Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > DVD Video > HDDVD/Bluray: stillborn or coma

Reply
Thread Tools

HDDVD/Bluray: stillborn or coma

 
 
JoeBloe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007
On 1 Jan 2007 19:00:53 -0800, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) Gave us:

>It is harder to get something declared - and enforced - as an
>infringing import in most/all of the EU. Since the OP was talking about
>prices in UKP, I assume he's in Her Majesty's United Kingdom of Great
>Britain and Northern Ireland.



You can goddamn bet that if a CE marked shipment is found to be
other than CE compliant, it gets held. I worked for companies with
plants and offices in the US and UK, as well as India, China, and
Germany.

The same **** is gonna go down over RoHS compliance.

I don't care what your perception of how hard it is to implement.
It DOES take place, so it IS happening.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
zwsdotcom@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007

JoeBloe wrote:

> other than CE compliant, it gets held. I worked for companies with
> plants and offices in the US and UK, as well as India, China, and
> Germany.


Bully for you. I currently work - as an electronics design engineer -
for a Fortune 50 multinational. My designs are collaborative with
engineering teams in India, China, France and Germany. They're
mass-produced in Mexico, China and the Czech Republic. Do I win?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
M.I.5
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007

"Tony Morgan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> In message <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
> (E-Mail Removed) writes
>>
>>Neck & Red wrote:
>>
>>> Why would the consumer want to buy a new tiny monitor and video card
>>> when
>>> he's got a 50" or bigger HDTV in his living room?

>>
>>Most people don't have these.
>>
>>> Oh, and HD-DVD blows away the picture quality of a movie theater.

>>
>>Really? So 1920 by 1080 pixels or 1280 by 720 pixels from HDDVD
>>are larger than images that are 2048, 4096 or 8192 pixels wide?
>>Where did you learn math, from George Bush?
>>

> And Neck & Red seem to have the same clue as George Bush.
>
> My 17" 1920x1200 laptop screen viewed from between 2 and 3 feet looks
> (subject to source) far better than a 50" wall-mounted TV viewed from
> between 12 and 20 feet.
>
> The general public has been well and truly conned by the marketing men
> with their TV sales line of "HD-Ready". Worse, many (most?), have been
> coerced into paying top-dollar prices for HD-Ready TVs - when in a couple
> of years (when HD media/broadcast becomes more universally and readily
> available) because of economies of high-volume production coupled with
> competitive pressures, the public will be paying a fraction of today's
> prices.
>
> Insofar as media is concerned, double the resolution means file-size
> quadrupling - and AFAIK there's a finite amount of data that can be held
> on a DVD, so where will we be going? Two/ three DVD disks per movie?
>
> Digital broadcasting can ( and does) provide the bandwidth needed to
> present HD content - but DVDs? - no way.
>


HDDVD/Bluray has considerably more space than vanilla DVD. Around 5 to 6
times the space.


 
Reply With Quote
 
chrisv
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007
Bobbie wrote:

>Uuuum, because if they bought that HDTV with HDMI input prior to February
>of 2006 they'd be SOL so far as connecting a HDCP compliant device to that
>old and now antiquated HDMI television. I'd mush rather leave the unusable
>antique hanging in the living room and just buy a decent 16:9 monitor for
>the computer. It'd be much cheaper.


Sorry, but I'm lost. I'd have sworn that HDCP has been built-into
digital televisions for years. I'd have sworn that my
several-year-old widescreen CRT box, which is too old to have HDMI on
it, has a fully HDCP-compliant DVI input.

Please provide proof of your assertions that HDCP has "changed" so
that older HDCP-compliant displays will not work.

In any case, you can still use the component-video inputs.

 
Reply With Quote
 
chrisv
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007
Bobbie wrote:

>Ummm. Except for one problem. DVD was a very noticeable improvement over
>VHS and S-VHS. HD-DVD / Blue-Ray isn't all that noticeable of an
>improvement over DVD. If marginal improvement drove innovation then S-VHS
>would have replaced VHS and Digital Compact Cassette would have replaced
>the conventional cassette.


I tend to agree with this. Anamorphic DVD finally gave us movies in
the widescreen format REQUIRED at a quality level that's quite
adequate for most consumers.

I run a 480x854 DLP front-projector at a 70" diagonal, and it's pretty
darn good, IMO, and I'm a lot more fussy about quality than most
people are...

 
Reply With Quote
 
AnthonyR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007

"JoeBloe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On 31 Dec 2006 18:39:08 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) Gave us:
>
>>I predict that HDDVD/Bluray will suffer in a prolonged coma, probably
>>for the next 5 years. It may never wake up at all and may even prove to
>>have been stillborn all along.
>>

> I predict that your skull is at least two to three inches thick
> dense bone where brains should be.
>
>>There are 7 excellent reasons:
>>
>>1. DVD is, exactly like VHS, "good enough", cheap, and ubiquitous.

>
> Nope. It IS good enough for the **** TVs that "good enough" twits
> like you have, but it is nowhere near good enough for those of us with
> higher resolution display devices. If you do not own one, you are too
> ****ing stupid to opine about them, dig?
>
>> Even
>>playing on my computer, the video and audio are crisp.

>
> Your computer is a higher resolution device than your TV is, you
> ****ing idiot.
>
>>2. The HDDVD & Bluray hardware including monitor, video card, and drive
>>are hyperexpensive and beyond the means of most people.

>
> The formats were NOT meant for the computer realm, you dumbass. It
> is a home theater/consumer electronics device. To put it on the PC
> means that if YOU want to play, YOU have to pay.
>
> It is the same as it ever was. You are the one wearing the ****ing
> blinders.
>
>> The minority of
>>newly-rich people and obsessive gamers cannot support this technology.

>
> You're an idiot.
>
>>The only hope for HDDVD was the Microsoft $200 USB drive, but without a
>>good ripper program to let the consumer avoid buying a new monitor &
>>video card, even that is useless.

>
> Your mindset is far too bent for you to even be considered as having
> any knowledge about the industry at all, pirate boy.
>
>>3. The Bluray-HDDVD war has only just begun.

>
> You're an idiot.
>
>> Expect 2 to 5 years for it
>>to be resolved.

>
> Being idiot you are, how could you expect us to believe your
> pathetic prophecies?
>
>>4. Actual movie theaters are far better pictures than HDDVD or Bluray.

>
> Not much, you retarded ****, and wasn't it you just a few lines ago
> stating the regular DVD was good enough? Make up your mind, bone
> head.
>
>>Even the low-end digital cinema projectors have a 2048-pixel wide
>>image.

>
> You don't even have a clue as to what you speak of. Those
> projectors cost thousands of dollars, dipshit.
>
> If you could declare what the data rate of the stream they process
> for that 2048 wide pixel array, and the spoundtrack, I MIGHT put an
> ounce of credence in your remarks, but there is zero chance of that.
>
>> Compare a $4 matinee ticket to the insane cost of HDDVD & Bluray
>>hardware

>
> Matinee tickets haven't been $4 for first run shows in years, boy.
> Are you a ****ing recluse?
>
>> -- even the game systems are expensive.

>
> That has nothing to do with the disc format, dumb ass. The amount
> of data in the games requires more capacity. Players demand better,
> sharper graphics.
>
> I demand that you leave this newsgroup till you get some brains.
>
>> If I'm going to spend
>>a crapload of money, I'd rather it be toward LASIK treatment or a very
>>good pair of glasses, than on computer hardware or a game console.

>
> Go back to jacking off, pops. We don't give a ****. Your opinions
> are pretty ****ing lame though.
>
>>5. DVD's rippability is perceived by a certain percentage of consumers
>>as a precondition for purchasing.

>
> You're an idiot. Property protection is in your future. Get used
> to it, you pirate sounding ****tard.
>
>> Lack of it makes HDDVD/Bluray a
>>non-starter.

>
> You're an idiot. My library grows now no differently than it did
> before. Only pirate ****tards like you think that you should be given
> the right to steal.
>
>> No one wants to do business with Scrooge companies that
>>invent nasty DRM like AACS, let alone cave in to terrorist
>>organizations like the RIAA and MPAA and cower at their feet.

>
> Calling a US business a "terrorist organization" is as retarded as
> the rest of your spew has been. People have the right to protect
> their property, and they will do so, and little wussified twits like
> you are not going to make one dent in their market. The only
> difference is that this time, you retarded bastards will not be
> ripping them off.
>
>>6. Since the US Treasury just announced that the USA is in fact
>>bankrupt,

>
>
> You're an idiot...
>
>> and the dollar is ready to crash anyway,

>
> as well as being retarded...
>
>> it is only a matter
>>of time before this suppressed news reaches the already-frugal buying
>>public in the USA. When it does, and they lift their heads out of the
>>sand, people are not going to rush to buy luxuries. It will be 5 or 10
>>years before the economy recovers, if it ever does. Source:

>
> **** off, link boy. **** snipped.
>
>>7. Better technology is always coming.

>
> If you knew anything at all about the electronics industry, you
> would know that it constantly evolves.
>
> The thing is that if an idiot like you standing on the way side,
> mouthing off peanut gallery **** and moan baby bullshit is going to
> miss it all. If you want to play, you got to pay, dumbass.
>
>> You may have noticed the stories
>>on Digg/Reddit about the man who has a patent on a 100GB CDROM, or
>>about the holographic DVD. By the time the HDDVD/Bluray conflict is
>>resolved, people may no longer need them! Example source:

>
> Dumbass. HD DVD is NOT for data. Check my posts. I have said that
> holo discs are going to win for a long time now... over a year.
>
> A holo disc has to be processed while the stream is popping off,
> just to assemble the stream, them further processing would be needed
> for A/V streaming. So holo seems to me to be for data. A linear
> worm, like what our current standard optical disc methodologies are
> today is ideal for A/V as the stream only has to be processed once as
> it peels off.
>
> The current set of HD displays, and the current level of resolution
> provided by HD DVD, and BluTurd IS the state of the art and is going
> to be what the industry goes with for some time to come.
>
> Regardless of what bullshit your widdle bwain concocts, that's the
> way it is.
>
>>Thus, high-def discs are really a non-starter today and may never get
>>off the ground, absent some innovation such as a good, reliable ripping
>>program, or perhaps a cheap HDDVD burner.

>
> Shut up with the ripping, you retarded ****!
>
> This group is about DVD video, not your PC rip it store it
> fantasies. Grow the **** up!
>
>>The consumer is king and he holds the cards,

>
> All yours are bent, and tattered, and there's that thing about all
> those missing marbles.
>
>> not the fools who invented
>>the latest DRM. If industry doesn't bend over backyards and lick itself
>>for the entertainment of the king, their rush for profits may have been
>>a true Fool's Errand.

>
> Your brain is on one. Sheesh.
>
> That is aside from the cross-posting Usenet retard thing. Do you
> know or abide by ANY ****ing rules?


Why all the need to prove each other right or wrong?
Patience boys...Let's just wait and see which format emerges in coming
years, in meantime enjoy what is in your livingroom today, simple.
CNN airs news captured on cell phones nowadays, quality isn't always the
driving force to video, remember content?
It doesn't matter what anyone speculates will happen, it only matters what
does happen, and for that only time will tell, so save your energy
trying to prove each other wrong and go watch some TV and relax!

AnthonyR.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tony Morgan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2007
In message <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
(E-Mail Removed) writes
>
>JoeBloe wrote:
>
>> other than CE compliant, it gets held. I worked for companies with
>> plants and offices in the US and UK, as well as India, China, and
>> Germany.

>
>Bully for you. I currently work - as an electronics design engineer -
>for a Fortune 50 multinational. My designs are collaborative with
>engineering teams in India, China, France and Germany. They're
>mass-produced in Mexico, China and the Czech Republic. Do I win?
>

And my dick's bigger than both of yours !!!

Now please give it up, you couple of ego-centric idiots and grow up.

All you have to do is Google on 'CE Marking' - but the requirements are
well summarised at:
http://www.nqa.com/guide31.html

The relevant wording at the end ("Conclusion" for the simple-minded)
states "CE Marking shows all parties that the product has been produced
in accordance with the appropriate Directive(s), so care must be taken
to ensure that these requirements are met in order for manufacturer to
take advantage of free movement of goods". No doubt you are both clued
up enough to see that here there's no mention of testing - so all that
is required is a declaration (in the "Technical File - held by the
manufacturer/importer) that the equipment/item been designed to conform
with the relevant directive(s). The only exception to this is in the
case of medical equipment where in the EU "model/type testing" must be
done at one of the ISO certified testing centres (BSI in the UK, DIN in
Germany), and in the US (and North America) at the FDA.

As a practical demonstration of the non-testing of actual product, all
you have to do is observe the number of "product recalls" that occur
both in the EU and in North America. Had such products been actually
tested, then such product recalls would never occur.

--
Tony Morgan
 
Reply With Quote
 
JoeBloe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2007
On 2 Jan 2007 04:44:07 -0800, (E-Mail Removed) Gave us:

>
>JoeBloe wrote:
>
>> other than CE compliant, it gets held. I worked for companies with
>> plants and offices in the US and UK, as well as India, China, and
>> Germany.

>
>Bully for you. I currently work - as an electronics design engineer -
>for a Fortune 50 multinational. My designs are collaborative with
>engineering teams in India, China, France and Germany. They're
>mass-produced in Mexico, China and the Czech Republic. Do I win?


No. You're still a total ****ing loser for claiming that dock
seizures are not occurring or are rare events.

Electronic industry fraud is one of the prime elements customs
officials keep alert for.

That is actually easier than say watching for faked/pirated
shipments of DVDs coming in. They watch for those diligently, so they
keep watch over the hardware as well. It's that simple. Ke4eping our
China manufacturing facilities fully compliant ensures that our
shipments flow as smoothly as possible between ports. Keeping said
compliance very formal ensures that those observing your behavior will
make a note of your diligence in conforming.
 
Reply With Quote
 
JoeBloe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2007
On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:04:09 +0000, Tony Morgan <(E-Mail Removed)>
Gave us:

> No doubt you are both clued
>up enough to see that here there's no mention of testing - so all that
>is required is a declaration (in the "Technical File - held by the
>manufacturer/importer) that the equipment/item been designed to conform
>with the relevant directive(s).



Yes, dipshit. However, when a non-conformance is found by a
customer or other party, and is reported, you can bet your sweet ass
that bloody england won't be allowing it past the docks once they get
wind of it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bobbie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2007
While taking a break from performing an interpretive dance of 'Flight of
the Bumble Bee', chrisv wrote:

> Bobbie wrote:
>
>>Uuuum, because if they bought that HDTV with HDMI input prior to February
>>of 2006 they'd be SOL so far as connecting a HDCP compliant device to that
>>old and now antiquated HDMI television. I'd mush rather leave the unusable
>>antique hanging in the living room and just buy a decent 16:9 monitor for
>>the computer. It'd be much cheaper.

>
> Sorry, but I'm lost. I'd have sworn that HDCP has been built-into
> digital televisions for years. I'd have sworn that my
> several-year-old widescreen CRT box, which is too old to have HDMI on
> it, has a fully HDCP-compliant DVI input.


Yeah, confusing isn't. My Toshiba set is HDCP 1.1 Complaint. Problem is,
and this is what delayed the PS3, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray in general is the
implementation of HDCP ver 1.3 which occured in June 2006.
It's as confusing as hell trying to figure it out. Toshiba says that for
the most part my set should work with current HDCP sources and media but
with 1.3 there are no guarantees. See, the media providers have final say
as to which aspects of HDCP they will apply to a movie. Some discs could
come with no HDCP requirements in such that all HDMI sets will work. And
if Hollywood or who ever else decides that they want maximum protection
for a movie then they can lock it down and enforce all aspects of copy
protection. How my set will react is any ones guess. Toshiba won't even
say. According to Silicon Image, Intel's partner in the creation of HDMI,
the HDCP key matrix is supposed top be renewable so that if HDCP is broken
in the future they can simply update the keys. Now the question I have is
this. What happens to movies recorded with the old keys? Silicon Image
proposes that these keys be updated simply by passing new updated media
through the processor. Do you have the right to refuse the new keys?


>
> Please provide proof of your assertions that HDCP has "changed" so
> that older HDCP-compliant displays will not work.


Read through this page:
http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/faq.asp

And pay very close attention to the re-itteration of 1.3 being BACKWARDS
compatible with 1.0 to 1.2. Nowhere do they state that 1.2 and older will
be forward compatible. Windows XP is pretty well backwards compatible
with most software created for prior Windows versions as it is backwards
compatible. Can you run XP specific programs on Win95 or Win98? Didn't
think so.

Again my email response from Toshiba regarding my set was that in general
my set 'should' work with newer 1.3 compliant devices and media.



>
> In any case, you can still use the component-video inputs.


Ah, there in lies the kicker. In order to properly plug the 'analog hole'
newer HDMI-HDCP compliant boxes can still come with analog outputs but
they have to down grade the output, thus making it un-appealing to copy.
Under HDCP requirements analog outputs on HDCP compatible
devices must be limited to 480p maximum. Kind of a waste of my set.

--
Bobbie the Triple Killer
http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm

email Bobbie @ (E-Mail Removed)
remember to 'remove this'

Bobbie recently switched to Ubuntu 6.
Why? Cause he can, that's why.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yashica, up from the ashes...to be stillborn RichA Digital Photography 3 02-14-2008 05:54 PM
2nd-thought dot coma ellis_jay Computer Support 4 04-07-2005 07:14 PM



Advertisments