300 HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray: Defficiencies have nothing to do with an unfinished spec.

[CZroe]

The Daily Tech article (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8228)linked to on the main page here at Doom9.org (August 5th news) is dead wrong. It insists that the reason Warner's Blu-Ray discs releases are missing the IME ("In Movie Experience" AKA Picture in Picture video substream) is because BD Java is not ready and will not be ready until the Profile 1.1 update this Fall. This is not true. As indicated on the Wikipedia Blu-Ray article, the full BD Java spec and implementation has been present in every player since day one. The article sources their own previous article for their flawed information. As for secondary video streams, this feature is also a part of Profile 1.0, but it is optional until Profile 1.1 (just like all players do not need to support all audio formats that the disc may have). With the Profile 1.1 update, it becomes mandatory with all players this Fall.

The reason Warner will not go through the trouble of including their IME content on BD releases is because only some players will support it and at the moment there are simply too few to be worth redoing it. Also, it is possible that they give the nod to HD-DVD as part of a back-door agreement, considering that they could have easily dropped simulated IME with a second encode on a BD50 (300 *is* on a BD50 for uncompressed audio). This would explain why Batman Begins has been seen and photographed on BD (retail case and all) for months and yet it doesn't even have a release date while the HD-DVD version has been running rampant for some time. The Matrix Trilogy probably makes good use of IME, so delaying it for increased player support might make sense without speculating about back-door agreements with the HD-DVD group.

As studios supporting HD DVD begin to roll out the last remaining features like web content, one title has widely been picked up to illustrate the feature disparity between HD DVD and Blu-ray: Warner's 300 (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8228) contains a lot more features on the HD DVD edition than the Blu-ray one, thanks to the Blu-ray's rushing to the market with a half finished spec.

Both HD disc formats get a good bit of pessimistic skepticism when news is reported here on Doom9, but it is glaringly obvious how willing our news poster is to put down Blu-Ray and promote HD-DVD when possible (DRM=BAD; I understand). In this case, it seems that it was very carefully worded to not make the same error that Anandtech made while instead not correcting it and sending you to it as the trusted source for Doom9's opinion. It doesn't change it from being wrong though: It was not due to an unfinished spec. The source was wrong and BD Java is in full effect on all BD players in the market. The only thing even related is the secondary video decoder which absolutely is part of the Profile 1.0 specification as something the player manufacturers can optionally include. Now, BD Java did cause a few compatibility problem with the first titles that supported it, but they were quickly fixed with firmware updates. Not that The Descent tripped up a lot of players with BD Java, so it clearly used it. Even so, it did simulated "IME" picture-in-picture. Some reports say that the BD Java tools for this specific feature were not ready, which indicates that 1) All players really do support BD Java, it is the secondary video decorder that is optional; 2) The secondary video decoder is present in some players, but the mastering tools to use it were not ready (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/descent.html#Section6). It very well may be that it has nothing to do with BD Java at all, considering that a BD Java movie does not use it and only unsourced speculation has ever claimed otherwise.

[Doom9]

Well, there's quite a bit of ambivalence in the original article (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6702) with statements like
All Blu-ray Disc players after the fall date must support BD Java, a programming language for Blu-ray Disc media used mainly to deliver picture-in-picture for in-movie commentary and special features.
and Early adopters of Blu-ray players may find themselves with inadequate hardware to support media using BD Java software.
which disagrees with
“The new specification and requirements will ensure that all Blu-ray players manufactured past October will be able to support the full range of BD-Java capabilities, including picture in picture and more.”
and
Owners of first generation Blu-ray players will probably not be able to use the full range of interactive features available on future Blu-ray Disc titles.”

As indicated on the Wikipedia Blu-Ray article, the full BD Java spec and implementation has been present in every player since day one.And Wikipedia is always to the neutral source of information? ;) However, this is just another instance of spin. I don't have the timeline of when which spec was finalized - however, let's assume the assertion that BD-J was complete from day one. Then what about all those stories about the PS3 being the first completely BD-J compatible player? Perhaps because it actually does implement the full spec. There's a big difference between a specification and its implementation. The fact that several Blu-ray players needed a firmware upgrade to properly handle the special features in "The Descent" go a long way to show that there's a big difference between a spec and its implementation and underline the point that BD-J just wasn't completely implemented, yet (and since BD-J drives the still inexisting picture in picture feature, even today no player fully implements BD-J).

Also, you're mixing up the Blu-ray spec (whereof BD-J is just a part), and the BD-J spec. I have no reason to claim that BD-J is incomplete - but the abovementioned firmware upgrades, and the fact that no existing player currently can handle picture in picture using BD-J, illustrate that existing players don't fully implement the "final spec", let alone the 2.0 (BD-Live) spec.
On the other side of the spectrum, the first HD DVD players didn't fully implement all HD DVD features either (seeing as players need a firmware upgrade to enable web based content) - however, there are no hardware specs revision and every HD DVD player has the horsepower and ram and network connection to do all the things you can do with a HD DVD. You cannot say that about Blu-ray and no player manufacturer at this date has confirmed that their existing players can be upgraded to fully support the Blu-ray v1.1 spec.

Suppose the 1.1 spec was released the same time as the 1.0 - in that case I stipulate that the statement about an incomplete spec is indeed incorrect. However, it is mainly splitting hairs since today's players are only 1.0 compliant and I'm repeating myself here - no manufacturer has promised an upgrade to full 1.1 spec compliance.

And then you reveal your true intentions with conspiracy theories about Warner's release slate. I mean, come on.. if Toshiba paid Warner, then how come the previously HD DVD exclusive suddenly went format neutral? Did Sony perhaps pay more than Toshiba could afford? ;)


And there's no way you can reasonably conclude from the lack of Blu-ray PiP authoring tools that there are players that would otherwise support it.. the two have nothing to do with each other. If anything at all, it would be the other way round.. what good is a tool if you cannot use it?

[CZroe]

Well, there's quite a bit of ambivalence in the original article (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6702) with statements like

and
which disagrees with

and


And Wikipedia is always to the neutral source of information? ;) However, this is just another instance of spin. I don't have the timeline of when which spec was finalized - however, let's assume the assertion that BD-J was complete from day one. Then what about all those stories about the PS3 being the first completely BD-J compatible player?
It's the same deal as any other title suggesting/requesting that you update your firmware for compatibility reasons. You haven't seen the slips included in most every movie, interactive or not? BD Java was there but, just like the early days of DVD, most players had issues. I remember having to check for updated versions of the SigmaDesigns RealMAGIC Holywood+ DVD playback software (for the best hardware decoder available at the time). I'd check every week because I would run into serious playback issues with the few titles I had and they would fix them little by little. My library was pretty small for that first week too... The Matrix, A Bug Life, The Prince of Egypt, aaaaand, I think that's all there is to it. :)

And no, Wikipedia is not my only source of information (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=868226).

2. Is BD-J a requirement for all Blu-ray players?
Yes, all three Blu-ray player profiles require BD-J support and will be capable of normal BD-J interactivity for menus and games. Note though that certain extras may require features that are unique to BD-Video 1.1 or BD-Live.

Perhaps because it actually does implement the full spec. There's a big difference between a specification and its implementation. The fact that several Blu-ray players needed a firmware upgrade to properly handle the special features in "The Descent" go a long way to show that there's a big difference between a spec and its implementation and underline the point that BD-J just wasn't completely implemented, yet (and since BD-J drives the still inexisting picture in picture feature, even today no player fully implements BD-J).
I dunno, I'm perfectly willing to understand that a software programming language can be fully supported and yet a feature controlled by it can be totally reliant on a secondary video decoder (hardware or software). I'm not saying that it was implemented flawlessly on all players, I'm just saying that low compatibility is to be expected, just as it was with DVD. It was blown out of proportion when people claimed that it only worked on the PS3, as there were some players with FW updates that played it fine; most people simply didn't have them installed. And I'm not talking about the FW updates that followed in direct response to the release either.

Also, you're mixing up the Blu-ray spec (whereof BD-J is just a part), and the BD-J spec. I have no reason to claim that BD-J is incomplete - but the abovementioned firmware upgrades, and the fact that no existing player currently can handle picture in picture using BD-J, illustrate that existing players don't fully implement the "final spec", let alone the 2.0 (BD-Live) spec.
That's just it: The only ones claiming that PiP relies on a final BD Java spec are those that wildly speculated and WRONGLY claimed that BD Java was not present in any current players.

On the other side of the spectrum, the first HD DVD players didn't fully implement all HD DVD features either (seeing as players need a firmware upgrade to enable web based content) - however, there are no hardware specs revision and every HD DVD player has the horsepower and ram and network connection to do all the things you can do with a HD DVD. You cannot say that about Blu-ray and no player manufacturer at this date has confirmed that their existing players can be upgraded to fully support the Blu-ray v1.1 spec.
Actually, HD-DVD has "optional" features too, most notably, support for certain audio formats. Blu-Ray decided to make some audio formats optional in 1.0 and mandatory in 1.1 to IMPROVE support over time and not let things stagnate at an introductory state. Of course, it gave them slack-room. ;) In order to rush to market, they clearly shoved the secondary video decoder "requirement" into profile 1.1 and left it as "optional" in 1.0. As far as we know, there are PiP-supporting BD players out there RIGHT NOW. If so, they are likely only a subset of total players and so it is not worth doubling the effort to recreate all the HD-DVD IME content for a fraction of the audience.

Suppose the 1.1 spec was released the same time as the 1.0 - in that case I stipulate that the statement about an incomplete spec is indeed incorrect. However, it is mainly splitting hairs since today's players are only 1.0 compliant and I'm repeating myself here - no manufacturer has promised an upgrade to full 1.1 spec compliance.
They didn't just call it an "incomplete spec." They out-right said that BD Java doesn't exist in current players and they have been saying so for months (read some of their linked DailyTech articles).

And then you reveal your true intentions with conspiracy theories about Warner's release slate. I mean, come on.. if Toshiba paid Warner, then how come the previously HD DVD exclusive suddenly went format neutral? Did Sony perhaps pay more than Toshiba could afford? ;)
It's just an observation. You can clearly see the "Batman Begins" BD, case and all, in the Wikipedia page and it has been there for ages. If "300" was important enough to bring to BD without IME, why isn't "Batman Begins?" Unlike "The Matrix," where there is significant interest in the IME feature, it's no more important for this film than it is for "300." All I'm saying is that it's a trend with seemingly no explanation. Certain people think Batman Begins is an HD-DVD exclusive and I can see how it would make sense to make it appear that way. "Timed exclusives" are a staple of the videogame industry, so I don't see how speculating that it applies here is a crazy "conspiracy theory" at all. Another aspect of timed exclusives is keeping quiet about the future plans for the title so as to not cannibalize sale of the current one (people expect additional content on the later release... see Viewtiful Joe, Resident Evil 4, Grand Theft Auto 4, etc). After uncompressed audio bumped the "300" BD to a 50GB discs, what is YOUR explanation for why "300" didn't include simulated IME on the second mostly-empty 25GB layer? The HD encode clearly takes far less than 25GB to fit on the HD-DVD with all the extras and Warner typically keeps them well under 25GB to use the same HD-DVD encode on a single-layer BD. Once again, it is the EXACT same encode that fit on a 30GB HD-DVD with Vengeance and Valor game and IME video, so there should be TONS of room for a second HD encode with simulated IME (Crank/The Descent style). Unlike Crank and The Decent, the second encode would be VC-1 and not a second (and HUGE) MPEG2 copy of the movie. If they could do it, Warner could do it and it would not have cost a dime more during dual-layer disc duplication.

And there's no way you can reasonably conclude from the lack of Blu-ray PiP authoring tools that there are players that would otherwise support it.. the two have nothing to do with each other. If anything at all, it would be the other way round.. what good is a tool if you cannot use it?
I don't think you understand: BD Java is not responsible for decoding PiP with its programming. It requires a software or hardware module of some kind known as a "secondary video stream decoder" with the scripting and interactivity being controlled by BD Java code. This is optional for profile 1.0, and, AFAIK, no players have claimed support OR non-support. Obviously, a software component would require enough additional CPU resources during BD playback to decode a second stream in software, but it will still be a software component provided by the player manufacturer that VERY WELL MAY BE THERE in some current players. It's WILD speculation by Anandtech/DailyTech to say that no current BD players are capable and it's just flat out wrong for them to say that it is because no profile1.0 players have BD Java... all of them do!

[Doom9]

I remember having to check for updated versions of the SigmaDesigns RealMAGIC Holywood+ DVD playback softwareI also had such a card.. and quite frankly, Sigma's software has always sucked. PowerDVD was better from day one. I also remember just where Sigma gets code for when they can't deliver.. they steal it from the likes of XviD.

But let's get back on topic. I think it's safe to say that you're not a developer.. your constantly mixing up specs and implementations thereof and there's a HUUUUUUGE difference. I've done some looking around for HD API and specs.. it took me 3 minutes to find out how to do PiP on HD DVD - and I have but a basic idea of what BD-J even is after searching significantly longer. In fact, it turns out that the BD-J API is under NDA, which makes it very hard for me to argue in a way that no Blu-ray fanboy can have the last word.. if I had the API I could give you the exact method calls and return types that would not permit any arguing anymore.

Here's the gist though: the BD-J API will have a set of methods and objects used for things specified in the Blu-ray specs version 1.1. and version 2.0. Support for instance that we have the following abstract method to display a secondary video stream over the primary one:

public BDLocator makeBDLocator(string location)
{
}

used to load a video stream from a BD disc.

And then you can play it using

public void startVideoAt(BDLocator playlist)
{
}

For PiP you'd load the video the same way, but would make use of a method

public void playPictureInPicture(BCLocator playlist, Point position, Size videoSize) throws PlatformImplementationException
{
..
}

Now, if you call playPictureInPicture to display your secondary video stream, this is what would happen.

BDLocator primary = makeBCLocator("bd://0.PLAYLIST:00000.MARK:00000");
BDLocator pip = makeBDLocator("bd://0.PLAYLIST:00001.MARK:00010");
startVideoAt(primary);
playPictureInPicture(pip, new Point(1600, 800), new Size(200, 200));

The point of this pseudocode (inspired by the examples in hdcookbook) is to play a video stream, then overlay a secondary 200x200 video in the bottom right corner of the screen.

And this is what will happen on today's BD players: At the following line:

playPictureInPicture(pip, new Point(1600, 800), new Size(200, 200));

you'll get a PlatformImplementationException thrown, with it's content probably being something like "this method is currently not implemented".

I figure since different hardware is used, it is up to the player manufacturer to implement the portions of the J2ME relevant for BD-J, which leads to additional implementational differences, but basically the above is what it comes down to. For some great examples to see how spec != implementation have a look at JTAPI or JAIN-SIP. You'll see that those are specs (with various revisions) and then there's other companies implementing those (e.g. for JTAPI the makers of PBXes like Cisco, Nortel, Lucent, etc.) - and as it so happens, those implementations usually have parts that act the same way, because the underlying system cannot support those. Blu-ray is more strictly regulated, so in the long run, this won't happen anymore, but at this point, calling the playPictureInPicture method is the same as calling a method for which the hardware provides no implemtation in the other APIs I mentioned above.

So, once again, yes, Anandtech and so many other sites are wrong about the technical details, but the gist of the story - that Blu-ray's specs are responsible for this situation - is correct . Current Blu-ray players implement the Blu-ray profile 1.0, which has BD-J, but which lacks PiP so the abovementioned method will result in the abovementioned exception. At the end of the day, for the consumer, it hardly matters whether this is an issue of an imcomplete BD-J implementation (it doesn't appear to be), or whether it's because their player doesn't support a higher version of the Blu-ray specification. And now you'll probably attack my "appear to be", but you have no factual evidence to the contrary.. it is up to the manufacturer to decide how they deal with API calls that the underlying hardware cannot cope with. One possible way is throw that exception as I've mentioned.. another one would be to implement the necessary lower level calls, and just have an exception bubble up (I've seen this happen with JTAPI sometime.. you get exceptions that aren't even in the API documentation). You'd need to see the complete source code for a player in order to know for sure, or some kind of player development kit where you can run the code and see how it reacts.


As far as we know, there are PiP-supporting BD players out there RIGHT NOW.Any which would those players be?

All I'm saying is that it's a trend with seemingly no explanation. Certain people think Batman Begins is an HD-DVD exclusive and I can see how it would make sense to make it appear that way.Geez.. there was a single page inlay in older Warner HD DVD releases that showed cover art for some titles that were only released a long time later (e.g. Matrix) or are still not released (e.g. The Shawshank redemption). It makes no sense whatsoever to put titles without a studio release announcement in the "available for format X" camp. And yes, Batman Begins, as well as the Matrix trilogy are currently HD DVD exclusive.. deal with it. Since Warner is a dual format shop, they'll eventually be released for Blu-ray as well, but for the time being, if you want them in HD format, you'll have to get them on HD DVD, end of story. If ever a BD only studio is going to go format neutral, you'll see the same thing.. newer titles are likely to mostly come out at the same time in both formats, but catching up with the catalog will take some time. This is not a conspiracy, this is how the business works and we've seen it before (e.g. with DIVX).

[gellar]

There will be no ending fight between the two format on who will dominate in the market.

Instead major electronic company will produce a device compatible on both hd dvd and blu ray format.

LG Electronics has announced will soon begin selling player compatible in both HD-DVD and Blu Ray Disc standard.

Samsung Electronics said it was also considering development of a dual-format drive.