First HD-DVD Titles Announced - Page 6  

I understand your point, but it is so wrong. I agree I would rather have BR win fast, but comparing the difference between DVD and HD-DVD to the one between HD-DVD and BR is just so wrong. HD-DVD like BR uses advanced codecs, so HD-DVD should be much better then DVD. On the other hand there is no reason why a HD-DVD encoding cannot be equal to any BR encoding. It might mean that the HD-DVD encoding gets split on more disks, but in theory there is no difference in the encoding. On the other hand a VC-1 or AVC movie with good bitrate and lossless audio will never be equalled by a MPEG-2 on DVD no matter what bitrate and on how many disks they splitit, not to mention that DVD does not use lossless audio

BR is circumstantially better, (i.e. if an encoding at optimal and all the extras they want to add needs 32G I am sure studios will cut stuff -some extras or lower BW or something) to make it fit on one disk or put the other way 50G might make a studio say , use less compression or add some extras. But realistically a studio that does both BR and HD-DVD can decide to make a 30GB version of the info and add it to BR with nothing added


if you want a better example would be , would you rather buy a 1G USB memory stick or a 512k if the price, features and size was the same. You might never use the extra 512 (what guys that prefer HD-DVD say) but what is wrong with having it.

Also none of these guys said they prefer HD-DVD, all they said is they want to watch the movies and don't mind buying two players to do it

From my basic understanding, is it fair to say that blue ray is a better storage format and that is why it is superior?

I would think that blue ray or HD-DVD will have comparable picture and sound quality until you get to the point that HD-DVD gets limited on space and starts compressing. On the other hand, just because blue ray has more storage capacity, it doesn't even mean they will use it properly. I could see them compress stuff just to speed up production rather than making the absolute best quality.

Also, aren't the new compression formats much better? So you can compress data and then uncompress it with little to now loss in quality? If so, then I don't think it will matter if HD-DVD is compressing more.

To me, the war really boils down to who has the most movies on the market. This could come from more initial backing from studios, being the first on the market, or having lower priced discs. The common consumer is not going to read the high tech specs and opt to not buy one because the other looks good on paper. I would bet that when they both hit the market, you will not see a quality difference between the two. Any quality difference will likely come from the studio who transfers the film. Just like DVD, there is a HUGE range of quality out there. I am amazed when I rent movies, how different discs can be for picture quality. I'm sure we will see the same thing on HD discs. The difference we see on DVDs today is not because of storage limitation. It is because the studio opts to not spend the money to make a good transfer while other do.

Back on the subject of availability: It is like the saying "he with the most toys wins". I think this could be somewhat applied to this war. "He with the most movies wins". If you go to the store and see a bunch of format A and a few of format B. People will by A. If format A is much less expesive than B, people will buy A. If we do see a 50/50 split in titles early on and one is cheaper then the cheaper will likely win out unless the quality is substantially greater (which I don't think we will see).

If we see a 50/50 split in titles and the prices are similar then we are all SCREWED!!!!!!!!!!


I personally will jump on either one when it is pretty apparent that one will eventually win. If it is unclear, I will sit on the sidelines and wait it out.

Why? Once you have bought the players, if the movies are all priced the same, what difference does it make if Titanic is on Blu-Ray, and Lord of the Rings is on HD-DVD?

true

I don't think making a worst transfer or copies of bad transfers speed up things, I would bet making a good transfer at the best compression takes longer instead of compressing less

yes

wrong

there is no lossless video codec, so all codecs work by simplifying the information and the more simplifying you do the more degradation there is

wrong

well it appears that it will probably be 50/50 and I don't think there is any chance that price will be different.

it is simple mathematics. Production cost (materials and time) is almost the same and the difference so small that even if it makes it to the consumer it would not make a difference, the extra cost of BR toured by HD-DVD supporters comes from the extra cost of building the replicates. But that is an amortised cost, and it is better to spread it on a longer time period and win the war then try and recoup it on the first disks and then pricing yourself out of business.

I, like many, will NOT buy both players. I don't have the room in my entertainment center and I don't want to spend the money on two separate players. So if they are both on the market and have relatively eqaul # of titles and similar pricing on movies, I will just have to go to the store and drool on the disc cases.

If I can go to the store and see 75% of the titles on one format and read through the news and see enough info that I feel comfortable that this format is MOST LIKELY going to become the standard then I will spring for a player and feel pretty confident I made the right choice.

Of course if a universal player comes out that will play Blue ray and HD-DVD then I would pick one of those up but this likely won't happen.

Rutgar, I think his point is that HD-DVD will win because it will be cheaper and most movies (and make it supperior for most people), if things become even there will be a user split and that might mean two formats.

means 2 players for the people that want 2G tech and extra cost (at 1k for a player)
it also means j6p will never go for it (niche market)

[quote]Originally posted by AnthonyP
[b]true


"there is no lossless video codec, so all codecs work by simplifying the information and the more simplifying you do the more degradation there is


wrong"



So even if there is a difference in theoretical picture quality in blue ray's favor, will we actually see it? Only time will tell.

I think if there is an advantage in picture quality in blue ray's favor, it will be slight and only noticeable on the best players and best displays. MOST consumers won't have the premium set ups to see the difference. So I personally don't think quality will play a big part here. It will boil down to how many backers each format gets. It is probably true that Blue Ray will have to keep the cost of their discs down if they even want to compete at all, even if they don't make any money for a few years.

Just a note, this is all speculation on my part. I've never seen these technologies at work to say if one is better than the other. It is just my guess that any difference in quality will be negligible and probably not a factor in who wins the war.

I just hope the war is like "Desert Storm" and not "Vietnam". Let's get it over quick so us comsumers can enjoy it!

I don't know how good of a set-up will be needed, obviously if a film is in 3 MBps and the other uses 18MBps you should notice the difference, but befor most consumers buy players the early adoptors will buy them and the probably have better equipment. Also, this is digital, so the encryption used will play a much bigger role compared to a player.


don't disagree, but then again we should try and make it, because even if you cannot tell the difference today with todays displays, soon enough you will and the next format if it survives will be around for some time

Thanks Art! I hope everything is taken in good fun in general. Some people got uptight about HD-DUD abd Warner Brothels :) I guess I see the past year and now as a rare time for consumers to have some important influence on what consumers expect on the next generation format(s). These forums are being monitored like bandits for marketing purposes and early adopter attitudes which have only increased in importance becasue of the format war. I guess I'd rather spend time bitching now than a year from now :)

LOL! :)

mchuckp: you might want to look at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...31#post5181531 and
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...02#post5181802

these are taken from VC-1 renditions (at different bitrates) of a MPEG-2 master so it is not a perfect example, but are interesting for what they are

I just hope the difference between either technology and current 480P is enough to justify the cost.

Has anyone seen a demonstration to determine that?

Rich N.

Rutger,
No ,it does not so I'll be in the same boat as the other 8 or 9 million non HDCP compliant HD set owners ,albeit a more expensive version of that boat.

Art

Wow! That's why I was wondering. I don't know how much your setup cost, but it looks extremely expensive.