Warner go Blu-Ray exclusive

[Raider]

Another nail in the coffin?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc409afa-...uid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html

That story has now been debunked:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aQMGgh2LV_bU&refer=japan

Although having said that, Warner denied going Blu for quite a while.
Personally, despite hoping that the region-free HD-DVD would win out, I'm now praying for Paramount or Universal to go Blu or Dual-format, just to end it. I can't be arsed to spend the next 6-12 months wondering whether half my film collection will be worthless or not.

 

[philhoole]

standard cd audio is actually 16bit. 44.1 x 16 = 705k/sec. times that by two and you get your golden stereo cd bitrate - 1411.2kbps, or 1.4Mb/sec.. try ripping a cd as wav and look at the bitrate.

But that is not how SPDIF works. There are other bits sent that are not audio content in each sample but add to the bandwidth. The audio content may only be 16 bits but the provision is there for up to 24 bit samples.

This link http://www.chromaticsound.com/tim/aes_ebu/aes_ebu.html shows what is trasnmitted over SPDIF

 

[james.miller]

yeah i know what spdif can do, but that makes no difference - cd audio IS 44.1/16. its as simple as that! like i said if you rip a cd as wav, you'll see the actual bitrate of the audio.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

Those extra bits are likely for error correction.

 

[james.miller]

Technical details
The pits in a CD are 500 nm wide, between 830 nm and 3,000 nm long and 150 nm deep.

The Red Book specifies the physical parameters and properties of the CD, the optical "stylus" parameters, deviations and error rate, modulation system (Eight-to-Fourteen Modulation, EFM) and error correction (Cross-interleaved Reed-Solomon coding, CIRC), and subcode channels and graphics.

It also specifies the form of digital audio encoding: 2-channel signed 16-bit PCM sampled at 44 100 Hz.

The frequency response of audio CD, from 20 Hz to 22.05 kHz

Bit rate = 44,100 samples/sec × 16 bit/sample × 2 channels = 1,411,200 bit/sec to convert into kilobits as the byte[3] conversion where kilo equals 1024 = 1,411,200/1024 = 1,378.125 kbit/s (10.09 MByte per minute)

Sample values range from -32768 to +32767.

On the disc, the data is stored in sectors of 2352 bytes each, read at 75 sectors/s. Onto this the overhead of EFM, CIRC, L2 ECC, and so on, is added, but these are not typically exposed to the application reading the disc.

By comparison, the bit rate of a "1x" data CD is defined as 2048 bytes/sector × 75 sectors/s = exactly 150 KiB/s = about 8.8 MiB per minute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(audio_CD_standard)

 

[philhoole]

that doesnt matter if its how it works or not, cd audio IS 44.1/16. its as simple as that! like i said if you rip a cd as wav, you'll see the actually bitrate of the audio.

It does matter because the other bits are transmitted over the cable regardless. Yes, the audio itself requires about 1.4Mb/s but the interface istelf requires more because there are always 32 bits ber sample. Really.

A ripping program will only show the audio content of course.

The other bits are not error correction either. They carry flags and interface status information. They have to be there.

Edit - When I say "32bits per sample" I should really say "32bits per sub frame"

 

[FrankJH]

In reference to that FT article - they were wrong anyway in regards to referencing the Indiana Jones movies - Lucas/Spielberg can go any which way they chose, its got nowt to do with Paramount ( I believe it could be the same for LTWATW also)

I still reckon its possible that Paramount wont wait for the full 18 months before issueing BR's though - even if they have to hand back some of this "incentive"

 

[james.miller]

It does matter because the other bits are transmitted over the cable regardless. Yes, the audio itself requires about 1.4Mb/s but the interface istelf requires more because there are always 32 bits ber sample. Really.

A ripping program will only show the audio content of course.

The other bits are not error correction either. They carry flags and interface status information. They have to be there.

78 minutes of cd audio takes up 6,604,416kb. ~650mb in other words. leaving the other 50mb or so on the disc for status flags, eec ect.

Edit - When I say "32bits per sample" I should really say "32bits per sub frame"

yes, which is something entirely different. 32bits per sample would double that data size to around 1.3gb. obviously, that doesnt fit on an audio cd. and, for that matter, neither does 44.1/24. but anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_disc_subcode

 

[philhoole]

78 minutes of cd audio takes up 6,604,416kb. ~650mb in other words. leaving the other 50mb or so on the disc for status flags, eec ect.



yes, which is something entirely different. 32bits per sample would double that data size to around 1.3gb. obviously, that doesnt fit on an audio cd. and, for that matter, neither does 44.1/24.

Ah, but what is actually on the disk isn't what is sent over the SPDIF! There are still 32 x 2(for stereo) x 44100 bits sent over SPDIF per second. These frames are constructed from the 16 bit samples read from CD. The non audio bits are created on the fly by the SPDIF encoder.

 

[Fr0dders]

Just out of interest, where is everyone quoting this figure of 1.5MB/s from as some physical limitation?

if your referring to physical limitation as to my questions about light bandwidth etc..

i had 2 questions

1) why was optical spdif of very limited bandwidth, considering the optical cable carrying the data is practically of infinite bandwidth, depending the technology used to send / receive the light. Answer was due to standard being created, and probably to force people to upgrade at a later date

2) was why, if they were doing it to make us upgrade, we didnt have a high definition optical spdif 2 or whatever with more bandwidth. Asnwer was it was unencrypted, so they chose to use the bandwidth offered by HDMI instead.

 

[Mr Latte]

HDMI V1.1 i think is all that is needed for PCM.
Many amps that are 2 or more years old will support it

Time to upgrade the Denon, perhaps


Anyone see the Warner thread?

 

[Rich JR]

HDMI V1.1 i think is all that is needed for PCM.
Many amps that are 2 or more years old will support it

Time to upgrade the Denon, perhaps


Anyone see the Warner thread?

Lol nope just ordered a nice new BD player, with player side decode and analogue outs (expensive though)

The 3805 is perfect with my setup, its a great amp seriously classic there is not much choice currently produced below £1000 that I would replace it with.

 

[badbob]

Nah I'd hold onto the amp side- got a Lexicon MC-1 that'll trounce newer lower end gear even if they have HD audio.

I'd probably just use a source that'll downsample HD audio to 1.4 Mb/sec DTS over spdif.

 

[fendi]

And you think the quality of downloads is close?

***snip***
Their wasnt a chance blu ray would fail once PS3's began to reach widespread sales. HD-DVD should have been sold as all discs dual format containing DVD-HD transfers from da start.

I dont get this, what has that got to do with anything. People who bought the PS3 might not be movie watchers. They may never buy a movie!

 

[andshrew]

I dont get this, what has that got to do with anything. People who bought the PS3 might not be movie watchers. They may never buy a movie!

Of course it has something to do with Blu-rays success. Anything which increases the userbase by several million is going to contribute. Theres a massive amount of people who would never have bought a standalone player at this stage who now have access to blu-ray movies. Sure not everyone will buy movies but a large portion will at some point.

 

[Raider]

Yeah, even though 90% of PS3 users probably don't buy that many BR movies, and probably use a scart cable to connect their console to their TV, the other 10% is still quite a lot of people.

Luckily the PS3 is actually quite a good Blu-Ray player, which certainly helps. If it was a big pile of poo then BR might not have had such a helping hand.

 

[M@rt]

Luckily the PS3 is actually quite a good Blu-Ray player, which certainly helps. If it was a big pile of poo then BR might not have had such a helping hand.

Annoyingly, it seems to be the only player, well the only one that isnt out of date already.

 

[Mr Latte]

I dont get this, what has that got to do with anything. People who bought the PS3 might not be movie watchers. They may never buy a movie!

I totally disagree, very few gamers dont watch movies. If anything its film lovers or older folk that might not be gamers. You dont get what is the biggest point of PS3 being based on Blu Ray? Let me point a few things out that i think are relevant.

1. PS3 is likely to sell into the dozens of millions within the next 3-5 years
2. HDTV will have a very high install percentage rate in such owners homes over this 3-5 year period
3. The majority of kids-adults that play games im sure would be interested in movies, to an extent. This goes from approx ages 6-40+
4. The PS3 platform has and will continue to be a viable movie playback solution and in many cases will be bought primarily for movie playback and not games.
5. PS3 has other additions coming and things like the new camera bring new ways of enjoying games for even non traditional gamers
6. PS3 has an advantage to Sony that it possibly can bring games to movie lovers and movies to gamers,not to forget its upcoming as a media centre.
7. If you owned a PS3 and HDTV would you go out and purchase the DVD or Blu Ray version of a film if both were available?
8. "Home" will im sure be Sonys corporate online heaven were they can create large communities but also advertise like crazy to us their Movie/Music/Game divisions not to mention possibly even their brand of electronics.

Theirs maybe a reason the PS3 is such a good BD player, because Sony know that a stand alone player cant merge the things above. In doing so they are vastly increasing their profit/sales potential. This doesnt mean their isnt a market for traditional type players and some folk wont be the slightest bit interested in PS3, however i think in general sales standalones compared to PS3 would be vastly out numbered.

 

[FrankJH]

snip.

2 questions for you Mr Latte:

1) In another thread I think you suggested that Sony would probably sell 10 Million PS3's this year alone (2008), I dont think I misread that but do you honestly think thats possible? If so do you think they need to do more to the platform (whether its system functionality wise with updates or price reduction/vfm with more high profile games to be released) - just because "dozens of millions over 3-5 years seems small when in one year projected sales is 10 million!!

2) The major question is though, with the PS3 being a much more cross the board entertainment unit than any other playstation product - do you think the PS3 brings profit to the Sony Corporation as a whole (even though they are seperate companies effectively) - even if its just by association?

 

[Mr Latte]

2 questions for you Mr Latte:

1) In another thread I think you suggested that Sony would probably sell 10 Million PS3's this year alone (2008), I dont think I misread that but do you honestly think thats possible? If so do you think they need to do more to the platform (whether its system functionality wise with updates or price reduction/vfm with more high profile games to be released) - just because "dozens of millions over 3-5 years seems small when in one year projected sales is 10 million!!

2) The major question is though, with the PS3 being a much more cross the board entertainment unit than any other playstation product - do you think the PS3 brings profit to the Sony Corporation as a whole (even though they are seperate companies effectively) - even if its just by association?

Both good questions:

If the war is seen to be at an end between the two rival formats i think this will create a spurt of people buying as a lot of people have been sitting on the fence untill one format had won.
PS3 imo is still the No.1 option for the vast majority of Blu Ray adopters. But you have to look at what games Sony have coming this year, finally long overdue franchises then theirs Home and im sure Blu Ray will have a major release schedule this year. On top of that the system via updates is getting better and better.

Its not very often thiers actually much bad said about the actual PS3 system. The problem so far has been content and comparisons to Xbox Live etc but i think in 2008 Sony will catch up with a lot of that stuff. Home could be major as could games like "Little Big Planet" and at least 5 highly anticipated games.

Now that all the major consoles have launched and as the Wii loses its unique fun appeal with little in the way of other software to really make people like myself that havnt already bought it get it in the future. The same really for the Xbox 360, its got great games coming but what else? Chances are i think you will see a lot of 360 owners now looking to buy a PS3 because it offers additional choice and for all the reasons mentioned.

I see the PS3 as having the most upcoming new stuff this year, and not just games with the assumption that Blu Ray will become more and more of a factor to purchase one as it grows as a viable movie platform. The tv thingy that also allows recording and wireless streaming of Live Tv to PSP could interest a few. Personally i see it as the "To have console of 2008"

10 Million this year no problems. People love the brand and now its actually going to have good reasons to buy it. Id assume it will hit £250 this year and retaillers making great value bundles.

2. PS3 from a manufacturing position wont bring them much profit for a while yet, the profit comes from software and sales of accessories. Things like Dual Shock 3 wil be very popular to most current owners. Their clever in the way they are going about combining PS3 with PSP right down to old games for sale on PSN. They know they will make a mint from Home and future purchase/downloads services not to mention the big game franchises due this year.