Anyone know the cost difference between brd discs and dvd?

[one]

What about when you want to go with more content, like seasons @ 720p. Who's more likely to go multi-disc here?

That's a pretty weak argument since nobody watches a whole seasonn in one sitting. HD DVD and BR will be so close in capacity that mult-discs will be irrelevant.

It's easier to browse and search the menu than to pick a correct disc from a disc set. Also, if you choose MPEG2 for the codec HD-DVD is more likely to be multi-disc. It affects shelf space.

 

[PC-Engine]

It's easier to browse and search the menu than to pick a correct disc from a disc set.

Weak excuse to support an already weak argument. You're talking about one more HD DVD than BR....wow ONE whole disc. If finding the correct episode is THAT important then going to a second disc isn't going to be a life altering action. You people act like it's 5 HD DVDs compared to 1 BR...sorry that's not reality.

Also, if you choose MPEG2 for the codec HD-DVD is more likely to be multi-disc. It affects shelf space.

Why would MPEG2 be used on HD DVD in the first place?

Lame, weak, and desparate excuses.

 

[one]

It's easier to browse and search the menu than to pick a correct disc from a disc set.

Weak excuse to support an already weak argument. You're talking about one more HD DVD than BR....wow ONE whole disc. If finding the correct episode is THAT important then going to a second disc isn't going to be a life changing action. You people act like it's 5 HD DVDs compared to 1 BR...sorry that's not reality.

Sorry I'm too lazy

Also, if you choose MPEG2 for the codec HD-DVD is more likely to be multi-disc. It affects shelf space.

Why would MPEG2 be used on HD DVD in the first place?

Lame, weak, and desparate excuses.

Do you really think those high-compression MPEG4 codecs can surpass MPEG-2 for all areas, low-bitrate and high-bitrate? Haven't you heard some Hollywood directors expressed their doubts towards MPEG4? They are very sensitive about film source fidelity. Also, broadcasting is using MPEG2 now so you can't ignore what's been established so far.

 

[PC-Engine]

Do you really think those high-compression MPEG4 codecs can surpass MPEG-2 for all areas, low-bitrate and high-bitrate?

Which HD DVDs series shows will be based encoded in MPEG2?

Haven't you heard some Hollywood directors expressed their doubts towards MPEG4? They are very sensitive about film source fidelity.

Is that why TW is using VC-1 exclusively?

Also, broadcasting is using MPEG2 now so you can't ignore what's been established so far.

So what? Consumers don't broadcast content.

 

[one]

Haven't you heard some Hollywood directors expressed their doubts towards MPEG4? They are very sensitive about film source fidelity.

Is that why TW is using VC-1 exclusively?

I bet it's because of compromise.

 

[PC-Engine]

Haven't you heard some Hollywood directors expressed their doubts towards MPEG4? They are very sensitive about film source fidelity.

Is that why TW is using VC-1 exclusively?

I bet it's because of compromise.

Yeah I bet that's why it's used in BR too.

What happened to using MPEG2 exclusively in BR since that was the original high capacity + high quality approach?

Yeah VC-1/MPEG4 sure is a compromise huh? Weren't you the one that kept talking about the BDA finally adopting MPEG4/VC-1 because the quality improved enough to compete with MPEG2?

 

[one]

Haven't you heard some Hollywood directors expressed their doubts towards MPEG4? They are very sensitive about film source fidelity.

Is that why TW is using VC-1 exclusively?

I bet it's because of compromise.

Yeah I bet that's why it's used in BR too.

What happened to using MPEG2 exclusively in BR since that was the original high capacity + high quality approach?

Yeah VC-1/MPEG4 sure is a compromise huh?

I mean exclusively. Do you know why they made it exclusive?

 

[PC-Engine]

Haven't you heard some Hollywood directors expressed their doubts towards MPEG4? They are very sensitive about film source fidelity.

Is that why TW is using VC-1 exclusively?

I bet it's because of compromise.

Yeah I bet that's why it's used in BR too.

What happened to using MPEG2 exclusively in BR since that was the original high capacity + high quality approach?

Yeah VC-1/MPEG4 sure is a compromise huh?

I mean exclusively. Do you know why they made it exclusive?

I know it's not because MPEG2 is better.

That said TW probably just wants to stick to one codec for streamlining their HD DVD productions. Why use both MPEG4 and VC-1 for different HD DVDs? Makes no sense at all and just makes it more messy.

 

[NavNucST3]

snipped.

The problem is that 1080p@24Hz with MPEG-2 is probably pushing that 36Mbps bitrate. You will fill 15GB with a 2.5hr movie. Now let's throw in the extras, and you're now onto DL. Not a problem really, but BRD will do it in a single-layer. Both can handle 1080p, one does it much better. What about when you want to go with more content, like seasons @ 720p. Who's more likely to go multi-disc here? BRD is the better product, hands down, and will offer much more flexibility for the road ahead. A DL BRD will still do more than a 3L HD-DVD, and so on. When the argument of cost gets thrown around (and frivolous as it may be), how much attention ever gets paid to the capacity deficiencies of HD-DVD compared to BRD? I continue to be boggled by the defense of HD-DVD.

Your reasoning is flawed, because you mention MPEG-2 which is the broadcast encoding, and there I agree with you, but then you talk about extras which means you must be talking about bd-rom movies vs hd-dvd movies, not simply recording the shows from the networks. Here is why that is flawed, BOTH bd-rom and hd-dvd will be using h.264 or vc-1 both of which use substantially less room than MPEG-2, and your extras and the entire seasons will fit on a disc.

I know some expect the BRD to be some big cost factor for the PS3, but neither the CD nor DVD drives made much of a difference with the PS1 and PS2.

That is a little revisionist history there, both the cd and dvd drives had been around for years as both stand-alones and computers, before they were introduced into consoles, which is why their costs were trivial, that is not the case with BD-ROM.

 

[Sis]

As for the PS3, the drive is not the cost leader on that system. For one, the RSX isn't done, which would prevent the system from being put on shelves even if the BRD cost $10. Second, the cost of drives is always overplayed. What goes into an optical drive? A spindle motor, controller logic and a laser. The laser unit is already expected to be a single-unit, like the PS2's. It also requires less power b/c (a) it's a ROM drive and (b) BRD lasers need less power than HD-DVD IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong, please). The spindle motor is just a frickin motor. A dime a dozen. It's not like the spec require fluid bearings or anything (not that I've read). The logic is taken care of, it's the Cell+IOP. There are reasons stand-alone players cost a fortune. They have rewriting and seperate logic, plus manufacturers need to sell them with a markup in order to make any money. PS3 will be sold at a loss.

COGS guessing aside, there is the loss in unrealized sales on the consumer electronics side that's more meaningful.

A simple thought experiment on the MS side to see this: what if the Xbox 360 included a CD that contained Office, Windows XP, and any other MS software you can think of. Why shouldn't they do this, since we can debate the cost of those products down to pennies (purely the cost of the CD)? The bottom line is that every copy of the product given away at cost is a loss of a sale.

Calculating the effect of incorporating the BR drive into the PS3 at cost, or below, requires understanding the impact of PS3 sales on their consumer BR players (along with their partners) which becomes very difficult given our cloudy information.

But, I do suggest that it is non-trivial.

.Sis

 

[jvd]

As for the PS3, the drive is not the cost leader on that system. For one, the RSX isn't done, which would prevent the system from being put on shelves even if the BRD cost $10. Second, the cost of drives is always overplayed. What goes into an optical drive? A spindle motor, controller logic and a laser. The laser unit is already expected to be a single-unit, like the PS2's. It also requires less power b/c (a) it's a ROM drive and (b) BRD lasers need less power than HD-DVD IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong, please). The spindle motor is just a frickin motor. A dime a dozen. It's not like the spec require fluid bearings or anything (not that I've read). The logic is taken care of, it's the Cell+IOP. There are reasons stand-alone players cost a fortune. They have rewriting and seperate logic, plus manufacturers need to sell them with a markup in order to make any money. PS3 will be sold at a loss.

Its really the yields of the laser thats called into question. A few months ago in one of these big threads about the two formats there was talk about lower than expected yields on the bluray lasers . Don't forget that the lasers are even narrower than hd-dvds which means they are more expensive to produce .

A bluray drive will be expensive at first. Same with a hd-dvd . That is how tech works. It starts off high and ends low

 

[jvd]

It's easier to browse and search the menu than to pick a correct disc from a disc set. Also, if you choose MPEG2 for the codec HD-DVD is more likely to be multi-disc. It affects shelf space.

Your forget that once you go multi discs even though a tri layer hd-dvd holds 5 gigs less than a bluray dual layer disc. 2 tri layer hd-dvds hold much more than a dual layer bluray disc .

Thus all the eps could be spaced out better and now have acess to more room .

What really matters to the consumer is price .

Unless bluray can fit a season on 1 bluray disc at 720p or better its advantages wont matter . 5 discs vs 6 discs don't matter , no one is going to care . Now I would agree that 2 discs vs 6 discs would matter . But that wont happen


Now with hvd you can most likely fit a season or two seasons of a show on 1 disc at 1080p 60hz . That would matter .

 

[PC-Engine]

It's easier to browse and search the menu than to pick a correct disc from a disc set. Also, if you choose MPEG2 for the codec HD-DVD is more likely to be multi-disc. It affects shelf space.

Your forget that once you go multi discs even though a tri layer hd-dvd holds 5 gigs less than a bluray dual layer disc. 2 tri layer hd-dvds hold much more than a dual layer bluray disc .

Thus all the eps could be spaced out better and now have acess to more room .

What really matters to the consumer is price .

Unless bluray can fit a season on 1 bluray disc at 720p or better its advantages wont matter . 5 discs vs 6 discs don't matter , no one is going to care . Now I would agree that 2 discs vs 6 discs would matter . But that wont happen


Now with hvd you can most likely fit a season or two seasons of a show on 1 disc at 1080p 60hz . That would matter .

Exactly.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

A thought occured to me this afternoon on the subject of next-gen disc penetration. I would imagine in the EU a lot more PS3's will be sold than standalone hidef disc players, because people can use PS3 on their existing SDTVs whereas what's the point in hidef movies on low def TVs? I certainly won't get a hidef movie player until I have a hidef TV, wherea I will get a PS3 regardless.

Will not the same happen elsewhere too with SDTV owners still getting a BRD player in the guise of PS3? It's not a straight comparision with DVD player vs PS2, where more standalone players were sold than PS2, because the DVD player didn't need another piece of hardware (HDTV) to use.

Getting the player out there and into people's homes before they know they want HD movies means when they do want HD movies, it's just a matter of buying the discs that play on the console.

 

[PC-Engine]

Getting the player out there and into people's homes before they know they want HD movies means when they do want HD movies, it's just a matter of buying the discs that play on the console.

What's the point of buying HD BR movies to watch on a SDTVs?

 

[MechanizedDeath]

What about when you want to go with more content, like seasons @ 720p. Who's more likely to go multi-disc here?

That's a pretty weak argument since nobody watches a whole seasonn in one sitting. HD DVD and BR will be so close in capacity that mult-discs will be irrelevant.

BRD is the better product, hands down, and will offer much more flexibility for the road ahead. A DL BRD will still do more than a 3L HD-DVD, and so on.

Sure but not by much and surely not enough for any person to care other than people who needs something to brag about.

1. I'm talking about media costs here, not someone actually sitting through a single disc's worth of content. I doubt anyone will want to sit through 20+ episodes of anything. The fact is that as the capacity needs scale higher, BRD's advantage extends. The cost argument seems to fall apart pretty quickly when you start justifying additional layers and discs over what's required for BRD. And this is an already marginal cost argument when you start looking years down the line.

2. So then why do we even need to move from DVD when you can just use WMV-9 and fit an HD movie on a DVD? I don't know why I'm replying. I'm just a masochist, I guess. But by your remarks, it would see that manufacturers saving cents per disc, and half the studios is more important than everything else. Meh, whatever floats your boat. I look at it from an end-user POV, and that IMO means looking years down the line. HD-DVD will need to be upgraded in the future. If for no other reason than to accomodate the need to shove more content into a cheaper package. But IMO, BRD with 2/3 (66.666%) larger capacity, you may very well need that upgrade in the long run, but it's less of a problem than with HD-DVD. Future-proofing benefits the consumer far more than cost savings that will never get passed on to the consumer (retail costs of movies don't reflect media costs). Look how many people are already nervous about having to switch from DVD now. Who wants to go through this same bs in 5 years to switch to HVD? I personally want a movie collection that can last a couple decades. BRD is more likely to achieve that than HD-DVD due directly to these advantages to so quickly ignore.

Why would MPEG2 be used on HD DVD in the first place?

It's in the spec. H.264 is good for saving bandwidth, not for increasing quality. MPEG4 is no magic compression that can half bandwidth needs while keeping the same quality. How much of a tradeoff in quality there will be depends on the content, but there's certainly a reduction over MPEG-2. There's a reason MPEG-2 is still included in both specs, and it's not just window dressing.

NucNavST3: I was unaware that H.264/VC-1 were the standards chosen as the default encoding used for BRD movies. I thought the last BDA PDF I read stated clearly that they would be using MPEG-2. What need is there for 36Mbps transfer rate if an MPEG4 stream wouldn't need more than 10Mbps? I'm puzzled as to why broadcasts would use a higher bitrate than videos, when broadcasts have much greater bandwidth constraints (switching between 20Mbps feeds @ 720p can't be the quickest thing). But if you're right and MPEG-2 will only be used for broadcasts, then it's a complete wash. And honestly, BRD's capacity would be wasted in that event. I really haven't read that anywhere though. :?

as for the drive costs, DVDs drives weren't particularly cheap when the PS2 came out, and it also came with a 4x drive, which is costlier than a 1x at the time. The PS3 will have one of the earliest BR drives, but as I said, the spec has been set since early last year, and has not once been called into question. Why? If it's such a cost concern, it would be one of the first items under the axe since its benefits to actual gaming are marginal right now.

jvd: Like the PS2, the PS3 will have a hybrid laser. The yieds on recordable lasers are gonna be higher b/c the power requirements are higher. On a read-only laser, you need less power. But even then, the laser is the only real cost component that gets tacked on. Logic is handled by IOP+Cell, and the motor shouldn't make a lick of difference. So even then, you're not really adding the cost of a BR drive to the PS3, you're adding the cost of a laser. And one that will be a catch-all laser that encompasses CD/DVD/BRD in one. I don't know why the drive cost is an issue to anyone when it hasn't been an issue for Sony. They've hesitated with the HDD, but haven't flinched at the BRD for a year now. Yes, that's anecdotal evidence, but that's all we have to go on right now. :? PEACE.

 

[mckmas8808]

Getting the player out there and into people's homes before they know they want HD movies means when they do want HD movies, it's just a matter of buying the discs that play on the console.

What's the point of buying HD BR movies to watch on a SDTVs?

PC-Engine try to read what the man is getting at. You can do both. Read carefully.

1. You can buy a PS3 and use it for games on your SDTV.

2. When you upgrade to a HDTV you automatically have a hidef movie player in your house.

3. You don't have to pay an extra $500 - $1000 for a hidef player.


Therefore PS3's even though they will not be used as a hidef movie player at the beginning for most people, have one (kinda for free) when they upgrade. Remember PC-Engine the PSone and PS2 sold over 30 million both times in Europe.

Again why buy another hidef player that's expensive when you upgrade to a HDTV when the PS3 is one.

 

[PC-Engine]

The fact is that as the capacity needs scale higher, BRD's advantage extends.

You mean like requiring 3 BR discs instead of 4 HD DVD discs? Sounds like a pretty iffy advantage.

The cost argument seems to fall apart pretty quickly when you start justifying additional layers and discs over what's required for BRD.

Actuall the cost argument holds up pretty well since you don't even know what's required so let's not pretend you do.

And this is an already marginal cost argument when you start looking years down the line.

That's what the BR camp keeps on saying kinda like your parroting with nothing to back it up. Basically a fortune teller predicting the future with nothing to back it up.

So then why do we even need to move from DVD when you can just use WMV-9

Maybe because DVDs don't have enough storage for the quality of HD they're looking for? It's not exactly rocket science man.

But IMO, BRD with 2/3 (66.666%) larger capacity, you may very well need that upgrade in the long run, but it's less of a problem than with HD-DVD. Future-proofing benefits the consumer far more than cost savings that will never get passed on to the consumer (retail costs of movies don't reflect media costs). Look how many people are already nervous about having to switch from DVD now. Who wants to go through this same bs in 5 years to switch to HVD? I personally want a movie collection that can last a couple decades. BRD is more likely to achieve that than HD-DVD due directly to these advantages to so quickly ignore.

Technology moves on whether or not you want to move on with it...

It's in the spec. H.264 is good for saving bandwidth, not for increasing quality. MPEG4 is no magic compression that can half bandwidth needs while keeping the same quality. How much of a tradeoff in quality there will be depends on the content, but there's certainly a reduction over MPEG-2. There's a reason MPEG-2 is still included in both specs, and it's not just window dressing.

It's in the specs for backwards compatibility, not exactly a mystery.

 

[Xeno]

Most consumers don't care about BR's capacity advantage or future capacity increases. They just care about movies....

That's a pretty weak argument since nobody watches a whole seasonn in one sitting. HD DVD and BR will be so close in capacity that mult-discs will be irrelevant.

BRD is the better product, hands down, and will offer much more flexibility for the road ahead. A DL BRD will still do more than a 3L HD-DVD, and so on.

Sure but not by much and surely not enough for any person to care other than people who needs something to brag about.

Consumers don't care for the extra storage space on the media formats they purchase?

If this were true then sutdios wouldn't add extra content like behind the scenes, out takes, extened footage, deleted secenes, actor/director comentary, documentary footage, video clips, filmographies wow the list just goes on can you believe that?

Storage capacity is important for the consumer and they DO care about this.

Consumers will want entire seasons or mini-series films on one disc instead of getting up and changing the disc. This is similar to buying a car with no cup holders yet the vehicle comes free with them if you simply say yes I would like free cup holders...It's a perk that everybody wants at no extra cost!

Why do you believe BluRay is not the superior product, because Sony is backing it? It offers us consumers better quality and more quantity than HD DVD which is all that should matter.

 

[PC-Engine]

When you upgrade to a HDTV you automatically have a hidef movie player in your house.

Yeah but you still need a HDTV. If YOU read it carefully he says all you need is to buy the BR discs which isn't true at all. You still need a HDTV. My point is even if you have a PS3 you're not going to be buying BR movies unless you have a HDTV.

Consumers don't care for the extra storage space on the media formats they purchase?

No they don't. They care about the content on them. We're not talking about HDDs or blank media. We're talking about prerecorded media.

If this were true then sutdios wouldn't add extra content like behind the scenes, out takes, extened footage, deleted secenes, actor/director comentary, documentary footage, video clips, filmographies wow the list just goes on can you believe that?

And that somehow prevents DVDs from having extras?

Storage capacity is important for the consumer and they DO care about this.

Sure for things like HDDs not for movies disc.

Consumers will want entire seasons or mini-series films on one disc instead of getting up and changing the disc.

Please read what others have already posted instead of entering a discussion like some Messiah and regurgitating previously addressed arguments. Nobody watches an entire season or series in one sitting. For those who do my advice to them is to get a life.

This is similar to buying a car with no cup holders yet the vehicle comes free with them if you simply say yes I would like free cup holders...It's a perk that everybody wants at no extra cost!

Please stop with the stupid analogies. A consumer will buy the season on HD DVD whether it's on one disc or two discs. A TL HD DVD can hold 45GBs while a DL BR can hold 50GBs. You telling me they'll package a second HD DVD to make up for the 5GB difference?

Why do you believe BluRay is not the superior product, because Sony is backing it?

Who said anything about one format not being superior to the other? What people are saying is that the superiority is so minimal it's irrelevant.