BLU-RAY WIN!

[PC-Engine]

Well i don't want the costs passed down to me which is what will happen . New plants or retooling of new plants costs money , they will then increase the price of the disc which increases the price of the movie .

I guess you haven't got the memo which says that retooled hd-dvd plays are painfully slow at replication. So to get speeds better than blu-ray plants you would need to be build new hd-dvd plants as well. The whole "Just re-tool your plant and make hd-dvds" campaign by toshiba was just an fiasco to make people believe hd-dvd was so much cheaper than blu-ray.

Retooled DVD plants are not as good as dedicated HD DVD/DVD plants, but they're still faster than dedicated BR plants using spincoating. Dedicated HD DVD plants are twice as fast as dedicated BR plants. I guess you didn't get the revised memo...

Heh, it's funny. I was going to say that my player is one of the best around but didn't bother.

Don't know what equipment you've been using, but a cheap $100 DVD player can change layers under a second. Sometimes it's not even noticeable.

 

[Tsmit42]

Retooled DVD plants are not as good as dedicated HD DVD/DVD plants, but they're still faster than dedicated BR plants using spincoating. Dedicated HD DVD plants are twice as fast as dedicated BR plants. I guess you didn't get the revised memo...

The point was that HD-DVD will still need new plants if they want the replication speeds that they were touting about.

 

[PC-Engine]

Retooled DVD plants are not as good as dedicated HD DVD/DVD plants, but they're still faster than dedicated BR plants using spincoating. Dedicated HD DVD plants are twice as fast as dedicated BR plants. I guess you didn't get the revised memo...

The point was that HD-DVD will still need new plants if they want the replication speeds that they were touting about.

They never claimed anything else. You either save money by retooling and compromise on speed or you spend money by buyin dedicated equipment to get the speed. At least they weren't outright lying like SONY by not including the spincoat process time in their manufacturing process times. That's why Toshiba is saying: "Show me the money" in these format negotiations.

 

[Phil]

RIght now there are technologys that should be ready in another two years or so that will give us 50 + gigs per layer . Why not wait an extra year over bluray for that ?

Or how about we wait another 3 years after that for a 100 gigs per plater ?

Wait a minute: so you're tellung us that in 2 years there's a format that gives us 50+ GB and in 3 years a 100 GB per layer at a mass-market price (similar initial fab upgrade costs as well as cheap enough to mass produce the disks with content)? Would you please mind pointing out which of those formats are and who are responsible for them?

Or is this just your own humble speculation based on your expectations what should be possible - because given that Bluray and HD-DVD have been "around the corner" for the last 2 years already, I certainly don't see any other viable formats being possible at those prices/costs in the next few years.

All this talk about optical and holographic disks sure sounds all great and dandy, but there are really far away of being mass-market capable - the costs to produce them is simply overkill and that won't change within the next few years.


If we are to assume that blue-laser is the natural progression formats will take on, isn't it simply the question when the jump will occur? Also, if 30 GB (2 layers) of HD-DVD were looked at as a flaw for full progressive 1080 signals compared to Blu-Rays 54 - what does the extra layer solve if the 3rd layer is to be used primarely for the dvd-layer to be compatible on dvd-only drives? IMO that's like chucking one of the advantages of gaining another layer right out the window when it could be used at least to give users extras and higher quality content (1080p, etc) rather than the same movies twice in two different formats.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Sorry for being a moron, but can somebody either explain to me the benefit of BR or give me a link to that discussion thread?

It seems to me that BR's only benefit was capacity, and that has been matched by double and triple layer HD-DVDs. Additionally, didn't I read somewhere that HD-DVDs have some layer of protection on them that BR don't? (Copy protection or physical protection, not sure)

So I've got HD-DVDs as big enough (multi-layered BR can hold more but does it matter if your Corvette goes 200 when the speed limit is 55?), cheaper to make, quicker to make, available to the public sooner, and with a recognizable name.

 

[PC-Engine]

The only benefit left for BR is the protective coat, but that is pretty moot since you can apply that same coat on HD DVD toos. The only other benefit is recordable 4 and 8 layer BRDs in the future, but nobody knows how real that is since to date it hasn't been shown that it's actually real and not some experimental prototype that doesn't even work. Single 4 layer and 8 layer disc are overrated anyway.

 

[Carl B]

Ok people, firstly it blows my mind how there is so much passion with regard to things like DVD manufacturing plants.

But on a serious note, Sony and Toshiba definitely ARE in talks, and something is going on. We'll know more by the 16th; right now it's just too easy to make arguments for one side vs the other - probably a couple of more arguments in HD-DVDs favor with this new higher capacity release.

Still, it definitely seems like posturing, and I hope that come PS3's launch, it's launching with what will be a unified standard - even if that 'unified' standard end up pretty much being one or the other.

 

[Farid]

Ok people, firstly it blows my mind how there is so much passion with regard to things like DVD manufacturing plants.

Actually, there's no passion at all.
It's just that some people still don't understand that PC-Engine will troll anything Sony related. Therefore they keep on responding to his posts and arguing with him.

BRD is such a better format for us, end-users, that arguing in favor of the HD-DVD technology is just crazy talk.

I could understand if people were arguing about how both BRD and HD-DVD are not enough of a progression with regard to the actual DVD, and thus we should have a new format with at least 100GB per layers. But HD-DVD superiority over BRD, I mean come on.

Some people just love to argue, so... Live and let di..err, live.

 

[PC-Engine]

Ok people, firstly it blows my mind how there is so much passion with regard to things like DVD manufacturing plants.

Actually, there's no passion at all.
It's just that some people still don't understand that PC-Engine will troll anything Sony related. Therefore they keep on responding to his posts and arguing with him.

BRD is such a better format for us, end-users, that arguing in favor of the HD-DVD technology is just crazy talk.

I could understand if people were arguing about how both BRD and HD-DVD are not enough of a progression with regard to the actual DVD, and thus we should have a new format with at least 100GB per layers. But HD-DVD superiority over BRD, I mean come on.

Some people just love to argue, so... Live and let di..err, live.

Well what happens when SONY is the only one left backing BR? Does that still make it superior?

You think Fox and Disney will still support BR, now that HD DVD has upped the capacity to 45GB? If a unified format is not agreed upon I can guarantee that Fox and Disney will support HD DVD.

 

[Ty]

at what cost ? Right now the majority of hdtvs are 720i .

At a pretty expensive cost now. Hard to say if the majority of HDTVs are 720P or 1080i. Anyhow, neither are that close to 1080P.

IT will take many years for 1080p to hit saturation as right now only hte highest of the highend has it . There are a hand full of models that have it .

Absolutely true. But...

Why wait a year for bluray when we can wait 2 or 3 for 100 gig discs ? or 50 gig layer discs ?

This next format (either BR or HD-DVD) will not be gone in just 2 or 3 years. We're going to have it for as long as DVDs because studios & manufactuers don't want to go through this sort of upheavel every few years.

There is always cool and exciting technology in the labs. The key is getting it out to the market, which is where the real work is required. It's not as if the progression of technology is operating in a different manner now then it did 10 years ago.

your telling me that 15 gigs isn't enough for 1080p with say 7.1 sound or even 10.1 sound ? I think its more than enough and if not the second layer will be fine .

What is possible given a GOOD compression scheme? 7.1 is fine for a long time simply because most people will not rearrange their rooms for anything more.

As i said , if we really want to wait why not just wait for 100 gig layers ?

This is years and years away. Look at how long it's taken HD-DVD/BR players to hit the market. . .we've know about them for years.

Don't know what equipment you've been using, but a cheap $100 DVD player can change layers under a second. Sometimes it's not even noticeable.

Got some in mind? The link I provided shows Layer Change times and most are 1 second plus. Generally the high end stuff from Denon or Meridan is 0.5 but there are a few 0.25 but they have bad bad imaging.

As I'm a stickler for my HT / Audio equipment, it could be a tradeoff, slower Layer Changes vs. poorer PQ. But I could get the best of both worlds by getting a good PQ player and less layers on my media.

 

[DemoCoder]

A 1080p signal will eat up almost 6 times as much space as a 480p signal. Videophiles are already unhappy with artifacts in DVDs due to compression. The answer DVD consortium proposed? Oh, let's fit HD on small disks using MPEG-4, H.264, or VC-1/WMV9, a decision sure to infuriate purists more. These codecs were designed for low bit-rates and make harsh tradeoffs.

IMHO, if terabyte holographic disks were "right around the corner" (2 years), I'd personally trash BluRay and HD-DVD and go right to those. Future video formats will go beyond just 1920x1080 resolution, but also feature greater dynamic range as digital film making takes off.

MPEG artifacts on my DVDs really piss me off.

 

[PC-Engine]

Got some in mind?

A cheap POS $35 Cyberhome DVD player.

 

[DemoCoder]

I got a CyberHome to play region-free DVD in a spare bedroom for $27. It's a nice player (progressive too), but I found it is full of bugs. For example, alot of DVD menus don't work properly (Star Wars Empire Strikes Back for example)

 

[PC-Engine]

I got a CyberHome to play region-free DVD in a spare bedroom for $27. It's a nice player (progressive too), but I found it is full of bugs. For example, alot of DVD menus don't work properly (Star Wars Empire Strikes Back for example)

Damn I got ripped off then, I paid $35!

Anyway I just wanted to point out that even dirt cheap DVD players can layer change quickly.

 

[Farid]

IMHO, if terabyte holographic disks were "right around the corner" (2 years), I'd personally trash BluRay and HD-DVD and go right to those. Future video formats will go beyond just 1920x1080 resolution, but also feature greater dynamic range as digital film making takes off.

MPEG artifacts on my DVDs really piss me off.

Now that's talking!

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Forget about studios and manufacturers, how about end users? Not audiophiles or geeks, but normal people who buy a $100 DVD for their family for special holidays? As a once a year type of extravagant purchase.

Hell, how many households even have DVD players? You've got to remember that DVDs were sold to the general public as the "Next Great Thing!", totally digital sound and picture!

Now, you want to launch a marketing campaign to tell people that DVDs really suck and if they want HD quality they've got to move to some other format? Whatever that format is, it sure better include DVD in the name otherwise it won't sell to the general public.

And I really wish somebody would tell me (or point me towards the information source) as to why BR is better than HD-DVD. Simply saying "this isn't worth a discussion" and that PC-Engine is an anti-Sony biggot doesn't qualify. The second part could be true, but is irrelevant. The first, cannot be true because if it were, all the parties involved (including major studios) wouldn't be having these exact same discussions!

I'm sitting in my living room and I can count four sony appliances without turning my head. I was all for BR when it provided significant capacity gains over HD-DVD, and I really don't care if studios/manufacturers have to spend extra money licensing the tech from Sony.

But now that HD-DVD is comparable in capacity, has a recognizable name, and has equal industry support, I really don't see the benefit. It seems to me that BR supporters got emotionally involved in a format that had its advantages and are now unwilling to alter their position despite those advantages having been eliminated or significantly reduced.

 

[DemoCoder]

I already told you that 1080p requires 6x as much space, and 720p (the *minimum* HD spec. Anything smaller is SDTV) requires almost 3x as much.

That means if you've got a DVD that uses 9gigs, you'll need 27gigs for 720p and 56gigs for 1080p. Right about now, I'll start hearing "yeah, but they'll use H.264 or some super codec to crunch down more" and I'll answer by saying that MPEG-4/MPEG-4 AAC, if used to squeeze 4hrs of 1080p content on 15gigs is going to significantly impact visual quality. MPEG-4 at best and under optimal conditions can deliver a 50% improvement in size, so that still means HD-DVD single-layer doesn't have enough storage capacity.


As for why 1080p? Because again, this format is *HD* and should support all HD resolutions, up to 1080p, for atleast the next decade. That means people who buy TVs 5 years from now should not have to suffer because YOU don't own an HDTV today or don't care about quality. Stick with your DVDs and get out of the HD-DVD discussion.

Remember, TV and player standards are LOOOOOONG lasting. Whatever standard the industry agrees on, will be a legacy that drags down future improvements, so it is best to GET IT RIGHT NOW. There is no hurry to ship something inferior.


The only reason to even be involved in the HD-DVD discussion is if you care about resolution, and if you care about resolution, then you want Hollywood movies mastered at the max ATSC resolution, and downscaled if you've got a lesser set, not up-scaled if you've got a better set.

Frankly, if you can't tell the difference between 480p and 720p, and DVD video bitrates, then you shouldn't bother buying an HDTV and should exit this conversation right now, since HD is not for you, and your preferences for the HD-DVD standard are frankly damaging to the rest of us.

 

[Tsmit42]

Well 720p and 1080i would most likely be 60fps and 1080p would be 24/30 fps. All comes to about the same data rate.

As to why Blu-ray is better than HD-DvD?

The most important fact is recordability. For PC users like us, this is a plus no matter how you look it at. Dual layer HD-dvd would need somewhere like 100 mW laser to record at 1x speed, while blu-ray only need 10mW. 100 mW lasers are very expensive so Hd-dvd would be stuck with 15gb for hd-dvd. Even if 100mW lasers become cheap to produce, blu-ray would be able to record 50gb at 8x speed and hd-dvd would stuck at 1x and 30gb.

With blu-ray being overwhelmly better format for recording, it would just be better to have one format for everything. I really don't care what format they use for pre-recorded content, since both have enough storage for hd-video, as long as all next gen dvd players will be able to play bd-r/rw. The probability of that happening if the formats does not merge is slim to none, in which case blu-ray only would be better.

So I see Blu-ray as a true replacement for VHS, DVD video, and DVD pc storage. Hd-dvd just dont have all of 3 of these things going for it, only 1.

edit: changed 80gb to 50gb and 15gb to 30gb, sorry typo.

 

[PC-Engine]

The most important fact is recordability. For PC users like us, this is a plus no matter how you look it at. Dual layer HD-dvd would need somewhere like 100 mW laser to record at 1x speed, while blu-ray only need 10mW. 100 mW lasers are very expensive so Hd-dvd would be stuck with 15gb for hd-dvd. Even if 100mW lasers become cheap to produce, blu-ray would be able to record 50gb at 8x speed and hd-dvd would stuck at 1x and 30gb.

Wrong. Is that why DVD-R jumped from 1X to 16X within what 2-3 year?

8X BR recording aint gonna happen anytime soon regardless whether it needs a less powerful laser or not.

That's like saying a 800hp car will be 8X as fast as a 100hp car.

 

[Tsmit42]

The most important fact is recordability. For PC users like us, this is a plus no matter how you look it at. Dual layer HD-dvd would need somewhere like 100 mW laser to record at 1x speed, while blu-ray only need 10mW. 100 mW lasers are very expensive so Hd-dvd would be stuck with 15gb for hd-dvd. Even if 100mW lasers become cheap to produce, blu-ray would be able to record 50gb at 8x speed and hd-dvd would stuck at 1x and 30gb.

Wrong. Is that why DVD-R jumped from 1X to 16X within what 2-3 year?

8X BR recording aint gonna happen anytime soon regardless whether it needs a less powerful laser or not.

That's like saying a 800hp car will be 8X as fast as a 100hp car.

Fact #1: 10mW for 1x DL BD-R
Fact #2: 100mW for 1x DL HD-DVD-R
Fact #3: 100mW for 8x DL BD-R

What don't you get?