Walt at Random

I’ve been seeing a lot of list traffic about possible ground transportation problems in New Orleans. Seems as if those who’ve actually been there recently don’t see a problem; those who quote their brother’s cousin see BIG problems.

I’m going to post here what I just posted to LITA-L, where much of the discussion has occurred:

For those of you looking for things to worry about in terms of transportation:

Getting from the New Orleans airport to your hotel may be the easy part. (Or may not, but the direct reports sound good.)

The crunch may be getting “to and from New Orleans airport” from where you live.

Total lift capacity* will be 12,308 beginning June 10 (when Southwest begins/resumes several flights).

Right now, it’s 11,486.

Pre-Katrina, it was 21,000.
*Lift capacity: The number of seats available each day in and out of the airport, if all flights are 100% full.

If, as appears likely, ALA really is at fairly typical attendance levels (which I hope it will be, and yes, I’m going), that means some 20,000 people–mostly arriving Friday/Saturday, mostly leaving Monday eve./Tuesday.

You do the math.

If you don’t already have your air tickets, the last thing you may need to worry about is that they’ll be more expensive than you expected. The first thing may be whether they’re available at all.

And if you do already have your air tickets: This may not be the trip on which to demonstrate your acumen at showing up for a flight at the last minute. Standby could be a very long process.

Here’s the flipside–and there’s almost always a flipside:

Do that math. Realistically, more than half (and probably close to 2/3) of the passengers on any Friday or Saturday morning flight into MSY will be ALA attendees (as will probably 2/3 of the passengers on any outbound Tuesday flight). So if you just say “Hey, going to ALA and want to share a cab?” chances are you’ll get plenty of takers. (With two people, cab fare’s a buck more than shuttle fare. With three, it’s a buck less: $28 for one or two passengers, $12 per passenger for three or more.)

As for me: barring a miracle (an empty seat on an earlier flight, I’ll get off American flight 697 from DFW at 5:15 p.m., no checked luggage, and head for the taxi line as fast as my little feet can carry me…and I’d be delighted to share a cab. I’m at the Embassy Suites, but that shouldn’t be a problem.

[Here's my rueful prediction for ALA New Orleans: Most people will have a great time. Plenty of restaurants, most of them, in the convention area and nearby will be open and eager for business: Last time I checked, every place I've eaten at the last three conferences is up and running. Since tourism is by far NO's biggest employer, the real people will truly appreciate our business and, maybe, a 20-25% tip. Meetings will be well attended. It will be hot and sultry.

And at least one jackass will do something utterly stupid, get mugged, and blame it on ALA for sending us to That Hellhole in Louisiana. I'd bet at least one jackass has done something utterly stupid and gotten mugged at every single ALA conference--but usually they have to blame the person in the mirror. Now there's a big fat scapegoat.

Before I get nasty email: I'm not implying that mugging is always or usually the victim's fault. But sometimes? Yep. If you go for a walking tour of the cemeteries, by yourself, at night, or you pick up some good-lookin' stranger who turns out to be stranger than you thought...well, you know, it isn't ALA's fault.]

We deal with Holiday Big-Highway-Accident-Time Weekends by avoiding them. Thus, among other things, I was marking up the vast array of source material for the “Finding Balance: Libraries and Librarians” essay in the July C&I (which I hope to publish a few days before ALA). And, for that matter, writing the first few thousand words based on the first 20 or 30 items.

Since the first 20% of the source material yielded a partial essay that would be issue-length if kept at that rate, I turned ruthless on the remaining source material, including re-reviewing a bunch of stuff I’d already marked up but hadn’t yet written about.

That turns out to be all for the good, I think, even if it did mean a few hours wasted time. I’ve probably tossed 2/3 of all the source material, maybe more; what’s left appears reasonable, with the intention of yielding an essay that’s somewhere between 1/4 and 1/2 of a typical C&I issue: A “principal theme” but not the whole thing. That may even leave room for more of the “Copyright Balance” discussion that was clearly too long for a single issue.

So what gets left out? Some individual items that, on rereading, seemed less worthy of comment than at first. But mostly:

• “Further Library 2.0 discussion”–a few more notes related to the term itself. I dropped these because I’ve concluded that people fall into one of three categories: 1. Those who insist on using the term to promote themselves, their organizations as somehow forward-looking library vendors, or whatever; they’re not going to change. 2. Those who are building new services and features and showing how others can use what they’ve done; most of them are now avoiding any “us vs. them” rhetoric and appear to be using the term as a convenient label (which it is). 3. Those who really don’t give a da*n, but who get upset by contentiousness. Since I’ve given up on influencing the first group, I dropped the discussion because it’s no longer relevant to the other two groups.
• “Who”–a bunch of notes related to discussions of personality cults, shameless self-promotion, and all that. This was all marked up, and in a way it hurt to leave it out. But…well, first, it really didn’t relate well to the general topic of libraries and balance. Second, while I do think that shameless self-promotion is like pornography (I know it when I see it), that’s not good enough. My current version, “Promoting YOU rather than pointing out what you’ve done,” may not be much better. Finally, perhaps most important, it’s plausible for others to suggest that I fall into the SSP category: After all, my brief stint as an American Libraries columnist was under “The Crawford Files” banner, I had a section in Library Hi Tech News called “Crawford’s Corner,” and the subtitle of C&I is “Crawford at Large.” I have responses for that (those eponymous titles arose because my inability to focus on a narrow range of topics makes other names difficult), but not necessarily suitable responses. Even more to the point, events of the past few weeks made me wonder how I would go about getting a new job, if the need arose. At age 60, as a systems analyst/library automator, I concluded that “building a great 2-page resume and putting it out there” would run into That Which Does Not Exist (there is no age discrimination in hiring anywhere, nosirree)–and that my only real recourse would be to keep my vita up to date (I don’t have a 2-page resume) and go out there looking for “someone who has use for Walt Crawford.” That was not so much humbling as revelatory: Maybe I shouldn’t be putting down “the brand of me.”
• “Continuing Extremism”–a few examples of people who still offer extreme views on some of these issues. That includes one blogger suggesting that baby boomer librarians have nothing to offer and should all retire and just disappear, continued assertions from a small number of people that Everybody Must Get Stoned (that is, Every Librarian Should Be Blogging and Using IM and…), and those who make a habit of SHOUTING in comments on other people’s weblogs when other people raise mild questions about the universality of Hot Technology or, heaven help us, suggest that circulation and book sales figures actually do mean that some people other than academics and librarians still care about books. Extremists will always be with us. I finally tired of pointing them out. For this round.
• Elsewhere: I substantially trimmed “philosophy” pieces, reduced the “problems and skeptics” coverage, and just generally tightened things up.

So there we are. All in all, I probably dumped 30-40 pieces of source material, which probably translates to 6,000-12,000 words of quotation and commentary. I’m certain it was the right decision.

Update: If you’re wondering what changed in the new version of this post: I added one letter to two different words, in one case to correct a clear agreement error, in the other to clarify a possible grammatical error. Much as I might be tempted to remove what may be more personal/job/career information than I perhaps should have included, it goes against my informal “blogging ethic” to do so. So I didn’t.

Michael Casey posted this at LibraryCrunch last night. As one of those who suggested this to him, I’ll quote the whole thing as a way of reinforcing the claim against future foolishness:

O’Reilly has taken steps to consolidate use of the term “Web 2.0”, claiming it as a service mark. This has caused several worried library folk to contact me regarding “Library 2.0” and its usage.

I first published the term “Library 2.0” in September of 2005. I have always considered the term “Library 2.0”, used alone or in combinations such as “Library 2.0 Conference”, to be in the public domain, usable by anyone, and not subject to trademark or service mark registration. I would hate to see this changed by anyone attempting to turn the term itself into a commercial venture.

It appears well-established that “Library 2.0″ is Michael Casey’s coinage. I believe his post should be strong evidence opposing any attempt by a company to register the term as a servicemark or trademark, by itself or in any generic combination such as “Library 2.0 conference.” Casey’s done the right thing here, which will come as no surprise to anyone who’s dealt with him.

This may also be a good point to remind those who believe that Walt Crawford is the foremost “anti-Library 2.0″ person around there: I’m not an anti-Library 2.0 person at all, as a reasonably careful reading of the special Cites & Insights should clarify.

I think I’ll adopt the same usage here that Peter Suber tagged me with as regards open access: I’m an independent. (Which really means largely in favor of the concepts, but choosing to continue thinking and writing about difficulties and refinements.)

Given that I’ve managed to turn out a pretty substantial C&I (and install a needed new search report at work, and various other things), some of you must be wondering about the status of this earlier post.

The easiest answer might be the brief “Bibs & Blather” essay in the new C&I, which won’t appear as an HTML separate–except here, I suppose:

The final section of last issue’s BIBS & BLATHER was “Here’s the Plan…” I recognized that I need a break—and that most of you take a break in summer. I planned a June issue with copyright balance as a major theme, a July issue (just before ALA) with library balance as a major theme, and then a “non-issue” for August, focusing on the typography and design of C&I, which most of you would probably skip. Meanwhile, I’d relax, read, contemplate, and do some long-range planning.

As some of you know, events over the past few weeks made contemplation and long-range planning a trifle difficult.

I won’t say everything’s resolved for the long term. I will say that I’m not obsessing over the situation and am inclined to believe things will work out.

The major theme of this issue is indeed copyright and balance. The two essays here aren’t all that I had in mind; that would have required far too much space. More related essays may follow.

As things stand now, the plan continues—although that plan may not leave as much room for “reading, relaxing, going on short trips, organizing music, and all that.” We shall see.

Short term, expect continuity. Longer term—that’s harder to predict, but isn’t it always?

I hope that helps.

Cites & Insights 6:8, June 2006, is now available for downloading. The 26-page issue (PDF as usual, but most essays are available as HTML pages from the C&I home page) includes:

• Perspective: Thinking About Libraries and Access – Why I write about library access, and why I don’t stick to Open Access
• Bibs & Blather – A funny thing happened…
• ©3 Perspective: Copyright: Finding a Balance
• Interesting & Peculiar Products – Nine of them
• Perspective: High-Definition Optical Discs: What You Need to Know Now
• ©3 Perspective: Finding a Balance 2: Signs of Imbalance (Part 2 of the primary theme for this issue)
• My Back Pages – five little essays

I think I owe one group of people a partial apology for having published Library 2.0 and “Library 2.0.”

Not the cheerleaders and proponents. Certainly not those who argue that doing an in-depth discussion of what was being said about “Library 2.0″ in late January 2006 was somehow unfair because premature, where in May 2006 it’s a nicely-defined movement that every rational librarian should be part of.

No, the apology is to those librarians who expressed a variety of doubts about the name, the bandwagon, the universal applicability of the concepts, the need to drop those dangerous old ideas and focus on “Library 2.0,” the extent to which the term was being used in a confrontational manner…and other doubts.

Not that I agree with all of those doubts (I don’t, any more than I agree with all the pro-”Library 2.0″ stuff that was in the issue), but I believe they were thoughtful comments worth addressing on their own merits.

Unfortunately, what I see happening–notably in the Wikipedia article on “Library 2.0″ and in the reading list for the ALA course–is that my roundup is being used as the single example of anything less than enthusiasm for “Library 2.0.” (And in the case of Wikipedia, one criticism of “Library 2.0″–a minor one at that–is being peddled as the only criticism anyone’s made, and of course it’s been answered in full.)

So, hey, you get 10, or 15, or 30 pro-”Library 2.0″ posts and documents. You get one (count ‘em, 1) very long discussion as “balance” which, if anyone does go to read it, is not opposed to the ideas and explicitly tries to be fair to all parties involved. The C&I document is a nice excuse for dismissing all other doubts about the movement.
And for that, I apologize. The critics and skeptics deserve better.

For those who interpret this post as another attack on Library 2.0: I can’t control your interpretations, although you’re dead wrong. Failure to enthusiastically be 100% supportive of something is not the same as opposing it. (Analogy: Not entirely happy with NSA’s call harvesting or 100% enthused about Bush’s job performance? Why do you hate America?)

One trick to churning out Cites & Insights and two columns while simultaneously being lazy and holding down a job:

Never annotate a source document without using it for C&I or elsewhere.

A rule I’m breaking here.

I read through Karen Calhoun’s entire final report to LC (with the title above), even reading it in the order Calhoun suggests. I marked up a fair number of items as questionable or worth discussing further–from what seem to be overly sweeping statements to a report that aims to elicit “support” first, “dialogue” second, possible disagreement never. It’s hard to know what to make of the “literature analysis” since there’s not much of a bibliography. The business orientation and “life cycle” assumptions bother me. The “market that seems poised to move to e-books” line is a familiar one, but I sure don’t see any signs of such a move. I don’t see anything in the research or any uniform opinion among the interviewees that seems to justify the flat-out, repeated call to abandon subject cataloging (or, more precisely, eliminate LCSH). And there’s more.

I also read Thomas Mann’s critical review. I’ve known Thomas Mann for years; I like him and respect his expertise. I think he makes some excellent points, but the rhetoric of his review causes some difficulty–but then, he did write the review for LC’s union. I would caution against dismissing his criticisms because of rhetorical overkill (and reject the notion that he’s simply arguing against change).

Unfortunately, after spending more time than I’d want to on the whole thing, I find that I don’t have much useful to add to the discussion. Thus this somewhat pointless blog entry instead of a few hundred words in “The Library Stuff” in a future C&I.

I hate it when that happens.

If you see trackbacks appear anywhere and then disappear, there’s the usual reason: For some reason, a high-density, unrelenting spam attack that somehow overcomes Spam Karma’s settings.

Same goes for comments–and if your real, legitimate, personal comments disappeared, my apologies: SK seems to do that sometimes when you’re getting rid of the c*@p

It’s that time again: Four TV movies, two of them probably shown in 90-minute slots, two probably shown in two-hour slots. None terrible, none superb; highlights include Broderick Crawford as a homeless drunk, Lloyd Bridges as a corrupt detective; William Shatner (and his trained moustache!) as a corrupt city official; David Carradine as a sociopathic drugged-out hippie–and Sally Field as a runaway teen hippie who’s seen the light. Sort of.

Children of the Night, 1985, color, Robert Markowitz (dir.), Kathleen Quinlan, Nicholas Campbell, Mario Van Peebles. 1:33

The first problem with this movie on Disc 8 of this collection is on Disc 5: Hustling is a much better flick dealing with the same subculture. This time, though, instead of an investigative reporter and “people who really make money from prostitution” as a running plot, there’s a sociology grad student and “the plight of teenage prostitutes” as the running plot. Like the other disc, this one’s too dark (that is, underlit) for its own good and based on a true story—but not as well acted, a lead character who’s a lot harder to take, and generally not all that good. $0.75.

Maybe I’ll Come Home in the Spring, 1971, color, Joseph Sargent (dir.), Sally Field, David Carradine, Eleanor Parker, Jackie Cooper, Lane Bradbury. 1:14.

Sally Field as a runaway late-teen who’s come back to her wealthy suburban household after a year in a hippie commune of sorts. David Carradine (mostly in flashbacks) as her sociopathic hippie boyfriend. Eleanor Parker and Jackie Cooper as Suburban Parents from Hell, with a drink always in hand and just wanting to avoid any problems—and Lane Bradbury as the younger daughter doing pills and ready to run away. Messages about the dangers of meth, I think, and lots of Sally Field being Sally Field (which is not a bad thing by any means). David Carradine makes a great worthless jerk. $1.25.

Incident on a Dark Street, 1973, color, Buzz Kulik (dir.), James Olson, David Canary, Robert Pine, Richard Castellano, William Shatner, David Doyle, Kathleen Lloyd. 1:36.

If this wasn’t a Crusading Young U.S. Attorneys episode, or a show within some series along those lines, it should have been. Strong TV-actor cast (if you can get past Bill Shatner’s silly moustache—hey, at least he’s a corrupt official), lots of plot, actually better than it has any right to be. $1.25.

A Tattered Web, 1971, color, Paul Wendkos (dir.), Lloyd Bridges, Frank Converse, Sallie Shockley, Murray Hamilton, Broderick Crawford. 1:14.

Heroes and villains: Bridges runs the acting gamut from A to B in his role as a veteran police detective who tries to run his daughter’s life, discovers his son-in-law is having an affair, accidentally kills the other woman, and sets out to frame a homeless drunk for the murder. The best performances are probably Murray Hamilton as the other police detective—and Broderick Crawford as the homeless drunk. Frank Converse is serviceable as the son-in-law. $1.00

By the way: The resumption of more-or-less normal posting means that life goes on. It doesn’t mean that unresolved situations have been resolved or that I know much more than I did two weeks ago. Meanwhile, 20-30 minutes a day on the treadmill means old movies and TV movies to watch…

This is the last in series of three posts, which will also appear in the next C&I

Takeaways and Possibilities

This is my own conjecture. I’m not planning to invest in either format for some time (for one thing, we’re not ready to buy an HDTV), so I’m not actually betting on any of this.

People aren’t clamoring for high-def discs. When DVDs came out, they offered obvious advantages in picture quality, convenience, and extra features. The difference between high-def discs and DVD will, I suspect, be perceived by almost everyone as much less significant than the difference between DVD and VHS—and for most of us (everyone who doesn’t have a big HDTV), there is no useful difference.

That doesn’t mean (as David Pogue implies) that the only reason for high-def discs is because everyone has a DVD player and most everyone has most of the discs they want, and business wants to sell us all new players and resell the movies once more. There is a real difference in picture quality that almost everyone with good vision can see on good sets. Good high-def discs should yield significantly better pictures than broadcast and cable HDTV, just as regular DVDs yield much better pictures than standard-definition broadcast and cable TV. Despite his cynical lead Pogue admits, “The average person can see the difference in picture quality.”

I do not believe studios will try a muscle play, forcing people to buy high-def discs by dropping new DVD releases. Yes, the move to CD was in part a forced play by the record companies—but if you remember, studios didn’t stop releasing videocassettes until DVDs were already in most U.S. households (actually, some videocassettes are still being released). Record companies would have loved to get us to buy all our CDs again in SACD or DVD-A form, but when we didn’t cooperate, the CDs just kept on coming.

My best guess is that there will be a trickle of discs in both new formats for the next few months; predictions are that perhaps 200 in each format will be in stores by the end of the year, and those predictions may be optimistic.

A reasonably priced chipset is already available that can handle both high-def formats. I suspect we’ll see at least one “universal” player by this fall, probably at no more than $600, and that we’ll see a steady stream of them next year—if there’s any real interest in the high-def formats.

That’s a big “if.” It’s quite possible that neither format will catch on with the public. This holiday season will tell part of the story, but the 2007 holiday season is probably critical: If players aren’t selling by the hundreds of thousands and there aren’t thousands of discs, both formats may be headed for niche status or failure.

If I had to bet on one of the formats, I’d bet on Blu-ray. It has the best technology, the most studios, the broadest range of supporters—and although it’s theoretically more expensive, I note that Amazon’s prices for early Blu-ray (pre)releases are consistently as low or lower than HD DVD prices. But it’s a tough bet: You could make a good case for HD DVD as well.

For now—well, if I was a librarian, I’d wait a year or two to see what develops. Meanwhile, you know I’ll be following the story.

The second in a three-part post which will also be a Perspective in the next C&I, possibly modified.

A High-Def FAQ

For those who want more information or are considering early adoption at home, these notes may be useful. I’ve been tracking HD DVD and Blu-ray since they were first mentioned, but background for these questions and answers comes from four primary sources: James K. Willcox’ “The format war goes nuclear” in the April 2006 Sound & Vision, Gary Merson’s “HD DVD versus Blu-ray” in the May 2006 Home Theater, a multiauthor special section on HD DVD & Blu-ray in the May 2006 Sound & Vision, and David Pogue’s overly-cynical “Why the world doesn’t need hi-def DVD’s” in the May 11, 2006 New York Times.

What do both formats have in common?

• Both HD DVD and Blu-ray use blue-violet lasers (405 nanometer wavelength) to read 12cm (or 120mm) discs that are 1.2mm thick. Those physical dimensions are identical to DVDs and CDs (DualDiscs, which are CDs on one side and DVDs on the other, are slightly more than 1.2mm thick).
• Both are designed for high-definition video, with up to six times the resolution of standard DVDs.
• Both use heavier-duty DRM than DVDs: Advanced Access Content System in addition to other protections—but, unlike DVDs, both formats are supposed to provide a way to copy a movie to a hard disc or a portable player (“Mandatory Managed Copy”) while preventing further distribution. AACS can (but need not) include an “Image Constraint Token” that lowers component video output resolution to a maximum of 960×540, one-fourth the possible maximum resolution; that might partially cripple such discs for early adopters of HDTV (those whose sets don’t have HDMI or DVI/HDCP inputs). Fox, Paramount, Disney, and Sony/Columbia/MGM have all said they won’t use the token on initial releases.
• Both will offer more advanced surround-sound options than DVDs, with higher quality, more channels, and potentially many more alternate sound channels (for languages, commentary, etc.).
• Discs for both should cost a few dollars more than new-release DVDs: Current projections are $35 to 40 suggested retail for new releases, $25 to $30 for older items. (Amazon already lists some discs in both formats, suggesting that typical discount prices will be $20 to $25 in most cases.)
• HD DVD and Blu-ray players will also play DVDs and CDs. As with DVD players, there’s less assurance that any given player will handle all of the recordable variants.
• Warner Brothers, Paramount, New Line, and HBO plan to release discs in both formats. Netflix plans to rent discs in both formats. HP, LG, and Samsung are backing both formats on the hardware side—and Samsung and LG plan to develop players that can handle both formats.
• Discs that began as movies should be mastered as “1080p/24”—that is, 1920×1080 resolution, with a full frame at that resolution generated 24 times a second. (24 frames per second is the standard rate for movies, as opposed to 30 or 60 fps for video.)
• Players for both formats will allow you to make menu selections while the picture is playing (or while pausing the selection). In practice, some DVD players have allowed you to change options while a picture is playing for a long time, but you have to make the changes using the player’s menu system rather than the disc’s menu system.
• Recorders and burners (that is, recording drives for PCs) will be available for both formats, probably within a year.

What’s different about HD DVD?

HD DVD was primarily developed by Toshiba, and its biggest strength is that it’s very similar to DVD—similar enough that the same production lines should be able to handle HD DVD with little adjustment. That should mean lower production costs for discs, at least initially. (Specifically, the lowest information layer is 0.6mm from the surface, just as in DVDs. The laser spot size is 0.62 micrometers, as compared to 1.1 micrometers for DVD.)

Single-layer HD DVDs store 15GB of data, just over three times as much as single-layer DVDs. Dual-layer HD DVDs will store 30GB, just over three times as much as dual-layer DVDs. HD DVD can transfer data at up to 36.55 mbps, as compared to 19.39 mbps for broadcast HDTV and 10 mbps for DVD. Note that these are all maxima—in the real world, most DVDs have much lower average data transfer rates, and the same will be true for high-def discs.

Most HD DVDs will use MPEG-4 or VC-1 (otherwise known as Windows Media 9) data compression, more aggressive compression schemes than the MPEG-2 used for DVDs. At least one Microsoft honcho claims that MPEG-2 “will not look as good” as VC-1 at the highest possible resolution (1920×1080 progressive). Notably, although HD DVD discs will supposedly be mastered at 1080p, the first generation of HD DVD players won’t go above 1080i (essentially half the resolution).

The royalty package for HD DVD players supposedly totals around $12 per player.

The first HD DVD players, from Toshiba, sell for $500 and $800 and are already on the market. (An RCA model that may already be on the market is a Toshiba player with an RCA faceplate.) More will follow from other makers. Microsoft plans to offer an HD DVD drive for the Xbox 360 some time in 2006.

Interactivity on HD DVDs will be based on Microsoft’s iHD software, in turn based on XML.

Some studios will release dual discs, with a DVD on one side and an HD DVD on the other. In the future, three-layer HD DVDs might yield 45GB capacity.
Backers of HD DVD include Toshiba, Sanyo, Microsoft, NEC, and Universal.

What’s different about Blu-ray?

Sony is the primer mover behind Blu-ray—but it’s made every effort to build a strong coalition. The Blu-ray Disc Association includes more than 170 companies, including most of the consumer electronics companies that were on the “VHS side” in the first recorded video format war. While Blu-ray discs are the same size and thickness as DVDs, the primary information layer is a mere 0.1mm from the surface—and those discs have a new “scratchproof” coating to make such fine tolerances workable. The laser spot size is 0.48 micrometers.

Single-layer Blu-ray discs store 25GB of data, just over five times as much as single-layer DVDs. Dual-layer Blu-ray discs store 50GB of data. Blu-ray can transfer data at up to 48 mbps.

While Blu-ray discs could use MPEG-2, MPEG-4, or VC-1, most initial releases from core Blu-ray backers should use MPEG-2, including all of those from Sony-owned studios, which will aim for an 18mbps data rate. (Warner will use VC-1 for both Blu-ray and HD DVD discs.) As you’d expect, Sony claims that MPEG-2 at the high data rates that Blu-ray’s capacity makes feasible will yield the best possible pictures. All Blu-ray players will support 1080p output.

The royalty package for Blu-ray supposedly totals around $30 per player.

The first Blu-ray players will list for $1,000 and $1,800. Samsung should have players out at the end of this month or early June with Pioneer and Sony close behind. Sony’s PlayStation 3 includes a Blu-ray drive.

Interactivity on Blu-ray discs will be based on Blu-ray Disc Java (BD-J), itself based on Java.

While dual discs have been demonstrated using Blu-ray on one side, no studio has said it would release such discs. Multilayer Blu-ray discs holding 100GB have already been demonstrated.

Backers of Blu-ray include most PC and consumer electronics firms (Apple, Dell, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, Sharp, TDK) and studios (Sony/Columbia/MGM, Fox, Disney/Miramax/etc.—the Buena Vista family, Lions Gate). Note that almost every Hollywood studio belongs to the Blu-Ray Disc Association.

Why are there two formats?

Money, technology and ego. The primary developers on both sides covet the patent royalties. Sony and Blu-ray friends argue that the higher-capacity disc will be needed; Toshiba and HD DVD friends claim that HD DVD’s similarity to DVD will make the “transition” faster and easier.

Discussions toward a compromise took place over several months. Similar discussions (and a healthy shove from studios and computer makers) finally resulted in a single DVD format (two competing formats had been developed, but only one made it to market)—but this time, talks fell apart.

Who benefits from high-def discs?

The cynical answer is “studios and consumer entertainment companies”—but that’s only true if people decide that high-def discs and players are worth buying.

So the real answer is another question: When do high-def discs make a difference?

There’s a primary answer and a secondary answer. The secondary answer is so arcane at this point that it’s probably not worth worrying about.

Primarily, high-def discs matter if:

• You have an HDTV with a large enough screen for the difference to be visible (I’d say at least 40″ diagonal, although I’ve seen suggestions that 35″ might be large enough). If you’re watching very close up, as you might (for example) on the forthcoming Toshiba Qosmio supernotebook with its 17″ high-def screen and HD DVD player, you could also find the difference worthwhile.
• You can see the difference between true high-definition TV (at least 720p) and regular DVDs (480i)/standard TV. Apparently, millions of people who own HDTVs don’t watch HDTV (either they have an HDTV monitor and haven’t acquired an appropriate tuner or set-top box, or they have an HDTV but don’t know how to find the HDTV stations) and aren’t aware that they’re missing anything.
• You care about the difference. Nobody really knows how many people will find high-quality DVD, upscaled to HDTV resolution (although “upscaling” doesn’t add new picture information), “good enough” when compared to high-def discs.

Secondarily, the extra storage on high-def discs could matter in several special situations, although I’d guess none of them are relevant at the moment:

• You don’t care much about the extra visual quality, but your golden ears are offended by the shortcomings in current DVD surround sound. High-def discs should have higher-quality sound and more channels.
• You’re looking for language tracks that aren’t on current DVDs; with up to 32 channels, high-def discs could include a wide choice of dubbed or subtitled choices—although that requires that studios go to the expense of providing such choices.
• You’re hot for interactivity. Increased data rates, more data space, and internet connectivity (which will be present in most players) could yield much more interesting interactions—but how many of you think much about DVD interactivity?

What happened in similar format wars?

Similarity can be hard to define, but here’s a quick take on several dual-format situations, offered chronologically:

• Videocassettes: Betamax was first and better, but VHS had a longer recording time and more big companies behind it. Outcome: It took more than a decade for complete victory (actually 13 years, the period from Betamax’ introduction until Sony introduced a VHS recorder), but VHS won. (Note: Betamax really wasn’t “first”—it was maybe fifth or sixth or tenth, but it was the first videocassette format to have any significant success in the home.)
• High-definition audio: DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD (SACD) came out at roughly the same time, both using DVD capacity to store higher-resolution sound and surround sound. Outcome: In this case, nobody won: While DVD-A and SACD still exist, neither could be considered a success. Most SACDs were probably sold because they were compatible hybrids (dual-layer discs with one layer playing as a CD, the other as an SACD, e.g., some Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan releases), and it’s notable that Sony—originator of SACD—releases a few DVD-As and has basically scrapped SACD. A few high-end classical labels still release SACD. “DualDiscs” keep DVD-A in the market, but barely, particularly because some players can’t handle the slightly-out-of-spec CD side. The question that really can’t be answered is whether the dual failure is because there was a competition or because most listeners don’t care about surround sound and couldn’t hear the difference between CD and high-res audio. My guess is the latter. I would note that “universal players” became available within a year of the formats’ release, and eventually became affordable—but nobody much cared.
• Recordable DVD: DVD-R/RW and DVD+R/RW emerged at roughly the same time (as did another format, DVD-RAM, which is primarily limited to specialized uses). Each format had certain advantages and a range of supporters. The advantages were subtle enough to be mysterious to most of us. Outcome: For most computer users, a draw: Virtually all modern DVD burners will handle all recordable and rewritable DVD formats except DVD-RAM.

Updated 5/19 (thanks, Ruth): WordPress now tries to retain Word formatting on a cut-and-paste, and this time that resulted in a fair amount of gibberish, at least on some browsers. I’ve eliminated all of the Word formatting, I think, possibly damaging intended formats along the way.

And I’ve been reminded of why I write directly in WP…

HD DVD. Blu-ray. They’re both 12cm. discs, the same size and thickness as CDs and DVDs. They’re both primarily designed for high-definition movies and other video, with three to five times the storage capacity and playback data rate of DVDs. They’re both either just on the U.S. market or just about to reach the U.S. market, after typical delays. Here’s what I believe you need to know now—as people and as librarians.

The Short Version

Unless your academic library supports a film studies department or your public library is extremely well funded and supports a high-income population of early adopters, you can and should ignore both high-def disc formats for at least a year and probably two years or more.

If your library started acquiring DVDs in the first half of 1997, you might be one of the rare exceptions. If you didn’t start until 2000 or later, and that served your patrons well, then you need read no more: If you ever need high-def discs, it won’t be for at least a couple of years.

Film studies? You probably had a collection of 12″ LaserDiscs until recently, and maybe you still have some. If you already have HDTVs available, you’ll probably be acquiring both high-def discs fairly soon. The bad news is that there are two incompatible (for now) formats, and the early players are pricey. The good news is that the discs are priced closer to DVDs than to the old first-release videocassettes—and there won’t be enough of them this year to burden your budget heavily.

Note: This is Part 1 of a three-part post. Part 2 (the longest part, a high-def disc FAQ) will appear tomorrow. Part 3 (my own conclusions) will appear Wednesday.

This series of posts will also be a Perspective in the June Cites & Insights, if all goes as planned. That Perspective may be slightly different than the posts.

If anyone who reads this works at (or knows someone who works at) USC, or Beverly Hills Public Library, or another library that my fit into my “exception” categories (USC: Film school; BHPL: Well-funded library with strong service and at least partly high-income/high-tech population), I’d love to hear from them as to what their plans are, or whether they have any. Such responses would make the difference in the C&Iarticle.

Night before last, we moved forward one more week in our viewing of Moonlighting, season 3 (we never watch more than one episode of any show on DVD in any one week…).

The episode was one of the truly remarkable ones that help explain why the show always had trouble staying on schedule. You see the title above. It features a lengthy modern dance sequence set to “Big Man on Mulberry Street,” written and performed by Billy Joel. It’s a great sequence–and a great episode.

In some ways, it harks back to perhaps the most remarkable episode of Season 2, “The Dream Sequence Always Rings Twice,” which–among other things–was broadcast in black & white, over the objections of the network.

In any case, the episode is another highlight of one of the truly great series.

Aficionados will know that we’re in for a truly special treat next week: The only episode that we happened to tape at the time, on an expensive S-VHS cassette, which we’ve kept intact ever since and watched several times.

Time for a coffee-break post–not one giving more details about the planned merger (because I still don’t know much of anything), or about how a “merger” of 1100 people and 70+ people works in practice, or about the comparative roles of OCLC and RLG.

Instead, a brief, informal comment about one major reason (perhaps the major reason) I’m still at RLG after almost 27 years:

The people.

Not all of them, not all the time–but RLG people are some of the best, most capable, most caring people I’ve had the pleasure to work with.

Development/systems (which I’ve been part of for most of my tenure hearhere, although not all of it) includes a fair number of degreed librarians (most analysts, quite a few programmers and managers), and an even larger number of people who care about what we do–about getting it right, following standards, providing as much innovation as we can afford, working with and for our members and users, and working as an efficient, effective, human team.

I stand in astonishment at the sheer talent of some of the people in dev/systems, including names you’ve probably never heard.

It’s not just development/systems. The RLG Information Center (RIC), our front-line user assistance folks, consists of thoughtful, professional people devoted to providing the best possible customer service. I believe RLG has a reputation for doing exactly that (and take pride in the part I’ve played, from time to time, handling Eureka feedback and troubleshooting problems discovered by usres). It’s the people who make that happen.

The same could be said in every division–membership programs and initiatives, product management, operations, even F&A.
The quality of the people, both as workers and as people, is one big reason that quite a few of us have been here for quite a long time. I’m not the employee with the longest tenure (I think I’m #6, actually). I’ve talked to some recent additions who noted that they keep working here in part because the other people are such good people and care so much about what we’re doing.

That’s a coffee break’s worth of appreciation: Long overdue, but here at last.

So two minutes after I post a link to the press release saying RLG and OCLC are combining, a colleague sends a link to this.

“This” being that the first major speech I ever gave, more than 13 years ago, is today’s Library Link of the Day. In case you’re wondering, no, I didn’t touch a word of that speech when I loaded it to my personal website in 1999–and haven’t edited it since.

If you’re inclined to read “The death of print…” (it’s a long title), you might also want to read this piece, which I wrote in 1999 at the same time that I added the 1992 Arizona Library Association speech to my personal web site (then on AT&T Worldnet, since disappeared because I moved to SBC Yahoo!, which of course is now AT&T Yahoo!, but…)

For that matter, you might also want to read this–the lengthy handout that accompanied the Arizona speech and was entirely additional material. I also haven’t changed a word of that since 1992.

Anyway, thanks, Library Link of the Day. This was a good day for a surprise blast from/to the past.