Get It Together, Blu-ray

By Scott Wilkinson • Posted: Mar 24, 2008

Okay, I said I wouldn't use this space for pontificating, but I really can't resist this week. I want to add my voice to Tom Norton's, who, in a recent blog, wrote about what the Blu-ray community needs to do to succeed in the packaged-media market now that HD DVD is out of the picture. I'd like to elaborate on some of the issues he raised.

One key to Blu-ray's success—or failure—is increased standardization. As it is now, most player features, such as bookmarking, online connectivity, and support for advanced audio codecs, are optional; manufacturers can implement them or not as they see fit. By contrast, all HD DVD players were required to implement all features, such as bookmarking, online connectivity, and support for advanced audio codecs, or at least include the necessary hardware that could then be enabled with a firmware update.

As a result, any HD DVD will play in any player with the latest firmware. (Granted, recent firmware updates for some players have reportedly caused problems with 1080p/24 playback of AVC-encoded titles, but that's another issue.) By contrast, some Blu-ray discs have trouble in some players—they might take minutes to load or not play at all. Even if the movie plays, you might not be able to take advantage of—or even access—some of its features. This encourages content providers to author titles according to the lowest common denominator, leaving out features that won't work on many players.

I got a first-hand look at this issue in my review of Digital Video Essentials: HD Basics from Joe Kane Productions. This test disc is available on both Blu-ray and HD DVD, and the differences between them illustrate the problems caused by Blu-ray's optional-features paradigm. For example, the HD DVD version provides bookmarking, which lets you select and arrange clips as you wish. Most Blu-ray players do not support bookmarking, so the Blu-ray version of HD Basics does not offer it.

Nowhere is the problem of Blu-ray's "optionality" more obvious than in the whole notion of Profiles. As most readers probably know by now, there are three Profiles that mandate certain player capabilities, even though most features remain optional in all of them.

Profile 1.0 is the most basic, requiring support for the three video codecs (MPEG-2, AVC, and VC-1) as well as Dolby Digital, DTS, and PCM audio, but none of the newer advanced audio codecs. The requirement for Dolby Digital, DTS, and PCM ensures that audio of some sort will emerge from the player with any disc, but the advantages of the advanced codes might well be unavailable. To be fair, many—if not most—Blu-ray discs include a PCM soundtrack, which is equal in quality to the Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio lossless codecs. Profile 1.0 also requires support for BDMV and BD-J interactivity. (BDMV provides a more limited degree of interactivity than BD-J, which is derived from the Java programming language.)

Profile 1.1, also known as BonusView, adds picture-in-picture and secondary audio mixing from discs that offer them and requires at least 256MB of onboard memory, which can be located in a USB thumb drive or other external memory device connected to the player. Profile 2.0, officially called BD-Live, requires an Ethernet port for online connectivity and at least 1GB of memory.

According to the Blu-ray Disc Association, all Profiles have been completely defined since the format's launch in 2006, but manufacturers have not implemented the advanced ones until now because they wanted to "walk before they ran." This strategy has been a disaster for consumers who bought early Blu-ray players only to find that they can't take advantage of some features on some discs, and they never will, no matter how many firmware updates are released.

The only exception seems to be Sony's PlayStation 3. In a recent news story, UAV reported that Sony will soon release a firmware update for the PS3 to implement Profile 2.0 along with some other features, such as resume play and mosquito noise reduction. According to footnotes in the press release, however, resume play won't work with BD-J titles, and mosquito NR won't work with BDMV titles.

As a side note, the PS3 will never be able to output Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio bitstreams due to hardware constraints. It can decode Dolby TrueHD to PCM, and it is rumored that a future firmware update might allow it to do the same with DTS-HD MA.

Then there's copy protection, one of the only things that is absolutely required by Blu-ray, even on so-called "check discs," which costs content producers thousands of extra dollars just to see if there are any problems with the mastering and authoring before the title is replicated. And you wonder why Blu-ray discs are so expensive? By contrast, HD DVD's copy protection was optional—if producers wanted to protect their content, they could, but they didn't have to, and making check discs cost them a lot less.

I understand that the movie studios want to protect their considerable investment, but their attitude borders on paranoia. Not only that, there is no form of copy protection that can't—and won't—be broken. AACS (Advanced Access Content System), the basic copy-protection system used by both Blu-ray and HD DVD, was hacked some time ago. And BD+, Blu-ray's second line of defense, was recently defeated by SlySoft, whose AnyDVD HD software can make copies of Blu-ray titles protected by AACS and BD+.

As should be clear by now, I believe that HD DVD got it right and Blu-ray got it wrong in terms of what to make mandatory and what to make optional. If Blu-ray is to succeed, it must require more player features and let providers choose whether or not to implement copy protection. And the prices of players and discs must drop as well, just as Tom said in his blog. If the Blu-ray community can implement these changes, it has a bright future indeed. If not, the format might well be surpassed by online distribution before it can gain a foothold in the media marketplace. In any event, even though the format war is over, we still have interesting times ahead.

If you have an audio/video question for me, please send it to scott.wilkinson@sourceinterlink.com.

Comments

Submitted by David Vaughn on March 24, 2008 - 1:30pm.

Scott, One thing Blu-ray shows is that marketing does make a difference. HD DVD blew it on that front and didn?t capitalize on their strengths well enough. I think Blu-ray will get their act together eventually, but I agree that they need to change their spec to have more mandatory features in each of the players. Also, copy protection has been shown to be a losing proposition. I still can't see how BD+ is a bonus to consumers??? David

Submitted by Charlie on March 24, 2008 - 7:15pm.

It would be nice to see blu-ray get all of its upgrades finalized. However I think the biggest hurdle consumers have is the price of the players and discs. If one has a nice upconvert player he/she has a hard time justifying the additional cost of going blu-ray. If the prices come down I believe blu-ray will be able to compete with regular dvd's and downloadable content.

Submitted by Mahmood on March 25, 2008 - 11:36am.

I am of the firm belief that manufacturers wanted to milk the Blue Ray cash cow fow ALL it's worth and that is why they did not implement the proper profiles or allow for robust firmware updates because they want buyers to buy their players. From an end user perspective, the better format in HD DVD unfortunately lost out.

Submitted by Mahmood on March 25, 2008 - 11:54am.

Just want to add, i tried to get away with the profile confusion and built a pc with Blue Ray drive. Already have had and upgrade to my software to profile 1.1. I am sure when the time comes for profile 2.0 all it would be is a software upgrade and not hardware. All seems fine at the moment but proper HD AUDIO is still to be realised with HDMI connections and hopefully the pc industry will get its act together soon to sort this out.

Submitted by Tom Norton on March 26, 2008 - 10:01am.

Just a small comment here on the argument that an uncompressed PCM track should be equal in quality to a Dolby TrueHD (or DTS HD MA)soundtrack. Most uncompressed PCM tracks are encoded at 48kHz/16-bits (a few are at 48/24--only marginally higher in quality than a regular CD (the transfer rates of most Sony uncompressed tracks are not specified--thanks to Disney, which does). Many recent film soundtracks are mastered at 48/24. Dolby TrueHD can encode up to 96/24. If a Dolby TrueHD track is mastered at 48/24, it could, in theory, sound better than a 48/16 uncompressed PCM track, everything else being equal (BIG caveat!)

Submitted by Scott Wilkinson on March 26, 2008 - 1:38pm.

Good point, Tom! Of course, the quality of the audio depends on the sample rate and bit depth that was used to record/digitize it. The higher these parameter values are, the better the audio should sound, no matter which lossless or uncompressed codec is used. David and Charlie also make good points. I'm particularly concerned about prices now that the competitive pressure of HD DVD has been removed. And Mahmood's comment about manufacturers wanting to milk consumers for all they're worth could mean that prices won't be falling any time soon.

Submitted by Claude on March 27, 2008 - 6:41am.

I don't agree with the milking comments and that player and software prices will remain high as we go through 2008 and into 2009. Backers of Blu-Ray have invested a ton of money and time in the format. I would venture that they realize the time to strike is now (2008 going into the holiday season), while interest in Blu-Ray is gaining momentum to come out with an entry level player priced in the sub-$200 range as well as lowering MSRP prices on pre-recorded Blu-Ray media. The manufacturers realize that they have a vested interest in spurring sales.

Submitted by Greg on March 27, 2008 - 10:23am.

All a movie format needs to do is deliver the movie. The profiles of BD have to do with bonus features and content. You are doing a disservice to your readers when you hammer these issues above the actual film, which is delivered in very good quality on BD. And if you think standardization is bad with Blu-ray, just wait until unfair journalists like you scare the public enough to kill it. Then we will see a bevy of horrible, lossy downloadable technologies with no standardization and we will blame YOU. Please smarten up and think about what you're doing. Blu-ray isn't perfect and no one said it is, but it's getting there. Rome wasn't built in a day, but BD is the best video format we have and are likely to ever have for the foreseeable future. You can either be helpful and sing its praises, or try to scare consumers away, like you're doing. Developers and manufacturers are already aware of the issues you raise. You're doing nothing good, Scott. Nothing good at all.

Submitted by ender21 on March 27, 2008 - 11:01am.

I don't think that manufacturers' want to milk consumers by keeping prices high. They want to milk consumers by being slow to adopt a featureset. Early adopter to buy Profile 1.0? No problem, just BUY 1.1. By year's end, they'll be able to BUY 2.0. So manufacturer's have all but guaranteed that at least *some* of the marketplace will triple-dip, whereas, if they came out with a finished hardware spec at the outset (a la HDDVD), many would be happy with one player for several years. Of course this begs the question "What about those who refuse to buy for the same reasons? They're missing out on *that* revenue." True, but the non-buying marketplace is harder to get a handle on because it's so huge and exists for a variety of reasons, not just because of profile confusion. Rick

Submitted by ender21 on March 27, 2008 - 11:06am.

Greg, you should try smartening up a bit too. Profile incompatibilities have resulted in playback issues on many players. That means that someone who doesn't care about the new features that 1.1 or 2.0 offer (as you imply you are) may not even be able to watch the movie, which as you say, is the most important part, if their profile 1.0 or 1.1 player hangs while trying to load their 1.1 or 2.0 disc. And distributors *want* their content both downloaded in lossy, compressed formats AND to sell the discs. Selling the same product two or three times to the same consumer is way better than only selling one product. It will and does happen. Any kid who asks their parents for more itunes money to download Pirates to their iPod after they already got it for Christmas in DVD has taken part of exactly the type of marketplace the film sellers want. Scott is not being unfair by any stretch. If you don't ask for improvement, don't be surprised when you don't get it.

Submitted by Pete on March 27, 2008 - 11:08am.

Amen to Greg - I wish all of these "industry" journalist would realize what a great thing BD disc is and stop worrying about the damn extra features that a lot of people don't watch. I don't... I dabble with them and their cool but if it has the equivalent extras as the DVD (in HD of course) then thats all I need. I've messed with a few extras on the Pirates BD but they are not really needed. The look and sound of the movie is incredible... THAT'S WHAT WE WANT! THAT IS THE HD/BD POINT! Incredible picture quality and sound. I love blowing away family and friends with my BD discs and HT.

Submitted by Spankey on March 27, 2008 - 1:35pm.

Another hysterical piece from a publication that has been biased towards HD-DVD since day one. The half truths written in this piece are sad. I've owned a first generation Samsung Blu-ray player since Oct 06 and it has hardly been a "disaster" as it wasn't a disaster for me to buy a $1000 Sony DVD player in 1997 that didn't support DTS or progressive scan. Blu-ray discs so expensive due to copy protection? I just bought I Am Legend from Amazon for $19. I'm sure that online HT publications also know how to shop online? You "cleverly" fail to mention Blu-ray's superior storage and bandwidth capabilities that allow for seamless branching and room for lossless audio. You know. Lossless audio. Something that was left off HD-DVD stellar Transformers release due to space limitations. Keep harping on the download nonsense. Please tell us where we will store our downloaded movie collections and have instant access to them where we want. Ultimate AV should be r

Submitted by Colin on March 27, 2008 - 7:02pm.

I agree with Greg and Pete... why scare consumers away from HD formats? Blu Ray won, accept it and move on, buy a player and enjoy! Instead everyone who supported HD-DVD is nay-saying Blu like its something bad, it is in fact a better technology in terms of capacity and bit rate. There is absolutely no reason to do so. Sure, warn the consumers about the confusing profiles, hell, tell them to buy a PS3 so they're future-proofed, but don't sit behind your desk and lie. Blu is the way of the near future, it will replace DVD so long as publications don't scare the public into staying SD for the next 10 years til something like Digital Distribution has the ability to compete (I say compete because it is a very unlikely win)

Submitted by dotpattern on March 28, 2008 - 2:52pm.

First, just as a reminder... http://youtube.com/watch?v=bFT8sPz0BUg It's time to get up and stop with all the crying about the same old tired arguments. "It's Over!" For those still trying to make a decision about getting a Blu-ray player all I can tell you is my own experience. I got my first Panasonic 1.0 player last Jul y or Aug ust, and got my second Panny 1.1 player in December. I HAVE NEVER had a single instance of any movie not playing from beginning to end on my players. As for the special features, I actually watch them all and listen to commentary tracks (I'm a professional digital filmmaker and I'm interested in that stuff) and have not a problem with playback on any of them. Not one. As far as ethernet connectivity on my players, well that I have no interest in. Most people don't.

Submitted by David Vaughn on March 28, 2008 - 10:41pm.

Colin, You accuse Scott of lying, but exactly where in his comments was the lie? You admit that profiles are confusing, right? The point that Scott was making, which is valid, is that the optional features aren't a good thing. Scott got to look at Video Essentials Basic and compare the HD DVD and the Blu-ray, and found that the HD DVD was better and stated his reasons why. When he asked Joe Kane why they were different, he stated that the "optional" aspects of the Blu-ray spec meant that he had to change the way the disc was authored. As for BD+, this is a benefit to studios, not to consumers. Why should it be mandatory for everyone to use, even if the creator of content doesn't want to use it? Finally, just because someone has a valid criticism of Blu-ray doesn't make them "biased" against it. We all want Blu-ray to succeed, but we also want to see it improve its shortcomings.

Submitted by Scott Wilkinson on March 28, 2008 - 11:48pm.

Thanks, David! You are right, constructive criticism does not constitute bias, nor is it lying. I want Blu-ray to succeed as much as the most rabid fan, which is exactly why I wrote what I did. Sure, many discs look and sound great, but that doesn't mean the user experience can't be improved. You're deluded if you think Blu-ray is perfect as it is. As a member of the press, I'm in a unique position to encourage those who make decisions regarding Blu-ray to improve the things that need improving, which is exactly what I intend to keep doing.

Submitted by 70sam54 on March 29, 2008 - 2:59pm.

Hd dvd never was the reason for blu rays' many problems. Blu ray itself is. For all the reasons stated above. Blu ray winning the hd format war scared me back into my first love which is buying sacds again and buying another hd dvd player for a backup so that I can continue to watch all my hd dvd and reg dvd movies. If blu ray is be successful as the replacement for dvd which I don't think it will it must get out of it's own way and build a better player similar to an hd dvd player. Only time will tell if blu ray will show its' as smart as it is greedy and not do itself in. Only time will tell. Good Luck Guys.

Submitted by Claude on April 1, 2008 - 8:22am.

HD DVD players were no where near "perfect". I've read many a horror story as I was researching which format to buy. Scott has a right to bring up issues with Blu-Ray, but I think most of the Blu-Ray backers who are responding here are afraid that negative articles will dissuade interested folks on the sideline from buying into the format which will only hurt all of us. My experience has been nothing but positive with my PS3. No issues. No problems. Just great hi-def video!

Submitted by Scott Wilkinson on April 1, 2008 - 10:31am.

My goal is not to frighten potential buyers but to encourage manufacturers to improve their offerings for the benefit of all consumers. I agree that the PS3 is a great Blu-ray player; the only drawback is that it can't output DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD bitstreams.

Submitted by Kendall Helmstetter Gelner on April 8, 2008 - 5:15pm.

The DVE Blu-Ray version is not as good as the HD-DVD version, not because of any technical lack in Blu-Ray but because the maker of DVE dislikes Blu-Ray and the Blu-Ray DVE was rushed out only later when he realized he ended up on the wrong side. Otherwise, why the lack of better audio and things like chapter markings which are fully supported? Scott, if you don't want to have people accuse you of bias you need to take a careful look at what you are saying and not issue unsupported flippant remarks like "Profile incompatibilities have resulted in playback issues on many players.". Can you name the "many players" Because AFAIK there was exactly one, and that was a bug fixed in a firmware update (so to be very clear right now there are ZERO Blu-Ray players that have movie playback issues with any Blu-Ray disc). Also please state sources that AACS is 100% required by all Blu-Ray discs - obviously Sony and other companies want users to be able to burn Blu-Ray discs at home, theref