logo Sign In

Blu-ray Disc or HD-DVD? — Page 9

Author
Time
Post link
It just means you won't be able to use your rabbit ears antennas anymore.
Whether you're watching an HD or SD digital broadcast, you're still picking that transmission up through an antenna. In other words, you still can use rabbit ears pick up any local digital signals. In fact, I found that rabbit ears work pretty well.
Correct. I remember when HD transmissions were just starting, and a Home Theater magazine tested several attennas and determined that a cheapie antenna from Radio Shack worked just fine. I think a lot of people either forgot or didn't know to begin with that HD is transmitted over UHF, which is all the channels above 13.

You would simply plug your UHF antenna into the decoder box, which converts the ATSC HD signal to NTSC for your analog television.

The reason they use only 30 GB sometimes is because companies are too cheap to do an encode just for Blu Ray so the HD-DVD encode is used, so HD-DVD is really lowering the standards for some Blu-Ray titles.
Exactly how many movies do you know of that use all 30Gbs, much less 50Gbs?

Blu-Ray has a much higher bitrate and almost twice the space

But is the higher bitrate being used? Do you know how many reviews find the HD and BR releases to be almost identical?

and it has special java abilities that HD-DVD doesn't


Yet HD required such "special abilities" in its players from Day One. Only recently have most BR models been incorporating such features, and unlike HD-DVD, they are not mandatory.

its superior in almost every way.


Not really. In addition to the above, HD-DVD customers don't have to worry about region coding or BD+.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Zion
I read the other day that they're already working on Blu-ray/DVD combo discs. JVC proposed the technology back in 2004. It would be a 3-layer disc with a single 25GB Blu-ray layer and two 4GB SD layers. The disc can be played on regular DVD players because the Blu-ray layer is transparent to red lasers.


See, thats even worse--now the large capacity of BR is being cut in half! Theres simply no benefit of a combo disk, its a stupid, stupid marketing ploy.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi


The reason they use only 30 GB sometimes is because companies are too cheap to do an encode just for Blu Ray so the HD-DVD encode is used, so HD-DVD is really lowering the standards for some Blu-Ray titles.
Exactly how many movies do you know of that use all 30Gbs, much less 50Gbs?

Well using 75% of a 50GB disk is better than 75% of a 30 GB disk.


But is the higher bitrate being used? Do you know how many reviews find the HD and BR releases to be almost identical?


The point is that its there--you can use it if you want to. With HD-DVD you're stuck. Most BR disks look identical to their HD-DVD counterparts because they are identical, its the HD-DVD encode. Once HD-DVD is gone companies can make their single encode in a 50GB capacity instead of 30 GB.

its superior in almost every way.


Not really. In addition to the above, HD-DVD customers don't have to worry about region coding or BD+.


I didn't say every way, but almost every way. The region thing I agree is a fault in some ways but its no different from what we have now with DVD, and there are region-free players available; this ought to be the least of our worries when considering the big picture.

Author
Time
Post link
I think looking back and surveying the battlefield where the HD DVD Spartans are defiantly fighting a horde of Blu-Ray Persians, Microsoft should have put HDMI and an HD DVD in the 360 at launch. I somehow think that if they had, we would be mopping up blue blood right now.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ferris209
I think looking back and surveying the battlefield where the HD DVD Spartans are defiantly fighting a horde of Blu-Ray Persians, Microsoft should have put HDMI and an HD DVD in the 360 at launch. I somehow think that if they had, we would be mopping up blue blood right now.


Probably.
Author
Time
Post link
The format war isn't anywhere over. I guess alot of people only factor in North America and not the rest of the planet. There are alot of BR "exclusive" titles which are also on HD DVD elsewhere on the planet. Besides, HD DVD just seems like the natural successor to DVD in terms of disc layout and manufacturing. At least HD DVD is region-free and both formats are HD which nullifies the NTSC/PAL signal stuff. Although it still comes down to the different Hz everything is being run at compared to DVD.
I'm still wanting alot of catalog releases to show up. Yes, even titles as far back as the 1930's. There's a reason why my DVR is almost constantly on TCM. Hell, there's alot of classic films which aren't even on DVD still barring any region.
And first part of my signature is directed towards Psycho Dayv.
Author
Time
Post link
HDDVD showed up first and it's been losing ever since the beginning of 2007, finished spec or not. The "it's cheaper" argument would be great if I actually saw a significantly lower price on them than blu-rays. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're always the same price as BD in the newspaper ads .... unless of course they're hddvd/dvd combo discs in which case they're even more! Hey, the good thing about the Warner announcement is that even if dreamamount and uni decide to remain hddvd exclusive for years to come (unlikely), at least we won't have to make up our minds about which format to get Warner's stuff on.
Author
Time
Post link
AS FAR AS CATALOGUE MOVIES GO MGM HAS THE LARGEST OF ALL OF THE STUDIOS. GUESS WHAT ??? SONY OWNS MGM. WHY WOULD THEY PUT OUT ANYMORE STANDARD DVDs WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO MOVE BLU-RAY DISCS ??? THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE.

"I'VE GROWN TIRED OF ASKING, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME..."
The Mangler Bros. Psycho Dayv Armchaireviews Notes on Suicide

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT TODAY STATING THAT THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO UPGRADE THERE TVs TO HD WILL BE GIVEN A CONVERTER BOX FOR FREE. IT'S LIKE WELFARE FOR TV.

That's not what it said and you know it. What it said is that you'll get a $40 voucher toward the purchase of a digital tuner. While I agree that it's lame to subsidize the conversion the way they are, please don't twist the message to suit your needs. Anyone who decides to stop watching ota broadcasts at that point just won't buy a box and won't need the voucher. It also doesn't affect anyone that's already got cable or DirectTV/Dish Network, since that's all digital now anyway, whether their TVs are or not.

I'm with zombie on this. The transition isn't going to do anything but piss a lot of people off. A lot of people will think they need to get an HD television in order to get the new signal and I'm sure many stores will not have a problem selling it like that. Only afterwards, when they talk to someone that really knows, will they get the whole story. Then they'll be pissed that they spent so much money on a TV when they really didn't need to.

Then, on the other side, you'll have people that already watch very little TV, so unless the commercials start running 24/7, they won't notice them and will get pissed when they're looking at snow on the cutoff day. I watch a lot of TV and I've only seen the ad once. If they're really trying to inform people, that ad needs to be running constantly.

The government should've kept their nose out of the transition. The marketplace will decide. The marketplace was already deciding. Let the analog broadcasts slowly fade away until there's nothing left broadcasting. But no, they had to force a transition to reclaim the spectrum.


FIRST OF ALL, DON'T BE AN ASS. SECOND, MY POST WAS REFERRING TO MY POST BEFORE THAT.


And I think my post still stands. 1) No one has to take advantage of the $40 voucher, 2) People may not even hear about this voucher (I've now seen the ad 3 times in one week, that's still not enough), and 3) People may end up deciding not to upgrade their equipment, especially if the writer's strike continues and all we're left with is reality programming. Who wants to see that in digital? If my TV went dark and all I had watched was reality tv, I'd probably just start watching my DVDs. Fuck the TV! If you're watching network television, there isn't anything good on anyway. If you watch TLC, History, Discovery, or the Science Channel, then you're not going to need the voucher (the commercial actually clearly states that).

Originally posted by: sean wookie
Ok buy Blu-Ray if you love to suck the cock of DRM and the MPAA.
Never forget:
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0


For the moron of the boards. That's the AACS code for BOTH Blu-ray and HD-DVD.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Well using 75% of a 50GB disk is better than 75% of a 30 GB disk.
Is there a reason why you are dodging my question? If it's such the problem you think it is, then surely you can tell me which discs have been affected, right?

The point is that its there--you can use it if you want to. With HD-DVD you're stuck.
No, the point is - if Blu-Ray and HD-DVD have identical transfers, and both are doing so even at the bit-rate that HD-DVD is "stuck at", then the higher bit-rate of BR isn't an issue - because it's not being used.

Most BR disks look identical to their HD-DVD counterparts because they are identical, its the HD-DVD encode. Once HD-DVD is gone companies can make their single encode in a 50GB capacity instead of 30 GB.

And it's only your presumption that the video will look noticeably better. Considering you don't know which BR releases exceed 30GBs, or even know the bitrates actually being used, I'm guessing you can't tell me which releases don't simply "use the HD-DVD encode" either.

Considering the fact that this as a format war, I'd think Blu-Ray would certainly use all that extra bitrate and space if it would make a marketable difference in their favor . Obviously, that is not the case. You are talking about potential problems, but haven't shown these to be actual problems. A whole lot of fussing over nothing.

The region thing I agree is a fault in some ways but its no different from what we have now with DVD, and there are region-free players available; this ought to be the least of our worries when considering the big picture.

The difference, though, is that to get a region-free DVD player, you either have to hack a name-brand player, or buy a no-name player. It remains to be seen if BR will allow this to happen. Region-coding was shown to be unnecessary, which is why HD-DVD dropped it (and you can buy HD-DVD versions of films overseas that are limited to Blu-Ray here in the US), and yet Blu-Ray decided to keep region-coding.

For the moron of the boards. That's the AACS code for BOTH Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

But Blu-Ray still has BD+. Have fun upgrading your Blu-Ray players everytime someone cracks the latest movie title.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
MebeJedi, I don't know which disks use how much space and what the bit rate is. But an encode that takes up something like 40% more space will look better. Its just science. And the reason, as I said, that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases look identical is because Blu-Ray gets the HD-DVD encode--so your not seeing its actual capability; your just seeing it play an HD-DVD encode, so of course it looks identical. The demise of HD-DVD will be beneficial because then companies can start making the Blu-ray encodes 50 GB instead of 30 GB.

I'm not sure what your issue is 30 GB versus 50 GB--theres going to be an improvement in picture. I can't see how you can dispute this.
Author
Time
Post link
Exactly how many movies do you know of that use all 30Gbs, much less 50Gbs?

Here are just a couple:
Apocalypto - 34.6 GB
Casino Royale - 35.2 GB
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (with seamless branching) - 37.3 GB
Face/Off - 35.8 GB
The Fifth Element - 37.7GB
Flags of Our Fathers - 35.3 GB
Hellboy - 39.4 GB
...

for a lot more Link
All of the ones I listed were AVC encoded

Even so, it's debatable whether there's a notable quality difference, but more space is more space. Plus BR has higher data throughput which is also nice to have. The extra space is very nice to have for extra long movies (LotR) or seemless branching(dare to dream SW).

I don't get the die hardness of fanbois on either side... it a fricken video format -who the hell cares. I'm excited that BR is very close to becoming the standard, so I can just enjoy movies not worry which format to choose because Studio X supports Format Z. Here's hoping Universal and Paramount can join the fold soon.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: dumb_kid
Exactly how many movies do you know of that use all 30Gbs, much less 50Gbs?

Here are just a couple:
Apocalypto - 34.6 GB
Casino Royale - 35.2 GB
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (with seamless branching) - 37.3 GB
Face/Off - 35.8 GB
The Fifth Element - 37.7GB
Flags of Our Fathers - 35.3 GB
Hellboy - 39.4 GB
...

for a lot more Link
All of the ones I listed were AVC encoded

Even so, it's debatable whether there's a notable quality difference, but more space is more space. Plus BR has higher data throughput which is also nice to have. The extra space is very nice to have for extra long movies (LotR) or seemless branching(dare to dream SW).


Plus extra features like PIP, video featurettes and extra audio tracks. It could mean the difference between have just a DD track or having DD and DTS, plus three commentaries and a PIP feature. More space is always better.

Author
Time
Post link
But an encode that takes up something like 40% more space will look better. Its just science. And the reason, as I said, that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases look identical is because Blu-Ray gets the HD-DVD encode--so your not seeing its actual capability; your just seeing it play an HD-DVD encode, so of course it looks identical. The demise of HD-DVD will be beneficial because then companies can start making the Blu-ray encodes 50 GB instead of 30 GB.

I'm not sure what your issue is 30 GB versus 50 GB--theres going to be an improvement in picture. I can't see how you can dispute this.

I'm not disputing it - I'm just questioning the practicality of it. Again, if the difference were that noticeable, don'tcha think think BR would ask or pay for a newer encode? How much trouble do you really think that is? Don't you think that would be an important enough benefit for Blu-Ray to show off?

Think about it - while in competition with HD-DVD, what you are getting from BR is the same encode/quality with a more expensive player ! WHAT A BARGAIN! What, then, is the value of Blu-Ray? Even the list given by dumb_kid doesn't break 40Gbs. I'm wondering how many of those discs are breaking 30Gnbs due to extra features such as extra commentaries (which would benefit from a higher bitrate) or extra material. That being said, I'm all for the extra material, but I don't think you are going to see video encodes with higher bitrates when HD-DVD is gone. There's no point at that point.

It's all about diminishing returns. It's one thing to say BR has more storage capacity and a higher bitrate, but until these are shown to provide a significant improvement over HD-DVD, then you are simply paying a premium BR price for something you could get cheaper with HD-DVD.

This isn't a fan-boy plea for HD-DVD as a product, or even as a technology - I'm just pointing out that BR isn't making much of an issue about this with competition, so what makes you think things are going to be much different without competition. Do you think the costs of BR players would have dropped so quickly without HD-DVD as a competition format?

Not to mention the fact that, with HD-DVD out of the picture, BR is more likely to start using region-coding and BD+, which have been part of the spec from day one, and yet gone curiously unused up until now.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
But an encode that takes up something like 40% more space will look better. Its just science. And the reason, as I said, that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases look identical is because Blu-Ray gets the HD-DVD encode--so your not seeing its actual capability; your just seeing it play an HD-DVD encode, so of course it looks identical. The demise of HD-DVD will be beneficial because then companies can start making the Blu-ray encodes 50 GB instead of 30 GB.

I'm not sure what your issue is 30 GB versus 50 GB--theres going to be an improvement in picture. I can't see how you can dispute this.

I'm not disputing it - I'm just questioning the practicality of it. Again, if the difference were that noticeable, don'tcha think think BR would ask or pay for a newer encode? How much trouble do you really think that is? Don't you think that would be an important enough benefit for Blu-Ray to show off?


Its not the BDA that does it, its the studios. The studios don't want one to be better because they are playing both formats. Thats why they can't be bothered to do a second encode.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: MeBeJedi


For the moron of the boards. That's the AACS code for BOTH Blu-ray and HD-DVD.
But Blu-Ray still has BD+. Have fun upgrading your Blu-Ray players everytime someone cracks the latest movie title.


Yes, I know. I was simply pointing out that they key posted by sean is for both Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

Originally posted by: MeBeJedi
Think about it - while in competition with HD-DVD, what you are getting from BR is the same encode/quality with a more expensive player ! WHAT A BARGAIN! What, then, is the value of Blu-Ray? Even the list given by dumb_kid doesn't break 40Gbs. I'm wondering how many of those discs are breaking 30Gnbs due to extra features such as extra commentaries (which would benefit from a higher bitrate) or extra material. That being said, I'm all for the extra material, but I don't think you are going to see video encodes with higher bitrates when HD-DVD is gone. There's no point at that point.


I think this is what MBJ has been getting at. Once HD-DVD is gone, what makes you think the studios are going to use a higher bitrate? They have no incentive to do that. "We'll get better picture quality!" The studios don't care. All they care about is making money. With HD-DVD gone, that'll be one less expense. Why bother with going with a higher bitrate when the picture looks fine as it is?
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi


I think this is what MBJ has been getting at. Once HD-DVD is gone, what makes you think the studios are going to use a higher bitrate? They have no incentive to do that. "We'll get better picture quality!" The studios don't care. All they care about is making money. With HD-DVD gone, that'll be one less expense. Why bother with going with a higher bitrate when the picture looks fine as it is?


Thats simply unfounded paranoia. Theres no extra cost for a higher bitrate. Right now their ceiling is 30 GB, so they press the buttons to make it under that. They are encoding for HD-DVD. When HD-DVD is gone, they will be encoding for Blu-Ray. Their ceiling is 50 GB so they press the buttons to make it under that. If there was extra costs associated then maybe you might have a point but theres not. The reason encodes are in the 20 GB range is because of HD-DVD--once thats gone the range will change.
Author
Time
Post link
Last I heard, there was only one upcoming release using it (Don't recall which). HD-DVD, on the other hand, required such interactivity from Day One.

Once thats gone the range will change.

Yeah, you let me know when that happens.

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
I think this is what MBJ has been getting at. Once HD-DVD is gone, what makes you think the studios are going to use a higher bitrate? They have no incentive to do that. "We'll get better picture quality!" The studios don't care. All they care about is making money. With HD-DVD gone, that'll be one less expense. Why bother with going with a higher bitrate when the picture looks fine as it is?

Actually studios do care when the consumer cares. When DVDs first came out they many were still P&S, or if you were lucky 4x3 letterboxed. Today DVDs are almost all anormorphic widescreen (minues the GOUT of course). Studios are not friends-- they are direct competitors. I'm thrilled that the format war caused many good things... rapid player price drops, dumping of MPEG2, BOGO sales, etc. But just like DVD, when there is a lone HD format, studios will continue to innovate... at least to double dip from early adopters
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: PSYCHO_DAYV
HOW IS THE JAVA SCRIPT COMING ALONG IN BR ??? I REMEMBER IT NOT BEING READY WHEN SONY RUSHED TO GET BR OUT IN THE MARKET IN ORDER TO COMPETE WITH HD-DVD.

Just a correction here, it's not Javascript, it's Java. Don't get the two confused. Javascript actually has nothing to do with Java. Javascript is actually incredibly easy to code, whereas Java is not.

That's one of the things that I think will slow adoption of the Java portion of Blu-ray. The studios want easy to use software that lets them make menus of whatever complexity they desire. They don't want to have to hire programmers to make their menus though. Java will require some level of complexity that's more than just making menus.

Originally posted by: dumb_kid
I think this is what MBJ has been getting at. Once HD-DVD is gone, what makes you think the studios are going to use a higher bitrate? They have no incentive to do that. "We'll get better picture quality!" The studios don't care. All they care about is making money. With HD-DVD gone, that'll be one less expense. Why bother with going with a higher bitrate when the picture looks fine as it is?

Actually studios do care when the consumer cares. When DVDs first came out they many were still P&S, or if you were lucky 4x3 letterboxed. Today DVDs are almost all anormorphic widescreen (minues the GOUT of course). Studios are not friends-- they are direct competitors. I'm thrilled that the format war caused many good things... rapid player price drops, dumping of MPEG2, BOGO sales, etc. But just like DVD, when there is a lone HD format, studios will continue to innovate... at least to double dip from early adopters


Funny how I still see full screen releases of DVDs. In an age of widescreen tvs and DVD players that can automatically letterbox, full screen should've gone away a long time ago. You have no idea how many times I'm at someones house and they've got the full screen version of a movie because "Oh, I didn't even notice". Ugh! So when they watch it on their widescreen HDTV, the picture looks stretched and distorted instead of the way it should look. It is so annoying!
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Funny how I still see full screen releases of DVDs. In an age of widescreen tvs and DVD players that can automatically letterbox, full screen should've gone away a long time ago. You have no idea how many times I'm at someones house and they've got the full screen version of a movie because "Oh, I didn't even notice". Ugh! So when they watch it on their widescreen HDTV, the picture looks stretched and distorted instead of the way it should look. It is so annoying!


I think general ignorance of aspect ratio has remained even though the displays have changed. It used to be that people thought their picture was chopped off on the top and bottom when viewing a widescreen presentation on a 4:3 TV. Nowadays, I can't tell you how often I see people (or businesses) displaying 4:3 images streched out on a 16:9. They have no clue. Hey look! It's widescreen! Yipee!

"Ugh" is right.

Pink Floyd -- First in Space

Author
Time
Post link
Or the people who get a 2.39:1 movie and get upset that "If I have a widescreen TV, why are there still bars there? There shouldn't be any!" It greatly upsets me.