Paramount Drops Blu-ray Support

Just speaking for myself here: damn. Never saw this coming...can't say I'm unhappy about it, though (and if it forces Fox to get off the pot and actually get some movies out on BD, that's actually good for them too!).
 
This exclusivity sucks, but just like Beta vs. VHS and Minidisc vs. CD-R, there can be only one. The only other option like DVD-R and DVD+R is to move to combo devices. LG has one out now, but it is $1000. One prices on combo players come down, it won't matter much anymore
 
wolfofsin said:
This exclusivity sucks, but just like Beta vs. VHS and Minidisc vs. CD-R, there can be only one. The only other option like DVD-R and DVD+R is to move to combo devices. LG has one out now, but it is $1000. One prices on combo players come down, it won't matter much anymore
Click to expand...

Samsung is also coming out with a new player this fall that fully supports both formats that hopefully will be under $500.

As for the news article, this was an unexpected move - it will prolong the war for at least a year but if these dual format players can hit the $300 mark soon, it won't matter to the consumer.
 
Is Sony going to replay the Betamax role again? It is obvious that their machines are not going to come down to the HD prices to compete this Christmas. That was one of the two major factors why Betamax lost out. I thought they would have learned from their major blunder from the past and overcome the corporate mentality that they have always had. The only other player that can move one way or the other is Disney. If they would ever decide to move to the HD camp it would be a huge blow to Bluray and give it a slow death. Maybe Sony will wake up and lower the price of their basic stand alone units to keep their camp happy but from the financial side it does not look like they plan to keep pace with the HD camp in price. Blockbuster gave Bluray a decided edge in the market by only stocking Bluray titles in their average/large stores. This could change at a whim as they see what will be profitable. I only look at the financial/manufacturing side of things because that is where everything is decided for the public and Wall Street is looking very closely at the reaction from the manufactures of the set top units to see if any of them are going to change or settle on a particular format in the next couple of months. This will actually be the first Christmas for High Def players according to the financial market watchers. It will be the first time that units will be sold in hundreds of thousands and actually be in stock during this critical season. Manufacturers of HD are in full swing manufacturing enough units at $300 and under for the forth quarter. Third quarter profits will look dismal for some of these manufacturers with a strong serge in profits at the end of the forth quarter.

It looks like both formats will be around for years to come if any of the Studios change back to selling Bluray after Christmas. As for retailers? Everyone is pushing for as much inventory of whatever they can get their hands on. The prize is anything that will sell for $300 or less and make a little profit and seeding their customers to purchase more profitable High Def disks at purchase time.
 
from a pure format stand point blu-ray only wins on storage. hd-dvd has better support for menus, features and bonus content.

hd-dvd players also outsell bluray by a lot but this does not take ps3's into acount. retailers are also expanding blu-ray shelf space at the expense of hd-dvd. the free titles reminds me alot of DVD's early days when you could get 5-10 free titles with the purchase of a DVD player in the 90's.

i would jump all over a multi blu for $500 or under.

as for betamx... it was far superior in image quality and sound but i feel the VCR at 120min killed it for the most part as betamax was only 90min and unable to fit many movies around that time. "timeshift" was a large part of it. minidisc was not cost effective and i still own one :)

nice to see there is competition and the corporate moves stir the pot.
 
I have the 360 HD DVD drive so for me this seems like a good thing, the format I just chose is less likely to suddenly collapse now. But I hate this format war and combo players seem like the best way out so thats what I'm hoping for.

I still have a working minidisc player too and though the format lost big time in the end I don't regret buying them.
 
Interesting, but I really don't care.

I've already got an external HD-ROM hooked up to my HTPC, and as soon as Pioneer gets that cheap external BD-ROM out the door, I'll have that too. Add Slysoft's AnyDVD-HD to the mix, and I've got the best DRM-free multi-format player out there! :p And for a lot less than the cost of a standalone player or PS3.
 
Tangent inc. said:
from a pure format stand point blu-ray only wins on storage. hd-dvd has better support for menus, features and bonus content.

hd-dvd players also outsell bluray by a lot but this does not take ps3's into acount. retailers are also expanding blu-ray shelf space at the expense of hd-dvd. the free titles reminds me alot of DVD's early days when you could get 5-10 free titles with the purchase of a DVD player in the 90's.

i would jump all over a multi blu for $500 or under.

as for betamx... it was far superior in image quality and sound but i feel the VCR at 120min killed it for the most part as betamax was only 90min and unable to fit many movies around that time. "timeshift" was a large part of it. minidisc was not cost effective and i still own one :)

nice to see there is competition and the corporate moves stir the pot.
Click to expand...


Who cares about storage? If a HD-DVD can hold more then 4 hours of a HD movie, then it really doesn't matter.
 
ComputerBox34 said:
Who cares about storage? If a HD-DVD can hold more then 4 hours of a HD movie, then it really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

This is what I keep saying. Using proper H.264/AVC encoding, 30GB is monstrously overkill on capacity. You can easily cram 1080p HD movies into 16mbps. That's 2MB/s; 30GB = 30720MB = 4.3 hours of movie? And that's being very generous, as most HD material doesn't need more than 8mpbs. :p Blu-Ray's capacity argument is a moot point that serves no purpose in the real world, as even 30GB is overkill.
 
Keep in mind a single 2 hour movie is not the only thing going onto these discs. There's longer movies, extras, games, data... The discs can be used for lots of things and more space is always better if the cost isn't hugely out of proportion. So, yes, blu-ray does have an advantage there even if it doesn't matter for most movies.
 
InorganicMatter said:
This is what I keep saying. Using proper H.264/AVC encoding, 30GB is monstrously overkill on capacity. You can easily cram 1080p HD movies into 16mbps. That's 2MB/s; 30GB = 30720MB = 4.3 hours of movie? And that's being very generous, as most HD material doesn't need more than 8mpbs. :p Blu-Ray's capacity argument is a moot point that serves no purpose in the real world, as even 30GB is overkill.
Click to expand...

What about the Lord of the Rings all on 1 BR or on 2.... What about any series... Aliens, StarWars, Scary Movies.... how nice would it be to see a bunch of movies on 1 BR. I see plenty of purpose, you just need an imagination.
 
Baker said:
What about the Lord of the Rings all on 1 BR or on 2.... What about any series... Aliens, StarWars, Scary Movies.... how nice would it be to see a bunch of movies on 1 BR. I see plenty of purpose, you just need an imagination.
Click to expand...

That would be nice, but in the case of LOTR, it is coming out on HD DVD
 
Baker said:
What about the Lord of the Rings all on 1 BR or on 2.... What about any series... Aliens, StarWars, Scary Movies.... how nice would it be to see a bunch of movies on 1 BR. I see plenty of purpose, you just need an imagination.
Click to expand...

Seriously, even if they could cram all the LotRs on one disc, do you think the studio would pass up the chance to charge you once for each disc instead of once for all three? :p
 
InorganicMatter said:
Seriously, even if they could cram all the LotRs on one disc, do you think the studio would pass up the chance to charge you once for each disc instead of once for all three? :p
Click to expand...
Good point, that's what we've been seeing till now anyways. Imho I don't think many people would complain if the add-on's and bonus clips were put on a second disc, or even a seperate retail package for that matter. It's also my hunch that storage capacity will not be a deciding factor in this format war.

Interesting news OP
 
SJetski71 said:
It's also my hunch that storage capacity will not be a deciding factor in this format war.
Click to expand...

+1

The deciding factor is going to be normal (non-elite) consumers, plain and simple, and it's up to the studios to get these people. The studio who scares customers away with elaborate DRM, poor selection, and high prices will be the loser. At this point, Blu-Ray has two of these three bad points going for it. I'm not going to scream "Dewey defeats Truman" yet (as both camps have been doing from day 1), but Blu-Ray has got a bumpy road ahead with their high prices and convincing customers that BD+ is a good thing.
 
InorganicMatter said:
Seriously, even if they could cram all the LotRs on one disc, do you think the studio would pass up the chance to charge you once for each disc instead of once for all three? :p
Click to expand...

Don't collector editions cost more? If they cram all 3 on one disc... can't they just charge more for it.... like they do with multidisc sets....

If it costs the same for a collectors edition... what would sell you on buying it this product.

"ALL 3 MOVIES ON 1 DISC" with stickers on outside of box "NO NEED TO SWAP DISCS".... theres different ways to advertise things. Then you get the word of mouth "man I bought the LotR BR edition... all of them are on 1 disc man.... how sweet is that".

I have all of the extended versions on normal DVD... and when I get the "insert disc 2 msg" its a total movie kill. BR 30 gigs .... FTW.
 
ComputerBox34 said:
Who cares about storage? If a HD-DVD can hold more then 4 hours of a HD movie, then it really doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

point taken.

i was focusing in that sentence on the fact that -hd-dvd has better support for menus, features and bonus content- it is a more appealing product.

the reference to betamax/vidcass. was in relation to format war in itself, not as a comparison to todays format issue.

now dvd and divx was funny stuff.
 
michael bay was angry that they dropped bluray format for Transformers. in a blog he stated that he wanted his movies to be displayed in the best picture quality. he even threatened/joked about canceling Transformers 2.
 
jtdaman said:
michael bay was angry that they dropped bluray format for Transformers. in a blog he stated that he wanted his movies to be displayed in the best picture quality. he even threatened/joked about canceling Transformers 2.
Click to expand...

lol, so far everyone on [H] I talked to can't even distinguish 720p from 1080p. How are they going to tell a difference between HDDVD 1080p @ 15mbps and Blu-ray 1080p even if it was at 18mbps? :p There is virtually no difference between the two, especially if they are using the same codec. The BBC Planet Earth is exactly the same video stream on both HDDVD and Blu-ray, just as an example.

Anyhow, I'm excited Paramount made this move. They saw the correct path to take their product down.

1) More affordable hardware for the consumer
2) Easier to produce media for the industry
3) 51GB HDDVD's in late stages of development reverse compatible with current hardware (blu-ray's advantage on storage capacity is thus null)
4) No BD+ fucking up your playback down the road
5) Region free playback
 
jtdaman said:
michael bay was angry that they dropped bluray format for Transformers. in a blog he stated that he wanted his movies to be displayed in the best picture quality. he even threatened/joked about canceling Transformers 2.
Click to expand...

LOL, there's no difference between the PQ of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD at the same resolution and bitrate. Transformers is 2 hours long, so if they filled the disc with different AVC bitstreams, we are talking like 30mbps versus 50mbps. You couldn't even tell the difference at that high of a bitrate; hell, you'd have a hard time distinguishing anything over 20mbps. :p
 
Well, having just bought a ps3 and a couple bluray titles, I am a little irked, but I am not devastated. I am not sold on either format, but I don't understand why all the negativity towards bluray other than it being backed by Sony. The bluray camp is addressing the whole menu/extras thing with some sort of java thing so that shouldn't be an issue going forward. Storage capacity could be important for archiving purposes. Instead of spanning multiple DVD's for my music collection I could use just one bluray (or HD DVD). I think I heard somewhere that bluray had a more durable coating on the disc if that matters to anyone.

If I have to get an HD DVD player to watch the movies that I want, so be it. The ps3 was mainly to get away from upgrading my computer continuously to play games, the bluray was a bonus and I am quite pleased with it. The ps3 upscales DVD's so nicely for me that if I have to wait for a while for my favorite movies to come out in one format or the other, it isn't that big a deal.

Overall, if it were just the hardware competing, it wouldn't matter too much. It really sucks that content is also being divided.
 
InorganicMatter said:
LOL, there's no difference between the PQ of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD at the same resolution and bitrate. Transformers is 2 hours long, so if they filled the disc with different AVC bitstreams, we are talking like 30mbps versus 50mbps. You couldn't even tell the difference at that high of a bitrate; hell, you'd have a hard time distinguishing anything over 20mbps. :p
Click to expand...

lol apparently after drinking "kool-aid" michael bay says he was just kidding about Transformers 2. seems like he has calmed down now.
 
http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,136253/printable.html#

Paramount's CTO on Why His Studio Is Dumping Blu-ray
Alan Bell discusses why HD DVD is his studio's exclusive high-definition format.

In a surprise move, Paramount and DreamWorks Animation announced this week that they would align themselves exclusively with the HD DVD high-definition format. The controversial decision has attracted a lot of attention, and not just because it comes at a time when market indicators have been pointing to competitor Blu-ray Disc as having the lead (disc sales have been running 2-1 in Blu-ray's favor).

Rumors have swirled since the news broke, suggesting that Paramount and DreamWorks are being heavily compensated for their exclusivity pact--to the tune of $50 million and $100 million, respectively. A Paramount spokesperson says only: " ... whenever we conduct co-marketing, production deals, or other agreements, we never discuss business terms."

If this exclusivity arrangement holds for the long-haul--Paramount executive Alan Bell (see below) says it's "indefinite" at this time--it represents a setback to consumers trying to move up to high-definition content. Now, the available pool of studio content will be more split between Blu-ray (backed by Sony, Fox, Disney, MGM, Lionsgate, and Warner) and HD DVD (backed by Universal, Warner, and now Paramount).

And it means that when you're investing in hardware, you'll need to think hard about what format to buy: DreamWorks' "Shrek" movies, for example, will be available only HD DVD, while Disney's "Cars" and "Sleeping Beauty" will be available only on Blu-ray.


I don't doubt that some level of financial incentive made the HD DVD a good business decision for Paramount and DreamWorks. But according to Alan Bell, executive vice president and chief technology officer for Paramount Pictures, there's more to the change in allegiance than either a mere abandonment of Blu-ray's higher-capacity advantage or pure business dealings.

Here's some background from Bell about the recent news.

PCW: Presumably, making this move wasn't something you did lightly. What led up to the decision to shift your production exclusively to HD DVD?

Bell: Paramount has been getting experience with publishing titles in both formats for the last year. We've had a hands-on ability to see how these formats work in practice. And after some hands-on analysis, we decided that HD DVD was the format we wanted to support.

PCW: Why was that?

Bell: For one thing, the lower prices of the players: It's good for consumers, it's good for our customer base.

For another thing, HD DVD came out of the DVD Forum. The DVD Forum is very experienced at developing and managing specs. [HD DVD] was launched in a very stable way, with stable specifications, and they had specified a reference player model, so all players had to be compatible with the HDi interactivity layer, and all players had to be capable of the interactivity. So when we publish titles in the future that have interactivity, we can be assured that every HD DVD player will be able to handle this content.

PCW: So, as a studio, you believe that the underlying stability of HD DVD's specs is a benefit?

Bell: When you look at what the DVD Forum has specified as required, it's a good set of advanced technologies. You can be assured that that benefit will be available to all consumers, no matter what [player] model they purchased. That speaks to the DVD Forum, that it published specs that were complete and market-ready, and that it didn't need to publish up [and change the specs], as Blu-ray has. To some degree, [such changes are] going to create some legacy issues.

For example, HD DVD players have [ethernet] connectivity built-in. If the player doesn't have that, or it's optional, you can't rely on that [as a feature].

PCW: Didn't we see the same thing with DVD players, though, where some features were mandatory and others weren't?

Bell: When you have a format, you generally have mandatory requirements on players, and you sometimes have optional features. On DVD, Dolby Digital 5.1 was mandatory, but DTS 5.1 was optional. But that meant that when you published a title, you never really knew how many customers had players that supported the feature you were adding to the disc at some cost. On HD DVD, the mandatory audio technologies are Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital Plus, and Dolby TrueHD. [For more details, see an explanation of the differences among the various Dolby technologies.]

PCW: Over time, though, DTS became a de facto standard on DVD players. Don't you expect to see the same thing happen over time with Blu-ray's specs, such as the requirements for storage and interactivity via an ethernet connection? [Paramount's decision comes ahead of Blu-ray's new minimum specs, which go into effect for players sold after October 31.]

Bell: Eventually, that's true, but right now we have early adopters and enthusiasts [buying players]. If you do migrate the spec and your options are not included on the early players, these are the very people you leave behind. They're our most valuable customers in launching a new format, and you want to make sure that what they buy continues to represent the best of the format.

PCW: What about the additional capacity of Blu-ray, which has 50GB dual-layer discs, as opposed to HD DVD's 30GB dual-layer discs? Some studios have cited the additional capacity as necessary. Are you going to miss having the extra headroom?

Bell: This is a little bit overrated. Making a choice like the one Paramount has made is a multifaceted choice: It depends upon manufacturability, the reliability of players, the cost, the infrastructure that's developed to support our creation of titles. Many different factors came into play--including capacity. When Paramount made this decision, we considered the broad spectrum.

If everything else were equal, more capacity would be better. Why not?

But if you convert the playing time, a 30GB disc gives you somewhere between 3 and 4 hours of capacity. It depends upon the nature of the movie and how you compress it. There's no compromise on the quality. We've found that 95 percent of movies are less than 2.25 hours long. With a disc whose capacity is 3 or 4 hours, you can put a fair amount of bonus material on that disc as well. So 30GB with the option to add another disc is fine, from our point of view.

PCW: What if the multiple soundtracks and high-definition bonus materials won't fit on a single disc?

Bell: If there's an overflow of bonus material, we'll just go to another disc. That's not an issue for consumers. In some cases, they consider that it has more value. It's done routinely in DVD. Why put every single title on a high-capacity disc if it doesn't need it?

PCW: Do you expect capacity needs to change in the future?

Bell: A 45GB disc is under development. [Editors' note: This disc has been in development for two years; at this time, its unclear whether current players will be able to read this disc once it becomes part of the HD DVD spec.] Secondly, compression will become more effective. The number of minutes you get on a disc depends upon how much you can compress a movie. As we gain experience with the new codecs, the ability to compress at high quality will be improved.

Capacity is a factor, but it's not an overriding factor. In the grand scheme of things, the better proposition for consumers in our view, and for our business needs, is HD DVD.

PCW: From your first-hand experiences, what can you tell us about the difference in programming languages between HD DVD, which uses Microsoft's HDi technology, and Blu-ray, which uses BD-Java?

Bell: BD-Java is a programming language. The benefit is that it's very flexible. The drawback is that you may need 100 lines of BD-Java code. HDi is a relatively compact piece of code; one command can cover quite a bit of interactivity.

BD-Java is also more complex, so the possibility of errors is greater. And when BD players are put out, [there's the question of whether] they all support the scenarios as coded up from the low level. [Some of the early problems with BD-Java discs] were in part due to the complexity that BD-Java brings. From our point of view, HDi offers all of the flexibility we need, in practice, and it does so in a more simplified way and in a way that we feel leads to better compatibility, better reliability, and lower costs.

PCW: Up until now, how have you approached coding your discs for HDi and BD-Java?

Bell: At this particular point in time, we've been able to supply more features with HDi and HD DVD than with BD-Java and Blu-ray Disc. What we have typically done in practice is that we've created the interactive scenarios in HD DVD and then tried to pull them into Blu-ray. But that has not been entirely possible: Some things we can do in HDi are not supported in BD-Java. If you're going to do BD-Java, you need someone who's capable of programming at a low level. With HDi, you don't need somebody with that additional level of training. We don't need programmers to code our discs.

PCW: Do you think users are interested in the interactivity on these discs?

Bell: Interactivity is an important part of why you would move up from DVD. Yes, [high-def] has a great picture, but is that enough? Connectivity is something that studios will grow into, and it's something that we believe studios will grow into.

We're thinking about [having media servers to provide extra content via the Internet], but those kinds of investments cost money. The motivation to do them grows as the installed base grows. If we see there's a sufficiently large installed base to justify the cost of the server, we'll do it. Right now we're concentrating on getting a great picture out, and great interactivity.

PCW: Will this exclusive period extend for a limited time, or is this an indefinite arrangement?

Bell: At this moment in time, it's an indefinite commitment. The core of this announcement comes from our experience, and what our consumers are looking for. We hope this will influence consumers' choices.
Click to expand...

It actually does make perfect sense, and once they see the success of HDDVD ramping up, other studios will most likely jump the Blu-ray ship.
 
PCW: Over time, though, DTS became a de facto standard on DVD players. Don't you expect to see the same thing happen over time with Blu-ray's specs, such as the requirements for storage and interactivity via an ethernet connection? [Paramount's decision comes ahead of Blu-ray's new minimum specs, which go into effect for players sold after October 31.]

Bell: Eventually, that's true, but right now we have early adopters and enthusiasts [buying players]. If you do migrate the spec and your options are not included on the early players, these are the very people you leave behind. They're our most valuable customers in launching a new format, and you want to make sure that what they buy continues to represent the best of the format.
Click to expand...

This is nice to read. Reminds me of something else...

sony_bullshit_anim4.gif
 
Of course, if they paid me all those millions, i'd say Blu-ray sucked too....:rolleyes:
 
"Anyhow, I'm excited Paramount made this move. They saw the correct path to take their product down.

1) More affordable hardware for the consumer
2) Easier to produce media for the industry
3) 51GB HDDVD's in late stages of development reverse compatible with current hardware (blu-ray's advantage on storage capacity is thus null)
4) No BD+ fucking up your playback down the road
5) Region free playback"

I'm sure it was this and not the large amount of money they were paid to make the decision.
 
corran_horn314 said:
Um... BR is 25/50gigs, HD DVD is 15/30gigs
Click to expand...

Toshiba showed off a triple layer HD-DVD at CES this year coming in at 51gb.

You also know you are getting better sound on HD-DVD as several formats are required but remain optional on Blue Ray.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top