What is DVD 2.0 ?

Did i misunderstand or is MS bringing a firm ware update to the 360 that supports some new dvd format that is similar to hd-dvd ? Can someone link me to a news article or something. Thanks.

I've not heard anything about MS planning to do this.

I remember reading a tech article 4-5 months ago that was something like this, around the time HD DVD was officially retired, but nothing since then. I think it was just people wildly speculating assuming MS would have to come up with some alternative to Blu-ray

This is the first I'm hearing anything about this.Strife88

Nah, the rumor surfaced around the web.

I'm confused too. I dont think it would be possible to read a superior format through an update

[QUOTE="Strife88"]This is the first I'm hearing anything about this.ProductNumber49

Nah, the rumor surfaced around the web.

I'm confused too. I dont think it would be possible to read a superior format through an update

Actually it is. The resolution on the screen has little to do with the storage format for the video (in this case DVD). There is already movies out with extra discs called Xtreme DVD or something or annother. I have a T2: Judgement Day version of one of these sets. One disc contains a 1080p Dolby 5.1 version of the entire film. Which is entirely possible, a DVD is about 8 gigs worth of storage space and an actual movie in 1080p resolution depending on the codec and length will take up about 4-8 gigs. Of course you need Media PLayer 11 codecs to play the disc...it would take very little for M$ to send out a codec update allowing these movies to be played in high def. This is why I have said from the begining that HD-DVD and Bluray were complete scams and that the DVD format was already fully capable of supporting movies of higher resolution. If you try to argue otherwise with me I would really like to know how my games on a DVD disc are able to display at 1080p from my 360. Bottom line is, most people are idiotic consumers. Bluray is going to be a failure as a format as it is, the general trend for movie and television watching is increasingly moving towards"On Demand" and streaming services thanks to high speed internet. With Netflix streaming thousands of videos instantly to my 360 it will be waaaaay more used than my PS3's bluray drive.

[QUOTE="ProductNumber49"]

[QUOTE="Strife88"]This is the first I'm hearing anything about this.SuicideVanV2

Nah, the rumor surfaced around the web.

I'm confused too. I dont think it would be possible to read a superior format through an update

Actually it is. The resolution on the screen has little to do with the storage format for the video (in this case DVD). There is already movies out with extra discs called Xtreme DVD or something or annother. I have a T2: Judgement Day version of one of these sets. One disc contains a 1080p Dolby 5.1 version of the entire film. Which is entirely possible, a DVD is about 8 gigs worth of storage space and an actual movie in 1080p resolution depending on the codec and length will take up about 4-8 gigs. Of course you need Media PLayer 11 codecs to play the disc...it would take very little for M$ to send out a codec update allowing these movies to be played in high def. This is why I have said from the begining that HD-DVD and Bluray were complete scams and that the DVD format was already fully capable of supporting movies of higher resolution. If you try to argue otherwise with me I would really like to know how my games on a DVD disc are able to display at 1080p from my 360. Bottom line is, most people are idiotic consumers. Bluray is going to be a failure as a format as it is, the general trend for movie and television watching is increasingly moving towards"On Demand" and streaming services thanks to high speed internet. With Netflix streaming thousands of videos instantly to my 360 it will be waaaaay more used than my PS3's bluray drive.

I think a negative to the DVD format would be game size, John Carmack said that their new game RAGE coming out will be on 1 blu-ray disc full 1080p while the 360 game will be on full HD on 3 discs only if MS pays the disc royaltys otherwise the game will be on the 360 on 2 discs at downscaled graphics. Unless they can stream full HD video games at half the price of the disc then blu-ray is much better.

[QUOTE="ProductNumber49"]

[QUOTE="Strife88"]This is the first I'm hearing anything about this.SuicideVanV2

Nah, the rumor surfaced around the web.

I'm confused too. I dont think it would be possible to read a superior format through an update

Actually it is. The resolution on the screen has little to do with the storage format for the video (in this case DVD). There is already movies out with extra discs called Xtreme DVD or something or annother. I have a T2: Judgement Day version of one of these sets. One disc contains a 1080p Dolby 5.1 version of the entire film. Which is entirely possible, a DVD is about 8 gigs worth of storage space and an actual movie in 1080p resolution depending on the codec and length will take up about 4-8 gigs. Of course you need Media PLayer 11 codecs to play the disc...it would take very little for M$ to send out a codec update allowing these movies to be played in high def. This is why I have said from the begining that HD-DVD and Bluray were complete scams and that the DVD format was already fully capable of supporting movies of higher resolution. If you try to argue otherwise with me I would really like to know how my games on a DVD disc are able to display at 1080p from my 360. Bottom line is, most people are idiotic consumers. Bluray is going to be a failure as a format as it is, the general trend for movie and television watching is increasingly moving towards"On Demand" and streaming services thanks to high speed internet. With Netflix streaming thousands of videos instantly to my 360 it will be waaaaay more used than my PS3's bluray drive.

I don't pretend to know everything about the formats, but it seems like you're forgetting some things. There is more than just storage size. There is the size of the laser as well as how much data can be streamed per second. Also, DVD on one side can hold 8GB, but a 1080p movie can be much larger than that, and that's not even including extras or considering the fact that the movie can be longer. Yes, there is the other side of DVD, but that's a hassle and plus, it's better to have a disc with only one side because of the artwork and more importantly because it's much easier to get fingerprints, smudges, scratches, etc. on a two sided disc.

As far as the market moving to on-demand, I don't think that will happen. First of all, people prefer to have hard media. That way they KNOW they own the movie and they can peruse their collection, let friends borrow their copies, and they don't have to be dependent on whether or not their internet works or is fast enough for them to enjoy movies. Also, for the most part, "idiotic consumers" don't want to watch movies on their computers (unless they're travelling, etc.) and they won't know how to or have the inclination to hook their computer to their TV to enjoy it a better way. I hook my laptop up to my TV to watch movies sometimes but it's kind of a hassle and not very user-friendly; too many steps to watch a movie when I could simply pop in a disc and let it go from there.

You do know that current Bluray drives pull data at a slower rate than DVD drives right? Hence all the complaints regarding PS3 loading sequences. And yes a movie with crappy deleted scenes, a boring director commentary, and some cleverly edited cast interviews will certainly take up more than 8 gigs nearly ANY movie can fit on a DVD with 1080p picture and 5.1 sound. As I previously mentioned I have T2: Judgement Day with 20 extra minutes of director's cut footage in the film making it well over 2 and a half hours of 1080p viewing...which covers just about 99.9% of movies out there.

Lol, at anyone doubting the power of On Demand and streaming movie services. Not all consumers are as stupid as you and willing to throw money away on DVDs that they will watch maybe 2 or 3 times. I never understood the impulse some people have to buy DVDs out of habit. Time Warner, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, Dish Network, Direct TV, Comcast and more are all banking on there being a major shift in consumer demand from hard copies to digital sales, and I thinks they knows sumthin about da biznus. I guess you were the guy saying that MP3 downloads will never measure up to CD sales too right?

While we may be moving towards an on demand sevice, we are a long way from it becoming a realistic option world wide.

Anyone can pick up a DVD or Bluray player and some discs and begin watching films. Far fewer people have an internet connection cable of delivering on demand data at a decent rate. Remember that whatever format they decide on is going worldwide, and not just to the US which has the infrastructure to deliver fast broadband speeds.

While we may be moving towards an on demand sevice, we are a long way from it becoming a realistic option world wide.

Anyone can pick up a DVD or Bluray player and some discs and begin watching films. Far fewer people have an internet connection cable of delivering on demand data at a decent rate. Remember that whatever format they decide on is going worldwide, and not just to the US which has the infrastructure to deliver fast broadband speeds.

Avenger1324

The worldwide market is of little to no concern beyond western developed nations to media corporations. The rampant piracy in non-developed nations makes any venture of media in those areas unfeasable. Remember that consumers when viewing movies have always chosen convience over even quality...a good example of this are the failures of Betamax and Laserdisc...both superior formats for their time, but inconvient. You also can't forget about the supply side of economics in this discussion. Data transfer of media is about 1,000 times more efficient from a cost analysis than even the most well concieved hard media distribution plan meaning it will allow the companies who provide us with media the situation where they can lower prices, and at the same time boost profits over what it is currently capable of.

[QUOTE="Avenger1324"]

While we may be moving towards an on demand sevice, we are a long way from it becoming a realistic option world wide.

Anyone can pick up a DVD or Bluray player and some discs and begin watching films. Far fewer people have an internet connection cable of delivering on demand data at a decent rate. Remember that whatever format they decide on is going worldwide, and not just to the US which has the infrastructure to deliver fast broadband speeds.

SuicideVanV2

The worldwide market is of little to no concern beyond western developed nations to media corporations. The rampant piracy in non-developed nations makes any venture of media in those areas unfeasable. Remember that consumers when viewing movies have always chosen convience over even quality...a good example of this are the failures of Betamax and Laserdisc...both superior formats for their time, but inconvient. You also can't forget about the supply side of economics in this discussion. Data transfer of media is about 1,000 times more efficient from a cost analysis than even the most well concieved hard media distribution plan meaning it will allow the companies who provide us with media the situation where they can lower prices, and at the same time boost profits over what it is currently capable of.

In the UK less than half the population has broadband at home and the average connection speed is just 512kb - that is not a feasible connection to be downloading 8GB films on. You are right when you say people pick convenience over quality, and people are not prepared to wait for longer than the length of the film to download it, whereas discs can be put in and watched immediately. We need MUCH faster connections to make it feasible, and the UK is one of the more technologically advanced nations of the western world.

It is flawed logic to say companies will just ignore less developed nations, and surely making the data downloadable is making it even easier to pirate - it just removes the step of somone ripping it from DVD.

With regards to the price - while companies can lower their costs of distribution they will not pass them on to customers. They know we are prepared to pay a certain price for a film and will just stick to that price. If they can reduce their costs it just means they make more profits, not that any of it gets passed along to us as consumers.

As an example look at the cost of downloading music (legally) through sites such as iTunes or Napster. Their prices may be similar to buying the CD when it is new, but while the price of the CD will fall fast in shops, it stays almost constant online, despite having considerably less distribution costs. They also charge the US, EU and UK different prices for the same content when the cost of the content and delivery is almost identical. Companies have identified a price point customers are willing to pay for content and charge that amount regardless of how little it costs them to distribute it

"With regards to the price - while companies can lower their costs of distribution they will not pass them on to customers. They know we are prepared to pay a certain price for a film and will just stick to that price. If they can reduce their costs it just means they make more profits, not that any of it gets passed along to us as consumers."

Friedman, Phelps, Laffer, and Greenspan all disagree with you.

Your argument erroneously assumes that suppliers are at the whim of the demanders...maybe in a perfectly competetive market, but movies aren't milk.

Apparently Col. Kilgore knows nothing of the state and capability of the fiber optic networks already in place and that download speed at this time is not limited by bandwidth but rather the switch relays. He also must not realize that in a couple months every Netflix subscriber with a 360 will be able to stream Netflix's 30,000 plus "watch now" library. I'm guessing this is the kind of guy who thought CD's would never be replaced by digital media...SuicideVanV2

no thats not the only limit for fiber optics networks, a large majority of buildings (apartments, condo's, office buildings) have what techs in the industry call ONT's (off-network termination) which goes to the "common closet" of a building and gets hooked up to the existing copper infastructure (and yes this includes verizon's fiber-to-the-home plan) their the bandwidth from one fiber is spread out over 8 living units (another words 8 customers share 1 fiber). it is mostly only houses and buisnisses that are getting fiber optic directly to them with no sharing

[QUOTE="SuicideVanV2"]Apparently Col. Kilgore knows nothing of the state and capability of the fiber optic networks already in place and that download speed at this time is not limited by bandwidth but rather the switch relays. He also must not realize that in a couple months every Netflix subscriber with a 360 will be able to stream Netflix's 30,000 plus "watch now" library. I'm guessing this is the kind of guy who thought CD's would never be replaced by digital media...Riaz85

no thats not the only limit for fiber optics networks, a large majority of buildings (apartments, condo's, office buildings) have what techs in the industry call ONT's (off-network termination) which goes to the "common closet" of a building and gets hooked up to the existing copper infastructure (and yes this includes verizon's fiber-to-the-home plan) their the bandwidth from one fiber is spread out over 8 living units (another words 8 customers share 1 fiber). it is mostly only houses and buisnisses that are getting fiber optic directly to them with no sharing

That is true, but when discussing something on this scale the focus should be on the overwhelming majority of the population that lives in the U.S. suburban sprawl. People are also assuming that the streamed/downloaded movies will be displayed in HD quality. They probably wont be for some time, but as I said earlier, customers are more concerned with ease of use over quality when it comes to media. Currently my Netflix Watch Now plays at DVD quality instantly and I share with 7 others in my apartment complex as you mentioned.

"With regards to the price - while companies can lower their costs of distribution they will not pass them on to customers. They know we are prepared to pay a certain price for a film and will just stick to that price. If they can reduce their costs it just means they make more profits, not that any of it gets passed along to us as consumers."

Friedman, Phelps, Laffer, and Greenspan all disagree with you.

Your argument erroneously assumes that suppliers are at the whim of the demanders...maybe in a perfectly competetive market, but movies aren't milk.

SuicideVanV2

Well my argument comes from observing what actually happens. It is evidence of an imperfect market - the distribution companies collude together to fix prices and ensure their own profits. It is anti-competitive, illegal and imperfect market behaviour, but happens all round the world. Large companies monopolise the market, create high entry barriers to deter small companies entering the market and undercutting them. If competitors do enter and undercut, the big players quickly react to either buy them out, or force them out.

If it was a perfect market then Price would equal marginal cost. The marginal cost of supplying one more person with a downloaded video is less than 1c, so in theory all film downloads should be 1c. Which of course is ridiculous and never going to happen.

Friedman, Phelps, Laffer and Greenspan will all know and recognise this, so perhaps it is you that misunderstands them

Don't even get me started on the legalities of what these companies do. I certainly am not agreeing with what they do, but looking at where the suppliers in this market are going to take their buisiness. Hence why the scam of HD-DVD and Bluray were invented when a simple codec upgrade and HDMI output hardware would allow any DVD dics to play a movie at 1080p resolution.

I think you are mistaking my argument with approval of what they are doing. As you mentioned the marginal costs of providing streaming/on demand services in negligable at best while the fixed cost for the capability of doing this buisiness has already been absorbed. This of course makes it such an ohh so attractive way to do buisiness.

"You are now free to do what we tell you"--Bill Hicks

*sits back on the couch and eats his popcorn* Man that Micheal Phelps can swim his A** off..............................................................

Wow, SuicideVan is one angry little guy. I take it from your username that perhaps all of your little frustrations in life have led you to contemplate your namesake. We can only hope so so that we don't have to be exposed to your stupid like immature rants and raves about a future you won't be around to know of.

Now let me educate you since you're obviously in need of it.

Blu-ray 4x: 144MBps / 18MBps
12x DVD: 66 - 132Mbps / 8.2 - 16.5MBps

I never understood the impulse some people have to buy DVDs out of habit.

As far as watching movies via the internet, I didn't say that people don't do it. If you could suppress your anger quick enough to read what I wrote, I even said I did it. However, in my opinion it's not likely that it will replace hard media, and if it does it will be a while. As far as your optic cable argument, you are more than welcome to provide data on how many people currently use fiber optics. And I am perfectly aware of Netflix bringing their service to Xbox. I look forward to it.

Hopefully Netflix carries some anger management DVDs since you're desperately in need of them.

"You don't seem to understand a lot, do you? DVD is extremely popular. More people buy DVDs now than they bought VHS when it was popular. I also find it funny that you would disperage bonus content, features that really make DVD what it is. Who cares if you're too stupid and impatient to enjoy them. I enjoy them and I know a lot of people who do as well. If you hate bonus content so much, why spring for the T2 Extreme Edition?"

No, I don't understand why consumers make illogical choices it is what led me to study economics, especially game theory. Your argument makes no sense. I stated that I don't understand the compulsive purchase of DVDs and you countered with "they are extremely popular" which is just restating the obvious you bonehead. Let me break it down for your intellectually challenged mind since it is obvious that this thread flew WAAAAAY over your head.

Me: Why is the sky blue?

You: BECAUSE IT IS BLUE YOU RETARDED!

While it is true that consumers have more expendable income than ever before it doesn't make logical sense in terms of economic gain to purchase DVDs the way many people do. I bought the extreme DVD version because it was in a 2 for $5 bargain bin, also scored The Good The Bad and The Ugly. If you are saying that you don't have at least one friend that buys more than one movie a week and has several DVDs laying around still in the packaging you are lying. That makes it illogical.

Oh man, a 2x drive is slower than a 12x drive?? Oh man, I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT. You would think that 12x is slower, right?

And to correct you again, a 2x Blu-ray drive can pull date much faster than a 2x DVD drive. So you really shouldn't talk about someone ELSE looking like an idiot when you are doing such a bang up job of it.

You do know that current Bluray drives pull data at a slower rate than DVD drives right?

so yes, when talking about consoles and the gaming use from the drives the 360 is capable of pulling more information off of discs at a faster rate than a Bluray drive.

I find it funny that you constantly have to make two post replies. Is that your second personality kicking in, or is that how long it takes for your meds to wear off?

"You don't seem to understand a lot, do you? DVD is extremely popular. More people buy DVDs now than they bought VHS when it was popular. I also find it funny that you would disperage bonus content, features that really make DVD what it is. Who cares if you're too stupid and impatient to enjoy them. I enjoy them and I know a lot of people who do as well. If you hate bonus content so much, why spring for the T2 Extreme Edition?"

No, I don't understand why consumers make illogical choices it is what led me to study economics, especially game theory. Your argument makes no sense. I stated that I don't understand the compulsive purchase of DVDs and you countered with "they are extremely popular" which is just restating the obvious you bonehead. Let me break it down for your intellectually challenged mind since it is obvious that this thread flew WAAAAAY over your head.SuicideVanV2

Yeah, right. The only thing you studied was study hall when you were sent there daily for trying to stab kids with pencils, you pyscho. Anyone can be anything on the internet, but you just end up looking like a bitter 12 year old tool.

While it is true that consumers have more expendable income than ever before it doesn't make logical sense in terms of economic gain to purchase DVDs the way many people do. I bought the extreme DVD version because it was in a 2 for $5 bargain bin, also scored The Good The Bad and The Ugly. If you are saying that you don't have at least one friend that buys more than one movie a week and has several DVDs laying around still in the packaging you are lying. That makes it illogical.

You need to look up a little thing called entertainment. It doesn't make sense to buy DVDs the way people do? Who are you to question anyone's entertainment expenditures? No one. It doesn't make sense to pay $10 to sit in a theater and watch a movie for 2 hours, but people do it. It's cheaper to buy a DVD nowadays, for if you watch it twice that's cheaper than the movie will be. Not to mention you can loan it out or worse case, sell it.

And just to continue the pwnage of this retard I'll admit that I don't know exactly how many people use fiber optics for their internet access...but you are welcome to email Time Warner and Comcast and ask them how many customers they have since cable high speed internet uses fiber optics...

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/184/report_display.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication

I really hate sourcing Wikipedia, but I'm guessing you are going to need the most simple reading possible to understand the subject.

SuicideVanV2

Wow, you really do pwn me with your lack of knowledge.

Nice try with taking what I said about Bluray drives being slower than DVD out of context. Remember my response was regarding the discussion of upcoming PS3 and 360 games...and yes a 360's DVD drive pulls information off the disc faster than the PS3's Bluray drive. You can believe what I study or not based on my posts. I have stated nothing untrue and have supported my statements.

You continue ad hominem arguments and begging the question, two of the last bastions of someone trying to save face when they have lost an argument.

Let me break it down as simply as possible for you. You said that DVD pulls data faster than Blu-ray. I pointed out that that is incorrect. If you're talking only "regarding the discussion of upcoming PS3 and 360 games", why did you bring up a DVD MOVIE? And why was your whole post about DVD and Blu-ray comparisons?

And you're the one that got all angsty and resorted to insults, which is the FIRST bastion of someone that has nothing to argue about in the first place. I was respectful and even admitted I wasn't 100% on the subect: two things you are incapable of doing. You then follow up with calling me "stupid" and etc. Do the math.

Well I will apologize to you as I did bring out the insults first, I mistook you for the kid saying that graphics will be needing downscaling for 360 vs. PS3 based on the drive. You don't know how many people are 100% convinced that the visual processing power is based on storage format, which is by far the most idiotic thing I have heard in a long time. Yes, I could have made it more clear but I thought that is where the discussion was going at that point, the data pulls for the 360 vs. the PS3. As a portable storeage format of course Bluray is great, it can contain a small hard drive worth of data, but saying that this format bump was a necessary part of the evolution of movie watching is just flat out wrong when as I have shown DVD's with codec updates were perfectly capable of outputing 1080p resolution video (yes without flipping it over too).

And saying that the average Bluray drive is slower than the average DVD drive isn't a stretch at all. Most of the Bluray drives in the world pull at 1X or 2X while even standard cheap Dell laptops have DVD drives at 32X.

hmm all i can say is the price of blu ray is ridiculous even if i had a blu ray player i wouldnt own any movies and i know most people feel this wayGen007

What SuicideVan seems to be forgetting is that the Terminator 2 Extreme DVD required a PC with (at the time) very high system requirements. Why? Because conventional DVD players needed more horsepower to decode the high definition video.

So what did the market do? They created new players, HD DVD and Blu Ray and within each system they had hardware capable of decoding and displaying 1080p content. What happened when people were using they're 360 HD DVD drives on their PC? They we treated to choppy video due to insufficient hardware, because the video was too intense. Granted there were machines (and are) capable of handling it.

Another thing is the pure fact that the codecs that are used by Blu Ray allow for higher bitrates than DVD, so while your T2 disc was technically playing 1080p, it does not compare to T2 on Blu Ray. The larger disc size allow for higher bitrates and the processing power of the hardware allows for the great video.

That is something no conventional DVD player could do with a simple update.

Your 360/PS3 argument and your DVD/Blu Ray arguments are 2 different things. The optical disc makes all the difference when talking movies, the games part really depends on the processing capabilities of the game system.

Well I will apologize to you as I did bring out the insults first, I mistook you for the kid saying that graphics will be needing downscaling for 360 vs. PS3 based on the drive. SuicideVanV2

Wow lol i was just stating what John Carmack said about the amount of storage on each format, im almost positive John Carmack knows alot more than you on formats and console capabilities, go to the id website and look for yourself what he says about the disc royalties for the new game RAGE.

I believe it is something to do with Toshiba, they have developed an upscaling technique that brings DVD to almost HD quality. This technology also allows you to download features and extras for your selected DVD.

http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2008/07/toshiba_dvd_downloaddl.html

What SuicideVan seems to be forgetting is that the Terminator 2 Extreme DVD required a PC with (at the time) very high system requirements. Why? Because conventional DVD players needed more horsepower to decode the high definition video.

So what did the market do? They created new players, HD DVD and Blu Ray and within each system they had hardware capable of decoding and displaying 1080p content. What happened when people were using they're 360 HD DVD drives on their PC? They we treated to choppy video due to insufficient hardware, because the video was too intense. Granted there were machines (and are) capable of handling it.

Another thing is the pure fact that the codecs that are used by Blu Ray allow for higher bitrates than DVD, so while your T2 disc was technically playing 1080p, it does not compare to T2 on Blu Ray. The larger disc size allow for higher bitrates and the processing power of the hardware allows for the great video.

That is something no conventional DVD player could do with a simple update.

Your 360/PS3 argument and your DVD/Blu Ray arguments are 2 different things. The optical disc makes all the difference when talking movies, the games part really depends on the processing capabilities of the game system.

Large_Soda

^^ This.