According to a FAQ on Disney's site comparing BD to HD-DVD...

http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/bluray/ After Tinkerbell does her thing, click skip intro, then FAQ's at the top of the page.

According to Disney, Blu-Ray has:

1. Greater storage capacity
2. Full 1080P resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i
3. Unparalleled interactivity – using BDMV and DB-Java Technology
4. Broadest Industry support
5. Stronger disk durability

To answer these MISCONCEPTIONS, see below:

1. Both HD-DVD and BD are new and emerging standards. HD-DVD is currently 30gb, BD is currently 25gb or 50gb. HD-DVD has shown 51gb discs which, it is their intention to use for video delivery. BD has show prototypes of 100gb (possibly greater) however, these are focused on the data storage market and will probably have no bearing on video.

2. Both systems use identical encode formats supporting 1080p/24 for Film.

3. So far there has been no real sign of interactivity in BD titles using BD-Java. Also, BD-Java is not supported on all systems. HD-DVD uses HDi which is showcased in many currently shipping titles, easier to construct interactive content in, and mandated on all players.

4. Yes, currently BD has more studios behind it (not broader industry support as HD-DVD has a lot more PC vendors and Chinese manufacturers behind it). However, this is an odd "benefit" to Disney as if they moved their support to HD-DVD, then the balance would also shift.

5. BD discs are not more durable than HD-DVDs. This is a misnomer. BD discs REQUIRE a strong ant-scratch coating because the data layer is basically on the surface of the disc, and thus more prone to damage. HD-DVDs put the data in the middle of the disc, allowing the optics to focus through most scratches (just like existing DVDs). In the end run, a scratch is fatal to BD, and not to HD-DVD.

I sincerely hope someone from Disney reads this and understands that their reasoning is all full of marketing "hot-air" and that they are doing a disservice to their customers by not releasing on HD-DVD.

What else did you expect coming from the BDA ? Honesty ? I am sick of their BS but this is no news really, just business as usual.

According to Disney, Blu-Ray has:

1. Greater storage capacity
2. Full 1080P resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i
3. Unparalleled interactivity – using BDMV and DB-Java Technology
4. Broadest Industry support
5. Stronger disk durability


I don't know whats the problem here ...everything here is factual except for maybe #2

1. Yes Blu-Ray has more capacity as of right now. The 51 gig disc Toshiba announced at CES is nothing but vaporware. We don't know if it even works with current hardware.

2. Disney needs to do more research

3.True if they ever get around implementing the technology

4.True

5. Blu-Ray IS more durable. If Blu-Ray does not have a protective layer, its a different story. Last time I checked, it does and thus more durable than HD DVD.

1. Disney did their math wrong. Their "67% more capacity than HD DVD" came from:

capacity HDDVD 34GB
---------------------- = --------- x 100% = 68%
capacity BD 50GB

when it's really

(cap BD - HDDVD) (50GB - 34GB)
----------------------- = -------------------- x 100% = 47%
cap HDDVD 34GB

This is the true increase relative to HD DVD's capacity. They simply chose the larger of the two numbers for more umph! :rolleyes:

2. Disney claims "BD players deliver full 1080p resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i." Now nitpicking between interlaced vs. progressive aside, they are comparing a temporal attribute, not a spatial one, but they spin their language towards the latter. Most people realize there is little difference visually between 1080i and 1080p. Also a 1080p24 signal can be recreated from either 60p or 60i using a good inverse telecine process (ie. in an outboard video processor).

Also, "BD players will support upscaling of DVDs to near high-definition quality." That's the same snake-oil manufacturers are trying to push on the public with SD DVD players.

While much of Disney's marketing is just that, "marketing", your responses are not entirely accurate either.

1. Deal with it, Blu Ray has more storage per layer, period. There was a huge effort on these baords to say that Blu Ray couldn't claim greater storage while 50gb DL disks weren't shipping; well, now they are, and TL HD DVD disks are not even approved. You can't have it both ways. Also, a 200 gb BD was shown as CES, not just a 100gb disk.

2. Obviously Disney is referring to hardware resolution output, and obviously this is changing as we speak. It was always a bit diseneguous, but in the next six months it becomes outright false, and hopefully they'll change it.

3. Points taken about current hardware implimentation of interactivity. It's total speculation to claim that iHD is easier to program than BD-J (we've heard claims for both sides). There is unquestionably more room for interactive content on BD disks, but by and large this is indeed marketing fluff.

4. BD has more industry support. There are at least as many computer companies supporting Blu Ray (Apple, HP, Sony, Sun) as there are HD DVD (MSFT, HP,..?). There are more studios, but also far more CE support. Even the new CE "support" announced at CES was tepid and without firm product detail, release dates, etc. Lite-On has said they will make players for both formats (of course, they've been saying that for almost a year without a product announcement).

5. You drank too much of the red kool-aid here. Did you not see the post where someone took steel wool to their copy of Taladega Nights and it still played? I own many disks of both formats, and there is no question that the BDs are holding up much better. FWIW, it's not truly a misnomer, as a misnomer is a lable or name that contradicts known facts. Even assuming you were right (which you are not), it is a false claim, not a lable or name. IT would simply be wrong, not a misnomer. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer for more if you're intersted.

True, but up until recently HD DVD could not feed a display a 1080p feed. The statement is outdated, but only a month.

Simply not true. HD DVD has always been capable of 1080p feed (before BD was capable). Just ignore the cadence flags -- you've got 1080p (AOL voice).



BD-J has shown the greatest promise. While it has not acheived that yet, there is nothing to say it won't eventually (this format is meant to last 10 years). HDi is based on XML. We known its limitations. The statement is correct in what Sun has promised it to do.

Great promise? please, you sound like a propaganda machine. All BD-J has shown is that the BDA wants to take your money without providing fully compliant and standardized players. The Descent won't play in many BD players. Similar issues have popped up with other titles. HDi has proven itself, try again...



Saying that support from Pioneer is equal to support from a single Chinese CE is a bit reaching. The statement is correct.

That's a jingoist statement. To most people, that Chinese CE company is WAY more important than a company providing a $1500 "Solution" that doesn't provide anything more than a $600 gaming machine (a good bit less actually).

The protective layer provides greater protection for data than .6mm of plastic. This has been proven many, many times in the lab and in the real world. Science always takes precedent over propaganda. The statement is correct.

How much "science" have you seen involving disc protection specific to BD? Prophylactics break.

1. Disney did their math wrong. Their "67% more capacity than HD DVD" came from:

capacity HDDVD 34GB


Where does 34 come from?

I thought HDDVD30 was .... 30 GB?

Which disc is 34?

(50-30)/30 = 67%

The math is simple and correct.

To respond to your misconceptions:
....
Saying that support from Pioneer is equal to support from a single Chinese CE is a bit reaching.

Couldn't agree more. Pioneer BD players have sold in the hundreds, and maybe into the thousands. If they continue with their current pricing, they will sell in the multi thousands. A $200-$300 player from China which will be in range of the mass market buying range obviously will play no part in HD DVD sales. :D

This is the studio that has let "Song of the South" sit in their vault unreleased while they keep milking the same franchise titles every few years. :rolleyes:

I enjoy their theme parks, and I enjoy the Pixar films - which would look great in HD BTW - but I have no respect for Disney as a company.

Great promise? please, you sound like a propaganda machine. All BD-J has shown is that the BDA wants to take your money without providing fully compliant and standardized players. The Descent won't play in many BD players. Similar issues have popped up with other titles. HDi has proven itself, try again...

BD-J is based on the same platform used by DVB's MHP and Cablelab's OCAP. It is much more widely accepted than HDi (currently used only by HD DVD). There are many authoring tools for this content and there are quite a few demonstrations of its capabilities.

That's a jingoist statement. To most people, that Chinese CE company is WAY more important than a company providing a $1500 "Solution" that doesn't provide anything more than a $600 gaming machine (a good bit less actually).

Get back to me when they are shipping a product.

/quote

Oh common! Disney is supporting it, because thats where they invested from day one, do you really think they would jump-ship at this point? You can't play with dates and such to reinforce your counter, counter statements bailing them out of what are simple "politics as usual". That sort of press release has nothing to do with why they did what they did; it's a none to subtle suggestion of what they want you to do. Karl Rove must be moonlighting these days :D Both camps play fast and loose with the facts to convince us that it's apples and oranges, rather than oranges and tangerines.

The biggest "spin" I've heard lately is the protective-coating "advance" being passed off as an innovation; anyone who's followed the history of this knows it was developed to patch a weakness. BD was originally seriously considering cartridges until investor response was "you gotta be kidding"!

I still think this format is going to be Netflix biggest nightmare if they have to deal with it on any large scale.

True, but up until recently HD DVD could not feed a display a 1080p feed. The statement is outdated, but only a month.


This is totally BS! All the HD DVD and Blu-Ray are encoded 1080p24 since day one.

Disney is a movie studio and should only care about movies.

I am sure you don’t want to start arguing about player capability what is missing in which player.

This is totally BS! All the HD DVD and Blu-Ray are encoded 1080p24 since day one.

Disney is a movie studio and should only care about movies.

I am sure you don’t want to start arguing about player capability what is missing in which player.

Doesn't HD DVD have 30i encodes which can be interpreted by the player as 24p by ignoring a flag of sorts.

Couldn't agree more. Pioneer BD players have sold in the hundreds, and maybe into the thousands. If they continue with their current pricing, they will sell in the multi thousands. A $200-$300 player from China which will be in range of the mass market buying range obviously will play no part in HD DVD sales. :D

You could laugh about the Pioneer player's price but let me tell you this is up to now the best and more stable HD player currently available. You get for what you pay. Look at the price reduction done on the second generation Toshiba player. The results are no Analog out, no digital coax. I am not sure should be anxious to see those 300$ Chinese players.

BD-J has shown the greatest promise. While it has not acheived that yet, there is nothing to say it won't eventually (this format is meant to last 10 years). HDi is based on XML. We known its limitations. The statement is correct in what Sun has promised it to do.Whoa, Whoa, Whoa.... I am well aware of Java's capabilities. But you are WAY off base on this one. HDi is clearly superior in this regard and it appears Microsoft is much more capable of making it work than the BDA group has with BD-J. Are you aware that BDA's own working group voted to use HDi but BDA's board overturned their decision? So a bunch of suits made a decision without listening to their own experts? Sounds like posturing and an agenda to me. Those two things are never better for the consumer.

This is totally BS! All the HD DVD and Blu-Ray are encoded 1080p24 since day one.The XA2 is the first HD DVD player to support 1080p playback, and it just came out this month. joshd2012 was referring to hardware playback capabilities, not what is actually encoded on the discs, and has agreed that Disney's statement is now outdated.

1. Both HD-DVD and BD are new and emerging standards. HD-DVD is currently 30gb, BD is currently 25gb or 50gb. HD-DVD has shown 51gb discs which, it is their intention to use for video delivery. BD has show prototypes of 100gb (possibly greater) however, these are focused on the data storage market and will probably have no bearing on video.

Hitachi was showing their 100GB 4-layer rewriteable drive at CES and said they expected it to ship within a year. Several companies were showing 200GB 6-layer discs.

Disney, Fox and Sony all said at CES that they expect to ship content on higher capacity discs as soon as they are available. I will be somewhat surprised if Toshiba ever ships a 3 or 4 layer HD DVD, but if they do, I will not be surprised if they ship movies on it. While they first claimed that space was not needed, they seem to be acknowledging their error.

/carmi

Doesn't HD DVD have 30i encodes which can be interpreted by the player as 24p by ignoring a flag of sorts.


Which one?

Where does 34 come from?

I thought HDDVD30 was .... 30 GB?

Which disc is 34?

(50-30)/30 = 67%

The math is simple and correct.

Counting chickens.

Someone says TL51 (17+ 17 + 17). People assume DL34 (17 + 17).

From now on all claims and calculations are supposed to based on something that may never get into the spec. :rolleyes:

Gary

You could laugh about the Pioneer player's price but let me tell you this is up to now the best and more stable HD player currently available. You get for what you pay. Look at the price reduction done on the second generation Toshiba player. The results are no Analog out, no digital coax. I am not sure should be anxious to see those 300$ Chinese players.

This is clearly not a case of "you get what you pay for". $1500 MSRP doesn't get me CD compatibility, new audio codecs, HDMI 1.3 or 100% BD-J capability... How much do I need to pay to get these ? $2500 ?

Which one?

I thought that it was generally the case, to help players output 60i.

I could be mistaken, my knowledge of HD DVD is not all that good.

5. BD discs are not more durable than HD-DVDs. This is a misnomer. BD discs REQUIRE a strong ant-scratch coating because the data layer is basically on the surface of the disc, and thus more prone to damage. HD-DVDs put the data in the middle of the disc, allowing the optics to focus through most scratches (just like existing DVDs). In the end run, a scratch is fatal to BD, and not to HD-DVD.


A naked BD disc is more prone to damage. They are never naked so it is silly to discuss that. They have a hardcoat. And by all accounts people are getting far fewer scratched (damaged) BD discs from rentals than HD DVD.

A scratch to a BD might make it more susceptible to playback issues. But, the scratch has to occur in the first place. If the hardcoat eliminates 95% of scratches, this eliminates 95% of the playback problem candidates.

Look at the rental poll on this issue. It's the HD DVD renters that are experiencing the playback issues with rental discs.

Gary

<snip>
According to Disney, Blu-Ray has:

1. Greater storage capacity
2. Full 1080P resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i
3. Unparalleled interactivity – using BDMV and DB-Java Technology
4. Broadest Industry support
5. Stronger disk durability
<snip>All you need to do is add a couple words to each line:

for more $$$.

The XA2 is the first HD DVD player to support 1080p playback, and it just came out this month. joshd2012 was referring to hardware playback capabilities, not what is actually encoded on the discs, and has agreed that Disney's statement is now outdated.Disney is talking about the media spec. Not what the players are capable of. And they have misinformation posted. I expect more from a company like Disney, but IMO, their current CEO doesn't seem to be too tech savy.

This is clearly not a case of "you get what you pay for". $1500 MSRP doesn't get me CD compatibility, new audio codecs, HDMI 1.3 or 100% BD-J capability... How much do I need to pay to get these ? $2500 ?

Dolby THD is in the works for this player as mentioned by a forum member.

If the player gets advanced audio decoding, where is the need for HDMI 1.3, it certainly is not for deep colour, CD is the same price as DVD now, the only downside is not being able to play bought albums, but most people who are going to be spending $1500 on a player will more than likely have a dedicated solution from a high end audio company (Meridian et al).

BD-J updates are in the works as well, to get compatibility with the few titles that need it.

Try again.

The XA2 is the first HD DVD player to support 1080p playback, and it just came out this month. joshd2012 was referring to hardware playback capabilities, not what is actually encoded on the discs, and has agreed that Disney's statement is now outdated.

People have been gettig 1080p playback from HD DVD on day 1 (or so). That's before BD ever did 1080p (true 1080p). It wasn't a Toshiba player, necessarily, certainly not a stand-alone unit but it was being done.

Where does 34 come from? I thought HDDVD30 was .... 30 GB? Which disc is 34?

Technically, I thought HD DVD was 17GB per layer. Hence, 34GB for dual and 51GB for triple layer discs. The actual HD DVD-30 name may include rounding for convenience.

DVDs are 4.7GB per layer but we still call them DVD-5 (rounding up) and DVD-9 (rounding down).

(50-30)/30 = 67%
The math is simple and correct.

(50-34)/34 = 47%

I may have assumed they did the calcs. wrong since 34/50 = 0.68 which is close (but not exactly) to their quoted 67%. Sorry, my bad. :rolleyes:

Technically, I thought HD DVD was 17GB per layer. Hence, 34GB for dual and 51GB for triple layer discs. The actual HD DVD-30 name may include rounding for convenience.

Nope. HD DVD has standardized on 15GB layers. Toshiba's technology demonstration uses 3 non-standard 17GB layers.

/carmi

While much of Disney's marketing is just that, "marketing", your responses are not entirely accurate either.

1. Deal with it, Blu Ray has more storage per layer, period. There was a huge effort on these baords to say that Blu Ray couldn't claim greater storage while 50gb DL disks weren't shipping; well, now they are, and TL HD DVD disks are not even approved. You can't have it both ways. Also, a 200 gb BD was shown as CES, not just a 100gb disk.

2. Obviously Disney is referring to hardware resolution output, and obviously this is changing as we speak. It was always a bit diseneguous, but in the next six months it becomes outright false, and hopefully they'll change it.

3. Points taken about current hardware implimentation of interactivity. It's total speculation to claim that iHD is easier to program than BD-J (we've heard claims for both sides). There is unquestionably more room for interactive content on BD disks, but by and large this is indeed marketing fluff.

4. BD has more industry support. There are at least as many computer companies supporting Blu Ray (Apple, HP, Sony, Sun) as there are HD DVD (MSFT, HP,..?). There are more studios, but also far more CE support. Even the new CE "support" announced at CES was tepid and without firm product detail, release dates, etc. Lite-On has said they will make players for both formats (of course, they've been saying that for almost a year without a product announcement).

5. You drank too much of the red kool-aid here. Did you not see the post where someone took steel wool to their copy of Taladega Nights and it still played? I own many disks of both formats, and there is no question that the BDs are holding up much better. FWIW, it's not truly a misnomer, as a misnomer is a lable or name that contradicts known facts. Even assuming you were right (which you are not), it is a false claim, not a lable or name. IT would simply be wrong, not a misnomer. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer for more if you're intersted.

This post just about sums it up. Don't know what the OP is thinking. BD has much larger capacity, much more CE support, much more studio support, and it is much more resistant to scratches from rentals. This is all really simple, real world stuff. The only part he has a point is the 1080P BS.

You can always tell though when someone doesn't own Blu-ray or they have some agenda to spin. They will claim that HD-DVD is "more resistant to scratches" than Blu-ray based upon only what they read about where the data is. Never mind the real world or the fact that BD has a scratch resistant layer that can hold up against steel wool. Anyone who owns both formats on this forum can attest that Blu-ray discs are much more reliable and resistant to scratches than HD-DVDs. It's been stated over and over again by people who own both formats on here. You got to find it funny though that the OP claims this "isn't the case" because BD's require a protection layer (yes they do). That makes no sense. That's the equivalent of saying a Jeep is not nearly as good in the mud as a snowmobile because the Jeep requires tires, which every Jeep has! I mean what's the point of bringing up a Jeep without tires.

Technically, I thought HD DVD was 17GB per layer.

Perhaps you could back up your thoughts with some kind of evidence.

While TL51 implies 17GB per layer, I have seen no evidence that 17GB per layer discs have been released.

I remember when they talked about TL45.

I think you will find, like TL51, DL34 is not in production. Until it is, the math remains correct.

If you can show me a DL34 release, I will stand corrected.

Who gives a rip about any of what Disney says. You all plan on playing Little Mermaid Blew Ray (LOL) on your HT setups anyway?

BTW the OP needs to change his sig. With all the fantastic looking MPEG-2 releases out there you just end up looking like an ostrich with your head in the sand with that outdated sig. That sig had a point maybe in August of last year.

Who gives a rip about any of what Disney says. You all plan on playing Little Mermaid Blew Ray (LOL) on your HT setups anyway?

No way.

I was considering Cars, Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy and a couple of Pirate movies though.

Cheers!

Well its all true they just don't talk about what HDDVDs version of each is. HDi and such. As far as 1080p I don't know what the big deal about that is it seems to be sonys primary factor in trying to sell the format what many forget is you need a TV that will support 1080p and it has to be a good sized set to see the difference. O think many 1080p set will convert 1080i to 1080p any way its just a matter of which part does it better (the player or the TV)..


But it seems like disney has always sided with the wrong side of a format war. But they alway come over in the end. Although this war is differnt so we will see if it pays off this time. The last few formats they souprted were either infeior or just not all the way their until it was to late. (DIVIX, better PQ then DVD but the whole rentel idea using a lan line was terible) (beta was infact better then VHS but did not offer the longer recored times of VHS even though with VHS their was a loss in PQ when set at the higer rates.)

I think they also put a few out on UMD movies which were fairly equal to DVD PQ wise(atleast on a small screen) but the average cost of the UMD vs the DVD killed that. As well as the ability to playback mpeg4 movies on the memory card. Which allowed the average consumer to convert their home movies or DVDs for use on the PSP.. I think the format may have won as it were if sony alowwed 2nd and 3rd partys to make standalone players. I think pepole would jump on a $75-100 player as it could be used for road trips and such.


But any way back on topic. I think both sides have put out statments that favor them simply becase they "forget" to metion the other sides equal or close abilitys. Such as VC1 takes up less space then mpeg2 so it can look as good if not better then the mpeg2 version....

The XA2 is the first HD DVD player to support 1080p playback, and it just came out this month. joshd2012 was referring to hardware playback capabilities, not what is actually encoded on the discs, and has agreed that Disney's statement is now outdated.


It is not outdated it is a lie.

I thought that it was generally the case, to help players output 60i.

I could be mistaken, my knowledge of HD DVD is not all that good.

My understanding is they are encoded in 1080p24 with something that help decoding tem at 1080i. The players that are 1080p capable just ignore the extra encoding.

This is clearly not a case of "you get what you pay for". $1500 MSRP doesn't get me CD compatibility, new audio codecs, HDMI 1.3 or 100% BD-J capability... How much do I need to pay to get these ? $2500 ?
I personally tried all the hd player with the exception of the Sony DBP-S1 and Toshiba A2. I own the Pioneer BDP-HD1 and ordered a Toshiba HD XA2.

My conclusion is the Pioneer is the only player that feels like a finished product and not a beta unit.

Disney is talking about the media spec. Not what the players are capable of. And they have misinformation posted. I expect more from a company like Disney, but IMO, their current CEO doesn't seem to be too tech savy.

This is exactly my point.

When they say HD DVD is on 1080i they talk about the format. Not the player. And what they say is not true. HD DVD as a format is 1080p capable and as a proof all the disk are 1080p encoded.

Nope. HD DVD has standardized on 15GB layers. Toshiba's technology demonstration uses 3 non-standard 17GB layers.

/carmi

The 17 gig layers will be standard soon. They were able to attain this new size by optimizing the manufacturing process. All current players are capable of reading them with no mods.

Remember when CD-R's were 650 MB, but later became 700 MB through optimization.

So the statement may be correct today. But it won't be correct in a few months. They probably shouldn't have made a comparison if they weren't willing to keep it updated.

They probably shouldn't have made a comparison if they weren't willing to keep it updated.

I guess they should have consulted a crystal ball :D

There are countless inaccurate statements all over the web.

Some being made as we speak.

Who knows, if the 17 GB and 34 GB discs are released, maybe they will update things...

I remember a time when BD supporters said BD50 was coming - HD DVD supporters said if it is not selling, it is just an announcement and nothing more....

The 17 gig layers will be standard soon.I would like to see it, but is it your claim that they will change to 17 gig layers before they go to triple layer discs? If so, based on what information? If not, what makes you think TL51s will be standard "soon"?

--Darin

My understanding is they are encoded in 1080p24 with something that help decoding tem at 1080i. The players that are 1080p capable just ignore the extra encoding.

OK, I had it the wrong way around. :o

This is clearly not a case of "you get what you pay for". $1500 MSRP doesn't get me CD compatibility, new audio codecs, HDMI 1.3 or 100% BD-J capability... How much do I need to pay to get these ? $2500 ?

$499 ? PS3 has support for all of those things.

I would like to see it, but is it your claim that they will change to 17 gig layers before they go to triple layer discs? If so, based on what information? If not, what makes you think TL51s will be standard "soon"?

--Darin

I never said TL51's would be standard soon, please point out where I did?

I am saying they will go to 17 gig layers before a TL disc because it is a free upgrade. It costs the same to make a 15 gig layer as a 17 gig layer. Current players will read 17 gig layers the same as they will read 15 gig layers. So yes, 17 GB single layer and 34 GB dual layer discs will probably be standard before a TL51 is released. Why would the DVD Forum not take the free upgrade and gain extra usable capacity? I think its a matter of red tape, and you will probably see these high capacities the 2nd half of this year.

The release of the TL51 requires advances in reading through an extra layer, and refocusing of the lense beyond what is practice today. I think this will take more R&D and has a chance of not being compatible with current drives. If it ever comes to market, I would guess it would be 2008 or perhaps later.

I would also like to counter the Sony FUD that many people are now passing on as fact. Bluray discs DO NOT have a higher capacity than HD-DVD discs. This is Sony marketing FUD that many people have come to believe.

The current capacity of Bluray discs is 50 GB. The current capacity of HD-DVD discs, per the HD-DVD spec, is 60 GB. It has been 60 Gb since day one, and yes, they can manufacture 60 GB discs.

60 GB is greater than 50 GB, therefore HD-DVD discs do have a capacity advantage over BD discs. Based on this FACT, point #1 on Disney's website is also not correct. A single HD-DVD currently has a greater storage capacity, and it has since day one. This is a proveable fact that has been pointed out by HD-DVD insiders before. The HD-DVD promotions group just isn't doing the best job of informing the public and countering Sony's BD FUD.

oh my...

lets just all realize that storage space above 30GB isn't a priority. It all boils down to bandwidth and efficiency of using that bandwidth (if you're sticking with wasteful MPEG-2 and PCM, space becomes an issue).

Disney is just being stupid and joining Fox as studios that can't stick to facts and must be aggravating to consumers.

I would also like to counter the Sony FUD that many people are now passing on as fact. Bluray discs DO NOT have a higher capacity than HD-DVD discs. This is Sony marketing FUD that many people have come to believe.

The current capacity of Bluray discs is 50 GB. The current capacity of HD-DVD discs, per the HD-DVD spec, is 60 GB. It has been 60 Gb since day one, and yes, they can manufacture 60 GB discs.


when talking about the various disc capacities, lets keep the conversation on stuff that exists in the real world, not the matrix :-)

I would also like to counter the Sony FUD that many people are now passing on as fact. Bluray discs DO NOT have a higher capacity than HD-DVD discs. This is Sony marketing FUD that many people have come to believe.

The current capacity of Bluray discs is 50 GB. The current capacity of HD-DVD discs, per the HD-DVD spec, is 60 GB. It has been 60 Gb since day one, and yes, they can manufacture 60 GB discs.

60 GB is greater than 50 GB, therefore HD-DVD discs do have a capacity advantage over BD discs. Based on this FACT, point #1 on Disney's website is also not correct. A single HD-DVD currently has a greater storage capacity, and it has since day one. This is a proveable fact that has been pointed out by HD-DVD insiders before. The HD-DVD promotions group just isn't doing the best job of informing the public and countering Sony's BD FUD.

You claim we fell for Sony FUD, but really you have fallen for the MS FUD, how many DL/DS discs are there? Same number as DL/DS DVDs, none or not many.

So yes, it is part of the spec, but the question is, will it ever be used, and the answer to that, frankly is no. That has been proven previously by the use of the DVD-18, which is minimal at best.

According to a FAQ on Disney's site comparing BD to HD-DVD...

http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/bluray/ After Tinkerbell does her thing, click skip intro, then FAQ's at the top of the page.

According to Disney, Blu-Ray has:

1. Greater storage capacity
2. Full 1080P resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i
3. Unparalleled interactivity – using BDMV and DB-Java Technology
4. Broadest Industry support
5. Stronger disk durability

To answer these MISCONCEPTIONS, see below:

1. Both HD-DVD and BD are new and emerging standards. HD-DVD is currently 30gb, BD is currently 25gb or 50gb. HD-DVD has shown 51gb discs which, it is their intention to use for video delivery. BD has show prototypes of 100gb (possibly greater) however, these are focused on the data storage market and will probably have no bearing on video.

2. Both systems use identical encode formats supporting 1080p/24 for Film.

3. So far there has been no real sign of interactivity in BD titles using BD-Java. Also, BD-Java is not supported on all systems. HD-DVD uses HDi which is showcased in many currently shipping titles, easier to construct interactive content in, and mandated on all players.

4. Yes, currently BD has more studios behind it (not broader industry support as HD-DVD has a lot more PC vendors and Chinese manufacturers behind it). However, this is an odd "benefit" to Disney as if they moved their support to HD-DVD, then the balance would also shift.

5. BD discs are not more durable than HD-DVDs. This is a misnomer. BD discs REQUIRE a strong ant-scratch coating because the data layer is basically on the surface of the disc, and thus more prone to damage. HD-DVDs put the data in the middle of the disc, allowing the optics to focus through most scratches (just like existing DVDs). In the end run, a scratch is fatal to BD, and not to HD-DVD.

I sincerely hope someone from Disney reads this and understands that their reasoning is all full of marketing "hot-air" and that they are doing a disservice to their customers by not releasing on HD-DVD.

I decided to look at Disney's site by following your link. I'm not seeing it make the same claims you posted. I don't see any claim on the site that Bluray does 1080p, but HD-DVD is limited to 1080i.

It also doesn't claim a BD disc has a 66.7% greater capacity than a HD-DVD disc. It says that a BD layer has a 66.7% greater capacity, which is true. HD-DVD has a total greater capacity though, because it is possible to put four layers on a disc, compared to BD's current limit of two. This is marketing spin meant to confuse the end user into thinking BD has a higher capacity.

They don't say unparalleled interactivity. They say next generation interactivity. I would say this is a true statement. HDi is a rival next gen system that isn't mentioned.

They also don't say it has a higher durability or make any comparison to a HD-DVD disc. It just says it uses a hardcoat, which is true.

I'm wondering where you got your claims from. Has Disney changed their site today since you posted? If not, where did you get your statements from?

when talking about the various disc capacities, lets keep the conversation on stuff that exists in the real world, not the matrix :-)

This is the real world. If you want HD-DVD replicators to produce a 60 GB disc for you, they can do it today.

You claim we fell for Sony FUD, but really you have fallen for the MS FUD, how many DL/DS discs are there? Same number as DL/DS DVDs, none or not many.

So yes, it is part of the spec, but the question is, will it ever be used, and the answer to that, frankly is no. That has been proven previously by the use of the DVD-18, which is minimal at best.

Are you a spokesman for all the movie companies producing films on HD-DVD? If not, how can you say it will never be used? DVD-18 has been used, many, many times actually. Also, it is a misconception that DVD-18 yields are low, or that manufacturing costs are too high.

Here is a quote from Warner Advanced Media Operations Vice President of DVD Operations:

"Cost is very dependent on yield. Since creating DVD-18 is essentially a DVD-9 process plus an STP step, the yields should be very close to whatever your current DVD-9 yields are."

So he is saying cost is dependent on yield. Yields are almost the same as DVD-9, so DVD-18 doesn't cost much more than DVD-9 (some extra cost since you are including two extra layers and a bonding process).

DVD-18 is completely affordable and very doable for mass replication. Most DVD's don't use it simply because the content isn't there. DVD has limited bandwidth, and doesn't include enough extras to justify DVD-18. However, it is easy and not much more expensive, and as you pointed out, the same tech/process would be used for 60 GB HD-DVD, which makes them easy to do, and not prohibitively expensive.

No one has used them yet, again, because space above 30 GB really isn't an issue when using advanced codecs.

Studio research has also shown that consumers feel that they are getting more for their money if they buy a package with 2 (or even 4) discs in it, than if they buy a package containing the same content on a single DVD-18 disc. This is the primary reason that large studios don't frequently use DVD-18. It's a limitation of marketing, not of the DVD technology.

Dolby THD is in the works for this player as mentioned by a forum member.

If the player gets advanced audio decoding, where is the need for HDMI 1.3, it certainly is not for deep colour, CD is the same price as DVD now, the only downside is not being able to play bought albums, but most people who are going to be spending $1500 on a player will more than likely have a dedicated solution from a high end audio company (Meridian et al).

BD-J updates are in the works as well, to get compatibility with the few titles that need it.

Try again.

Yeah I'll be trying again when Pioneer comes up with 2nd gen players. Thanks for the suggestion. $1500 for a lot of promises is a bit above my budget, but it's good for Pioneer that some people are willing to spend as much for a product in development.

So yes, it is part of the spec, but the question is, will it ever be used, and the answer to that, frankly is no. That has been proven previously by the use of the DVD-18, which is minimal at best.

and DVD-18 proved to be a terrible, buggy format. It grieves me that a lot of movies and TV shows that I was waiting for exist only in that format. I've had to buy multiple copies to get one fully working set of some titles.

If these systems become too delicate to get a reliable mass-produced pressing of, all the GB in the world won't mean much. I still don't see how home optical-dye burners are going to pull it off without a hitch. Nobody is going to want to wait, and wait for for a $10, 30+ GB disk to burn, only to find out, "Oops, there's a glitch" or "Oops, bad blank"

No one has used them yet, again, because space above 30 GB really isn't an issue when using advanced codecs.

I refer you to KK which does not have lossless audio.

So where is all of that rubbish about space not being an issue?

$499 ? PS3 has support for all of those things.

Yes I am aware of the PS3, but I was talking of the "what you pay for" statement regarding Pioneer. If and when they do offer all of these features, I hope they price it at a decent price for what it is. Currently it is my opinion that their player is way overpriced for what it offers. I tend to think most people share that same feeling about Pioneer's player, but then again I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination. However, yes, you do get what you pay for with PS3, and I admit it offers good value for the money.

and DVD-18 proved to be a terrible, buggy format. It grieves me that a lot of movies and TV shows that I was waiting for exist only in that format. I've had to buy multiple copies to get one fully working set of some titles.

If these systems become too delicate to get a reliable mass-produced pressing of, all the GB in the world won't mean much. I still don't see how home optical-dye burners are going to pull it off without a hitch. Nobody is going to want to wait, and wait for for a $10, 30+ GB disk to burn, only to find out, "Oops, there's a glitch" or "Oops, bad blank"

I guess my experience has been different with DVD-18 discs. I own over 30 titles/box sets that utilize DVD-18 technology, and I've never had a problem with a single one. I know some players had problems reading them because the CE's cut corners and they weren't fully to spec. I had always assumed that any problems lie in the players, and not the dics.

Over 1% of the DVD's produced last year were in the DVD-18 format. Over 1.6 billion discs were produced, so that means 16 million DVD-18 discs, or more than triple the total number of HD-DVD and BD discs combined.

I haven't even read this thread other than the title. But the simple answer is not what they have been "smoking" but more like what they have not been drinking. Which, for a better term is the HD-DVD "kool-aid"

b2b

I refer you to KK which does not have lossless audio.

So where is all of that rubbish about space not being an issue?

Universal has not universally (no pun intended) settled on a lossless audio format. They do not feel it is something that will benefit their target consumers, and I tend to agree. Unless your equipment is absolutely top notch from beginning to end (which is the vast minority of the market), you won't hear a difference between a good lossy codec (DTS-HD or DD+) compared to a lossless one (TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, etc.). Frankly, you won't hear the difference on the $300 Sony receiver from Best Buy, with the $200 speaker set, which is where the mass consumer is at.

Universal has not universally (no pun intended) settled on a lossless audio format. They do not feel it is something that will benefit their target consumers, and I tend to agree. Unless your equipment is absolutely top notch from beginning to end (which is the vast minority of the market), you won't hear a difference between a good lossy codec (DTS-HD or DD+) compared to a lossless one (TrueHD, DTS-HD MA, etc.). Frankly, you won't hear the difference on the $300 Sony receiver from Best Buy, with the $200 speaker set, which is where the mass consumer is at.

All HD DVD players can decode and out put 5.1 TrueHD, so I don't think you have a point there, instead lossless audio had to make way for PQ and IME, leaving insufficient space/bandwidth for lossless audio, which is just as important for the HD experience as 1080p PQ.

EVEN so, DVD 18 does have its uses, but as you have pointed out there was little or no point in it as bandwidth was always an issue, the same will then be true for HD DVD 60 as there is no increase in bandwidth along with the space increase, Blu-ray has high bandwidth from the outset, so having 25/50 discs does not effect the ability of the studios to use lossless audio.

Since there have been many responses to my post:

1. Well, no one can argue this.

2. No HD DVD player has been able to output 1080p to a display until the release of the XA2 last month. I don't care how it is encoded on the disc, if my TV says its getting a 1080i signal, then it sure as hell isn't the same as 1080p.
Are you limiting this to 1080p24...or does the Xbox 360 addon count...it may not be 1080p24...but why would it not be considered 1080p?

I refer you to KK which does not have lossless audio.

So where is all of that rubbish about space not being an issue?

So you are saying almost all of Universal titles have space issues since most of Universal HD-DVDs don't have Dolby THD ? From what I've been reading, it's not space that's the issue, but bandwith. I'm not an expert but I'm almost 100% sure you can easily have a 4 hours movie with great PQ on 30gb if VC1 is being used.

Following your thinking, if MPEG2 and PCM are being used, then 50Gb is definitely not enough for a 3 hours movie and great PQ, especially if it has to include other languages and any kind of extras...

Capacities over 30 Gb are only a necessity if older, less efficient codecs are being used. But this being a next gen format, those codecs are not technically necessary. I'm pretty sure we will see more and more BR discs using MP4 AVC or VC1, since that is pretty much the only way to fit long movies, considerable extras and have great PQ/AQ all on one disc. Even Sony, a diehard MPEG2 proponent, is starting to encode in AVC. Did they need 50 Gb for Open Season ? Nope, they used a single layer, 25 Gb disc for it. Surprise surprise, it's the best BR out there as far as PQ + quantity of extras...

All HD DVD players can decode and out put 5.1 TrueHD, so I don't think you have a point there, instead lossless audio had to make way for PQ and IME, leaving insufficient space/bandwidth for lossless audio, which is just as important for the HD experience as 1080p PQ.

EVEN so, DVD 18 does have its uses, but as you have pointed out there was little or no point in it as bandwidth was always an issue, the same will then be true for HD DVD 60 as there is no increase in bandwidth along with the space increase, Blu-ray has high bandwidth from the outset, so having 25/50 discs does not effect the ability of the studios to use lossless audio.

I don't know what you thought my point was, but you apparently missed it. Yes, all current HD-DVD players can decode TrueHD. So what? What I'm saying is that their are many studio reps that don't feel lossless audio is of any value to the typical consumer. So basically they guy with a $600 BB setup won't be able to hear the difference between TrueHD or DD+. If it is of no value to the typical consumer, and won't help sell more discs, why include it?

Having a high bandwidth doesn't necessarily make one device better than another, just like having a car in the US that goes 200 MPH doesn't make it better than one that goes 130 MPH.

So you are saying almost all of Universal titles have space issues since most of Universal HD-DVDs don't have Dolby THD ? From what I've been reading, it's not space that's the issue, but bandwith. I'm not an expert but I'm almost 100% sure you can easily have a 4 hours movie with great PQ on 30gb if VC1 is being used.

Following your thinking, if MPEG2 and PCM are being used, then 50Gb is definitely not enough for a 3 hours movie and great PQ, especially if it has to include other languages and any kind of extras...

Capacities over 30 Gb are only a necessity if older, less efficient codecs are being used. But this being a next gen format, those codecs are not technically necessary. I'm pretty sure we will see more and more BR discs using MP4 AVC or VC1, since that is pretty much the only way to fit long movies, considerable extras and have great PQ/AQ all on one disc. Even Sony, a diehard MPEG2 proponent, is starting to encode in AVC. Did they need 50 Gb for Open Season ? Nope, they used a single layer, 25 Gb disc for it. Surprise surprise, it's the best BR out there as far as PQ + quantity of extras...

The only people that say PCM is a waste of space are people that have not heard PCM 5.1 on Sony/Disney releases.

See Casino Royale, AVC/PCM/BD50. VC-1 is incomplete at best, and requires specialist compressionists from MS to help out, AVC requires no such help from another company, MPEG2 is awesome at high bitrate, so yes it does require 50GB for longer movies. How can MPEG2/PCM (Pearl Harbour) be done right on a BD50, while KK uses VC-1 and still can't have lossless audio.

Disney is talking about the media spec. Not what the players are capable of. And they have misinformation posted. I expect more from a company like Disney, but IMO, their current CEO doesn't seem to be too tech savy.No, that's PeterS' version you're talking about. The Disney site he links to clearly mentions BD players versus HD DVD players, not spec versus spec. And until very recently, this information was correct.

PeterS' version: "Full 1080P resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i."
Disney website: "The ultimate in high-definition picture quality-- Blu-Ray players deliver 1080p resolution, while HD-DVD players only deliver 1080i."

But now that the XA2 is out, this is a moot point and Disney really should change this in their FAQ.

I don't know what you thought my point was, but you apparently missed it. Yes, all current HD-DVD players can decode TrueHD. So what? What I'm saying is that their are many studio reps that don't feel lossless audio is of any value to the typical consumer. So basically they guy with a $600 BB setup won't be able to hear the difference between TrueHD or DD+. If it is of no value to the typical consumer, and won't help sell more discs, why include it?

Having a high bandwidth doesn't necessarily make one device better than another, just like having a car in the US that goes 200 MPH doesn't make it better than one that goes 130 MPH.

I am happy then, that the BD exclusive studios do not take this view, I love my lossless, with PCM, and hopefully DTS-MA soon.

Not everyone has a $600 set up, my set-up costs nearly £3000~$5900, and I am happy that we are catered for along with the other people.

Nope. HD DVD has standardized on 15GB layers. Toshiba's technology demonstration uses 3 non-standard 17GB layers.
OK, I stand corrected. :)

I am happy then, that the BD exclusive studios do not take this view, I love my lossless, with PCM, and hopefully DTS-MA soon.

Not everyone has a $600 set up, my set-up costs nearly £3000~$5900, and I am happy that we are catered for along with the other people.

How many people on this planet can hear a difference between Dolby THD, DTS-MA and PCM ? I thought lossless was lossless, therefore no difference in AQ, just space required... I don't think they offer PCM because of quality, but more because most current BR players can't decode advanced codecs... When the installed base is comprised of a huge majority of players with advanced codec decoding capability, we should see less and less titles offered with PCM.

How many people on this planet can hear a difference between Dolby THD, DTS-MA and PCM ? I thought lossless was lossless, therefore no difference in AQ, just space required... I don't think they offer PCM because of quality, but more because most current BR players can't decode advanced codecs... When the installed base is comprised of a huge majority of players with advanced codec decoding capability, we should see less and less titles offered with PCM.

I was talking about the difference between DD/DD+/DTS and lossless PCM/DTS-MA/TrueHD, which is quite significant.

But generally speaking, yes, PCM should be phased out once players can decode DTHD/DTS-MA.

I'm also glad for uncompressed and/or lossless audio, as my system slaps you in the face with how much better PCM sounds.

Wnorris: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I buy your argument. Certainly far fewer home theater setups can hear the difference between Dolby 5.1 and Dolby EX mixes, or between either and DTS/DTS ES mixes, yet many studios released there high-end disks with those codecs and used it as a marketing point to sell their disks to J6P, because people like to know they are getting the best, even if they can't tell the difference.

I think you are quoting Amir, who was trying to rationalize why there wasn't uncompressed or lossless audio on KK when it was encoded in VC-1. I'd also like to know why there weren't more extras (since it was released at the same time as the extended cut version), and how much space was left on the disk, before I here another person tell me that 30 gb is enough.

I never said TL51's would be standard soon, please point out where I did?

I am saying they will go to 17 gig layers before a TL disc because it is a free upgrade.I didn't say that you said TL51s would be standard soon, I asked what your claim was. See again:
I would like to see it, but is it your claim that they will change to 17 gig layers before they go to triple layer discs? If so, based on what information? If not, what makes you think TL51s will be standard "soon"?You answered the part about what your claim is by saying that it is that they will change to 17 gig layer before they go to triple layer discs. Looks like your "because it is a free upgrade" is the answer to what information you are basing it on. So, when are you claiming they will start putting out discs with 17GB layers? And when will they approve a spec change for that? What will they do with the requirements for players as far as mux rate, video rate, and spin rate? Will players be required to be capable of being able to decode AVC with higher bitrates than now?

--Darin

How many people on this planet can hear a difference between Dolby THD, DTS-MA and PCM ? PCM.


I don't even have surround with my current system, just an amp that schleps all the audio into a two-channel mix; and until they invent something that doesn't ugly-up my whole living-room with wires, that's where I'm at.

The image has always been my paramount concern, so DLP projection is my splurge product.

What I find funny is that people come on AVS and demand lossless audio, and act like it is a sin if lossless audio isn't included. Some go as far as to say they won't buy a disc unless it has a lossless track.

However, I don't see any outcry on these forums for lossless video. Why aren't these same folks saying they won't buy a new format until lossless video is offered? It seems to me that people are applying a double standard just to nit-pick something.

People buying either HD-DVD or Bluray are willing to accept lossy video with no outcry at all, but mention that lossy audio is sufficient and you think you set a church on fire.

I didn't say that you said TL51s would be standard soon, I asked what your claim was. See again:
You answered the part about what your claim is by saying that it is that they will change to 17 gig layer before they go to triple layer discs. Looks like your "because it is a free upgrade" is the answer to what information you are basing it on. So, when are you claiming they will start putting out discs with 17GB layers? And when will they approve a spec change for that? What will they do with the requirements for players as far as mux rate, video rate, and spin rate? Will players be required to be capable of being able to decode AVC with higher bitrates than now?

--Darin

The can't put out 17GB discs until it is approved by the DVD Forum. If I had to guess, I would guess the 2nd half of this year. Who knows why members of the DVD Forum may choose to support/oppose certain changes though. My understanding is that the spin rate remains 1X, and the 1.5X is only required to read the third layer on a TL51 disc and still achieve existing data rates.

There was no discussion of mux rate, video rate, or anything codec specific. Just the comment that the 17 GB layer was a result of optimizing how the disc real estate was allocated and that it would be compatible with current players using 1X drives. Current manufacturing equipment would replicate without modification or additional setup costs.

It sounds like currentt players won't be able to read TL51 discs if they become a reality, but it will be possible for 17 and 34 GB discs.

So, instead of 60 Gb of capacity for HD-DVD, it may jump to 68 GB of capacity. So BD will need to market a TL75 disc if it wants to trump HD-DVD. HD-DVD is still the clear disc capacity leader!

What I find funny is that people come on AVS and demand lossless audio, and act like it is a sin if lossless audio isn't included. Some go as far as to say they won't buy a disc unless it has a lossless track.

However, I don't see any outcry on these forums for lossless video. Why aren't these same folks saying they won't buy a new format until lossless video is offered? It seems to me that people are applying a double standard just to nit-pick something.

People buying either HD-DVD or Bluray are willing to accept lossy video with no outcry at all, but mention that lossy audio is sufficient and you think you set a church on fire.

Judging video PQ is a far less subjective process than discerning real ( or imagined ) qualitative differences in audio playback. Individual deficits in visual acuity can accurately be corrected fairly easily, but you can be absolutely confident in striking a gusher of snake-oil, once you start poking around in the realm of audio.

However, I don't see any outcry on these forums for lossless video.

I think that is because most of us realise that the bandwidth and storage capacity needed is completely unreasonable at this time.

Lossless audio is available on some titles and is obviously quite easily done.

I fully support lossless video as a concept - but understand the constraints.

I think we are more likely to see 4k (4096x2160) res video before we see lossless...

Couldn't agree more. Pioneer BD players have sold in the hundreds, and maybe into the thousands. If they continue with their current pricing, they will sell in the multi thousands. A $200-$300 player from China which will be in range of the mass market buying range obviously will play no part in HD DVD sales. :D

Where did you get that info? When the Pioneer sells the way the HD A1 sold when released then your post would make sense, but then it will be too late. When those cheaper HD DVD are released there are going to lots of people wanting to jump onto the HD DVD camp therefore making sense for other studios to start going neutral.

The can't put out 17GB discs until it is approved by the DVD Forum. If I had to guess, I would guess the 2nd half of this year.Thanks. I had imagined that you probably meant sooner when you said, "The 17 gig layers will be standard soon" and "But it won't be correct in a few months" but I see now that "soon" to you means maybe 6 months or more.
My understanding is that the spin rate remains 1X, and the 1.5X is only required to read the third layer on a TL51 disc and still achieve existing data rates.

There was no discussion of mux rate, video rate, or anything codec specific. Just the comment that the 17 GB layer was a result of optimizing how the disc real estate was allocated and that it would be compatible with current players using 1X drives.The issue here is that the 17GB could be a different rate off the discs even at 1x. If that is the case, then the requirements for the players need to spell out what they have to be designed to.
So, instead of 60 Gb of capacity for HD-DVD, it may jump to 68 GB of capacity. So BD will need to market a TL75 disc if it wants to trump HD-DVD. HD-DVD is still the clear disc capacity leader!Honestly, I don't think this position you are now taking that HD DVD is 60GB while Blu-ray is 50GB is going to fly as far as what is being discussed here. If Disney told somebody that they prefer the 50GB discs of Blu-ray and that person tried to get them to switch to HD DVD by telling them that HD DVD is 60GB currently, Disney would probably laugh at them and discount what they say in the future. While I'm sure it is true that HD DVD can make double side discs with just HD layers, if Warner can make TotalHD discs then they should be able to make double sided BDs. But hopefully nobody will go around proclaiming that BD is already at 100GB because they can just make them double side. There is a big difference between what a format can do with one side where the user doesn't have to flip the disc once they start with one side and what they can do with double sided discs.

Heck, you could already go around saying that HD DVDs are 39GB since the combos have close to 9GB on the DVD side. I hope that won't get you to start saying that HD DVDs are 39GB right now, but maybe it will.

--Darin

Thanks. I had imagined that you probably meant sooner when you said, "The 17 gig layers will be standard soon" and "But it won't be correct in a few months" but I see now that "soon" to you means maybe 6 months or more.
The issue here is that the 17GB could be a different rate off the discs even at 1x. If that is the case, then the requirements for the players need to spell out what they have to be designed to.
Honestly, I don't think this position you are now taking that HD DVD is 60GB while Blu-ray is 50GB is going to fly as far as what is being discussed here. If Disney told somebody that they prefer the 50GB discs of Blu-ray and that person tried to get them to switch to HD DVD by telling them that HD DVD is 60GB currently, Disney would probably laugh at them and discount what they say in the future. While I'm sure it is true that HD DVD can make double side discs with just HD layers, if Warner can make TotalHD discs then they should be able to make double sided BDs. But hopefully nobody will go around proclaiming that BD is already at 100GB because they can just make them double side. There is a big difference between what a format can do with one side where the user doesn't have to flip the disc once they start with one side and what they can do with double sided discs.

Heck, you could already go around saying that HD DVDs are 39GB since the combos have close to 9GB on the DVD side. I hope that won't get you to start saying that HD DVDs are 39GB right now, but maybe it will.

--Darin

I think 60 GB HD-DVD is real and competitive to a BD-50 disc. A HD-60 could put the movie, audio, and any IME's on one side of the disc and use the full 30 GB. Other extras would be put on the other 30 GB.I think 30 GB for audio, video, and IME would make HD-DVD more than competitive to a BD-50 (aren't MPEG-2 BD-50's only using around 30GB for video and audio, so imagine VC-1 or AVC?). The HD-60 would actaully have an additional 10 GB of space for even more extras, or offer a higher percentage of the extras in HD.

HD60 Pros: Almost 30 GB dedicated for audio and video (minus a small amount for a menu). 10 GB of additional space compared to BD50 for extras.

HD60 Cons: A flip is required to view extras. No silk screen graphic on discs.

So unless you think a flip and no silk screen is worth giving up 10GB of extra space and a dedicated 30 GB for audio and video, the HD60 clearly has the edge over BD50. If you do think this things are more important, then how can you claim to be a true videophile (oh ... look at the pretty silk screen ... ahhh)? :D

I think 60 GB HD-DVD is real and competitive to a BD-50 disc.So why doesn't Toshiba just tell any Blu-ray studios to use double sided HD60s instead of spending all the time, money, and effort to do TL51s? Probably because they understand the market well enough to know that they wouldn't be taken seriously (and if not they would probably be told so they would understand the difference).
I think 30 GB for audio, video, and IME would make HD-DVD more than competitive to a BD-50 (aren't MPEG-2 BD-50's only using around 30GB for video and audio, so imagine VC-1 or AVC?).More than competitive with who? Disney?
The HD-60 would actaully have an additional 10 GB of space for even more extras, or offer a higher percentage of the extras in HD.There are cases where 60GB of HD DVD space would be better than 50GB of Blu-ray space, but many cases where it wouldn't be.
Almost 30 GB dedicated for audio and video (minus a small amount for a menu).Yep, and with the current bandwidth limitations of HD DVD, where space wasn't usually the problem anyway.
So unless you think a flip and no silk screen is worth giving up 10GB of extra space and a dedicated 30 GB for audio and video, the HD60 clearly has the edge over BD50.Again, edge with who? If these are so great, why didn't we see a bunch of dual sided DVDs for hollywood movies?
If you do think this things are more important, then how can you claim to be a true videophile (oh ... look at the pretty silk screen ... ahhh)? :DVideophiles who pay attention and aren't working for the studios know that it isn't what they want as individuals that matters, but what the studios will do that matters to what is available. And the studios are very unlikely to use double sided HD60s for movies in any real quantities at all. They are much more likely to put 2 discs in if they are going to do that. But there are weaknesses that 2 HD30s with HD DVD's specs have compared to one BD50 with Blu-ray's specs.

I think if somebody asked Disney about this they would say that they would prefer 2 HD30s to one double sided HD60, but they prefer one BD50 (or 2 BD with at least one being an BD50) to 2 HD30s.

I get the impression you think you are onto something that the studios want here. The double sided HD60 is unlikely to address what a studio who likes single sided BD50s likes about those.

Why not look at the DVD market to see what studios did there and notice that they didn't embrace the dual sided discs for movies (some were used for TV shows from what I understand).

--Darin

What is Disney Smokin?

Sony's money.

I decided to look at Disney's site by following your link. I'm not seeing it make the same claims you posted. I don't see any claim on the site that Bluray does 1080p, but HD-DVD is limited to 1080i.

It also doesn't claim a BD disc has a 66.7% greater capacity than a HD-DVD disc. It says that a BD layer has a 66.7% greater capacity, which is true. HD-DVD has a total greater capacity though, because it is possible to put four layers on a disc, compared to BD's current limit of two. This is marketing spin meant to confuse the end user into thinking BD has a higher capacity.

They don't say unparalleled interactivity. They say next generation interactivity. I would say this is a true statement. HDi is a rival next gen system that isn't mentioned.

They also don't say it has a higher durability or make any comparison to a HD-DVD disc. It just says it uses a hardcoat, which is true.

I'm wondering where you got your claims from. Has Disney changed their site today since you posted? If not, where did you get your statements from?


It's PeterS, what do you expect?

They do indeed say unparalleld interactivity in the FAQ/General section when I just went there. :confused:

Eh, this is how I look at it:


1. Greater storage capacity
2. Full 1080P resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i
3. Unparalleled interactivity – using BDMV and DB-Java Technology
4. Broadest Industry support
5. Stronger disk durability


1) Yup. If you include TL51, BD200 is the natural response and both are at the same level of adoption for their format (IOW, neither is anything close to approved yet). TDK showed BD200 in August...

2) In theory possibly true, depending how you want to argue the use of the required flags, etc. In practice, effectively false since both deliver at the $999+ MSRP and both deliver from the game consoles (though the amoung of TV's accepting 1080p from component and/or VGA is smaller than than HDMI accepting sets).

3) "Unparalleled" is indeed a misnomer, though their point seems directed at talking up the capabilities for BD-J (if not BD-Live) and they can't be expected to talk up HDi when that's on the other horse in the race that's not mentioned. It'd be like Microsoft mentioning BD-Live or BD-J in their HDi material... just not going to happen.

4) True again. Not only superior movie studio support, but greater CE diversity. Brand Nazi's who want everything the same stuff are far more likely to get their gear from BD supporting companies than Toshiba. As an aside, I am wondering how many HD-DVD partisans have Toshiba displays, though. :)

5) Blu-ray does use a protective layer aka hard coat because it basically has to, and HD-DVD does not have to, so does not. We've really seen no average price hike on BD, though (Yes, Fox MSRP does suck, but so does HD-DVD combo pricing and 2007 looks to be more of the same on both those counts. :| ).

3 of 5. Depending how you view theory versus practice...

So why doesn't Toshiba just tell any Blu-ray studios to use double sided HD60s instead of spending all the time, money, and effort to do TL51s? Probably because they understand the market well enough to know that they wouldn't be taken seriously (and if not they would probably be told so they would understand the difference).
More than competitive with who? Disney?
There are cases where 60GB of HD DVD space would be better than 50GB of Blu-ray space, but many cases where it wouldn't be.
Yep, and with the current bandwidth limitations of HD DVD, where space wasn't usually the problem anyway.
Again, edge with who? If these are so great, why didn't we see a bunch of dual sided DVDs for hollywood movies?
Videophiles who pay attention and aren't working for the studios know that it isn't what they want as individuals that matters, but what the studios will do that matters to what is available. And the studios are very unlikely to use double sided HD60s for movies in any real quantities at all. They are much more likely to put 2 discs in if they are going to do that. But there are weaknesses that 2 HD30s with HD DVD's specs have compared to one BD50 with Blu-ray's specs.

I think if somebody asked Disney about this they would say that they would prefer 2 HD30s to one double sided HD60, but they prefer one BD50 (or 2 BD with at least one being an BD50) to 2 HD30s.

I get the impression you think you are onto something that the studios want here. The double sided HD60 is unlikely to address what a studio who likes single sided BD50s likes about those.

Why not look at the DVD market to see what studios did there and notice that they didn't embrace the dual sided discs for movies (some were used for TV shows from what I understand).

--Darin

If you read the forum, you would see that I stated studios prefer two disc sets. It is a marketing decision. Their research shows that the customer perceives "the more in the box, the better the deal". I'm actually surprised Sony is using BD50, instead of two BD25's. It runs contrary to what the industry's research has shown. I think they are really using it now as much as they are just because of the pi$$ing contest with HD-DVD. It also makes it more appealing to early adopters. In the future as both formats gain steam in the mass market, I think BD50 is will only be practical for those long movies that use MPEG2. I think that once Sony comes around to advance codecs, you will see most of their output on dual BD25 discs. So HD-DVD will be using dual BD30's and BD will be using dual BD25's for titles with lots of extra content. Again, in that situation HD-DVD has the slight edge.

They do indeed say unparalleld interactivity in the FAQ/General section when I just went there. :confused:

Eh, this is how I look at it:



1) Yup. If you include TL51, BD200 is the natural response and both are at the same level of adoption for their format (IOW, neither is anything close to approved yet). TDK showed BD200 in August...

2) In theory possibly true, depending how you want to argue the use of the required flags, etc. In practice, effectively false since both deliver at the $999+ MSRP and both deliver from the game consoles (though the amoung of TV's accepting 1080p from component and/or VGA is smaller than than HDMI accepting sets).

3) "Unparalleled" is indeed a misnomer, though their point seems directed at talking up the capabilities for BD-J (if not BD-Live) and they can't be expected to talk up HDi when that's on the other horse in the race that's not mentioned. It'd be like Microsoft mentioning BD-Live or BD-J in their HDi material... just not going to happen.

4) True again. Not only superior movie studio support, but greater CE diversity. Brand Nazi's who want everything the same stuff are far more likely to get their gear from BD supporting companies than Toshiba. As an aside, I am wondering how many HD-DVD partisans have Toshiba displays, though. :)

5) Blu-ray does use a protective layer aka hard coat because it basically has to, and HD-DVD does not have to, so does not. We've really seen no average price hike on BD, though (Yes, Fox MSRP does suck, but so does HD-DVD combo pricing and 2007 looks to be more of the same on both those counts. :| ).

3 of 5. Depending how you view theory versus practice...

Actually, TDK showed a eight layer BD disc @ 25 GB per layer. The same was true with the 4 layer disc. It did have 4 25 GB layers, but the design hardware could barely get more than 50 GB of usable space off the disc. The 100 GB disc and 200 GB disc are just more Sony smoke. They have shown they can manufacture a disc with up to 8 layers. However, they don't have the hardware to read them and likely won't anytime soon (more than 5 years if that).

Toshiba could probably do the same thing. They could just sandwhich 5-6 layers on HD-DVD and claim they can make a 100 GB disc. They wouldn't have any hardware that could read it though. And again, to point #1, BD can currently only produce a disc with a 50 GB capacity and HD-DVD can produce a disc with a 60 GB capacity. So truthfully, HD-DVD has the greater disc capacity. Disney recognizes this, which is why they only claim BD holds more per layer, and not per disc. Let's get the facts straight.

Your logic is flawed. Studios don't put out 4 discs DVD5 sets, they use 2 discs DVD9 sets instead. The same strategy is going to play out with BD. We'll start to see 2 disc BD50 sets probably around the turn of the year.

Actually, TDK showed a eight layer BD disc @ 25 GB per layer. The same was true with the 4 layer disc. It did have 4 25 GB layers, but the design hardware could barely get more than 50 GB of usable space off the disc. The 100 GB disc and 200 GB disc are just more Sony smoke. They have shown they can manufacture a disc with up to 8 layers. However, they don't have the hardware to read them and likely won't anytime soon (more than 5 years if that).

Toshiba could probably do the same thing. They could just sandwhich 5-6 layers on HD-DVD and claim they can make a 100 GB disc.
Toshiba have done exactly the same thing. They also don't have any hardware to read their fabled triple layer discs, with the Tosh engineer bewildered as to whether the final spec might match up with current players. Read: no.

Quote:
What is Disney Smokin?


Sony's money.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Best post in the thread!
This place is really getting out of control.
J

I decided to look at Disney's site by following your link. I'm not seeing it make the same claims you posted. I don't see any claim on the site that Bluray does 1080p, but HD-DVD is limited to 1080i.

It also doesn't claim a BD disc has a 66.7% greater capacity than a HD-DVD disc. It says that a BD layer has a 66.7% greater capacity, which is true. HD-DVD has a total greater capacity though, because it is possible to put four layers on a disc, compared to BD's current limit of two. This is marketing spin meant to confuse the end user into thinking BD has a higher capacity.

They don't say unparalleled interactivity. They say next generation interactivity. I would say this is a true statement. HDi is a rival next gen system that isn't mentioned.

They also don't say it has a higher durability or make any comparison to a HD-DVD disc. It just says it uses a hardcoat, which is true.

I'm wondering where you got your claims from. Has Disney changed their site today since you posted? If not, where did you get your statements from?
The information is still there. Do you have flash installed?

http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/bluray/

After Tinkerbell does her thing, click on skip intro. Click on FAQ's at the top of the page and scroll down to the section titled "What Advantages does Blu-Ray have over HD-DVD."

The information is still there. Do you have flash installed?

http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/bluray/

After Tinkerbell does her thing, click on skip intro. Click on FAQ's at the top of the page and scroll down to the section titled "What Advantages does Blu-Ray have over HD-DVD."

Well, now I do see it. For some reason yesterday, when I clicked on the FAQ tab, it was opening the About Blu-Ray tab. That's a weird glitch, but it seems to be working now.

Toshiba have done exactly the same thing. They also don't have any hardware to read their fabled triple layer discs, with the Tosh engineer bewildered as to whether the final spec might match up with current players. Read: no.

Toshiba is a bit different. They do have the technology to read a TL disc. Sony has the technology to read a TL BD disc too, but it just doesn't work for 4 layers or more. Both Toshiba and Sony are blowing a little smoke with TL, but Sony is laying down a smoke screen with 100GB and 200Gb discs.

My opinion is the TL BD or HD-DVD discs will not work with current players on the market (inlcuding the PS3). So imagine in a few years when Sony releases a TL or QL BD disc and 10 Million PS3's can't read them. Imagine the PS3 owner rants you will hear then...

Your logic is flawed. Studios don't put out 4 discs DVD5 sets, they use 2 discs DVD9 sets instead. The same strategy is going to play out with BD. We'll start to see 2 disc BD50 sets probably around the turn of the year.

My logic isn't flawed. I'm quoting what I was told by industry reps.

They specifically stated that a primary reason why they don't used DVD-18 on releases now is because their focus groups and surveys showed that customers did not feel they were getting enough value for their money when only a single disc was in the box. For the focus groups, they were basically given a package that contained one DVD-18 disc, and another than contained two DVD-9 discs. Both packages had the same box art and indicated that the same content and extras were included. When asked which they would rather purchase, the two disc DVD-9 was picked an overwhelming majority of the time. Customer Think, " There is an extra disc in this box, so it must be a better value".

Some studios actually have released eight disc DVD-5 box sets, instead of putting the same content on two DVD-18's. The total cost of manufacturing with two DVD-18's would actually have been cheaper than using the 8 DVD-5's. They chose to spend more money on manufacturing because they knew sales of a $60 box set would be better if it had 8 discs instead of 2.

It all comes down to a matter of how many more units will they sell with 1 vs. 2 vs. 4 discs compared to the manufacturing costs for each option. The higher pressing/packaging costs for 4 disc DVD-5 on a simple movie may net less revenue than with 2 disc (consumers may treat a bulky 4 disc package as a con, which actually lowers the units sold, where 2 discs can fit in the same style case). The same strategy may work for a season though.

You will not see a 2 disc BD50 release until 2009, if even then. There may be a few rare cases (LOTR or something similar) where you may see a two disc BD50/BD25 release. The bulk of Sony's two disc releases in 2007 and 2008 will be dual BD25 discs.

Toshiba is a bit different. They do have the technology to read a TL disc.
Yet haven't displayed it. That's not very likely, and doesn't jive with the public comments made by a Tosh engineer regarding specs and format compatibility.

It could just as easily be stated that Matsushita have the tech to read the quad layer BDs. Proof is in the pudding.

My logic isn't flawed. I'm quoting what I was told by industry reps.

They specifically stated that a primary reason why they don't used DVD-18 on releases now is because their focus groups and surveys showed that customers did not feel they were getting enough value for their money when only a single disc was in the box. For the focus groups, they were basically given a package that contained one DVD-18 disc, and another than contained two DVD-9 discs.
The flaw in your logic is trying to equate a dual layer DVD with a single layer BD. DVD18 is dual sided which creates issues of it's own regarding silks, fingerprints, and ease of use. The studies which you quote relate to special editions of DVDs which are a studio cash cow. These are often lambasted here as "double dips". We're not yet at that stage for either next gen format.

The studios are trying to offer an incentive to consumers to switch to HD optical from SD. One of the main weapons they're employing (after PQ/AQ upgrades) is interactivity. You and I may think it's a pile of **** but that doesn't mean a hill of beans. A two disc set of BD25 negates this feature, and as such is not a long term plan. This is precisely why even now (when BD50s are still relatively expensive) they are being used for 70% of releases so far this year. When BD releases more extensively into Europe this trend will only increase, with the multiplicity of language options.

Some studios actually have released eight disc DVD-5 box sets, instead of putting the same content on two DVD-18's.
Which titles were those? I must have missed them.

2 disc BD50 sets will come out around the turn of this year. We already have most new movies coming out on BD50s. It will just be interesting to see when the first game is released on BD50. Then production will really ramp up.

2. No HD DVD player has been able to output 1080p to a display until the release of the XA2 last month. I don't care how it is encoded on the disc, if my TV says its getting a 1080i signal, then it sure as hell isn't the same as 1080p.


Disney’s 1080p argument, and your defense of it, is moot at best.

Discounting the past few months, how many display devices have been capable of accepting and displaying in full 1080p? The answer is- very few. Moreover, the VAST majority of HD displays sitting in people’s homes RIGHT NOW will never be able to take advantage of 1080p. It will take years for 1080p to become the status quo of displays sitting in people's living rooms.

Judging video PQ is a far less subjective process than discerning real ( or imagined ) qualitative differences in audio playback. Individual deficits in visual acuity can accurately be corrected fairly easily, but you can be absolutely confident in striking a gusher of snake-oil, once you start poking around in the realm of audio.


Snake oil is right. I don’t exactly consider PCM to be the holy grail that most here would have it be. About all that I can say is that it’s better than 128kbps encoded MP3’s. Statements to the contrary are dicey IMO.

PeterS I agree some of these comments are not right in the FAQ that is posted in the Disney website. I can not believe that Disney is following some of the Sony BS they use. Sony's reputation for BS is not something I believe Disney should be following.

I passed your comments on to Amir to see he will repsond to Disney to get these items cleaned up. Here is Amir's comments from the Vendor thread on what he may be able to do.

Thanks. I had not seen Peter's post. I will think about appropriate way to get the message to Disney. They are pretty good people there and I know fair number of them have a special love for at least a part of HD DVD they helped design with us (HDi). They are also one of the BD companies who always vote on the issues and rarely abstain in DVD Forum. And work on many HD DVD related items in the forum.

On Uni, it was my pleasure to forward the reaction to them. Fortunately, they were already there by the time I contacted them and were planning to do the release. I think when they realized how much their actions are followed in public, they became very determined to be more vocal about HD DVD.

It will be our pleasure to work with them and their creative talent to create state-of-the-art interactivity and of course, great looking VC-1 titles.

__________________
Amir
Microsoft (HD DVD insider)
VC-1 video codec insider in BD/HD DVD
Ask me questions about HD DVD here

2. No HD DVD player has been able to output 1080p to a display until the release of the XA2 last month. I don't care how it is encoded on the disc, if my TV says its getting a 1080i signal, then it sure as hell isn't the same as 1080p.

Technically, it isn't the same, but we're splitting hairs here. All the experts will tell you that if your source material is 1080p (which includes just about every HD DVD) then even if your player sends it out in 1080i, your tv's deinterlacer will put it back to 1080p without any perceptable loss of quality. Don't forget the original Samsung Blu Ray player's processor actually converted the 1080p signal from the disc to 1080i before converting it back to 1080p.

Yet haven't displayed it. That's not very likely, and doesn't jive with the public comments made by a Tosh engineer regarding specs and format compatibility.

It could just as easily be stated that Matsushita have the tech to read the quad layer BDs. Proof is in the pudding.

You have no clue do you? The comments by the "supposed" Toshiba engineer were that TL51 wouldn't be backwards compatible with current players. This isn't anything we didn't already know because Toshiba said the TL51 is being used in their labs with 1.5X drives. All current drives are 1X. 1X doesn't equal 1.5X and thus they aren't compatible.

Do you expect Toshiba to buy a Super Bowl spot and show them playing a TL51 disc in their labs? Even if they did, everyone would just scream it was faked.

But using your same arguement, you throw out anything that isn't currently being manufactured, as there is no proof by Sony that BD100 discs work. This still leaves BD's at 50 GB on a disc, and HD-DVD with 60 GB on a disc.

Actually, TDK showed a eight layer BD disc @ 25 GB per layer. The same was true with the 4 layer disc. It did have 4 25 GB layers, but the design hardware could barely get more than 50 GB of usable space off the disc.
Source? If no source then sorry, but I'll trust amillians report here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9111114#post9111114) more which says TDK has publically demonstrated a working 150GB 6 layer BD-ROM on modified current state hardware.

Hitachi has also demonstrated 100GB BD discs (http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=19493) read on modified version of the current HLDS BD writer.

The flaw in your logic is trying to equate a dual layer DVD with a single layer BD. DVD18 is dual sided which creates issues of it's own regarding silks, fingerprints, and ease of use. The studies which you quote relate to special editions of DVDs which are a studio cash cow. These are often lambasted here as "double dips". We're not yet at that stage for either next gen format.

The studios are trying to offer an incentive to consumers to switch to HD optical from SD. One of the main weapons they're employing (after PQ/AQ upgrades) is interactivity. You and I may think it's a pile of **** but that doesn't mean a hill of beans. A two disc set of BD25 negates this feature, and as such is not a long term plan. This is precisely why even now (when BD50s are still relatively expensive) they are being used for 70% of releases so far this year. When BD releases more extensively into Europe this trend will only increase, with the multiplicity of language options.


Which titles were those? I must have missed them.

2 disc BD50 sets will come out around the turn of this year. We already have most new movies coming out on BD50s. It will just be interesting to see when the first game is released on BD50. Then production will really ramp up.

Once again, you have no idea do you? There are a ton of new releases that have 2-discs. These aren't "double-dips" because the movie has never been released on video before. You can't double-dip something that has never been published before! This next gen format has started with 2 disc sets, and continues there today. MI3 is a perfect example. A 2 disc set in both formats. There have been dozens of releases from both HD formats that are 2 disc sets on movies that are new to home video.

And just because you have a 2-disc set doesn't mean the interactivity goes away. You can still have IME's on one disc, the other extras on the second disc. It doesn't reduce the level of interactivity at all. This has nothing to do with why so many movies are using BD50.

Andromeda Season 1 was 10 DVD-5's instead of 5 DVD-18's
Almost all Rhino animated releases have been SS-SL to up the disc count and justify the $70+ prices. HBO also uses DVD-5's to up the disc counts in their box sets to justify higher prices. Even shows using DVD-9 are milking it. Shows from Fox like 24 use 6 DVD-9's instead of 3 DVD-18's.

Keep holding your breath for that wave fo dual BD50 releases. You will be Blu in the face before they ever come.

Source? If no source then sorry, but I'll trust amillians report here (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9111114#post9111114) more which says TDK has publically demonstrated a working 150GB 6 layer BD-ROM on modified current state hardware.

Hitachi has also demonstrated 100GB BD discs (http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=19493) read on modified version of the current HLDS BD writer.

Yes the discs work, but ask him what the actual capacity on that disc was. There wasn't 150GB of usable, accessable data on the disc.

And if you read the report on the 2nd link you posted, you will see that Hitachi didn't even demonstrate the 100 GB discs ability to access all areas of each of the four layers. It only demonstrated that the drive could find the four layers, but failed to demonstrate that it was actually reading all aspects of each layer (the 2T pits). Now why would they leave something important like that out (the 2T pits are what makes BD or HD-DVD different from DVD)? I wonder? All this demo showed was that they effectively made a four layer psudo-DVD with unproven claims it was actually a BD disc.

My understanding of the BD100 is that currently they can read all the data on two layers, yielding 50 GB. Around 10 Gb of data from the third layer, and about 6 GB of data from the fourth. This makes the BD100 have an achievable 66 GB of data. It is further my understanding that the areas of the third and fourth layer that can be read appear to be random, which means you can't reliably put any content on those layers and hope to access it in the future. So if you wanted to release content on it as it stands, you could manufacture a BD100 disc with 50GB of capacity. Wow, what a break through!

Once again, you have no idea do you? There are a ton of new releases that have 2-discs. These aren't "double-dips" because the movie has never been released on video before. You can't double-dip something that has never been published before! This next gen format has started with 2 disc sets, and continues there today. MI3 is a perfect example. A 2 disc set in both formats.
Paramount have released one 2 disc set on each format, and that's it. They presumably wanted bragging rights. Of course all 2 disc sets aren't "double dips", I didn't say that they were, that was however the context in which the study you quoted was carried out. Sorry if your limited exposure in this field hasn't made you aware of that fact.

And just because you have a 2-disc set doesn't mean the interactivity goes away. You can still have IME's on one disc, the other extras on the second disc. It doesn't reduce the level of interactivity at all. This has nothing to do with why so many movies are using BD50.
The extras on the second discs will not be interactive with the feature. You seem to have difficulty with this concept. Strange, I'd have thought it would have been simple enough for you, but apparently not.

Andromeda Season 1 was 10 DVD-5's instead of 5 DVD-18's
Almost all Rhino animated releases have been SS-SL to up the disc count and justify the $70+ prices. HBO also uses DVD-5's to up the disc counts in their box sets to justify higher prices. Even shows using DVD-9 are milking it. Shows from Fox like 24 use 6 DVD-9's instead of 3 DVD-18's.
LMAO. One TV show and an obscure animation house. Nice one! You're gonna have to try harder than that. The simple fact remains that studios do not release their titles on multiple DVD5s but use DVD9s instead. Your "logic" doesn't work.

At least you didn't display your ignorance of the US car industry in this thread. You remind me of TSD, who of course has been silent since his CES predictions all came to naught.

Yes the discs work, but ask him what the actual capacity on that disc was. There wasn't 150GB of usable, accessable data on the disc.
You can claim what you want but without a source no one will believe you...

I think that once Sony comes around to advance codecs, you will see most of their output on dual BD25 discs. So HD-DVD will be using dual BD30's and BD will be using dual BD25's for titles with lots of extra content. Again, in that situation HD-DVD has the slight edge.

Currently 70% of the BDs from 2007 are BD50 - that is MOST of them. Your reasoning is flawed.

There is no disincentive to use BD50 so your 2 disc sets can easily be a pair of BD50s if needed. There is no edge to HD DVD.

You have no clue do you? The comments by the "supposed" Toshiba engineer were that TL51 wouldn't be backwards compatible with current players. This isn't anything we didn't already know because Toshiba said the TL51 is being used in their labs with 1.5X drives. All current drives are 1X. 1X doesn't equal 1.5X and thus they aren't compatible.

Do you expect Toshiba to buy a Super Bowl spot and show them playing a TL51 disc in their labs? Even if they did, everyone would just scream it was faked.

But using your same arguement, you throw out anything that isn't currently being manufactured, as there is no proof by Sony that BD100 discs work. This still leaves BD's at 50 GB on a disc, and HD-DVD with 60 GB on a disc.
Wow, I had no idea how little you know. The current Toshiba drives on the market are not 1X. Just... wow. Do some more reading then get back to me.

BTW trying to use a dual sided dual layer HD DVD against a dual layer single sided BD? What a joker!

BD is currently 50Gb and HD DVD is 30Gb. You can try and squirm your way to something else, but them's the facts. A dual sided BD is no more impossible than a dual sided HD DVD (unless you think WB have been lying about their Total HD discs), so your little game would yeild 60Gb HD and 100Gb BD. Doesn't look any better.

Yes the discs work, but ask him what the actual capacity on that disc was. There wasn't 150GB of usable, accessable data on the disc.

So what? at least there was a working prototype that was demonstrated. Has toshiba even demonstrated any prototypes of its 51gb vapourware yet?

Currently 70% of the BDs from 2007 are BD50...
And currently 100% of days we have seen in 2007 are in January...which is also a 100% true AND meaningless statistic.

Paramount have released one 2 disc set on each format, and that's it. They presumably wanted bragging rights. Of course all 2 disc sets aren't "double dips", I didn't say that they were, that was however the context in which the study you quoted was carried out. Sorry if your limited exposure in this field hasn't made you aware of that fact.


The extras on the second discs will not be interactive with the feature. You seem to have difficulty with this concept. Strange, I'd have thought it would have been simple enough for you, but apparently not.


LMAO. One TV show and an obscure animation house. Nice one! You're gonna have to try harder than that. The simple fact remains that studios do not release their titles on multiple DVD5s but use DVD9s instead. Your "logic" doesn't work.

At least you didn't display your ignorance of the US car industry in this thread. You remind me of TSD, who of course has been silent since his CES predictions all came to naught.

Dude, you should stop trolling. What about shows like Sex in the City and Sopranos? Those fall under HBO shows that you'll see I mentioned. And I guess Transformers and GI Joe , and I think He-Man, are obscure pieces of animation. Your trying hard to show us you have no reading comprehensio aren't you? The use multiple DVD-5's, and multiple DVD-9's, as I pointed out, when using DVD-18 would often reduce their season "box sets" down to one or two discs. Paying $40-$60 for 1-2 discs is a harder sell than $40-$60 for a 4-8 disc set.

And what study did I quote? How can you get any "context" out of the industry marketing studies that you have had no exposure. It had nothing to do with double-dipping, and I never implied anywhere that it did. The studio was regarding what do consumers percieve as a better value. Now you are just desperately trying to make stuff up so you have a leg to stand on. Typical troll last ditch effort.

Also, do you realize that the extras on most current HD-DVD's and BD's are not interactive from the feature either? You almost are starting to sound like you don't own and haven't seen either format. There have only been a small handfull of titles that have interactive features from within the title. Most of them have features that you access by going to the menu and selecting them. They aren't all IME's.

I think you've sufficiently proved your level of intelligence to everyone in this thread now, and they can process you comments accordingly. Thanks for helping everyone out with that.

So what? at least there was a working prototype that was demonstrated. Has toshiba even demonstrated any prototypes of its 51gb vapourware yet?

You don't seem to get that it wasn't a working prototype of BD. It was a working prototype of DVD. I think Toshiba could show you a working prototype of a DVD if you want.

DVD reads 3T-11T pits and 14T pits. The addition of smaller 2T pits is what added capacity to the new HD formats and required the blue laser to detect. To the best of my knowledge, no format (BD or HD-DVD) has presented a demonstration that shows 2T pits being read off a disc with more than two layers. They can only demonstrate that the lasers are capable of detecting the layers beyond the first two. However, they haven't demonstrated that they can find the 2T pits once they focus on the layers. The do demonstrate they can find 3T pits and up. So why not show us the 2T pits, unless you can't actually do it yet?

Dude, you should stop trolling. What about shows like Sex in the City and Sopranos? Those fall under HBO shows that you'll see I mentioned. And I guess Transformers and GI Joe , and I think He-Man, are obscure pieces of animation. Your trying hard to show us you have no reading comprehensio aren't you? The use multiple DVD-5's, and multiple DVD-9's, as I pointed out, when using DVD-18 would often reduce their season "box sets" down to one or two discs. Paying $40-$60 for 1-2 discs is a harder sell than $40-$60 for a 4-8 disc set.
So now you're switching your argument to take in TV shows that use a DVD5 for the couple of episodes left over? Pathetic. Your kids shows are not major sellers even in the animation genre (maybe years ago, but not now), please try and move with the times. A DVD18 is analoguos to a BD100, not a BD50. I'm not sure why you have such a mental block on this. As to DVD5s used to house the left over episodes on a few TV series, is that really what your argument comes down to?!

And what study did I quote? How can you get any "context" out of the industry marketing studies that you have had no exposure. It had nothing to do with double-dipping, and I never implied anywhere that it did. The studio was regarding what do consumers percieve as a better value. Now you are just desperately trying to make stuff up so you have a leg to stand on. Typical troll last ditch effort.
If you can't remember what you posted I'm not gonna help you with it. Though it was informative to read the level of your exposure: chatting to an "industry" rep.

Also, do you realize that the extras on most current HD-DVD's and BD's are not interactive from the feature either? You almost are starting to sound like you don't own and haven't seen either format. There have only been a small handfull of titles that have interactive features from within the title. Most of them have features that you access by going to the menu and selecting them. They aren't all IME's.
Let's do the time warp again!! You're aware I take it that not all features of DVD were used from the off. And that not all features of BD are in use right now? Good. The plan is to have the main feature and the featurettes be interactive on future discs. That this isn't currently the case doesn't negate the fact that it is coming. Try and keep up.

I think you've sufficiently proved your level of intelligence to everyone in this thread now, and they can process you comments accordingly. Thanks for helping everyone out with that.
Your ability to ignore reality is quite awe inspiring. Looking around it seems to be your posts that people are responding to with incredulity. Good luck with your trip back to reality.

If you read the forum, you would see that I stated studios prefer two disc sets. It is a marketing decision.It you pay attention to the forum and notice what one trustworthy insider mostly on the HD DVD side (Cjplay) said, you will notice that his position is that they tend to use these for more prominent movies. Movies that don't look like they are going to make as much are much less likely to get the 2 disk treatment. He has also said that the studios understand that the longer this goes the more packaging costs can play into an advantage for Blu-ray, because they can use less discs, if they want to (they aren't forced to). It isn't like studios can't use BD50s and use 30GB from each if that is what they choose to do. Cost will of course matter (and we don't know how close they will be in cost in the long run), but the argument that 30GB for single sided discs is better than 50GB because they prefer 2 disc sets is pretty weak when the 50GB discs don't reduce their options, they increase their options.

Just look at DVDs. What percentage of average selling (non-blockbuster type) movies do you think got 2 disc releases? If the studios start releasing too many of those, then their extra value to consumers will tend to go down.

If 2 disc sets are such a great thing in general, why haven't we seen a bunch of 2 disc sets on HD DVD with HD DVD-15s?

And why do you think Toshiba is working on TL51s if the studios all prefer 2 disc sets and would be just as happy with HD30s?
You have no clue do you? The comments by the "supposed" Toshiba engineer were that TL51 wouldn't be backwards compatible with current players. This isn't anything we didn't already know because Toshiba said the TL51 is being used in their labs with 1.5X drives. All current drives are 1X.Where did you get that? The discs need to be mastered for specs that relate to 1X because that is what the specs were built on as a minimum. Do you have anything to back up that you do have a clue and all current drives are 1X?

And the comments by the Toshiba engineer a while ago weren't about TL51s. They were about TL45s and there was no mention to us at the time of 1.5x for those. Even the 1.5x for the TL51s has been stated as not being set in stone. I suspect it has a lot to do with whether they can be made to work at 1.5x on current drives, or at least some subset of current drives (like everything past the HD-A1 generation).

Honestly, it looks like you are just making stuff up as you go along and claiming it as factual, kind of like when you claimed that MPEG2 was limited to something like 36Mbps. If you don't know, please just say that you think (or believe) something is a certain way instead of stating it as factual.

--Darin

To me Disney and Fox doing in this format battle the same they did in the Divx v. DVD battle. Probably the same people were involved in both decision making processes.....the outcome will probably end up being the same. JMHO.

All this talk about 50 GB v. dual disks etc, will be rendered irrelevant in the face of market reality. Businesses are not in the business of ignoring lucrative markets. Right now both formats are in infancy....

Grant -

Thanks for passing that on to Amir. I am sure Disney is a very reliable company and has just "cut and pasted" from some Sony propadanda. Remember, Disney was FIRST an HD-DVD proponent. Let's see if some of the market failings of BD push them back over the line.

As for some criticisms leveled here:

1. As far as it goes for VIDEO (HD), BluRay currently holds the capacity crown. However, there are increases planned for HD-DVD which are relevant to the HD market. Increases in BluRay's capacity have been stated to be for the DATA market, and not applicable to BD HD Video. Also, this statement does not account for how much needs to be stored. A small shed which needs to contain my bicycle may be MORE THAN ENOUGH - while a standard garage needing to hold a tank - may be TOTALLY INADEQUATE. Now, this is not pointed at either format, but size is only important if it is not LARGE ENOUGH. Extra capacity is wasted capacity.

2. Here Disney is clearly talking about each systems video encoding format, and as such, they are entirely WRONG. Both formats encode film at 1080p/24. Also, as regards to the players currently outputting 1080p/60, they are all doing this though a deinterlacing step inside the player. This is the same step done inside a 1080 set. How relevant is this to anything other than the FUD factor and marketing of various players? This should be, and is, totally irrelevant for studios like Disney.

3. Regardless of the POWER and EASE questions, BluRay's interactivity is not mandated for ALL PLAYERS. HD-DVD's interactivity is MANDATED FOR ALL PLAYERS. It is arguably easier to work with and potentially more powerful as a result. Currently there is no way to confirm the capabilities of BD-J as I know of no titles using it.

4. Sorry to say, but if the goal is "mass market" acceptance and thus larger market for content - the Chinese support of HD-DVD with large numbers of cheap HD-DVD players, is significantly more important than a high-end Elite player from Pioneer with an astronomical price which will not play CDs, advanced audio, or support HDMI 1.3. Sorry, this is just the case.

5. BD discs REQUIRE a strong coating layer due to the inherent structure of the disc. There is nothing stopping HD-DVD from using the same layer, or for that matter, applying it to standard DVDs. Why don't they??? Because they DON'T HAVE TO!!! This is not a feature of BD as BD NEEDS IT while HD-DVD DOES NOT NEED IT!!!!

This is NOT trying to be partisan, but to attempt to do away with the FUD in the marketing, primarily from the BD camp. This is one area where I a very adamant that there is no reason to fudge the facts or distort the truth. Both are very competent formats with pros and cons. Let's let them be decided upon their strengths and weaknesses, not their distortions and marketing FUD.

1. As far as it goes for VIDEO (HD), BluRay currently holds the capacity crown. However, there are increases planned for HD-DVD which are relevant to the HD market.

So they are correct.

2. Here Disney is clearly talking about each systems video encoding format, and as such, they are entirely WRONG.

HD DVD is progressive apparently in the same way that HBO HD is progressive. Flagged progressive. Most people say that HBO HD is 1080i. But all the same it is not all that relevant.

I agree that Disney should not claim this now that progressive HD DVD players are available. Especially if they eventually get a mode that does 24p with no interlaced step inbetween. I guess that has yet to be seen.

3. Regardless of the POWER and EASE questions, BluRay's interactivity is not mandated for ALL PLAYERS.

Market forces will ensure that BD-J is in all players. A player that fails to play all discs will not do well in the market.

I guess I miss the point of your #4 since you don't state their claims but I fail to see what a future Shinco player has to do with anything Disney might have said.

5. BD discs REQUIRE a strong coating layer due to the inherent structure of the disc. This is not a feature of BD as BD NEEDS IT


So... it is not a feature because it is needed? Errr - ok.

Seems like a feature to me - take a look at the rental poll results and tell me that HD DVD would not benefit from a similar feature...


This is NOT trying to be partisan

Actually, everything you have said is partisan. Saying this is clearly false.

A non partisan response would say that number one is correct. BD has higher capacity than HD DVD. It is a fact. It is simple. It is easily demonstrated. It is 66 2/3 %. Period.

4. Sorry to say, but if the goal is "mass market" acceptance and thus larger market for content - the Chinese support of HD-DVD with large numbers of cheap HD-DVD players

Oh - industry support.

Yeah, mass chinese players.

How many Shinco devices are in your set up? Maybe a Konka? Any Tatung equipment? What about Nintaus?

For me, the crappiest piece of equipment in my setup a Toshiba ;) My other equipment is tier one Japanese, American or UK.

The only no name chinese thing I have is an HDMI switcher. It works fine enough. But I would not put too much hope on these Chinese players unless you want HD DVD to be the Costco format.

So now you're switching your argument to take in TV shows that use a DVD5 for the couple of episodes left over? Pathetic. Your kids shows are not major sellers even in the animation genre (maybe years ago, but not now), please try and move with the times. A DVD18 is analoguos to a BD100, not a BD50. I'm not sure why you have such a mental block on this. As to DVD5s used to house the left over episodes on a few TV series, is that really what your argument comes down to?!


If you can't remember what you posted I'm not gonna help you with it. Though it was informative to read the level of your exposure: chatting to an "industry" rep.


Let's do the time warp again!! You're aware I take it that not all features of DVD were used from the off. And that not all features of BD are in use right now? Good. The plan is to have the main feature and the featurettes be interactive on future discs. That this isn't currently the case doesn't negate the fact that it is coming. Try and keep up.


Your ability to ignore reality is quite awe inspiring. Looking around it seems to be your posts that people are responding to with incredulity. Good luck with your trip back to reality.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm talking about entire seasons that are DVD-5. Where are you getting "leftover" episodes from.

Again, I never mentioned double-dipping in any context. You threw it in, claimed I brought it up. And now "if I can't remember what I posted, you aren't going to help me with it". Well you aren't going to help me with it because you can't, because you made it up. Just like you seem to make up most stuff you say.

You are just making stuff up now. Stop with your FUD. You are just making yourself look ignorant to everyone else.

LMAO No response to the 1X thingie? More and more of us are seeing through your made up nonsense.

It you pay attention to the forum and notice what one trustworthy insider mostly on the HD DVD side (Cjplay) said, you will notice that his position is that they tend to use these for more prominent movies. Movies that don't look like they are going to make as much are much less likely to get the 2 disk treatment. He has also said that the studios understand that the longer this goes the more packaging costs can play into an advantage for Blu-ray, because they can use less discs, if they want to (they aren't forced to). It isn't like studios can't use BD50s and use 30GB from each if that is what they choose to do. Cost will of course matter (and we don't know how close they will be in cost in the long run), but the argument that 30GB for single sided discs is better than 50GB because they prefer 2 disc sets is pretty weak when the 50GB discs don't reduce their options, they increase their options.

Just look at DVDs. What percentage of average selling (non-blockbuster type) movies do you think got 2 disc releases? If the studios start releasing too many of those, then their extra value to consumers will tend to go down.

If 2 disc sets are such a great thing in general, why haven't we seen a bunch of 2 disc sets on HD DVD with HD DVD-15s?

And why do you think Toshiba is working on TL51s if the studios all prefer 2 disc sets and would be just as happy with HD30s?
Where did you get that? The discs need to be mastered for specs that relate to 1X because that is what the specs were built on as a minimum. Do you have anything to back up that you do have a clue and all current drives are 1X?

And the comments by the Toshiba engineer a while ago weren't about TL51s. They were about TL45s and there was no mention to us at the time of 1.5x for those. Even the 1.5x for the TL51s has been stated as not being set in stone. I suspect it has a lot to do with whether they can be made to work at 1.5x on current drives, or at least some subset of current drives (like everything past the HD-A1 generation).

Honestly, it looks like you are just making stuff up as you go along and claiming it as factual, kind of like when you claimed that MPEG2 was limited to something like 36Mbps. If you don't know, please just say that you think (or believe) something is a certain way instead of stating it as factual.

--Darin

I don't know the spec for every drive put into every player. I guess some of the current PC drives are 2.4X, but I guess I was just thinking standalone players when I made that comment. I should have worded that the spec requires compatibility with 1X and that discs are authored for 1X. I haven't seen a spec for the A2, so I'm not sure what the spin rate is.

I haven't read CJPlay's take on 2-disc DVD sets, but along his lines of thinking, if a movie is less popular, there are likely less extras available for it, and therefore, not enough content to even have two discs. I mean you don't see alot of interviews, making of's for a film like Elvis has Left the Building, or Nick or Time. Many factors play into the decison (cost, availability of content, popularity, saturation, etc.).

I don't think you've seen two disc sets of HD15 because there just enough room on HD15 for the movie and audio in many cases. My feeling is that as the format progresses, you will see HD30/HD15 2-disc releases. When extra features all go hi-def, you will probably see dual HD30 releases, or at least a HD60.

The article I read that mentioned speaking to a Toshiba engineer referenced the TL51 disc. Perhaps I read a different article as the one you are referencing.

And if you want to refer to old posts, what I said was that I had a BD white paper that stated video on BD was limited to 36 Mbs and I had another white paper that stated 40 Mbs. I was referring to video bit rate only, and 40 Mbs is the correct bit rate. Looking more into that, I learned that initially Sony had planned for 36 Mbs, but was changed. If you are going to accuse someone of making stuff up, at least don't lie about it.

LMAO No response to the 1X thingie? More and more of us are seeing through your made up nonsense.

You mean your made up nonsense... I'm still waiting for you to point out my comment that implied double dipping. I guess you can't since you were lying.

And if you want to refer to old posts, what I said was that I had a BD white paper that stated video on BD was limited to 36 Mbs and I had another white paper that stated 40 Mbs. I was referring to video bit rate only, and 40 Mbs is the correct bit rate. Looking more into that, I learned that initially Sony had planned for 36 Mbs, but was changed. If you are going to accuse someone of making stuff up, at least don't lie about it.
I didn't lie about it at all and we can look back at what you actually said. Here it is:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9390096&&#post9390096
I think you are wrong on this topic.

Fact: VC-1, AVC, and MPEG-2 implementations are standards that exist even outside BD/HD-DVD. Each format has a specified maximum bit rate that can be decoded per these standards. The highest bit rate when discussing BD/HD-DVD is 36 Mbs, which is for MPEG-2. The HD-DVD standard specifies that every player is able to transmit 36.55 Mbs, which means it is capable of handling the highest possible bit rate of any of the three compression standards supported by HD-DVD or BD.

Bluray's higher 54 Mbs transfer rate only comes into play for BD games on the PS3, and as a storage medium on the PC (you would be able to read burned BD discs in less time than a burned HD-DVD disc with the same content).

But when it comes to playing movies, there is absolutely no advantage to BD;s transfer rate when compared to HD-DVD. The only myth I know of is the one that says BD's higher transfer rate equals a better picture quality. That is a total myth.and your next response in the same thread:
Sorry, you are wrong and you are misrepresenting what was posted in the thread you linked. Or if that is what the poster believed, then they are wrong too.

BD does not have greater bandwidth with respect to video. A few posts later, the poster you are referring to backpedaled, said they would have to check the standard again, and then never reposted on the topic (at least that I could find).

BD and HD-DVD both have to comply with the standards for MPEG-2, AVC, and VC-1, which exist outside of BD and HD-DVD. Basically, the bandwidth is limited to 36 Mbs, 25 Mbs, and 20 Mbs respectively for video. HD-DVD standard says 36.55 Mbs and BD standard says 54 Mbs required.

You do have a point with audio, even though not in the way you mention it (it doesn't matter if there is one or five languages, you only play one at a time, all from the same area of the disc). Technically, a full on MPEG-2 stream (36 Mbs) with a lossless audio track might be more than HD-DVD could handle.

However, the fact that a "new" format can only claim it's "superior" in the area of using a 15 year old encoding codec isn't much to brag about in my book. A 20Mbs VC-1 transfer can look as equally as good as a 36 Mbs MPEG-2 transfer, which actually leaves plenty of room for the lossless track too.Do I even have to go through the specific misinformation you stated as fact there?

You can try the "you lied" kind of angle, but the facts backup what I said. I'm not even sure where you got that claim of "36 Mbs, 25 Mbs, and 20 Mbs".

--Darin

I never said TL51's would be standard soon, please point out where I did?

I am saying they will go to 17 gig layers before a TL disc because it is a free upgrade. It costs the same to make a 15 gig layer as a 17 gig layer. Current players will read 17 gig layers the same as they will read 15 gig layers. So yes, 17 GB single layer and 34 GB dual layer discs will probably be standard before a TL51 is released. Why would the DVD Forum not take the free upgrade and gain extra usable capacity? I think its a matter of red tape, and you will probably see these high capacities the 2nd half of this year.

The release of the TL51 requires advances in reading through an extra layer, and refocusing of the lense beyond what is practice today. I think this will take more R&D and has a chance of not being compatible with current drives. If it ever comes to market, I would guess it would be 2008 or perhaps later.

Toshiba anticipated submitting TL45 to the DVD-Forum in mid 2007. Guess I don't see why the introduction for TL51 should be hugely later. I wouldn't be the least surprised if it was formalized in late 2007.

Perhaps the SL17 and DL34 will be approved mid 2007 ??? Should be another interesting year :)!

"The only difference between ‘propaganda’ and ‘education,’ really, is in the point of view"

You claim we fell for Sony FUD, but really you have fallen for the MS FUD, how many DL/DS discs are there? Same number as DL/DS DVDs, none or not many.

So yes, it is part of the spec, but the question is, will it ever be used, and the answer to that, frankly is no. That has been proven previously by the use of the DVD-18, which is minimal at best.

Even if TL51 were part of the spec, there's still no certainty it would be used. A disc format is only used if a studio specifically wants it. According to Amir last Fall, none of the participating studios had yet requested TL45, so it's entirely unclear if and when a request would actually happen.

Toshiba anticipated submitting TL45 to the DVD-Forum in mid 2007. Guess I don't see why the introduction for TL51 should be hugely later. I wouldn't be the least surprised if it was formalized in late 2007.

Perhaps the SL17 and DL34 will be approved mid 2007 ??? Should be another interesting year :)!
"The only difference between ‘propaganda’ and ‘education,’ really, is in the point of view"

I'm not entirely certain where you are coming from with that editorial, but perhaps it will help if I mention that my first sentence (a paraphrase) came from a Toshiba optical drive engineer (AVForum interview), as opposed to coming from Toshiba marketing. Still no guarantee of actual end occurance of course, but you never have that until it happens :).

It was more of a reply to the OP, not your info.

I refer you to KK which does not have lossless audio.

So where is all of that rubbish about space not being an issue?

There are VERY few HD DVDs that include DTHD (unfortunately) and those that don't, include films much less long than KK. There's currently no reason to presume space is the reason for the absence of a DTHD track. According to Amir (insiders thread) it just depends on how the studio chooses to package the individual product.

Perhaps a similar situation is the frequency (or infrequency :)) of SD DVD including a DTS track -- yes, sometimes there's no room given the additional content, however that's clearly not the usual reason. DD is typically felt to be sufficient.

All HD DVD players can decode and out put 5.1 TrueHD, so I don't think you have a point there, instead lossless audio had to make way for PQ and IME, leaving insufficient space/bandwidth for lossless audio, which is just as important for the HD experience as 1080p PQ.

If that is the explanation, why is it that almost NONE of the HD-DVD releases have DTHD tracks? Are you saying virtually every one ran out of space? If not, then what makes you right about KK?

See Casino Royale, AVC/PCM/BD50. VC-1 is incomplete at best, and requires specialist compressionists from MS to help out, AVC requires no such help from another company, MPEG2 is awesome at high bitrate, so yes it does require 50GB for longer movies. How can MPEG2/PCM (Pearl Harbour) be done right on a BD50, while KK uses VC-1 and still can't have lossless audio.

From what I've read on the insider's thread, the only direct MS involvement is with training. They don't sit in after the technology has been installed -- they're not in the encoding business, just tool development.

Unless you have specific insider information that makes it clear the reason KK lacks a DTHD track is lack of space, then you have absolutely no business stating that lack of space prevented it.

I don't think they offer PCM because of quality, but more because most current BR players can't decode advanced codecs... When the installed base is comprised of a huge majority of players with advanced codec decoding capability, we should see less and less titles offered with PCM.

Ohhh! Don't say that -- then there will be backwords compatibility issues :)! (Wasn't that the reason for 50GB and a higher spin rate as well? Without them MPEG2 and LPCM wouldn't work?)

From what I've read on the insider's thread, the only direct MS involvement is with training. They don't sit in after the technology has been installed -- they're not in the encoding business, just tool development.From what Amir posted about the studios working to get releases out for the end of the year it sounded like Microsoft helps with some encodings. I'm sure not all though.

--Darin

Actually, TDK showed a eight layer BD disc @ 25 GB per layer.

Actually, they showed a 6-layer disc at 33GB per layer.


The same was true with the 4 layer disc. It did have 4 25 GB layers, but the design hardware could barely get more than 50 GB of usable space off the disc.

Hitachi was showing their 4-layer rewritable drive and said they expected it to be a product within a year. I had pretty detailed talks with both their engineers and marketing people and they certainly expected to deliver this. What evidence do you have that this is true now?

[quote]The 100 GB disc and 200 GB disc are just more Sony smoke.[quote]

Sony was not involved in any of these demonstrations. Hitachi is the same company that produces LG's combo drive and views this as a serious business.

/carmi

Toshiba have done exactly the same thing. They also don't have any hardware to read their fabled triple layer discs, with the Tosh engineer bewildered as to whether the final spec might match up with current players. Read: no.

Amir said he was told by Toshiba technical staff last Fall that the current player was compatible with TL45. That obviously isn't a guarantee given TL hadn't been officially adopted (followed by manufacturer verification of compatibility), but it's at least promising.

51GB on a HD DVD is a pretty pathetic attempt to outdo Blu-ray by 1GB. And I don't think any 51GB discs are out on market which means that HD-DVD is still limited to a mere 30GB. On the other hand, there are plenty of 50GB Blu-rays available now.

And who wants to buy a cheap chinese manufactured device? I'd rather have a reliable Blu-ray hardware product from Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, etc. even if you have to pay a few extra bucks. You get what you pay for.

From what I've read on the insider's thread, the only direct MS involvement is with training. They don't sit in after the technology has been installed -- they're not in the encoding business, just tool development.

Unless you have specific insider information that makes it clear the reason KK lacks a DTHD track is lack of space, then you have absolutely no business stating that lack of space prevented it.

Amir has mentioned that studios that ask for help in getting the titles encoded will get it, whether or not they charge for the service now doesn't matter, if I were running a business I would not want a large portion of my future income dependant on an outside company, but hey, that's me.

If it wasn't space, it was bandwidth, there is no other logical reason to leave out a lossless track that every HD DVD owner could decode and listen to through their analogue outs (I remind you that the A2 was not out when KK was released).

So show me a title with excellent PQ, lossless audio, and IME/PiP, Blu-ray has one (Crank), where is HD DVDs?

The information is still there. Do you have flash installed?

http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/bluray/

After Tinkerbell does her thing, click on skip intro. Click on FAQ's at the top of the page and scroll down to the section titled "What Advantages does Blu-Ray have over HD-DVD."

OK, perhaps this is a dumb question, but could someone please explain what "Beyond High Definition" is all about?

Amir said he was told by Toshiba technical staff last Fall that the current player was compatible with TL45.

NEC spec on the drive in the A1 said it was compatible with TL45. Of course TL51 may be a different matter.

Oh - industry support.

Yeah, mass chinese players.

How many Shinco devices are in your set up? Maybe a Konka? Any Tatung equipment? What about Nintaus?

For me, the crappiest piece of equipment in my setup a Toshiba ;) My other equipment is tier one Japanese, American or UK.

The only no name chinese thing I have is an HDMI switcher. It works fine enough. But I would not put too much hope on these Chinese players unless you want HD DVD to be the Costco format.


Any data on what % of the current DVD player market is owned by the Chinese? Any data on which tier one brands are rebadging chinese brands? I believe they include most if not all mainstream Japanese brands.

51GB on a HD DVD is a pretty pathetic attempt to outdo Blu-ray by 1GB. And I don't think any 51GB discs are out on market which means that HD-DVD is still limited to a mere 30GB. On the other hand, there are plenty of 50GB Blu-rays available now.

And who wants to buy a cheap chinese manufactured device? I'd rather have a reliable Blu-ray hardware product from Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, etc. even if you have to pay a few extra bucks. You get what you pay for.

What would be a credible attempt in your opinion?

Amir has mentioned that studios that ask for help in getting the titles encoded will get it, whether or not they charge for the service now doesn't matter, if I were running a business I would not want a large portion of my future income dependant on an outside company, but hey, that's me.
Yes, I understand they provide help when requested. Only makes good business sense. That isn't the same as saying that they continue to be needed for ongoing encoding. People don't become fully conversant with unfamiliar tools overnight, but that doesn't mean they are ongingly dependent on the supplier.

If it wasn't space, it was bandwidth, there is no other logical reason to leave out a lossless track that every HD DVD owner could decode and listen to through their analogue outs (I remind you that the A2 was not out when KK was released).
You insist on ignoring the fact that it's the rare HD-DVD title that includes DTHD. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong in your analysis of KK, simply that that very same analysis appears to fall flat with the vast majority of titles. Ergo, why should your analysis be presumed correct for this one single title?

So show me a title with excellent PQ, lossless audio, and IME/PiP, Blu-ray has one (Crank), where is HD DVDs?

I'm not the right person for that kind of question.

Perhaps you have some data to offer.

It would not surprise me at all if some of the lower end players are Taiwan - China is another step down the chain.

None the less, how many HDTV owners are seriously going to consider a Shinco?

Perhaps someone who picked up a Syntax display at Costco might...

In any case, expecting Disney to read the future is perhaps asking a little bit much. The answer to #4 remains:

BD: Sony, Samsung, Pioneer, Panasonic, LG, Philips

HD DVD: Toshiba. (and LG perhaps if you consider it capable).

CE support is greater for the Blu-ray camp. #4 stands correct.

Yes, I understand they provide help when requested. Only makes good business sense. That isn't the same as saying that they continue to be needed for ongoing encoding. People don't become fully conversant with unfamiliar tools overnight, but that doesn't mean they are ongingly dependent on the supplier.

Hmm, VC-1 is a work in progress, it changes from day to day, so how can someone from outside of MS really ever be fully conversant with it. AVC has all of the tools for anyone to use, pro, or am.


You insist on ignoring the fact that it's the rare HD-DVD title that includes DTHD. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong in your analysis of KK, simply that that very same analysis appears to fall flat with the vast majority of titles. Ergo, why should your analysis be presumed correct for this one single title?

So why is it rare to see lossless tracks on HD DVD, you guys should be telling the content providers you want better, DD+ is not the same as PCM, don't be fooled by the MS shills who would have you believe so. I point out KK because it is one of those special titles, something that should be graced with lossless audio, on BD, every exclusive title gets it, regardless of whether it is Click, or Pearl Harbour.

I'm not the right person for that kind of question.

Convenient?

Let's take a more rational look at this list.


1. Greater storage capacity
2. Full 1080P resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i
3. Unparalleled interactivity – using BDMV and DB-Java Technology
4. Broadest Industry support
5. Stronger disk durability


1. 50 > 30 so it is true.

2. Eeh, false.

3. Eh, well as much as I think HDi is crap, there is little to support Disney's assertion either. Of course, since BD-J is more flexible than HDi BD may gain this in the future. For myself I think it is pretty much a a wash.

4. 6 versus 1 (2) - so true. I guess three if you count Microsoft, but still true.

5. By all accounts on the rental thread, this is true.

Is there anything more to say really?

NEC spec on the drive in the A1 said it was compatible with TL45. Of course TL51 may be a different matter.

Could be. I expect the layer spacing would be consistent, so the main question would be whether the higher density third layer would still be adequately legible. Imrovement in radial pit placement accuracy? Improvement in shallower layer light transmission?. As I said above, "it's at least promising."

Hmm, VC-1 is a work in progress, it changes from day to day, so how can someone from outside of MS really ever be fully conversant with it. AVC has all of the tools for anyone to use, pro, or am.
You say it changes from day to day -- who is the insider providing this information?

So why is it rare to see lossless tracks on HD DVD, you guys should be telling the content providers you want better, DD+ is not the same as PCM, don't be fooled by the MS shills who would have you believe so. I point out KK because it is one of those special titles, something that should be graced with lossless audio, on BD, every exclusive title gets it, regardless of whether it is Click, or Pearl Harbour.? Only insider explanation I've run across so far has been presented to you twice. All you're doing here is repeatedly hammering a personal opinion without any particular foundation -- no room for discussion in that.

Convenient?
No, honest. Try discussing that one with Fettastic or any number of other people around the forums who are heavily engaged in the PQ and familiar with a raft of titles. That's not my thing.

So show me a title with excellent PQ, lossless audio, and IME/PiP, Blu-ray has one (Crank), where is HD DVDs?Batman Begins. It may have taken a long time to get it looking like it does, but I think is a good example. The TrueHD is 16/48, but that is pretty much what is passing for lossless on HD DVD (and a high percentage for Blu-ray) instead of 20/48 or 24/48 right now.

--Darin

You say it changes from day to day -- who is the insider providing this information?

Sorry, I may have made an assumption there, but from the way Amir says that they are continually working on reducing the data rates, I thought it would be under development day-in-day-out.

Only insider explanation I've run across so far has been presented to you twice. All you're doing here is repeatedly hammering a personal opinion without any particular foundation -- no room for discussion in that.

It is not a personal opinion, it is a fact; KK was a big film, great sound effects, then for Universal to give only a DD+ track does not do it justice, especially if as you say that bandwidth and space are not an issue.

No, honest. Try discussing that one with Fettastic or any number of other people around the forums who are heavily engaged in the PQ and familiar with a raft of titles. That's not my thing.

Fair enough. I can understand that, my view is much the same, as long as it is good enough, I am not going to complain, never been one to pause an go frame-by-frame looking for compression artifacts.

Batman Begins. It may have taken a long time to get it looking like it does, but I think is a good example. The TrueHD is 16/48, but that is pretty much what is passing for lossless on HD DVD (and a high percentage for Blu-ray) instead of 20/48 or 24/48 right now.

--Darin

I discounted BB from that as many people have complained that it is too soft. I have not seen it, but it did not make tier 0 in Fett's list, and that is what I am going by.

None the less, how many HDTV owners are seriously going to consider a Shinco?

Perhaps someone who picked up a Syntax display at Costco might...
If you sample your HDTV owners from these forums, perhaps very few. However, if you turn to the shoppers at the budget, discount, and wholesale stores, then I would expect the Chinese/Taiwanese brands to be likely sellers. Also consider that these less expensive brands are candidates for rebadging to sell uder more familiar labels in those outlets.

Sorry, I may have made an assumption there, but from the way Amir says that they are continually working on reducing the data rates, I thought it would be under development day-in-day-out.
No doubt they are continuing to evaluate and improve their algorithms, but that doesn't actually imply the encoder controls themselves are in a constant state of flux.

As it is a product, they will periodically have update releases, but it takes time to verify correctness and reliability of even update products, so I would expect them to be months apart, and even then most encoding performance improvements will be within the algorithms, not the controls.

Amir has only mentioned one update since April, and that was mid Fall.

It is not a personal opinion, it is a fact; KK was a big film, great sound effects, then for Universal to give only a DD+ track does not do it justice, especially if as you say that bandwidth and space are not an issue.
This sentence is entirely opinion and may or may not agree with Universal's viewpoint. "..., then for Universal to give only a DD+ track does not do it justice".

I did not once say this: "especially if as you say that bandwidth and space are not an issue." I merely question that you say for dead certain otherwise -- that is entirely opinion also.

I'm under the impression that BR has to provide LPCM simply in order to achieve cross platform compatibility (otherwise it's probably stuck with DD). That isn't an issue for HD-DVD, therefore the individual studio can use what ever criteria it chooses in soundtrack selection. That criteria need not be the same as yours.

Fair enough. I can understand that, my view is much the same, as long as it is good enough, I am not going to complain, never been one to pause an go frame-by-frame looking for compression artifacts.
Hey, I even enjoy VHS, LD, and SD DVD :)

If you sample your HDTV owners from these forums, perhaps very few. However, if you turn to the shoppers at the budget, discount, and wholesale stores, then I would expect the Chinese/Taiwanese brands to be likely sellers. Also consider that these less expensive brands are candidates for rebadging to sell uder more familiar labels in those outlets.

Realistically it is way to early to get the mass produced rubbish players involved.

It took a long time for this to happen with DVD. These new formats haven't been out for even a year.

Remember that the cheap manufacturers rely on volumes to make it worth while. What volumes are they expecting here?

In any case, we can postulate all we want. And I have no issue with disagreement in these things :)

Only time will really tell....

And who wants to buy a cheap chinese manufactured device? I'd rather have a reliable Blu-ray hardware product from Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, etc. even if you have to pay a few extra bucks. You get what you pay for.

?reliable? Whatever you think...

Realistically it is way to early to get the mass produced rubbish players involved.

It took a long time for this to happen with DVD. These new formats haven't been out for even a year.

Remember that the cheap manufacturers rely on volumes to make it worth while. What volumes are they expecting here?

In any case, we can postulate all we want. And I have no issue with disagreement in these things :)

Only time will really tell....

Given the difference in marketing approach, it would probably be early for BDA to go low-cost, but since that's the specific lever HD-DVD is pulling, I think it's actually consistent. Toshiba/HD-DVD simply isn't playing by the traditional rules, I don't think it can afford to.

As far as volume is concerned, it simply isn't going to happen before players become super affordable. It's clear Toshiba and HD-DVD are specifically working to minimize the barrier of entry for HD-DVD manufacturers. If that cost can be held low enough, then the Chinese/Tiawanese inexpensive players can be profitable even at relatively modest volume. Given respectable studio support, good market exposure, and accessable pricing, it could be very interesting.

As you say -- only time will tell :)

?reliable? Whatever you think...

With the HD DVD player forums stories of woe with the Toshiba players, do you think that the Shinco will be a stellar performer?

Very amusing....

If that cost can be held low enough, then the Chinese/Tiawanese inexpensive players can be profitable even at relatively modest volume.

I really beg to differ here. Volume is key to the chinese manufacturers.

I really beg to differ here. Volume is key to the chinese manufacturers.

There is volume, and then there is volume. :)

This is the reason I feel that even if Taiwan/China does get involved in HD DVD player production, that their players aren't going to be $200-300 in price: components.

It's not like today, where to make a DVD player one just sources a cheap drive head from somewhere and some cheap IC's. These guys are going to have to source the same expensive componentry as is going into all of the Japanese-made players. What chip's going to do the decoding? The Broadcom/MS solution - not yet ready - is going to be another option, but that's not the same as saying a 'cheap' option.

Truly the only realm in which Chinese companies will enjoy an edge over their more expensive Asian counterparts will be in labor costs and potential willingness to accept low margins. But lower than the margins Toshiba is already willing to accept on their own entry-level players?

*If* these things show up this year, I'm thinking $400 MSRP at lowest, though who knows what retailers ultimately will do. But still, for the manufacturers themselves to have told Digitimes "sub-$500 may be possible...," I mean, these are not a group of businesses unable to estimate the mark with some accuracy, y'know? And it was the $500 barrier they chose to highlight rather than the $400 barrier.

I didn't lie about it at all and we can look back at what you actually said. Here it is:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9390096&&#post9390096
and your next response in the same thread:
Do I even have to go through the specific misinformation you stated as fact there?

You can try the "you lied" kind of angle, but the facts backup what I said. I'm not even sure where you got that claim of "36 Mbs, 25 Mbs, and 20 Mbs".

--Darin


Well, that's nice of you to quote the post before I went back and edited the information. Why don't you post the informaion after it was edited. And FYI, the original Bluray spec was for 36 Mbs video rate. Originally it had a 1X spin rate and 36 Mbs video data rate. However, the technology was delayed for so long, that before it launched they had 1.5X drives, which allowed the to do 40 Mbs video data rate. So they updated the spec.

If you read the forum that you so love to cross post, you will see that I said I misread the table for AVS and VC-1, which is how I arrived at the other numbers. As I'm sure you know there are various profiles and levels to the advance codecs, and I had looked at the one for 1080i video instead of 1080p.

You on the other hand keep trying to blow up a simple mistake into a huge ordeal. I guess you have to do something to make your life worth living...

It took a long time for this to happen with DVD. These new formats haven't been out for even a year.

No biggie.

Check comments by Keith in one of the threads discussing likely cost of Chinese HD DVD players. According to my calculations (based on DVD+ cost) $299 player is practicle.

Actually, they showed a 6-layer disc at 33GB per layer.




Hitachi was showing their 4-layer rewritable drive and said they expected it to be a product within a year. I had pretty detailed talks with both their engineers and marketing people and they certainly expected to deliver this. What evidence do you have that this is true now?

[quote]The 100 GB disc and 200 GB disc are just more Sony smoke.[quote]

Sony was not involved in any of these demonstrations. Hitachi is the same company that produces LG's combo drive and views this as a serious business.

/carmi

If it's 33 GB per layer, they it isn't a BD disc. Wouldn't it be PDD or something similar?

With the HD DVD player forums stories of woe with the Toshiba players, do you think that the Shinco will be a stellar performer?

Very amusing....
Interesting, I never claimed any player from either side was "reliable" ... I was just questioning that someone thought the ones currently out for Blu-ray were ...

Now that is very amusing...

I always love it when someone puts words in my post that do not exist.

You on the other hand keep trying to blow up a simple mistake into a huge ordeal. I guess you have to do something to make your life worth living...
Everyone can see the "mistakes" you keep making. But please keep digging yourself deeper: you'll be through to China soon! So, about those 1X Toshiba HD DVD players... :D

Don't all HD DVD ROM drives need to spin faster than 1.0x to play back red laser HD-9 content?

Interesting, I never claimed any player from either side was "reliable" ... I was just questioning that someone thought the ones currently out for Blu-ray were ...

Now that is very amusing...

I always love it when someone puts words in my post that do not exist.

I guess I missed your point since my Panasonic player and the PS3 we have at work are both very reliable.

Feel free to question that...

I own a Toshiba. It is not so good in that respect.

1. Greater storage capacity
2. Full 1080P resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i
3. Unparalleled interactivity – using BDMV and DB-Java Technology
4. Broadest Industry support
5. Stronger disk durability

Alright, I think many have taken this too far.

1. Disney is CORRECT. BD DOES have greater storage capacity. The only issues are Does it Matter?

2. Disney is INCORRECT. This is the same misleading FUD that Sony has been pushing at the consumer level.

3. Disney is INCORRECT. The subjective capabilities of either system not to be argued, but so far NOTHING has been demonstrated on BD using true interactivity. Also, BD-J is baseline. Live support (using internet capabilities to enhance interactivity and content over time) is not supported in ANY player currently shipping - while this is supported in ALL HD-DVD players and MANDATED as well. Contrary to one poster - this means that most studios WILL NOT support it on BD - rather than risk the support nightmares from those that can not use it. This is common practice. There were also "optional" features in both CD and DVD players that since they were not used by all players - simply died out.

4. Disney is CORRECT. However, my point is that this is due in large part to Disney. It is disingenuous to point out that your own involvement is one of the reasons for your own involvement. Sort of circular in your logic if you see what I mean.

5. Disney is CORRECT. The point was that this is not a FEATURE, but a REQUIREMENT for BD. Without it the discs would almost self-destruct upon use. There is nothing stopping people from using the same coating on HD-DVD or standard DVD for that matter - however, since it is not necessary, no one uses it. In other words, the coating provides "parity" with the other formats, not a benefit. Anecdotal evidence not withstanding.

2. Full 1080P resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i

Funny thing is if you look at Sony HD camcorders which only do 1080i - they very much have the "Full HD" logo ... so what is full HD - 1080i or 1080p ?

And ofcourse BD guys lie time and again in their PR as we have seen in CES ...

Yeah, nobody from Microsoft ever lies... :rolleyes:

Can you cite these lies and the proof that they are lies? Just curious.

Our good friend at Microsoft has been caught in his lies so often it is not funny and it is very easy to demonstrate them...

but so far NOTHING has been demonstrated on BD using true interactivity.

Never played the shooting game on LXG? It seems to demonstrate something. Oh yeah, it is truly interactive. Just like any game....

Something that has an equivalent in the HD DVD world?

Maybe there is a shooting game macro in HDi ;)

Everyone can see the "mistakes" you keep making. But please keep digging yourself deeper: you'll be through to China soon! So, about those 1X Toshiba HD DVD players... :D
:confused:

There are no 1x Tosh players. The drives in the A1/XA1 are 2x drives.

Capek is correct. Here is a PDF Document (http://www.de.nec.de/brochure/hd_dvd_e.pdf) on the NEC Germany website that talks about the NEC drive in the A1.

It is very interesting since it mentions TL45.

Of course this is very old, but we have no reason to not believe the specs.


As a 3-in-1 device, the Multireader HR-1100A plays HD DVDs at 2x speed.


I have still wondered to myself why NEC never seems to have sold these drives anywhere....

Off topic I know, but are there any clues to this?

:confused:

There are no 1x Tosh players. The drives in the A1/XA1 are 2x drives.
That was my point. The fella arguing with everyone didn't appear to know this.

That was my point. The fella arguing with everyone didn't appear to know this.


Question: If and when the TL51 sees the light of day, at what rate would it spin?

Just wondering if the A1 drives are even capable of playing the TL51...


Thanks!

1. Disney is CORRECT. BD DOES have greater storage capacity. The only issues are Does it Matter?

well admitting you were full of BS in your first post and Disney is correct is a good first step. As to "Does it Matter?" the answer is YES as much as HD or movies. If you are here wanting the BEST movie experience, not wanting studios making the wrong choice.

2. Disney is INCORRECT. This is the same misleading FUD that Sony has been pushing at the consumer level.

no they are not. Go reads the specs for HD DVD

1) until recently no HD DVD player could even output 1080p
2) even if it can by HD DVD specs it would be a kludge like the Samsung player it will be 1080p->1080i->1080p

3. Disney is INCORRECT. The subjective capabilities of either system not to be argued, but so far NOTHING has been demonstrated on BD using true interactivity. Also, BD-J is baseline. Live support (using internet capabilities to enhance interactivity and content over time) is not supported in ANY player currently shipping - while this is supported in ALL HD-DVD players and MANDATED as well. Contrary to one poster - this means that most studios WILL NOT support it on BD - rather than risk the support nightmares from those that can not use it. This is common practice. There were also "optional" features in both CD and DVD players that since they were not used by all players - simply died out.

so Disney one of the cocreators of HDi does not know what it can do but you know there is no difference.

As for true interactivity, maybe you should try some of your supposed BDs. There are some with games, there are others where you tailor the branching to get the “movie” you want by deciding what commentaries (featurettes) and cut scenes to include


4. Disney is CORRECT. However, my point is that this is due in large part to Disney. It is disingenuous to point out that your own involvement is one of the reasons for your own involvement. Sort of circular in your logic if you see what I mean.

why is it disingenuous it is a FAQ on the benefits of BD. If Universal was talking of the number of titles on HD-DVD would you expect them to remove their contribution? when last Sept Toshiba said HD DVD disks were outselling BD movies 3:1 in August do you think they shuld have removed the disk played on Toshiba players? This point makes absolutely no sense what so ever.


5. Disney is CORRECT. The point was that this is not a FEATURE, but a REQUIREMENT for BD. Without it the discs would almost self-destruct upon use. There is nothing stopping people from using the same coating on HD-DVD or standard DVD for that matter - however, since it is not necessary, no one uses it. In other words, the coating provides "parity" with the other formats, not a benefit. Anecdotal evidence not withstanding.


The disks will not self destruct upon use. They would only be slightly more affected by scratches. On the other hand many people have had DVDs that were on playable. Maybe (and I agree) the BDA decided that something was needed to make them better, but they could have decided "who cares" (thee have been a few DVDs over time that were scratched beyond usefulness, what is the issue with a few more), they could have decided on a cheaper less effective scratch coat. HD DVDs are also more prone then DVD (but not as much as BD) they decided on who cares.

In the end a BD is scratch proof and that is a benefit, why it was added is inconsequential.

--------------

so in essence what you are saying is that you came here started a thread with Disney is dishonest, pointed out 5 things, agree many post later that they were not dishonest and correct in at least 5 of the assertions but because you are a die hard HD DVD fan boy, that they should not be pointing these stuff out.

Question: If and when the TL51 sees the light of day, at what rate would it spin?

Just wondering if the A1 drives are even capable of playing the TL51...

who knows. The issue is that spin rate and layer size and number of layers are three different things all together. If the DVD forum votes on changes it can change anything it wants.

As for what Toshiba was talking about, it is a 1.5x 3 layer 17GB /layer disk.

PS don't forget allowing for higher bitrate also affects other stuff

You know I just remembered that Blu-ray has already produced their first 2 disc BD50 set with Paramount's release of World Trade Centre. Still, I don't expect this to become more common until the end of the year.

I have still wondered to myself why NEC never seems to have sold these drives anywhere....

Off topic I know, but are there any clues to this?
I believe the production of the HD DVD drive was stopped soon after NEC's ODD business was joined with Sony's in Optiarc...

You know I just remembered that Blu-ray has already produced their first 2 disc BD50 set with Paramount's release of World Trade Centre. Still, I don't expect this to become more common until the end of the year.I wasn't sure about that one. But as far as studios preferring to do 2 disc sets, Rio just posted in the news thread that Black Rain in Japan is (or will be) an HD30 and an HD15 on HD DVD, but a single BD50 on Blu-ray. I'm assuming this is true and it should be obvious that a choice could have been made to do this with 2 discs on Blu-ray also.

--Darin

If it's 33 GB per layer, they it isn't a BD disc. Wouldn't it be PDD or something similar?

It was a proposed change similar to Toshiba's 17GB change. Their engineers claimed that all players that met the Blu-ray spec today would be able to read these discs with a firmware upgrade. I have no idea if they are correct, but that was what they were saying. They did say that they could do a 6 layer 150GB disc as well if their proposal for 33GB layers was not accepted.

/carmi

51GB on a HD DVD is a pretty pathetic attempt to outdo Blu-ray by 1GB.

Back when BR was only 25GB with 50GB discs yet to be released, did you make any posts stating that it was a pathetic attempt to increase storage?

Oh wait... you didn't have any posts then.

Unless you can explain one of the following:

(1) Why BD 50GB is a benefit to the format but HD 51GB would be pathetic should it become reality, or

(2) Why the current attempt to increase HD storage space is pathetic in the face of BD's claim of higher capacity making it superior,

then you've completely destroyed your credibility by your 2nd post.

Back when BR was only 25GB with 50GB discs yet to be released, did you make any posts stating that it was a pathetic attempt to increase storage?

Oh wait... you didn't have any posts then.

Unless you can explain one of the following:

(1) Why BD 50GB is a benefit to the format but HD 51GB would be pathetic should it become reality, or

(2) Why the current attempt to increase HD storage space is pathetic in the face of BD's claim of higher capacity making it superior,

then you've completely destroyed your credibility by your 2nd post.

In an amazing twist of fate. BD fans are saying greater storage doesn't matter while HD-DVD fans are screaming it does.

Can you explain?

(1) Why TL51 is a benefit to the HD-DVD format but the current HD 30GB is "more than enough" according to the likes of amir.

(2) Why the sudden attempt to increase storage to a greater capacity of Blu-Ray if it's just wasted on silly things like uncompressed audio.

This whole argument is so stupid. BD says higher storage is better and HD-DVD says it's wasted space. Suddenly HD-DVD announces a higher storage format and the tables flip flop in about 2 seconds.

LET IT DIE!!!!

Unless you can explain one of the following:

(1) Why BD 50GB is a benefit to the format but HD 51GB would be pathetic should it become reality, or Why is it "pathetic"? Sounds like a philosophical question. And I certainly would not use "pathetic". Maybe some other words. But I'll take a crack at "pathetic".

At launch, BD50 is not around and BD25 is. However at the start, Samsung guarantees that BD50 is playable on its machines since it is part of the BD spec. Since then, BD players from Philips, Panasonic, Sony (including the PS3) and Pioneer, have all demonstrated the ability to playback BD50. MOST of the BD burners, except for a few first gen that stated clearly it couldn't, can play BD50s.

Now take HD-DVD51. Is it part of the current HD-DVD spec? No. Can current spec HD-DVD players be able to play it? No. Can current spec HD-DVD players able to handle the additional bandwith that is being suggested for HD-DVD51? Doubtful.

The point then becomes why would HD-DVD fanatics champion a new format spec that would make their current players and drives obsolete?

What solution, apart from buying new players, can Toshiba and Microsoft make to enable HD-DVD51 titles to be played on current HD-DVD players? Another add-on?

What solution can Toshiba and Microsoft promise the HD-DVD studios that if they release their titles in HD-DVD51, 50% of it would be sold?

(2) Why the current attempt to increase HD storage space is pathetic in the face of BD's claim of higher capacity making it superior Simply put, BD50 is a benefit to BD because it is spec'ed from the beginning. HD-DVD51 is not and would only antagonize current HD-DVD owners, some of whom are already displeased with the way that format has gone.

If the BDA announces BD100/200 will be introduced to the spec, that move can be seen as similar to the proposal of a HD-DVD51.


fuad

I have still wondered to myself why NEC never seems to have sold these drives anywhere....

Off topic I know, but are there any clues to this?

my guess is in the end it did not make sense. The drives are only readers and NEC at the time was talking 500$. Why would people buy a reader for a PC that might have issues for 500$ (PC not strong enough....) when they can buy a stand alone for the same price. (If it was a lap top drive portability might also play a role)

There can also be some demands issues

1) HD has their own drive
2) Toshiba has their own drive
3) No other PC maker is supporting HD DVD

As well as maybe Toshiba orderd most/all of their drives for the stand alones

Back when BR was only 25GB with 50GB discs yet to be released, did you make any posts stating that it was a pathetic attempt to increase storage?

there are a few BIG differences

1) BD was not saying we don't need more then 25GB" for the past few years as well as "anyone that says more then 25GB is needed is misinforming"

2) BD50 was in the specs from the start and all players from day one were BD50 compatible no matter how much BS was coming from the HD DVD fanboys.

3) BDA (or any of its members or official promotion groups) were not saying BD45 will be added to the specs soon for 1.5 years before they started talking about 50GB

4) BDA (or any of its members or official promotion groups) were not saying the only reason BD45 was not added until now is that no studio wants to use it because they would rather sell more disks because more disks sell titles

(1) Why TL51 is a benefit to the HD-DVD format but the current HD 30GB is "more than enough" according to the likes of amir.

PR.

In an amazing twist of fate. BD fans are saying greater storage doesn't matter while HD-DVD fans are screaming it does.

Can you explain?

(1) Why TL51 is a benefit to the HD-DVD format but the current HD 30GB is "more than enough" according to the likes of amir.

(2) Why the sudden attempt to increase storage to a greater capacity of Blu-Ray if it's just wasted on silly things like uncompressed audio.

This whole argument is so stupid. BD says higher storage is better and HD-DVD says it's wasted space. Suddenly HD-DVD announces a higher storage format and the tables flip flop in about 2 seconds.

LET IT DIE!!!!

I don't have to explain anything. I didn't make a negative and unfounded statement. You'll have to direct future questions towards the person who did.

Can current spec HD-DVD players be able to play it? No. Can current spec HD-DVD players able to handle the additional bandwith that is being suggested for HD-DVD51? Doubtful.

The point then becomes why would HD-DVD fanatics champion a new format spec that would make their current players and drives obsolete?

What solution, apart from buying new players, can Toshiba and Microsoft make to enable HD-DVD51 titles to be played on current HD-DVD players? Another add-on?

What solution can Toshiba and Microsoft promise the HD-DVD studios that if they release their titles in HD-DVD51, 50% of it would be sold?

Simply put, BD50 is a benefit to BD because it is spec'ed from the beginning. HD-DVD51 is not and would only antagonize current HD-DVD owners, some of whom are already displeased with the way that format has gone.

If the BDA announces BD100/200 will be introduced to the spec, that move can be seen as similar to the proposal of a HD-DVD51.



Please don't state personal conjecture as fact. There's no evidence that current players cannot be firmware updated to play 51GB discs. How COULD there be evidence when the discs don't exist yet and a spec hasn't been ratified? If a 51GB disc is released and my A1 won't play it, I'll chime in with cries of "pathetic." As long as the discs remain vaporware, it's not possible to judge the result one way or the other.

there are a few BIG differences

1) BD was not saying we don't need more then 25GB" for the past few years as well as "anyone that says more then 25GB is needed is misinforming"

2) BD50 was in the specs from the start and all players from day one were BD50 compatible no matter how much BS was coming from the HD DVD fanboys.

3) BDA (or any of its members or official promotion groups) were not saying BD45 will be added to the specs soon for 1.5 years before they started talking about 50GB

4) BDA (or any of its members or official promotion groups) were not saying the only reason BD45 was not added until now is that no studio wants to use it because they would rather sell more disks because more disks sell titles

I agree with (1) and (2). I don't understand (3) and (4). But perhaps the BDA has been successful in persuading the general public that more space IS needed. Perhaps certain BD-only studios have stated more space as a reason why they are not neutral. Therefore, HD DVDs arguments become irrelevant. The customer is always right.

Changing your plans in response to market perception and/or competitor's offerings is not 'pathetic.' Feel free to disagree with this, but be prepared to apply the same logic to BR's improvement in PQ that was due to the response it received upon launch when compared to HD DVD.

The bottom line here is that arguing that 50GB BR is a good thing but that 51GB HD DVD is a bad thing is an argument born of desparation. The HD DVD camp (but not me personally) may have stated that 30GB was enough, and they may have stated that 50GB wasn't needed, but I don't recall hearing them say that 50GB was BAD.

I don't understand (3) and (4).

3) since (what was it March, April 2005, can't remember exactly) Toshiba has been saying that it can be done (never publicly demonstrated it), has been tested and that at the next DVD forum they will propose and that we will be able to see it in a few months. They never did bring it to the DVD forum.

4) everytime we ask "why wasn't TL45 brought in front of the DVD forum" the answer has always been "no studio is interested in it and that they would much rather have a two disk set in the extremely rare occasions when it could be useful"

The HD DVD camp (but not me personally) may have stated that 30GB was enough, and they may have stated that 50GB wasn't needed, but I don't recall hearing them say that 50GB was BAD.

no what the HD DVD camp has done is say "Blu-ray Camp Spreads Lies, Misinformation" and say "The Blu-ray storage capacity advantage is a moot point, I can't think of any title that would need more space, from a studio's standpoint"

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=793044 and that was at CES not a year ago.

In essence one side of their mouth is saying 30 is more then enough and more is a moot point while from the other promising something that I doubt has even been tried and most likely will never bring in front of the forum just to BS to the people not dumb enough to believe 30=50.

1. Disney is CORRECT. BD DOES have greater storage capacity. The only issues are Does it Matter?I think King Kong proves it matters; there was no space left for a lossless audio track without sacrificing bitrate on the video. Now imagine any of the Lord of the Rings films (especially the Extended Editions) on HD DVD. They'll be forced to make compromises to get it on a single disc (or they'll cave and make it a 2-disc set).

2. Disney is INCORRECT. This is the same misleading FUD that Sony has been pushing at the consumer level.Up until recently this was true. I doubt they keep this FAQ updated 24 hours a day though with the latest info, but for the past 6+ months, this was CORRECT.

3. Disney is INCORRECT. The subjective capabilities of either system not to be argued, but so far NOTHING has been demonstrated on BD using true interactivity.There are a couple of BD-J titles out now, and more in the pipeline I'm certain. Regardless, it'll be interesting to see how iHD (or HDi, or whatever it's called now) fares against BD-J.

Also, BD-J is baseline. Live support (using internet capabilities to enhance interactivity and content over time) is not supported in ANY player currently shipping - while this is supported in ALL HD-DVD players and MANDATED as well. Contrary to one poster - this means that most studios WILL NOT support it on BD - rather than risk the support nightmares from those that can not use it.Uhm, what "support nightmares"? While I have no insider info on how BD-J (or Live, as an extension of BD-J) works, I expect it's a lot like MMX, SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 in Intel microprocessors; you call a function (similar to CPUID) to determine what the system supports, then enable or disable menu items accordingly (or, alternately, put up notices indicating why a feature is unable to work on the users player when they try to use them).

I doubt studios will avoid the technology, they'll just degrade as gracefully as possible in the absence of the technology.


This is common practice. There were also "optional" features in both CD and DVD players that since they were not used by all players - simply died out.Unless I missed it, I was under the impression these features were becoming mandatory after June of this year. Or that at least some of them were becoming mandatory, and other advanced features would be labeled as "BD Live". I'll confess I haven't investigated this much, but that's mostly because I don't care for major interactivity (especially stuff that involves connecting the player over the internets).

4. Disney is CORRECT. However, my point is that this is due in large part to Disney. It is disingenuous to point out that your own involvement is one of the reasons for your own involvement. Sort of circular in your logic if you see what I mean.Well, there's some circular logic here, but I think it's yours. Even without Disney, BD still has more exclusive support than HD DVD.

5. Disney is CORRECT. The point was that this is not a FEATURE, but a REQUIREMENT for BD. Without it the discs would almost self-destruct upon use. There is nothing stopping people from using the same coating on HD-DVD or standard DVD for that matter - however, since it is not necessary, no one uses it. In other words, the coating provides "parity" with the other formats, not a benefit. Anecdotal evidence not withstanding.No, this is a common misunderstanding as far as I can tell on here. The hard coat technology does not just bring "parity" to the formats; Blu-ray Discs are actually more resistant to scratches and damage than HD DVD or DVD.

Now take HD-DVD51. Is it part of the current HD-DVD spec? No. Can current spec HD-DVD players be able to play it? No. Can current spec HD-DVD players able to handle the additional bandwith that is being suggested for HD-DVD51? Doubtful.

The answers two both those questions are unknown. As mentioned earlier, the original drives were supposedly capable of supporting TL45 (replication tested in 2005). Therefore, support of TL51 is not ruled out. There is no information of any sort regarding the higher spin rate, though as already pointed out, the drive itself supports it.

So at the current time, it is entirely possible a 1.5x TL51 can be supported by all currently released HD-DVD players (likewise SL17 and DL34 at either 1x or 1.5x). We'll all find out when more information becomes available.

I think King Kong proves it matters; there was no space left for a lossless audio track without sacrificing bitrate on the video. Now imagine any of the Lord of the Rings films (especially the Extended Editions) on HD DVD. They'll be forced to make compromises to get it on a single disc (or they'll cave and make it a 2-disc set).

King Kong being like most other HD-DVD titles in not including a DTHD track proves just as much as its absence on all those other titles proved -- absolutely nothing.

The presence of LPCM on essentially every BD doesn't prove a dedication on the part of BDA to having lossless sound tracks, it demonstrates that lack of cross-platform audio codec consistency leaves them with very little choice.

The presence of LPCM on essentially every BD doesn't prove a dedication on the part of BDA to having lossless sound tracks, it demonstrates that lack of cross-platform audio codec consistency leaves them with very little choice.

How do the Fox DTS-MA releases fit with your theory? Are they not part of the 'essentially every BD' that you speak of?

King Kong being like most other HD-DVD titles in not including a DTHD track proves just as much as its absence on all those other titles proved -- absolutely nothing. You mean it proves nothing besides the fact that HD DVD is only interested in the look of perfect, and not necessarily the sound of perfect. :D

How do the Fox DTS-MA releases fit with your theory? Are they not part of the 'essentially every BD' that you speak of?

If that CODEC is not a cross-platform constant, then it doesn't solve the problem. LPCM does (DD probably does too, but its legacy and so doesn't count).

PS. Beyond compatibility issues -- sure, offering DTS-Master seems like a nice idea to me.

You mean it proves nothing besides the fact that HD DVD is only interested in the look of perfect, and not necessarily the sound of perfect. :D

That's one way to view it, but I don't happen to agree. The typical choice of DD+ instead of DTHD or both clearly demonstrates the studios don't feel DTHD always delivers more value than DD+. From what I've read on the forum, the audibility of a difference is not always there.

I've heard plenty of soundtracks and I think it's fair to question whether lossless is necessarily a benefit (generally a far cry from listening to well recorded music). Because of that, I'm not clear the studio is wrong in being selective in deciding whether an individual title truly benefits from DTHD.

For BD on the other hand, this choice is not available, it's necessary to be cross platform compatible (and legacy soundtracks are appropriately not the solution).

That's one way to view it, but I don't happen to agree. The typical choice of DD+ instead of DTHD or both clearly demonstrates the studios don't feel DTHD always delivers more value than DD+.I disagree that it clearly demonstrates that. If they had lots of extra bandwidth and space and still didn't use DTHD then it would seem to demonstrate that. But with their bandwidth ceiling especially (~30Mbps total mux rate) I think all we can say is that they don't feel it delivers enough value over DD+ within their constraints. Put another way, if they feel DTHD has value, but will affect the video quality for a particular movie then they could still leave it off and this wouldn't demonstrate that they don't think DTHD delivers more value. Now if what you meant is that it doesn't deliver more value overall including that it may negatively impact something else (for less overall value even with more audio value), then it does seem to demonstrate that.

--Darin

I disagree that it clearly demonstrates that. If they had lots of extra bandwidth and space and still didn't use DTHD then it would seem to demonstrate that. But with their bandwidth ceiling especially (~30Mbps total mux rate) I think all we can say is that they don't feel it delivers enough value over DD+ within their constraints. Put another way, if they feel DTHD has value, but will affect the video quality for a particular movie then they could still leave it off and this wouldn't demonstrate that they don't think DTHD delivers more value. Now if what you meant is that it doesn't deliver more value overall including that it may negatively impact something else (for less overall value even with more audio value), then it does seem to demonstrate that.

--Darin
Your comment suggests you are interpreting my sentence to be an exclusive explanation of why DTHD tracks are generally not present. However, that isn't actually what it's saying.

I'm using the worlds "clearly demonstrates" based on the rarity of DTHD tracks on HD-DVD, and Amir having indicated in the insider thread that studios do use relative sound track value as a selection consideration. If you are saying we have good information to indicate the rarity is specifically due to lack of bandwidth, then so be it -- I just haven't run across it.

However, if it's uncertain whether any of the many titles lacking DTHD excluded that track specifically due to bandwidth issues, then we're still back at my statement (since it's unlikely bandwidth would be a critical issue in all those titles lacking DTHD).

My fundamental position is that the studios are, at least in general, exercising choice in selecting HD-DVD soundtracks. Lack of a DTHD track does not, in and of itself, indicate a physical limitation forced the choice. Whereas BR studios have very little choice when it comes to including LPCM. Cross-platform compatibility needs pretty much dictate it.

We lack hard facts on why any given HD-DVD title has the combination of features it has. All we appear to have are bits and pieces in the insider thread. It's easy to grab hold of a pet theory and proclaim it as "fact". However, if that "fact" breaks down when applied to other titles, then it's shown to be perhaps a possibility, but certainly not a known fact.

PS. I basically agree with your statement: "I think all we can say is that they don't feel it (DTHD) delivers enough value over DD+ within their constraints." But I'll amplify it by saying that on a title by title basis, we don't know whether their "constraints" influenced their decision. :)

[QUOTE=PeterS]According to a FAQ on Disney's site comparing BD to HD-DVD...


According to Disney, Blu-Ray has:

1. Greater storage capacity
2. Full 1080P resolution while HD-DVD only delivers 1080i
3. Unparalleled interactivity – using BDMV and DB-Java Technology
4. Broadest Industry support
5. Stronger disk durability

Haters don't wanna admit they wasted there money on HD-DVD! Even CNET The biggest Review site on the internet says HD-DVD will Submit by Sept.

1. Blu-ray has up to possibility of 200GB Cap....... Destroying HD's 60GB
2. Who cares... they still don't have as many HD-dvd players on the market... I just replaced a fact for Disney
3. True I don't care for extra media but I noticed alot
4. True Tons of Support from Main Studio..... Screw porn 50% of people get it online
5. Extra Layer of protection
6. Blu ray has better copywrite Protection
7. Theres more blu ray content......
8. More company Support

That's one way to view it, but I don't happen to agree. The typical choice of DD+ instead of DTHD or both clearly demonstrates the studios don't feel DTHD always delivers more value than DD+.The problem is, at least with King Kong, there was simply no more space on the disc for a Dolby TrueHD track. In other words, even if Universal had wanted a THD track, they couldn't have included it without sacrificing video quality substantially.

For BD on the other hand, this choice is not available, it's necessary to be cross platform compatible (and legacy soundtracks are appropriately not the solution).You've got it all wrong, actually. DTS HD Master Audio is the choice they have (at least as opposed to LPCM). DTS is mandatory on all BD players, so at the bare minimum the consumer will get a 1.5 mbps DTS track, and if their player supports DTS HD MA, they'll get the lossless audio as well.

Similarly, there's nothing stopping a BD release from containing a DD track and an optional DD TrueHD track.

LPCM is, IMHO, a temporary solution.

To all the deluded souls on this post, the second point about Disney stating that HD-DVD as a format can only do 1080i is NOT correct. Please educate yourselves. It is really pathetic to see anyone agree with them on this. PC's have been playing back 24p for a long time, the format itself is encoded in 24p. If you disagree with this then in Europe I guess you'd have to call BD 50i for 25p releases, but we don't see any of that happening now do we?

Cheers...
Duy-Khang Hoang

...
5. Extra Layer of protection
6. Blu ray has better copywrite Protection
...
...and to the deluded soul(s) who think additional DRM is some kind of benefit to consumers...I suggest you educate yourselves a bit...(I will refrain from links on this subject, but there are MANY references and examples.)

Even CNET The biggest Review site on the internet says HD-DVD will Submit by Sept.

If you beleive cnet cr*p why are you even here ? :p

The problem is, at least with King Kong, there was simply no more space on the disc for a Dolby TrueHD track. In other words, even if Universal had wanted a THD track, they couldn't have included it without sacrificing video quality substantially.

You've got it all wrong, actually. DTS HD Master Audio is the choice they have (at least as opposed to LPCM). DTS is mandatory on all BD players, so at the bare minimum the consumer will get a 1.5 mbps DTS track, and if their player supports DTS HD MA, they'll get the lossless audio as well.

Similarly, there's nothing stopping a BD release from containing a DD track and an optional DD TrueHD track.

LPCM is, IMHO, a temporary solution.

Actually if DTHD was that important, Universal could have held off on releasing KK until such time as the VC1 toolset was able to make an encode that they were happy with, you cannot say for certain that the quality will drop substantially since you don't know to what extent the source can be compressed.

Cheers...
Duy-Khang Hoang

The problem is, at least with King Kong, there was simply no more space on the disc for a Dolby TrueHD track. In other words, even if Universal had wanted a THD track, they couldn't have included it without sacrificing video quality substantially.

Whether or not there is substantiation for there only having been room for DD+ and not DTHD on KK, that still doesn't demonstrate that the studio would have otherwise WANTED to include a DTHD track -- and that is my point. Whether or not there is sufficient space, given a track record of only rarely including DTHD, we have no reason to presume KK would have been any different. Maybe, but also maybe not!

You've got it all wrong, actually. DTS HD Master Audio is the choice they have (at least as opposed to LPCM). DTS is mandatory on all BD players, so at the bare minimum the consumer will get a 1.5 mbps DTS track, and if their player supports DTS HD MA, they'll get the lossless audio as well.

Similarly, there's nothing stopping a BD release from containing a DD track and an optional DD TrueHD track.

LPCM is, IMHO, a temporary solution.

If you are saying every BR player includes DTS Master decoding, then yes, I'm clearly mistaken, if not, then DTS Master does not solve the problem of cross-platform soundtrack compatibility. Like DD, DTS has the disadvantage of being a Legacy soundtrack. Having Legacy audio as the only cross-platform compatible soundtrack is not an attractive marketing statement for an HD product.

The only soundtracks that provide cross-platform choice are the ones that are supported by each and every player. For marketing reasons, I think it's safe to rule out Legacy tracks as being satisfactory for that purpose. 5.1 LPCM is a far more attractive solution than Legacy.

Whether or not there is substantiation for there only having been room for DD+ and not DTHD on KK, that still doesn't demonstrate that the studio would have otherwise WANTED to include a DTHD track -- and that is my point. Whether or not there is sufficient space, given a track record of only rarely including DTHD, we have no reason to presume KK would have been any different. Maybe, but also maybe not!


true, but the question was IS 30 ENOUGH some say KK is proof of yes. Others realize KK is missing a lot of the stuff we want in a next generation copy and eve IF Universal wanted to give us what we want they could not. So KK is better as proof of why 30 is not enough then proof of 30 is enough. And in Europe when it is released and Universal tries to cram in an other two languages, they will need to cut even more.

If you are saying every BR player includes DTS Master decoding, then yes, I'm clearly mistaken

Every BD player must do DD and DTS. DTS MA was built on DTS and in essence it has a DTS stream plus an error correction stream (the missing data) if the decoder can handle DTS MA then you get all the data, if it does not you get the lossy version that is decoded as DTS. A disk that uses DTS-MA does not need an other lossy version. In essense look at the HD DVDs with DTHD, they all also have DD+ of the same language, just in case the DTHD is not used. With DTS MA you don't need to include a DD, DTS or DD+ or whatever.

true, but the question was IS 30 ENOUGH some say KK is proof of yes. Others realize KK is missing a lot of the stuff we want in a next generation copy and eve IF Universal wanted to give us what we want they could not. So KK is better as proof of why 30 is not enough then proof of 30 is enough. And in Europe when it is released and Universal tries to cram in an other two languages, they will need to cut even more.

You say "need to cut even more", meaning you still don't accept that you do not know whether they actually HAD to cut DTHD to begin with. I can't state the logical argument any more clearly and so if you still don't see that your conclusion is nothing more than a personal opinion, then there's nothing else I can say. (One last attempt to get through -- If they had never wanted to use DTHD with KK, then whether or not there was sufficient space or bandwidth to include it wouldn't matter -- same result, space or not.)

For sake of completeness, here is something else you can discard: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9429214&&#post9429214

Every BD player must do DD and DTS. DTS MA was built on DTS and in essence it has a DTS stream plus an error correction stream (the missing data) if the decoder can handle DTS MA then you get all the data, if it does not you get the lossy version that is decoded as DTS. A disk that uses DTS-MA does not need an other lossy version. In essense look at the HD DVDs with DTHD, they all also have DD+ of the same language, just in case the DTHD is not used. With DTS MA you don't need to include a DD, DTS or DD+ or whatever.

Both DD and DTS are Legacy formats, as already discussed above. Neither provides any support for BD as an HD next generation format.

5.1 LPCM is clearly a better choice for pushing the format, simply because all BD players support it and it's obviously beyond Legacy. All other "choices" shortchange at least a segment of the BR owning population. Hence, in order to pound its chest, BD needs LPCM.

Note: #1 in this post is applicable, and I was above told that Fox BD include both LPCM and DTS-Master -- which supports the idea of LPCM being the BD cross-platform standard: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9429607&&#post9429607

========================================================

Note: I not once suggested that any particular HD-DVD disc size was either enough or not enough. Amir says no current HD-DVD studio has requested greater capacity (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9392061&&#post9392061), That makes it less than obvious to me that capacity is currently an issue (except possibly as a studio attractant).

My primary point of discussion has been the claim that absence of a DTHD track on KK serves as "PROOF" of an HD-DVD insufficiency, whereas both its consistency of absence and insider input, indicate DD+ is usually considered sufficient by the studios. My point being that the absence of DTHD on KK proves absolutely nothing.

My secondary point of discussion being that the presence of LPCM on BD is not "PROOF" of a BR commitment to lossless audio, it is more likely prompted by a potential customer satisfaction issue. My point being that it is the inconsistency of cross-platform BR audio CODEC support, that most likely prompted LPCM as standard.

You say "need to cut even more", meaning you still don't accept that you do not know whether they actually HAD to cut DTHD to begin with. I can't state the logical argument any more clearly and so if you still don't see that your conclusion is nothing more than a personal opinion, then there's nothing else I can say. (One last attempt to get through -- If they had never wanted to use DTHD with KK, then whether or not there was sufficient space or bandwidth to include it wouldn't matter -- same result, space or not.)

there is nothing logical in what you are saying.

Why did Universal addd lossless on a ffew titles?
Who cares if Universal sais screw the enmthusiast we can't fit IME and lossless we will add IME and not include Lossless

You are here arguing DTS MA is not good because someone with a player/receiver that can't handle it as lossless will get DTS (as good as DD+ on HD DVDs) and DTS is not good enough, but at the same time you say HD DVDs don't need lossless because DD+ is good enough and we don't need lossless

As a consumer it is a cut (even if they did not intend to added) because you don't have it and want it.

How hard is it to undersatnd:

no matter what stupid reason for it not beinfg there is made up, the simple fact is that could not be included no matter how much they might have wanted it.

KK is irrelevent, Universal is irrelevent. KK is given by the brainless as an example that HD DVD can hold a 3h movie. But if an oother studio (not Universal that hates its customers but one that appreciates them and wants to give them lossless) tries to put a movie that is simillar on a disk they won't be able to do it.

Note: I not once suggested that any particular HD-DVD disc size was either enough or not enough. Amir says no current HD-DVD studio has requested greater capacity, That makes it less than obvious to me that capacity is currently an issue (except possibly as a studio attractant).

Amir sais a lot of stuff that are not true. If no one wants >25/30 why is Toshiba working on or BSing about adding 45GB or 51GB to the specs.

If studios don't want bigger why are almost all Disney movies after the DL came out on 50GB disks?

If studios don't want bigger why are so many of the later movies on 50GB disks?

If no one wants >25/30 why is Toshiba working on or BSing about adding 45GB or 51GB to the specs.

For the same reason plasma TV manufacturers go 105", 106", 107" and so on and so forth. For the same reason HDD is currently being researched for 300 Tb in size. Yes, some ONE may want it, but mostly it's for the manufacturers to be able to say "we can one-up you".


If studios don't want bigger why are almost all Disney movies after the DL came out on 50GB disks?

do they actually fill more than 30 Gb if they are recompressed using VC-1?



If studios don't want bigger why are so many of the later movies on 50GB disks?

are they using VC-1 compression? do they actually fill more than 30 Gb if they are recompressed using VC-1?

are they using VC-1 compression? do they actually fill more than 30 Gb if they are recompressed using VC-1?"Flightplan" and "Casanova" were VC-1. Whether they would fit on 30GB discs or not I don't know, but from checks of them it looks like it wouldn't matter since they wouldn't work with HD DVD's current 1.0x spin rate and the bandwidth limitations that came with that. If HD DVD changes their spin rate to 1.5x with the TL51s and applies that 1.5x spin rate to all other discs, then those titles might work even in 30GB. I bet the bandwidth ceiling has been more of a limitation for HD DVD than the disc sizes.

--Darin

If studios don't want bigger why are almost all Disney movies after the DL came out on 50GB disks?

If studios don't want bigger why are so many of the later movies on 50GB disks?


Unless I'm mistaken, (things move so fast here) outside of the fence-sitters, none of the Bluray studios are using AVC or VC-1 encoders yet are they?

As for Disney and Bluray, I quote Simon Gruber: Disney fell for Sony's PS3 pitch, "hook, line, and sinker".

Besides that, doesn't Disney have some weird idea that Bluray will be a nice way to distribute games and such with their movies? Personally, I think it's a joke. It's just some CE and Hollywood marketing clowns thinking that they'll topple Microsoft's stranglehold on the casual game market.

LOL

Good luck to them because they're gonna' need it.

Unless I'm mistaken, (things move so fast here) outside of the fence-sitters, none of the Bluray studios are using AVC or VC-1 encoders yet are they?


No, that is not true, movies from Fox have used AVC, Disney has used AVC and VC-1, Sony has recently put out an AVC title and is planning more.

there is nothing logical in what you are saying.

Why did Universal addd lossless on a ffew titles?
Who cares if Universal sais screw the enmthusiast we can't fit IME and lossless we will add IME and not include Lossless

You are here arguing DTS MA is not good because someone with a player/receiver that can't handle it as lossless will get DTS (as good as DD+ on HD DVDs) and DTS is not good enough, but at the same time you say HD DVDs don't need lossless because DD+ is good enough and we don't need lossless

As a consumer it is a cut (even if they did not intend to added) because you don't have it and want it.

How hard is it to undersatnd:

no matter what stupid reason for it not beinfg there is made up, the simple fact is that could not be included no matter how much they might have wanted it.

KK is irrelevent, Universal is irrelevent. KK is given by the brainless as an example that HD DVD can hold a 3h movie. But if an oother studio (not Universal that hates its customers but one that appreciates them and wants to give them lossless) tries to put a movie that is simillar on a disk they won't be able to do it.?

Ever consider the possibility that for movies in general, lossless is irrelevant? No, of course not, you are promoting BD and since BD consistently comes up with LPCM, it clearly wins.

For music, lossless is critical. For movies, lossless is only occasionally an advantage.

The above logic is solid, but it goes against your opinions, and is therefore unacceptable. Fine, worship your opinions and BD -- enjoy :).

Amir sais a lot of stuff that are not true. If no one wants >25/30 why is Toshiba working on or BSing about adding 45GB or 51GB to the specs.

If studios don't want bigger why are almost all Disney movies after the DL came out on 50GB disks?

If studios don't want bigger why are so many of the later movies on 50GB disks?

All well discussed elsewhere and clearly, Amir has a history of being all wet -- yes? Once again, it's your opinions that really count and anything else is merely designed to obscure the "truth". Have a nice day :).

For the same reason plasma TV manufacturers go 105", 106", 107" and so on and so forth. For the same reason HDD is currently being researched for 300 Tb in size. Yes, some ONE may want it, but mostly it's for the manufacturers to be able to say "we can one-up you".

not the same thing did CDs grow a lot? Did DVDs? A format is not the same thing as an individual tech. Yes they might show larger TVs to say “look if we can make a bigger TV it means we are better at TVs…..




do they actually fill more than 30 Gb if they are recompressed using VC-1?

are they using VC-1 compression? do they actually fill more than 30 Gb if they are recompressed using VC-1?

some are using VC-1 others AVC. I don’t know the sizer of all of them but yes some with AVC and VC-1 are larger then 30GB

Unless I'm mistaken, (things move so fast here) outside of the fence-sitters, none of the Bluray studios are using AVC or VC-1 encoders yet are they?


you are mistaken

"Flightplan" and "Casanova" were VC-1. Whether they would fit on 30GB discs or not I don't know, but from checks of them it looks like it wouldn't matter since they wouldn't work with HD DVD's current 1.0x spin rate and the bandwidth limitations that came with that. If HD DVD changes their spin rate to 1.5x with the TL51s and applies that 1.5x spin rate to all other discs, then those titles might work even in 30GB. I bet the bandwidth ceiling has been more of a limitation for HD DVD than the disc sizes.

--Darin

I'm wondering what checks you refer to when you say "but from checks of them it looks like it wouldn't matter since they wouldn't work with HD DVD's current 1.0x spin rate and the bandwidth limitations that came with that."

Is this related to the recent bandwidth calculation discussion with Ben providing individual track estimates? (Don't remember which thread that was, but it was in this forum). Or are those "checks" from something else?

Ever consider the possibility that for movies in general, lossless is irrelevant?

sso is PQ, so are movies in general, what is your point. I want the best. I don't care if it is BD, HD DVD or something that will put both of them to shame.

Have you ever thought that even though you pertend to be an enthusiast you are willing to live with sub par media just because you are an HD DVD fanboy?

I'm wondering what checks you refer to when you say "but from checks of them it looks like it wouldn't matter since they wouldn't work with HD DVD's current 1.0x spin rate and the bandwidth limitations that came with that."

Is this related to the recent bandwidth calculation discussion with Ben providing individual track estimates? (Don't remember which thread that was, but it was in this forum). Or are those "checks" from something else?I looked at "Flightplan" with the PS3 bitrate meter and it showed a very high average and peaks that went well above 30Mbps many times and not just for a spike. It isn't perfect, but a calculation from the filesize estimated something like 27Mbps average for that one. Somebody else checked "Casanova" and I read that it also had very high peaks. I think both of these went beyond the bandwidth ceiling of HD DVD (which is about 30Mbps for audio and video, with a buffer for short spikes).

--Darin

sso is PQ, so are movies in general, what is your point. I want the best. I don't care if it is BD, HD DVD or something that will put both of them to shame.

Have you ever thought that even though you pertend to be an enthusiast you are willing to live with sub par media just because you are an HD DVD fanboy?

The best sound and picture quality is provided by whatever delivers the original. My point was specifically what I wrote above (which I gather you skipped). Here it is again: "For music, lossless is critical. For movies, lossless is only occasionally an advantage."

In other words -- I see no problem in selecting a lossy track if it's capable of delivering the content.

I'm a movie enthusiast and mostly view non-HD material (just an occasional HD-DVD). The fanboy description is a far better fit for you I think :).

I looked at "Flightplan" with the PS3 bitrate meter and it showed a very high average and peaks that went well above 30Mbps many times and not just for a spike. It isn't perfect, but a calculation from the filesize estimated something like 27Mbps average for that one. Somebody else checked "Casanova" and I read that it also had very high peaks. I think both of these went beyond the bandwidth ceiling of HD DVD (which is about 30Mbps for audio and video, with a buffer for short spikes).

--Darin

I gather video and audio CODEC choice wouldn't change that for HD-DVD? (Or are they already mpeg4 video and lossless compressed audio?)

The best sound and picture quality is provided by whatever delivers the original. My point was specifically what I wrote above (which I gather you skipped). Here it is again: "For music, lossless is critical. For movies, lossless is only occasionally an advantage."

do you know what lossless and lossy mean?

lossless means without loss eexactly like the original.
lossy means not the same as the original.

I want as close to the original as possible. with Video I can't get the original, with audio I can. Asking for a format that can't deliver lossless on many movies because of BW and space constraints and pretending that someone must nbe nuts for wanting it is the sign of a fanboy.

Do you even realize the two statements you made above are contradictory?

All I did in my previous post is point out that you are not looking for the best that you can get. Nothing in life is critical. Are you telling me all the people listening to over compressed music on their MP3 players can't hear it because lossless is critical? Will they die from listening to it? If critical means that you are losing something then yes lossless is critical for music but it is also for movies. If Warner includes the lossless tune outside of the movie in lossless and inside in lossy (like they did on at least one title) are you telling me listening to it outside of the movie it is critical to have lossless but for some odd reason when attached to a movie you won't be able to?

...are you telling me listening to it outside of the movie it is critical to have lossless but for some odd reason when attached to a movie you won't be able to?

Are you suggesting that hearing acuity is completely unaffected by parallel visual sensory stimulus?

do you know what lossless and lossy mean?

lossless means without loss eexactly like the original.
lossy means not the same as the original.

I want as close to the original as possible. with Video I can't get the original, with audio I can. Asking for a format that can't deliver lossless on many movies because of BW and space constraints and pretending that someone must nbe nuts for wanting it is the sign of a fanboy.

Do you even realize the two statements you made above are contradictory?

All I did in my previous post is point out that you are not looking for the best that you can get. Nothing in life is critical. Are you telling me all the people listening to over compressed music on their MP3 players can't hear it because lossless is critical? Will they die from listening to it? If critical means that you are losing something then yes lossless is critical for music but it is also for movies. If Warner includes the lossless tune outside of the movie in lossless and inside in lossy (like they did on at least one title) are you telling me listening to it outside of the movie it is critical to have lossless but for some odd reason when attached to a movie you won't be able to?

Not at all. I can choose to demand lossless reproduction of an MP3 recording (should I want), but the extra bandwith for the lossless recording won't buy me a thing. A lossy track using appropriate perceptual encoding will deliver that MP3 track very well. "Phantom Of The Opera" has a generally recognized outstanding sound track. It's not too hard to understand why a lossless track makes sense for that. But for most other tracks I've heard, high bitrate perceptual encoding would be just fine.

PS. Sure, the concept of lossless encoding for movies is attractive, but that doesn't mean it's needed to deliver the soundtrack.

PPS. A movie music CD is not processed in the same fashion as an actual movie soundtrack. The layering, multitracking, and overdubbing that takes place in the process of creating a full bore movie soundtrack generally costs plenty in the ultimate sound. Again, music requires lossless, movie soundtracks generally don't -- they are usually too flawed to require a lossless presentation. Remember, we're talking about high bitrate lossy here. :)

not the same thing did CDs grow a lot? Did DVDs? A format is not the same thing as an individual tech. Yes they might show larger TVs to say “look if we can make a bigger TV it means we are better at TVs…..

CD doesn't grow "much" because the starting point is already uncompressed PCM. Also the growth from 650 Mb to 800 Mb is actually a lot. That's a 23% increase.

DVD doesn't grow because compression is getting better over the (10) years. Things that can only be done 10 years ago using DVD9 now can be done with less than 3.5 Gb only. VC-1 compression (and AVC) will only get better, the need of anything more than 30 Gb will be less likely in the future.



some are using VC-1 others AVC. I don’t know the sizer of all of them but yes some with AVC and VC-1 are larger then 30GB

AFAIK, only one movie uses VC-1, which is Flightplan... is it larger than 30 Gb? PS: AVC is NOT as efficient than VC-1 thus the file size will be larger, thus the requirement of disc space larger than 30 Gb.

I looked at "Flightplan" with the PS3 bitrate meter and it showed a very high average and peaks that went well above 30Mbps many times and not just for a spike. It isn't perfect, but a calculation from the filesize estimated something like 27Mbps average for that one. Somebody else checked "Casanova" and I read that it also had very high peaks. I think both of these went beyond the bandwidth ceiling of HD DVD (which is about 30Mbps for audio and video, with a buffer for short spikes).

--Darin
I gather video and audio CODEC choice wouldn't change that for HD-DVD? (Or are they already mpeg4 video and lossless compressed audio?)

David just mentioned the Flightplan video is VC-1 and here are the audio specs from DVDEmpire.com:

Audio:

ENGLISH: Dolby Digital 5.1
ENGLISH: PCM 5.1 [CC]
SPANISH: Dolby Digital 5.1
FRENCH: Dolby Digital 5.1

Subtitles:

Spanish, French

So it looks like the bandwidth required for the 5.1 LPCM could be heavily reduced by changing to either DTHD or DD+. The remaning tracks plus subtitles shouldn't be an issue, so maybe Flightplan would fit in a DL30 without re-encoding the video.

I guess we've no way of knowing how much (if any) unnecessary bandwidth may have been consumed by Disney's VC-1 methodology. It's hard to believe that title requires greater video bandwidth than all other titles already in the HD-DVD catalog, so I think there's a good possibility it could reasonably have been a tighter encode.

Would need people like BenWaggoner, FilmMixer, and DJPlay to give opinions on that. :)

I think you all are forgetting the REAL reason Disney went with Blu-Ray: BD+

It's all about security and protection. I'm sure Disney and the other studios don't give a hoot about storage space! If they can control their media, then it's better for them. Period.

Remember the Divx fiasco? Disney was all over it because it provided more security than DVD. It's funny, I happen to stumble across an (old) article tonight that compares BD+ with to Divx and talks about this:
http://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/07/disney_fox_divx.html

Interesting, that I never considered Divx and BD+ similar, but I suppose any communication that connects to your devices can be used in any way.

But I'll tell ya, Disney is the one company that makes me eye Blu-ray. Mmmm....Pixar in high definition!

"Phantom Of The Opera" has a generally recognized outstanding sound track. It's not too hard to understand why a lossless track makes sense for that. But for most other tracks I've heard, high bitrate perceptual encoding would be just fine.



OK, so what if Warner decided to make an extended version of POTO that was the same length as KK and that by some odd coincidence everything took exactly the same amount.

how would they be able to add lossless to it?

they are usually too flawed to require a lossless presentation. Remember, we're talking about high bitrate lossy here

but if the tracks are so bad, and by some miracle all the losses due to compression are losses in the right places to make them sound better then how do people stand going to the theatre?

CD doesn't grow "much" because the starting point is already uncompressed PCM. Also the growth from 650 Mb to 800 Mb is actually a lot. That's a 23% increase.
was it for music CDs or just data?

DVD doesn't grow because compression is getting better over the (10) years. Things that can only be done 10 years ago using DVD9 now can be done with less than 3.5 Gb only. VC-1 compression (and AVC) will only get better, the need of anything more than 30 Gb will be less likely in the future.

true DVD specs did not change and it did improve. But it also went from one single sided disk in the first year to a good number of dual DL disks. The amount of space for a movie did not decrease but quadrupled over the years

AFAIK, only one movie uses VC-1, which is Flightplan... is it larger than 30 Gb?

you do realize that the question was not about Disney.

PS: AVC is NOT as efficient than VC-1 thus the file size will be larger,

well you are the only one that believes that. Even Amir knows better to utter such nonsense

but if the tracks are so bad, and by some miracle all the losses due to compression are losses in the right places to make them sound better then how do people stand going to the theatre?

You're putting words in his mouth. He never characterized the tracks as "bad", he was making the valid point that the inherent compromises involved in compiling a film soundtrack simply isn't equivalent to producing a high bit-rate "audiophile" recording.

Let's try this again: Other than decidedly non-scientific anecdotal claims, what evidence can you provide that lossless audio provides any real-world audible benefit in the context of a film soundtrack?

I think you all are forgetting the REAL reason Disney went with Blu-Ray: BD+Remember the Divx fiasco? Disney was all over it because it provided more security than DVD. It's funny, I happen to stumble across an (old) article tonight that compares BD+ with to Divx and talks about this:
http://www.hometheaterblog.com/home...y_fox_divx.html

I know Disney thinks this way, I just have no idea why they do, or anyone does.

I would venture it hearkens back to their limited-release strategies, which hearkens back to when they would theatrically show their animated features every seven years.

It may be the way they've always done things, but it is so silly to think one format offers a months-worth of protection more than another. What will happen is that the BD disks get hacked, and counterfeit HD-DVDs will be pressed in Asia in spite of their efforts.

I always come back to; the best insurance against piracy is a well-distributed, quality product at a reasonable price.

was it for music CDs or just data?

as per topic and the nature of this A/V forum, I'm talking about music



true DVD specs did not change and it did improve. But it also went from one single sided disk in the first year to a good number of dual DL disks. The amount of space for a movie did not decrease but quadrupled over the years.

The amount of space actually needed for the actual movie alone actually decreased. Look at every single one of Sony, Disney, Fox etc DVDs, the movie only part actually decreased. Open Season, for example, the movie-only is actually only 3.5 Gb, something that can't be done several years ago with less than 5 Gb space.



you do realize that the question was not about Disney.

The last time I checked, this thread is talking about Disney, hence the title "What is DISNEY smonkin?"



well you are the only one that believes that. Even Amir knows better to utter such nonsense

Kindly explain to me why AVC titles tend to be more blocky than VC1 (no, it's not the master, blockiness is due to the imperfection of codec.)

Let's try this again: Other than decidedly non-scientific anecdotal claims, what evidence can you provide that lossless audio provides any real-world audible benefit in the context of a film soundtrack?

I don't need to prove it

1) scientifically a lossless and lossy copy are not the same. By definition there must be a difference

2) You are the one assuming that any lossy version of every movie will have the losses in the audio range where no one can hear them. and so it is up to you to prove it

The amount of space actually needed for the actual movie alone actually decreased. Look at every single one of Sony, Disney, Fox etc DVDs, the movie only part actually decreased. Open Season, for example, the movie-only is actually only 3.5 Gb, something that can't be done several years ago with less than 5 Gb space.


but when DVDs first came out they were 4.7GB and many had some extras, so your characterization is wrong. Yes the encoders have gotten better over the years but I doubt VC-1 and AVC will have the same improvement. You also seem to miss the point, it is not the size of the movie. Do you think every DVD is maxing out the bit rate in order to give us the best PQ? If not then you just understood the biggest issue that I have with the "30 is enough" concept. I put PQ as #1, AQ as #2 extras as #3 (with PiP commentary as last of the extras).

Universal needed to make a choice, they went with IME on KK instead of good audio. On those DVDs they decided to sacrifice PQ for other extras. Even though it is a losing battle (there is never going to be enough capacity so that AQ and PQ are a no brainier) the more capacity the better

The last time I checked, this thread is talking about Disney, hence the title "What is DISNEY smonkin?"

and the last time I checked I was responding to a particular question. Someone asked if any BD50 are VC-1, if there are not then 30GB is enough and Peter has a point. The question is not Disney, but does Disney's 50>30 and that is an advantage have any relevance. i.e. the guys point was if 50 is only needed for MPEG2 then it is not a real benefit.

Kindly explain to me why AVC titles tend to be more blocky than VC1
kindly demonstrate where this is remotely true.

kindly demonstrate where this is remotely true.

do a search

let me help you:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=706748

From post #24

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result, in test after test, AVC is softer in comparison to VC-1 at the same rate. Yes, you can dial up the bit rate very high, manually turn the filter off, and show good demos. But on real content with real space constraints, compression artifacts pop up, the filter kicks in to soften them, and you lose resolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't need to prove it

1) scientifically a lossless and lossy copy are not the same. By definition there must be a difference

2) You are the one assuming that any lossy version of every movie will have the losses in the audio range where no one can hear them. and so it is up to you to prove it

Nonsense. You are making an affirmative claim that lossless is audibly superior to lossy. It's your responsibility to provide empirical evidence that this claim is based upon anything other than anecdotal opinion(s), and/or unadulterated marketing BS.

Other than decidedly non-scientific anecdotal claims, what evidence can you provide that lossless audio provides any real-world audible benefit in the context of a film soundtrack?
Don't you realize in this forum that if the number is bigger, the product is better? QED

Don't you realize in this forum that if the number is bigger, the product is better? QED

So LD should be better than BD for the same reasons:

1. 12" is larger than 5"
2. uncompressed video vs compressed video

:p

Disney will be smoking hundred dollar bills from my pocket this year. There are so many must have titles coming out to blu-ray I need to start saving now.

do a search


So Amir saying his product is better then the completion, what next?

Nonsense. You are making an affirmative claim that lossless is audibly superior to lossy. It's your responsibility to provide empirical evidence that this claim is based upon anything other than anecdotal opinion(s), and/or unadulterated marketing BS.

no you are claiming that lossless is better then lossy. That is why Trevor used critical for music and you seemed to agree with him. You both also (for some unknown reason) seem to think that the exact same music in a movie will have no adverse effects or if it does we should allow it so that we can say lossless is not needed and therefore 30GB is enough.

You start with 30 is enough and then work backwards and decide any compromises are OK because 30 must be enough. I start with I don't want to compromise anything I don't have to and the only conclusion is the more a format can handle the better.

You need to prove in absolutely every case BD50 does not have an advantage over HD DVD30 in what content a 50 can hold. And that can’t be proved because it defies logic (there are countless ways 50 is better then 30). So saying example A (King Kong in this case) fits on an HD DVD30 is just stupid as proof that there is no benefit.

It is like saying going out with a drink with your buds you would never spend more then 30$ so having 50$ in your wallet is a bad thing. And then to prove it you say “the other day I went out bought three beers and some grub and spent 25$ with tip proof that 50$ is not needed” But anyone with a brain would say what if you decided to eat something more expensive? What if you decide to have a few shots or a forth beer?...

1) scientifically a lossless and lossy copy are not the same. By definition there must be a difference


Scientifically nobody is giving you lossless. If they insert a microphone anywhere in the path - it ceases being lossless.

So Amir saying his product is better then the completion, what next?

Classical ad hominem ...

As for Disney and Bluray, I quote Simon Gruber: Disney fell for Sony's PS3 pitch, "hook, line, and sinker".

I've heard hd dvd suppporters insinuate that "Sony tricked Disney" into being exclusive to the BDA, and since it appears that you are making that claim now, care to elaborate?

So Amir saying his product is better then the completion, what next?

first you claim that I made a statement that Amir won't even make.

now that I've proven that you're full of it, you're stating that it's no surprise that he is stating his product is better than the "completion" (sic).

dance, dance, dance like there's tomorrow. :rolleyes:

Classical ad hominem ...
Nope. One poster claimed AVC titles were "blockier" in general than their VC-1 counterparts. When asked to provide evidence of this he linked to an internet message board post from the man incharge of pushing MS's interests (including VC-1) in this format war. That would be like asking Bill if I should buy Vista (something which my newspaper today advocated, incidentally). No evidence has been put forward to support AVC being blockier than VC-1, just some internet rhetoric.

Nuff talk... bath....

Man, it's a wonder DVD-A and SACD didn't sky rocket with all the audiophiles that have sprung up.

Nope. One poster claimed AVC titles were "blockier" in general than their VC-1 counterparts. When asked to provide evidence of this he linked to an internet message board post from the man incharge of pushing MS's interests (including VC-1) in this format war. That would be like asking Bill if I should buy Vista (something which my newspaper today advocated, incidentally). No evidence has been put forward to support AVC being blockier than VC-1, just some internet rhetoric.

Nuff talk... bath....

Do you work for the Guardian, that is the only newspaper I can think of which is pushing Vista in the tech section.

If you know MS business practices, which I am sure you do, are you surprised that MS funded rhetoric says AVC is not as good as VC-1, when in fact they are pretty even.

no you are claiming that lossless is better then lossy. That is why Trevor used critical for music and you seemed to agree with him.

You've made an invalid assumption. I have claimed exactly zilch, other than that your affirmative claim must be supported by empirical evidence, unless you believe scientific criteria are irrelevant to the subject of human perception ( which would be ludicrous, IMO.)

You both also (for some unknown reason) seem to think that the exact same music in a movie will have no adverse effects or if it does we should allow it so that we can say lossless is not needed and therefore 30GB is enough.

You should do some research if you believe hearing acuity is unaffected by simultaneous visual stimuli. One of the reasons visually impaired individuals often have such sensitive hearing, is the fact that their sensory apparatus isn't also occupied by processing visual data.

You start with 30 is enough and then work backwards and decide any compromises are OK because 30 must be enough.

No, I start with what whether or not I can see and hear a difference between the output of two competing products. I see no reason to pay more, or wait for promised feature-sets till...........whenever, If despite my best efforts, I cannot discern any advantage in doing so.

I start with I don't want to compromise anything I don't have to and the only conclusion is the more a format can handle the better.

That's fine if you've demonstrated to your own satisfaction in an informal manner, that BD offers qualitative advantages that you can see, and/or hear. Individuals clearly differ in their perceptual abilities, and skills. Perhaps I'm missing something that's really there, but I'm not going to embrace that conclusion in the absence of any empirical evidence that lossless is audibly superior to lossy in the context of simultaneous visual stimuli.

You need to prove in absolutely every case BD50 does not have an advantage over HD DVD30 in what content a 50 can hold. And that can’t be proved because it defies logic (there are countless ways 50 is better then 30). So saying example A (King Kong in this case) fits on an HD DVD30 is just stupid as proof that there is no benefit.

You're the one claiming that more capacity automatically translates into better video and audio. I'm simply not willing to accept an unsupported conclusion without some data. Where's the beef?

It is like saying going out with a drink with your buds you would never spend more then 30$ so having 50$ in your wallet is a bad thing. And then to prove it you say “the other day I went out bought three beers and some grub and spent 25$ with tip proof that 50$ is not needed” But anyone with a brain would say what if you decided to eat something more expensive? What if you decide to have a few shots or a forth beer?...

Spending more is often imprudent, especially if you have nothing to show for it at the end of the day. ;) What you're really trying to say, is that the beef in your large $5 hamburger is better than what's in my smaller $3 burger, even though there's absolutely no objective evidence that it really is.

Classical ad hominem ...

Nataraj, you need to take a class in philosophy, more precisely logic. If you do, you will find out

1) def: ad hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

so it cannot be ad hominem
a) Amir was not the one making the argument that I was replying to.
b) I was addressing the substance the poster posted (read point 2)

2)
what I was replying to was an other logical fallacy called “Appeal to authority”

def: appeal to authority http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

here is when an appeal to authority can’t be used

The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.


so when I pointed the two bolded parts out it was not adhominem like you said (classic or otherwise) but pointing out a lkogical dfallacy that was the only thing in his post.

first you claim that I made a statement that Amir won't even make.

now that I've proven that you're full of it, you're stating that it's no surprise that he is stating his product is better than the "completion" (sic).

dance, dance, dance like there's tomorrow

Davi I will take some responsibility for not knowing what you were talking about. But you must take some responsibility in the misunderstanding because you quoted the wrong thing. You quoted me asking for proof of blocking in AVC, and the link did not talk of blocking nor offer any proof but a misguided appeal to authority.

If you would have correctly quoted me saying not even Amir would say such nonsense. I would have pointed out that Amir has a way of implying such nonsense while not directly saying it so that it influences peoples perception while leaving himself and out when the contradictory proof comes out. For example he did not say it would need much more, he was also discussing the loop filter and its effect (something that is not mandatory).

You've made an invalid assumption. I have claimed exactly zilch, other than that your affirmative claim must be supported by empirical evidence, unless you believe scientific criteria are irrelevant to the subject of human perception ( which would be ludicrous, IMO.)

1) I made no assumptions
2) Scientifically (and therefore the names) lossless and lossy won’t give the same result
3) One can create “test cases” where there is no difference and where there is a big one
4) there might be times where “who cares”, where “differences are minor”, where there are “BIG differences”
5) the 30GB is enough so 50 is no advantage, KK is proof that any 3h content will fit on a 30GB disk and anything longer can be split, does not realize he is giving up a lot while proving nothing, lossless was just one obvious example




You should do some research if you believe hearing acuity is unaffected by simultaneous visual stimuli. One of the reasons visually impaired individuals often have such sensitive hearing, is the fact that their sensory apparatus isn't also occupied by processing visual data.

I think you should, all the research point to it as a bogus myth. Blind people don’t have better hearing, just that most people are not paying attention. On the other hand that is a universal truth. There are people when watching a movie that don’t notice the compression artefacts on DVD.

No, I start with what whether or not I can see and hear a difference between the output of two competing products. I see no reason to pay more, or wait for promised feature-sets till...........whenever, If despite my best efforts, I cannot discern any advantage in doing so.


who is paying more? That is the issue. A disk with lossless or without costs the same. The difference is that when they don’t include lossless it is not my ears that are the limiting factor any more.



That's fine if you've demonstrated to your own satisfaction in an informal manner, that BD offers qualitative advantages that you can see, and/or hear. Individuals clearly differ in their perceptual abilities, and skills. Perhaps I'm missing something that's really there, but I'm not going to embrace that conclusion in the absence of any empirical evidence that lossless is audibly superior to lossy in the context of simultaneous visual stimuli.

So are you telling me (because this is not BD or HD DVD) that isf you have an HD DVD with lossy and lossless you always pick the lossy one because you are so certain that you would not be able to notice adifference?

1) I made no assumptions

If not, then cut and paste where I made the claim you attributed to me:

no you are claiming that lossless is better then lossy.

2) Scientifically (and therefore the names) lossless and lossy won’t give the same result

What scientific results? Clearly the number of bits will differ, but that's not what we're talking about.

3) One can create “test cases” where there is no difference and where there is a big one

Scientific testing recently appeared to confirm the central premise of homeopathy, ie: the memory of water. :rolleyes: Though efforts were made to remove the possibility that any manifestation of human psychology could effect aggregate results, and superficially, the protocol seemed well designed, it turned out that an extremely subtle form of bias had skewed the data. Scientific data, and the means of acquiring it, must be capable of withstanding scrutiny, ie: peer review.

4) there might be times where “who cares”, where “differences are minor”, where there are “BIG differences”

Certainly. That's why a great many trials are necessary. Were you aware that in auditory testing protocols, a clear majority of subjects persist in believing that they hear differences, even when the comparator switches back and forth between a single source?

5) the 30GB is enough so 50 is no advantage, KK is proof that any 3h content will fit on a 30GB disk and anything longer can be split, does not realize he is giving up a lot while proving nothing, lossless was just one obvious example

Huh? :confused:

I think you should, all the research point to it as a bogus myth. Blind people don’t have better hearing, just that most people are not paying attention.

Statistically, blind people enjoy no physiological advantage over sighted individuals, but through informal training, many are capable of skillfully focusing their hearing perception out of absolute necessity. Anecdotally, some blind individuals even appear to be capable of using a crude form of echo-location by producing a series of audible clicks or chirps; thereby discerning positions, shapes and approximate ranges to objects in the environment.

On the other hand that is a universal truth. There are people when watching a movie that don’t notice the compression artefacts on DVD.

Their participation in a scientific trial wouldn't negate the statistical significance of those who do consistently identify them.

who is paying more? That is the issue. A disk with lossless or without costs the same. The difference is that when they don’t include lossless it is not my ears that are the limiting factor any more.

Even if you claim to be capable of hearing a difference, you're still making a scientifically unsupported assumption, because it's entirely possible that you're simply deluding yourself, and that's OK if it pleases you......... as long as you're honest enough with yourself to admit it.

So are you telling me (because this is not BD or HD DVD) that isf you have an HD DVD with lossy and lossless you always pick the lossy one because you are so certain that you would not be able to notice adifference?

To be honest, I really don't pay that much attention either way. When it comes to an independent reviewer's take on a particular piece of software, I'm also much more interested in their qualitative analysis of PQ than any supposed audio distinctions, because while pointing to specific visual differences is relatively straightforward, hearing them can often become an exercise in futility.

Convincing an audiophile to purchase a jumbo sized bottle of acme snake-oil, is almost invariably far less problematic than attempting to similarly close with a videophile......for obvious reasons. It certainly would simplify this discussion, if we could point to some data either way, but I'm not aware of any protocols attempting to examine the alleged benefits of PCM over the newer codecs....which seems rather curious with so many definitive claims being made.