- LOCK - Format War - HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray - LOCK -

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='mykevermin']We'll see how that pans out. They need to get that back soon.

I noticed that the $300 HD DVD player that everyone was going bonkers over last week maxes out at 1080i. That's pretty significant for the videophile (and has some greater degree of planned obsolescence than a 1080p player), but ultimately, I think, irrelevant for the average consumer, who (1) wants to jump into the HD era but also (2) doesn't know a lick, nor cares to know a lick, about various i's, p's, DLP, LCD, Plasma, and all that other jargon.

If the resulting Funai products can match the $300 pricepoint, then they're in good shape. It will be interesting to see how what really ought to be a big week for HD DVD (with lower-priced players and the Matrix Trilogy hitting at the same time) impacts the market, both relative to Blu Ray, but also in terms of the overall video retail market (wherein both formats are like the "Apple" to DVD's "PC").[/quote]
jeebus, read the thread. for some1 who thinks that other people dont "know a lick" youre pretty freaking ignorant yourself.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2932803&postcount=529

& dallow thats good news. and further proof of why i was saying the format war is a GOOD THING because it forced both HD DVD & blu-ray prices to drop much faster than they otherwise would have. despite what either side wants you to believe competition only benefits consumers.
 
[quote name='propeller_head']jeebus, read the thread. for some1 who thinks that other people dont "know a lick" youre pretty freaking ignorant yourself.

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2932803&postcount=529

& dallow thats good news. and further proof of why i was saying the format war is a GOOD THING because it forced both HD DVD & blu-ray prices to drop much faster than they otherwise would have. despite what either side wants you to believe competition only benefits consumers.[/QUOTE]

Fancy that. 1080i and 1080p are identical. I wonder if that's always true.

[quote name='propeller_head']hmm. well it has to be the tv then. maybe it doesnt get along w/ the ps3, or it could be the signal. some 720p sets 1080 will look better on even though they cant display them, some 720 will. it comes down the what chips they used. only way to find out is through trial and error.

it might also be the HDMI wire if youre running it far. you should use the shortest HDMI wire possible.
http://www.audioholics.com/education/cables/whats-the-matter-with-hdmi[/QUOTE]

Oh, wait. It isn't. Nice of you to help me there. Now that the PS3 can display BR in 720p, it is *immediately* evident how much better it looks in 720p compared to 1080i. It's night and fucking day, really. For your help, I thank you.

Now, what have I learned from this? My 720p looks better than 1080i; now, of course, if what you said most recently is true (1080p and i are identical), then what we're dealing with is a bit of a paradox, no?

Since 720p>1080i (for me), and 1080i-1080p (according to you), then, logically, 720p>1080p.

Right?

Or, else we're dealing with a bit of fuzzy fabrication that distorts the reality that 1080p and 1080i really *are* different. Can't have it both ways, honcho.

Now, as for me? I'll stick with 720p over 1080i. Makes 'dem Blu Rays look purty. Thanks again!
 
hey genius you said
[quote name='mykevermin']I noticed that the $300 HD DVD player that everyone was going bonkers over last week maxes out at 1080i. That's pretty significant for the videophile (and has some greater degree of planned obsolescence than a 1080p player), but ultimately, I think, irrelevant for the average consumer, who (1) wants to jump into the HD era but also (2) doesn't know a lick, nor cares to know a lick, about various i's, p's, DLP, LCD, Plasma, and all that other jargon.

If the resulting Funai products can match the $300 pricepoint, then they're in good shape. It will be interesting to see how what really ought to be a big week for HD DVD (with lower-priced players and the Matrix Trilogy hitting at the same time) impacts the market, both relative to Blu Ray, but also in terms of the overall video retail market (wherein both formats are like the "Apple" to DVD's "PC").[/quote] maxes out at 1080i, guess what. it does 720p. did you even mention 720p? no you talked about 1080i and then how thats significant for a videophile, WRONG, videophiles know that for films & TV 1080i = 1080p. ITS THE SAME THING.

and btw, the Funai is predicted to be priced at $500 (Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun industrial daily said it will cost around US$500, or about ¥60,000.)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129106-c,industrynews/article.html

they also said that they're looking at making a HD DVD player as well.

oh and FTR, your wrong about 720p always looking better on 720p sets. a lot of times 1080 will, it really depends on what chips they used. which you should know since you had/are having that problem w/ your PS3 and TV.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Fancy that. 1080i and 1080p are identical. I wonder if that's always true.



Oh, wait. It isn't. Nice of you to help me there. Now that the PS3 can display BR in 720p, it is *immediately* evident how much better it looks in 720p compared to 1080i. It's night and fucking day, really. For your help, I thank you.

Now, what have I learned from this? My 720p looks better than 1080i; now, of course, if what you said most recently is true (1080p and i are identical), then what we're dealing with is a bit of a paradox, no?

Since 720p>1080i (for me), and 1080i-1080p (according to you), then, logically, 720p>1080p.

Right?

Or, else we're dealing with a bit of fuzzy fabrication that distorts the reality that 1080p and 1080i really *are* different. Can't have it both ways, honcho.

Now, as for me? I'll stick with 720p over 1080i. Makes 'dem Blu Rays look purty. Thanks again![/QUOTE]

Somebody over at SA explained pretty well why 1080p really isn't important when it comes to hi-def movies.

[quote name='frumpsnake']
1080p runs 60 full frames a second whereas 1080i runs 60 fields per second. But if the odd and even fields correspond to the same frame then 1080i can be considered 1080p30.

Film runs at 24fps and is telecined to NTSC's 29.97 by repeating frames. This is often known as "2:3 pulldown" because the first 24fps frame takes up two fields, the second frame takes up 3 fields, the third frame takes up 2 fields, and fourth frame takes up 3 fields etc. So if the full resolution of all 24 frames are contained in a 48(60Hz) interlaced signal, what does 60fps progressive get you in this case? Nothing but repeated frames essentially.

Modern progressive displays like LCDs and Plasmas are not interlaced devices, so they have to deinterlace anyway. The great majority of them have decent scalers than can detect 2:3 pulldown and a) know that the two fields belong to the same frame and just weave them together, and on more expensive devices b) remove the 2:3 pulldown/repeated frames and display the raw 24fps (actually usually they display 72fps and repeat each frame three times, go figure)

TVs often also have explicit settings such as "Force Weave"/"Cinema deinterlacing" so that you can ensure your TV isn't de-interlacing and interpolating fields which belong to the same frame.

1080p has some benefit -- if your TV fucking sucks and always attempts to deinterlace a progressive signal, for instance. With no reliance on the TV's deinterlacing circuitry it ensures that every TV will display the signal pretty much equally.

Unlike DVD, HD-DVD and BluRay also stores 24fps content in its original 24fps format without the 2:3 pulldown added. Meaning that as more displays are capable of 24fps playback, the player won't have to insert the repeated fields at all and you'll have true 24fps playback, again without the TV having to remove the pulldown, if it can. The benefit here of course is smoother motion, pans, etc, not resolution.

And of course, it has the benefit when the HD material is actually 60fps, like the NIN Beside You In Time HD-DVD/Blu-Ray at least. In cases like that you can go back to discussing how much better progressive vs interlaced is when it comes to motion.
[/quote]
 
[quote name='propeller_head']oh and FTR, your wrong about 720p always looking better on 720p sets. a lot of times 1080 will, it really depends on what chips they used. which you should know since you had/are having that problem w/ your PS3 and TV.[/QUOTE]

Well, in that case, then, "it really depends" whether or not 1080i is identical to 1080p, now, doesn't it?
 
Sony sued over Blu-ray

California company alleges patent infringements in PS3 maker's latest optical disc technology.


Posted May 24, 2007 3:52 pm PT

Given its global position as an electronics giant, Sony is quite familiar with patent law. The company is also quite familiar with the potential penalties for running afoul of patent law, as evidenced by the $97 million in damages and interest it had to pay Immersion Corporation in a dispute over the rumble functions in Dual Shock controllers.

While the two companies have since patched things up, Sony opted to leave rumble by the wayside when it was designing the PlayStation 3's motion-sensing Sixaxis controller. The electronics giant couldn't avoid patent headaches entirely, however, as Irvine, California-based Target Technology Company filed suit earlier this month, seeking damages for alleged patent violations relating to the Blu-ray technology used in the system.

The suit, which names Sony Computer Entertainment America, Sony Pictures, and Sony DADC, claims that products marketed under the Blu-ray name infringe on a patent it owns for reflective layer materials in optical discs. The patent addresses what Target called a need for specific types of silver-based alloys with the advantages (but not the price) of gold. According to the patent, the alloys are also more resistant to corrosion than pure silver.

Target does not specify in its suit whether it believes all of Sony's Blu-ray discs infringe on its patent, or the suit applies to just a portion of the discs manufactured. The patent was filed in April of 2004 and granted in March of 2006.

Target is seeking a permanent injunction preventing Sony from violating its patent rights in the future, as well as damages with interest, multiplied due to what it characterizes as deliberate and willful infringement.
Sony representatives declined to comment, while Target's attorneys had not returned GameSpot's requests for comment as of press time.
Click to expand...

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171498.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;7

Its going to be interesting how this one turns out, although it may not kill Blu-Ray, it has the pontential to make Sony lose quite a few million if Target wins.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']:dunce: err duh umm 720p 1080 is? uuhh[/quote]
no, how is this so hard to understand?

720p has NOTHING to do w/ it. how can i explain it any clearer than i did before? just go back and reread, hopefully it will sink in the second time.
 
Let me make this crystal clear for you, and use 100-level logic textbook style sentences.

You claim that 1080i = 1080p. You are unwilling to admit any variation in that argument. Thus, 1080i always equals 1080p.

In my experience, 1080i provided inferior visuals to 720p. If your argument holds true, then one would find that 720p is always superior to 1080p (given that 1080i always equals 1080p). Even if I am a lone television in the universe, any anomaly from such a solid claim (that 1080i equals 1080p, with no exception) is a striking refutation of said claim.

So, there are two possible outcomes here:

1) 720p is *not* superior to 1080p, and we admit that 1080i and 1080p are not always equal...OR

2) 720p is *always* superior to 1080p, and we admit that 1080i and 1080p are always equal.

720p has *everything* to do with it. You merely want to dance around it as a consequence of it refuting your claim that 1080i and 1080p are, and always will be, identical.

For the record, contrary to your claim, I am not saying that 720p *ALWAYS* bests 1080i; I am saying that, in *my* experience and with *my* set, 720p is vastly preferable to 1080i. I am using *my* experience with *my* set to explain how faulty your claims of 1080 parity is.

For someone so grouchy about what arguments are made, you sure like to put words in other people's mouths.
 
this is not rocket science.

on a 1080p set, there are 1920x1080 pixels. if it takes a 1080i signal its still displaying the same number of pixels the same number of fps than if it took a 1080p signal. the only exception being a few $5,000 pioneer elite 1080p sets which accept 1080p at 24hz. then its displaying the same exact resolution, the same frames, just no pulldown.

on a 720p set there are usually 1336x768 pixels (even though its 1280x720 as an output) however some 720p sets do accept 1080 signals and do interpret them better. it really has to do w/ the player sending the signal and the chips in the TV. the movies themsleves are in 1080p, so theyre being downscaled regardless; its just a question of what does it better. one reason 1080 looks better sometimes is because some tvs will actually downscale the image to 1336x768 instead of the 1280x720 standard that most players will output if you choose that.

but the fact remains, your comment about it "Maxing Out" at 1080i and only videophiles noticing, as if it was some inferior output for HD DVD was WRONG. you dont know what you are talking about, and you should just drop it. because no amout of backpedalling or fuzzy logic will be able to change what youve already said.
 
[quote name='propeller_head']this is not rocket science.

on a 1080p set, there are 1920x1080 pixels. if it takes a 1080i signal its still displaying the same number of pixels the same number of fps than if it took a 1080p signal. the only exception being a few $5,000 pioneer elite 1080p sets which accept 1080p at 24hz. then its displaying the same exact resolution, the same frames, just no pulldown.

on a 720p set there are usually 1336x768 pixels (even though its 1280x720 as an output) however some 720p sets do accept 1080 signals and do interpret them better. it really has to do w/ the player sending the signal and the chips in the TV. the movies themsleves are in 1080p, so theyre being downscaled regardless; its just a question of what does it better. one reason 1080 looks better sometimes is because some tvs will actually downscale the image to 1336x768 instead of the 1280x720 standard that most players will output if you choose that.

but the fact remains, your comment about it "Maxing Out" at 1080i and only videophiles noticing, as if it was some inferior output for HD DVD was WRONG. you dont know what you are talking about, and you should just drop it. because no amout of backpedalling or fuzzy logic will be able to change what youve already said.[/QUOTE]

To be fair, *you* were the one dealing with absolutes, so if there are any exceptions to your argument, it's not I who is wrong. I'll let you figure out who is.

My point was precisely that; 1080i/1080p may be irrelevant at the moment, but when those $5,000 24Hz displays become more common over time (as they will), it will become evident why you would choose 1080p over 1080i. It's simple (if temporary) future-proofing. That's all. Some video players do it, and very few (the aforementioned one included) do not.

Moreover, relevance is, well, irrelevant. You can tell me that 1080i = 1080p until you're blue in the face. The fact is that, as you post more and more, you keep bringing up contingencies that really add complexity to your previously "simple" assertion, and poke more holes in your argument. I'm kinda sitting back and doing nothing, while you're providing ample evidence why 1080p is different. Just because you're too poor for a tv that does 24Hz and doesn't do "pulldown" doesn't make the 1080s equal.

Now, I greatly anticipate your next post, so I can find yet further reasons that differentiate 1080i and p.
 
When we buy new TVs and players.

Let's make sure they're 1080p/24khz compatible.

I've got my 1080/24 player already (thanks PS3!) time for the new TV.
 
[quote name='LinkinPrime']http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171498.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;7

Its going to be interesting how this one turns out, although it may not kill Blu-Ray, it has the pontential to make Sony lose quite a few million if Target wins.[/QUOTE]It also has the potential to be nothing. They hold a patent from March 06, just before the first titles were released in June. Honestly, do you think Sony would suddenly change the specs after all those years of development just to steal technology?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']To be fair, *you* were the one dealing with absolutes, so if there are any exceptions to your argument, it's not I who is wrong. I'll let you figure out who is.

My point was precisely that; 1080i/1080p may be irrelevant at the moment, but when those $5,000 24Hz displays become more common over time (as they will), it will become evident why you would choose 1080p over 1080i. It's simple (if temporary) future-proofing. That's all. Some video players do it, and very few (the aforementioned one included) do not.

Moreover, relevance is, well, irrelevant. You can tell me that 1080i = 1080p until you're blue in the face. The fact is that, as you post more and more, you keep bringing up contingencies that really add complexity to your previously "simple" assertion, and poke more holes in your argument. I'm kinda sitting back and doing nothing, while you're providing ample evidence why 1080p is different. Just because you're too poor for a tv that does 24Hz and doesn't do "pulldown" doesn't make the 1080s equal.

Now, I greatly anticipate your next post, so I can find yet further reasons that differentiate 1080i and p.[/quote] by the time 24hz sets hit mainstream, HD players will be the price of DVD players now. so that is POINTLESS. every1 buys another player eventually; be it for another room, new features, or because their old one breaks.

why spend more money for something which you wont even use for 5+ years? the 24hz sets are Plasma, LCD pixel refresh isnt variable like plasma so the only way to keep 24 & 60hz is to offer a minimum of 120hz, and at 120hz color reproduction is shady atm, as every1 who knows about monitor refreshes knows theres no standarization so a company can label it as a grey to white, black to white, or white to white refresh; which can vary by about 50% (a lot). expect another 3-4 years before theyre close to the plasmas. now plasmas are expensive to make, and they weigh a ton. imo, they arent going to ever catch on in mainstream & theyre going to be usurped by SEDs which will eventually usurp LCD when production costs come down http://www.canon.com/technology/canon_tech/explanation/sed.html

also by the time these SED tvs come out xvYCC should be arriving and you can say goodbye to HDMI then anyway, youll need a new player. because even though HDMI theoretically supports xvYCC, since it uses twisted pair instead of coax w/ that amount of bandwidth youre going to have about 6" of cable to work w/ before the signal quality loss becomes noticeable. HDMI being digital doesnt mean theres no signal loss, theres actually more than traditional AV connections.

lastly, your comment about my facts being based on me being "too poor" for a $5,000 pioneer elite is :lol: a.) because this is CheapAssGamer b.) because my set is actually bigger, better, and actually cost more than yours :p and c.) because people with money usually have it because they dont spend it all;) value
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2928089&postcount=513
http://www.vizio.com/products/detail.aspx?pid=20
i used to have a 40" sceptre 1080p set but it died and costco stopped selling it so they let me exchange it for $200 more. \\:D/

you can drop your pseudointellectual BS, every1 knows its an act. the only people who overtly act like that are insecure.
 
And now you're reinforcing that 1080i and 1080p are *not* exactly the same thing, yet again. You're changing your argument from "they're exactly the same" to "they're exactly the same except in this case, and this case, and this case...and in the future we'll all see how different they are."

I feel like I'm really just periphery to this whole argument, and that it's you versus yourself. Keep it up; less work for me means more time to play Warhawk.
 
what a cop out response. yes theyre microscopically different YEARS down the line. you would have to actually be looking for and know the dfiference between the two. maybe if you sat two sets right next to eachother and kept looking back and forth you might see a diff. and you know what you would see, the 24hz set would look weird to you because youve been used to seeing the telecine ever since you were watching sesame street. face it, you were talking out of your ass and you got caught.

the fact remains that for 99.999999% of HDTVs now it is EXACTLY the same.

its like saying "ohh dont buy that e6600 core2 duo, i saw at IDF they had an 80 core in development". never mind the fact that its years away and will likely cost more when it does come out. and those are 2 things that have a significant gap in performance, as opposed to something as simple as a Pulldown.
 
[quote name='propeller_head']what a cop out response. yes theyre microscopically different YEARS down the line. you would have to actually be looking for and know the dfiference between the two. maybe if you sat two sets right next to eachother and kept looking back and forth you might see a diff. and you know what you would see, the 24hz set would look weird to you because youve been used to seeing the telecine ever since you were watching sesame street. face it, you were talking out of your ass and you got caught.

the fact remains that for 99.999999% of HDTVs now it is EXACTLY the same.

its like saying "ohh dont buy that e6600 core2 duo, i saw at IDF they had an 80 core in development". never mind the fact that its years away and will likely cost more when it does come out. and those are 2 things that have a significant gap in performance, as opposed to something as simple as a Pulldown.[/QUOTE]

I believe the cop out response would be taking several days and roughly a dozen posts to finally admit that 1080i and 1080p are not the same. But, of course, concession doesn't seem to come easy to those ashamed to be wrong.

As for the *years down the line* bit, that was my precise fucking point in the first place (where you had to hop in with your ad hominems and tell me how wrong I was, at least until you finally admitted that they are not the same). The fact is, 1080p capable HD DVD players are available on the market NOW, and for marginally more than the $300 player, which maxes out at 1080i. That was my argument: people would jump on the HD DVD player now @ $300 aren't going to be buying $3000 HDTV sets, but in the future, when prices come down, they very well may. At which point, they may be remiss to discover that their HD DVD player doesn't do 1080p.

Christ on a pogo stick you can be such a pisser at times, over the most insignificant things. At least, though, in the end, you still kept pushing an argument for days that you knew was a falsehood. I'm sure we can count on your for reliable information in the future. ;)
 
jeebus, more fuzzy logic and strawmen from you.

YOU tried to make out the fact that 1080p was better and that the slackjawed masses were too dumb to realize this. YOU are wrong. they are BY AND FAR the same. YOU were just being a pompous know it all ass (as usual) who didnt know a lick of what he was talking about.

you must not even be reading my posts because i explained in detail why many times over.#-o

1080i and 1080p are not the same in how the signal is sent. THAT IS ALL. you could send 1080i/48 and you know what? it would be EXACTLY the same as 1080p/24 EXACTLY. i stands for interlaced, p stands for progressive. its sending the EXACT same information just in 2 different ways. you could even send 1080i/60 and you know what; these future SED or 120hz LCDs will still display the signal as 24hz because its still receiving the same frame timing info and theyll almost absolutely just throw out the extra frame and eliminate the pulldown (the ONLY difference between how virtually ALL tvs now display TV & movies, & how they will during the next decade)

i still think your logic of future-proofing is completely bonkers though. its based on assumptions which have no base in reality. but hey, if you enjoy flushing money down the toilet go ahead.

that is all:wave:
 
...and you provide yet further evidence that they are indeed different.

I ought to just leave this thread and let you be the one to debate yourself. At this point I'm doing little more than facilitating your admittances that they are different.
 
Having played God Of War in 480p and i, I will agree that they are different... And even playing games on my computer from 1024i to 1024p, they are different...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...and you provide yet further evidence that they are indeed different.

I ought to just leave this thread and let you be the one to debate yourself. At this point I'm doing little more than facilitating your admittances that they are different.[/quote] how? explain yourself, in detail.
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Having played God Of War in 480p and i, I will agree that they are different... And even playing games on my computer from 1024i to 1024p, they are different...[/quote] thats because you played it on a CRT, LCDs always display the same resolution unlike CRTs
 
[quote name='propeller_head']
thats because you played it on a CRT, LCDs always display the same resolution unlike CRTs[/quote]

....I don't understand your point. I played God of War on a 480i tube and then I played it in 480p on my HD CRT and the difference is remarkable. So if the difference between 480i to 480p is that much different, I can only assume the difference between 1080i and 1080p would be the same.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']....I don't understand your point. I played God of War on a 480i tube and then I played it in 480p on my HD CRT and the difference is remarkable. So if the difference between 480i to 480p is that much different, I can only assume the difference between 1080i and 1080p would be the same.[/quote] the point is on CRT an electron gun shoots the lines of resoultion one after the other so 480i and 480p are actually displayed differently & in most cases 2 actual different resolutions usually called SDTV & EDTV. since the earlier 480i tvs would use an optical trick to actually display 1/2 the lines progressively w/ the other 1/2 being drawn over the previous ones so fast your brain would interpret the image meshed together.

but on LCD, DLP, plasma, LCoS (about 99% of HDTVs) theres 1 resolution it can display usually 720p or 1080p and thats all. it displays all the pixels at the same time w/ the same refresh. and since i and p are actually the same resolution they are displayed the same.

its not the signal that made GoW look sharper in 480p, its the TV. and CRT doesnt apply anymore because the way the picture is displayed now; all tvs are progressive.

now for a game 1080p theoretically can handle 60fps while 1080i can handle 30 (well thats not entirely true it could handle 120 but thats about as common as a spotted zebra). but were talking about HD video players which output 24fps on TVs which display 60fps progressive regardless of what signal they receive. (though progressive is kind of a misnomer now since theyre displayed at the same time, its more like symmetrical & repetitious) its only the signal which is dfiferent, it would be like getting 2 paper cups of 8 oz of water or 1 plastic cup w/ 16. youre getting the same thing and once you drink it, its doing the same thing.

& ftr, ps3 can output 1080p/60 over HDMI and 360 can output it over component, VGA (& HDMI if it has it), so thats beside the point.

700px-Common_Video_Resolutions.svg.png
 
I was reading the ps3forums at IGN and a person came up with extremely interesting tidbits of information regarding the Blu-ray lawsuit with Target Technologies and Sony

For those of you who don't know what I am talking about, here is gamespot article: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6171498.html?tag=latestnews;title;3

Now, FYI this is a really long post:

This lawsuit is a lot more twisted than people think and here is the information on the matter.

The only company that seems capable of saving Sony, the Blu-Ray Disc Association, and Blu-Ray itself, is in fact Kodak and they need to be brought into the Blu-Ray Disc Association to help.

Kodak is the only company that has a patent to defend the Target Technologies patents because the patent Kodak made, before all of the Target Technologies patents, had distinctively stated the materials needed to be used in the reflective layer in Optical Discs where "the reflecting layer is comprised of a silver-palladium alloy, a silver-copper alloy, or a silver-palladium-copper alloy". The Patent Kodak made, was granted in September 7, 1999.

While the first ever patent that Target Technologies made, that was approved in December 28, 1999, stating "A copper-based or silver-based alloy thin film is provided for the highly reflective or semi-reflective layer of optical discs. Alloy additions to silver include gold, palladium, copper, rhodium, ruthenium, osmium, iridium, and platinum. Alloy additions to copper include silver, cadmium, gold, magnesium, aluminum, and nickel. These alloys have moderate to high reflectivity and reasonable corrosion resistance in the ambient environment."

But Target Technologies has kept making new patents there after, with each new patent bringing up a different combination of alloys based on silver and copper. Each new patent included the metal palladium or aluminum as a possible pair for either silver or copper. But every patent they have submitted has the same exact wording but different combinations of the metal.

Here are ALL OF THEIR PATENTS:
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6007889
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6280811
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6451402
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6544616
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6764735
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6790503
http://www.google.com/patents?id=P6IUAAAAEBAJ&;dq=6841219
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6852384
http://www.google.com/patents?id=F7cUAAAAEBAJ&;dq=6,896,947
http://www.google.com/patents?id=P7QUAAAAEBAJ&;dq=6,905,750
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Vpl3AAAAEBAJ&;dq=7,018,696
http://www.google.com/patents?id=1nN3AAAAEBAJ&;dq=7,045,187
http://www.google.com/patents?id=13N3AAAAEBAJ&;dq=7,045,188


Aside from every patent claiming that a silver-based alloy would "have moderate to high reflectivity and reasonable corrosion resistance in the ambient environment.", the actual examiner of each and every patent that Target Technologies had submitted from September 13, 2000 till their last patent that was approved in May 16, 2006, would be the exact same person, Elizabeth Mulvaney. The same person to submit each and every one of those patents would be a gentleman by the name of Han H. Nee, the founder of Target Technologies.

In affect silver is the necessary key metal that is needed to make the reflective surface of optical discs and what Target Technologies had effectively done was create a "Patent Monopoly" and sued Sony Pictures, SCEA, and Sony DADC not because of manufacturing and selling a product that Target Technologies has the patents for, but the fact that those 3 companies, subsidiaries of the Sony Corporation, in which the Sony Corporation shares licenses for Blu-Ray with companies in the Blu-Ray Disc Association, have absolutely NO PATENTS regarding combination of metals for Blu-Ray or any optical disc before Target Technologies first patent was in fact approved and granted. The subsidiaries don't even have any patents regarding the actual manufacturing of a reflective film used in optical discs, which leaves them more vulnerable to suing and more likely to settle outside of court but the terms of which would still be under refraining to violate all other Target patents, which includes publishing on ANY OPTICAL DISC FORMAT with a silver-based alloy film as a reflective surface.

Since silver is a key element in the reflective film used in optical discs today, it would leave Target Technologies with an entire Patent Monopoly that can be used to either forcefully license their patents which are a monopoly or to pursue any company that uses silver in any amount for the reflective film of any optical disc by suing them for patent infringement on any of the Target Technologies patents.

The only patent that stands as the one last defense is in fact Kodak's patent. If the Blu-Ray Disc Association were to effectively sway Kodak into the Blu-Ray camp, Kodak would have already submitted the patent prior to the first Target Technologies patent, and since Blu-Ray is not a "Sony" format but a format under the collaboration of multiple companies sharing necessary patents, materials, and R&D, to support the Blu-Ray format, Sony Corporation could license the patent from Kodak and be able to use THAT PATENT Kodak has, by having Kodak sue Target Technologies for violation of the Kodak patent that Sony Corporation would liscense. Once the evidence is there in the open against Target Technologies Patent Monopoly, Kodak can back up the claims in the Sony subsidiaries/Target Technologies lawsuit that Target Technologies had violated the terms of the US Patent Office by using the U.S. Patent Office to create a "Patent Monopoly" on the materials necessary to create any optical disc. This would in affect, have the case thrown out, enough reason to counter-sue Target Technologies for a "Patent Monopoly", and have all of the Target Technologies patents withdrawn from the patent office.

The patent that Kodak holds is at: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5948497
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']But wouldn't a video game still look a little better in 1080p as opposed to 1080i, just for the simple fact that you don't have some ghosting?[/quote] 1080i and 1080p have nothing to do with it. it is only the refresh rate. because the displays can ONLY display p (or more accurately all the pixels display at the same time, its only the FRAMES not the lines on the display which are SENT [not displayed] progressively) for video game consoles (NOT movies & TV, for movies & TV theres ZERO difference)
 
[quote name='propeller_head']1080i and 1080p have nothing to do with it. it is only the refresh rate. because the displays can ONLY display p (or more accurately all the pixels display at the same time, its only the FRAMES not the lines on the display which are SENT [not displayed] progressively) for video game consoles (NOT movies & TV, for movies & TV theres ZERO difference)[/quote]

So basically what you are saying is that 1080p only matters if you have a really nice tv with a good refresh rate? And I knew about it not making a difference with TV and movies, which is why I like my CRT better than LCD for normal TV watching.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']So basically what you are saying is that 1080p only matters if you have a really nice tv with a good refresh rate? And I knew about it not making a difference with TV and movies, which is why I like my CRT better than LCD for normal TV watching.[/quote]
well CRT looks better for TV than a lot of LCDs (if it displays 1080i which is what most HD tv signals are sent in) because CRT has better contrast. doesnt have to do w/ its input. yes

but again, it has nothing to do w/ the signal input. just with the display.
 
Awesome. Finally something I am actually interested in coming to hi-def. Will definitely be watching Lost. Not sure if its worth a purchase though, would be pretty pricey.
 
[quote name='dpatel']Awesome. Finally something I am actually interested in coming to hi-def. Will definitely be watching Lost. Not sure if its worth a purchase though, would be pretty pricey.[/quote]

Haha, same here.

I did want Planet Earth and scored a copy for just $45 from a guy on Craigslist.
 
I don't know how to switch from 480i to 480p on my laptop, although I know the difference exists.

Lost? meh. House on Hi-Def is what I'm waiting for. That will be awesome
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I don't know how to switch from 480i to 480p on my laptop, although I know the difference exists.

Lost? meh. House on Hi-Def is what I'm waiting for. That will be awesome[/quote]

Your laptop uses an LCD screen. Those are inherently progressive.
 
[quote name='dpatel']Awesome. Finally something I am actually interested in coming to hi-def. Will definitely be watching Lost. Not sure if its worth a purchase though, would be pretty pricey.[/QUOTE]

Well, you won't be.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Disney/Disney_Says_No_to_Lost,_Badder_Santa_on_Blu-ray/671

In a late-breaking update, Disney Home Entertainment says that contrary to recent reports, the studio is not planning to release either 'Lost: The Complete Third Season' or 'Badder Santa' on Blu-ray this fall.
Click to expand...

This is fucking ridiculous. First, Fox cancels all their titles for no reason at all. Sure, some have speculated its because of BD+, but that does not seem to be the reason.

This came from bluray.com, it is from the editor at hometheaterspot

I asked our press contact the same thing last week. Her reply, in a nutshell was that it's "TBD". They don't even have any information yet. I'm guessing it'll depend on how and when BD+ works out. But, for some reason Fox doesn't want to openly state that BD+ is what they're waiting on. That's just the only thing that makes any sense.
Click to expand...

So WHAT THE HELL is going on? Sony canceled a ton of their titles, Fox has 'postponed' theirs, Disney delayed Cars and a few others...whats going on behind the scenes? Is it possible they simply do not have enough BR disc to make the movies? Are some studios going neutral? Are they waiting for better encryption?

Not a single person apparently knows. Even beatboy77 over at AVS who has 'good sources' does not know, but claimed last month Fox would make an announcement...and that never happened. I'm getting tired of all these damn delays.
 
BR won another battle selling 47,000 copies of Pirates, compared to HD only selling 13,900 copies of the Matrix. Another small victory for BR, but far from winning the war.
 
Eh...I suppose that's something, but isn't Pirates (1) fresher in people's minds since there are ads everywhere for the 3rd movie (though you could argue that the ads aren't pointing out the BR releases of the two movies, and (2) The Matrix has been released in roughly 340,000 different versions, box sets, and etc. (aren't there two HD DVD box sets for this movie already?). The Matrix has whored itself out to video in numerous ways, while Pirates has not (yet).

Plus (IMO) The Matrix is *awful*.

Now, all that said, is the 47,000 figure for *1* movie or *both* movies combines (or 47,000 each, for a total of 94,000)? If you're saying that each movie sold 23,5000 copies, roughly, then that's a large number over HD DVD, but still kinda low for sales (weren't first week sales of Casino Royale over 100K?).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Eh...I suppose that's something, but isn't Pirates (1) fresher in people's minds since there are ads everywhere for the 3rd movie (though you could argue that the ads aren't pointing out the BR releases of the two movies, and (2) The Matrix has been released in roughly 340,000 different versions, box sets, and etc. (aren't there two HD DVD box sets for this movie already?). The Matrix has whored itself out to video in numerous ways, while Pirates has not (yet).

Plus (IMO) The Matrix is *awful*.

Now, all that said, is the 47,000 figure for *1* movie or *both* movies combines (or 47,000 each, for a total of 94,000)? If you're saying that each movie sold 23,5000 copies, roughly, then that's a large number over HD DVD, but still kinda low for sales (weren't first week sales of Casino Royale over 100K?).[/QUOTE]

The 47k number is for both pirates IIRC. The matrix number is for both boxsets combined. Since the boxsets each include 3 movies it would be roughly the same sales figures movie wise. As you said all The Matrix movies have been released 20 times so most people already own it in some form. Money wise they are pretty equal...which is a bad thing for Bluray sine they have 3+ million players compared to HD DVD with under a million ,360 addon included. I bought both Pirates but have yet to get The Matrix...soon though.
 
Gosh, Sony is being sued AGAIN for Blu-Ray.

Our previous report on legal actions against Sony involved Target Technology and their claim that Sony's Blu-rayinfringes on their patent. While that one was more about the more on the materials in the Blu-ray disc, this new lawsuit, this time from Certicom Corp, claims that Sony Corp's Blu-ray infringed on two US patents on digital content protection.

The suit claims that Sony is using Certicom licensed digital encryption technology (AACS) in Sony Blu-ray HD products. Certicom also claims that a digital transmission patent (Digital Transmission Content Protection or DTCP) was also infringed by Sony as it is being used without a license in wireless and audio devices.
Click to expand...

Doesn't HD DVD use AACS protection as well?
 
Isn't it also funny that Sony is the only one being sued when BR was a joint venture. I don't understand how you can single out one company when several others are doing the same thing.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Well, you won't be.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Disney/Disney_Says_No_to_Lost,_Badder_Santa_on_Blu-ray/671



This is fucking ridiculous. First, Fox cancels all their titles for no reason at all. Sure, some have speculated its because of BD+, but that does not seem to be the reason.

This came from bluray.com, it is from the editor at hometheaterspot



So WHAT THE HELL is going on? Sony canceled a ton of their titles, Fox has 'postponed' theirs, Disney delayed Cars and a few others...whats going on behind the scenes? Is it possible they simply do not have enough BR disc to make the movies? Are some studios going neutral? Are they waiting for better encryption?

Not a single person apparently knows. Even beatboy77 over at AVS who has 'good sources' does not know, but claimed last month Fox would make an announcement...and that never happened. I'm getting tired of all these damn delays.[/QUOTE]

damnit.. that sucks! I don't see why Studio neutrality would affect this, and I can't see the lack of BR discs being a problem. I'm guessing studios are just not happy with the small userbases of either format. Look at the sales of both the Matrix and Pirates. Pretty terrible for some high grossing movies. I'm guessing we won't see anything noteworthy until the fanbases pick up. I imagine both formats will see a pretty big spike this xmas though, as I can see HD appealing more to the masses by the end of this year, with plenty of deals on HDTVs, hi-def players, etc.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']The 47k number is for both pirates IIRC. The matrix number is for both boxsets combined. Since the boxsets each include 3 movies it would be roughly the same sales figures movie wise. As you said all The Matrix movies have been released 20 times so most people already own it in some form. Money wise they are pretty equal...which is a bad thing for Bluray sine they have 3+ million players compared to HD DVD with under a million ,360 addon included. I bought both Pirates but have yet to get The Matrix...soon though.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing studios aren't using the same logic as you. I am hoping studios are smart enough to realize that with the PS3, attach ratio is naturally going to be a lot lower.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']...(weren't first week sales of Casino Royale over 100K?).[/quote]
no. nowhere even remotely close. thats more sony pr bullsh.t
100k SHIPPED (2 weeks after its release not 1), including all the copies that were included w/ the PS3 european/australian launch.

the first (& i think only) HD movie to SELL 100k copies in any timeframe (3 months in this case) is The Departed. and thats including both formats.
 
[quote name='dallow']Gosh, Sony is being sued AGAIN for Blu-Ray.



Doesn't HD DVD use AACS protection as well?[/quote] yes and you can bet they'll be getting sued too, unless they already covered their bases.

[quote name='millrat1030']Isn't it also funny that Sony is the only one being sued when BR was a joint venture. I don't understand how you can single out one company when several others are doing the same thing.[/quote]
well were not sure if theyre the only, theyre certainly the first. sony also infringed w/ a bunch of their other tech, like i.Link for example.
 
[quote name='dpatel']damnit.. that sucks! I don't see why Studio neutrality would affect this, and I can't see the lack of BR discs being a problem. I'm guessing studios are just not happy with the small userbases of either format. Look at the sales of both the Matrix and Pirates. Pretty terrible for some high grossing movies. I'm guessing we won't see anything noteworthy until the fanbases pick up. I imagine both formats will see a pretty big spike this xmas though, as I can see HD appealing more to the masses by the end of this year, with plenty of deals on HDTVs, hi-def players, etc.[/quote]
yea the market is still in its infancy. 50k or 100k is nothing. DVD sales, even now when theyre waning and most people have filled most of their library are still close to 1.5 billion discs a year.

it wont be until players get close to that magic $249.99 or $199.99 mark that people will notice them in the stores and theyll start getting center isle displays w/ sub $400 HDTVs. then disc prices will be down to around $20 and take up about 1/2 of the DVD shelving space. then and only then will disc sales begin to mean anything tangible.
 
i loved the first, like the second, and was disappointed w/ the third.

but i hated none of them. they're good movies. and right now next to the departed, king kong, & planet earth they're about the best reference material you can own for any HD format.
 
Just read on AVSforum that Sony's new Blu-Ray player, Model: BDP-S300, scheduled to ship this month will cost $499, down from the originally planned price of $599. Granted this is true, how do you think it will affect the format war and also how do you think it will affect PS3 sales. I personally know of about 5 people that bought a PS3 strictly for a Blu-Ray player and can care less about gaming. Any thoughts?

"TVPredictions.com has learned that at least one electronics chain in the Washington, D.C. area has been notified that the player (Model: BDP-S300) will be priced at $499.

The chain's representative spoke to TVPredictions.com in confidence. However, he said Sony plans to ship the new Blu-ray player this month and it will cost $499. "

http://www.tvpredictions.com/sonysurprise060107.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top