What will be DVD's successor?

Dumb. Dumb for putting all their eggs in one basket and dumb for not backing up on disk beforehand.

Backing up online would still be useful for backing up what you have already copied onto disks. It would certainly give me peace of mind. I wouldn’t entrust my online backups to just one provider though. I’d probably send it to two places (Google and Yahoo, for example) in case, as you say, one of them manages to f**k up. A fellow Forumosan said she had several online photo albums disappear when the site’s hardware malfunctioned. cough[fotki]cough She wasn’t best pleased.

There’s the simple matter of expense, too. A mini-HD costs what, NT$3000? Compared to NT$25 or so for a DVD-RW?

I always thought that Philips developed the CD. At least, that’s what I was told at one ex-employer, which was partially owned by Philips NV.

For anyone who deals with large amts of data or a set of critical files, it’s probably a good idea to have a set of backups stored off-site - maybe in a safety deposit box. The temp and humidity levels are controlled, for starters.

Time to put on my iconoclast hat again…

Who wants this new format, be it HD or Blu-ray? It’s not the public that’s demanding it. A full-length movie easily fits on a DVD. If using a DVD for data storage, you get at least 4.5GB, certainly far more than I’ll ever need.

The reason behind this sudden big push for a new format is money. The money comes from several different directions. First, every time you purchase a DVD player, a certain percentage is going to the DVD Consortium that holds the patents. DVDs were invented in 1995 but the mpeg-2 standard was invented in 1994, so they should have 9 more years until it expires and the gravy train will end. A new standard will mean another 20-year steady stream of patent revenue for the manufacturers. That’s why there is a tug-of-war right now for two competing standards.

There’s also the fact that you’ll have to buy all new equipment.

But it’s more than just patents and new hardware. It’s also DRM - digital rights management. This is, in fact, more important. The DVD 40-bit encryption system was broken by a 16-year Norwegian hacker Jon Lech Johansen. He was prosecuted for this at the insistence of the MPAA (Motion Picture Ass. of America), but Jon won his case. Anyway, there is now software to rip and burn DVDs, something that has made the MPAA hysterical. So they want another standard, and you can bet your dental work that they are going for a much stronger 128-bit encryption system. And it’s not just encryption - expect them to take new measures to prevent breaking region coding. And new methods to force you to watch the advertisements and the threatening FBI copyright warning.

I see no reason why I would want a new format, especially with this DRM shit. Plus it’s a given that these new high-density formats will be even more sensitive to scratching than DVDs, which are already far worse than CDs. So if I have a choice in the matter, I think I’ll just pass.

At least I know what I don’t want for Christmas.

cheers,
Robert

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

.

There’s the simple matter of expense, too. A mini-HD costs what, NT$3000? Compared to NT$25 or so for a DVD-RW?[/quote]

Fair enough MaPo, but you’re forgetting the initial cost of the DVD/RW.
One could pick up an 80+ GB portable drive for less.
This and the fact that current DVD/RWs are still somewhat unstable, slow and in many ways resemble the CD-RWs of yesteryear. For example, the fact that one would obviously want to slow the copying speed in hopes of adding stability to the process, would bring the speed down even lower than the already slow 16x. I wouldn’t complain about it if we were only talking about a tiny 700MB burn, but 8GBs!?!?!?

Does anybody remember the days of starting your CD burner and and coming home after grocery shopping to find that it’s only 99% complete?

Life’s just tooo short.

I’ve had to replace a few now, and notice people doing it all the time when I’m strolling through the market.

I always thought that Philips developed the CD. At least, that’s what I was told at one ex-employer, which was partially owned by Philips NV.[/quote]

MaPo gets the fuzzy dice!!!

While robert_storey’s theories of why there is a big push for new formats may have some truth to them, the main push is to get HD capability. DVDs top out at 720x480 resolution and are relatively inflexible on encoding formats. HD on the other hand can go up to 1920x1200 resolution, and there’s at least three leading encoding formats for the video alone. While HD is still evolving slowly, it is now starting to pick up steam in markets such as Japan and US where you can get a variety of broadcast, cable and satellite channels in HD. Yes, DVD has a pretty nice picture, but HD really blows it out of the water in quality. It will take a while before the cost of HD becomes more affordable though, with equipment costs of USD3k being a typical minimum.

Good quality 8X Ritek media goes for about TWD20 currently. 4X media goes for TWD10-17 depending on the quality.

TWD2000 and up now for 8X burners. Probably still going to go down a lot. DigiTimes recently reported that the wholesale cost of 16X burners was down to around USD55.

While it is true that most people aren’t burning at 16X yet because 16X media is still expensive, it is quite affordable to get good quality 8X media. Almost all of the stability problems currently are due to using the cheapest media. I’ve had problems with cheaper stuff, but I’ve only ever had a couple of problems EVER with Ritek media in 3 years of using it (and I go through a 50-pack every two months these days). I also never have to do slower burns to get acceptable burns with good media. Any media that can’t reliably be burned at the rated speed is quite simply crap. The media is cheap enough now that spending TWD5-7 more to get something rock solid is not a bad bargain. Even at the cheaper end, you can get pretty good quality media for just TWD1-2 more than the cheapest crap.

And I’m not sure what your rant about slow burns is about. The CD and DVD speed numbers are not at all the same. 1X DVD is about the same as 9X CD as far as data transfer rate. They are both roughly standardized to 1X meaning a full disk burn in one hour. In practical numbers, you can do a DVD full disk 8X burn in about 8-9 minutes. (DVD burn times are not linear above 4X speed because they burn at different speeds in different parts of the disk. CD burners are also non-linear above around 8X-12X depending on the burner.) Since upgrading to 4X, I haven’t felt that burn times were particularly slow any more, and 8X is even better. 16X (once media is more available) will push things down to about 5 minutes, which is pretty negligible. I will grant you that it is still easier to drag and drop some files onto an HD, but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.

A year ago I would have agreed that DVD burners weren’t for everyone, mainly due to cost, but these days the costs are low enough that almost any computer user can easily afford it.

jlick said just about everything I wanted to say.

I’ll just add there are plenty of people who work with large numbers of (very large) files and need the added capacity of a 10 or 20 GB disc. DVDrs are already revolutionizing the way data is transfered between colleagues and companies.

Those of us who suffered through floppies, then ZIP or JAZZ disks, then platforms like MOs, then moving on to CDRs (most of which have decomposed by now they were so badly made) and now onto excellent (but still not large enough capacity) DVDrs are very happy indeed that a large capacity DVDr is on the way.

I can understand that the common consumer will not see the advantage. But for quite a lot of professionals, the advantage of these new platforms is staggering.

Some interesting news on this topic recently:

The HD-DVD group has made a dual format disk that will play as a regular DVD in a DVD player and as an HD-DVD in an HD-DVD player. Basically what they do is produce a dual layer disk with the top layer being a regular DVD, and the bottom layer being HD-DVD. Traditional DVD players will think it is just a single layer normal DVD, while HD-DVD players will be able to use the HD-DVD layer. The drawback is you only have one usable layer per standard. Most commercial DVDs are dual layer to improve picture quality or record more material.
pcworld.com/news/article/0%2 … 9%2C00.asp

And Disney has joined Sony and MGM on the relatively short list of studios supporting BluRay.
news.com.com/Disney+to+support+B … 84191.html

Actually, the Disney addition gives Blu Ray an edge in terms of the percentage of studios (ie, the percentage of DVDs sold) supporting the format. But it’s a REALLY narrow lead.

Looks like this is going to be a very nasty duke em out! :noway: :astonished:

Let the price wars began!

Now the only question is, when will Microsoft come along with its own format to try to worm into the game? :stuck_out_tongue:

They are already in the running for video formats. Above I mentioned that there were about three leading video formats for the new formats. The first is MPEG-2 for backward compatibility with DVD, MPEG-4 in various forms, and a format based on Windows Media Video. The first two formats are shoe-ins, but I have a feeling the WMV will also make it to the final required formats lists.

Thomson, a European electronics brand which has been backing Blu-Ray has announced that it will support HD-DVD as well.

pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,118897,00.asp

To my no big surprise, it looks like draconian DRM will indeed encumber the new high-resolution formats. Seems that if you play a pirated disk, your player will disable itself:

theregister.co.uk/2004/12/15 … _research/

Also looks like a fight to the death over which standard to adopt.

cheers,
Robert

“Greed is good.”
– Gordon Gecko (Michael Douglas) in the movie “Wall Street”

[quote=“jlick”]
And I’m not sure what your rant about slow burns is about. The CD and DVD speed numbers are not at all the same. 1X DVD is about the same as 9X CD as far as data transfer rate. They are both roughly standardized to 1X meaning a full disk burn in one hour. In practical numbers, you can do a DVD full disk 8X burn in about 8-9 minutes. (DVD burn times are not linear above 4X speed because they burn at different speeds in different parts of the disk. CD burners are also non-linear above around 8X-12X depending on the burner.) Since upgrading to 4X, I haven’t felt that burn times were particularly slow any more, and 8X is even better. 16X (once media is more available) will push things down to about 5 minutes, which is pretty negligible. I will grant you that it is still easier to drag and drop some files onto an HD, but I don’t think it’s that big of a deal.[/quote]

Good points.
I haven’t used one since they first came out, and it felt a little long to wait for a disk, if your not doing data backup.
As for times not being linear above the 1x, I was unaware of that.
That being said, I think the time has come to take a deeper look again and perhaps reevaluate.
Should do that anyway as the tri format dual layer drives are now on the market. :saywhat:
All the more reason to hold off till they get it straight, so to speak.
Seems like there’s still room for growth, and I’m in no hurry or need for it anyway.
The fact that my CD-RW is good enough to burn mp3s for me listen to in car, backup data, and copy most if not all of the files that my friends and customers ask for like drivers is good enough for me.

I suppose that it’s possible that I’m in the minority though.:idunno:

I think I’m still running under that impression.

Still think that the portable drives are where we’re going.

Plugging in a drive and then copying files to/from it is slightly more efficient than dealing with the burn process(you’d be surprised as to how lazy I can get when in front of my computer :blush: ). Besides, USB ports are all too common these days.
There’s also the fact that CDs just add to growing waste issues around the world. I’ve got a ton of them laying around as coasters( you get one with almost anything you buy these days).

Philips plans to have a CD/DVD/BluRay burner for computers out in the second half of 2005.

Article here.

Go Blu-Ray! :wink:

Blu-ray Disc Gains Gaming Support

Disney Backs Blu-ray Standard

I’m pretty sure my first experience with one of these next gen devices will be in a gaming console. I’m certain that console will be the PS3. This does look like it’s going to be a nasty fight. It can’t be good when articles says things like “chose the [insert] side”.

Blu-Ray is a cooler name anyway. Sounds like some sort of mysterious Deep Sea Creature. I like Blue lights too, so it gets my vote.

That’s what I’m saying. :bravo: :laughing:

That’s what I’m saying. :bravo: :laughing:[/quote]

But HD DVD and Blue Ray both use blue lights.

Ok, I’ve been reading a little about the subject, but I’m no techie, so someone please correct me where I’m wrong. Ninety percent of consumers are presently perfectly content with standard DVDs, but 10% are starting to buy High Definition TVs, so now the industry needs to create high definition DVDs for them, because a high definition movie consists of more data than will fit on a standard DVD. There are several ways one can cram more data on a disc. Instead of using red lasers, one can go with one of the new blue laser technologies that are being developed – primarily HD DVD or Blue Ray, which hold 15 gigabyte on a single layer disc or 25 gig single layer/50 gig dual layer disc respectively. HD DVD is backed by Toshiba, NEC, Sanyo and the Hollywood studios; Blue Ray by Sony, Dell, HP, Thomson and Disney, and so far its hard to say who will win.

Meanwhile, China is working on its own compression standard – AVS – with the assistance of Philips, IBM and Microsoft. Will that be comparable to the above two technologies – a means of cramming more data on discs to facilitate high definition TV and DRM?

And then there’s DivX. DivX is an alternative means of compressing video data to facilitate HDTV, but it doesn’t involve blue laser. Instead it’s a program that incorporates MPEG-4, a codec developed based on extensive industry cooperation. Proponents of HD DVD and Blue Ray claim DivX produces inferior quality video, but in truth its biggest hurdle is that the major studios refuse to back it because they’re afraid of piracy.

What would it mean if they did back it? What would they do? Sell HD movies that can be played with DivX software? And, aside from the fact that DivX doesnt’ use blue laser, what’s the difference between it and HD DVD or Blue Laser? Can consumers download DivX software off the Internet, but they must purchase blue laser solutions as hardware?

I liked Robt Storey’s post explaining his theory that the whole thing is really about manufacturers and the movie studios trying to find a way to sell new hardware and discs. It’s my understanding that presently people aren’t biting, because the blue laser DVD players are costly, with some going for as much as $1,000, while one can get a standard DVD player for $40, but that should change soon as prices should start dropping dramatically by the end of this year. Meanwhile, that’s one thing DivX has going for it – that it’s cheaper – but since the major studios won’t back it I’m not sure what one can watch on it (home movies one burned with DivX software?)

I hope I got much of this right. Thanks for straightening me out on the parts that I didn’t.

Divx is just a software thing. It has nothing to do with lasers. Blu-Ray has a higher (25GB on a single I think) capacity than HDDVD does (15GB like you said).

I read an article not too long ago (on yahoo) that said another big factor on who will win this media war is the porno industry. It then went on to describe how it was pr0n (as I like to call it) that brought the Internet into people’s houses, decided the VHS/Beta fight, and drove DVD sales. I’m not sure how true all that is, but I’m sure where the porn goes LOTS of money will follow.

It said the bigger porn studios liked Blue-Ray because of the higher disk capacity (allowing for more content and more multiple angles) and the smaller studios liked HDDVD more since it would be cheaper to produce.