Now that the key point in the format war has passed, my thoughts:

IMO, the major point that is lost in most of the coverage of Blu-ray's victory is that consumers will now have to make choice to buy either high definition disks OR standard definition disks OR pay for copies of both versions of the same movie.

They won't have a real choice to buy both versions in one anymore. That ship has passed it appears. Most won't ever know the option even existed since the option was never high profile even in the mostly obscure 'format war'. Good news for blu-ray is consumer's won't know what option they missed out on. ;)

Upgrading standard dvd to add high defintion content could have been hd dvd format approach from the beginning, but I understand also why it probably was not. Money.

The clearest path to getting high def content on optical into the massive DVD consumer population would have been for all of Hollywood to use Hybrid disks, in whichever form twin or combo, to simply UPGRADE STANDARD DVD disks adding a high definition component.

In terms of technology hd dvd format has proven that Hollywood has the capability to give consumers significant high def (and interactive) upgrades on what is essentially still a standard DVD disk with complete backward compatibility.

It's not hard to see that if the combined Movie industry had wanted to they could have introduced hyrbrid disks as simply upgraded DVD's and sold them as say special editions in standard dvd sections of retail. Later they could have increased the volume of such special editions phasing in more high def and less standard def only editions.

Taking advantage of new features only required purchase of a new player to go along with a new HDTV, in the meantime all existing DVD players would never become obsolete (or at least not until much later).

As a dual format owner with well over 100+ of each format this is the only reason I favored hd dvd format. It has the better upgrade path for millions of mainstream dvd consumers. It also has the better upgrade path for disk replicators of course but that is outside the scope of my point.

If you're a fan of the very highest end PQ/AQ you can certainly make a good case that BD should be the optical format of the future despite the fact that HD DVD can produce very very close quality on the whole, pretty much indistinguishable for the mainstream consumer.
On pure top end quality I agree that blu-ray is the better disk format in the long run due to the combination of:

1) 50Gig disks + higher bandwidth

2) Forced hardcoating of disks.

The challenge for Blu-ray is can it ever become much more than a large niche format. Can it ever really replace DVD? If it does not then the bottom line for optical movie fans is we may never see the total amount of content choice on blu-ray that we see with standard dvd.

So why didn't Hollywood upgrade standard dvd's to include high definition versions while it had the chance?

The issue is that financially most of the movie industry both STUDIO and CE, led by uniquely vertically integrated Sony sees more money in attempting to almost force entirely new format with entirely new players as if that was the only way for consumers to get high definition on optical disks. The key considerations are:

1) A new format is a way introduce new, stronger DRM to replace the completely cracked and pirated DVD format.

2) A new format is a way to sell new higher priced players and hardware and diminish the impact of cheap Chinese electronics.

Now if the movie industry can successfully make this a truly mainstream and profitable format for CE and content owners while successfully introducing better piracy control, then I say: good stuff! I'll certainly be buying in since optical media is still the best overall in quality and total features.

If on the other hand alternative forms of getting high def content, including black market disks and recording HD from broadcast sources become more and more popular then I say the industry made it's own bed.

Movie industry say hello to the music industry.

They could have upgraded standard dvd but perhaps set the mark too high by attempting to replace it entirely without enough bang for buck value.

DVD only supports SD so you poll is flawed. :confused: If the specs changed then it wouldn't be DVD.

I thought that's what HD DVD essentially is. :confused:

Isn't that why the DVD Forum selected it?

Yawn, yet another rigged* poll.

*) In the sense of very biased options to "vote" for.

DVD only supports SD so you poll is flawed. :confused: If the specs changed then it wouldn't be DVD.

How so? Isn't a combo disk fully a Standard DVD disk as well as an hd dvd disk?

Yawn, yet another rigged* poll.

*) In the sense of very biased options to "vote" for.


I welcome the critique but shouldn't you tell me why the choices are biased?

Flawed poll. No vote from me.

Cheers

I thought that's what HD DVD essentially is. :confused:

Isn't that why the DVD Forum selected it?

Maybe that was a big reason they selected it, I don't know, but the bottom line is the movie industry, Hollywood and CE has by majority selected the blu-ray format regardless of what the dvd forum selected.

How can standards body set a "standard" if most of the users of the standard don't use it?

By default, blu-ray is the standard based on majority of the movie industry choice.

Flawed poll. No vote from me.

Cheers

The lack of substantive point indicates to me it must hit a sore spot for some blu-ray fans.

Sorry, I buy plenty of blu-ray but the facts are this was a choice that Hollywood had if they wanted to do it. If the choices are biased, then say why.

I welcome the critique but shouldn't you tell me why the choices are biased?

You had two options and both where for a new format to replace the old one.

The lack of substantive point indicates to me it must hit a sore spot for some blu-ray fans.


Your poll reminds me of which format is best for audio: DVD-A or SACD?

Personally, I could care less even though I own over 100 SACD but no DVD-A. Both are technically very good formats, and any difference in concrete SQ is due to engineering of a particular DVD-A/SACD. And, of course, the most important, the available content that I like.

Presently I do not own any BD or HD-DVD player as content and availability is not particularly compelling. I am sure that both of the formats are excellent and almost none, if any, can see a difference.

You had two options and both where for a new format to replace the old one.

So then your objection is to the idea that a combo/hybrid disk is still a standard dvd?

Your poll reminds me of which format is best for audio: DVD-A or SACD?

Personally, I could care less even though I own over 100 SACD but no DVD-A. Both are technically very good formats, and any difference in concrete SQ is due to engineering of a particular DVD-A/SACD. And of, the most important, the available content that I like.

This is the issue for me as well actually.

I'm still buying standard dvd's although I have 250+ high def disks in red and blue because:

1) Standard DVD has FAR more content choices

2) Standard DVD has a "previously viewed" used market that offers great low prices all the time.

Blu-ray or hd dvd cannot match these content offerings without support from the mainstream consumer. That affects ALL high def content consumers. That is why this issue is pertinent to all movie consumers whether they realize it or not.

Presently I do not own any BD or HD-DVD player as content and availability is not particularly compelling. I am sure that both of the formats are excellent and almost none, if any, can see a difference.

The upside for a HDM consumer is BD has and will hopefully continue to have more losseless audio options and that the higher bitrate should offer an extra measure of quality in at least some movies.

I'm fortunate enough to use A/V equipment that can benefit from the small measure of difference on the best of blu-ray disks. Correct though that the vast majority of consumers will never see the difference.

How so? Isn't a combo disk fully a Standard DVD disk as well as an hd dvd disk?
it's sd on one side and HD on the other- it's literally two separate discs glued together.

The lack of substantive point indicates to me it must hit a sore spot for some blu-ray fans.

Sorry, I buy plenty of blu-ray but the facts are this was a choice that Hollywood had if they wanted to do it. If the choices are biased, then say why.

this whole poll is silly, since it seems to be implying that you COULD do all the things that HD DVD and Blu ray do with a regular SD DVD. That is NOT true. SD DVD's don't have enough space to hold the data. To make discs that could hold enough data, a laser with a different wavelength was needed, so that the data pits in the discs could be made smaller, so that the discs could hold enough data for a HD movie. New laser means a new format and new players. <shrug> It was a technical necessity.

I thought that's what HD DVD essentially is. :confused:

Isn't that why the DVD Forum selected it?

Both formats are upgraded DVD.

Both formats are upgraded DVD.

exactly!

I thought that's what HD DVD essentially is. :confused:

Isn't that why the DVD Forum selected it?

Wasn't HD DVD originally supposed to be 720P VC1 on DVD 9?

it's sd on one side and HD on the other- it's literally two separate discs glued together.

You just said it's SD on one side. Then by definition, the disk is SD and HD. It is HD. It IS SD. It plays in any all standard dvd players. Blu-ray disks do not. Is it somehow difficult to discuss that fact without evoking some sort loyalty bound emotions for blu-ray? That's simple logic, outside of that is denial.

1 format offered the possiblity of upgrading standard dvd's and leveraging the power of millions of mass market standard dvd players. 1 format does not offer that possiblity. It's ok. Perhaps this will be the better choice in the longrun by taking the Mass Market and getting full content support eventually but for now the implications of this choice are a tougher fight to move standard dvd out of the dominant position.


Both formats are upgraded DVD.

But both formats do not offer the capability of being played in standard dvd players. Is this not a simple undeniable fact? Consumers will now lose out on that benefit.

Granted we will gain other benefits such increased bitrate but the fact that this benefit will be taken from consumers based on Hollywood's majority decision is simply that, a fact.

it's sd on one side and HD on the other- it's literally two separate discs glued together.

Indeed, an impractical physical format like DualDisc for DVD-A/RBCD for audio. Hybrid SACD (RBCD+SACD on the same side) ought to be a winner, but then Sony is behind SACD just like BD. Not that inspiring for the long term, really.

You just said it's SD on one side. Then by definition, the disk is SD and HD. It is HD. It IS SD. It plays in any all standard dvd players. Blu-ray disks do not.

It is an impractical format for daily use, just like DualDisc (DVD-A+RBCD). Hybrid SACD got that just right, except for the Sony part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim GoodBooty
Both formats are upgraded DVD.

exactly!

Forgive me for belaboring the point but some seem to find it difficult to acknowledge that an advantage of one of the formats has been lost for consumers.

It is not the central feature of "DVD" to be a disk that can played in a "DVD" player?

It is an impractical format for daily use, just like DualDisc (DVD-A+RBCD). Hybrid SACD got that just right, except for the Sony part.


Thank you for making the 1st valid point for why blu-ray as a new disk format may be the better choice than using hyrbrid capabilities of hd dvd to upgrade standard dvd. Amaz'ing how religious this format war has become, making it almost impossible to have a logic based discussion on 'the war' even though it's now practically over.

Perhaps indeed the business viability of hybrid disks as well as the practical viability may be lacking. This is certainly a possibility why that route has not been implemented from hd dvd group.

this whole poll is silly, since it seems to be implying that you COULD do all the things that HD DVD and Blu ray do with a regular SD DVD. That is NOT true. SD DVD's don't have enough space to hold the data.

Uh, no. It implies that hybrid disks DO all things that hd dvd does while still providing a full regular DVD.

I think what's difficult for some people to grasp here is that in this respect a hybrid disk can be viewed as a standard dvd with additional high format on the same disk.

In that sense it can be seen as an "upgraded dvd". The industry has marketed disks as either Standard DVD or High def DVD and so it's no wonder I suppose the distinction is too obscure for many to see this a more a marketing packing issue than a practical one.

For all practical purposes a hybrid disk IS a standard dvd. It also happens to have the capabilities of a high def dvd for those that use it in such a player, in that sense, it's an "upgrade" on a standard dvd.

Thank you for making the 1st valid point for why blu-ray as a new disk format may be the better choice than using hyrbrid capabilities of hd dvd to upgrade standard dvd.

[snip]

Perhaps indeed the business viability of hybrid disks as well as the practical viability may be lacking. This is certainly a possibility why that route has not been implemented from hd dvd group.

There is some misunderstanding here: hybrid SACD have dual layers on the same physical side. This is what I meant that the SACD crowd got that right.

There is some misunderstanding here: hybrid SACD have dual layers on the same physical side. This is what I meant that the SACD crowd got that right.

Just as Twin Format hd dvd have both DVD and HD on same side of the disk (although not dual layer for each format).

I understand and this option was there for Hollywood along with dual sided combo format.

Just as Twin Format hd dvd have both DVD and HD on same side of the disk (although not dual layer for each format).

I understand and this option was there for Hollywood along with dual sided combo format.

Nowadays all SACD releases are hybrid and have been so for several years. The "Twin Format" did not materialize, just vapor ware.

DVD only supports SD so you poll is flawed.

Incorrect.

In 2002, Warner and other studios originally proposed to put compressed HD content on red laser DVD9's using newer codecs. Using the new codecs, they could still compress the material enough to fit under the DVD bitrate ceiling and maximum file space. They didn't want to use Sony's Blu-ray because, at the time, Sony was using those cases to protect the disc, not to mention it required new production lines, equipment and players. It seems the DVD Forum gave up on the HD content on DVD9 when Toshiba proposed the AOD, which eventually became HD DVD.

The poll is asking a valid question.

Nowadays all SACD releases are hybrid and have been so for several years. The "Twin Format" did not materialize, just vapor ware.

Twin format did materialize, in fact Bandai produced and sells one. TL51 is supposed to be introducing an even more capable twin format.

Incorrect.

In 2002, Warner and other studios originally proposed to put compressed HD content on red laser DVD9's using newer codecs. Using the new codecs, they could still compress the material enough to fit under the DVD bitrate ceiling and maximum file space. They didn't want to use Sony's Blu-ray because, at the time, Sony was using those cases to protect the disc, not to mention it required new production lines, equipment and players. It seems the DVD Forum gave up on the HD content on DVD9 when Toshiba proposed the AOD, which eventually became HD DVD.

The poll is asking a valid question.

Thanks for adding that. No doubt that Hollywood considered many options for using standard dvd, they would be foolish not too considering it overwhelming populatiry and pentration as a format.

I did not specifically mention the option of HD red laser but I did in fact also have that in mind as one of the alternatives that could still take a bite out of HDM. Piracy concerns are a major factor for why a new format was desired and also why blu-ray won recently (keep in mind that FOX apparently decided to stay blu-ray at the last minute).

HD source material can still be recorded to standard dvds (or to hd dvds :eek:) and played on hd dvd player or blu-ray players for instance.

HD DVD is/was the "upgraded DVD" format.

If you truly meant something like "identical structure to DVD but with shorter-length HD MPEG2 content on multiple discs per title", no, there's no way they would have done that. The biggest reason is DVD's completely broken copy protection, and a multi-disc format would not sell well (think of Laser Discs).

It's hard to say, but from a money-milking view point I'd say yes. Had Hollywood went this route, they could've accomplished the following:

1) Kept everything on one format

2) Simultaneously wean people off of DVD and onto the notion of HD content (2009 will help tremendously in the regard as well IMO)

3) They could milk everyone again (when the market is actually ready) with 1080p HD optical disks a few years down the road.

They should have settled on 1 new format from the start.

Reading more carefully, if the question is something like "Should HD have been introduced as 100% combo or twin discs from the start?", the problem I see is that they could not have charged the higher prices they did, which is/was very important to the movie industry. Also, there would have been too many problems with disc returns from people trying the wrong side of combo discs.

They should have settled on 1 new format from the start.


No disagreement there.

Twin format did materialize, in fact Bandai produced and sells one. TL51 is supposed to be introducing an even more capable twin format.

This is interesting. I thought that this was incompatible with common DVD-players, but its seems I was wrong.

HD DVD is/was the "upgraded DVD" format.

If you truly meant something like "identical structure to DVD but with shorter-length HD MPEG2 content on multiple discs per title", no, there's no way they would have done that. The biggest reason is DVD's completely broken copy protection, and a multi-disc format would not sell well (think of Laser Discs).

Well yes, I agree, Hybrid disks on hd dvd was/is the best possible "upgrade of standard dvd".

In general though since it is possible to record HD sources and place them on optical disk yourself one can also consider that by choosing to push consumers to a new format that is completely incompatible with standard dvd players the risk is run that consumers will look to "upgrade dvd" themselves.

The blackmarket also has this option to consider now.

It's hard to say, but from a money-milking view point I'd say yes. Had Hollywood went this route, they could've accomplished the following:

1) Kept everything on one format

2) Simultaneously wean people off of DVD and onto the notion of HD content (2009 will help tremendously in the regard as well IMO)

3) They could milk everyone again (when the market is actually ready) with 1080p HD optical disks a few years down the road.

Hollywood wouldn't turn away a better money making proposition for a lesser one would they? One would think the business case for upgraded dvd was not compelling enough.

There is the possibility though that perhaps upgraded dvd would have been a better choice but that the most powerful companies would not have benefited the most. So it in that respect it couldn't happen to upgrade standard dvd because this round belongs to Sony.

They should have settled on 1 new format from the start.

I agree with this as well although I would say the the competiton benefitted early adopters more than anyone else.

With so many sales and promotions and low priced player options it's been possible to build a large HDM library with multiple players for a cost that would not have been possible in an early 1 format world. :)

Uh, no. It implies that hybrid disks DO all things that hd dvd does while still providing a full regular DVD.

I think what's difficult for some people to grasp here is that in this respect a hybrid disk can be viewed as a standard dvd with additional high format on the same disk.

In that sense it can be seen as an "upgraded dvd". The industry has marketed disks as either Standard DVD or High def DVD and so it's no wonder I suppose the distinction is too obscure for many to see this a more a marketing packing issue than a practical one.

For all practical purposes a hybrid disk IS a standard dvd. It also happens to have the capabilities of a high def dvd for those that use it in such a player, in that sense, it's an "upgrade" on a standard dvd.

i totally misunderstood your poll, sorry. i thought you were saying that blue lasers weren't necessary, not that combo discs are an advantage.

anyway, to get back on your topic, no, to me combo discs aren't an advantage since i don't own any dvd players anymore.

Twin format did materialize, in fact Bandai produced and sells one. TL51 is supposed to be introducing an even more capable twin format.
wait, what exactly do you mean by 'twin format'? a disc with blu ray on one side and hd-dvd on the other, or what?

This is interesting. I thought that this was incompatible with common DVD-players, but its seems I was wrong.

You find the Freedom 1 disk in stores still (although maybe not much longer).
This is why i say most consumers will never know the option they missed to begin with. When hd dvd disappears from the landscape consumers will never know that dvd could have been upgraded and given them excellent high def.

As far most consumers will understand incompatibility with their current dvd players was the only way Hollywood could give them the great new high definition content. People can't miss what they don't know about. Works out well for the movie industry eh?

wait, what exactly do you mean by 'twin format'? a disc with blu ray on one side and hd-dvd on the other, or what?

No. The twin format is a disk with a standard dvd copy and an hd dvd copy on the same disk and on the same side of the disk.

Funny thing is, just as your question shows, after almost 2 years of hd dvd format vast majority of consumers dont' even know such a thing exists. That's how well the feature of the format was marketed and used.

Now most never will as it is likely to become a triva point for history books.

We will look back at both hd-dvd/blu in 10 years and agree the biggest mistake was no twin discs. Both blu/hd-dvd should of been 4 layers at a minimum. The first 2 layers for DVD the other layers for HD.

As much as people want to believe the masses are not going to get off of DVD. There is no compelling reason for the average person to move over they don't care about PQ/SQ and blu/hd-dvd not being compatible with dvd players is a show stopper. There are millions of portable DVD players selling ever year. People have 2-4 DVD players in the house. DVD has changed the way people watch movies for ever. DVD just had to replace the VCR in the living room. It did not have to replace units in the living room,kids playroom. bedroom/ car/ portable units.

Instead of trying to co-exist and one day ween people off of DVD over a decade or 2. They have proposed an all or nothing for the average person.

You mean standard Red Laser technology like HD VMD?? I can't believe 38% of people here voted for that, you guys must all be tired today...

No. 9GB is not enough capacity. 50GB is a natural evolutionary step in optical disc storage.

Everything I have read says that discs with more than two layers per side of any kind are exponentially harder to mass-manufacture than single or double-layer ones. Even the TL51 HD DVD is/was apparently going to get its third layer as a sort of "mirror image" layer added from the other side. With these limitations, non-flipper DVD-9 and/or HD DVD-30 twin/hybrid discs would have been a huge challenge to mass market.

You mean standard Red Laser technology like HD VMD?? I can't believe 38% of people here voted for that, you guys must all be tired today...

Read the thread it is about twin discs or combo discs to get the masses over to blu/hd-dvd faster.

We will look back at both hd-dvd/blu in 10 years and agree the biggest mistake was no twin discs. Both blu/hd-dvd should of been 4 layers at a minimum. The first 2 layers for DVD the other layers for HD.

As much as people want to believe the masses are not going to get off of DVD. There is no compelling reason for the average person to move over they don't care about PQ/SQ and blu/hd-dvd not being compatible with dvd players is a show stopper. There are millions of portable DVD players selling ever year. People have 2-4 DVD players in the house. DVD has changed the way people watch movies for ever. DVD just had to replace the VCR in the living room. It did not have to replace units in the living room,kids playroom. bedroom/ car/ portable units.

Instead of trying to co-exist and one day ween people off of DVD over a decade or 2. They have proposed an all or nothing for the average person.

This is a concern for sure. DVD is still very strong and DVD players are so prolific in the market that trying to obsolece them all appears monumental.

It may be though that Hollywood is ready to accept and get their profits from the dual market of BD and SD for as long as it takes. That seems like a reasonable possiblity. BD can be a larger and profitable sub-market to DVD.

The rub will come if people find other ways to get their HD content.

Hollywood wouldn't turn away a better money making proposition for a lesser one would they? One would think the business case for upgraded dvd was not compelling enough.



Lots of products are brought to market with every intention of profiting, but fail nonetheless. Maybe Hollywood bet and lost this round with HDM. Settling on one format is an important step, but widespread adoption may be the bigger step. Only time will tell if HDM is a success.

I don't know either way, just pure speculation here BTW.