Blu-ray spec finally published at DVinfo.net

Pavel Houda · December 17th, 2009, 12:54 PM

The spec that has been in the works for a year and was due this year (on schedule) has been published. Blu-ray 3D video spec finalized | Electronista

Adam Stanislav · December 18th, 2009, 10:30 PM

Ahoj, Pavle. Will this spec be available to the general public, or will it be sold as an expensive document that only big companies can afford?

Pavel Houda · December 19th, 2009, 02:59 AM

Ahoj Stanislave. You guessed it, the details are under NDA, but I saw some details here: 3D Blu Ray: Charts, Videos, Q&A pdf's, brief overview, (and the dirt too...shh...) - AVS Forum .

Adam Stanislav · December 19th, 2009, 11:59 PM

It has always puzzled me why people are developing standards and then want to keep those standards secret. How are developers supposed to adhere to those standards?

What always happens is that another group of people gets together and creates a different standard covering the same thing, and then we are stuck with incompatible standards and having to convert from one to the other.

Adam

Robert M Wright · December 26th, 2009, 12:58 AM

You have to follow the money to understand the why. The Blu-Ray standard is about making money, not a public service. The primary money interests are Sony and the major motion picture studios. They aren't really out to make the little independent film maker's life easier (and heck, the major motion picture studios don't really want to create any significant new competition - and easy access to distribution channels can do that - look what cable did to the major television networks) or provide assistance to open source software developers (for developing authoring or player software). There's no money in that (just more of that pesky competition!). They're only really interested in the players that are big enough (and willing) to shell out significant cash.

Robert M Wright · December 26th, 2009, 01:26 AM

Frankly, I think the monopolistic-like business practices approach that's being taken with Blu-Ray is going to backfire. I think it's quite likely that the economics of internet distribution of HD content will overtake and overwhelm Blu-Ray before the consumer base gets established anywhere near as large as DVD or VHS did. If Blu-Ray is to be certain of getting well established in living rooms across the country (and throughout the world), they really need to keep dropping the prices of players and movies, and rather quickly get to DVD level player and movie pricing in short order (which means slashing licensing fees, which probably ain't gonna happen until it's to late).

In a few years, internet distribution of HD video content (so much more convenient for consumers - and certainly just far and away cheaper, by orders of magnitude, in the not-so-distant future) may dwarf Blu-Ray distribution, and then, at best, Blu-Ray will primarily be a computer data storage medium (and even that's pretty iffy, with no shortage of threats from other technologies - like postage stamp size flash memory cards, with larger capacities than Blu-Ray, at even way lower costs than today).

Pavel Houda · December 26th, 2009, 07:42 PM

Input cancelled.

Robert M Wright · December 26th, 2009, 08:57 PM

I don't have a problem with companies making a fair profit (that's core to what makes our economy hum), but when a standard gets developed, that pretty much exclusively dominates in a large area of human activity (especially when two such standards would be contrary to the public interest), like Blu-Ray currently does for distribution of video content that is playable on the television sets in typical living rooms, without need for resorting to the use of special equipment that has very limited use otherwise, there is a genuine public interest in the reasonable availability to all, for use of that standard (in all meaningful regards).

The folks that own stakes in Blu-Ray, do not need to keep the specifications of the standard a secret, in order to retain ownership of and exercise their intellectual property rights, nor (arguably) is it even right to do so, when it is the exclusive defacto public standard for affordable distribution and viewing of high definition video content, for the common man to view in the comfort of their living room, on their television set (without having to hook up a computer, or something else that is not found in the vast majority of living rooms of persons with any desire to view such content).

Frankly, I think this is exactly the type of circumstance where the government should step in and exercise the right of eminent domain, and take public ownership of the standard (and of course, compensate the owners of the intellectual property appropriately, in accordance with law). That's really why we have eminent domain laws, for when a piece of property is lawfully being held privately, but that private holding of said property is significantly contrary to the greater public interest.

There's also anti-trust issues here. The owners of this particular intellectual property would certainly at least appear to be exercising their ownership rights in such a manner as to stifle competition. These practices clearly make it more difficult for independent film makers to distribute their work (much to the benefit of major motion picture studios, by keeping a significantly effective constraint on up-and-coming competition), and would tend to freeze out the small software development entrepreneur in a similar manner.

This is akin to a technology company and a handful of major publishing houses, developing a defacto standard that would dominate the printing of books, and holding it close to the vest, without any reasonable way for small publishers to fully access the technology. It's monopolistic, which is not the same thing as free enterprise. Free enterprise, as we have it, essentially depends on reasonable rules of conduct to prevent decay into anarchy, or simplistic survival-of-the-most-powerful if you will, which tends to devolve into anything but "free" enterprise (eventually the small guy is no longer free to engage in enterprises at will).

Adam Stanislav · December 27th, 2009, 08:15 PM

One would think Sony should have learned from Beta. Apparently they are slow learners, though.

Every industry has always profited from making its standards public. It helps both the businesses and the consumers. Just look at the computer revolution that happened after IBM made its PC and published all of its specs. Had they kept them proprietary, we might not be using computers today.

At the opposite spectrum is good quality photography. Each manufacturer has developed its own lens mount in the hope of forcing the buyers of their cameras to buy the lenses from them. As a result, only pros buy decent lenses. If all cameras used the same lens mount, many more people would buy more lenses, something that would profit both the manufacturers and the consumers. At least they have all agreed on the 35 mm film (even if most cameras are digital these days, they still continue using a similar size of their sensors).

December 17th, 2009, 12:54 PM	#1
Pavel Houda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Laguna Hills, CA Posts: 352	Blu-ray spec finally published The spec that has been in the works for a year and was due this year (on schedule) has been published. Blu-ray 3D video spec finalized \| Electronista

December 26th, 2009, 12:58 AM	#5
Robert M Wright Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Minnesota (USA) Posts: 2,171	You have to follow the money to understand the why. The Blu-Ray standard is about making money, not a public service. The primary money interests are Sony and the major motion picture studios. They aren't really out to make the little independent film maker's life easier (and heck, the major motion picture studios don't really want to create any significant new competition - and easy access to distribution channels can do that - look what cable did to the major television networks) or provide assistance to open source software developers (for developing authoring or player software). There's no money in that (just more of that pesky competition!). They're only really interested in the players that are big enough (and willing) to shell out significant cash. Last edited by Robert M Wright; December 26th, 2009 at 01:40 AM.

December 26th, 2009, 07:42 PM	#7
Pavel Houda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Laguna Hills, CA Posts: 352	Input cancelled. Last edited by Pavel Houda; December 27th, 2009 at 12:19 AM.

December 18th, 2009, 10:30 PM	#2
Adam Stanislav Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Rhinelander, WI Posts: 1,258	Ahoj, Pavle. Will this spec be available to the general public, or will it be sold as an expensive document that only big companies can afford?

December 19th, 2009, 02:59 AM	#3
Pavel Houda Major Player Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Laguna Hills, CA Posts: 352	Ahoj Stanislave. You guessed it, the details are under NDA, but I saw some details here: 3D Blu Ray: Charts, Videos, Q&A pdf's, brief overview, (and the dirt too...shh...) - AVS Forum .

December 19th, 2009, 11:59 PM	#4
Adam Stanislav Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Rhinelander, WI Posts: 1,258	It has always puzzled me why people are developing standards and then want to keep those standards secret. How are developers supposed to adhere to those standards? What always happens is that another group of people gets together and creates a different standard covering the same thing, and then we are stuck with incompatible standards and having to convert from one to the other. Adam

December 26th, 2009, 01:26 AM	#6
Robert M Wright Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Minnesota (USA) Posts: 2,171	Frankly, I think the monopolistic-like business practices approach that's being taken with Blu-Ray is going to backfire. I think it's quite likely that the economics of internet distribution of HD content will overtake and overwhelm Blu-Ray before the consumer base gets established anywhere near as large as DVD or VHS did. If Blu-Ray is to be certain of getting well established in living rooms across the country (and throughout the world), they really need to keep dropping the prices of players and movies, and rather quickly get to DVD level player and movie pricing in short order (which means slashing licensing fees, which probably ain't gonna happen until it's to late). In a few years, internet distribution of HD video content (so much more convenient for consumers - and certainly just far and away cheaper, by orders of magnitude, in the not-so-distant future) may dwarf Blu-Ray distribution, and then, at best, Blu-Ray will primarily be a computer data storage medium (and even that's pretty iffy, with no shortage of threats from other technologies - like postage stamp size flash memory cards, with larger capacities than Blu-Ray, at even way lower costs than today).

December 26th, 2009, 08:57 PM	#8
Robert M Wright Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Minnesota (USA) Posts: 2,171	I don't have a problem with companies making a fair profit (that's core to what makes our economy hum), but when a standard gets developed, that pretty much exclusively dominates in a large area of human activity (especially when two such standards would be contrary to the public interest), like Blu-Ray currently does for distribution of video content that is playable on the television sets in typical living rooms, without need for resorting to the use of special equipment that has very limited use otherwise, there is a genuine public interest in the reasonable availability to all, for use of that standard (in all meaningful regards). The folks that own stakes in Blu-Ray, do not need to keep the specifications of the standard a secret, in order to retain ownership of and exercise their intellectual property rights, nor (arguably) is it even right to do so, when it is the exclusive defacto public standard for affordable distribution and viewing of high definition video content, for the common man to view in the comfort of their living room, on their television set (without having to hook up a computer, or something else that is not found in the vast majority of living rooms of persons with any desire to view such content). Frankly, I think this is exactly the type of circumstance where the government should step in and exercise the right of eminent domain, and take public ownership of the standard (and of course, compensate the owners of the intellectual property appropriately, in accordance with law). That's really why we have eminent domain laws, for when a piece of property is lawfully being held privately, but that private holding of said property is significantly contrary to the greater public interest. There's also anti-trust issues here. The owners of this particular intellectual property would certainly at least appear to be exercising their ownership rights in such a manner as to stifle competition. These practices clearly make it more difficult for independent film makers to distribute their work (much to the benefit of major motion picture studios, by keeping a significantly effective constraint on up-and-coming competition), and would tend to freeze out the small software development entrepreneur in a similar manner. This is akin to a technology company and a handful of major publishing houses, developing a defacto standard that would dominate the printing of books, and holding it close to the vest, without any reasonable way for small publishers to fully access the technology. It's monopolistic, which is not the same thing as free enterprise. Free enterprise, as we have it, essentially depends on reasonable rules of conduct to prevent decay into anarchy, or simplistic survival-of-the-most-powerful if you will, which tends to devolve into anything but "free" enterprise (eventually the small guy is no longer free to engage in enterprises at will).

December 27th, 2009, 08:15 PM	#9
Adam Stanislav Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Rhinelander, WI Posts: 1,258	One would think Sony should have learned from Beta. Apparently they are slow learners, though. Every industry has always profited from making its standards public. It helps both the businesses and the consumers. Just look at the computer revolution that happened after IBM made its PC and published all of its specs. Had they kept them proprietary, we might not be using computers today. At the opposite spectrum is good quality photography. Each manufacturer has developed its own lens mount in the hope of forcing the buyers of their cameras to buy the lenses from them. As a result, only pros buy decent lenses. If all cameras used the same lens mount, many more people would buy more lenses, something that would profit both the manufacturers and the consumers. At least they have all agreed on the 35 mm film (even if most cameras are digital these days, they still continue using a similar size of their sensors).