BluRay Delayed By 9GB Variant

[JamesL]

Looks like BD9 is going to delay the introduction of BluRay:

A delay in the licensing of the BD9 format further delays the availability of the first Blu-ray burners on the market, according to industry sources.

Adopters of the BD technology like Japanese Pioneer, are currently working on the licensing of the "BD9" format. This licensing agreement is expected to be concluded by the end of April.

The BD9 format was firstly proposed to the Blu-ray Disc Association by Warner Home Video as a cost-effective alternative to the 25/50GB BD-ROM discs. At that moment, Warner needed a Blu-ray player that was capable of playing back the BD-9 disc, a 9GB high-definition red-laser disc. This red-laser media can be manufactured on existing DVD production lines generating lower costs of production than the other 25/50GB Blu-ray media. This major advantage convinced BD-supporters to produce a compatible drive.

The DB9 movie discs will be encoded with a high-definition video codec (H.264/VC1), they will be protected by the DVD with AACS/BD+ schemes and they will only playback on Blu-ray Disc players and recorders.

Although the Blu-ray Disc Association has not formally announced the format, it has been accepted by the BDA, according to industry sources. The licensing of the BD9 format is expected to push the shippment of the first BD burners to the beginning of May.

...as I have commented before BD9 is a bad thing. Whilst so many BluRay fans bang on about the 'great' capacity of BluRay the reality is we are likely to get quite a few titles in this 9GB BD9 format. It certainly looks like Warner titles are going that way - let's just hope that they master a seperate version for the greater capacity offered by HD DVD (15GB/30GB) rather than just present a single 9GB version (although obviously the extra capacity could be used by lossless audio codecs and extras).

Source:
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News...x?NewsId=16769

[Caimbeul]

Kind of makes you wonder what the point is (apart from Cost) as its virtually the same as DVD and if it can be done on such a small disc capacity why bother with the new formats.

Like you say I hope they dont try and fob us off with a compressed version (ie: mastered for BD9) on an expensive normal/dual layer disc. Something to keep an eye on methinks.

[Angry the Clown]

You shouldn't worry too much about implementation of the 9gb option for Blu Ray (and HD DVD for that matter where it is also part of the spec). Warner themselves have stated on a couple of occasions that they see it only as an option for supplementary material and HD material that does not demand higher capacity - at which point a 9gb disc can actually be viewed as a very logical option for studios to have available to them if you consider you could take the two 'appendices' discs from a single LOTR extended edition release, encode those extras as 480i using an advanced codec like VC1 and you've got all that material from those two DVDs of extras (with some room to spare for more) on one supplementary disc.

Warner is the last studio looking to cut corners as far as presentation of A/V quality is concerned with either format. I’ve said this before, but their titles are likely to outshine Sony/MGM’s own in terms of A/V and special features which is ironic given their initial ‘HD DVD only’ stance. The majority of their releases for HD DVD are looking to be 30gbs (a few may be 15gb should they lack a significant number of special features). Now apparently Warner is capping their work for HD releases at 25gb however, leaving a minimum of 5gb of dead space on their dual layer HD DVDs so they can port over the exact same information to a 25gb disc for their BD titles this summer. Quite a sensible idea from their point of view of course.

Incidentally, the DB9 delay only seems to be related to burners and writable media, and not the dedicated standalone players themselves.

[JamesL]

Incidentally, the DB9 delay only seems to be related to burners and writable media, and not the dedicated standalone players themselves

It's BD not DB Have you got a source for the above? For obvious reasons nobody is really taking about BD-ROMs at this stage so I would be surprised if they weren't effected by the same issue. Surely the issue of whether they are compatible with reading BD9s is as much applicable to ROM drives as it is to RWs.

I’ve said this before, but their titles are likely to outshine Sony/MGM’s own in terms of A/V and special features which is ironic given their initial ‘HD DVD only’ stance.

We have no way of knowing this yet. Once we see a Sony MPEG2 encoded disc we can compare it to the MPEG4 used by Warner on HD DVD. Until then it's all guesswork.

You shouldn't worry too much about implementation of the 9gb option for Blu Ray (and HD DVD for that matter where it is also part of the spec).

Again have you got a source for a HD DVD9? I only ask because it seems to be missing the point of the whole thing: BD9 is designed to be easy to produce on existing plants. HD DVD already meets that requirement.

[Angry the Clown]

It's BD not DB

Indeed. A mere slip of my chubby fingers at the keyboard, sir

Have you got a source for the above?

You own link does a decent enough job in only making references to burners quite honestly. “The licensing of the BD9 format is expected to push the shipment of the first BD burners to the beginning of May” the article claims… Even if it did relate to the standalone players as well, given Samsung already delayed their player to the 25th of June to ensure it was up to spec and add a few extra features, and with the Sony and Pioneer players not due until July - the BD9 delay issue does not affect them, hence this news does not actually impose the threat of a further delay for those here anxious to buy a Blu Ray player in the coming months. It’s a non issue.

We have no way of knowing this yet. Once we see a Sony MPEG2 encoded disc we can compare it to the MPEG4 used by Warner on HD DVD. Until then it's all guesswork.

It is guesswork, absolutely, and I should stress that I didn't mean that specifically in terms of saying VC1 will look better than MPEGII. Even when both are available I wouldn't even dare to try and compare two different films either in attempts to gauge an opinion of which codec was superior as the inherent visual attributes of one film’s cinematography over another will almost always get in the way of somebody’s opinion of what is ‘better’ or not.

To elaborate on what I did mean however was simply this; given Sony are using MPEGII on 25gb discs, and providing Dolby, DTS and multi-channel PCM tracks on these discs, they're not leaving themselves much room for features and so forth [not to say I don’t put it past them to try and squeeze some on]. Now whether all you really care about is the presentation of the film at the end of the day (as I know I do), it's still fair to say that titles being prepped with advanced codecs in mind are probably going to impress more people in terms of how much you can actually pack onto a single 25gb BD disc or a 30GB HD DVD so in terms of embracing new audio and video codecs that an HD format can offer.

Again have you got a source for a HD DVD9? I only ask because it seems to be missing the point of the whole thing: BD9 is designed to be easy to produce on existing plants. HD DVD already meets that requirement.

As far as HD DVD 9 goes, if you need recent proof I can direct you to a post from Amir Majidimehr of Microsoft commenting on this here at the AVS Forum. To expand a little on this subject, it doesn’t miss the point at all though if you really think about it. Why spend the money on a 15gb or 25gb disc for extras or less demanding HD content when you can spend fewer dollars on a red laser 9gb disc that provides more than enough space to house special features and HD content that requires minimal space using an advanced codec?

If you also want a source regarding how Warner intend to use 9gb: This Videobusiness article back form when Warner joined Blu Ray went on to comment “The studio plans to use the red-laser option for shorter programs that don’t require all the storage capacity of a blue-laser disc or for budget-priced titles that might not justify the higher costs.”

It’s a fantastic idea to ask people to post sources where available, but at the same time you know, one could equally ask for a source that made you say “It certainly looks like Warner titles are going that way” in assuming Warner might dare to use the 9gb option for anything other than material that doesn’t require such low capacity. All assumptions like that can do is scare people that Warner might be looking into cutting corners where possible simply because they requested a 9gb option be added to the spec. It doesn’t mean they’re going to rush into using it for everything. They just want the option, and as I have tried to explain, it is actually quite a logical option for all studios to have access to.

[JamesL]

It’s a fantastic idea to ask people to post sources where available, but at the same time you know, one could equally ask for a source that made you say “It certainly looks like Warner titles are going that way”

No offense but as Warner requested the BD9 format it seems quite likely they intend to use it...

If you also want a source regarding how Warner intend to use 9gb: This Videobusiness article back form when Warner joined Blu Ray went on to comment “The studio plans to use the red-laser option for shorter programs that don’t require all the storage capacity of a blue-laser disc or for budget-priced titles that might not justify the higher costs.”

Fair enough - but there is nothing in that article that suggests that "shorter" programmes don't include many films. It's a world apart from the original comment you made that they "see it only as an option for supplementary material and HD material that does not demand higher capacity". For all we know Warner might be planning BD9 for all BluRay titles under 3hrs! Ultimately we'll have to wait and see.

I can direct you to a post from Amir Majidimehr of Microsoft commenting on this here at the AVS Forum

I was thinking more along the lines of an official specifications statement? A quick Google search pulls up 15GB and 30GB variants plus a number of DVD/HD DVD combis. Nothing on a 9GB HD DVD though. As HD DVD is effectively finalised now I would have expected some sort of press release unless it's referring to an 8cm variant...

[Angry the Clown]

No offense but as Warner requested the BD9 format it seems quite likely they intend to use it...

Fair enough - but there is nothing in that article that suggests that "shorter" programmes don't include many films. It's a world apart from the original comment you made that they "see it only as an option for supplementary material and HD material that does not demand higher capacity". For all we know Warner might be planning BD9 for all BluRay titles under 3hrs! Ultimately we'll have to wait and see.

Oh I'm quite certain they intend use it, James, but your initial alarm just seems a bit of an overreaction at this stage is all, and leaping to worst case scenario conclusions so early on doesn't do anybody any favours since you're quite right, we can only wait and see.

There’s little doubt in my mind that ‘shorter programs’ is indeed a vague statement that also covers certain films, but again, it’s very rash to say that might mean all titles under three hours. Sure, I can’t prove it won’t mean that for their Blu Ray titles anymore than you can prove that it will, but the point I am getting at here is that it’s really rather useless for anyone to get in a panic when none of us really know beyond applying some logical thinking to what’s going on here.

If Blu Ray fails to meet the cost and development promises made to Warner then this scenario is perhaps not entirely unreasonable to a degree, but until then it remains rather dangerous to speculate and really it's here were some basic logic needs to be applied. If Warner intends to deliver the majority of films with a fair number of special features then a BD-9 disc simply isn’t going to be physically up to the task. That’s all there is to it.
Now, if however they have a film under 2hrs they might want to put out bare bones (perhaps no more than a commentary track as a feature), let’s say a movie like Christmas Vacation for example, or a direct to video animated release like Mask of the Phantasm - then a 9gb disc would probably just about do it without seriously compromising image quality . Given the majority of studios are working with the principal that as a bare minimum, HD releases should of course boast the same special features content as their DVD counterparts then for the vast majority of titles nothing less than 25gb (for Blu Ray) and 15gb (for HD DVD) is going to suffice.

Bottom line, logically, there’s only so much they can do with a 9gb disc should they seek to make use of it, and it doesn’t really stretch beyond the boundaries of extras and bare bone releases under two hours. Studios want -and need- these discs to sell, so they’ll be looking to make them as attractive as possible audio, video and feature wise if they’re to stand any chance of having as many people as possible finding worthy incentives to substitute DVD titles in their collections for Hi Def replacements.

Still, we could plonk our pointy cynical hats on and assume Warner will indeed use BD-9 for everything in an attempt to bring down Blu Ray from the inside to show up how well featured the 30gb HD DVD release of the same movie is to consumers by comparison.

I was thinking more along the lines of an official specifications statement? A quick Google search pulls up 15GB and 30GB variants plus a number of DVD/HD DVD combis. Nothing on a 9GB HD DVD though. As HD DVD is effectively finalised now I would have expected some sort of press release unless it's referring to an 8cm variant...

It’s certainly not an 8cm variant, no. In all honestly I’ve struggled to find documentation on this online for you, and all the printed white papers I’ve accumulated and had sent to me over the years are somewhat of a jumble (“somewhat” being a gross understatement). Should I find anything over Easter Weekend I’ll of course post it, but for now, quite honestly frequent word about HD-DVD 9 coming from those actively working with the format enough to know the spec inside out over at AVS (Amir, Stacey Spears…etc) is still good enough for me in helping assure myself that I’m not going completely bonkers regarding this matter.

The thought had occurred to me that given the nature of the disc, it might not even need to officially be part of the spec, but for it not to be submitted would still be a little strange. For Blu Ray of course the BD-9 option had to be submitted and approved as such discs will need to be compatible with the additional flavours of copy protection Blu Ray has on top of the traditional AACS system, whereas for HD DVD it can still essentially be a plain old red laser RSDL DVD, only sporting advanced video codecs.

[BadAss]

If Warner release any movies at 9GB I won't be buying any. 9GB is DVD size ***.

[AML]

There is a bit more to Blu Ray and HD DVD than just disk space.
Mainly higher bit rates only possible through the blue laser used by both formats.

If a movie using say 720p and standard audio codecs like DD and DTS can fit on a 9gb disk then why do we need a 50gb disk?

Once movies go to 1080p and use DD HD and DTS HD then we may need a larger disk.

As I said, the bit rates will remain higher (than a normal DVD) no matter what disk is used and that is partly where the quality difference will become apparent.

[Angry the Clown]

If a movie using say 720p and standard audio codecs like DD and DTS can fit on a 9gb disk then why do we need a 50gb disk?

Once movies go to 1080p and use DD HD and DTS HD then we may need a larger disk.

There’s not really a “once” here, AML. The industry pretty much unanimously agreed movies will be mastered and stored as 1080p/24 (on both formats), so 720p isn't really happening. That's not to say it won't be used in some capacity, but for movies it’s not being considered. No studio is looking to hurt anybody by releasing 720p now and 1080p later. They know that in order to be step above DVD, HDTV, and even the now dead D-Theatre releases, they need to offer a premium product.

9gb though can still hold a 1080p/24 encoded feature film. The generalisation for this is that it could do so for movies of no more than 2hours, though I’d personally scale that down to say movies under 100 minutes. A lot of it depends on just how demanding a certain film is, as certain films are going to require higher data rates than others not necessarily due to length alone.

...why do we need a 50gb disk?

It’s a fair question to ask. People don’t ask it enough. What videophiles demand from an HD format can really be delivered on 15gb, 25gb and 30gb releases if we’re talking in regards to the use of advanced video codecs. Using 50gb as proof in trying to prove Blu Ray’s immediate superiority over its competitor only stretches so far when you break things down a little.

50gb will be a big help to longer titles encoded in MPEG2 that seek to include a mass of extras on the same disc, and it’s of great appeal to the likes of Disney of course given how eager they are to push more interactive content on Blu Ray, but in the case of advanced codecs there’s not really any reason to think 50gb discs are going to offer an advantage in gaining superior A/V quality that 15/25/30gb discs will already be capable of delivering. It’s really more about storage for additional material, so whether people insist upon all the extras being on the same disc as the movie or not is likely to play a part in whether 50gb should really be of any concern from a consumer point of view. Personally, I don’t much care if extras have to flow onto a second disc. Not to discredit 50gb entirely of course. I think such large capacity is certainly very good for recording, and it’s also going to be very good for the release of Television shows on Blu Ray I imagine, but I do think Blu Ray supporters invest just that little bit too much in the 50gb factor.

[gandley]

if sony got on and used VC-1 then 50GB would not be that critical/important. only when use mpeg-2 does 50gb seem as a must