Home Theater View

Kaleidescape Ships Blu-ray Server (Sort of)

First a bit of background: Kaleidescape is a high end media server vendor. They make boxes you have a custom installer put in one spot, which connect over a wired network to smaller boxes your installer connects to each TV and projector in your home. You - or your installer - copies all your DVDs onto the big box, and then you can watch all your movies anywhere in your home. Basically, it's Sonos for movies for rich people. How rich? Kaleidescape was actually the reason I instituted a policy not to review anything I could not reasonably afford. Years ago Kaleidescape offered me a full setup to review; I refused because I didn't want to take out an insurance policy on a loaner, and I didn't want to take out a second mortgage on the chance that I couldn't bear to return it. A full Kaleidescape system in those days easily topped $50,000. Prices have come way down, but most systems will still end up in the $20,000 range with installation.

I had good reason to fear wanting to keep a system. I have used Kaleidescape at trade shows and have been consistently impressed. It is fully babysitter proof and requires no technical knowledge to use whatsoever. As all the movies are ripped to the system's hard drive(s), movies start instantly. However, its one downfall is that until now it only supported DVDs, not Blu-ray discs. As many installations include equally expensive HD projectors, this is a real problem.

Kaleidescape's first stab at the problem was adding Blu-ray support to the M500 player - one of the small boxes you'd have near your TV. That certainly enables you to play a Blu-ray disc (both at that TV or anywhere else in the house), but it still requires physically handling the disc every time you want to watch a movie and it is not all that much better than a regular Blu-ray player from Sony or Samsung. The whole point of Kaleidescape is access to any movie you own instantly thoughout the house.

Kaleidescape is now selling a partial solution to the problem: you can rip Blu-ray discs to the hard drive in the server, and it will play off the server (which means you can include it compilation video playlists). However, to appease the copyright gods, Kaleidescape still has to physically verify that you own the Blu-ray disc before playing any of its sweet 1080p content. To do so, you'll need a media vault ($1500), the ugly box pictured on the right, which can hold up to 100 Blu-ray discs. You can add as many of these as you like, but each needs to be connected to an M-class player (like the M500). In short, Kaleidescape now allows Blu-rays to be treated just like DVDs, only there is a lot more complexity and kludginess involved. It's better than nothing, but it has to seriously pain Kaleidescape's management and engineering staff who have made simplicity and elegance a core part of the product's value proposition.

Buy a Blu-ray Player. Now.

Philip Berne's latest Slashgear column provides a well argued view for buying a Blu-ray player despite the rise of downloadable and streaming content.

Full disclosure: I also write columns for Slashgear. If you click on the link, I get... nothing. So I guess that's more of a plug than a disclosure.

Cheap Blu-ray Upgrades from Warner

Well, this is nice: some of us have felt like suckers, buying the same titles over and over as formats have shifted from VHS to letterbox VHS to laserdisc to DVD to special edition DVD to Blu-ray (and I probably missed a few format changes in there). If you've got a bunch of Warner DVDs and feel compelled to upgrade them to Blu-ray, check out this Warner Brothers site: http://www.dvd2blu.com/. You'll have to physically mail in your DVDs, and shipping charges apply if you have less than four to upgrade, but if you have four or more from the list of 55 titles, it should be about $8 per disc. Not free, but not bad, and a nice gesture to loyal customers.

More Inputs, Please!

I was talking with Microsoft about the XBOX 360 earlier this week, and one of the things they said will drive consumers to their console vs. the competition is the integration of multiple features into Live, such as Netflix streaming, gaming, and other content. At Current Analysis our Digital Home service covers game consoles from the perspective of connected services; we treat a PS3, XBOX, or Wii like the fancy set top boxes (that not coincidentally also play games) that they have become. However, I thought we were a bit ahead of the curve - most consumers haven't fully embraced this vision yet. But when FedEx dropped off yet another box here this afternoon, I started thinking: how on Earth am I going to connect this? Is Microsoft right - will consumers buy a game console to access digital services simply because they're out of HDMI inputs on their TV?

Now I know that my situation is not something everyone faces, but how many devices can a consumer reasonably connect to a TV or even a sophisticated A/V receiver? I'm not sure there are enough inputs any more - even on flagship receivers - to connect all the possible devices an early adopter/TV nut might want to. (Some of these offer redundant functionality, but even then there are typically unique functions that could justify their purchase.) Here's a sample list:

1. TiVo HD (DVR and cable/OTA tuner, Netflix)
2. Cable box (tuner and VOD, may have integrated DVR)
3. Satellite Box (tuner, VOD, unique sports programming, may have integrated DVR)
4. SlingBox (to stream content to PCs and mobile devices)
5. SlingCatcher (to integrate PC content)
6. XBOX 360 (some unique game titles, Netflix, DVD playback, streaming PC media)
7. PlayStation 3 (some unique game titles, Blu-ray playback, DVD playback, streaming PC media)
8. Wii (many unique game titles)
9. DVD/Blu-ray player (if you don't have PS3)
10. AppleTV (iTunes integration)
11. Roku (for Netflix, but even if you have a TiVo HD or XBOX 360 with Live Gold which also offer Netflix, you still might want a Roku for Major League Baseball access)

I'm trying to integrate about eight or nine of those, and I'm not sure that there is a receiver on the planet that can handle more than about half that list.

Blu-ray Not Dead?, Part Whatever

CNET lists 9 Reasons Why Blu-ray Will Succeed.
Jeremy Toeman says CNET is wrong.
Jeremy is right.

Look, it's a great format, and I certainly try to rent Blu-ray (from Netflix) and buy Blu-ray discs in the rare cases where I'm buying. I'm even upgrading a few discs from DVD to Blu-ray: Groundhog Day is coming out on Blu-ray on January 27! We watch that one at least annually. When Star Wars comes out on Blu-ray, yeah, I'll buy it yet again even though the DVD is pristine. The thing is, even CNET admits that the only reason a consumer would buy Blu-ray is for picture quality, and, I'm sorry, that's not a good reason for most consumers to upgrade. Upsampled DVD looks very good  on nearly any television - even big HDTV sets. Move to a projector/screen combination, and the difference becomes obvious -- which is why I'm renting/buying Blu-ray discs myelf -- but no matter how inexpensive 1080p projectors get, that's still a niche market because projectors require setup and light control. DVD player penetration is pretty high (80%), and there's just no reason to upgrade even when you add an HDTV to the equation.

-avi

Home Theater Basics: 720p vs. 1080p, Analog/Digital Switchover

Here's one from the mailbag:

Avi, We want to buy a 37" LCD TV. Is there a significant difference between 720P and 1080P?

 

Yes, there is a significant difference between 720p and 1080p – though it depends on what you’re watching on it, and even then you may not be able to see the difference. The bottom line  is that you can almost always get away with buying a 720p set and saving the money, but nobody seems to believe this answer, so here’s a slightly more involved one:

 

First, two quick definitions:

1.      the “p” in 1080P or 720P = progressive, where the signal has information in every horizontal line, just like a computer monitor.

2.      the “i”  in 1080i = interlaced, where the signal alternates horizontal lines similar to the way an analog TV works – the information alternates fast enough that you usually can’t tell the difference.

 

Now you need to answer two questions:

 

What are you watching? (You want to be able to display all the information that your signal contains, but how much information is actually in that signal?)

 

·        If you’re watching a DVD, it’s 480p. So even a 720p TV is overkill – either the TV or the DVD player will do some magic to “fill in” the extra pixels it has to make up the picture.* A 1080p set has to fill in even more pixels with guesswork.

·        If you’re watching HDTV, it’s either 720p or 1080i. Some channels use one resolution (for example, NBC uses 1080i) and some use the other (for example, Fox uses 720p) – this happens behind the scenes when you change channels; you don’t have to do anything. 720p and 1080i both have about the same amount of picture information (720p tends to look better for fast motion like sports, while 1080i tends to look better for scenes without much motion, like dramas), both count as real HDTV, and both look spectacular when displayed properly on an HDTV.

o   When you watch a 720p channel on a 720p TV, you’re seeing everything that’s there.

o   When you watch a 1080i channel on a 720p TV, first it fills in the interlacing by guessing what the missing line ought to be, and then drops a bit of the resolution.

o   When you watch a 720p channel on a 1080p TV, it does some magic to “fill in” the extra pixels.

o   When you watch a 1080i channel on a 1080p TV, it fills in the interlacing by guessing what the missing line ought to be.

·        If you’re watching a Blu-ray disc, congratulations, you’re watching the only consumer format capable of displaying full 1080p.

o   A 720p set throws out some of that resolution; it usually still looks better than a DVD.

o   A 1080p set displays all the information on there without any changes.

 

Now, let’s assume you are going to watch Blu-ray discs 100% of the time. Question two: can you actually see the difference between 720p and 1080p?

This will depend on several factors:

·        How good is your eyesight? Seriously.

·        How big is the TV, and how far away are you sitting? In smaller screen sizes it usually doesn’t matter if you’re cramming one or two million pixels into the set; unless you’re sitting two feet away you won’t be able to see the difference. Higher resolution allows you to sit closer to the set and does nothing for you if you’re farther back. For example, if you’re sitting ten to twelve feet back from a 50” TV you literally cannot see the difference between 720p and 1080p. Some people want to get the higher resolution anyway. I am not one of those people. My couch is about 12 feet away from my displays, and my 50” plasma is a 720p model. My projector, on the other hand, projects onto an 8’ screen that comes down in front of the plasma; the projector is a 1080p model because when the images are projected that large, the difference between 720p and 1080p is quite obvious.

 

Conclusion: unless you plan to sit awfully close to that 37” set and watch a lot of Blu-ray discs, there’s no reason to spend more on a 1080p version. If you insist on spending money for something you can’t see, I won’t stop you. But you’ll be much happier if you put the extra money into a good surround sound system.

 

Does the upcoming change in broadcasting frequency have any impact on the reception?

 

It depends. If you’re getting your TV shows from cable or satellite, the analog/digital switchover will make no difference whatsoever. None. You do not need to do anything at all.

If you’re getting your TV shows from an antenna, then you’ll need either a new HDTV with a digital tuner built in, or a new tuner/converter box. Your reception will either get much better or much worse, and it will vary by channel, how far away you are from the station, and (in some cases) your physical location (i.e., if you’re at the bottom of a hill or sandwiched between big buildings). Digital channels do not degrade gradually. A rough rule of thumb is that if you get a reasonably clear channel today, you’ll probably get an even better looking version of it on digital. On the other hand, if you have a snowy channel that’s just sort of watchable today, once it goes digital you probably won’t get it at all.

 

Hope this helps,

 

-avi

 

 

*720x480 progressive, or about 350,000 pixels of actual information per frame. This is a gross oversimplification, but it provides a good basis for comparison. 1280 x 720 = around 900,000 pixels. Incidentally, this is why watching analog TV channels or VHS video on an HDTV usually looks much, much worse than it did on your old analog TV; the new TV is trying to take very little information (VHS is roughly 240i, or 480x240 every other frame, or the equivalent of about 60,000 pixels) and displaying it on something expecting more than ten times that information to create the picture. Without much to go on, the TV fudges, which, instead of looking soft and fuzzy like an analog set, looks blocky and horrible.

CES 2008: High Def Disc Format War Over, Thin TVs, and Steve Jobs

Well, I'm back from Las Vegas, but my body is still on the wrong time zone. There were three main stories at this year's CES:

1. The death of HD-DVD. With Warner’s announcement that it will no longer sell HD-DVD movies, the high definition disc format war is effectively over with Blu-ray as the victor. Toshiba (one of HD-DVD’s primary backers) offered a weak reaction, saying that it is stunned and upset, but that HD-DVD has been declared dead before. That's true, but formats are only as valuable as the content that they are tied to. With Warner gone, only Paramount and New Line are left in the HD-DVD camp, and even they will probably switch to Blu-ray before the end of the year, once the rumored exclusivity period of their arrangement with HD-DVD is up.
2. Super-thin flat panel displays. Several vendor showed incredibly thin flat panel televisions – as thin as 9mm (a prototype) to 1.7” (likely to become a production model shortly). You might wonder whether there is a market for slightly thinner displays – after all, how much thinner is 1.7” than a 4” plasma or LCD today? The answer is, a lot thinner. The difference is that a 4” display is still a box you’re putting on the wall, while anything under 2” approaches being part of the wall itself. The prototypes on display looked incredibly good, and will be extremely exciting to interior designers. I expect that super thin displays will make up a significant premium segment of the market in just 1 – 2 years time. The phenomenon of super-large flat panel displays, on the other hand, has limited appeal beyond the super-wealthy, even as prices inevitably drop from the “if you have to ask” range, simply because an 11 foot long flat panel literally cannot fit around a typical home’s layout to the installation site.
3. Waiting for MacWorld. Last year, CES was completely upstaged by the iPhone at MacWorld the same week. This year, MacWorld is back to the week after CES, but the shadow of Cupertino was palpably draped over Las Vegas this year as well. I have no inside information on what Apple will announce next week, but Apple’s head of PR promised me that Apple’s announcements at MacWorld will be better than anything I’d see at CES. I believe him, and I suspect the rest of the industry does, too.

Other CES trends:

• Several systems for moving HD content wirelessly were shown, either as part of the television purchase or as a separate accessory. While wired connections will continue to be the bulk of the market for some time, the availability of wireless options is extremely welcome as a solution to specific installation challenges.
• Home storage was another big theme, with solutions that ranged from simple connected hard drives up to enterprise-class servers with friendly user interfaces.
• The industry continues to introduce boxes that let you watch PC content on TV. Yawn.
• GPS was everywhere at the show, particularly from vendors who either are new to the U.S. market or new to the market generally. Prices are already dropping due to the competition (and ready availability of the components needed to become a PND competitor), and it will be extremely difficult for all these vendors to make money, even if they can avoid being cannibalized by GPS on cellphones. These issues and more were discussed during my CES Education session on GPS Monday afternoon. The panel was well attended and the discussion could have easily continued for an additional hour or two beyond the time allotted.

Due to a hyper travel schedule I will not be in SFO for MacWorld next week, however I will be covering announcements made at the show from afar. Should be interesting!

-avi

Consumers Still Think They Have HD When They Don't

The Leichtman Research Group (an ex-Yankee Group analyst) put out a press release with some interesting stats on consumer HD awareness.

LRG claims that over 75% of HDTV owners believe that they are watching HD programming, but LRG estimates that "about 53% of all HD households are actually watching HD programming from a multi-channel video provider (cable, DBS or a telco), and about 4% are watching HD programming via broadcast-only - leaving about 20% of those with an HDTV erroneously thinking that they are watching HD programming when they are not." That may actually be better than previous studies, which put the number of HD delusionals at 25%.

But it doesn't stop with TV content. According to LRG, "about 40% of HDTV owners, and over 20% of all adults, believe that their household currently has a high definition DVD player." Actual HD-DVD and Blu-ray player sales penetration -- even including every last Sony PS3, whether it is being used for movies or not -- equates to single digit household penetration numbers, not 20%. I've been saying this for years now: many consumers don't think there's a problem that they need an HD format to solve for them. Even once/if the format war is resolved, the HD-DVD and Blu-ray camps will need to do some serious educational outreach / demand creation.

-avi

State of HD Disc War

Engadget just posted a nice wrap-up of their CEDIA coverage. (I was not able to attend CEDIA; after Nokia's big London event last week, I went to RIM and Motorola events this week and even had to follow the Apple announcements from afar due to scheduling). The big news both at CEDIA and in the press last month is around the HD-DVD Blu-ray war; HD-DVD gained a studio just when it appeared Blu-ray was pulling away with software sales, and both Samsung and LG have new dual-format players coming to market demonstrated at the show.

Back in January at CES, I attended the launch of LG's first dual-format player, and it looked like it might assuage early adopters fears about getting into the market. Certainly, the new players, which support even more features of both formats, are welcome. However, with the software schism, prospects for success for either format have gotten much worse. The only way a HD disc format could succeed is if it brought new experiences to consumers along with overwhelming industry support.

With some content available only on one format and some on another, consumers are understandably gun-shy. So industry support is certainly far from overwhelming. But a more fundamental problem is why anyone beyond videophiles should care about either HD-DVD or Blu-ray.

(For a videophile, higher resolution is reason enough to embrace a new format. I've bought and re-bought DVDs several times just to get versions enhanced for 16x9 TVs and better transfers. I am decidely NOT normal. The problem is, there aren't enough videophiles out there to make a mass market. Normal people need clear reasons to move to something new, and upsampled DVDs look pretty good.)

The last transition brought a lot more than just better looking video. The move from VHS to DVD brought:

• noticeably better video on even the least expensive displays - VHS is downright fuzzy
• slightly improved sound with even a basic setup, greatly improved sound when combined with an inexpensive 6 speaker Dolby Digital HTIB setup, and excellent sound with better equipment/room setup
• longer lasting physical media
• smaller physical media and packaging
• a complete shift in industry pricing practices from business rental (where VHS movies cost $75 - $150) to consumer purchase (where DVDs started out at $20 - $30 and quickly dropped to $8 - $20)
• no rewinding
• random track access
• extras such as director's commentaries, deleted scenes, and related video material
• multiple language tracks and subtitles

The move from DVD to either HD format is basically the DVD experience, plus:

• improved video; this ranges from obvious improvement over upsampled DVD to none at all depending on the content, the display, and the setup/environment.
• the potential for a further improved audio experience; right now this potential is limited to high end systems and is further limited by available content, hardware selection, and setup
• the potential for interactivity, however, I have yet to see a compelling use of this technology. Keep in mind that DVD offered it's own promising features that never amounted to much - remember "multi-angle?"
• higher priced content

I made these points back when the formats were first announced, but it's worth repeating now. Neither format offers average consumers enough to get excited about. If the PS3, which includes a good Blu-ray player as part of the package, had been a smash hit AND content providers all lined up to support the format, it might have had a shot at replacing DVD by default. But the PS3 has struggled out of the gate and is getting trounced by Nintendo's Wii, which cannot play movies at all. Wal~Mart will be offering inexpensive HD-DVD players this Christmas, but if the content question is still in doubt (and titles are more expensive than DVDs), free players would not make much of a difference.

Consumers are moving to random access media. A strong case could be made for a new format that brought HD video resolution to a media server where it could be queued up at will from a visual menu, seamlessly distributed around the house, moved to portable/phone/car -based systems, and sliced and diced for instant access to greatest hits scenes (like a typical spliced-together YouTube video). This would be a significant improvement for consumers who today must load individual discs from racks of DVDs or download movies from iTunes to watch on a single PC or iPod touch. Of course, content owners won't let this happen -- they can't even get out of their own way with HD DVD/Blu-ray. But if Hollywood doesn't create and monetize a system like this themselves, consumers will eventually piece something like it together on their own with pirated/downloaded content and/or content ripped from DVDs. Sure, the video quality won't be as good, but video quality alone isn't enough to get consumers move to a new format - or keep them from moving to different format, either.

-avi

Getting Harder To Sell Obscure DVDs

The New York Times (free registration required) has an article up on the difficulties facing independant DVD labels:

• DVD sales are stalled
• Retail is flooded with titles
• Retail space is shrinking (big box stores are cutting back, while independents and record chains are going out of business)
• Shelf space that might be dedicated to less mainstream titles is instead allocated to HD-DVD and Blu-ray

The most important point? Overall DVD sales are stalled. I suspect that sales will start to fall next year as collectors have built their libraries and the market is saturated: anyone who doesn't already own a DVD player simply doesn't want one (my supermarket sells DVD players for $20, so it certainly isn't an affordability hurdle).

High def discs will not make up the slack, even if a miracle occurs and the format war ends tomorrow, because half the people with HDTVs are perfectly satisfied with upsampled broadcast TV (480i at best), never mind DVDs (anamorphic 480p).

-avi