Microsoft announces external HD-DVD drive for Xbox 360
- Thread starter BlueTsunami
- Start date
Dunno. But chances are "yes" as it will no doubt be cheaper than a plastic encasement. 
AlphaWolf said:
I realy don't know if they are willing to use it,but i'm willing to pay for it as current dvd scratch easy.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Again, don't compare the raw space, compare the actual codec's used. When you do that, do you find that BRD's codec of choice produces higher quality playback than HD-DVD's codec of choice? Is Sony et al actually using less compression, or are you just making assumptions? As for the higher resolution/framerate, you first have to get movies filmed at the higher framerate, and then get widespread support for it, and then get a decent installed base of TV's that can display it, and then maybe talk about seeing content released that is natively recorded that way. As for film length, how many movies do you recall lasting more than 4 hours? We're talking about a difference in features you pack onto the disc, or how many discs it takes to store entire series of shows, not how many discs it will take to hold a movie.ihamoitc2005 said:
I don't disagree that the extra capacity in BRD is nice, but it isn't a win-win-win by necessity, provided HD-DVD has enough capacity to do the job and do it well. Few people are going to make their BRD vs. HD-DVD purchase based on how many actors have commentaries on the disc. It's the same reason HVD isn't necessary now... there's just more room than needed for current standard recording formats. Of course you could find a camera somewhere that does high speed high resolution film, digitize the frames at an insane resolution, and fill up an HVD with uncompressed video, but would anyone actually bother doing that?
Yeah, but more money is more money. Durabis is more of a requirement to get BR running properly due to its' case format, but if TDK can sell more to others as an enhancement to their disks (many of which TDK itself sells), I don't see why they wouldn't.
I just don't see others going that route if they don't have to. Maybe for "premium" disks used for more perminant recording purposes... But content providers would rather save money and have there be the ability for you to screw up your disks enough to have to buy them again--blaming yourself all the while. That's more money for them at BOTH ends!
I just don't see others going that route if they don't have to. Maybe for "premium" disks used for more perminant recording purposes... But content providers would rather save money and have there be the ability for you to screw up your disks enough to have to buy them again--blaming yourself all the while. That's more money for them at BOTH ends!
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Space
Yes. If same "codec" then BD can have higher resolution for same length film or have full-length film on 1 disc instead of 2 disc or much more other content for consumer "hook" for other products.
Bigus Dickus said:
Yes. If same "codec" then BD can have higher resolution for same length film or have full-length film on 1 disc instead of 2 disc or much more other content for consumer "hook" for other products.
Bigus Dickus
Regular
Yes, BRD can have higher resolution, but will it? Or higher framerate... but will it?ihamoitc2005 said:
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
3 choices
Blu-ray movie content can be entered in mpeg2, mpeg4 or vc1 because but Sony will use mpeg2 for its movies because it has better picture and Blu-ray has space for this. HD-DVD will probably have vc1 for most movies because of less space. But both disc format has no problem for content in any format but size of content will decide what format is used because of size of disc.
AlphaWolf said:
Blu-ray movie content can be entered in mpeg2, mpeg4 or vc1 because but Sony will use mpeg2 for its movies because it has better picture and Blu-ray has space for this. HD-DVD will probably have vc1 for most movies because of less space. But both disc format has no problem for content in any format but size of content will decide what format is used because of size of disc.
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
To death?
I do not know about this discussion or maybe I dont remember. But what is important is any content type can be used in any drive and it is choice of content owner so disc space will limit choice for how much compression. For same content, less space = more compression (codec or resolution).
AlphaWolf said:
I do not know about this discussion or maybe I dont remember. But what is important is any content type can be used in any drive and it is choice of content owner so disc space will limit choice for how much compression. For same content, less space = more compression (codec or resolution).
cthellis42 said:Yeah, but more money is more money. Durabis is more of a requirement to get BR running properly due to its' case format, but if TDK can sell more to others as an enhancement to their disks (many of which TDK itself sells), I don't see why they wouldn't.
I just don't see others going that route if they don't have to. Maybe for "premium" disks used for more perminant recording purposes... But content providers would rather save money and have there be the ability for you to screw up your disks enough to have to buy them again--blaming yourself all the while. That's more money for them at BOTH ends!
Right. In this scenario.. durability/hardness is "just" a product attribute (Not an enabler). If the current HD-DVD hardness is good enough, then they are unlikely to apply the treatment to save $$ and time. BluRay just needed a solution in this aspect.
Unless the HD-DVD consortium does a market study and finds that the added durability will attract significantly more buyers, then the consortium may choose to coat it later to the basic package, or as a sub-brand. I doubt this is the case though.
ihamoitc2005 said:
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24194
Most of the 800+ posts in that thread are devoted to mpeg2 vs vc1/h.264
Basically it comes down to: at the same bitrate vc1/h.264 outperforms mpeg2 (unless bitrates are so high it doesn't matter).
I was under the opinion that for the time being they're using mpeg2 because studios are already used to it, it will require less restructuring, and they don't have storage concerns using it. (At least for movies.)
Both formats can handle the same codecs, so it's just up to the studios' tastes. When storage IS of concern I assume they'll alter their gameplan accordingly.
It's more of a "let studios adopt newer codecs at their own pace" approach. If HD-DVD needs to use VC1/h.264 then that may be of concern to some studios.
Sort of the "software ease of adoption" on BR's end, while the "hardware ease of adoption" is with HD-DVD.
Regardless, there's nothing stopping them from using it on a technical end, so it's a non-issue for comparison's sake, ne?
Both formats can handle the same codecs, so it's just up to the studios' tastes. When storage IS of concern I assume they'll alter their gameplan accordingly.
It's more of a "let studios adopt newer codecs at their own pace" approach. If HD-DVD needs to use VC1/h.264 then that may be of concern to some studios.
Sort of the "software ease of adoption" on BR's end, while the "hardware ease of adoption" is with HD-DVD.
Regardless, there's nothing stopping them from using it on a technical end, so it's a non-issue for comparison's sake, ne?
ihamoitc2005
Veteran
Bit-rate
For same time length content, less space (bits)=less bit-rate(bits per second) so for low-bit-rate application it is better to choose codec better for low-bit-rate application. So your statement may be true and explain why vc1 is used in HD-DVD which has only 60% of Blu-ray capacity.
AlphaWolf said:
For same time length content, less space (bits)=less bit-rate(bits per second) so for low-bit-rate application it is better to choose codec better for low-bit-rate application. So your statement may be true and explain why vc1 is used in HD-DVD which has only 60% of Blu-ray capacity.
