So this format war is going to end eventually. Dual format players will end it for a few reasons

1. Dual format players can actually be done

Both formats are the same physical size, they both are even read by the same wavelength laser. This isn't like BetaMax and VHS where different movie physical parts were required. Since it can be done it will be, and more companies will do so in an attempt to get a cut of the hot new HD market.

2. They're already here

Sure the LG player isn't sanctioned for HD DVD use. But other dual format players are coming, the price has nowhere to go expect down. In one years time people will be looking at HD movie players "$200 HD DVD player... $300 Blu-Ray player... or $500 Dualformat player"


3. Neither Side Will Cave

Neither side is going to throw in their hand. There is too much money at stake for either side to call it quits. Especially with the recent news of HD DVDs 100,000 stand alone players, Blu-Rays 1 millionth movie


4. See DVD-R/RAM/+R

No one expects recordable media by itself to be a larger market than the movie industry. Multiformat players put an end to the recordable DVD thing, almost any DVD recorder on the market today records on more than one type of DVD.


5. Drop being a tech savvy guy (or gal) while reading this last point

Consumer: "Ok so I know there are two formats out there but I don't know which one to get..."

Store Employee: "How about this one which plays both HD DVD and Blu-Ray movies"

Average consumers who have a HDTV aren't going to be asking a Best Buy employee "Does this have HDMI 1.2a or HDMI 1.3??? Where are the 5.1 analog outputs!!!" Sure for the tech savvy audio/video lovers on this forum it is important, but for most consumers it won't be about 24/48 audio, it will be about not being stuck with a dead format.


Which brings me to the conclusion that dual-format players are the only logical way to end this format 'war' at this point. Neither side will cave, dual format players can be done, and at this point not much money is being made off of the HD formats. Does anyone really think Universal is going to switch, or Disney is going to switch to make more money? Ha!!! Universal will make more money on the first day of the DVD release of third Bourne movie than the total sales of all three of the Bourne movies combined. Disney will make more money on the first day of the DVD release of POTC3 than on sales of all 3 of the Blu-Ray versions combined.

The format 'war' will most likely end in a conference room with the BDA, HD DVD Promotion Group, and DVD forum agreeing on a dual format standard. Then studios can feel free to take advantage of Blu-Ray for its capacity, or HD DVD for its IME and other features which Blu-Ray lacks.

there is a dual format section now

I agree, the more it drags on, the more it seems like a stalemate.

I wonder if some kind of hybrid specs could be allowed for one day. iHD, compulsory lossless audio and VC1 authoring combined with BD50 and hardcoat would be a really nice thing. Shame about backwards compatibility though.

Thats how it should have gone in the first place. Both HD30 and BD50 disk structures supported, would have allowed the smaller capacity to ease the transistion to the larger.

I agree, the more it drags on, the more it seems like a stalemate.

I wonder if some kind of hybrid specs could be allowed for one day. iHD, compulsory lossless audio and VC1 authoring combined with BD50 and hardcoat would be a really nice thing. Shame about backwards compatibility though.

Thats how it should have gone in the first place. Both HD30 and BD50 disk structures supported, would have allowed the smaller capacity to ease the transistion to the larger.


No kidding...

BD25 is too small for a minimum and HD30 is too small for a max.. (IMO)

Makes me cringe hearing about BD25 releases.


Would be a nice reality... personally it suits me just fine.. as I've invested in both and don't really want either to lose.

I've been saying this for months : dual format players is where we're headed. Just like DVD-R/+R recorders are the norm, so it will be for BR/HD DVD. And please don't bring up the SACD/DVD-A analogy, it's completely flawed, only few people on earth are die-hard enough about audio only format(s) to change their gear in order to get an audio improvement that even fewer could hear.

there is a dual format section nowAnd Bluray and HD DVD , also. But we still can discuss them here :)

The format war may continue because there will continue to be pressure to go to a single inventory format. The dual format player only slows down the selection. I'm rooting for Blu-Ray to win because of the better capacity to support higher audio/video bitrates and acquisition of any source media will be partially based on PQ/AQ quality. I've already seen motion artifacts on VC-1 encoded material which may (or may not) be due to lower bitrates and/or flawed encoding schemes. The same might apply to AVC or MPEG2 but it just points to the importance of having very high bitrate video, no matter the encoding scheme.

I've been saying this for months : dual format players is where we're headed. Just like DVD-R/+R recorders are the norm, so it will be for BR/HD DVD. And please don't bring up the SACD/DVD-A analogy, it's completely flawed, only few people on earth are die-hard enough about audio only format(s) to change their gear in order to get an audio improvement that even fewer could hear.

I'm pretty sure 100% of people can tell the difference between STEREO music and 5.1 SURROUND music. The analogy is flawed, but come on, EVERYBODY can hear the difference between stereo and surround...except the deaf.

Then the price of the disks will determine the outcome.

I don't think dual format players will take off due to cost. A 50% off sale should tell you that.

k

Then the price of the disks will determine the outcome.

I don't think dual format players will take off due to cost. A 50% off sale should tell you that.

k

There far too expensive for the non enthusiast...as are all players and all HD media.
The non enthusiast would probably be more interested in one format to eventually replace sd dvd....over a dual format player....but only if the movies prices come down.


Enthusiast bought universal players while non enthusiast bought the cheapest standard dvd players they could get their hands on.
Thats why even though SA-CD players number well over 12 million...that format is nitchie at best.
And these same people will not be spending 25-30.00 on movies no matter how cheap players become.

The problem here is people here think like enthusiast...who are mostly already adopting one or both formats...but nobody seems to be in touch with the reality of the non enthusiast...who will make or break either formats chances at mainstream..

The problem here is people here think like enthusiast...who are mostly already adopting one or both formats...but nobody seems to be in touch with the reality of the non enthusiast...who will make or break either formats chances at mainstream..

I agree but think that as un-sexy as it sounds, IMO HDM should be marketed as a DVD player with HD capability. It's sounds like semantics, but I think there is a "oh F off" splash-back to telling people "DVD now stinks but look no further, the future of video has arrived"

No one expects recordable media by itself to be a larger market than the movie industry.How can you claim that? It's bigger for hardware manufacturers, obviously.

Dual-format is only interesting in the discs, not the players. Face it -- no matter what you buy you are going to toss the player in 3 years, even if it still works, to get the newest features. But you will probably never toss a disc.

Further, you will spend much more on discs than players, whatever your price point on the player. That's the investment you need to protect.

So, yes, I might buy a dual format player A COUPLE YEARS from now, BUT ONLY to protect my investment in the losing format (if my choice lost). If my choice won, I wouldn't have any interest, of course.

Now, dual format discs let me hedge my bets today and use it in the cheapest player I can find. Blu-ray must hate that idea.

Dual-format is only interesting in the discs, not the players. Face it -- no matter what you buy you are going to toss the player in 3 years, even if it still works, to get the newest features. But you will probably never toss a disc.

Further, you will spend much more on discs than players, whatever your price point on the player. That's the investment you need to protect.

So, yes, I might buy a dual format player A COUPLE YEARS from now, BUT ONLY to protect my investment in the losing format (if my choice lost). If my choice won, I wouldn't have any interest, of course.

Now, dual format discs let me hedge my bets today and use it in the cheapest player I can find. Blu-ray must hate that idea.

Dual format discs are totally pointless. Just like the existing 'dual format' discs which contain a HD version and a SD version. Nothing but a ploy to rip people off by charging an extra 5 bucks for the already premium priced HD version of a film. We only need ONE version of a film/show on a disc at a fair price. Which is why dual HD format players are a good idea. Dual format discs are not.

I, my ownself, tend to think that the first format with a $ 200 player
will do very very well . . . but dual format players AND discs scare me with the potential for compromise. Remember those first LASER DISC / DVD combos were a step down for LD picture quality.

That said, here's food for thought from our pal and industry insider / guru Pete Putman;

http://hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/ces2007.html




TO QUOTE PETE:

"And we all wondered why there was a need for a dual-format disc if a dual-format player was available."

"With dual-format packaged blue laser DVDs, the ultimate winner is the company with the cheapest player, regardless of technology"

"With a dual-format player, the trophy goes to the blue laser disc format with the lowest retail prices and widest availability of titles.

"Given that the leading proponent of Blu-ray (Sony) also owns a huge library of movies (MGM) and its own studio, hell will probably freeze over before any of those films get pressed onto an HD DVD."

"My money’s on the dual-format players, particularly if any second-tier Asian manufacturers like Onkyo or Oppo start building them."

--- Pete Putman

-30-

I'll buy a high end dual format player like Denon, maybe Onkyo... i'd also consider Sony and Toshiba since I always liked their players but these would be the absolute last to even consider such a thing and only then at the absolute end of the road.

LG and Samsung are just not brand marques I'm willing to pony up more than $500 or so, though.

Until then, i'll buy separate players of each.

Dual discs, especially flippers are an abomination that needs to be put out of their misery. 5 bucks. psha! Seems like every combo I saw at Target tonight was $39.99. Who does Universal think they are, Fox? :D

There far too expensive for the non enthusiast...as are all players and all HD media.
The non enthusiast ....but only if the movies prices come down...

The problem here is people here think like enthusiast...
Bingo. I'm worth >1mil, but a hard core J6P. The top selling beers are the cheapest. The best buy is Coors' 32oz at ~$1.29. A 40oz Bud for ~$2.50!!! No way. 20 12oz bottles of Bud for $9.99 at Safeway - OK.

Never bought a DVD for >$10 and never will (no little kids.)

Both formats are the same physical size, they both are even read by the same wavelength laser. This isn't like BetaMax and VHS where different movie physical parts were required.

Do you understand that though the laser wavelength of the two formats is the the same, the two formats focus to different points in the disc surface because of the differing Numerical Apature (NA) of the lenses.

i.e. this is the different 'layers' that the optical formats read/write from...

Cover Laver
---------------
Blu-Ray
---------------
---------------
---------------
HD-DVD
--------------- HD-DVD, DVD, and CD are designed on the same lens NA,
DVD their different wavelenghts move them up and down
--------------- the optical 'depths'
---------------
CD

The 'ease' of being able to produce these dual-format players is because of a diffracted lens that focuses the light differently based on the format needed. The down side of this is that you tend to lose about half of the light power through the lens (which will definitly slow the creation of dual-format burners).

So, just because engineers have created it, doesn't mean it was as easy as slapping the two types together (which also shows in the price of the dual players).

Dual format discs are totally pointless. Just like the existing 'dual format' discs which contain a HD version and a SD version. Nothing but a ploy to rip people off by charging an extra 5 bucks for the already premium priced HD version of a film. We only need ONE version of a film/show on a disc at a fair price. Which is why dual HD format players are a good idea. Dual format discs are not.

The "Combo" discs failed because no one buys a HD DVD disc before they buy a player. In a single-format world, maybe (and maybe not), but not in a format war. No one commits before they commit.

The dual HD format disc is different. It allows one to NOT CARE who wins. If I buy a dual-format player I CAN STILL LOSE.

Let's take the two "dual" solutions and look 3 years on. Assume that blu-ray wins.

1) I bought a dual-format player and lots of BD and HD DVD discs. For some reason I bought HD DVD when they were in both formats, never mind why. Three years later Blu-ray has won, nobody makes dual (or HD DVD) players anymore, and my dual-player dies. All my HD DVD discs -- THOUSANDS of $$$ worth of discs -- are worthless.

2) I bought EITHER player and only bought dual-format discs. Three years later my (whatever) player dies, blu-ray has won, yada yada yada. I buy a new blu-ray player and I've lost nothing.

For my $5 extra, I have insurance that my player choice won't screw me.

Dual discs, especially flippers are an abomination that needs to be put out of their misery. 5 bucks. psha! Seems like every combo I saw at Target tonight was $39.99. Who does Universal think they are, Fox? :D

People still pay list prices for discs?

"...hell will probably freeze over before any of those films get pressed onto an HD DVD."

"My money’s on the dual-format players, particularly if any second-tier Asian manufacturers like Onkyo or Oppo start building them."

And a different hell will freeze over before Oppo, etc, get the license to use HD DVD patents in combo players.

But, Sony aside, no one else should care who wins this war, and if consumers see most studios selling dual-format discs they will, indeed, go for the cheaper player.

And a different hell will freeze over before Oppo, etc, get the license to use HD DVD patents in combo players.

But, Sony aside, no one else should care who wins this war, and if consumers see most studios selling dual-format discs they will, indeed, go for the cheaper player.

Anyone concerned with the "adequacy" (?) of HD-DVD's maximum audio/video bitrates, bandwidth and storage capacity should be rooting for Blu-Ray. HD-DVD might wind up being a cheaper format but I'd rather have the best possible picture/audio quality available and Blu-Ray is "less constrained" in delivering the goods.

Without Blu-Ray as competition, I suspect we'd be seeing HD-DVDs with even more highly compressed video tracks and uncompressed PCM tracks (or even TrueHD/DTS HD MA) might never see the light of day.

Anyone concerned with the "adequacy" (?) of HD-DVD's maximum audio/video bitrates, bandwidth and storage capacity should be rooting for Blu-Ray. HD-DVD might wind up being a cheaper format but I'd rather have the best possible picture/audio quality available and Blu-Ray is "less constrained" in delivering the goods.

Without Blu-Ray as competition, I suspect we'd be seeing HD-DVDs with even more highly compressed video tracks and uncompressed PCM tracks (or even TrueHD/DTS HD MA) might never see the light of day.

I don't know where this logic came from. HDDVD was to market first and hit the ground running with some of the best HD images ever produced. If anything the crap Blu Ray released initially was glaringly obvious compared to PotO and Serenity for example.

Art

I don't know where this logic came from. HDDVD was to market first and hit the ground running with some of the best HD images ever produced. If anything the crap Blu Ray released initially was glaringly obvious compared to PotO and Serenity for example.

Art

Simply observations of the few Blu-Rays. vs fewer HD-DVDs I've seen played back on a 1080p 126" display. The Blu-rays seemed to be better at handling "edges" during fast motion sequences. I don't recall the codecs being used but the Blu-rays were consistently at a higher video bitrate. May not mean much with such a small sample and might be a function of the playback hardware (LG combo player). However, it DOES make sense that the higher the available bit rate, the less likelihood of motion artifacts showing up, all other things being equal.

Yes, initial HD-DVDs may have had the PQ edge over initial Blu-Rays, but both formats use the same codecs and subsequent Blu-ray movies have gotten better. Everything else being equal, I'd expect a higher bitrate VC-1/AVC encoded movie will have better PQ than a lower bitrate VC-1/AVC encode. E.g. I couldn't help but think the video with "Night at the Museum" could have been much better if they had used a dual layer disk without as much pressure on video compression because of space constraints.

Audio is the other issue: dual layer Blu-Rays are better able to handle uncompressed 24/96 soundtracks and there are already a few of those on Blu-ray.

Yes, initial HD-DVDs may have had the PQ edge over initial Blu-Rays, but both formats use the same codecs and subsequent Blu-ray movies have gotten better. Everything else being equal, I'd expect a higher bitrate VC-1/AVC encoded movie will have better PQ than a lower bitrate VC-1/AVC encode. E.g. I couldn't help but think the video with "Night at the Museum" could have been much better if they had used a dual layer disk without as much pressure on video compression because of space constraints.

Audio is the other issue: dual layer Blu-Rays are better able to handle uncompressed 24/96 soundtracks and there are already a few of those on Blu-ray.


Unfortunately your theory's remain just that, there has yet to be tangible advantage demonstrated by Blu-Ray. Both camps still seem to be about neck-and-neck with just a sliver extended to HD DVD.

It seems less about Gig, and more about the care lavished, or withheld as both formats have proven they can deliver.

The dual HD format disc is different. It allows one to NOT CARE who wins. If I buy a dual-format player I CAN STILL LOSE.


You logic sounds exactly, totally, back-asswards to me. I HAVE a dual format player. So tell me how it is that I can lose? No matter what format eventually wins(if one ever does win), my player will play it. And it will continue to play evey HD disc that I've ever bought, no matter what.

I hate dual format discs of ANY kind. I didn't like standard DVD's that had both 4:3 and 16x9 versions. I don't like the dual HD/SD discs. And I will hate any discs that have HD-DVD on one side, and BD on the other. I want discs with artwork on one side, and a single format of data on the other.

And it will continue to play evey HD disc that I've ever bought, no matter what. Even when it brakes?

It seems less about Gig, and more about the care lavished, or withheld as both formats have proven they can deliver.

Absolutely, 100% agree.

Anyone concerned with the "adequacy" (?) of HD-DVD's maximum audio/video bitrates, bandwidth and storage capacity should be rooting for Blu-Ray. HD-DVD might wind up being a cheaper format but I'd rather have the best possible picture/audio quality available and Blu-Ray is "less constrained" in delivering the goods.
While true this will be completely irrevevant to mass market adoption. I've had quite a few people view the HD media & while it's better none have been willing to pay much if anything for the increase over SD DVD. Most of the comments are in the area of "if you say so, yeah it's a bit better, etc."

As pointed out many times - it's very likely that JQP either can't see the difference of HD media &/or doesn't care.

Now they should care about the difference between HD DVD & BD? Never going to happen.

While true this will be completely irrevevant to mass market adoption. I've had quite a few people view the HD media & while it's better none have been willing to pay much if anything for the increase over SD DVD. Most of the comments are in the area of "if you say so, yeah it's a bit better, etc."

As pointed out many times - it's very likely that JQP either can't see the difference of HD media &/or doesn't care.

Now they should care about the difference between HD DVD & BD? Never going to happen.

Precisely. Converting the masses from SD to HD is difficult enough, good luck getting them to pick between HD & BD :p

Let's take the two "dual" solutions and look 3 years on. Assume that blu-ray wins.

1) I bought a dual-format player and lots of BD and HD DVD discs. For some reason I bought HD DVD when they were in both formats, never mind why. Three years later Blu-ray has won, nobody makes dual (or HD DVD) players anymore, and my dual-player dies. All my HD DVD discs -- THOUSANDS of $$$ worth of discs -- are worthless.

2) I bought EITHER player and only bought dual-format discs. Three years later my (whatever) player dies, blu-ray has won, yada yada yada. I buy a new blu-ray player and I've lost nothing.

For my $5 extra, I have insurance that my player choice won't screw me.

100 discs x $5 = $500 extra. It'll cost more if you buy more.

Unfortunately your theory's remain just that, there has yet to be tangible advantage demonstrated by Blu-Ray. Both camps still seem to be about neck-and-neck with just a sliver extended to HD DVD.

It seems less about Gig, and more about the care lavished, or withheld as both formats have proven they can deliver.

Unfortunately you are not correct. There is a compiled list of professional review scores by the big reviewing sites, and when the PQ and AQ scores are averaged out, blu-ray wins by a sliver, not HD DVD. As far as audio quality, blu-ray wins hands down based on those compiled scores.

Unfortunately you are not correct. There is a compiled list of professional review scores by the big reviewing sites, and when the PQ and AQ scores are averaged out, blu-ray wins by a sliver, not HD DVD. As far as audio quality, blu-ray wins hands down based on those compiled scores.

Oh bullcrap. :rolleyes: A quick breeze through your posts pretty much spells out your lean.

As far as audio quality, blu-ray wins hands down based on those compiled scores.

And we know that those sites are not going by just specs ? :p

Do you understand that though the laser wavelength of the two formats is the the same, the two formats focus to different points in the disc surface because of the differing Numerical Apature (NA) of the lenses.

i.e. this is the different 'layers' that the optical formats read/write from...

Cover Laver
---------------
Blu-Ray
---------------
---------------
---------------
HD-DVD
--------------- HD-DVD, DVD, and CD are designed on the same lens NA,
DVD their different wavelenghts move them up and down
--------------- the optical 'depths'
---------------
CD

The 'ease' of being able to produce these dual-format players is because of a diffracted lens that focuses the light differently based on the format needed. The down side of this is that you tend to lose about half of the light power through the lens (which will definitly slow the creation of dual-format burners).

So, just because engineers have created it, doesn't mean it was as easy as slapping the two types together (which also shows in the price of the dual players).

Yeah I understand all that, but the point is that it is possible to make dual-format players unlike the VHS/Betamax days

Unfortunately you are not correct. There is a compiled list of professional review scores by the big reviewing sites, and when the PQ and AQ scores are averaged out, blu-ray wins by a sliver, not HD DVD. As far as audio quality, blu-ray wins hands down based on those compiled scores.

Yeah Blu-Ray wins AQ, but not PQ.

Yeah Blu-Ray wins AQ, but not PQ.

So an extra 20gb can't be utilized to improve image quality? That suggests the video codecs are approaching lossless quality at HD-DVD bitrates.

Color me skeptical.

So an extra 20gb can't be utilized to improve image quality? That suggests the video codecs are approaching lossless quality at HD-DVD bitrates.

Color me skeptical.

MS has been claiming at 9-13Mbps VC1 can be transparent to the master for a while now.

I don't think anyone will have to worry much about a combo player not being available in the future. LG started making one from their 1st unit to market, Samsung is coming out with one soon, it's only a matter of time before a company like Denon makes one.

Even if one format dies in the future, it will be quite far from today. There will be enough discs from the dead format out in the marketplace that the companies who are making combo units will just continue to make them. Think about all the universal players still being made and DVD-A & SACD have been dead for quite a while now. The reason they do it is because if they don't but the other guy does, what are most people gonna buy?

So an extra 20gb can't be utilized to improve image quality? That suggests the video codecs are approaching lossless quality at HD-DVD bitrates.

Color me skeptical.


I think we'd be seeing that better PQ by now, is it being withheld for some reason?

I don't think anyone will have to worry much about a combo player not being available in the future. LG started making one from their 1st unit to market, Samsung is coming out with one soon, it's only a matter of time before a company like Denon makes one.

Even if one format dies in the future, it will be quite far from today. There will be enough discs from the dead format out in the marketplace that the companies who are making combo units will just continue to make them. Think about all the universal players still being made and DVD-A & SACD have been dead for quite a while now. The reason they do it is because if they don't but the other guy does, what are most people gonna buy?

Very good point.

Even when it brakes?

I ordered my unit without the brake pads.

I think we'd be seeing that better PQ by now, is it being withheld for some reason?


Exactly what the bluboys seem to forget is that improvements in PQ generally take a magnitude better data rates.

A DVD Quality movie in mpeg4/vc1/avc takes about 2-3 GB. The same movie @ 1080P takes about 6X the space. Many consumers consider HD better but not massively better than a good upconverted DVD. This is with 6 times the bitrate and capacity (i.e 600%). The 50% boost from HD DVD to BD isn't a large enough jump for this magical PQ to be realized. I have yet to see in person or see a review that says "This is the movie that shows BD is vastly superior to HD DVD. Without BD this movie would not look this good." It simply will not happen.

Human perception is logarithmic; it takes a larger and larger jump before improvement is noticeable. If something comes after 1080P it wont be 1440P or 1680P it will be 4K which is 8MP vs 2 MP on 1080P. Small incremental increases would do nothing to improve PQ.

Another way to look at it is that an uncompressed 1080P24 2 hour movie is 1200mbps and >1TB in size. VC1/AVC compress this down to about 20-25GB on an HD DVD and 40-42GB on BD. While 25 vs 42 looks like a big increase compare it to the orignal 1000GB+ size. They are both massively compressed by > 50:1. A small increase in bitrate or capacity isn't going to change this. If BD was quad layer 100GB with a transfer rate of >100mbps then we "may" see a substantial improvement in quality but at some point we reach the limit of a 1080P master.

Despite the fact that the original master is 2K or 4K the max quality would still be limited to a 1080P uncompressed video. It is questionable how much more quality could be obtained by doubling or even tripling the bitrate but a small increase like BD offers over HD is negligible.

So an extra 20gb can't be utilized to improve image quality? That suggests the video codecs are approaching lossless quality at HD-DVD bitrates.

Color me skeptical.

No because Blu-Ray is wasting its extra memory on lossless PCM instead of lossless formats which use less memory. And all the reviews indicate that the PQ for both formats is almost identical. Just look at all the movies currently available for both formats Happy Feet, The Departed, Babel, Superman Returns, etc even when Blu-Ray uses MPEG2 at the higher bitrate requiring the additional memory it still looks identical to the VC1 HD DVD version, MI:III is a prime example of this.

If Blu-Ray actually had finalizied specs it could be better than HD DVD, but it doesn't, and that is all that matters what is actually delivered.

So this format war is going to end eventually. Dual format players will end it for a few reasons

1. Dual format players can actually be done

Both formats are the same physical size, they both are even read by the same wavelength laser. This isn't like BetaMax and VHS where different movie physical parts were required. Since it can be done it will be, and more companies will do so in an attempt to get a cut of the hot new HD market.

2. They're already here

Sure the LG player isn't sanctioned for HD DVD use. But other dual format players are coming, the price has nowhere to go expect down. In one years time people will be looking at HD movie players "$200 HD DVD player... $300 Blu-Ray player... or $500 Dualformat player"


3. Neither Side Will Cave

Neither side is going to throw in their hand. There is too much money at stake for either side to call it quits. Especially with the recent news of HD DVDs 100,000 stand alone players, Blu-Rays 1 millionth movie


4. See DVD-R/RAM/+R

No one expects recordable media by itself to be a larger market than the movie industry. Multiformat players put an end to the recordable DVD thing, almost any DVD recorder on the market today records on more than one type of DVD.


5. Drop being a tech savvy guy (or gal) while reading this last point

Consumer: "Ok so I know there are two formats out there but I don't know which one to get..."

Store Employee: "How about this one which plays both HD DVD and Blu-Ray movies"

Average consumers who have a HDTV aren't going to be asking a Best Buy employee "Does this have HDMI 1.2a or HDMI 1.3??? Where are the 5.1 analog outputs!!!" Sure for the tech savvy audio/video lovers on this forum it is important, but for most consumers it won't be about 24/48 audio, it will be about not being stuck with a dead format.


Which brings me to the conclusion that dual-format players are the only logical way to end this format 'war' at this point. Neither side will cave, dual format players can be done, and at this point not much money is being made off of the HD formats. Does anyone really think Universal is going to switch, or Disney is going to switch to make more money? Ha!!! Universal will make more money on the first day of the DVD release of third Bourne movie than the total sales of all three of the Bourne movies combined. Disney will make more money on the first day of the DVD release of POTC3 than on sales of all 3 of the Blu-Ray versions combined.

The format 'war' will most likely end in a conference room with the BDA, HD DVD Promotion Group, and DVD forum agreeing on a dual format standard. Then studios can feel free to take advantage of Blu-Ray for its capacity, or HD DVD for its IME and other features which Blu-Ray lacks.

If this is the case and your prediction comes true. We shall never get to see any Warner title or any other studio that encodes to the lowest common denominator which is HD-DVD leaving 20Gb of space emtpy on Blu-Ray discs they release and low bitrates. Basically I would be getting more of the same low quality from the same studios as nothing changes. At least Disney, Sony and Fox will remain encoding utilizing the Blu-Ray disc to its maximum potential and maybe at that point in time people start realizing the gravity of their mistake which was to support both of these formats. When more non-animated tier 0 titles are released on Blu-Ray than HD-DVD because of higher bitrates and more space, then at that point some of you will understand.

If this is the case and your prediction comes true. We shall never get to see any Warner title or any other studio that encodes to the lowest common denominator which is HD-DVD leaving 20Gb of space emtpy on Blu-Ray discs they release and low bitrates. Basically I would be getting more of the same low quality from the same studios as nothing changes. At least Disney, Sony and Fox will remain encoding utilizing the Blu-Ray disc to its maximum potential and maybe at that point in time people start realizing the gravity of their mistake which was to support both of these formats. When more non-animated tier 0 titles are released on Blu-Ray than HD-DVD because of higher bitrates and more space, then at that point some of you will understand.

Obviously you didn't read the last part, you even quoted it

"Then studios can feel free to take advantage of Blu-Ray for its capacity, or HD DVD for its IME and other features which Blu-Ray lacks."

Next time try that before responding

Exactly what the bluboys seem to forget is that improvements in PQ generally take a magnitude better data rates.

A DVD Quality movie in mpeg4/vc1/avc takes about 2-3 GB. The same movie @ 1080P takes about 6X the space. Many consumers consider HD better but not massively better than a good upconverted DVD. This is with 6 times the bitrate and capacity (i.e 600%). The 50% boost from HD DVD to BD isn't a large enough jump for this magical PQ to be realized. I have yet to see in person or see a review that says "This is the movie that shows BD is vastly superior to HD DVD. Without BD this movie would not look this good." It simply will not happen.

Human perception is logarithmic; it takes a larger and larger jump before improvement is noticeable. If something comes after 1080P it wont be 1440P or 1680P it will be 4K which is 8MP vs 2 MP on 1080P. Small incremental increases would do nothing to improve PQ.

Another way to look at it is that an uncompressed 1080P24 2 hour movie is 1200mbps and >1TB in size. VC1/AVC compress this down to about 20-25GB on an HD DVD and 40-42GB on BD. While 25 vs 42 looks like a big increase compare it to the orignal 1000GB+ size. They are both massively compressed by > 50:1. A small increase in bitrate or capacity isn't going to change this. If BD was quad layer 100GB with a transfer rate of >100mbps then we "may" see a substantial improvement in quality but at some point we reach the limit of a 1080P master.

Despite the fact that the original master is 2K or 4K the max quality would still be limited to a 1080P uncompressed video. It is questionable how much more quality could be obtained by doubling or even tripling the bitrate but a small increase like BD offers over HD is negligible.

Oy I cant stand you people who use facts and common sense to back up assertions :) :p

Exactly what the bluboys seem to forget is that improvements in PQ generally take a magnitude better data rates.

A DVD Quality movie in mpeg4/vc1/avc takes about 2-3 GB. The same movie @ 1080P takes about 6X the space. Many consumers consider HD better but not massively better than a good upconverted DVD. This is with 6 times the bitrate and capacity (i.e 600%). The 50% boost from HD DVD to BD isn't a large enough jump for this magical PQ to be realized. I have yet to see in person or see a review that says "This is the movie that shows BD is vastly superior to HD DVD. Without BD this movie would not look this good." It simply will not happen.

Human perception is logarithmic; it takes a larger and larger jump before improvement is noticeable. If something comes after 1080P it wont be 1440P or 1680P it will be 4K which is 8MP vs 2 MP on 1080P. Small incremental increases would do nothing to improve PQ.

Another way to look at it is that an uncompressed 1080P24 2 hour movie is 1200mbps and >1TB in size. VC1/AVC compress this down to about 20-25GB on an HD DVD and 40-42GB on BD. While 25 vs 42 looks like a big increase compare it to the orignal 1000GB+ size. They are both massively compressed by > 50:1. A small increase in bitrate or capacity isn't going to change this. If BD was quad layer 100GB with a transfer rate of >100mbps then we "may" see a substantial improvement in quality but at some point we reach the limit of a 1080P master.

Despite the fact that the original master is 2K or 4K the max quality would still be limited to a 1080P uncompressed video. It is questionable how much more quality could be obtained by doubling or even tripling the bitrate but a small increase like BD offers over HD is negligible.


Those consumers that can't see much of a difference between up-converted SD-DVD and Blu-Ray must either be partially blind, they need to clean their glasses or get a new prescription, or their TV's are not properly adjusted. All you have to do is play "King Kong" in HD-DVD and then switch over to the SD-DVD. It looks fuzzy as if you need a new prescription. And yes the bit-rate and space (those extra 20GB's mixed with a higher bit-rate) can make a huge difference to the encode. The VC-1 team would never admit to this since they would lose their jobs. Those people are working for Microsoft are paid to spin the issue and make you believe otherwise. However, as more titles get released, the picture quality and sound quality as reviewed by experts will be brutally honest and us as consumers will want the best video and sound quality possible. If at that point in time when the differences become more clear to you and others, (as we shall maybe see with the Pirates of the Caribbean movies on Blu-Ray, 50GB for audio and video, 25Gb second disc for extras) even the most hardened HD-DVD fan-boys will begin to realize the greater quality Blu-ray possesses and many will start to support it or demand that all movie studio’s rise up and create their movies to the highest standard and not compress everything to 8-12MB VC-1 because they say it is transparent to the master….(yeah right).

Obviously you didn't read the last part, you even quoted it

"Then studios can feel free to take advantage of Blu-Ray for its capacity, or HD DVD for its IME and other features which Blu-Ray lacks."

Next time try that before responding


Warner or any other studio that is releasing the same film on both will be using (to save money) the same encode for both 99% of the time. My point is your theory about them being able to choose will not go the positive direction in which you are thinking but stay the status quo and remain as only one encode for both.

Warner or any other studio that is releasing the same film on both will be using (to save money) the same encode for both 99% of the time. My point is your theory about them being able to choose will not go the positive direction in which you are thinking but stay the status quo and remain as only one encode for both.

Don't blame HD DVD for Blu-Rays lack of standard features. King Kong on a "measely" 30 GB disc can easily best most Blu-Ray movies. MI:III looks identical on both formats, however Paramount gave the Blu-Ray version a very high bitrate MPEG2 encode, how do you explain that?

Don't blame HD DVD for Blu-Rays lack of standard features. King Kong on a "measely" 30 GB disc can easily best most Blu-Ray movies. MI:III looks identical on both formats, however Paramount gave the Blu-Ray version a very high bitrate MPEG2 encode, how do you explain that?

Mpeg2 is last generation. If Paramount would have used AVC for the Blu-Ray at a very high bitrate in comparison to the HD-DVD VC-1, you would have seen a difference in many scenes that were overly compressed. Also, if Mpeg2 which is old and dated can achieve the same quality as VC-1 on HD-DVD30, then I rest my case. Use a more efficient codec like AVC with Blu-Ray and you can’t match it with VC-1 when you have 20GB of more space to work with…

And King Kong is not teir 0 quality.. Sorry but it simply isn't. Top of tier 1 for sure in comparison to other non-animated HD-DVD titles, but it has certain flaws which should move it down.

Mpeg2 is last generation. If Paramount would have used AVC for the Blu-Ray at a very high bitrate in comparison to the HD-DVD VC-1, you would have seen a difference in many scenes that were overly compressed. Also, if Mpeg2 which is old and dated can achieve the same quality as VC-1 on HD-DVD30, then I rest my case. Use a more efficient codec like AVC with Blu-Ray and you can’t match it with VC-1 when you have 20GB of more space to work with…

Which goes back to my original statement. It doesn't matter what something can hypothetically deliver, it only matters what IS delivered

I can't wait till the TL 51 GB HD DVD discs get here so you Blu-Ray fanboys are temporarily silenced.

Which goes back to my original statement. It doesn't matter what something can hypothetically deliver, it only matters what IS delivered

I can't wait till the TL 51 GB HD DVD discs get here so you Blu-Ray fanboys are temporarily silenced.


TL51 HD-DVD's are still marred by the lower bitrate cap HD-DVD has. And Black Hawk Down as well as Casino Royale which are tier 1 titles are in my opinion of higher quality than King Kong. Even The Prestige is more impressive to me than King Kong as an encoded transfer. What King Kong had that made it impressive to watch was lots of action, lots of bright colors, and excellent sound. However the Picture Quality suffered enough that it is noticeable in multiple shots that has low bitrates. The extra space and maxing out the bitrates using HD-DVD51 would have helped a lot, however even then the higher bitrates that Blu-Ray provides would be better, so using Blu-Ray ultimately is still better..You can argue all you want that even though it will look better on Blu-Ray, it might not be enough of a difference so it isn't necessary. That is like saying it isn't necessary to jump from Camaro to a Corvette since both are fast. However the Corvette is faster.

Which leads me back to this format war needs to be won and hopefully Blu-Ray wins out. I can understand your DRM complaint with Sony, however that is why it has the studio support it has. And so far I haven't had any issues with playback.. HD-DVD51 is not going to silence me not even for awhile since encodes will be VC-1 capped at the low HD-DVD level so it will be more of the same.

Exactly what the bluboys seem to forget is that improvements in PQ generally take a magnitude better data rates.

A DVD Quality movie in mpeg4/vc1/avc takes about 2-3 GB. The same movie @ 1080P takes about 6X the space. Many consumers consider HD better but not massively better than a good upconverted DVD. This is with 6 times the bitrate and capacity (i.e 600%). The 50% boost from HD DVD to BD isn't a large enough jump for this magical PQ to be realized. I have yet to see in person or see a review that says "This is the movie that shows BD is vastly superior to HD DVD. Without BD this movie would not look this good." It simply will not happen.

Human perception is logarithmic; it takes a larger and larger jump before improvement is noticeable. If something comes after 1080P it wont be 1440P or 1680P it will be 4K which is 8MP vs 2 MP on 1080P. Small incremental increases would do nothing to improve PQ.

Another way to look at it is that an uncompressed 1080P24 2 hour movie is 1200mbps and >1TB in size. VC1/AVC compress this down to about 20-25GB on an HD DVD and 40-42GB on BD. While 25 vs 42 looks like a big increase compare it to the orignal 1000GB+ size. They are both massively compressed by > 50:1. A small increase in bitrate or capacity isn't going to change this. If BD was quad layer 100GB with a transfer rate of >100mbps then we "may" see a substantial improvement in quality but at some point we reach the limit of a 1080P master.

Despite the fact that the original master is 2K or 4K the max quality would still be limited to a 1080P uncompressed video. It is questionable how much more quality could be obtained by doubling or even tripling the bitrate but a small increase like BD offers over HD is negligible.

****, I hate when I have to think so much when reading a retort! Great little bit of info namechamps.

cheers.

Exactly what the bluboys seem to forget is that improvements in PQ generally take a magnitude better data rates.

A DVD Quality movie in mpeg4/vc1/avc takes about 2-3 GB. The same movie @ 1080P takes about 6X the space. Many consumers consider HD better but not massively better than a good upconverted DVD. This is with 6 times the bitrate and capacity (i.e 600%). The 50% boost from HD DVD to BD isn't a large enough jump for this magical PQ to be realized. I have yet to see in person or see a review that says "This is the movie that shows BD is vastly superior to HD DVD. Without BD this movie would not look this good." It simply will not happen.

Human perception is logarithmic; it takes a larger and larger jump before improvement is noticeable. If something comes after 1080P it wont be 1440P or 1680P it will be 4K which is 8MP vs 2 MP on 1080P. Small incremental increases would do nothing to improve PQ.

Another way to look at it is that an uncompressed 1080P24 2 hour movie is 1200mbps and >1TB in size. VC1/AVC compress this down to about 20-25GB on an HD DVD and 40-42GB on BD. While 25 vs 42 looks like a big increase compare it to the orignal 1000GB+ size. They are both massively compressed by > 50:1. A small increase in bitrate or capacity isn't going to change this. If BD was quad layer 100GB with a transfer rate of >100mbps then we "may" see a substantial improvement in quality but at some point we reach the limit of a 1080P master.

Despite the fact that the original master is 2K or 4K the max quality would still be limited to a 1080P uncompressed video. It is questionable how much more quality could be obtained by doubling or even tripling the bitrate but a small increase like BD offers over HD is negligible.


Some insightful facts here namechamps. Keep it coming. Great retort.

cheers.

TL51 HD-DVD's are still marred by the lower bitrate cap HD-DVD has. And Black Hawk Down as well as Casino Royale which are tier 1 titles are in my opinion of higher quality than King Kong. Even The Prestige is more impressive to me than King Kong as an encoded transfer. What King Kong had that made it impressive to watch was lots of action, lots of bright colors, and excellent sound. However the Picture Quality suffered enough that it is noticeable in multiple shots that has low bitrates. The extra space and maxing out the bitrates using HD-DVD51 would have helped a lot, however even then the higher bitrates that Blu-Ray provides would be better, so using Blu-Ray ultimately is still better..You can argue all you want that even though it will look better on Blu-Ray, it might not be enough of a difference so it isn't necessary. That is like saying it isn't necessary to jump from Camaro to a Corvette since both are fast. However the Corvette is faster.

Which leads me back to this format war needs to be won and hopefully Blu-Ray wins out. I can understand your DRM complaint with Sony, however that is why it has the studio support it has. And so far I haven't had any issues with playback.. HD-DVD51 is not going to silence me not even for awhile since encodes will be VC-1 capped at the low HD-DVD level so it will be more of the same.

You just cant stand the fact that HD DVD movies with its 30 GB capacity easily rival or top the Best Blu-Ray has to offer, just get over it.

You just cant stand the fact that HD DVD movies with its 30 GB capacity easily rival or top the Best Blu-Ray has to offer, just get over it.

LOL, I have both formats and I have done many comparisons. Not just at my home but at two friends who have home theaters with the best 1080p projectors. If HD-DVD was producing better quality at this point in time I would still be supporting it. If you take a look at my earlier posts, you will see I was supporting HD-DVD at the time during Blu-Ray's launch and very crappy early releases that were mpeg2 and on BD25. Things started to change shortly after BD50's came into the picture even though Tears of the Sun was an excellent mpeg2 and BD25 title. I am glad encoders have moved on from that and am even more glad as to what Disney is doing.

So don't be too quick to judge me. Let me ask you this, take away the DRM issues you have problems with, and future Blu-Ray titles come out that surpass HD-DVD quality by most peoples opinions. Would you do as I did and switch sides. Or will you continue to fight for lower quality and sub-standard encodes. I had the option to buy Planet Earth in either HD-DVD and in Blu-Ray. I purchased the Blu-Ray version knowing they will be the same simply because discs get loose when being shipped. And when you purchase a Blu-Ray and the disc gets loose, they don't get scratched.. I believe that too is important to consider as well...

Warner or any other studio that is releasing the same film on both will be using (to save money) the same encode for both 99% of the time. My point is your theory about them being able to choose will not go the positive direction in which you are thinking but stay the status quo and remain as only one encode for both.

Since I have no reservations about HD DVD's performance on average, frankly, I guess I don't care. I also view this stuff over a SONY VLP LCD projector at a 100" diagonal.

I will agree (especially at this size) the difference between unconverted DVD and HD is pronounced.

When I get a combo and inevitably pick up some BDs I'll be the first to admit if they look better, but the word of most truly neutral parties in this neck of the woods is that HD DVD has a very slight edge in picture, which BD can match in the right hands.

LOL, I have both formats and I have done many comparisons. Not just at my home but at two friends who have home theaters with the best 1080p projectors. If HD-DVD was producing better quality at this point in time I would still be supporting it. If you take a look at my earlier posts, you will see I was supporting HD-DVD at the time during Blu-Ray's launch and very crappy early releases that were mpeg2 and on BD25. Things started to change shortly after BD50's came into the picture even though Tears of the Sun was an excellent mpeg2 and BD25 title. I am glad encoders have moved on from that and am even more glad as to what Disney is doing.

So don't be too quick to judge me. Let me ask you this, take away the DRM issues you have problems with, and future Blu-Ray titles come out that surpass HD-DVD quality by most peoples opinions. Would you do as I did and switch sides. Or will you continue to fight for lower quality and sub-standard encodes. I had the option to buy Planet Earth in either HD-DVD and in Blu-Ray. I purchased the Blu-Ray version knowing they will be the same simply because discs get loose when being shipped. And when you purchase a Blu-Ray and the disc gets loose, they don't get scratched.. I believe that too is important to consider as well...


I'm not answering your question because it is based off the false assumption that HD DVD is lower quality. I'm not going to spend $600 MINIMUM to watch a movie in high definition when I can spend less $ and get the same movie in high definition. And I am not going to take away any issues from the equation because they are all present.

At the rate of soudning EXTREMELY repititive I am going to repeat what I have stated twice before in this thread already.

It doesn't matter what HD DVD or Blu-Ray CAN deliver, it only matters what they deliver I am not going to buy a Blu-Ray player for plenty of reasons one of them being the complete lack of IME.

So, if we end up with dual players being the norm, I guess this means that the current dual-format studios will likely settle on one format. Which one will that be?

Unfortunately you are not correct. There is a compiled list of professional review scores by the big reviewing sites, and when the PQ and AQ scores are averaged out, blu-ray wins by a sliver, not HD DVD. As far as audio quality, blu-ray wins hands down based on those compiled scores

Those consumers that can't see much of a difference between up-converted SD-DVD and Blu-Ray must either be partially blind, they need to clean their glasses or get a new prescription, or their TV's are not properly adjusted. All you have to do is play "King Kong" in HD-DVD and then switch over to the SD-DVD.

Completely & utterly irrelevant. You may say "they're blind" but it's the painful truth. I've shown quite a few people upconverts & HDs - while they can tell it's no big deal. It's not as dramatic as SD -> HDTV or VHS -> DVD. Then when you tell them the cost of admission most say "screw that" & think you're a fool for paying much of anything for the "better picture". Given the number of people who have an HDTV let alone one large enough where HiDef media truly matters this market may well remain niche for a long time.

Yeah, I'm crazy - why are so many "talking heads" saying the same thing? (how do we sell a format that offers a minor PQ increase)

Same with the audio - just doesn't matter.

My opinion is that if it can't be sold on price (near what DVD costs now) then it won't be sold at all.

So, if we end up with dual players being the norm, I guess this means that the current dual-format studios will likely settle on one format. Which one will that be?
That's the beauty, they can use whatever best fits their needs. HDDVD will likely be cheaper, but who's to say as it's early in the game.

Those consumers that can't see much of a difference between up-converted SD-DVD and Blu-Ray must either be partially blind, they need to clean their glasses or get a new prescription, or their TV's are not properly adjusted. All you have to do is play "King Kong" in HD-DVD and then switch over to the SD-DVD.

I guess you are still not understanding. HD DVD > DVD but how much greater depends on the consumer. Some say a lot, some say a little but regardless it took a bitrate of 6x the original to have an increase in PQ that is varied in perception. You honestly think an additonal 50% is going to make much more difference that that 600% did? I'll give you a hint for 99% of consumers it won't. I support HD DVD because it has the highest chance on beating DVD. BD may have a higher chance of winning against HD DVD but it will downright lose against DVD and that will set HD back much more.

And yes the bit-rate and space (those extra 20GB's mixed with a higher bit-rate) can make a huge difference to the encode. The VC-1 team would never admit to this since they would lose their jobs.

So you say. But the math isn't with you. First BD won't have 20GB for the movie. 3GB will be lost using PCM over TrueHD/DTS-MA. Another 3-7GB will be lost on junk (i.e more extras I could care less about). Maybe 10GB will be spent towards improving the movie. When you compare a 25GB encode and a 35GB encode vs a 1200GB uncompressed you see how foolish it is to think a couple more bits is going to blow HD DVD away.

Those people are working for Microsoft are paid to spin the issue and make you believe otherwise. However, as more titles get released, the picture quality and sound quality as reviewed by experts will be brutally honest and us as consumers will want the best video and sound quality possible.

Well they have been reviewed. I took the average of PQ on highdefdigest for EVERY HD DVD & BD reviewed. Guess what the stunning results are 3.96 vs 3.93 in favor of HD DVD. Starting to get the point that based on human perception (which is logarithmic not linear) HD DVD and BD are essentially equal.

If at that point in time when the differences become more clear to you and others, even the most hardened HD-DVD fan-boys will begin to realize the greater quality Blu-ray possesses and many will start to support it or demand that all movie studio’s rise up and create their movies to the highest standard....

Promises, promises, promises. I have been hearing it from a different fanboy since 2004. The truth is BD and HD DVD are likely to produce virtually similar PQ in their lifetimes. VC1/AVC will only improve not get worst. If both formats survive and all studios go neutral in a few years you likely couldn't pick out BD vs HD DVD in a double blind test. There is only one difference that matters and that is BD has more expensive mastering, more expensive duplication, more expensive licensing, and more expensive player. More cost is better for everyone except the consumer. More cost means longer for J6P to join and will keep HD a niche that much longer.

Well they have been reviewed. I took the average of PQ on highdefdigest for EVERY HD DVD & BD reviewed. Guess what the stunning results are 3.96 vs 3.93 in favor of HD DVD. Starting to get the point that based on human perception (which is logarithmic not linear) HD DVD and BD are essentially equal.


Promises, promises, promises. I have been hearing it from a different fanboy since 2004. The truth is BD and HD DVD are likely to produce virtually similar PQ in their lifetimes. VC1/AVC will only improve not get worst. If both formats survive and all studios go neutral in a few years you likely couldn't pick out BD vs HD DVD in a double blind test. There is only one difference that matters and that is BD has more expensive mastering, more expensive duplication, more expensive licensing, and more expensive player. More cost is better for everyone except the consumer. More cost means longer for J6P to join and will keep HD a niche that much longer.

Assuming the PQ is "similar" (which is debatable; I'm not convinced VC-1 is the answer), J6P might not care about AQ, but I do. Blu-Ray wins the AQ "battle simply because of the uncompressed PCM releases. Some of you might scoff at this, but I'm VERY interested in "lossless"/uncompressed audio tracks which gets me closest to the audio masters.

Assuming the PQ is "similar" (which is debatable; I'm not convinced VC-1 is the answer), J6P might not care about AQ, but I do. Blu-Ray wins the AQ "battle simply because of the uncompressed PCM releases. Some of you might scoff at this, but I'm VERY interested in "lossless"/uncompressed audio tracks which gets me closest to the audio masters.

What does uncompressed have to do with lossless. Most uncompressed tracks are 16/48 while most lossless TrueHD & DTS-MA tracks are 24/48. More space, less bit depth. Sounds like a winner to me.

In the past, with hifi equipment, when it became difficult to rate quality of various gears, we have relied on scientific equipment to measure various metrics of the equipment itself. Sure the ultra highend would talk about 'warmth' and generally rely on subjective tests to judge better oxygen free copper or class-A amplifiers, and they may be right. Or not. I don't really know.

But I do know that for the general public, with casette tapes for example, scientific tests for frequency response and wow & flutter and THD were norms. With speakers, people mapped how flat the frequency response was within 20Hz-20kHz. And the methodology used were very thorough. In some cases anechoic chambers were used, in others, testing rooms were meticulously setup to make audio comparisons experiments with scientific methods.

TVs were also measured in similar ways -- using also test patterns and measuring equipment.

Consumers (most enthusiasts anyway) generally rely on such technical reviews to base their buying decisions, in fact the CE industry itself would design and build equipment around satisfying the desired technical measurements for these cE gear as presented in these technical reviews.

Today, we talk about PQ on purely subjective levels, besides the eye candy tier systems, we also have reviewers with various different displays, eyeballing movies with their own well meaning objectivity on PQ-ness. But in the end, these are still subjective observations that pops out a magic PQ score.

While we can't know mistakes in the digital master unless we know what master is used, there is a technical way to review each of these BD and HDDVD disks to at least look at the quality of the encode itself. Most corporations can't do it, but it's not a shock to people here that the video streams on any red or blue disk is available to anyone who really wants them (at least so far).

A technical reviewer of the actual quality of compression on any one disk can generally simply do a purely scientific review of the compressed streams on any of these disks and obtain various statistics : average or peak bitrates can say something, but the true measure of good compression is to look at the distribution of actual quantization factors in the elementary video stream.

Why is quantization factor/scale an important metric for quality of compression? Well, everything else in compression (other than in loop filters) is basically lossless, and lower quantization means the in loop filters are less likely to kick in.

More sophisticated means can further be used as the field of measuring compression quality of each disk matures. For example, while we don't have the actual digital master, the quantization and in some cases, the modification of the pixels pre to post-overlap smoothing and post-in-loop-filter can also be gathered as part of the general statistics.

IE: the more the pixel values change because of filtering, the lower the PQ score, and the higher the quantization, the lower the PQ score should be. But the quantization should be a geometric mean so that each decision to have macroblocks with quantization that deviates too far from standard should be penalized more heavily.

Until such methods are in place, PQ comparisons across titles are generally meaningless.

If both formats survive and all studios go neutral in a few years you likely couldn't pick out BD vs HD DVD in a double blind test.
Exactly - double blind tests will show even "professionals" can't tell....................but as evidenced by the amp/reciever & speaker section it certainly won't stop many from saying they can :D

Like this example (http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx)

What does uncompressed have to do with lossless. Most uncompressed tracks are 16/48 while most lossless TrueHD & DTS-MA tracks are 24/48. More space, less bit depth. Sounds like a winner to me.

I should have caveated that I want the uncompressed to be 24/48 or whatever the orignal audio master is at. I'm not very happy with 16/48 PCM either which plagues too many of the current discs. Too bad there's likely to be no way to A/B 24/48 PCM, 16/48 PCM, TrueHD, and DTS HD MA of the same source material in my system to eliminate (or confirm?) my concerns about any deviations from the original masters.

I like to rent movies from Net Flix and with rare exception do I ever buy a disc because I only like to watch movies one time. Initially HDDVD had much better performance but now blue ray has caught up and its pretty much a wash. when I look at all the HIDef titles on Netflix and it looks like half are blueray and half are hddvd. Both formats are a substantial Improvement in image quality, even so, their are a vastly more dvd titles available than any other format. this is why i am anxiously waitng for the release of the nes Panasonic dual disc player because it also includes the same HQV upconversion chip which is used in the Toshiba XA2. so not only will you be able to play both hidef formats , you will also have very good upconversion on your standard disks. Content rules

Great points by the OP and some great some great points by fans from all (HD DVD/BD/Neutral) sides.

I’m hopeful about the Samsung Dual Format Player due out later this year. Since it will have full spec for both formats I think it could be a great machine. If the price drops somewhere south I might even be able to sell the wife on getting one since she’s a fan of Samsung products.

On a positive note; if dual format players succeed and if one format then dominates studio releases (BD for high capacity HD DVD for lower costs, et al) as a result we can expect to see clearance prices on the abandoned format. Imagine getting the entire POTC Trilogy or Matrix Trilogy for less than $30.

If both formats survive and all studios go neutral in a few years you likely couldn't pick out BD vs HD DVD in a double blind test.

I bet people couldn't do that now.

A group of us got together and compared some HD-DVD's and Blu-ray discs of the same title. Some of the titles used the same codec (VC-1). Some used different codecs (MPEG-2 vs VC-1). Viewing was on an ISF Calibrated Sony Qualia on a 133" screen. The general consensus? No observable difference in normal viewing.

Even when doing close comparisons with frames paused, the differences were extremely minor, and could have easily had just as much to do with what the player was doing than any difference in the actual format.

And those small differences were regarding color saturation. So even then, we could not say which was the more "accurate".