Hello HD DVD and Blu-ray Enthusiasts.

I have written what I believe to be a well reasoned argument as to the current superiority of HD DVD over Blu-ray disc.

No, wait! Don't write me off yet if you're a Blu-ray fan, and don't pat me on the back if you're from the HD DVD camp.

What I'm looking for is a rational, flame-free discussion of what I see as current advantages of HD DVD, and current failures of Blu-ray in terms of video codec offerings and media capacity.

What I'm really talking about is the technologies "under the hood". Video compression, the utilization of each format's potential abilities. The things I'm discussing there are thigns each side has the option to benefit from.

I own HD DVD, and prefer that format. However, I fully realize that HD DVD has its flaws. I'll be honest, I think if it made use of all its potential advantages, Blu-ray could be a better format than HD DVD, but I feel it's like a superstar athlete that mails it in half the time - not giving its best.

The more IMPORTANT thing than who wins the format war, though is that whichever format wins, we, as consumers deserve for the victorious format to exclusively use the most advanced technologies available in terms of audio, video, and interactivity to provide us the best experience, period. So whether it's BD or HD, I want the best LONG TERM.

Please join the discussion...but only if you're willing to take part in rational debate. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know it, but if I'm right, we all deserve to believe it. Let's not get another thread closed due to flame-fests.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=880960

Thanks for reading,

Trent

Bump - I'll only do it once, promise.

Here is something that dobyblue has compiled that would go well with your signature:

Correct and not much has changed since the July 9th update.
Lots more Universal titles added though, but this hasn't done much to help the average HD DVD scores.

HDD 208HD/228BD, HTS 201HD/213BD, HTF 65HD/86BD, UD 133HD/123BD, Talk 248HD/262BD
07.24.07
HD DVD PQ SQ TOTAL Blu-ray PQ SQ TOTAL
HighDef 3.89 3.62 3.75 HighDef 3.98 3.83 3.91
HTSpot 3.92 3.83 3.88 HTSpot 4.04 4.24 4.14
DVDTalk 3.65 3.48 3.57 DVDTalk 3.66 3.69 3.68
HTForum 3.99 3.69 3.84 HTForum 4.30 4.08 4.19
UpDisc 4.02 3.81 3.92 UpDisc 4.06 4.15 4.10
Totals 3.88 3.68 3.78 Totals 3.94 3.95 3.94

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
4.02 Paramount
3.95 Warner
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.80 Weinstein
3.73 Universal
3.66 Lionsgate

SQ Studio
4.38 Buena Vista
4.12 Sony
4.08 Fox
3.81 Lionsgate
3.81 Paramount
3.63 Warner
3.63 Universal
3.63 Weinstein

Well, it was cool idea. :(

As a BD supporter, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to post in the HDDVD forums. However, when HDDVD dies, all your favorite studios can use whatever techniques they are using now on BD. Both formats support the same codecs, so that just isn't an issue.

As a BD supporter, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to post in the HDDVD forums.
I believe that says what I feel quite succintly.

I also find the arguments flawed, since we're talking strictly from a use of specifications point of view. There's a lot of HD DVD discs and Blu-ray discs that don't come anywhere near using their capacity (and in fact a lot of HD DVDs don't even use enough capacity to reach the BD25 limit).

There's more to the format war than just raw numbers. Suffice to say that both HD DVD and Blu-ray can produce excellent PQ and AQ for the majority of content.

I believe that says what I feel quite succintly.

I also find the arguments flawed, since we're talking strictly from a use of specifications point of view. There's a lot of HD DVD discs and Blu-ray discs that don't come anywhere near using their capacity (and in fact a lot of HD DVDs don't even use enough capacity to reach the BD25 limit).

There's more to the format war than just raw numbers. Suffice to say that both HD DVD and Blu-ray can produce excellent PQ and AQ for the majority of content.

+1

I read your piece. A couple of comments.

1. The arguments are very flawed and outdated. These arguments were used last summer, when MPEG2 and PCM were the principle codecs in use on Blu-ray and could readily be blamed for Sony's inept launch, but hardly apply today at all. We are seeing high-band AVC encodes (which would not even fit on HD DVD), TrueHD, etc., and current Blu-ray product is at least as accomplished as HD DVD in terms of technical specs and results on the screen and soundsystem of your HT.

2. We have had a large number of arguments about technical specs. I don't think the specs are sufficiently different to justify the format war, and in any case are not going to decide the format war. Marketing issues, content, vendors, pricing, etc., will decide this format war, not codecs, capacities, or similar issues.

I am answering here because I generally avoid the HD DVD forums except for answers to pat factual questions.

Blu-rays current weakness isn't the codecs used (MPEG2 can look quite good given adequate bitrate) it's the hardware platform.

Improvements in disc storage and bandwidth mask what is a poor hardware platform. HD DVD hit the ground running with dual Audio and Video decoders. They deliver Ethernet on every player and every player has persistent storage so the mechanism for saving and retrieving data is working today.

Blu-rays interactive layer sucks as well. I believe they have BD-Java for interactivity but then when authoring discs I think you have to utilize other core technologies like BD Movie Mode (BD-MV) for the good stuff and BD-AV is for the basic stuff but surprise not all Blu-ray players support both depending on firmware so you have potential "gotchas" there. It seems rather convoluted. You need to compile your Java authored interactivity.

HDi sounds like more of a unified system that handles the interactivity, networking and menus. No compiling is needed because it's XML based. People naturally assume that Java is going to be better because it can do so much but frankly I'm looking for good menus and interactivity..not running a full blown app on my player. HDi for the win. Java has seen it's best day...sorry Sun.

Blu-ray doesn't begin to close the gap until Profile 1.1 and 2.0 come and add the "missing features" perplexing though is that networking still isn't standard. I think HD DVD is going to be a much safer bet for adding network access and honestly I think there is revenue potential on the other end of that ethernet jack for studios.

Both formats need to embrace HDMI-CEC for control and move to 1.3a for native bitstream.

My opinion is HD DVD hardware is better..for now. The bandwidth and storage have not proven to be a limitation and I prefer 2-disc premium discs so the movie need only contain the IME stuff IMO. LOL

Tdavis, I see you learned from my post to you yesterday concerning Blu-ray BD50 releases and abandoned your "10% BD50" stance... alas, you have decided to cherry-pick and spin the stats in creating your sig.


The more IMPORTANT thing than who wins the format war, though is that whichever format wins, we, as consumers deserve for the victorious format to exclusively use the most advanced technologies available in terms of audio, video, and interactivity to provide us the best experience, period. So whether it's BD or HD, I want the best LONG TERM.

If you want the best technologies "long-term," well... Blu-ray then. Even the interactivity and special features that are currently absent in their entirety - and which you are fond of - are potentially much more robust and expansive on BD via Java than on HD DVD via iHD. So the question is back to you: are you in it for instant gratification, or the longterm? Yes, maybe that means for some people waiting for a full-spec player before they enter this game. Patience is a virtue, and where HD DVD might have been able to claim superiority in 2006 and a good chunk of 2007, I have no doubt that what impresses you most on HD DVD will impress you even moreso on BD in 2008, 2009, 1010, and beyond...

And I feel obligated to provide the sig counterpoint here as well:

In 2007, 62% of Blu-ray titles are on BD50, with the rate increasing, and 62% of titles are on VC-1 or AVC, with the rate increasing. (not that I even mind a good MPEG-2 encode...)

I'll give it a shot:

Blu-ray:
- Bigger
- Faster

HD DVD:
- Doesn't use Java (a personal distaste and distrust, sorry java-heads)
- No region coding
- Doesn't use BD+

I don't factor in studios or retailers since those will change as and when. I also don't factor in TL51 for HD DVD.

Verdict: I'm on the fence with a slight preference for Blu-ray.

Hello HD DVD and Blu-ray Enthusiasts.

I have written what I believe to be a well reasoned argument as to the current superiority of HD DVD over Blu-ray disc.

No, wait! Don't write me off yet if you're a Blu-ray fan, and don't pat me on the back if you're from the HD DVD camp.

What I'm looking for is a rational, flame-free discussion of what I see as current advantages of HD DVD, and current failures of Blu-ray in terms of video codec offerings and media capacity.



I read your post in the other thread. Let's say all your arguments are valid. So what have you proved? That HD-DVD uses disk space more efficiently than BD. So what?

Do you really hope to attract consumers to HD-DVD by telling them it uses disk space more efficiently than BD? If this is HD-DVD's next tag line, then there is no doubt that BD has won.

Frankly, this sounds like the consolation prize for the also ran. Like the higher attach rate.

Sorry if this is not the discussion you were hoping for but, reading your post, and despite the fact that it is well articulated, it's really hard to find a point that actually matters. For better or for worse, we're way beyond the stage where technology alone could determine the outcome.

I'll give it a shot:

Blu-ray:
- Bigger
- Faster

HD DVD:
- Doesn't use Java (a personal distaste and distrust, sorry java-heads)
- No region coding
- Doesn't use BD+

I don't factor in studios or retailers since those will change as and when. I also don't factor in TL51 for HD DVD.

Verdict: I'm on the fence with a slight preference for Blu-ray.

Good stuff...this and your sig leads me to believe you're more about civil discussion that is helpful. Giving credit to those fine gentleman is a noble thing. Thanks for leading by example.

Blu-rays current weakness isn't the codecs used (MPEG2 can look quite good given adequate bitrate) it's the hardware platform.

Improvements in disc storage and bandwidth mask what is a poor hardware platform. HD DVD hit the ground running with dual Audio and Video decoders. They deliver Ethernet on every player and every player has persistent storage so the mechanism for saving and retrieving data is working today.

Blu-rays interactive layer sucks as well. I believe they have BD-Java for interactivity but then when authoring discs I think you have to utilize other core technologies like BD Movie Mode (BD-MV) for the good stuff and BD-AV is for the basic stuff but surprise not all Blu-ray players support both depending on firmware so you have potential "gotchas" there. It seems rather convoluted. You need to compile your Java authored interactivity.

HDi sounds like more of a unified system that handles the interactivity, networking and menus. No compiling is needed because it's XML based. People naturally assume that Java is going to be better because it can do so much but frankly I'm looking for good menus and interactivity..not running a full blown app on my player. HDi for the win. Java has seen it's best day...sorry Sun.

Blu-ray doesn't begin to close the gap until Profile 1.1 and 2.0 come and add the "missing features" perplexing though is that networking still isn't standard. I think HD DVD is going to be a much safer bet for adding network access and honestly I think there is revenue potential on the other end of that ethernet jack for studios.

Both formats need to embrace HDMI-CEC for control and move to 1.3a for native bitstream.

My opinion is HD DVD hardware is better..for now. The bandwidth and storage have not proven to be a limitation and I prefer 2-disc premium discs so the movie need only contain the IME stuff IMO. LOL

I fully agree.

Blu-rays current weakness isn't the codecs used (MPEG2 can look quite good given adequate bitrate) it's the hardware platform.

Improvements in disc storage and bandwidth mask what is a poor hardware platform. HD DVD hit the ground running with dual Audio and Video decoders. They deliver Ethernet on every player and every player has persistent storage so the mechanism for saving and retrieving data is working today.

Blu-rays interactive layer sucks as well. I believe they have BD-Java for interactivity but then when authoring discs I think you have to utilize other core technologies like BD Movie Mode (BD-MV) for the good stuff and BD-AV is for the basic stuff but surprise not all Blu-ray players support both depending on firmware so you have potential "gotchas" there. It seems rather convoluted. You need to compile your Java authored interactivity.

HDi sounds like more of a unified system that handles the interactivity, networking and menus. No compiling is needed because it's XML based. People naturally assume that Java is going to be better because it can do so much but frankly I'm looking for good menus and interactivity..not running a full blown app on my player. HDi for the win. Java has seen it's best day...sorry Sun.

Blu-ray doesn't begin to close the gap until Profile 1.1 and 2.0 come and add the "missing features" perplexing though is that networking still isn't standard. I think HD DVD is going to be a much safer bet for adding network access and honestly I think there is revenue potential on the other end of that ethernet jack for studios.

Both formats need to embrace HDMI-CEC for control and move to 1.3a for native bitstream.

My opinion is HD DVD hardware is better..for now. The bandwidth and storage have not proven to be a limitation and I prefer 2-disc premium discs so the movie need only contain the IME stuff IMO. LOL

Right on the money!

But I really hope Universal does go format neutral so they can just be allowed to enjoy King Kong, and leave the more advanced HD DVD format in peace. Scorch the earth of the SD DVD owners instead!

Right on the money!

But I really hope Universal does go format neutral so these BD lemmings can just be allowed to enjoy King Kong, and leave the more advanced HD DVD format in peace. Scorch the earth of the SD DVD owners instead!

Shouldn't all the studios just get together and hash out a plan to support both formats? Warner's already tried to lay the groundwork with TotalHD.

One format doesn't necessarily have to die if content is available fully on both platforms.

I think most of the capacity and codec arguments are less relevent than the hardware advantages HD DVD has in mandatory specs , consistent platform, simplier optics , and overall lower costs.

I think that both formats are soon if now delivering quality and have a critical mass of titles available for consumer purchase,

Sofware sales are slow IMHO because of low retailer support but this should change by the end of the year.

HD DVD will have a dramatic price advantage during the last few months of the year and has the advantage in that the software is easier to write for in its advanced iHD capabilities as even the 1st gen players are mandatory with persistent storage, and internet and network and HDMI and USB jacks for expansion. Another advantage is the earliest players have enough CPU and memory in them for expansive firmware updates.

There has been just one HD DVD platform to write for, while Blu-ray is still a quilt of hardware profiles and has a much more complicated BD-J tool to author with.

More studio support may be a non issue to many consumers if most titles are common and HD DVD will be at consumer freindly prices this fall and Blu-ray will be more expensive.

I fully agree.

Let me add this then...

I have the utmost respect for anyone who makes a 50Gb disc. In fact, blu-ray could be a great format and I'll support it if it wins (and I think all studios will do the same in regard to any of the two dueling formats).

But let me say this:

From the producer's point of view, I think HD DVD makes a lot more sense. Disc production/replication seems to be simpler and cheaper. The same for authoring. Microsoft's HDI seems to be more suited for producers that want to do more in their discs while spending less.

And I really fear (honest fear) that the BD50 disc will not be a money-viable choice thus it will not be adopted in the way most of the people who champion it think it will. In fact, my humble opinion says that the 50Gb disc is not comparable to the DVD9's success - as many think.

HD DVD, on the other hand is a lot more flexible (for example) in terms of space. So far, no one is using the the 15Gb disc because (just like Sony is avoiding the 25Gb disc) because of politics.

But I believe that will change in the future as many more producers arrive at these formats... without the need for lots of space. Then, we may see lots of HD DVD15/17, BD25 and HD DVD30/34.

Thanks

I fully agree. me too. :D

Shouldn't all the studios just get together and hash out a plan to support both formats? Warner's already tried to lay the groundwork with TotalHD.

One format doesn't necessarily have to die if content is available fully on both platforms.

Well yeah. I didn't mean when I said leave HD DVD "in peace" to mean RIP, but that's probably the way it sounded. HD DVD is sufficiently strong to be embraced on the merits of its technology by the more savy customers.

Shouldn't all the studios just get together and hash out a plan to support both formats? Warner's already tried to lay the groundwork with TotalHD.

One format doesn't necessarily have to die if content is available fully on both platforms.

if that happens today, Blu-ray will die tomorrow ;) (disclaimer i am not high nor am i drunk - i am being realistic and rationale)

Well yeah. I didn't mean when I said leave HD DVD "in peace" to mean RIP, but that's probably the way it sounded. HD DVD is sufficiently strong to be embraced on the merits of its technology by the more savy customers.

Tom ..no you were pretty clear. I guess I was just trying to place myself in the studios shoes but then again I often ask why. They delivered VHS and DVD for years and some jumped into DVHS.

Everything about this battle feels political.

Looks like HDDVD supporters are more concerned over gimmicks such as interactivity rather than the movie itself. I don't get it.

Looks like HDDVD supporters are more concerned over gimmicks such as interactivity rather than the movie itself. I don't get it.

The gimmick most sought after by me is compatibility. Your format uses burners costing up to a $1000 and the BD-R/RE disks don't even play on half the players. Now do you get it?

Looks like HDDVD supporters are more concerned over gimmicks such as interactivity rather than the movie itself. I don't get it.

Where did you get that impression?

I'd say that (like in everything) one has to look at all angles in order to make a choice. What you call "the movie itself" is just one of the components. There are several others... and I, for example, showed just one of those components a few posts above. Hmurchinson brought others. All very valid. And by the way... what do you mean by "the movie itself"?

What amazes me is that the Blu-ray camp does not seem to look at anything beyond these key elements: a) Studio/CE support, b) disc size, c) bandwidth and d) hard coating. All these elements are great marketing weapons towards anyone who do not see how incomplete the whole picture really is based just on that.

Being an HD DVD supporter, I'd say that the only thing Blu-ray supporters claim to be HD DVD's only point of interest, a) the HD DVD player price, is the least interesting think about it and one of the format's lesser weapons as a real long term HD answer to SD DVD (the title Blu-ray is also fighting for).

What I'm looking for is a rational, flame-free discussion of what I see as current advantages of HD DVD, and current failures of Blu-ray in terms of video codec offerings and media capacity.


LOL, do you honestly think that you are going to get rational discussion with out of your arse statements like that.

Go ahead keep believing that you made a superior choice. Your entitled to your opinion, but IMHO HD DVD has a list of short comings as well. Namely storage space and BW limitations.

If HD is truly why you are buying the format, to enjoy your titles with the best picture and audio, BD has the best of both worlds, advanced codecs like AVC and VC1 and uncompressed PCM along with a significant storage and BW advagtage.

You think HD DVD is better fine, but you are not going to sway people here. You might sway a few who come here, but looking at the PRs that keep coming down the pipe along w/ BD exclusive summer blockbuster titles that will soon be available HD DVD has a much tougher road ahead than BD does.

if that happens today, Blu-ray will die tomorrow ;) (disclaimer i am not high nor am i drunk - i am being realistic and rationale)

If that bastardized disc standard is my only option I am done with HDM.

Let see we will no longer have BD50 crippled by HD DVD encodes for 30G, but we will have HD DVD 30s crippled by 25G.

BTW, Dream, dream, dream, dream, dream. TotalHD is going nowhere. I think the reason it was postponed is because by the time it is ready it won't matter. Delaying it is just a way to save face. I will be surprised if it is ever mentioned again by Warner.

Shouldn't all the studios just get together and hash out a plan to support both formats? Warner's already tried to lay the groundwork with TotalHD.

One format doesn't necessarily have to die if content is available fully on both platforms.There are multiple problems with that, including that some studios seem to want one of the formats to die (and for valid reasons IMO). As an example, if Disney has to release on both formats in a few years that means doing all their advanced stuff in both BD-J and HDi. Why would they want to do that? Then Blu-ray put stuff in to try to stop professional piracy. Why would the studios that were in favor of that want to help a format stick around that they would have to release on and that the professional pirates could just use to do what they do (reducing the money the studios can get themselves)? Basically, what was the whole point of trying to keep from losing some of the markets to piracy that the studios did on DVD, by having things like the ROM-Mark if the pirates can just get everything from the other format that didn't put anything like that in their design? And if Disney wants the ability to region encode some of their discs, why would they want to put themselves in a situation where they have to release on both formats for financial reasons and basically negate most of the whole point to them of using region encoding?

People can disagree with them on philosphical grounds or whatever, but just from a business standpoint I can't figure out why anybody would think that Disney would want both formats to survive and increase the costs and hassles. I'm guessing they liked having just one format with DVD, even though they wanted to fix one or more of the problems they had with it.

Amir has said that Microsoft wanted the formats to be more alike as far as things like HDi and BD-J and I can understand that. Might have been good. But it isn't the reality we have, which is that they are different and doing really advanced stuff for both is going to cost more than doing the same advanced stuff for just one of those. If you were Disney would you want to be employing both HDi programmers and BD-J programmers for your high definition movie releases on discs in a few years and put yourself in a situation of paying money just to duplicate basically the same effort, if you could employ just one type and use that time and money for something else?

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Disney's list of the outcomes they would pick ranked first to last are:

1. Blu-ray win
2. HD DVD win
3. Both formats basically tie and they have to release on both for years.

I have a hard time imaging any studio other than Warner (because of their royalities from HD DVD) and Sony, looking at it from a financial standpoint, preferring a tie over a win, even a win by their 2nd choice.

--Darin

What I'm looking for is a rational, flame-free discussion of what I see as current advantages of HD DVD, and current failures of Blu-ray in terms of video codec offerings and media capacity.


Advantages and failures are not that important. Visions and choices are. Because advantages and failures depend on those. If you chose to have a 50Gb disc, do you really need VC1? If you have PCM, do you need TrueHD or DTS? But why do you have TruHD and VC1? And why do you have mp3? Who's gonna pay for 50Gb? Will anyone want just 15Gb? Why do you want/need BD java? Why do you want/need an ethernet port in every single player?

It all depends on what vision do you have and the way you chose to go. No doubt that you'll watch films in both formats in glorious HD... but they both represent two very distinct paradigms of how to run things. All things.


Go ahead keep believing that you made a superior choice. Your entitled to your opinion, but IMHO HD DVD has a list of short comings as well. Namely storage space and BW limitations.


I think nobody here claims to have found the perfect format. The real question is: given everybody's necessities (consumers, producers, etc etc etc) in all aspects (PQ, SQ, price, time, compatibility, implementation, hardware, investment, demand, etc etc etc etc), which format seems to be the better answer?

Many (myself included) say HD DVD.
Others say Blu-ray.

In each format, there are compromises you have to do. None of them is perfect (yesterday, today or tomorrow). That's is why one has to look beyond specs. Because specs may never come true because of many reasons.


If HD is truly why you are buying the format, to enjoy your titles with the best picture and audio, BD has the best of both world, advanced codecs like AVC and VC1 and uncompressed PCM along with a significant storage and BW advagtage.


Between the "COULD BE" and the "WILL BE" there are miles and miles of uncharted waters. Betamax appeared to be better and it did not win. Was VHS bad? Were 500 million VHS customers ill served? Of course not. Note that I am not comparing Beta, VHS, DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray.

All I'm saying is that regardless of specs, the Industry and the market, in all their financial practical wisdom are the ones who will tell if those advantages are in tune with two things: needs and means. Needs and means may dictate weird scenarios like this: (for example) an under use of blu-ray's glorious specs to lower than HD DVD's lowest seen specs. Isn't this weird? Sure. Impossible? No, because a format out of tune with current and future needs and means can win through force, marketing and PR... but needs and means will crippled it later on. I have no doubt (but that's me). Right now, we are all living in bliss since it appears that Blu-ray is living outside the real world, fighting hard (and costly) to show us the wonders of can be. It COULD be. But if it cannot, it WILL BE worse than HD DVD.

Thinking of that, I'd say that your points (the "why" you think blu-ray is better) are no better.


You think HD DVD is better fine, but you are not going to sway people here. You might sway a few who come here, but looking at the PRs that keep coming down the pipe along w/ BD exclusive summer blockbuster titles that will soon be available.


Spoken like a true Blu-ray supporter. That's all I can say.


HD DVD has a much tougher road ahead than BD does.


Possible.
Some may say that if we think of how tough "tough" is, we don't even get out of bed. Still we do get out of bed. :)

Looks like HDDVD supporters are more concerned over gimmicks such as interactivity rather than the movie itself. I don't get it.

A current talking point for HD DVD is its interactivity and PIP capability. I fully understand why Microsoft evangelists are talking about interactivity today. What they will talk about later is not so clear.

A cursory look at the Blu-ray roadmap shows that this is only a temporary advantage. Indeed, the capabilities of Blu-ray will soon exceed what can be done with HD DVD. Profile 1.1 offers two hd video streams at the same time. This will of course provide a Warners-style "IME" but will do much more, at least in the hands of Blu-ray studios that want to show what it will be able to do.

HD DVD was always about the quick fix. Blu-ray has always been for the long term. We saw this last year when BD50 took a bit longer to get operational. Everyone I have ever discusssed this with has thought that Blu-ray's bandwidth and capacity was a fundamental issue.

HDi is another example. It is fine. But I suspect that BD-J will in the long term eclipse it with greater power and capability.

Personally, I think this is the last hard media format we are going to get, and I would like to have it be as extensible as possible with as big a future as possible instead of just being the quickest way to get something reasonable out of the door.

[Please bear in mind that this thread invites technical comparisons. While I believe what I said above, the overriding issue is ending the format war, and I don't care which one wins as long as something does. But it is gratifying to see that the market leader is also clearly the best long-term technical choice.]

I have a hard time imaging any studio other than Warner (because of their royalities from HD DVD) and Sony, looking at it from a financial standpoint, preferring a tie over a win, even a win by their 2nd choice.

--Darin

I didnt know warner got royalties from hd dvd. can you please give more info on this. If find this really interesting. Is this why they favor hd dvd.

Spoken like a true Blu-ray supporter. That's all I can say.

Some may say that if we think of how tough "tough" is, we don't even get out of bed. Still we do get out of bed. Somehow, we're tougher.
:)

Did the original poster expect rationale discussion with such a pull it out my arse comment.

Spoken like a true BD supporter? I could say the same thing about you guys who have convinced themselves that less is more. At the end of the day the only thing that matters on delivering quality on optical disc to the end user is storage space and BW. Somehow you guys have convinced yourself that 30GB is the ultimate and that you will never need more and yet you guys wet all over yourself over space and BW hogs like IME.

You guys claim space does not matter yet it never fails for someone here to bring up HD DVD 51 weekly and you slam BD supporters who point out that BD profile 1.1 will allow IME type features on BD, by saying it is not doing it yet. You know what shame on both formats for not having their sh!t lined up when released.

Just as I expected this thread is yet another pissing match.

I didnt know warner got royalties from hd dvd. can you please give more info on this. If find this really interesting. Is this why they favor hd dvd.I don't have any documents, but maybe others have links to them. Basically, as I understand it Warner has made quite a bit from royalities on DVD and some of that applies to HD DVD. I can understand them favoring HD DVD overall with that in mind, but I imagine that current sales are probably making it tougher for those inside Warner who favor HD DVD to get their way. If sales had ended up being 67/33 YTD in the other direction at this point and running close to that, it wouldn't have shocked me to see Warner go exclusive to HD DVD, but I think they still hold out some hope of HD DVD winning. I also suspect that their push for TotalHD had something to do with royalties from the HD DVD side and maybe even from the whole TotalHD concept. But I get the impression other studios didn't like the idea as much as Warner hoped.

--Darin

And I really fear (honest fear) that the BD50 disc will not be a money-viable choice thus it will not be adopted in the way most of the people who champion it think it will. In fact, my humble opinion says that the 50Gb disc is not comparable to the DVD9's success - as many think.

If BD50 was so hard it would not be on the market yet. Amir and his little white lies created all of this BD50 FUD. BD is a new manufacturing technique so obivisously there is a learning curve. I have not had any issue with any BD50s on my PS3. I have not had to boil any disc yet like some had to do with HD DVD combos.

I don't have any documents, but maybe others have links to them. Basically, as I understand it Warner has made quite a bit from royalities on DVD and some of that applies to HD DVD. I can understand them favoring HD DVD overall with that in mind, but I imagine that current sales are probably making it tougher for those inside Warner who favor HD DVD to get their way. If sales had ended up being 67/33 YTD in the other direction at this point and running close to that, it wouldn't have shocked me to see Warner go exclusive to HD DVD, but I think they still hold out some hope of HD DVD winning. I also suspect that their push for TotalHD had something to do with royalties from the HD DVD side and maybe even from the whole TotalHD concept. But I get the impression other studios didn't like the idea as much as Warner hoped.

--Darin


Correct. Warner and Toshiba hold many of the original DVD patents and I believe TotalHD will keep some of that revenue stream alive for WB.

In the end of the day it does not help retailers or the format war in general. It only serves the WB revenue stream. Can't blame them for trying, but I think most consumers on either side of the ware don't want this bastardized disc format. Plus does anyone remember the fiasco with the Dual Format disc. I don't see how a disc like this going to conform to the specific tightly toleranced standards. I mean it is not a BD and it is not a HD DVD and I am sure some players will have issues with this disc format at which press releases will come from manufacturers stating their player is only designed for discs carrying the BD or HD DVD logo.

Spoken like a true BD supporter? I could say the same thing about you guys who have convinced themselves that less is more. At the end of the day the only thing that matters on delivering quality on optical disc to the end user is storage space and BW. Somehow you guys have convinced yourself that 30GB is the ultimate and that you will never need more and yet you guys wet all over yourself over space and BW hogs like IME.

Why does Shooter look the same on both formats? Why does The Prestige HD DVD import look just as good as the 50GB Blu-ray version. Why does Flags of our Father look the same on both platforms despite different encodes. Somehow you guys have convinced yourselves that the knob truly does go to 11 that somehow that makes for a better end result despite the mounting evidence that says otherwise.

The really funny ones are the guys that swear PCM sounds better than TrueHD.

You guys claim space does not matter yet it never fails for someone here to bring up HD DVD 51 weekly and you slam BD supporters who point out that BD profile 1.1 will allow IME type features on BD, by saying it is not doing it yet. You know what shame on both formats for not having their sh!t lined up when released.

Just as I expected this thread is yet another pissing match.

There's a difference between telling someone they "need" 50GB discs for quality and realizing the potential to hold more video.

The pissing matches are coming from arguments with shaky foundations IMO. Both players deliver exceptional quality with a well mastered disc. Since that's not enough justification for some there's a neverending quest to find more data to justify their purchase or denigrate the competing product.

If extra storage and bandwidth don't cost me $200 more for the player then I'm gladly accepting them. But today it does and I'm not seeing the payoff in the movie quality.

I don't have any documents, but maybe others have links to them. Basically, as I understand it Warner has made quite a bit from royalities on DVD and some of that applies to HD DVD. I can understand them favoring HD DVD overall with that in mind, but I imagine that current sales are probably making it tougher for those inside Warner who favor HD DVD to get their way. If sales had ended up being 67/33 YTD in the other direction at this point and running close to that, it wouldn't have shocked me to see Warner go exclusive to HD DVD, but I think they still hold out some hope of HD DVD winning. I also suspect that their push for TotalHD had something to do with royalties from the HD DVD side and maybe even from the whole TotalHD concept. But I get the impression other studios didn't like the idea as much as Warner hoped.

--Darin

Thanks! Good to know :)

Blu-rays interactive layer sucks as well. I believe they have BD-Java for interactivity but then when authoring discs I think you have to utilize other core technologies like BD Movie Mode (BD-MV) for the good stuff and BD-AV is for the basic stuff but surprise not all Blu-ray players support both depending on firmware so you have potential "gotchas" there.You really don't know what you're talking about. Replicated discs (i.e. pre-recorded movies are not allowed to use BDAV - it's only for BD-R/RE. All players support BDMV and BD-J.
It seems rather convoluted. You need to compile your Java authored interactivity. What factor does compilation take? With either format if you're trying to do something reasonably sophisticated you have to write code. Whether you're writing Java or Javascript, it doesn't look all that difference. The primary difference is that full Java gives you far, far more flexibility to build what you want, rather than being constrained by the much more limited HDi specification. Further, with advanced tools emerging you can absolutely build BD-J apps without understanding a line of Java.
My opinion is HD DVD hardware is better..for now. The bandwidth and storage have not proven to be a limitationSo how do you explain the relative lack of lossless audio on HD DVD releases if not due to bandwidth and storage?

Correct. Warner and Toshiba hold many of the original DVD patents and I believe TotalHD will keep some of that revenue stream alive for WB.

In the end of the day it does not help retailers or the format war in general. It only serves the WB revenue stream. Can't blame them for trying, but I think most consumers on either side of the ware don't want this bastardized disc format. Plus does anyone remember the fiasco with the Dual Format disc. I don't see how a disc like this going to conform to the specific tightly toleranced standards. I mean it is not a BD and it is not a HD DVD and I am sure some players will have issues with this disc format at which press releases will come from manufacturers stating their player is only designed for discs carrying the BD or HD DVD logo.

Do you think we'll ever see TotalHD at retail? I hate flippers with a passion, so naturally I'm hoping not, but at this point they seem as elusive as non-Toshiba HD-DVD standalones.

You really don't know what you're talking about. Replicated discs (i.e. pre-recorded movies are not allowed to use BDAV - it's only for BD-R/RE. All players support BDMV and BD-J.
What factor does compilation take? With either format if you're trying to do something reasonably sophisticated you have to write code. Whether you're writing Java or Javascript, it doesn't look all that difference. The primary difference is that full Java gives you far, far more flexibility to build what you want, rather than being constrained by the much more limited HDi specification. Further, with advanced tools emerging you can absolutely build BD-J apps without understanding a line of Java.
So how do you explain the relative lack of lossless audio on HD DVD releases if not due to bandwidth and storage?

Indeed. Commercial movies are all BD-J within BDMV, and I also note how he failed to mention that BD-J is based on GEM, and existing standard for broadcast interactivity.

Personally I prefer not to work with Java these days, but at least it's more standards-based than HDi. Hard to know why it's taking so long to get the final specs hammered out, though. In the end, if HD-DVD and Blu-ray persist, increasingly capable tools will abstract the differences anyway, and just let the artists drag and drop.

If BD50 was so hard it would not be on the market yet. Amir and his little white lies created all of this BD50 FUD. BD is a new manufacturing technique so obivisously there is a learning curve. I have not had any issue with any BD50s on my PS3. I have not had to boil any disc yet like some had to do with HD DVD combos.

There are different degrees of hardness... from talcum to diamond. :) Obviously, the BD50 seems to be possible because it is there. I don't know what Amir said about it, and I really don't care. The technical side of it is just ONE side of the dice.

The side that interests me the most (since I am not a technician) is the financial side of it. We are talking about objects (discs) that are destined to be replicated to a point where it will cost a trifle and will allow producers and distributors to give them nearly for free. But such a road is hard and long. And in order to go all the way, certain criteria must be met. One of them is the competition within the same format. Most of us don't know nor care to see if the DVDs we have at home are SL or DL. Both are so much used that we don't really care.

I believe with HD DVD, things are gonna point the same way. If we think that right now, both formats' supporters are carelessly spending whatever it takes in order to look good (that's the main objective here: show off) we must also acknowledge that all this spending will end some day. The problem is here: you don't need 50Gb or even 30Gb to watch just a 100 minutes film. In fact, there are a couple of HD DVD SL15 titles that show just that. And this is the cheapest HD disc of them all.

This is what those who pay the bill will want to hear. Have 15? You're hired!
And that will be more and more so, as long as encoding tools evolve. That's how I think things usually go: it is 15 but the real challenge is to make it look like 50. Funny that this is where film production and technology meet: two sets cost the same, but one of them look like it cost production millions. Which one will be used? The key word here is value: two versions of the same film: they all look $19,99. but one disc cost 50 cents and the other cost $3,00.

To me, HD DVD15/30 is much closer to DVD5-9 uses than BD25/50. Not that BD50 cannot be a winner. But it can take so long that it will kill it. then I would rather have 30 or 34!

So, HD DVD, for me, is already a winner because I don't expect Universal, Sony, Fox, Disney and Warner saying no do HD DVD SL15 (or 17 if they ever come to add more 2Gbs per layer). Why would they? They never said no do DVD SL5, have they? Question: How do you make bucks? Answer: Saving bucks.

Now the problem is here: what comes first? The chicken or the egg?

How are we supposed to create the demand for 50Gb discs that will make them as comparably viable as the DVD9? I mean... if one can do the basic with HD DVD SL15, anything else will be done with BD SL25 and HD DVD DL30. That's why I don't think there's space on the market for BD DL50. Ok, BD studios are pushing it as the definitive thing... but I don't think they (the studios) are strong enough to create such a demand that will make its price low enough to make it real. I suspect that BD50 it will be marginally viable in special cases, therefore, rarely used. I suspect that we will see much more 25+25 (earning the "special edition" degree) than a simple 50.

Why? Because if one thinks of what can be done with 15, the lower BD option (BD SL25) will be excellent and cheap enough to 95% of all uses wiping away any chance of BD50 getting any price advantage. Meaning that I see a much better price relationship between 15 and 30 than I think there will be between 25 and 50. And to me, this means that (if Blu-ray wins), there a strong chance that we'll be stuck with 25Gb discs since: a) those who never needed more than that will be the vast majority; b) those who feel they could use more won't be enough to drive prices THAT down so they will really use it; c) those who want more than 25 can always go 30 (or 34) and d) there will always a pressure to keep it under 25.

That's my point of view. Thanks.

Somehow you guys have convinced yourselves that the knob truly does go to 11
(...)
The really funny ones are the guys that swear PCM sounds better than TrueHD.


Absolutely true.
Now this is something that truly amazes me here. :D

I'm beginning to think that the first amp with that 11 print will be a sellout. :D

Denon could release an amp like that in order to celebrate their first BD player :D

.... The primary difference is that full Java gives you far, far more flexibility to build what you want, rather than being constrained by the much more limited HDi specification. Further, with advanced tools emerging you can absolutely build BD-J apps without understanding a line of Java.


'BR Java' isn't exactly 'full Java'.


So how do you explain the relative lack of lossless audio on HD DVD releases if not due to bandwidth and storage?

The titles that do have TrueHD debunk this br fanclown myth.

If BD50 was so hard it would not be on the market yet. Amir and his little white lies created all of this BD50 FUD. BD is a new manufacturing technique so obivisously there is a learning curve. I have not had any issue with any BD50s on my PS3. I have not had to boil any disc yet like some had to do with HD DVD combos.

Before calling it a white lie at least be accurate. The 'science fiction' quote is often quoted out of context and a time frame mentioned by him is always left out by br fanquotes.

BD50 are more expensive and yields are very low.
The very low yields where confirmed by an insider in the replication business .

This post was removed for some reason.

This thread points out the thing that is most perplexing to me about the format war on AVS. Since HDM will be the way to get high quality movies into our homes for many years, I would expect most here would be rooting for the format that has the potential to produce the best possible picture and sound quality from the widest possible sources over the long term. It seems obvious to me that is the one with the highest bandwidth and fastest transfer rate. I am not talking about how either format has been used in the past or even today, I'm talking about what it has the potential to do in the future.

The OP seems focused on how the formats were used in the past and I just can't see how that is so important to HD enthusiasts. It's still really really early, folks.

Edit: I noticed rlsmith said kind of the same thing above and I agree with him. Personally, I think this is the last hard media format we are going to get, and I would like to have it be as extensible as possible with as big a future as possible instead of just being the quickest way to get something reasonable out of the door.

Before calling it a white lie at least be accurate. The 'science fiction' quote is often quoted out of context and a time frame mentioned by him is always left out by br fanquotes.

BD50 are more expensive and yields are very low.
The very low yields where confirmed by an insider in the replication business .

This post was removed for some reason.

Here are the facts as they stand (and technicolor this is for you to):

* There have been more BD50's replicated than HD DVDs period thus far.

* In 2007, the majority of total shipped discs has been BD50, with the ratio increasing every week.

* Sony has gone on record as stating that they are working actively towards a target of ~90% BD50 in future releases.

* Two additional BD50 manufacturers will be coming online this year, including Cinram.

BD50 is not some weird glass ceiling that will drop if/when the format war is decided in BD's favor - it is something that has now become the norm, and is proliferating "out of the lab" of Sony replication lines. I use that quote also because to this day, Amir and Ben refer to the replication of BD50 as some sort of science experiment.

And let me say this as well - these additional non-Sony companies probably wouldn't be investing the sums to get these lines up and running if they didn't see a strong future demand for them.

along w/ BD exclusive summer blockbuster titles that will soon be available HD DVD has a much tougher road ahead than BD does.

Thats subjective..... many of eh-hem Summer Blockbusters are pretty thin movies. I mean you have the seemingly never ending and quite revolting POTC Part 13 or whatever, Spiderman which is basically a G-rated Superhero flick that put zero effort into any real backstory (like the incredibly intriguing Batman Begins), and of course another "Animated furry animal does the same old tired slapstick stunts with a few famous voices blabbing pointless dialog". I think thats calld Ratatatatatouilletatata.

So, ya know, its subjective. A few killer catalog titles from Uni and suddenly the Holiday season is a wash.

;)

So, ya know, its subjective. A few killer catalog titles from Uni and suddenly the Holiday season is a wash.

;)

Because those Universal 'high-art' catalog releases have done so well for HD DVD thus far...

Here are the facts as they stand (and technicolor this is for you to):

* There have been more BD50's replicated than HD DVDs period thus far.

* In 2007, the majority of total shipped discs has been BD50, with the ratio increasing every week.

* Sony has gone on record as stating that they are working actively towards a target of ~90% BD50 in future releases.

* Two additional BD50 manufacturers will be coming online this year, including Cinram.

BD50 is not some weird glass ceiling that will drop if/when the format war is decided in BD's favor - it is something that has now become the norm, and is proliferating "out of the lab" of Sony replication lines. I use that quote also because to this day, Amir and Ben refer to the replication of BD50 as some sort of science experiment.

And let me say this as well - these additional non-Sony companies probably wouldn't be investing the sums to get these lines up and running if they didn't see a strong future demand for them.

One more fact should be added, I think: No one here knows whether BD50 replication is being used because it makes economic sense, or if it's being subsidized like so many of the things in this format war. At volumes this low, Sony can afford to give up a 1$ per disc, and it would be far less than what they are losing on PS3 production, for example. It's not clear if they can do that when you start getting into millions of disc sold. There may or may not have been a price cap agreement with the major studios to get them on BD.

So it may be that BD50 is going well, or it may be that it is being subsidized. That being said, I don't know that matters all that much, so long as they find a way to use it.

One more fact should be added, I think: No one here knows whether BD50 replication is being used because it makes economic sense, or if it's being subsidized like so many of the things in this format war. At volumes this low, Sony can afford to give up a 1$ per disc, and it would be far less than what they are losing on PS3 production, for example. It's not clear if they can do that when you start getting into millions of disc sold.

So it may be that BD50 is going well, or it may be that it is being subsidized. I don't know that matters all that much, so long as they find a way to use it.

Well, I think it's probably that Sony *has* subsidized BD50 production for studios... if not at present, then at least at the beginning. But I don't think that's something Cinram and others will be doing, because they have no interest in doing so. So I think it's strong endorsement that they are building these lines out and ramping up.

Why does Shooter look the same on both formats? Why does The Prestige HD DVD import look just as good as the 50GB Blu-ray version. Why does Flags of our Father look the same on both platforms despite different encodes. Somehow you guys have convinced yourselves that the knob truly does go to 11 that somehow that makes for a better end result despite the mounting evidence that says otherwise.


Somehow I have a hard time believing you have compared The Prestige import to the Blu-ray side by side since you are not a dual format owner. What's ironic is you use this as an example when a much more glaring problem is evident in your statement--that is, who the heck in the J6P world wants to import discs, something part and parcel with a format with far less studio support in the first place?

Flags of our Fathers is widely regarded, at least on here, as being sharper on Blu-ray.

Nevertheless, what's the point in arguing for less anyways? You realize you are on a forum of nerds who want the best audio and video quality possible and in a digital age would be quite happy with 20 extra GB and 18 extra mbps headroom. If given the choice, who in their right mind, on an AVSForum no less, would choose 20 less GB and 18 less mbps peak just to make it up with more compression and less extras that may or may not be perfectly evident on every disc? Can we all see the difference between 720P and 1080P sitting on our couches? Probably not. So in the world of hmurchison should I go into the LCD subforum and argue, almost every day mind you, that 720P is the IDEAL way to go because it is cheaper and I can't really tell the difference a whole lot anyways?

Either way, less is not more and I am encouraged to see only a couple people, i.e. you, arguing for it. We have all been through this game multiple times in the past. Companies ultimately max out the spec of their format no matter what time period we are in and what technology we are talking about. I have little doubt that when Blu-ray wins Warner will crank up their audio/video mux bitrate to 48mbps and fill as much of a 50GB disc as they can, because they can and they are gauranteed at least some quality increase. Whether we see it or not on every disc isn't even the point, its the point that we may see it with some discs, and its the point this makes encoding easier and faster and CHEAPER for the studios not to have to hire Microsoft to overlook a low bandwidth VC-1 encode.

Now, the reality is, even NOW we are seeing that 30GB is indeed less than 50GB. This should have been obvious from the beginning, but for some 30GB is the magic ultimate number because it happens to support their argument for an HD-DVD world. But even 50GB may not be the magic number. Who knows. But the reality is, even today, we now have an upcoming Paramount release Blade's of Glory that is chock full of extras and just happens to have an uncompressed PCM track on the Blu-ray release, but no lossless audio on the HD-DVD release. We also have an announcement of Face-Off for both formats, but yet the HD-DVD version happens to have several of the extras missing. Hmmm. Curious. May it be because 30 is actually a smaller number than 50? It is really unthinkable.

Now as for your analogy that people who want more space are analogous to those that have convinced themselves that the knob goes to 11, could it be anymore ironic that YOU have convinced yourself that 30GB is the magic 10, at this early stage in the game? I just have never seen anyone argue for less in technology before, like we just don't need more, never ever ever. 30GB is the magic number. It is perfect. Everything else beyond this is just a 11 out of 10. Meanwhile you speak like there is no problem while your argument is sinking like the Titanic as HD-DVD apparently has a real problem getting lossless audio on its discs and new releases are having extras cut relative to Blu-ray ALREADY, and we are only done with year 1!

Your answer to this is for them to spend more money and hire Microsoft to compress the hell out of the video to get more space, which is an answer that falls on deaf ears on forums dedicated to nerds who like technology and argue over pixels all day and in a business market where making things more simple and cheaper for the studios will inevitably be chosen over spending more time on their encodes.

This thread points out the thing that is most perplexing to me about the format war on AVS. Since HDM will be the way to get high quality movies into our homes for many years, I would expect most here would be rooting for the format that has the potential to produce the best possible picture and sound quality from the widest possible sources over the long term. It seems obvious to me that is the one with the highest bandwidth and fastest transfer rate. I am not talking about how either format has been used in the past or even today, I'm talking about what it has the potential to do in the future.


I think it is perplexing to you because of your preconceptions about simply why should one thing be potentially better than another. You take for granted that Blu-ray is better because of higher bandwidth or faster transfer rate. I'd gladly admit those elements do have their importance in an AV format. But they are far from being the only elements at play. They're not. Really.

In the past months, I've read a great many deal about the format war. And the funny thing is that most of the people who pick Blu-ray, do it NOT because of better image or sound but because of these preconceptions: "hey, I'm sure BD-java will blow HDI away." or "Its higher bandwidth is great and will do wonders". But nobody ever says "I picked Blu-ray because the image is better and the sound is better."

And this issue of "potential" is funny because I believe the definition only go so high (or like Hmurchinson pointed out, does your knob go 11?). Exactly what are you expecting from Blu-ray that you don't have with HD DVD? What do you have in POTC that you don't have in The Matrix? What do you think you'll have on 300 BD that you don't have on 300 HD DVD? I'd love to know.

Potential goes both ways. Ten years from now, will HD DVD players be as they are today? Will HDI be like it is today? Will VC1 be as efficient as it is today? If so many people show you that TODAY you don't need Blu-ray's specs to achieve greatness, why do you think you'll need it in ten years?

So far, we have grown accustomed to the fact that when it comes to all things digital, more must be better: more memory, more processing power, more disc space, etc. In a way it is true if you want to go to Mars or add 100 more numbers to pi. But when it comes to AV, we already achieved a level of quality or transparency we can't surpass - now the challenge is to make it smaller and more efficient. That was the breakthrough of the walkman in the late 70's when bigger and louder were better. That's how MSFT put PCs in every home.

All this means that there are times to expand... and times when we realize how expanded you got - now let's put it so small it can be played back on a phone.

Blu-ray people brag about PCM. But forget that even being more than 30, 50Gb is not unlimited Gbs. It's 50. Period. So what's wrong with a lossless codec that saves disc space. And how about VC1? What's wrong with having the same (or more) with less space or bandwidth?

If you do not sacrifice experience, saving space and bandwidth can only do good.

Potential is a vague concept devoided of any merit if it does not make itself fully presentable as an experience that is equivalent to it. That is why, many times we say that something is theoretically great. But fails when applied. Or when someone is so intelligent that fails to find the way out in case of fire.

Thanks.

Somehow I have a hard time believing you have compared The Prestige import to the Blu-ray side by side since you are not a dual format owner. What's ironic is you use this as an example when a much more glaring problem is evident in your statement--that is, who the heck in the J6P world wants to import discs, something part and parcel with a format with far less studio support in the first place?

Flags of our Fathers is widely regarded, at least on here, as being sharper on Blu-ray.

Nevertheless, what's the point in arguing for less anyways? You realize you are on a forum of nerds who want the best audio and video quality possible and in a digital age would be quite happy with 20 extra GB and 18 extra mbps headroom. If given the choice, who in their right mind, on an AVSForum no less, would choose 20 less GB and 18 less mbps peak just to make it up with more compression and less extras that may or may not be perfectly evident on every disc? Can we all see the difference between 720P and 1080P sitting on our couches? Probably not. So in the world of hmurchison should I go into the LCD subforum and argue, almost every day mind you, that 720P is the IDEAL way to go because it is cheaper and I can't really tell the difference a whole lot anyways?

Either way, less is not more and I am encouraged to see only a couple people, i.e. you, arguing for it. We have all been through this game multiple times in the past. Companies ultimately max out the spec of their format no matter what time period we are in and what technology we are talking about. I have little doubt that when Blu-ray wins Warner will crank up their audio/video mux bitrate to 48mbps and fill as much of a 50GB disc as they can, because they can and they are gauranteed at least some quality increase. Whether we see it or not on every disc isn't even the point, its the point that we may see it with some discs, and its the point this makes encoding easier and faster and CHEAPER for the studios not to have to hire Microsoft to overlook a low bandwidth VC-1 encode.

Now, the reality is, even NOW we are seeing that 30GB is indeed less than 50GB. This should have been obvious from the beginning, but for some 30GB is the magic ultimate number because it happens to support their argument for an HD-DVD world. But even 50GB may not be the magic number. Who knows. But the reality is, even today, we now have an upcoming Paramount release Blade's of Glory that is chock full of extras and just happens to have an uncompressed PCM track on the Blu-ray release, but no lossless audio on the HD-DVD release. We also have an announcement of Face-Off for both formats, but yet the HD-DVD version happens to have several of the extras missing. Hmmm. Curious. May it be because 30 is actually a smaller number than 50? It is really unthinkable.

Now as for your analogy that people who want more space are analogous to those that have convinced themselves that the knob goes to 11, could it be anymore ironic that YOU have convinced yourself that 30GB is the magic 10, at this early stage in the game? I just have never seen anyone argue for less in technology before, like we just don't need more, never ever ever. 30GB is the magic number. It is perfect. Everything else beyond this is just a 11 out of 10. Meanwhile you speak like there is no problem while your argument is sinking like the Titanic as HD-DVD apparently has a real problem getting lossless audio on its discs and new releases are having extras cut relative to Blu-ray ALREADY, and we are only done with year 1!

Your answer to this is for them to spend more money and hire Microsoft to compress the hell out of the video to get more space, which is an answer that falls on deaf ears on forums dedicated to nerds who like technology and argue over pixels all day and in a business market where making things more simple and cheaper for the studios will inevitably be chosen over spending more time on their encodes.

LOLOL
What do you want me to say?
Nerds are like homelesses: paradoxical byproducts of our age of abundance. And just like the age who produced them, they are prone to extinction. :D

Here are the facts as they stand (and technicolor this is for you to):

All this for me? Oh, goodie... I love presents! :)

* There have been more BD50's replicated than HD DVDs period thus far.

...Meaning?
Please... don't tell me 300 titles released (200 of whom selling less than caviar) amount to any representation of the real world wwwwwhatsoever...

Next!

* In 2007, the majority of total shipped discs has been BD50, with the ratio increasing every week.

That is not a hard thing to do. The harder part is to keep doing it. :)
Do you know how many DVDs were released in 2000, when DVD players used to cost twice (or more) the current price of the A2?

One year after HD formats arrived, are you sure you want to compare BD's "financial" performance with DVD's history? It is uncomparable!!
If they pull it though, they're in for a Nobel :)
Blu-ray is like planned economics. Even with all their rocket scientists and chess players, the USSR could not do it! :)

* Sony has gone on record as stating that they are working actively towards a target of ~90% BD50 in future releases.

I never quote nor comment press releases. :)
But God bless you all the same.

* Two additional BD50 manufacturers will be coming online this year, including Cinram.

Two years after DVDs came out (without the benefit of a format war to rush things) how many replicators were there? I'd guess more than two.

BD50 is not some weird glass ceiling that will drop if/when the format war is decided in BD's favor - it is something that has now become the norm, and is proliferating "out of the lab" of Sony replication lines. I use that quote also because to this day, Amir and Ben refer to the replication of BD50 as some sort of science experiment.

They work for MSFT. I do not.
It may be more than a science project. But they are still a long long way from the norm you think they are.

Like BD-java. Is it ready? Yes. Still it is far from "ready" ready. Get it? :)

And let me say this as well - these additional non-Sony companies probably wouldn't be investing the sums to get these lines up and running if they didn't see a strong future demand for them.

Those who read my posts will see me write this for the first time: show me numbers.

I'd love to know if by the word "investment" we mean the same.

A couple of random thoughts ... and all just my opinion:

1.) The OP's question is sort of irrelevant. HD DVD is fully capable of producing spectacular results. If their price is right to J6P (and if BD's is not), it can and will represent a very tempting option. That's why their current sales rate on stand-alone machines is an important factor.

2.) I frequently have friends over to enjoy films. I have a system that can display content from a variety of different sources. And I sometimes spend a few minutes with my friends giving them a rundown of what they are about to see. Sometimes it's DVHS/DTheater, sometimes it's HD DVD, or BD, or SD DVD. Whenever I do this little "explanation speech", I always see their eyes glaze over. NOBODY CARES! They just want to see the damn movie! And if it looks really great, they're very impressed. FACT: Both HD DVD and BD can make it look REALLY GREAT!

3.) FWIW, my Panasonic BD player performs a little better than my HD-XA2. Not by much. But I have lipsync anomalies with the XA2 that have, to now, prevented me from using my analog audio outs. I have to use SPDIF out through a Felston delay to make that work. So the BD player can output lossless tracks, and my XA2 can't (latest firmware all around). I don't really care very much about that ... but it's there nonetheless. Plus, I recommended that my neighbor get an HD-A2. He ordered 2 from Amazon. Neither worked. He sent them both back. And I was there to help him. They didn't work. This will not cut it with J6P. My Panny just keeps on working perfectly. Don't misread my comments. My XA2 is fine too except for the lipsync problems. But I'm a former film editor. I can deal with lipsync problems and solve them. J6P won't want to do that. Simplicity and stability are very important. These cheap HD DVD players are a good idea ... but they better damn well work!

4.) For me, the number of films that I have wanted to purchase have been heavily HD DVD. I only have about 6 BD films. That may be my age. And it is something that can change quickly (as in CE3K). But BD content has not been very compelling for me.

A victory by one of these formats (and that may not happen, they may both survive for a long time) is not going to be about technologies. It will be about price, content and retail support. And it's not even close to being over yet.

I love them both ... the war IS over for me.

All this for me? Oh, goodie... I love presents! :)

...Meaning?
Please... don't tell me 300 titles released (200 of whom selling less than caviar) amount to any representation of the real world wwwwwhatsoever...

I don't mean more BD50's as titles, I mean there have been more actual BD50 *discs* replicated and released than there have been HD DVDs total.


One year after HD formats arrived, are you sure you want to compare BD's "financial" performance with DVD's history? It is uncomparable!!
If they pull it though, they're in for a Nobel :)
Blu-ray is like planned economics. Even with all their rocket scientists and chess players, the USSR could not do it! :)

Who's talking "financial" performance? I'm talking about their ability to make 'science fiction' a reality.

Those who read my posts will see me write this for the first time: show me numbers.

I'd love to know if by the word "investment" we mean the same.

Well, what do you mean by investment... since obviously purchasing and building out a replication line dedicated to the format doesn't qualify?

Hank that's an excellent point. The part about your friends glazing over is poignant. Most people don't care about the specs regarding movies. They want to buy a movie and know it's going to look good and play.

Content is a factor but when consumers know they can't get all content they become skeptical of the whole affair.

A current talking point for HD DVD is its interactivity and PIP capability. I fully understand why Microsoft evangelists are talking about interactivity today. What they will talk about later is not so clear.

A cursory look at the Blu-ray roadmap shows that this is only a temporary advantage. Indeed, the capabilities of Blu-ray will soon exceed what can be done with HD DVD. Profile 1.1 offers two hd video streams at the same time. This will of course provide a Warners-style "IME" but will do much more, at least in the hands of Blu-ray studios that want to show what it will be able to do.

HD DVD was always about the quick fix. Blu-ray has always been for the long term. We saw this last year when BD50 took a bit longer to get operational. Everyone I have ever discusssed this with has thought that Blu-ray's bandwidth and capacity was a fundamental issue.

HDi is another example. It is fine. But I suspect that BD-J will in the long term eclipse it with greater power and capability.

Personally, I think this is the last hard media format we are going to get, and I would like to have it be as extensible as possible with as big a future as possible instead of just being the quickest way to get something reasonable out of the door.

[Please bear in mind that this thread invites technical comparisons. While I believe what I said above, the overriding issue is ending the format war, and I don't care which one wins as long as something does. But it is gratifying to see that the market leader is also clearly the best long-term technical choice.]


There's a major problem with this post. You're cherry picking arguments that technically apply to both formats.

Example 1: Blu-Ray takes it time to deliver thebgood stuff like PiP, the fact that HD DVD already has it means little or nothing. OK, but apply the EXACT same logic to TL51. Does your premise still make sense? No.

Example 2: Tied to #1. BDA people always talk about higher capacity and 50GB discs (several mentions in this thread alone.) What will they talk about tomorrow? Same as the first example, TL51 is coming to market. Yes, it's taking some time just like the PiP for BD. And if you missed it, the rumors seem to indicate the BDA scrapped the HD PiP altogether and will go with "crappy" SD just like HD DVD. Lots of members here will be eating crow.

You then go on to totally dismiss HDi and talk up Java despite major problems.

It's posts like this that make people "in the know" about this format war (like yourself) roll their eyes and think 'how the hell can he say that when the same exact thing applies to the other format?" It happens on both sides.

What I'm looking for is a rational, flame-free discussion of what I see as current advantages of HD DVD, and current failures of Blu-ray in terms of video codec offerings and media capacity.

What I'm really talking about is the technologies "under the hood". Video compression, the utilization of each format's potential abilities. The things I'm discussing there are thigns each side has the option to benefit from.



Hi Trent,
I'd have to agree with Brian that HD DVD were shortsighted when they decided on the capacity and the bandwidth they were going to go with.

Blu-ray technology is currently technically superior and when studios utilize it the benefits are undeniable.

HDD 208HD/228BD, HTS 201HD/213BD, HTF 65HD/86BD, UD 133HD/123BD, Talk 248HD/262BD
07.24.07
HD DVD PQ SQ TOTAL Blu-ray PQ SQ TOTAL
HighDef 3.89 3.62 3.75 HighDef 3.98 3.83 3.91
HTSpot 3.92 3.83 3.88 HTSpot 4.04 4.24 4.14
DVDTalk 3.65 3.48 3.57 DVDTalk 3.66 3.69 3.68
HTForum 3.99 3.69 3.84 HTForum 4.30 4.08 4.19
UpDisc 4.02 3.81 3.92 UpDisc 4.06 4.15 4.10
Totals 3.88 3.68 3.78 Totals 3.94 3.95 3.94

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
4.02 Paramount
3.95 Warner
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.80 Weinstein
3.73 Universal
3.66 Lionsgate

SQ Studio
4.38 Buena Vista
4.12 Sony
4.08 Fox
3.81 Lionsgate
3.81 Paramount
3.63 Warner
3.63 Universal
3.63 Weinstein

Howdy Technicolor,

Thanks for your insights. The logic you present is very clear and ... well ... logical. Thanks again.

Somehow I have a hard time believing you have compared The Prestige import to the Blu-ray side by side since you are not a dual format owner. What's ironic is you use this as an example when a much more glaring problem is evident in your statement--that is, who the heck in the J6P world wants to import discs, something part and parcel with a format with far less studio support in the first place?

Flags of our Fathers is widely regarded, at least on here, as being sharper on Blu-ray.



A lot of people will import discs just like they import CDs. I have a TON of import CDs in my collection. Best Buy is even carrying a handful of HD DVD imports now. If you don't think J6P will buy them, you're wrong! Take a look at the Anime section at a BB sometime. Those are most likely imported titles and the customer pays through the nose for them.

Your second point:

Widely regarded by people who aren't honest with themselves or others. It stemmed from this review:

Review Snippet:

...a side by side comparison of the film between the the AVC MPEG-4 transfer on this Blu-ray version and the VC-1 transfer on the HD DVD, it does seem that the Blu-ray/AVC encode is the tiniest bit sharper, while the HD DVD/VC-1 is the slightest bit softer. Neither is an advantage to my eyes and each encode is identical otherwise


Sharp doesn't mean better. Replace "Sharp" with "Blue" or "Bright" and tell me if you think it's an advantage?

Sharp doesn't mean better. Replace "Sharp" with "Blue" or "Bright" and tell me if you think it's an advantage?

But why on Earth would you want to replace sharp with blue?

But why on Earth would you want to replace sharp with blue?

What I mean is, if the reviewer said that one version was slightly "bluer" than the other one wouldn't jump to the conclusion that it was better (despite the fact that it's got a lot of ocean and sky shots.)

The OP has some great points about hddvd over bluray. Currently, hddvd can decode 2 av streams and has access to the internet while bluray currently does not.
Order of importance to me when purchasing a movie.
1) The movie itself
2) Video Quality
3) Audio Quality
4) Extras
To me though, the lack of pip or ethernet does not detract from the movie experience. Bluray to me provides more breathing room so that a studio does not have to compress the hell out of the video to get 1080p. Granted, on shorter films this may not be a factor but on movies that are going to be quite long such as the new Troy or LOTR:EE, this may become a factor. Anyway, as of late, bluray has been excellent in terms of pq and aq and am very happy that i went blu.

As for interactive/extra features, hddvd does currently hold the lead in that aspect. As a java developer and having worked with OCAP and mobile profiles. I can be rest assured that anything HDi can do, bd-j can do as well and more.
I honestly don't know what kind of interactive features could be implemented in the future but its nice to know that bluray has the capacity to hold these features and more importantly be able to process them courtesy of BD-J.

Of course, for myself and others that don't pay too much attention to these things, its really irrelevant.

BluRay may not in the past have utilized their technology well, but they are improving. The potential is also greater than HDDVD (no offense) due to larger disc size and bandwidth.

However, I agree they started out bad, and I'm not a fan of BD+ (though it may win them the war) or the fact that they shipped players without coming up with a final profile. Ethernet would have been good from the get go as well... That said, a question: Does HDDVD support DTS HD MA? If studios can add it on the disc, does all the players support it? This is my main gripe with BD at the moment...

........I frequently have friends over to enjoy films. I have a system that can display content from a variety of different sources. And I sometimes spend a few minutes with my friends giving them a rundown of what they are about to see. Sometimes it's DVHS/DTheater, sometimes it's HD DVD, or BD, or SD DVD. Whenever I do this little "explanation speech", I always see their eyes glaze over. NOBODY CARES! They just want to see the damn movie! And if it looks really great, they're very impressed. FACT: Both HD DVD and BD can make it look REALLY GREAT!........


This is the smartest post I have seen on these Blu-Ray/HD DVD war threads.

Both formats have such a long way to go and neither one will dethrone DVD until the media cost $10 - $15. Except for a new release, you can get just about any movie you want in DVD format for $10 or less and believe me, that is extremely important to the average consumer.

Interesting discussion points, getting a little heated, so hopefully cooler heads can prevail, but somehow I doubt it.

For my personal choice I had started with the simple question, "What would make me happy?"

I listed off my top 5 and I came up with the following order.

1) PQ
2) AQ
3) Games
4) media interactivity
5) cost

So in terms of the first two, I considered the formats a wash. Picture quality between DVD and BD/HD-DVD was a bump-up, but very few people noticed in all honesty. When my parents visited they thought DVD was HD quality as an example. Audio quality was also a wash as well since I had a 5.1 speaker setup. I don't have speakers that cost over 1k, so I don't expect that the latest lossless codec to be of any significance to me.

When I came to the 3rd option, I did like the ps3 better than the 360 due to the fact that I have a legacy collection of ps2 games, so that tilted me slightly towards BD.

In terms of media interactivity, I gave the edge to HD-DVD, but honestly I so rarely watch the extras other than to look at the trailer after the movie to see what scenes were spliced in that I couldn't really balance this vs the gaming factor.

The fifth concern was cost. At the time I was able to get an used 20GB ps3 w/ 2 games and 2 controllers for $400. Or an A2 for >$500 or a used 360+HD-DVD drive for around 350-400. Given all the options, BD also won out in my perception that I was paying $200 for a gaming platform and another $200 for a BD player. Valid or not, that was what sold me on the ps3.

Now what I did realize out of this exercise is that everyone is going to have a different path of reasoning between HD-DVD and BD. Mine was more gaming based, so my bias was set 6 years ago when I got my ps2. The final push for me was the different studio support, I had more movies I desired on BD than HD-DVD. I will continue to rent 99% of my BD movies till the format war is over, but I know that I choose my path with my current happiness as a major factor and future happiness as a potential bonus for a minor additional cost (my guess is ~$100 vs. a wii and A2).

A lot of arguments attach a lot of credence to numbers, statistics, and other forms of comparison to see if they can portend the future like Miss Cloe at 2am on BET. Anyone who claims they know the result of the war is flat out lying. My guess is BD, but I don't think a decisive end of this war can reasonable occur before late 2008 at the earliest. Why? Because until my grandmother tells me she wants a BD or HD-DVD player, I don't think there will be enough momentum on either side to "knock the other out of the ring."

Personally a format war for 2007/8 is a good thing for the sake of the consumer. I think this will push both specs to be up to snuff faster and more fully-featured than if we had only one standard. Personally I'm laughing all the way to the bank that Sony is helping me out with the ps3 and BD media.

Support your format with dollars that is all that will really make a difference. Where there is the most amount of profit, all the CE and content companies will flock to.

-Splints

Blu-ray technology is currently technically superior and when studios utilize it the benefits are undeniable.

HDD 208HD/228BD, HTS 201HD/213BD, HTF 65HD/86BD, UD 133HD/123BD, Talk 248HD/262BD
07.24.07
HD DVD PQ SQ TOTAL Blu-ray PQ SQ TOTAL
HighDef 3.89 3.62 3.75 HighDef 3.98 3.83 3.91
HTSpot 3.92 3.83 3.88 HTSpot 4.04 4.24 4.14
DVDTalk 3.65 3.48 3.57 DVDTalk 3.66 3.69 3.68
HTForum 3.99 3.69 3.84 HTForum 4.30 4.08 4.19
UpDisc 4.02 3.81 3.92 UpDisc 4.06 4.15 4.10
Totals 3.88 3.68 3.78 Totals 3.94 3.95 3.94

PQ Studio
4.19 Buena Vista
4.02 Paramount
3.95 Warner
3.94 Sony
3.84 Fox
3.80 Weinstein
3.73 Universal
3.66 Lionsgate

SQ Studio
4.38 Buena Vista
4.12 Sony
4.08 Fox
3.81 Lionsgate
3.81 Paramount
3.63 Warner
3.63 Universal
3.63 Weinstein
I stated it before when the table above was posted on another thread (somehow, in the absence of something better, this table has turned into some kind of a Blu-ray fetish) :D ... so I'll state it again (reloaded, revised and improved):

The above data that shows that, according to reviews, Blu-ray does have better picture and sound (therefore Boo-ray MUST be better) is totally irrelevant [why? Because since those are not available in both formats for comparison, the only thing you can really say is that CERTAIN MOVIES do make better impression than others].

Why? Because the studios in question are not releasing the same type of films. Some studios are releasing a higher number of blockbusters or films with heavy CGI and sound effects (who obviously stand out when compared to an 80's film) while others are releasing a broader mix of blockbusters and catalog titles.

It is a waste of time (if not a dishonest and gross fallacy) to proclaim the superiority of one format because of "some" average you find within 150 titles compared or something like that.

I'd like to include myself in the category of people who knows that reality kicks in every time we admit that no studio treats all films the same way. Nor do they ever will. And there is no format that will ever make them change that.

Universal, for example has released lots of catalog titles who probably did not get top treatment OR simply do not stand out visually as Pirates of the Caribbean (this has nothing to do with the HD DVD format). Warner, seems to be doing a great job releasing older classics (and I'm thrilled to see Deliverance coming soon). Fox and Sony have yet to release any classics from The Searchers or Rio Bravo era (because they seem to be investing in another kind of films).

Every studio has its release policy and that has nothing to do with the format quality.

So, it is ridiculous to claim any kind of superiority based in averages.

The problem is that I do not dispute the reviews and the merit of those studios WHEN IT COMES TO PICK TITLES THAT MAKE A BIGGER IMPRESSION on reviewers.

But that has nothing to do with the merit of each format.

And the way those averages are used, DO TRY to pass the impression that one format simply has the best picture because of the format - not because of the films chosen for release.

The HUGE policy difference on studio policy regarding releases in both formats (the main reason why you get those averages) are here in this same thread:

4.) For me, the number of films that I have wanted to purchase have been heavily HD DVD. I only have about 6 BD films. That may be my age. And it is something that can change quickly (as in CE3K). But BD content has not been very compelling for me.

As opposed to here:

(...)Mine was more gaming based, so my bias was set 6 years ago when I got my ps2. The final push for me was the different studio support, I had more movies I desired on BD than HD-DVD. I will continue to rent 99% of my BD movies till the format war is over (...)

Many months ago, in a much discussed thread, I questioned Fox choice of titles when they started releasing on Blu-ray. At that time, it seemed to me, blu-ray was heavily investing on titles who make big splash in order to woe critics and PS3 consumers in A CERTAIN direction. Now we all see:

a) The reflection of such policy on certain consumers
b) The way critics are influenced by current tastes
c) The way BD supporters spin information regardless to the validity of their point.

Having said all this, the following information:


Blu-ray technology is currently technically superior and when studios utilize it the benefits are undeniable.

...Is incorrect, untrue, a mistake, or a lie.

Thanks.

This is the smartest post I have seen on these Blu-Ray/HD DVD war threads.Very kind of you to say that. Thank you.

Since this is an invitation to rational discussion, and since the thread has stayed reasonably even-handed, I wanted to broach the subject of PR. Why? It's clear that format supporters on both sides believe that the other side is being more dishonest.

Having watched since the beginning, I think it's obvious that there is little difference in the "quantity" of the dishoesty (that is, I think both sides are dishonest or misleading equally as often). The difference (and this may be key to some HD DVD supporters disdain for BD) is that the BDA-sponsored FUD is often less subtle, and therefore comes across as more arrogant.

In a format war (somewhat analogous to the presidential primaries) when you are ahead you are more concerned about staying ahead and reminding everyone ("we're already won!") then in picking fights over specific details. The reason is that depending on how you pick apart the data, any side can look good when couched in the right terms (see: "HD DVD has sold more standalones").

HD DVD has always been the underdog, and has fought a far more nuanced (but equally dishonest) PR campaign. But with many people here already hating Sony and/or Microsoft, there is a lot of AVSers who simply see dishonesty in the PR of the opposing camp and ignoring it in their own.

For example:

1) Pretending you are ahead in hardware sales by not counting the most common Blu Ray player (PS3) is dishonest.

2) Pretending you are further ahead than you really are (in hardware sales) by counting every PS3 as a BD player is dishonest.

or:

1) Citing the best sales week you've had (Casino Royale) as typical of sales trends in your press release is dishonest.

2) Pretending that a mediocre Q2 after a disasterous Q1 shows significant "growth" when you can't touch software sales of your competitor is dishonest.

Now, each example is dishonest, and morover, is intentionally so (i.e. the companies involved have purposely manipulated the data to put their product in the best light). Niether is obviously more dishonest than the other, but format protagonists tend to cast the other sides' sins in a poorer light, and ignore or marginalize their own.

One thing that HD DVD has done very well is capitalize on their underdog status; while they have been just as dishonest in their PR, they have encouraged the view that the BDA is a bunch of anti-competative control-freak companies (some of their mouthpieces doing so explicitly on the AVS forums). There is no rational basis for this as compared to, say, Microsoft, but it doesn't matter; they are exploiting one of the few strengths they have as the underdog (in this situation), and one can hardly blame them (from a business point of view. Unless, of course, you prefer Blu Ray. :)

From my point of view the HD-DVD side discussion has been much more rational :p

From my point of view the HD-DVD side discussion has been much more rational :p
I've found that a good barometer for the rationality of posters in these sections of AVS is the amount of pro-format propaganda they've posted in their signatures. ;)

I've found that a good barometer for the rationality of posters in these sections of AVS is the amount of pro-format propaganda they've posted in their signatures. ;)
Well played, sir.

I've found that a good barometer for the rationality of posters in these sections of AVS is the amount of pro-format propaganda they've posted in their signatures. ;)


QFT.

I've found that a good barometer for the rationality of posters in these sections of AVS is the amount of pro-format propaganda they've posted in their signatures. ;)
Ah, I'm just making a point. Refute it if you will.

From my point of view the HD-DVD side discussion has been much more rational :p

With a post history and sig like your's why am I not surprised?

Ah, I'm just making a point. Refute it if you will.
Actually, you posted an opinion. If you'd like to expand it and suggest that your opinion is a supportable fact, the burden lies with you to prove your assertion.

One must be able to discern between fact and opinion before commenting with authority about what parts of a discussion are rational, don't you agree? ;)

HD DVD will have a dramatic price advantage during the last few months of the year and has the advantage in that the software is easier to write for in its advanced iHD capabilities as even the 1st gen players are mandatory with persistent storage, and internet and network and HDMI and USB jacks for expansion. Another advantage is the earliest players have enough CPU and memory in them for expansive firmware updates.

There has been just one HD DVD platform to write for, while Blu-ray is still a quilt of hardware profiles and has a much more complicated BD-J tool to author with.

More studio support may be a non issue to many consumers if most titles are common and HD DVD will be at consumer freindly prices this fall and Blu-ray will be more expensive.

Seems like your making the case for the PS3.
There is no HD DVD player out there that can compete with the ps3 in terms of persistant storage, internet and network, hdmi, CPU and memory.

As far as price is concerned, look at the facts: Toshiba slashed player prices, and the market reacted in a manner that caused Toshiba to downscale their own moderate sales projections.
If saving money is the primary concern for the frugal HD consumer, why would they buy a machine that plays native media that cost so much more than DVD’s?

Actually, you posted an opinion. If you'd like to expand it and suggest that your opinion is a supportable fact, the burden lies with you to prove your assertion.

One must be able to discern between fact and opinion before commenting with authority about what parts of a discussion are rational, don't you agree? ;)
1. There are no lower price BD players than the A2
2. The Samsung players can't be upgraded to Profile 1.1 let alone 2.0

Now since you doubt fact, what is your opinion based on?

1. There are no lower price BD players than the A2
2. The Samsung players can't be upgraded to Profile 1.1 let alone 2.0
What do these points have to do with the price of Lima beans in Peru?

We were talking about the rationality of posters on these parts of AVS Forum. The last time I checked, throwing random unrelated factoids into a discussion doesn't do much to support your premise.

For what it's worth, I don't think you'll find many Blu-ray supporters who would disagree with either of the above two statements, any more than you'd find many HD DVD supporters who would disagree with the fact that Blu-ray has more available bandwidth than HD DVD.

No matter. Enough confrontation, I suppose. Carry on with your crusade if you must.

Sorry, someone attacked my sig, and it stands unrefuted. You may have been looking at my earlier post - the one with :p - maybe it should have been :)

Sorry, someone attacked my sig, and it stands unrefuted. You may have been looking at my earlier post - the one with :p - maybe it should have been :)
You quoted me directly and responded to my post, not to the person who attacked your sig.

For the record, this is the comment I took issue with:
From my point of view the HD-DVD side discussion has been much more rational

No, you responded to my "refute it if you will" which was my response to a sig challenge.

Now with regard to rationality, I think Technicolor has made the most reasoned points in this thread.

lol...anyone want to get back to the point about both sides PR being promiscuously dishonest, but format fans usually only seeing the dishonesty in the opposing format?

lol...anyone want to get back to the point about both sides PR being promiscuously dishonest, but format fans usually only seeing the dishonesty in the opposing format?
The amount of spin in this forum from both sides makes me dizzy sometimes.

As for Technicolor's post (this being a response to WayneL's comment above), it would be correct, except that the basis of dobyblue's argument is that since Blu-ray has shifted to predominantly BD-50 releases and newer codecs in 2007, the average Blu-ray PQ/AQ score has not only increased to match HD DVD, but surpass it on the whole. It's spinning the numbers, but the statement itself is not a lie. Pointing it out as spin is OK. Characterizing it negatively beyond that, however, is spinning in the opposite direction.

'BR Java' isn't exactly 'full Java'. Yes, there are lots of enterprise and desktop features which "full Java" includes which is not in BD-J. The point is that the Java spec in Blu-ray provides the exact same language features and most of the relevant I/O capabilities. Developers can use the language to build whatever they want, including new A/V codecs, networking clients, etc. HDi is primarily a markup specification, so for the most part you're limited to the features the spec authors included. Yes, there is a scripting component, but it's far more limited both in scope and practical capability if you're trying to implement anything beyond the core features in the HDi spec.

The titles that do have TrueHD debunk this br fanclown myth.No, they are a selective representation. The fact that an increasing number of titles are being announced or released with more features on the Blu-ray side proves the point - why would Paramount leave features off the HD DVD version if space weren't a factor?

Yes, there are lots of enterprise and desktop features which "full Java" includes which is not in BD-J. The point is that the Java spec in Blu-ray provides the exact same language features and most of the relevant I/O capabilities. Developers can use the language to build whatever they want, including new A/V codecs, networking clients, etc. HDi is primarily a markup specification, so for the most part you're limited to the features the spec authors included. Yes, there is a scripting component, but it's far more limited both in scope and practical capability if you're trying to implement anything beyond the core features in the HDi spec.


Most rational thing i've heard in a while.
The api's that BD-J implements is very close to what the standard desktop JVM does. Its more powerful than the simpler KVM(kilobyte virtual machine) that is implemented on phones and other mobile devices.
Are you in the I.T. industry Talkstr8t ?

Exactly what are you expecting from Blu-ray that you don't have with HD DVD? What do you have in POTC that you don't have in The Matrix? What do you think you'll have on 300 BD that you don't have on 300 HD DVD? I'd love to know.Recent title announcements make it clear that Blu-ray's significant capacity advantage makes a real difference in terms of what studios will include. HD DVD proponents can claim that studios can always include two discs, but Paramount's recent announcements indicate this may well not happen. The features HD DVD enjoys which Blu-ray hasn't are temporary; with the availability of BD-Video 1.1 and BD-Live players everything which has been released on HD DVD (i.e. Warner's IME) will be released on Blu-ray. The opposite isn't true; unless you pin your hopes on the far-from-proven TL51 option, HD DVD will always have a major capacity deficit. And this doesn't even begin to address the benefits brought on by Blu-ray's unquestionably superior technology for burning discs, which will have a real impact on the deskop, camcorders, etc.
Potential goes both ways. Ten years from now, will HD DVD players be as they are today? Will HDI be like it is today?Are you suggesting HD DVD has just as much capacity for improvement as Blu-ray? If so you're living in a cave. Blu-ray broke away from the optical physics of DVD for precisely this reason - to take things to the start of a whole new level, rather than trying to eke out the last few bits from the existing physics. That's one of the reasons the HD DVD camp has had such difficulty delivering writability - the physics just aren't there, let alone going to the 200GB level which clearly looks feasible for BD-R / BD-RE. By the same token, the HDi spec can't be significantly enhanced without compatibility problems. Conversely, because the BD-J spec is based on a much more open-ended platform, developers will innovate at a far more rapid pace without requiring a new platform specification.

What's wrong with having the same (or more) with less space or bandwidth?Because whatever you can have on HD DVD, you can have 60% more of it on Blu-ray. Period.

Are you in the I.T. industry Talkstr8t ?Suffice it to say I'm intimately familiar with Java technology in this space.

Recent title announcements make it clear that Blu-ray's significant capacity advantage makes a real difference in terms of what studios will include. HD DVD proponents can claim that studios can always include two discs, but Paramount's recent announcements indicate this may well not happen. The features HD DVD enjoys which Blu-ray hasn't are temporary; with the availability of BD-Video 1.1 and BD-Live players everything which has been released on HD DVD (i.e. Warner's IME) will be released on Blu-ray. The opposite isn't true; unless you pin your hopes on the far-from-proven TL51 option, HD DVD will always have a major capacity deficit. And this doesn't even begin to address the benefits brought on by Blu-ray's unquestionably superior technology for burning discs, which will have a real impact on the deskop, camcorders, etc.
I think this is the first time I've seen an insider talk about the structural differences between Blu-ray and HD DVD as far as the writable media are concerned. Are you at liberty to expand on what Blu-ray does differently than HD DVD that makes it easier to produce a write/rewritable disc solution? I've been rather curious about this particular aspect where HD DVD has been lagging behind Blu-ray.

Suffice it to say I'm intimately familiar with Java technology in this space.

Good stuff. I'm a java developer so i also am familiar with Java technology.
I also agree with you on how bluray is the next big step in optical storage whereas hddvd is simply an improvement on dvd. Future potential is what i saw in bluray and hence the reason i chose it over hddvd despite the price difference.

The amount of spin in this forum from both sides makes me dizzy sometimes.

As for Technicolor's post (this being a response to WayneL's comment above), it would be correct, except that the basis of dobyblue's argument is that since Blu-ray has shifted to predominantly BD-50 releases and newer codecs in 2007, the average Blu-ray PQ/AQ score has not only increased to match HD DVD, but surpass it on the whole. It's spinning the numbers, but the statement itself is not a lie. Pointing it out as spin is OK. Characterizing it negatively beyond that, however, is spinning in the opposite direction.
Oh, if that's what you meant. Technicolor gave good reasons for any higher ratings, rather than anything to do with BD-50. I'll spare you my sig for now.

why would Paramount leave features off the HD DVD version if space weren't a factor?
Because they don't know if the features will play on the shifting and yet unimplemented profiles?

The above data that shows that, according to reviews, Blu-ray does have better picture and sound (therefore Boo-ray MUST be better) is totally irrelevant [why? Because since those are not available in both formats for comparison, the only thing you can really say is that CERTAIN MOVIES do make better impression than others].Sorry, this doesn't wash. If you're talking about a sample size of a dozen or two movies, maybe. But you've got in excess of 300 movies (between the two formats represented here). The fact that there might be a few more CGI titles on Blu-ray which may lend themselves to higher PQ scores would not make a significant difference in the averages. Your argument also discounts the "eye/ear candy" factor - having titles which blow you away visually/aurally is one of the motivating factors for enthusiasts to purchase new equipment. If one format has more titles which achieve this effect then it's a meaningful distinction in the format war, and the overall PQ averages simply reflect this.

I think this is the first time I've seen an insider talk about the structural differences between Blu-ray and HD DVD as far as the writable media are concerned. Are you at liberty to expand on what Blu-ray does differently than HD DVD that makes it easier to produce a write/rewritable disc solution? I've been rather curious about this particular aspect where HD DVD has been lagging behind Blu-ray.It's not a "liberty" issue, I'm just not particularly well-versed in the physics of why Blu-ray is far superior for writability. I'd suggest asking in the Insiders' Thread. Looking at product avaiability, however, the difference is obvious. Toshiba has only just released their first US product which supports writing, and as far as I know RW support is completely missing. On the Blu-ray side every product has supported both -R and -RE (RW in DVD terms), and only recently was a read-only drive released (the new Pioneer).

why would Paramount leave features off the HD DVD version if space weren't a factor?Because they don't know if the features will play on the shifting and yet unimplemented profiles?Huh? This might be an argument you'd make if they were leaving (BD-Video 1.1 or BD-Live) features off the Blu-ray version, but that's not the case here. Upcoming Paramount titles will get lossless audio and additional bonus content on the Blu-ray releases which won't be offered on the HD DVD releases. This from a studio which has been the "most" neutral so far. As content providers stop worrying about appearing neutral and start delivering the best each format has to offer you'll see clear, compelling benefits from Blu-ray's inherent and significant capacity and bandwidth advantage. You'll also see consumers who can play either format migrating to the Blu-ray version, further shifting sales numbers.

Sorry, this doesn't wash. If you're talking about a sample size of a dozen or two movies, maybe. But you've got in excess of 300 movies (between the two formats represented here). The fact that there might be a few more CGI titles on Blu-ray which may lend themselves to higher PQ scores would not make a significant difference in the averages. Your argument also discounts the "eye/ear candy" factor - having titles which blow you away visually/aurally is one of the motivating factors for enthusiasts to purchase new equipment. If one format has more titles which achieve this effect then it's a meaningful distinction in the format war, and the overall PQ averages simply reflect this.
For 3/5 sites the difference in PQ is 1/100th of the total, also making the other 2 sites suspicious. Out of 300+ movies this is meaningless.

HD DVD has the advantage in that the software is easier to write for in its advanced iHD capabilities as even the 1st gen players are mandatory with persistent storage, and internet and network and HDMI and USB jacks for expansion.I've spoken with most of the developers who have authored advanced content on both HDi and BD-J. The "easier-to-write for" claims by the HDi camp quickly prove false once you attempt to go beyond fairly straightforward menuing and UI effects. Where's the HD DVD version of Dragon's Lair? It was initially announced and development begun for HD DVD, not Blu-ray, but the author decided, in spite of not ever having programmed in Java, that there were greater technical challenges with HDi than BD-J. The Blu-ray version has been available for months; the HD DVD version is "coming soon".

Recent title announcements make it clear that Blu-ray's significant capacity advantage makes a real difference in terms of what studios will include. HD DVD proponents can claim that studios can always include two discs, but Paramount's recent announcements indicate this may well not happen.

You are absolutely wrong.
FIRST - Today's Blu-ray market is an artificially maintained fragment of the DVD market. Meaning that few of the options taken today may have any real application in the future.
SECOND - Paramount's decision has to do with price of putting up a double disc edition.
THIRD - When faced with the problem of space for extras, the NORMAL thing is go for a double disc edition and hook consumers based on the value generated by such title. Are you seeing two BD editions for the same title? No.
FOUR - The reason behind Paramount's decision in regard to this title in these formats only apply to now, based on the cost of things. You talk like if we were 5 years from now.

The features HD DVD enjoys which Blu-ray hasn't are temporary; with the availability of BD-Video 1.1 and BD-Live players everything which has been released on HD DVD (i.e. Warner's IME) will be released on Blu-ray.

Exactly my thought. Do you see now why anything that Blu-ray does of extraordinary can only be applied to today?

The same thing happens with the Paramount's case. It will not be the existence of a 50Gb disc that will change the market. You could have Reds in one disc. But you don't. Another studio. Another policy.

The Paramount case means zero.
Now... get me a BD disc with more content and an astonishing picture and sound improvement in quality over its HD DVD counterpart and you'll have my attention.

Until then, Blu-ray (as someone once said) a solution looking for a problem.

The opposite isn't true;

I sincerely hope you are not going back into the "exclusive studio support" thing. No matter how much I love Spiderman, I can wait till my HD DVD version. Feel free to say the same on King Kong.

unless you pin your hopes on the far-from-proven TL51 option, HD DVD will always have a major capacity deficit.

And you just said HD DVD's interactive advantages were a temporary thing? And you BD50 is not? And our TL51 is never coming?

Puh-leeease!

As I already said to someone here, we don't deal in theory. Get me a all your theoretical superior specs' worth of image and sound... and then we are talking.

But if you want a simple answer, I'll give you one: right now, the crux of all your interactivity is as hazy as TL51. But I'm not worried about temporary things. The HD DVD camp is not the running against the clock to kill the other format.

Eventually, we'll both get there. But blu-ray is more expensive, harder to make and no one sees those specs making a bang. If you want consumers to pay extra, you must give them a bigger bang. OR keep spending in marketing what you saved in research. What's current player profile again?

And this doesn't even begin to address the benefits brought on by Blu-ray's unquestionably superior technology for burning discs, which will have a real impact on the deskop, camcorders, etc.

Now you look like a salesman.
Now, since I'm not a technician, you'll have to work harder here and explain it like if I were a 4yo child. What exactly does blu-ray have for my camcorder?

I mean... unless my camcorder has teeth. :)

You're certainly not bringing the BD200 into this, are you? :)

Are you suggesting HD DVD has just as much capacity for improvement as Blu-ray? If so you're living in a cave.


Let me tell you where I live. I live in a world where technology has a purpose (other than masturbation) and an expiration deadline. Certainly you do not expect us to be using Blu-ray or HD DVD twenty years from now, are you? You certainly do not think my camcorder in 2027 will use a BD200 disc are you? Can't you think outside the box? Probably the future has no moving parts (at least that was what my Sony crystal ball told me).

Capacity for improvement may be unlimited. Buy no one need that because obsolence (not to mention newer patents) will get blu-ray before infinity comes.

And you expect me to pay for Blu-ray for a a huge potential that will never come? The "potential" you talk about is marketing talking because none of us really need that potential... or will miss it if it's never there.

HD DVD, on the other side, is the most appropriate answer to what we need: interactive hi-def home video with top picture and sound quality at a cheap price.

I don't need to cut diamonds with my discs. I don't care if they can stand Venus' extreme heat (I myself cannot!!!) and I'm not planning to store larges amounts of data in a disc (for that, today there are already cheaper options).

Will Blu-ray grow? It will grow up to a dwarf if you consider the world outside.

So sell it to me better...

Blu-ray broke away from the optical physics of DVD for precisely this reason - to take things to the start of a whole new level, rather than trying to eke out the last few bits from the existing physics.

Sell this to someone else. The reason why the ocean waves opened and its foam gave birth to blu-ray was the money you were not gonna get with HD DVD. That's why Sony bought a major Hollywood movie studio, took the time to make the BDA and get Fox and Disney on board... somehow...

But the laws of physics remain the same across the universe (like in that Beatles song). What Blu-ray does is pretty much the same as HD DVD... but going through a longer winding road - a road full of more lucrative Sony patents.

Or were you thinking about the benefit of mankind? :cool:

But it's ok... I love Sony TVs. I just don't want to pay more for something that has no reason not to be cheap.

That's one of the reasons the HD DVD camp has had such difficulty delivering writability - the physics just aren't there, let alone going to the 200GB level which clearly looks feasible for BD-R / BD-RE.

Is that why you are having so much problem delivering interactivity? :) Those lines of code just aren't there, right? :) Were they simply misplaced? :)

Do you see how you cannot argue with the HD DVD camp in those terms?

You are bringing issues that will be delivered shortly (for both camps, I agree). So why do I have to pay more for Blu-ray?

By the same token, the HDi spec can't be significantly enhanced without compatibility problems. Conversely, because the BD-J spec is based on a much more open-ended platform, developers will innovate at a far more rapid pace without requiring a new platform specification.

This is strictly a matter of opinion. There are good things about BD-J and bad things about BD-J. I'm not comfortable to discard HDI just to find, later on, with practice, more bad things about BD-J.

And you shouldn't bring the issue of compatibility problems since you are the one hammering so much on the idea that Blu-ray will change... and bloom... and have bigger discs... and people buying more players... more discs... etc...

Yes, that's the economics about Blu-ray that I don't like. :cool:

Because whatever you can have on HD DVD, you can have 60% more of it on Blu-ray. Period.

Yeah, sure. :cool:

Thanks anyway.

For 3/5 sites the difference in PQ is 1/100th of the total, also making the other 2 sites suspicious. Out of 300+ movies this is meaningless.

True.

So much space... such a higher bandwidth... and Blu-ray is counting crumbles that fell to the floor.

Right now, we could all be enjoying HD DVD movies at $9,00 each.

True.

So much space... such a higher bandwidth... and Blu-ray is counting crumbles that fell to the floor.

Right now, we could all be enjoying HD DVD movies at $9,00 each.
Naive. Very, very naive.

The studios want new revenue streams. They're not interested in giving away their content. Even without a format war, the price of software won't come down to $9 for quite a while. With a format war slowing adoption and splitting volumes (and thus studio margins), it'll take even longer.

Don't blame this on Blu-ray. Blame this on the studios.

I've spoken with most of the developers who have authored advanced content on both HDi and BD-J. The "easier-to-write for" claims by the HDi camp quickly prove false once you attempt to go beyond fairly straightforward menuing and UI effects. Where's the HD DVD version of Dragon's Lair? It was initially announced and development begun for HD DVD, not Blu-ray, but the author decided, in spite of not ever having programmed in Java, that there were greater technical challenges with HDi than BD-J. The Blu-ray version has been available for months; the HD DVD version is "coming soon".

"Coming soon" is better than "It's here, but, we don't know why, it does not work in every player".

Buy others may disagree.

Naive. Very, very naive.

The studios want new revenue streams. They're not interested in giving away their content. Even without a format war, the price of software won't come down to $9 for quite a while. With a format war slowing adoption and splitting volumes (and thus studio margins), it'll take even longer.

Don't blame this on Blu-ray. Blame this on the studios.

I took a poetic licence on my last phrase. Forgive me. :cool:

In truth, you are right.

But don't forget that in order to replicate Blu-ray, the investment is significantly higher than it is in order to replicate HD DVD.

Meaning that if we think on that fact ALONE, the price of an HD DVD disc will drop to DVD levels a lot sooner than BD

I've spoken with most of the developers who have authored advanced content on both HDi and BD-J.

I wonder, when you look at the state of interactivity in BD today, is this what you had in mind? Do you feel like it is on pace or off pace of what you had expected? Do you think MS has done a better job supporting iHD than Sun has BD-J? If so, why?

BD Myth No. 1: BD has better picture quality. Of some 300 titles, three out of five review sites give a 1% or less advantage on average to BD in terms of PQ. BD has many more current releases that should have much higher quality masters.

BD Myth No. 1: BD has better picture quality. Of some 300 titles, three out of five review sites give a 1% or less advantage on average to BD in terms of PQ. BD has many more current releases that should have much higher quality masters.

I think I missed something, is this the rational discussion?

nice sig :rolleyes: