Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

First Blu-ray Drives Won't play Blu-ray Movies 329

aapold writes "Sony officially announced its BWU-100A product at its "Experience More 2006" event in Sydney yesterday, all the while acknowledging that there's significant room for improvement before the product is viable for integration into media centre PCs. Sony's product manager for data storage, told CNET.com.au that due to copy protection issues and lagging software development, the drive will only play user-recorded high-definition content from a digital camcorder, and not commercial movies released under the BD format." All this hullabaloo makes me want neither side to win. If only I didn't desperately crave HD content on my TV!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First Blu-ray Drives Won't play Blu-ray Movies

Comments Filter:
  • by DeeDob ( 966086 ) on Friday August 11, 2006 @04:52PM (#15891497)
    I think that HDDVDs specs were made the DVD consortium that tried to establish a standard, just like they did with the DVD.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Forum [wikipedia.org]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD [wikipedia.org]

    It's funny to note that the following companies founded the DVD consortium:
    Hitachi, Ltd.
    Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.
    Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
    Pioneer Electronic Corporation
    Royal Philips Electronics N.V.
    Sony Corporation
    Thomson
    Time Warner Inc.
    Toshiba Corporation
    Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (JVC)

    Note the little "Sony".

    Then Sony came in with BluRay and offered an alternative to the "standard" that was supposed to be HDDVD. Going against the wishes of the consortium they helped to create in the first place.

  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)

    by MrSquirrel ( 976630 ) on Friday August 11, 2006 @04:57PM (#15891535)
    1 GB per dollar - Memorex Blu-Ray write-once disc: $25, 25 GB
    http://focuscamera.com/sc/froogle-lead-1.asp?id=96 4669100&rf=froogle&dfdate=08_10_2006&sid=362233316 [focuscamera.com]

    2.9 GB per dollar - Samsung Spinpoint: $55, 160 GB harddrive
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82 E16822152020 [newegg.com]

    And that is just the blu-ray disc, not the drive.
  • *cough* *cough* (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cynonamous Anoward ( 994767 ) on Friday August 11, 2006 @05:11PM (#15891612)
    a little tip - www.divx.com - DivX 6.1 Supports 720p. plans for 1080i and even 1080p in the works, all with advanced MPEG-4 encoding features, to preserve high quality at extremely low bitrates. DVD players should be out in time for Xmas, at price points only slightly above current SD DVD players. DivX 6 can squish a full length HD movie onto a single DVD, including multiple audio and subtitle tracks. screw new discs, new hardware, new DRM, and new high prices. kthnx.
  • by Com2Kid ( 142006 ) <com2kidSPAMLESS@gmail.com> on Friday August 11, 2006 @05:26PM (#15891721) Homepage Journal
    Why 35 GB?

    A high quality DVD rip of a movie is around 2GB. double the resolution, and you end up with at most a 8GB movie, ignoring any improvements in what compression techniques could offer, after all, a large splotch of black is still a large splotch of black, no matter what resolution you are recording it at.

    8GB is a reasonable download size.

    I really wonder WTF technology these companies are using to make their HD content look so crappy. Any DVD pirate who takes pride in his/her work does a far superior job on encoding than these "professionals" do on their commercial stuff.
  • by stunt_penguin ( 906223 ) on Friday August 11, 2006 @05:59PM (#15891901)
    "A high quality DVD rip of a movie is around 2GB"

    Wrong. A high quality DVD rip of a movie is around 5-7GB. Your definition of high quality must be lacking.

    double the resolution, and you end up with at most....

    I don't want to double the resolution, I want HD. 1080p video has double the frame rate, a higher colour depth and four times as many pixels as a DVD. With normal MPEG 2 your 8GB DVD becomes more like 64GB. Then factor in your newer compression techniques and we come back down to 30-40GB. You're not going to get a HD movie on a disc for less than 25GB.

    Shit, the HD video I shoot with the HDR HC1 isn't even full 1080i res and it comes to 10GB an hour.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday August 11, 2006 @07:57PM (#15892379)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:HD is overrated (Score:5, Informative)

    by iluvcapra ( 782887 ) on Friday August 11, 2006 @09:41PM (#15892684)

    Funny you ask, we recently had a special edition of The Natural in the shop...

    For picture, the best you can get is either an interpositive (which is just one generation down from the camera negative), or the camera negative itself. The camera neg is often in not great shape, though, since it's been cut and A-B rolled. Also dust on the interpositive looks black, whereas dust on the cam neg looks white, and camera neg doesn't have the printer lights from timing I recall (I'm a sound guy, if someone at a lab is reading, please correct me). Interpositives are low-contrast prints of the camera negative, on one strip, and they're usually only run thru a printer a few times, once to strike the IP itself, and once to strike a few internegatives (these are what release prints are struck from).

    For sound, the sound optical is usually contact printed onto the IP, but we almost always go back to the original Dialogue/Music/FX stems, which are recorded on 35mm magnetic film. 35mm mag film actually has quite high fidelity, nearly 70dB dynamic range and at least 15 kHz on the high end, so often the the mag sounds a bit better than what is on the optical. As well, the stems will have the discrete speaker channels (particularly the center speaker and surround), which are derived from the optical but do not actually exist on it, so we can "widen" the original mix from it's original format (either 4-channel Dolby Stereo or less) into a true 5.1.

    If the filmmaker is still alive, he/she'll often sit thru the mix (my end of it) and have some new sound FX cut to modernize the sound, and maybe even try to rearrange some dialogue he didn't like or tweak the music levels (since we have separated stems, he can change either DIA, MX or FX without affecting the other two.) The Superman DVD WB has out right now is a good example of this from a sound point of view (also a great movie).

    Coincidentally, The Natural was released and is owned by TriStar Pictures, which was bought in the late 80s by Columbia, which was itself bought in the early 1990s by... Sony. (fair disclosure: Sony PIctures Entertainment is my current employer).

  • Re:You for got 4.5! (Score:2, Informative)

    by jasonwc ( 939262 ) on Friday August 11, 2006 @11:06PM (#15892891)
    Bluray and HD-DVD both support MPEG-2, Microsoft's VC1 codec, and H.264. Currently, most released HD-DVD movies were encoded in VC1 and most if not all Bluray titles were encoded in MPEG-2. This doesn't mean that one or both will begin using H.264 in the future, which is clearly the superior format in terms of quality. As both formats support all three formats, I don't see why you believe that HD-DVD is tied to VC1?

    What I can't understand is why in the hell Bluray movies are being encoded in MPEG-2. They're currently using single layer 25 GB disks because the technology to mass produce dual-layer disks just isn't operational yet. With this limited amount of space (for HD content) it makes no sense to use a bitrate hungry format like MPEG-2. They would be far better off using H.264 of VC1. The use of VC1 and the 5 GB space advantage has given HD-DVD the edge in video quality. Numerous reviews have stated that HD-DVD movies are incredible in detail and clarity while Bluray is generally disappointing.

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Working...