So far this format war seems like it has consisted of a few facts mixed with a lot of B.S. This seems to be even more so when looking at the Blu-ray side (my opinion), but the HD-DVD side has done their part as well.

With that said, I have to ask is this 45 or 51 GB disk a very likely thing in the future or is it another case of format war B.S.?

if there's a demand for it, they will make it.

if there's a demand for it, they will make it.

There is a demand for it and they can't make it without breaking compatibility with current players. Just a guess. :D

There is a demand for it and they can't make it without breaking compatibility with current players. Just a guess. :D
i guess i'll have to rephrase. there has to be enough demand for them to produce it but it won't be easy due to compatibility issues with the original specs. :p

There is a demand for it and they can't make it without breaking compatibility with current players. Just a guess. :D

TL45 is a part of the original HD DVD spec. Getting 17 gigs on a layer and thus TL51 has been an issue of some contention. I recall some one on the insider's thread (Amir perhaps?) mentioning that they had TL51 up and running on first-gen HD DVD players. If it's wanted/needed and most assuredly if the format needs it to survive they will make it work.

I'm willing to bet we see TL51 before we see BD Profile 2.0 fully implemented, but that's just speculation on my part. I will probably want both before I make the plunge and buy a dual-format stand alone.

I would think that 34gb discs will become the norm at some point, and there is a need for those.

So far this format war seems like it has consisted of a few facts mixed with a lot of B.S. This seems to be even more so when looking at the Blu-ray side (my opinion), but the HD-DVD side has done their part as well.

With that said, I have to ask is this 45 or 51 GB disk a very likely thing in the future or is it another case of format war B.S.?

I don't know what you mean. It seems the DVD Forum has given TL51 their blessing, thereby moving it into the technical evaluation phase -- as in what do the final specs have to be. Unless they come up with a death-blow gotcha (which would have to be something Toshiba missed during the development process -- ie. highly unlikely) then it's just a question of time before it's approved and added to the specs.

As to whether we'll see it as consumers, that's a complete unknown since that would only happen if one or more of the studios decided to actually use it :)! From what we've been told so far, no studios are in line.

TL45 is a part of the original HD DVD spec. Getting 17 gigs on a layer and thus TL51 has been an issue of some contention. I recall some one on the insider's thread (Amir perhaps?) mentioning that they had TL51 up and running on first-gen HD DVD players. If it's wanted/needed and most assuredly if the format needs it to survive they will make it work.

I'm willing to bet we see TL51 before we see BD Profile 2.0 fully implemented, but that's just speculation on my part. I will probably want both before I make the plunge and buy a dual-format stand alone.

TL45 was never a part of any HD DVD spec. We were told it was going to be proposed to the DVD Forum around mid 2007, but as we know, sights were switched to the 17GB/layer TL51 version announced at CES2007.

17GB just required scooping up the left over capacity resulting from the maturation of the 15GB/layer process. The manufacturing tolerances originally allowed for are simply not needed at this point -- hence an opportunity. Chances are the compatibility risks with TL51 are much the same as with TL45. Fortunately, TL45 was tested and replicator verified two years ago, so the chances are pretty good we'll have a smooth road. Still -- one never really knows about these things until they arrive :).

Would a player need a firmware upgrade in order to refocus the laser to reach the 3 layer?

Would a player need a firmware upgrade in order to refocus the laser to reach the 3 layer?

I think a firmware update to support TL51 is a VERY safe expectation :)! With any luck, nothing more than that will be needed.

The NEC HR-1100A was listed as supporting 45GB discs.

I think the compatibility will be there.

I would think that 34gb discs will become the norm at some point, and there is a need for those.

Agreed. I'm expecting SL17 and DL34 to be added to the spec before the year's out, but as always, we'll have to wait and see :)!

What will hold back the release of theses TL45/51 is the price per disk at first. Maybe if the have to start off with a box set first, to bring down the cost. ex HP1-5 HDDVD boxset

What will hold back the release of theses TL45/51 is the price per disk at first. Maybe if the have to start off with a box set first, to bring down the cost. ex HP1-5 HDDVD boxset

Since TL45 was replaced by TL51 for DVD Forum submission, there's no real reason to ever expect it to see the light of day -- TL51 does everything TL45 had to offer :)!

It'll be interesting to see where TL51 lands in the over all HD video disc replication cost structure (BD as well as HD DVD). However, it'll likely be awhile before we see that info -- especially if there are delays in studio interest. Since the earlier TL45 replicator test apparently didn't report any particular yield problems, I'm hoping the additional cost for TL51 will only be incremental over DL30/DL34.

Here's a link to another thread with the same topic.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=868476

It seems to me that if a film like 300 is in perfect 1080p, with perfect HD Dolby Digital, with all kinds of special features, including a game you can play and online interactive features.

And they fit all of this easily on a 30G disc.

I'm wondering.......

Why again do we need more????

it seems like its all just a race to say we have more space.

The space is absolutely pointless because you quite simply don't need it, PERIOD.

Maybe the extra space will allow them to implement PCM audio may be.

I aked Amir this very question and didn't really get a solid answer. I think the issue is backward compatibility. I think a TL-45 would be just fine. I don't think an extra 6gb is a big deal. A perfect example of where this is an issue and I am pissed is the hddvd version of Face Off, originally a 2 disc set now it is only a single disc. All the extras are in HD with 2 documentaries, deleted scenes and the trailer. The BD-50 is supposed to be getting the trailer and 2 documentraries exclusive. I do not know how long the extras are. The film is 140 minutes. I know it is easily possible to put 200 minutes of HD material on a HD-30 with pristine PQ. King Kong, Wyatt Earp, Gods & Generals, Troy all over 3 hours and KK has U control PIP, but that is Paramounts story and they are sticking to it. Here a TL disc would have fixed the problem. Actually, 2 discs would have fixed it but that doesn't seem to be the route they are going. By the way the 2 disc dvd will have the same features as the BD, go figure. Needless to say if they decide to treat hddvd as the red headed step child I will not be purchasing their products. Especially when the dvd gets extras the hddvd does not.

They could also have done a 30/15 dual sided HD DVD which is also part of the spec.

Have any been released yet though? Originally I thought the matrix trilogy were supposed to be dual sided hddvd's instead of the hddvd combo's we got. Excellent point though simply put the extras on the other 15gb side.

[QUOTE=mike171979]It seems to me that if a film like 300 is in perfect 1080p, with perfect HD Dolby Digital, with all kinds of special features, including a game you can play and online interactive features.

And they fit all of this easily on a 30G disc.

I'm wondering.......

Why again do we need more????
[QUOTE]

Well I look at it like this, Blu-Ray has 50GB, if HD-DVD can get the 51GB discs going, they will be basically the same exact size. It could be possible a movie studio like Disney would be willing to make discs on HD-DVD if they knew they could put the same exact transfer on both titles.

Have any been released yet though? Originally I thought the matrix trilogy were supposed to be dual sided hddvd's instead of the hddvd combo's we got. Excellent point though simply put the extras on the other 15gb side.Yes. The European version of Flags of our Fathers is a double-sided 30/15 HD-DVD (with the HD extras on the B-side).

Yes. The European version of Flags of our Fathers is a double-sided 30/15 HD-DVD (with the HD extras on the B-side).Does this mean they can have 30GB per side and fit 60GB on one disc?

AmirM: "30gb is good enough"

Does this mean they can have 30GB per side and fit 60GB on one disc?

Yes that is in the specs, but I don't know if such a disk has been replicated yet.

Does this mean they can have 30GB per side and fit 60GB on one disc?Yes, it's in the specs and shouldn't be any harder to replicate than DVD-18.

AmirM: "30gb is good enough"
Clearly not anymore (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=880987). :confused:

I'd say the looong cut of Alexander would be a strong choice for HD/TL-51...

Troy: DC, the extended LOTR versions, etc.

It seems to me that if a film like 300 is in perfect 1080p, with perfect HD Dolby Digital, with all kinds of special features, including a game you can play and online interactive features.

And they fit all of this easily on a 30G disc.

I'm wondering.......

Why again do we need more????
it seems like its all just a race to say we have more space.

The space is absolutely pointless because you quite simply don't need it, PERIOD.

Both Lord of the Rings Extended Cuts (1&2) will not fit on a DL30

Come on Tosh, get this disk out there!

AmirM: "30gb is good enough"

It's funny how your sig says something about not being a format chearleader....and you make little posts like that. Maybe you should change it.

There is a demand for it and they can't make it without breaking compatibility with current players. Just a guess. :D

And it was said that making a Dual Layered DVD burner would be nearly impossible several years ago. :D

To me, it seems that manufacturers show off all of the "could be/should be" technology, but it is slow, or never comes to the market. Take holographic discs...the technology was announced many years ago. look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc)

Blu-ray standalone recorders have been in Japan for years. Still, nothing in the US.

Whoa whoa whoa

LOTR Extended Editions will fit on a 30G disc.

Look Gods and Generals and Wyatt Earp are both 219 minutes long.

That is 3 hours and 39 minutes.

And both are being released on HD-DVD 30G Discs.

So Don't tell me the LOTR extended versions can't fit on one disc.

I would like to know exactly how many hours of 1080P Pristine video can go on a 30G Disc.

The question is not whether LOTR extended can fit on a 30GB disk, undoubtedly it can. Most of us here would agree that this movie deserves the royal treatment, if any movie does. The question is can you provide a sufficiently high level of quality on a 30GB disk. My feeling is that you can't and that it would be more appropriate to use a higher capacity disk, or to split it up into either a flip-disk or multi-disk set like the DVD editions.

The question is not whether LOTR extended can fit on a 30GB disk, undoubtedly it can. Most of us here would agree that this movie deserves the royal treatment, if any movie does. The question is can you provide a sufficiently high level of quality on a 30GB disk. My feeling is that you can't and that it would be more appropriate to use a higher capacity disk, or to split it up into either a flip-disk or multi-disk set like the DVD editions.

Amen brother ...you can fit The Two Towers EE(223 min) and Return of the King EE(250 min) onto a 15 GB HD DVD with the right encode if you want. It doesn't necessary mean its desirable.

It'd be a shame if LOTR was over-compressed to fit onto a 30GB disk. If it needs more room, then postpone the release until the 51GB disks are available.

Well I look at it like this, Blu-Ray has 50GB, if HD-DVD can get the 51GB discs going, they will be basically the same exact size. It could be possible a movie studio like Disney would be willing to make discs on HD-DVD if they knew they could put the same exact transfer on both titles.

Disney won't do HD DVD because of security issues, not disc capacity. Because of piracy concerns, I doubt you'll see Disney do HD DVD in the foreseeable future.

Since the technology is there to increase capacity, I certainly believe that a 45 or 51gb disc will be adopted eventually for HD DVD. As time passes and more extras are encoded in high definition, there will be an issue with space and I think the pressure will begin to mount.

Right now, there's still some buggy issues with the 15 and 30gb discs with pauses and freezes and I'm sure they don't want to throw a triple layer into the mix and have to deal with compatibility issues and bugs. But I will predict that within 18-24 months, a higher capacity disc will be adopted.

Here's an interesting post from the Insiders thread not so long ago...
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10148557&&#post10148557

Though my hunch is Newline will release the theatrical versions first on both formats. Also I think ROTK EE has 20minutes of end credits which compress very well I believe...

Right now, there's still some buggy issues with the 15 and 30gb discs with pauses and freezes and I'm sure they don't want to throw a triple layer into the mix and have to deal with compatibility issues and bugs. But I will predict that within 18-24 months, a higher capacity disc will be adopted.

False. What bugs would be in a Single Layer 15GB disc? Or even a 30GB disc? Bugs are in software not hardware like optical. So the only place for a bug to reside is in firmware. I've got 30 HD DVD movies including multiple combos and I've never had one glitch. I'm glad I chose the Angel player. If bugs existed they'd have to be consistent and repeatable across players sharing the same firmware.

I think the ideal solution is to deliver 2-Disc premium sets.

Frankly I've grown accustomed to multiple disc premium sets and I have no desire to have a bunch of stuff tossed on one disc in certain cases.

By the time LotR comes out I expect HD DVD to have transitioned to 17/34GB SL/DL discs and have the definitive answer about 51GB TL discs.

At 20Mbps avg bitrate a 34GB discs could hold about 3.5hrs of video (assuming that real world data storage is 32GB or so)

I think LotR EE would be the ideal product for TL51. Let's say the 1st generation players can't play the TL movie but 2nd and 3rd generations play it fine. I would think that they'd have no problems delivering the product as anyone who still has a 1st generation player would likely upgrade that player to play the new movies.

LotR isn't coming out until late 2008 at the earliest which is my hunch. A HD DVD player could be damn near $99 by then.

False. What bugs would be in a Single Layer 15GB disc? Or even a 30GB disc? Bugs are in software not hardware like optical. So the only place for a bug to reside is in firmware. I've got 30 HD DVD movies including multiple combos and I've never had one glitch. I'm glad I chose the Angel player. If bugs existed they'd have to be consistent and repeatable across players sharing the same firmware.

Regardless where the bugs originate, I thing adding a new type of disc would lead to an increase in them. My opinion. I, also, have been lucky. I have over 80 HD DVDs and have only had freezing and skipping in four -- the latest being Bourne Identity just yesterday when it froze completely. You might not think adding a different type of disc will result in more bugs, but I beg to differ.

It'd be a shame if LOTR was over-compressed to fit onto a 30GB disk. If it needs more room, then postpone the release until the 51GB disks are available.
Or put them on TWO discs, like the SD versions. Heck, consumers see two-disc sets as better values. ;)

Maybe the extra space will allow them to implement PCM audio may be.

But to what advantage -- DD-THD and DTS-HD MA are both lossless CODECs. Their decoded PCM output is constrained to be identical to the original PCM. All adding PCM will accomplish is to chew up a pile of space.

I aked Amir this very question and didn't really get a solid answer. I think the issue is backward compatibility. I think a TL-45 would be just fine. I don't think an extra 6gb is a big deal.

Sure, 45GB is probably technically fine, but for marketing/political purposes, 51GB is unquestionably better :)!

AmirM: "30gb is good enough"
Clearly not anymore (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=880987). :confused:

I'd say the looong cut of Alexander would be a strong choice for HD/TL-51...

Troy: DC, the extended LOTR versions, etc.

Reportedly, the studios have not been requesting anything larger than 30Gb -- hence 30GB is sufficient from their perspective. Obviously, Toshiba and the DVD Forum don't feel professed studio need is the only driver for TL51 (just as it wasn't over two years ago for TL45.)

Come on Tosh, get this disk out there!

Not Toshiba, it's currently in the DVD Forum's hands.

The question is not whether LOTR extended can fit on a 30GB disk, undoubtedly it can. Most of us here would agree that this movie deserves the royal treatment, if any movie does. The question is can you provide a sufficiently high level of quality on a 30GB disk. My feeling is that you can't and that it would be more appropriate to use a higher capacity disk, or to split it up into either a flip-disk or multi-disk set like the DVD editions.

Ben Waggoner seems to be convinced pristine extended cut video will fit with TrueHD and DD+ tracks and reasonable extra content on a DL30 with no problem.

However, if the extras are at all aggressive, then dual discs probably makes more sense :).

It'd be a shame if LOTR was over-compressed to fit onto a 30GB disk. If it needs more room, then postpone the release until the 51GB disks are available.

Agreed, but there's no reason to believe that's an issue.

I think the whole Paramount lossless thing is ridiculous.

If the HD DVD doesn't have room for HD extras after adding a TrueHD track then
simply put SD extras on the disc. Unlike extras the soundtrack is utilized EVERY time the movie is watched.

I'd like to hear about current advancements in encoding tools. Often forgotten is that not only should efforts be taken to increase storage but the same effort should be made by codec authors to extract more quality at lower bitrates from the Master.

I realize this runs counter to the "OMFG!!!1111 the bitrate is a bajillion megabits per second" stuff that we see from some people. The reality is MPEG2 does fine at 25Mbps and up and thus if you expect the need AVC or VC-1 at 30Mbps then I'd question why AVC or VC-1 needed to be developed as we've had realtime MPEG2 encoding for years now.

I'd like to hear about current advancements in encoding tools. Often forgotten is that not only should efforts be taken to increase storage but the same effort should be made by codec authors to extract more quality at lower bitrates from the Master.

I realize this runs counter to the "OMFG!!!1111 the bitrate is a bajillion megabits per second" stuff that we see from some people. The reality is MPEG2 does fine at 25Mbps and up and thus if you expect the need AVC or VC-1 at 30Mbps then I'd question why AVC or VC-1 needed to be developed as we've had realtime MPEG2 encoding for years now.

Speaking for VC-1: I guess this doesn't tend to get mentioned, but there are at least two available benefits to increasing the efficiency of a CODEC. The typical one mentioned around here is that greater efficiency allows for less space consumption, but as Ben Wagonner has pointed out, that increased efficiency can alternatively have the benefit of delivering greater PQ given the same space -- or a mix of both :)!

Also, the fight for efficiency is not constrained to just improving compactness, but also looks for ways to improve the encoder AI, so that more issues can be detected and corrected during the automated passes, thereby reducing the need for operator intervention. (Together with increasing the power of the tools available to the operator when having to manually intervene.)

I think the whole Paramount lossless thing is ridiculous.

If the HD DVD doesn't have room for HD extras after adding a TrueHD track then
simply put SD extras on the disc. Unlike extras the soundtrack is utilized EVERY time the movie is watched

With Blades of Glory the 8 HD extras need a run time the length of the film or greater to not be able to fit a True HD track on a HD-30. We are talking around 190 minutes of HD video.

With Blades of Glory the 8 HD extras need a run time the length of the film or greater to not be able to fit a True HD track on a HD-30. We are talking around 190 minutes of HD video.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=10139230&&#post10139230


Is it possibl to fit 250 minutes of HD material like LOTR ROTK with a TrueHD track onto a 30 gig HD DVD?
Yep, we discussed this at length a couple of months ago.

We could do the full 1080p24 feature with great-looking VC-1, a TrueHD lossless track, and all the commentary from the 2-disc DVD special edition, on the single side of a single disc.

If the extras were in HD, they'd need to be on a second disc.
Is this purely from a space perspective, or are you including bandwidth concerns as well?
Yes, considering both space and bandwidth. Wouldn't even need statmux.
Ben, when you guys tested the LOTR on one disc was the audio TrueHD 7.1? Also was it 16, 20, or 24bit?
I think we were talking about 7.1 20-bit 48 KHz.
So, just to clarify:

Was this the 4+ hour LOTR: ROTK extended version with TrueHD 7.1 20/48? Somebody had mentioned that a few pages back. If that's really the one, that's very impressive, and essentially makes triple-layer HD DVD moot. Any other audio tracks?
Yes, that was the above. We also assumed carrying over all the other commentary tracks from the original 4-disc set. Basically, the goal is to provide the complete experience of the first two discs of that set, on one side of one disc, in great HD.

"""""'Disney won't do HD DVD because of security issues, not disc capacity. Because of piracy concerns, I doubt you'll see Disney do HD DVD in the foreseeable future."""""""""



I find that incredibly hard to believe since Disney still releases everything they have in DVD.

And we all know a 5 year old can burn and download a DVD.

Everything comes to money, and its obvious Sony got to Disney somehow and convinced them to only support Blu Ray.

With Blades of Glory the 8 HD extras need a run time the length of the film or greater to not be able to fit a True HD track on a HD-30. We are talking around 190 minutes of HD video.

Paramount is off their rocker is they think this Comedy is worth taking up space for 8 HD extras

They should of just done a 2-Disc set.

With Blades of Glory the 8 HD extras need a run time the length of the film or greater to not be able to fit a True HD track on a HD-30. We are talking around 190 minutes of HD video.

Who knows, it could be for the same reason why Warner Bros. didn't put PCM on Blu-Ray's for the longest time while providing HD DVD with Dolby TrueHD, And that reason is "We didn't feel like it" lol. It's not the limitation of the format on either side. It's just a strange studio decision that doesn't appear to make sense to anyone.

Paramount is off their rocker is they think this Comedy is worth taking up space for 8 HD extras

They should of just done a 2-Disc set.

Or simply a dual sided HD-45 as they did on the European version of Flags of our Fathers. The film on the HD-30 side and the extras on the HD-15 side.

The real thing that has me mad is the Face Off hddvd missing 2 HD documentaries and the HD Trailer which appear to be BD exclusive according to dvdtimes.co.uk and bluray.com. I guess space restraint was an issue. Again this could be easily fixed with the same dual sided hddvd mentioned earlier. This originally was supposed to be a 2 disc set.

The whole Face Off Deal is disturbing.

Why can't they at least have the 2 documentaries and trailer in SD?????

That would satisfy me, since I only watch the bonus features once, if that.

The whole Face Off Deal is disturbing.

Why can't they at least have the 2 documentaries and trailer in SD?????

That would satisfy me, since I only watch the bonus features once, if that.

I really liked that Paramount gave some of their movies the two disc treatment like MI:III, WTC, it is a shame to see them retreating to the single disc model. It'll be interesting to see how much capacity is left over on the Face/Off disc when it is released. Same thing with Blades of Glory.

TL45 is a part of the original HD DVD spec. Getting 17 gigs on a layer and thus TL51 has been an issue of some contention. I recall some one on the insider's thread (Amir perhaps?) mentioning that they had TL51 up and running on first-gen HD DVD players. If it's wanted/needed and most assuredly if the format needs it to survive they will make it work.

I'm willing to bet we see TL51 before we see BD Profile 2.0 fully implemented, but that's just speculation on my part. I will probably want both before I make the plunge and buy a dual-format stand alone.

Nope, it's actually not. In fact, I don't believe it was ever even submitted. TL51, imo, has made it further up the road to adoption than TL45 ever did.

The question is not whether LOTR extended can fit on a 30GB disk, undoubtedly it can. Most of us here would agree that this movie deserves the royal treatment, if any movie does. The question is can you provide a sufficiently high level of quality on a 30GB disk. My feeling is that you can't and that it would be more appropriate to use a higher capacity disk, or to split it up into either a flip-disk or multi-disk set like the DVD editions.

Considering the aspect ratio and the considerable amount of CG ... I think it will encode very very well and fit on a 30GB disc at Reference Quality. Solely my opinion, of course. ;)

I doubt that we will see TL51 this year or any other year. For this to release every single player currently on the market or in pre-production will have to be upgradeable to play these discs without issue.

It seems a bit of reaching for this to happen when currently HD DVD is fighting to just avoid being killed off by BD.

Reportedly, the studios have not been requesting anything larger than 30Gb -- hence 30GB is sufficient from their perspective.

Amir stated on these forums last year that one of the primary reasons that Disney went BD was that they wanted 50 gig. TL45 was proposed primarily to try to sway them.
(No I don't have linkage, buried amongst a ton of crap here or maybe even deleted by now.)

Amir stated on these forums last year that one of the primary reasons that Disney went BD was that they wanted 50 gig. TL45 was proposed primarily to try to sway them.
(No I don't have linkage, buried amongst a ton of crap here or maybe even deleted by now.)

Actually he said that Disney went BD in spite of the offer of TL51 and copy protection was one of the primary reasons that they did.

Disney has also spoken at length about the wonderful things they will be able to do with Java on BD, that is, if the spec is ever finalized and machines are ever able to run it smoothly.

hmmmm....why the debate? I thought no one could see the difference between a 30gb and 50 gb encode using the same codec? (sarcasm)

Honestly, I don't see these products coming any time soon. Triple layer discs will cost a fortune (or at least many times more than a standard dual layer) and it doesn't look like there is any demand for for higher bitrate discs (at least form HDDVD users).

"Disney wants 50GB discs" is just incongruent with the history of the company.

This is a company that investigated the disposable DVD in Flexplay/EZ-D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay

The same Disney that supported DiVX. Clearly they LOVE the idea of content that expires. DRM is important to them as witnessed by their behavior historically.

Sony is no different.

Paper DVD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3639585.stm

The disc is 51% paper and could offer foolproof security, said officials.

"Since a paper disc can be cut by scissors easily, it is simple to preserve data security when disposing of the disc," said Hideaki Kawai of Toppan, which worked with Sony.

The size of the disc is for marketing purposes. Sony didn't want to end up with Betamax 2 (having less storage). These studios know they can deliver excellent product on 25GB discs.

The disc is 51% paper and could offer foolproof security, said officials.

"Since a paper disc can be cut by scissors easily, it is simple to preserve data security when disposing of the disc," said Hideaki Kawai of Toppan, which worked with Sony.


How is a DVD made out of paper developed by Sony any proof that Sony wants content to be time limited? Only the person who has physical ownership of the DVD can destroy it, same as a regular DVD.

What about the bitrate restrictions of HD-DVD?

If they go 45 or 51 gig, there's tons of space, but with the HD-DVD specs being capped at 30k total bitrate, what good would all the added space space be? Unless, it would all be for "extras".

Would there even be an improvment over the current 30gig encodes?

There have been talks of 1.5X the current rate in the TL51 specs but only rumors.
A microsoft insider mentioned that to his knowladge all current players have 2x capable drive mechanisms.

So it could be a possibility.

What about the bitrate restrictions of HD-DVD?

If they go 45 or 51 gig, there's tons of space, but with the HD-DVD specs being capped at 30k total bitrate, what good would all the added space space be? Unless, it would all be for "extras".

Would there even be an improvment over the current 30gig encodes?

Even with current bitrate limits more capacity means that they have more bits to throw at an encode.

Which means that longer movies will look better and sound better. With more space there would be plenty of room for a TrueHD track PLUS a very high bitrate VC1 encode on the disc.

It's a really neat idea that will never happen.

How is a DVD made out of paper developed by Sony any proof that Sony wants content to be time limited? Only the person who has physical ownership of the DVD can destroy it, same as a regular DVD.

Those paper discs were designed to degrade after a certain period of time rendering them unuseable.

The idea was you would "buy" the movie for $7.99 or whatever at a gas station or conveniance store and you could watch the movie as much as you wanted for about 3-5 days after breaking the air tight seal on the package.

After this the disc would deteriorate and would no longer be playable.

Or simply a dual sided HD-45 as they did on the European version of Flags of our Fathers. The film on the HD-30 side and the extras on the HD-15 side.

The real thing that has me mad is the Face Off hddvd missing 2 HD documentaries and the HD Trailer which appear to be BD exclusive according to dvdtimes.co.uk and bluray.com. I guess space restraint was an issue. Again this could be easily fixed with the same dual sided hddvd mentioned earlier. This originally was supposed to be a 2 disc set.Just a small correction (also to your posting in the insiders thread): The double-sided Flags of our Fathers HD-DVD is not from Paramount, but from Warner (they have the distribution rights in most European countries). Otherwise I agree with you: Double-sided HD-DVDs are a good solution for space-consuming extras. They should be cheaper to replicate than 2 discs and you don't create consumer confusion because one format gets a 2-disc edition and the other a singe-disc one ...

hmmmm....why the debate? I thought no one could see the difference between a 30gb and 50 gb encode using the same codec? (sarcasm)

Honestly, I don't see these products coming any time soon. Triple layer discs will cost a fortune (or at least many times more than a standard dual layer) and it doesn't look like there is any demand for for higher bitrate discs (at least form HDDVD users).

Total FUD. Now let's see the facts found in This article (http://www.dvdtown.com/news/hddvdgoesbeyond50gbwithnewdisc/4260) :

"Continued improvement in disc mastering technology has achieved further minimization in the recording pit, supporting a further boost in capacity to 17GB in single layer and a full 51GB on a single-sided triple-layer disc. Toshiba has confirmed the disc structure and its successful operation." said the press release. "This time-tested physical structure offers proven volume manufacturing at little cost increment."

As I’ve long said the two formats are going to end up looking a lot a like. HD DVD will move to 1.5X spin to pick up bandwidth and move to TL51 to counter BD50s. BD will implement network connections and PiP to catch HD DVD in interactivity. The difference is that improvements to HD DVD look like they may be possible through a firmware update while most BD Players will require new hardware to pick up BD Profile 1.1 and 2.0 functionality. The only current BD player that can theoretically handle both 1.1 and 2.0 is the PS3 and that’s theoretical just like the HD DVD TL51/1.5X upgrades. So existing HD DVD players and one existing BD player may be able to handle the upgrades, but we know most of the current BD stand-alones are going to be left in the cold.

In other words if you want to buy an HDM player today that may be capable of full HDM functionality next year you can choose HD DVD or you can choose PS3, but only one of those choices will work with that fancy universal remote you spent hundreds on. Sony in their infinite wisdom decided to leave IR off of the PS3 so you’re stuck with their crappy BlueTooth remote. Hey it works through walls, but that doesn’t count for much if you can’t use it to adjust the volume on your pre-pro/ receiver/ HTIB.

Honestly, I don't see these products coming any time soon. Triple layer discs will cost a fortune (or at least many times more than a standard dual layer) and it doesn't look like there is any demand for for higher bitrate discs (at least form HDDVD users).Amir M. in the insider forum guestimated that TL-51 will cost less than BD-50. (BD layers are thinner and closer to the surface.) The cost to go from single layer to dual layer is not many times more, why should triple layer be so expensive? Twin discs can already have up to three layers. Combos are four layers, though not all on one side.

Amir M. in the insider forum guestimated that TL-51 will cost less than BD-50. (BD layers are thinner and closer to the surface.) The cost to go from single layer to dual layer is not many times more, why should triple layer be so expensive? Twin discs can already have up to three layers. Combos are four layers, though not all on one side.

Plus you have that nifty "protective coating" to account for in the BD cost; you know the one that has already resulted in Blu-rot on some BDs.

"Disney wants 50GB discs" is just incongruent with the history of the company.

This is a company that investigated the disposable DVD in Flexplay/EZ-D http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexplay

The same Disney that supported DiVX. Clearly they LOVE the idea of content that expires. DRM is important to them as witnessed by their behavior historically.

Sony is no different.

Paper DVD
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3639585.stm



The size of the disc is for marketing purposes. Sony didn't want to end up with Betamax 2 (having less storage). These studios know they can deliver excellent product on 25GB discs.


Amirm doesn't agree with you there:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9533636&highlight=Disney#post9533636


Originally Posted by PeterTHX
..I'd leave it to the BD folks to explain what BD+ can and cannot do, because it clearly is something HD DVD cannot do and something Fox and Disney consider important.



Disney does not consider it important. They are a founder of AACS and together with the rest of us, declined the adoption of it there and in DVD Forum. And it is not a matter of "can't" do it, but did not want to pile on more DRM for the sake of consumers.

I doubt that we will see TL51 this year or any other year. For this to release every single player currently on the market or in pre-production will have to be upgradeable to play these discs without issue.

It seems a bit of reaching for this to happen when currently HD DVD is fighting to just avoid being killed off by BD.

Killed off by BD? How about killed off by consumers not needing either format at the current price?

Killed off by BD? How about killed off by consumers not needing either format at the current price?

Ah yes, J6P, now we see the real problem.

How can anyone with a HDTV, look at HD-DVD/Blu Ray and say you know what, I don't want your 1080P Discs and TrueHD sound.

I'm happy with my 480i DVD.

As for current price, I think anyone who buys a HDTV, even if its just a 32" LCD HDTV for $600 bucks, can spend $200 for a HD-A2 without thinking they are getting ripped off.

Maybe we will get some more facts in september.
Anybody from AVS attending?


The annual European conference of the DVD Forum will be in Berlin next September...

The event will take place on 3 September. At the same period, IFA consumer electronics fair will be held in Berlin, Germany.

In addition, practical technologies of the HD DVD format including AACS, HD DVD Video/VR (interactive function specs) , Codecs (MPEG2HD, MPEG4 AVC, VC-1), HD DVD authoring systems, replication and testing HD DVD Discs,
Triple-layer HD DVD,
recording HD data onto red DVD disc and CSS Downloading are expected to be under discussion in a variety of sessions during the day.

Last but not least, the Forum will announce the latest activities of the Forum's key steering committees and working groups related to the specifications related to the DVD and HD DVD formats.


http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=20906

Reportedly, the studios have not been requesting anything larger than 30Gb -- hence 30GB is sufficient from their perspective. Amir stated on these forums last year that one of the primary reasons that Disney went BD was that they wanted 50 gig. TL45 was proposed primarily to try to sway them.
(No I don't have linkage, buried amongst a ton of crap here or maybe even deleted by now.)

When I said the studios aren't asking for greater than 30GB, I was referring to HD DVD supporting studios (I usually spell that out, but I slid it this time -- sorry). I think that same reason is the purpose of switching from TL45 to TL51. Though I consider SL17 and DL34 a good move regardless.

hmmmm....why the debate? I thought no one could see the difference between a 30gb and 50 gb encode using the same codec? (sarcasm)

Honestly, I don't see these products coming any time soon. Triple layer discs will cost a fortune (or at least many times more than a standard dual layer) and it doesn't look like there is any demand for for higher bitrate discs (at least form HDDVD users).

No reason to presume TL51 will be more than an incremental expense over DL30. TL45 was fully replicator verified two years ago, so it's hard to imagine it being such a big deal for TL51. Not much point in debating it since we'll probably find out soon enough and we have no further information at this time.

In other words if you want to buy an HDM player today that may be capable of full HDM functionality next year you can choose HD DVD or you can choose PS3, but only one of those choices will work with that fancy universal remote you spent hundreds on. Sony in their infinite wisdom decided to leave IR off of the PS3 so you’re stuck with their crappy BlueTooth remote. Hey it works through walls, but that doesn’t count for much if you can’t use it to adjust the volume on your pre-pro/ receiver/ HTIB.Or buy a $20 remote with a USB attachment from Amazon and then use your universal remote with the PS3 (although I think the power button from the remote doesn't work). If people want to see the remote with the USB attachment they can go to Amazon and search for "Playstation 3 Blu Wave Remote".

--Darin

How is a DVD made out of paper developed by Sony any proof that Sony wants content to be time limited? Only the person who has physical ownership of the DVD can destroy it, same as a regular DVD.

Enter BD+ ... ;)

What about the bitrate restrictions of HD-DVD?

If they go 45 or 51 gig, there's tons of space, but with the HD-DVD specs being capped at 30k total bitrate, what good would all the added space space be? Unless, it would all be for "extras".

Would there even be an improvment over the current 30gig encodes?

Actually, that's just the point ... if TL51 is approved, HD DVD can store a lot more content using the lower bitrates. If Blu-ray discs use a higher bitrate on the encode, they chew through their space advantage pretty quickly.

IOW: The higher the bitrate used, the more space is takes on the disc to record the SAME amount of data. ;)

"""""'Disney won't do HD DVD because of security issues, not disc capacity. Because of piracy concerns, I doubt you'll see Disney do HD DVD in the foreseeable future."""""""""



I find that incredibly hard to believe since Disney still releases everything they have in DVD.

And we all know a 5 year old can burn and download a DVD.

Everything comes to money, and its obvious Sony got to Disney somehow and convinced them to only support Blu Ray.

You may find it hard to believe, but your conspiracty theory with Sony is even more far fetched than that. Disney is not going to ever release on HD DVD until additional security measures are taken beyond AACS. It has been stated in our company newletter at least a couple of times that the additional layer of protection afforded by blu-ray was key in the decision to release only in that format. Igor has said repeatedly that we are in bed with blu-ray, and we(Disney) will stick with our decision to remain so.

As far as DVD, it is not high definition, and piracy aside it is making money hand over fist for Disney.

You may find it hard to believe, but your conspiracty theory with Sony is even more far fetched than that. Disney is not going to ever release on HD DVD until additional security measures are taken beyond AACS. It has been stated in our company newletter at least a couple of times that the additional layer of protection afforded by blu-ray was key in the decision to release only in that format. Igor has said repeatedly that we are in bed with blu-ray, and we(Disney) will stick with our decision to remain so.

As far as DVD, it is not high definition, and piracy aside it is making money hand over fist for Disney.

Then why are they releasing on blu-ray right now? As of this momement blu and hd have the same protection?

You may find it hard to believe, but your conspiracty theory with Sony is even more far fetched than that. Disney is not going to ever release on HD DVD until additional security measures are taken beyond AACS. It has been stated in our company newletter at least a couple of times that the additional layer of protection afforded by blu-ray was key in the decision to release only in that format. Igor has said repeatedly that we are in bed with blu-ray, and we(Disney) will stick with our decision to remain so.

As far as DVD, it is not high definition, and piracy aside it is making money hand over fist for Disney.


That's funny. It was exactly because of DVD being called "high definition" that DVD and Fox fought releasing on it. They didn't seem to care so much if people had crappy bootlegs of VHS tapes but DVD, hey that's ultra super duper digital mang!

Funny how history repeats itself. I suppose that when this (http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/05/nhk-shows-off-some-live-7680-x-4320-super-hi-vision-tv-in/) becomes available that BD will also be considered a "so what" as far as copy protection goes.

Enter BD+ ... ;)
This comes from posting #81 and does not address the question posed. Why do you so frequently seem afraid to either just leave somebody's posting alone or try to "answer" it with a non answer? :rolleyes:

This comes from posting #81 and does not address the question posed. Why do you so frequently seem afraid to either just leave somebody's posting alone or try to "answer" it with a non answer? :rolleyes:

Uhm ... okay, wreckshop posted this:


How is a DVD made out of paper developed by Sony any proof that Sony wants content to be time limited? Only the person who has physical ownership of the DVD can destroy it, same as a regular DVD.


My response:


Enter BD+ ...


Regardless of the paper DVD, BD+ affords Sony (and other content providers) to time limit their releases. My response was quite direct in that I was offering an example of a technology which is backed by Sony which can be specifically used to create 'time limited content'. Coupling the Paper DVD with BD+ could be a wonderful marriage for that type of control. *shrug*

Now ... what was the point of your attacking my post again? :rolleyes:

Technically, didn't you just respond to my post with a 'non-answer' when you could have just as easily 'left it alone'? :rolleyes:

Uhm ... okay, wreckshop posted this:



My response:



Regardless of the paper DVD, BD+ affords Sony (and other content providers) to time limit their releases. My response was quite direct in that I was offering an example of a technology which is backed by Sony which can be specifically used to create 'time limited content'. Coupling the Paper DVD with BD+ could be a wonderful marriage for that type of control. *shrug*

Now ... what was the point of your attacking my post again? :rolleyes:

Technically, didn't you just respond to my post with a 'non-answer' when you could have just as easily 'left it alone'? :rolleyes:
Can you provide a link showing that BD+ is meant to time limit the playability of video discs?

Can you provide a link showing that BD+ is meant to time limit the playability of video discs?

How did I know the next thing you'd be asking for is a link? :rolleyes:

If you didn't have any data on the subject, then what was the point of challenging me? Just to bicker?

First off, I never said that BD+ is meant solely to time limit as you are attempting to infer; all I am suggesting is that it has that capability [to time limit the playability of video discs].

Secondarly, there is info in the Insider's and News Threads from when the BD+ Spec was annouced (probably a few months ago or so). I'll see what I can dig up to help you out.

And Finally, the Format Battle thread was already closed due to bickering between members. Is that what you're trying to have happen in this thread as well? Was there a specific reason for you to pop in and reply to my post other than to instigate bickering? :rolleyes:

I find it Ironic that you chime in because I 'interupted' a conversation ... yet ... isn't that exactly what you're doing here? You also accused me of making a reply that has no bearing on the post I quoted -- which I've already shown was incorrect on your part. And all of that said, your reply to me had absolutely no bearing to the point being made. :rolleyes:

Here's a link to an article on BD+

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070620-blu-ray-content-protection-agency-certifies-bd.html

From the article:


More worrying than a resolution of the high-definition format wars, however, is what studios might want to do with the additional powers that BD+ provides them. The ability to run any sort of code in the name of "advanced countermeasures" also brings the power to limit content by other means: timed-release and expiring discs are just some of the possibilities. Somewhere, the ghost of the original DiVX may be laughing.


You might also want to notice that last sentence ... Ghost of DivX ... you know, that Format that Disney, Fox, and Paramount supported exclusively before finally going Neutral and supporting DVD. ;)

Plus you have that nifty "protective coating" to account for in the BD cost; you know the one that has already resulted in Blu-rot on some BDs.
I thought Blu-rot was just a problem because it went 'off' early?! I.e. the discs are supposed bio-degrade after two years, not two weeks ;-)

Or buy a $20 remote with a USB attachment from Amazon and then use your universal remote with the PS3 (although I think the power button from the remote doesn't work). If people want to see the remote with the USB attachment they can go to Amazon and search for "Playstation 3 Blu Wave Remote".

--Darin

Yes that's what high-end users will do, ditch their $500 remote for a $20 one. Or plug in a USB fob from a 3rd party video-game accessory manufacturer to go with their Universal remote. It'll look real nice right next to their McIntosh equipment. :rolleyes:

So, Blu-ray is making 45/51 GB discs now? Cuz I for the life of me can't figure out what Blu-ray has to do with this.

Anyways, as I've always said, if they can't make 45/51 GB discs compatible with all existing HD DVD players, the idea should be scrapped completely IMO.

However, I think there could be a possibility it could work with 1.0X speeds. The rumoured 1.5X speeds would be a problem though, assuming the decoding hardware and buffers, etc. aren't designed to handle 1.5X.

So, Blu-ray is making 45/51 GB discs now? Cuz I for the life of me can't figure out what Blu-ray has to do with this.

Anyways, as I've always said, if they can't make 45/51 GB discs compatible with all existing HD DVD players, the idea should be scrapped completely IMO.

However, I think there could be a possibility it could work with 1.0X speeds. The rumoured 1.5X speeds would be a problem though, assuming the decoding hardware and buffers, etc. aren't designed to handle 1.5X.
I agree. It if comes to that Toshiba should swap out or upgrade all players sold to be capable (200k players?). I know they won't, but they should have at least built the capability in there second (&3rd) gen players.

I don't think disk space is going to be a problem long or short term.

Heres an old story you guys probably already know about.
150GB DVD disks are possible, even probable (http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/01/16/150gb-dvd-disks-are-possible-even-probable/)
Start with the fact that Toshiba has submitted a triple-layer, 51GB HD DVD-ROM disc to the standard’s overseer in the hope the technology will be adopted as a standard by the end of the year. If approved, it allow the format to exceed the 50GB storage capacity of rival medium Blu-ray Disc.

The HD DVD standard currently defines single- and dual-layer discs capable of holding 15GB and 30GB of data, respectively. That’s plenty, say the format’s supporters, for a movie encoded in 1080p HD resolution and a stack of extras.

Today’s HD DVD players will be incapable of reading the new disc, which is something of a problem for early adopters, who will presumably have to buy new kit. Toshiba last week positioned the new disc as an ‘extended capacity, high-end option’. Personally I do not think that is the way we will go. We will, instead, make an extraordinary leap.

While Toshiba has publicly announced its achievement of developing a triple-layer HD DVD-ROM (read only) disc with a capacity of 51 gigabytes, Ritek — a much small player in this area but much respected — showed behind closed doors at the CES show that it has not only been able to produce a three-layer and four-layer HD optical discs, but is has successfully designed HD media with a full 10 layers.

The company says that its multi-layer process can be applied to both HD DVD and Blu-ray formats.

Which gives you the 150GB disk. What would that be used for? I simply have no idea although every episode of Law and Order would be a good start. Just lead me to it.

Which gives you the 150GB disk. What would that be used for? I simply have no idea although every episode of Law and Order would be a good start. Just lead me to it.

Trilogies, quadrilogies - all on one disk. Fantastic possibilities.