over time and have almost zero noticable artifacts between generational copies. DAT master tapes sound the same after 1000 times of being played, unlike analog cassette tapes you're used to.
I can see DVHS being handy for TV stations replacing Beta, but not much else. Who needs another format in this day and age? Sure, maybe you can copy your favorite stuff in full res from your satellite now, but overall DVD has more advantages.
Re: DOA -- Definitely DOA (Score:2)
That means...
Fast forwarding and rewinding. (No random access)
Wrinkles and crinkles.
Tape jams.
Dirty heads.
More mechanics in the tape deck so higher maintenance.
Re: DOA -- Definitely DOA (Score:2)
The reason I have that attitude towards tape is that is is not random access.
The video on my Tivo (at the medium setting, which is what I use for most things) isn't all that much better than VHS, and it's probably not as good as SVHS, but I would never go back to them. Having the data available in a format with random access allows me to just jump to a favourite scene or the special features.
I can't seeing ever using a sequential access device for content viewing/listening ever again.
Milalwi
Re:Ok, I'm Impressed (Score:2)
I think the maximum data rate in this D-VHS is 28Mbps.
As a point of comparison, broadcast 1080i HDTV is done at approximately 19Mbps.
Re:I've seen D-VHS in action and... (Score:2)
it's all about RESOLUTION! (Score:2)
Though DVD no longer has the best picture quality, thankfully the audio quality is still one of the top leaders. Dolby Digital and DTS are my friends!
buyer beware (Score:2)
Buyer Beware! I dunno about you, but I'm gonna wait. Standard-definition gear is already cheap enough that I've been making great use of it -- DVDs, progressive scan DVD player, Sony Vega and Panasonic Panaflat TV, DolbyDigital & DTS reciever with good speakers.