Well, if you're asking about the line you quoted from me, then yes, laypeople who don't care about terms are calling Blu-Ray discs an HD-DVD. Sounds dumb, I know, but that does affect the general market's recognition of names which is what I was discussing. (And, if they aren’t calling it a ‘superior’ HD-DVD then they should in my opinion.)
Originally posted by: ScruffyOver at AVS Forum, the general opinion on picture quality is almost entirely in favor of HD-DVD. Better codec and more disc capacity. (The BD spec allows for double-layer discs that will be larger than HD-DVDs, and advanced video codecs, but we haven't seen them yet.)
Originally posted by: Jobel
The consensus is that the HD-DVD discs look amazing and have used the VC-1 codec. But Bluray have opted to use that old MPEG2 codec and they just don't look as good. Bluray have been shooting their mouth off for years now about how much better they will be and they haven't delivered. Meanwhile HD-DVD has become the enthusiasts choice and people have even figured out how to author their own HD-DVD discs playable back on the machine.
First, Blu-Ray discs have far more capacity than HD-DVDs so there's no doubt which format is more advanced and deserving to replace DVD in that respect. A single layered HD-DVD holds 15 GBs while a single layed Blu-Ray holds 23-25 GBs. That's a huge difference (10 GBs). If you double the layers then you only double the capacity of each disc (30 GB vs 50 GB). (In addition, as a hybrid disc, a BD can fit an entire 8.5 GB DVD on its second layer while HD-DVD requires you to use the other side of the disk to achieve hybrid status. A single layer BD holds almost as much as a dual layered HD-DVD.)
Second, what do you both mean about VC-1 being a "better" codec than Mpeg-2? As far as I know, it is primarily more efficient, but it doesn't offer a better image quality in a practical sense. That means while using less space on a disc with VC-1, you can still have a comparable image with Mpeg-2. But, do we remember the larger capacity of BDs? It seems logical that even while using Mpeg-2, a BD can fit visual data at just as high a level of quality (or maybe even higher) without needing the extra compression of VC-1. Yet, even considering that likelihood, BD players also require both the VC-1 and Mpeg-4 codecs just as HD-DVD does. Just give the technology more time and you’ll VC-1 or Mpeg-4 content.
HD-DVD has had a large head start on BD. Simply because it is more mature in the marketplace does not, by any means, imply that it is the more advanced technology. To the contrary, BDs have a new and more advanced structure (compared with HD-DVDs which follow closely from CDs/DVDs). BD will be better in the long run. For one thing, BD will read and burn data faster than HD-DVD. Also, BD will have a protective coating that will make them far more durable and easier to handle than CDs, DVDs, or HD-DVDs.
Originally posted by: ScruffyWith a lower price (by hundreds of dollars) and better performance, HD-DVD has a much better demonstrated price/performance ratio.
HD-DVD hardware is half the price of Bluray hardware too. Consumers will vote with their wallets here.