So confused... HD-DVD or Blu-ray??

[bradhig]

Isn't that why Disney was trying to get through the release cycle quickly so they could start releasing stuff on Blue-ray? Why don't they start with Cinderella??

[2099net]

Because about 3 people will buy HD-DVD players until the format war is decided.

[TM2-Megatron]

Yeah, I know I won't bother with any of it until a winner is clear; hopefully Blu-Ray. When that happens, I'll go out and buy a player and an HDTV.

Why any company would bother supporting HD-DVD is beyond me; though the ones backing it are mostly hollywood studios (and about half of the major ones, last I heard). Whereas nearly all of the electronics industry, and the other half of hollywood, support Blu-Ray. I can't figure out why New Line or Univeral support HD-DVD, though. Paramount and WB I can understand, as the majority of their regular DVD releases are single-disc, and devoid of real extras; not to mention usually overpriced considering the lack of everything else. Which all proves they really know nothing about DVDs, or how to release good ones.

As for the Blu-Ray crowd, Sony releases allright DVDs (but too many for each movie, between seperate widescreen/fullscreen, and superbit and the occasional collectors edition added to the previous 3). I imagine Sony supports Blu-Ray based primarily on the electronics division as opposed to any common sense in Sony Pictures Entertainment. I haven't been overally impressed with MGM releases to DVD, but I heard Sony bought them out to get at their movie catalogue which will, hopefully, recieve better treatment on Blu-Ray in terms of special features. I'm really glad FOX backed Blu-Ray from the start, given their considerable catalogue of enjoyable movies and (primarily cancelled) excellent TV shows.

[deathie mouse]

Isn't New Line related to WB?
That would make them basically only 3 (WUP) against the blueworld

Because about 3 people will buy HD-DVD players until the format war is decided.

Don't look at me! i'm not one of them!

I'm one of the 3 that's gonna buy a Blu-ray one
The other two are probably Paka, and maybe cousin MickeyMouseboy

[Big Worms]

It will be interesting to see what happens with the talks between Toshiba and Sony. Both companies must know that if they do not agree on one format both stand to loose millions in sales.

[2099net]

Why any company would bother supporting HD-DVD is beyond me; though the ones backing it are mostly hollywood studios (and about half of the major ones, last I heard).

Because HD-DVD discs can be made at existing DVD replication plants. It's a big investment to create totally new production facilities, which is what would be needed for Blu-Ray discs. Even now, normal DVD replication plants are running close to full capacity most of the time (and are at full capacity round about the holidays - Discs have to be booked into production slots months in advance).

[deathie mouse]

This is from july from www.blu-raytalk.com :

Although HD-DVD does use many of the same production processes as DVD, the 38% shorter wavelength of HD-DVD demands much tighter manufacturing tolerance than DVD, whilst the purpose designed facilities of Blu-ray may actually be easier to produce reliably in quantity.

In tests of HD-DVD blue (using DVD production facilities but switching to a blue-violet 405nm laser), a maximum capacity of around 12GB was achieved. However, as aberrations increase in inverse proportion to wavelength, shifting from a 650nm to 405nm laser increases aberrations by around 60%. Consequently, in order to maintain system performance the numerical aperture has to be reduced from 0.60 to around 0.55, lowering capacity to about 10GB. In dual layer recording using DVD manufacturing processes and a 0.6mm protective layer with a compromise NA of 0.6 (to achieve 22GB using two layers), an output power of more than 100mW is required.

However, although Nichia first demonstrated a blue laser diode in 1996, 100mW 405nm laser diodes are not readily available. Also higher power laser diodes require fewer lattice defects per unit volume than lower power devices, and hence tend to cost significantly more than low power devices even when they can be made. Finally, their average lifetime tends to be lower, ceteris paribus, particularly when running at near their maximum output. Currently, even engineering samples of 60mW 405nm laser diodes cost over £1000 each.

On the other hand, as a consequence of the high (0.85) numerical aperture and thin (0.1mm) protection layer of Blu-ray, the “spot size” is smaller than either DVD or HD-DVD blue, allowing 27GB in a single layer and only requiring a fraction the power of DVD for recording (5mW compared to DVD’s 20mW). Even in 50GB dual layer mode, only 10mW is required for recording (less for reading). This means that whilst commercially available 10mW blue laser diodes exist for 50GB dual layer Blu-ray products already, 100mW devices and above devices have not yet appeared for HD-DVD. This may be one reason why commercial HD-DVD machines haven’t been launched yet.

And extracted from www.blu-ray.com , from Reuters last tuesday:

<a href="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm ... 43477">DVD format talks lean to Sony technology-source</a>

Talks between Japan's Sony Corp. and Toshiba Corp. to unify next-generation DVD formats are leaning toward a disc structure supported by Sony, a source close to the matter said on Tuesday.

Sony's Blu-ray technology is backed by a group including Dell Inc., Apple Computers, Hewlett-Packard, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Philips Electronics NV, and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. maker of Panasonic products, among others.

The source said a unified format based on Blu-ray's disc structure was being discussed in the talks, held between Sony, Toshiba and Matsushita.

The Nihon Keizai newspaper said that Sony and Toshiba were in final talks eyeing a new format based on Blu-ray's disc structure and Toshiba's software for efficient data transfer and copyright protection.

However, it was unclear whether and when the two sides would reach a final agreement on a common format.

Toshiba may be desperate

<a href="http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/05/10 ... p">Toshiba expands HD-DVD capacity to 45GB by adding 3rd layer to prototype hd-dvd The company also announced a second prototype disc that uses the same basic technology in an hybrid disc combining a dual-layer HD-DVD with a dual-layer DVD to provide a double-sided dual layer disc that can be played in either HD-DVD or DVD players.</a>

Just like those DVD-18 double-sided dual layer discs that are so popular! What could be next? Adding a VHS layer to make it almost like Blu-ray 50GB by including a cassette tape wound around it?
Specially when TDK, one of the Blu-ray companies, demonstrated a 100GB quad-layer single-sided disc over a year ago, with 200GB and over being in developement now

<a href="http://www.xbox365.com/news.cgi?id=GGGN ... 5">Toshiba Denies Blu-ray Victory</a>

[Disney Guru]

I am sticking with DVD, Blue Ray,HD-DVD is just a measley fad that will soon evaporate, also iI can prove that it isn't happening. Because they said that the Warner Brothers Controversial Classics COllection was going to be released on "Blue Ray" it isn't, it is being released on regular Region 1 DVD.

[2099net]

I found the manufacuring details of HD-DVD to be very interesting. HD-DVD has always been sold to the business as being compatible with existing DVD manufacturing equipment. It seems this may not be the case.

Just like those DVD-18 double-sided dual layer discs that are so popular! What could be next? Adding a VHS layer to make it almost like Blu-ray 50GB by including a cassette tape wound around it?
Specially when TDK, one of the Blu-ray companies, demonstrated a 100GB quad-layer single-sided disc over a year ago, with 200GB and over being in developement now

Well, DVD-18 finally seems to be in the mainstream. Warner and Universal frequently use them in their multi-disc sets, and DVD-14 is popular with MGM.

What I find interesting is that ultimately, it doesn't matter which format is superior. Beta was superior to VHS but VHS won. Because the equipment was cheaper for consumers to buy. Given that HD-DVD is likely to be cheaper for users, and cheaper to make (still, its still a big investment to set up totally new production facilities) I wouldn't write off HD-DVD just yet.

Plus, I know which format the porn industry is likely to choose. And that could be the deciding vote.

[The Lizard King]

I'll wait to see the impact this new format will make. If it'll be like the laser disc, I'll just stick to DVDs until the next format.

Now, WHY you would think that the new format(s) would even remotely resemble LaserDisc is beyond me.

TLK

[Disney-Fan]

I'll wait to see the impact this new format will make. If it'll be like the laser disc, I'll just stick to DVDs until the next format.

Now, WHY you would think that the new format(s) would even remotely resemble LaserDisc is beyond me.

TLK

I meant success-wise. LaserDisc wasn't exactly a huge success throughout the world...

[memnv]

I say if it is not broke don't fix it. There is nothing wrong with the DVDs we have today.

[TM2-Megatron]

Why any company would bother supporting HD-DVD is beyond me; though the ones backing it are mostly hollywood studios (and about half of the major ones, last I heard).

Because HD-DVD discs can be made at existing DVD replication plants. It's a big investment to create totally new production facilities, which is what would be needed for Blu-Ray discs. Even now, normal DVD replication plants are running close to full capacity most of the time (and are at full capacity round about the holidays - Discs have to be booked into production slots months in advance).

All that means is that HD-DVDs creators are counting on backwards-thinking companies and consumers that want to avoid real progress as long as possible. They can try and create some intermediary format all they like; but the storage capacity on an HD-DVD is absolutely pathetic, at 30GB. Especially when compared to 50GB on a Blu-Ray, with 100 and 200GB Blu-Ray discs being worked on. And like it or not, everyone will have to switch over to a real next-gen format sooner or later; so why not do it sooner? The compromises the HD-DVD crowd makes simply to appease the portion of the industry which wants to avoid a big switch over really are ridiculous; especially that disc with a DVD-5 on one side, and not even a full-capacity HD-DVD layer on the other side.

In the long run, I imagine it'll save everyone money to just go with Blu-Ray instead of first trying out HD-DVD and then having to switch to Blu-Ray a year or two down the line when HD-DVD proves unsatisfactory. Better to undergo a major switch once than twice.

[Paka]

Massah deathie mouse just pointed me in the direction of a wonderful, concise, and refreshingly plebeian (;)) article relating the differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray discs... it's from the DVD Review website, written by Guido Henkel. And I quoth -

The New Format War


Many of you have probably noticed that I have been conspicuously quiet and restrained on the subject of high definition DVD to this point. This has nothing to do with disinterest, of course, but more with the fact that I just wanted to see how things develop before building an opinion and making it public.

Recently I visited the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas in hopes to find out some more hard facts and up-to-date details about the two proposed formats, HD-DVD and Blu-ray. After walking the floor, seeing many of the presentations I found one of my concerns sadly reinforced. I was utterly unimpressed with HD-DVD. Seriously! You can tell from its positioning, the way it’s being bullishly promoted, etc. that HD-DVD is a format that is created to fill an artificially created demand that does not exist. Worst of all however, it looks pretty poor.

Sure, at first you look at these high definition video images and you are vowed because of their clarity and resolution. If you look a bit closer however, the images on display were riddled with compression and mastering artifacts that would make you balk if this were a DVD. And that was for the big bang promotions at CES, the single biggest show on the planet to promote these things. If that is the best they can do, I am sorry to say “Thank you, but no, thank you!”

If I make the transition to high definition video I expect an image that is free of artifacts as we know them today. It needs to be absolutely clear, without edge-enhancement, without ringing, without dot crawl and without pixelation. HD-DVD has yet to prove it can offer that. Toshiba’s HD-DVD presentations at last year’s CES were ridiculously bad with colors that were bleeding to no end, and this year’s concerted effort of the industry was not much better. With its limited storage capacity HD-DVD is prone to over-compression to make room for audio tracks and supplements much the way DVD is actually, it is so even more because the required storage/quality ratio is much higher. Add to that the fact that the MPEG-4 compression theme has completely different characteristics than DVD’s MPEG-2 compression and a lot of disastrous quick-shot releases are already pre-programmed.

Enter Blu-ray. At CES I saw among others Panasonic’s demonstration of Disney’s Aladdin on Blu-ray and the effect was profound. I noticed details in the image that I had never seen before, not even in the theatrical prints. The lines of the image were so fine, it was unbelievable, and best of all the image was without a hint of an artifact. Perfect color balance, perfect shadow delineation, perfect edges and rock solid colors and blacks. I noticed the same effect on other Blu-ray presentations and clearly, this is what I am looking for. A format that not only holds the promise of the future, but fulfills it.

The war between the two formats is on and a lot of mouthing off is going on, one side trying to best the other. A lot of arguments are flying around in the course of these heated discussions, many of which are nothing but artificial justifications for pointless issues. Case in point? Backwards compatibility for example, one of the hottest touted selling points of the HD-DVD camp. Frankly however, who cares? I have a DVD player and I don’t need a high definition player to play the same discs. Even if my DVD player should break it’s a mere $50 to replace it, but honestly, by the time it does break and needs replacement, I probably won’t even care any more, just as I didn’t replace my last VHS player when it broke. But even if, adding a red laser to a Blu-ray unit to make it DVD/CD compatible adds a mere 25 cents or less to the overall manufacturing costs of the unit. So, this is a ridiculously naught argument upon closer examination, especially in the light that the first models will probably retail around $1000 - anyway.

There’s also a lot of talk about the manufacturing compatibility of HD-DVD with existing replication equipment, an issue especially the studios are made to believe to be interested in. However there is also a bit of lapse in logic here. What good is this if you’ll need two or three discs to hold the same material that a single Blu-ray disc could hold? Your cost benefit goes right out the door. Again, it is a short-sighted argument that doesn’t necessarily hold true in practice. If you’ve followed DVD as closely as I have over the past 8 years, you know that a lot of things have changed in that period of time, even in the replication field. That change won’t stop. The digital age is moving fast and it will require replicators to replace and/or upgrade their equipment one way or another, come HD-DVD or Blu-ray. Of course the corporate suits running the studios these days don’t necessarily understand that, all they see is the superficially saved buck here or there presented to them in a nice Excel spreadsheet.

One thing you do not hear a lot of talk about on the other hand is forward compatibility. Audio formats have evolved dramatically since the inception of DVD. From the 5.1 channel Dolby Digital standard of 1997 we have now reached discrete 7.1 channel audio support in home theaters and the development will continue. The next break-through in the audio world will be full 10.2 delivery for the home theater. What do you think which format will be better suited to deliver your 10.2 dts sound track in the future? The HD-DVD format, which by its very nature strapped for storage before it even gets out of the gate, or Blu-ray, a format that is expandable beyond anything we can currently anticipate, and will grow with the demands of the delivery platforms?

These, of course are only a few random thoughts and notes on the subject. There are copy protection issues, the lackluster title announcements of the HD-DVD-supporting studios did anyone else notice that Universal is planning to launch the format with the exact same titles it kicked off DVD 8 years ago? There’s nothing like kickstarting a new format with films like “Waterworld” that no one wants to see again anyway.

Books could be filled with more detailed elaborations and parables on both formats. The point I wanted to make after all this time is that I am firmly rooting for Blu-ray. It is the better format, plain and simple, and the format that better serves the purposes of the home entertainment industry. Of course, no one in the HD-DVD camp will agree with me as they are busy shepherding out a mediocre premature product rather than seeing it through the right way. Corporate politics, patent interests and big egos make out this battle and if things don’t change, the consumer will lose out once again. I can only hope that once studios like Warner, Universal and the rest of the lot will announce their Blu-ray support it won’t be too late to drive the market in the right direction. And believe you me, they WILL announce Blu-ray support, just as Sony Pictures will announce HD-DVD support. Let’s not forget that these are all publicly traded companies and the pressure from Wall Street will not allow that these entities to miss out on business opportunities and emerging markets. If you’re a public company you do as you’re told! There is no room for personal preferences in these entities, and for once in my life that makes me happy, because it will force all the format war participants to reconsider their odds at one point.

Various emphases are my own, of course. So please read the whole thing, guys - there's no better time than now to stop fearing change, and instead acknowledging and embracing it! I say Blu-ray forevah!!*

*This article brought to you by the Champions of Blu-ray Awareness... fear the steely wrath of the COBRA!!!!

[TM2-Megatron]

If you’re a public company you do as you’re told! There is no room for personal preferences in these entities, and for once in my life that makes me happy, because it will force all the format war participants to reconsider their odds at one point.

I'm not so sure about that. Unfortunately, the HDCD/SACD format war has been going on for a long time. I think we can expect Blu-Ray and HD-DVD to be competing for at least a little while, before all the HD-DVD backers suffer huge losses and are finally forced to admit they were wrong.

When the Digital Bits reported a few days ago that the talks at attempting to unite the two formats, using Blu-Ray disc structure and HD-DVD software, I was somewhat dissapointed. However, the arrogance displayed by the HD-DVD camp, Toshiba in particular, really makes me hope they lose a bundle on all this bullsh*t. This ridiculous format war is going to prevent my buying into either next-gen format for a while, though; that and the $1000+ initial price tag Blu-Ray players will likely have. I can't understand the people who buy players that early, especially when the 1st generation players never support a great variety of disc-types, video compression and other standards (at least not relative to later generation players).

[2099net]

Because HD-DVD discs can be made at existing DVD replication plants. It's a big investment to create totally new production facilities, which is what would be needed for Blu-Ray discs. Even now, normal DVD replication plants are running close to full capacity most of the time (and are at full capacity round about the holidays - Discs have to be booked into production slots months in advance).

All that means is that HD-DVDs creators are counting on backwards-thinking companies and consumers that want to avoid real progress as long as possible. They can try and create some intermediary format all they like; but the storage capacity on an HD-DVD is absolutely pathetic, at 30GB. Especially when compared to 50GB on a Blu-Ray, with 100 and 200GB Blu-Ray discs being worked on. And like it or not, everyone will have to switch over to a real next-gen format sooner or later; so why not do it sooner? The compromises the HD-DVD crowd makes simply to appease the portion of the industry which wants to avoid a big switch over really are ridiculous; especially that disc with a DVD-5 on one side, and not even a full-capacity HD-DVD layer on the other side.

But you seem to be forgetting that Beta was superior to VHS. But VHS won - big time. Customers don't always want the superior product. They want a product that balances improvement and quality with price. There's even people now content with VHS, and will cling to VHS until it's dying day.

There's no doubt Blu-Ray players and software will cost more than HD-DVD players and software. Simply because HD-DVD is based on the current products. I also don't doubt that there will be more HD-DVD software available, again for the same reasons. It's quicker, cheaper and easier to manufacture. Also, reading the press releases, I can't see any outright statement that the studios supporting Blu-Ray are going to do so exclusively. So Disney titles are likely to be Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

Just like most people still opt for a PS2 over an XBox (which let's face it is superior) because there is more software, so people are (possibly) going to opt for HD-DVD over Blu-Ray. There's likely to be more choice.

As for the picture quality. Well, I'll refer back to the Beta/VHS situation. Beta was clearly much better, but people were content to "make do" with VHS if it saved money on recorders and tapes. Windows Media Player 9 shows that there can be a significant improvement over today's DVD quality visuals without needing vast GBs of additional storage. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is an improvement. Blu-Ray may be (and most likely is) leaps ahead of HD-DVD but remember - you need a HD-TV in order to fully appreciate the difference.

And, as distasteful as some may find this, many people have credited the porn industry for many innovations. Some credit VHS' win over Beta being down to availability of adult films. Some credit early multi-angle adult films as trailblazing the DVD format before bigger studios began to experiment with Multi-Angles or Seamless Branching. Some even credit the rise of the Internet in the mainstream with the availabilty of porn. Now, looking at the manufacturing, licencing and projected player prices, it seems likely most porn producers will opt for HD-DVD over Blu-Ray. Will this affect the format's final standing? Who can say. But some think it will.

Finally, just to touch on the above paragraph, throughout the history of DVD it has been the smaller studios that have innovated the format. While other companies were content to dump LD ports onto DVD (look at some of Universal's early DVDs - especially Street Fighter: The Movie, which had all of it's supplements presented as one long continuous documentary - including the trailers and still frame galleries!) small companies like Artisan were pushing the format with groundbreaking releases like T2 - the first DVD-18 disc and the first to really use seamless branching (in this case to present 3 versions of the same movie!). Given the likely costs involved in Blu-Ray, will smaller companies be as willing to explore the opportunities presented by the new format as eagerly.

I'm not saying I support HD-DVD over Blu-Ray, but I think anyone who writes the format off simply because Blu-Ray is better is being foolish and hasn't looked at history.

[TM2-Megatron]

But you seem to be forgetting that Beta was superior to VHS. But VHS won - big time. Customers don't always want the superior product. They want a product that balances improvement and quality with price. There's even people now content with VHS, and will cling to VHS until it's dying day.

A greater majority of the electronics industries customers are more discriminating these days than they were 20-25 years ago.

There's no doubt Blu-Ray players and software will cost more than HD-DVD players and software. Simply because HD-DVD is based on the current products. I also don't doubt that there will be more HD-DVD software available, again for the same reasons. It's quicker, cheaper and easier to manufacture. Also, reading the press releases, I can't see any outright statement that the studios supporting Blu-Ray are going to do so exclusively. So Disney titles are likely to be Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

I doubt any of the studios supporting Blu-Ray would bother releasing titles on HD-DVD as well; that would only serve to increase their costs. Once they've overhauled the majority their production facilities for Blu-Ray manufacturing, I doubt they'll also upgrade their remaining DVD production plants to also produce HD-DVDs. Disney's announcement of support for Blu-Ray may've been non-exclusive; however that's probably only because they want to be cautious. It's unlikely we'll see many (if any) HD-DVD titles from Disney. Anyone on this board should know very well how cheap and focused on cost-cutting Disney can be with Home Video. Would it really make sense for them to be releasing their movies on two competing formats simultaneously?

Just like most people still opt for a PS2 over an XBox (which let's face it is superior) because there is more software, so people are (possibly) going to opt for HD-DVD over Blu-Ray. There's likely to be more choice.

From what I've read, the next-gen X-Box will not be supporting HD-DVD media; it'll be using convential DVDs as its game discs.

PS3, on the other hand, is going to be using Blu-Ray media, and is capable of driving HD-quality displays; and it also supports both Dolby Digital, DTS and LPCM audio. What this basically means is that all those people who are going to buy PS3's (undoubtedly a hell of alot; PS2 sold 1.5 million units in its first month) will already have Blu-Ray players in their homes. So Blu-Ray is going to have a massive jump on the market before much of a launch has even occured for movies on either Blu-Ray of HD-DVD.

Aside from the PS3, Sony has Dell, HP and Apple support on the computer side of things. They also have most of the electronics industry with Hitachi, LG, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Pioneer, Royal Philips, Samsung, Sharp and Thompson. And 20th Century Fox (even ignoring their movies, they have a very desirable, though mostly cancelled, catalogue of TV shows), Disney, Sony Pictures (Columbia TriStar), and MGM (massive catalogue).

HD-DVD has Toshiba, NEC and Sanyo; which is pretty pathetic when you compare it to Blu-Ray's support in the electronics industry. Technically they have Microsoft; even though the X-Box 360 will not be supporting HD-DVD. Support of HD-DVD by Warner, New Line and Universal are unfortunate; however I'm greatly hoping to see Paramount lose out big-time from it. Aside from New Line, none of those studios have produced a vast quanity of impressive DVDs. Nearly 90% of Paramount's are all terrible single-disc editions; most without even a trailer.

As for the picture quality. Well, I'll refer back to the Beta/VHS situation. Beta was clearly much better, but people were content to "make do" with VHS if it saved money on recorders and tapes. Windows Media Player 9 shows that there can be a significant improvement over today's DVD quality visuals without needing vast GBs of additional storage. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it is an improvement. Blu-Ray may be (and most likely is) leaps ahead of HD-DVD but remember - you need a HD-TV in order to fully appreciate the difference.

So? You still need an HDTV to fully appreciate any difference HD-DVD content would have over normal DVDs; and HDTV's are becoming more common anyways. Personally, I plan to buy an HDTV and Blu-Ray player on the same day, perhaps a year or so after the format's launch.

Finally, just to touch on the above paragraph, throughout the history of DVD it has been the smaller studios that have innovated the format. While other companies were content to dump LD ports onto DVD (look at some of Universal's early DVDs - especially Street Fighter: The Movie, which had all of it's supplements presented as one long continuous documentary - including the trailers and still frame galleries!) small companies like Artisan were pushing the format with groundbreaking releases like T2 - the first DVD-18 disc and the first to really use seamless branching (in this case to present 3 versions of the same movie!). Given the likely costs involved in Blu-Ray, will smaller companies be as willing to explore the opportunities presented by the new format as eagerly.

Given the support Blu-Ray already has over HD-DVD from larger companies and studios, I think most of those smaller studios that look at the situation in the long-term as opposed to simply saving a buck here or there initially will choose to go with Blu-Ray. It seems to me that the majority of companies and large studios that are going with HD-DVD are very short-sighted. They're too concerned with saving minute amounts of money now; and are ignoring the potential long-term losses of HD-DVD support in the near-future.

The smaller studios to which you refer know that with many of the movies they release, they are often catering to a different market than the average North American moviegoer and DVD consumer. That market is generally one which will support something of higher quality over lesser; even if initial costs are slightly higher (though I firmly believe that the initial costs of Blu-Ray would be offest by the fact nobody would have to convert to something else after; whereas HD-DVD supporters will be forced to convert to Blu-Ray relatively quickly, after HD-DVD has collapsed).

That very knowledge was probably a big reason why those studios didn't simply port over LD content directly to a DVD disc, and run through it all in a linear fashion. Don't you think that would've been the cheaper option, especially since they have a more limited budget? But those studios knew that their customers wouldn't accept such an inferior product; whereas customers of Universal's Street Fighter likely would've taken anything thrown at them; even if it had been a non-anamorphic (or even fullscreen) movie-only DVD edition.

Personally, I've been hoping Criterion and Kino will announce which format they support soon. Of all the smaller studios out there, those two are the ones whose releases I follow most closely.

I'm not saying I support HD-DVD over Blu-Ray, but I think anyone who writes the format off simply because Blu-Ray is better is being foolish and hasn't looked at history.

I'm not writing HD-DVD off because it's technologically inferior (though that would be enough of a reason for me, personally, to dismiss it), but because of the massive support for Blu-Ray I've listed above. Also, Beta and VHS had absolutely no other applications than basic home video and archiving; there were nowhere near as many functions at stake based on the success or failure of either. However, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will also be for use in personal and professional computers to replace current CD and DVD optical media. And let's be honest, would you rather have a burner that would allow you 15GB or 25GB of storage? You may eventually get 30GB out of a blank HD-DVD, if dual-layer burners were released; but tri-layer burners are unlikely, so forget about taking advantage of Toshiba's proposed 45GB discs on your home PC. On the other hand, a dual-layer Blu-Ray burner would give you a 50GB disc. As far as movies go, tri and quad-layer 100GB and 200GB Blu-Ray discs are being researched. I'd imagine tri-layer is the maximum for HD-DVD, considering how much thicker an HD-DVD layer is than a Blu-Ray layer.

[deathie mouse]

I saw among others, Panasonic’s demonstration of Disney’s Aladdin on Blu-ray and the effect was profound. I noticed details in the image that I had never seen before, not even in the theatrical prints. The lines of the image were so fine, it was unbelievable, and best of all, the image was without a hint of an artifact. Perfect color balance, perfect shadow delineation, perfect edges and rock solid colors and blacks. I noticed the same effect on other Blu-ray presentations and clearly, this is what I am looking for.

First let me say it outright, I'm one of the heretics that thinks Beta wasn't really bettah than VHS. Both were about equal. I once made a tech analisis from actual lab test results of the video performance of the machines and the diference between Beta and VHS in consumer machines was less than half the difference there is between PAL and NTSC dvd.
Most people think that Beta movies looked like industrial Betacam tapes or something and that's not so.

The consumer version of Beta I (1 hour recording), the format Betacam is based on too, may have been better than VHS SP but you can't use Beta I to record movies. Even Dumbo doesn't fit!. You really have to compare VHS SP, LP, EP, to Beta II and Beta III which Sony took their own sweet time to introduce. After all, they are all the same 1/2 inch videotape recording 2 hour (or more) movies in 486 NTSC vertical scanning lines with between 2 to 3 MHz horizontal resolution bandwith. In practice, most consumer VCR's barely reached 160 to 200 lines of horizontal resolution back then and most TVs couldn't display much more with their Notch color filters anyway. Sony's decks might been a little better in quality than the bazzillion VHS cheap brands but the best models of VHS were equivalent. Again as i said in the best of cases the difference in practical "pixel" terms was much less than between PAL vs NTSC dvds .

Trying to change this situation Sony introduced Stereo Hi Fi sound using up part of the free video bandwith space available, saying (and thinking) VHS couldn't do this cus they didn't have any space left in their system but JVC surprised them with their in-depth layer out of phase VHS Hi Fi multiplexing scheme. Then Sony brought Super Beta, a very small improvement in image quality by extending slighly the horizontal bandwith resolution, (but the Super Betas with Hi Fi sound weren't THAT different cus they were already using almost all the extra video bandwith to begin with, and also there were slight inter-format incompabilities), and then JVC came up with Super-VHS which was a truly superior product extending horizontal resolution 100 lines more than Super Beta, and enough to record the TV broadcast's 4.18 Mhz bandwith. (which VHS and the Betas couldn't) and with the advent of their S-Video connector (which is like component color recording) you could hook a VHS tape through the S-Video connector to an S-Video capable TV and THAT would look much much better than the Betas hooked through the regular RCA composite video conector or when making S-Video to S-Video connector dubs . (I'm talking about regular VHS being watched/dubbed though the S-Video connector here, NOT Super-VHS tape recordings, which are even much better)

In fact the S-Video connector was the real improvement there, still used today in DVDs and TVs, cus it bypasses the color Notch filter (that limits/eliminates a TV's horizontal resolution around the 250 lines) or the color Comb filters (That unless being very advanced, tho improving horizontal resolution, in many cases muck up the vertical one). Always connect your DVD through AT LEAST the S-Video connector if you have it, UDies

At the last minute Sony brought a third layer err... excuse me I mean ED Beta (Extended Layer, err i mean Extended Definition Beta ) with metal 1/2 inch videotape that gave the original Beta 200+ additional lines but it was already too late.

So to me it's no surprise VHS won.
In a sense it WAS the superior product: Same quality when all was said and done, but more manufacturers behind it, more selection

Even a person like me chose VHS over Beta. (I read the spec's fine print, baby!)

So the argument than even Beta, that was superior to VHS, lost a "war"; so therefore Blu-ray that is vastly superior to hd-dud won't make a difference is not truly valid here, cus what you're really comparing is a situation where two companies had similar products but one was stubborn and priced their stuff accordingly basing it on "our Beta 1 speed is sooooo superior" (cus in Beta I, literally twice the tape (or in film terms, a twice as big "negative") area is used to record on that mode) and alienated consumers, while the reality was different and the other companies used agressive pricing and lots of features to wage the war against a meager (if any) difference in quality in the field. (I'm talking 5% difference here. As in: best Beta II is 1.05x better than best VHS SP, or inversely said, VHS is 95% of Beta, and that difference is swamped if you hook the VHS though the S-Video

Now we got to the other format war that's always mentioned: SACD vs DVD-A.

Again we have two VERY SIMILAR formats competing against each other. Like 1/2 inch NTSC videotape vs 1/2 inch NTSC videotape; this format "war" is 120 dB S/N ratio, 0-100,000 Hz 6 channel sound on 5" round carrier vs 120 dB S/N ratio, 0-100,000 Hz 6 channel sound on 5" round carrier. Basically no difference! See if you can spot any

Lets say DVD-Audio gives you 98% of real live sound and SACD gives you 99% of real live sound. What's the point? it's a 1% difference! or maybe 2%? whatever! Doesn't matter, what you choose, they are equivalent! The funny thing is that they are universal players that play both. So here's what i do: if artist A is on format X and artist B is in format Y i buy each on their respective formats and i'm happy. (If some artist has a release in both formats i choose the disc that has more features (diferent mixes, video, book/case, presentation, whatevah) or the one that's in front of me in the store. Actually theoretically my choice would be the SACD because the way the digital waveform is made and i'm a techie guy, but guess what? i have half and half titles of each! Statistically i have no preference! So to me it's like buying Pepsi or Coke. If i go to a fast food restaurant and i ask Pepsi and they say we have Coke, i don't walk out


NOW, the situation between Blu-ray and hd-dud is NOT equivalent.
No 1.05% advantage lost to manufacturing tolerance variables.
No "both are 6 channel same quality audio discs."

No. Blu-ray is truly SUPERIOR.

First hd-dud (actually AOD, adavanced optical disc) said that since they were using red lasers they were cheaper and more compatible. When that was not gonna work, they "upgraded" to, guess what? Blu-ray's blue laser! . Then they said they were the superior product cus they could glue a dvd on one side of their disc or use up one of their layers as a dvd layer for compabileeteee which again to me is as idiotic as gluing a VHS to a dvd. If you want DVD quality from your hd-dud disc just let the player downconvert the hd content to 480i! It'll even look cleaner than dvd! or buy the dvd that you can play anywhere instead! (*wonders why people that double dip 30 million times on their dvd purchases don't wanna do it for hd ) Then realizing that with only 15GB available for their 'High definition' video (dvds use 9GB!) their 'high definition' was gonna look like "roses" and "fertile earth", they come up at the last minute with Hey! we can add an extra layer! soo we're almost like Blu-ray! see? buy us! Now they're also saying they're gonna go up from 720p to 1080i (oohh goody more data to cram in those incredible tight triple layers they're prototyping at the last minute!) while Blu-ray is 1080p and 80% more disc space (and progressive video looks twice as sharp as interlaced video). If hd-dud is so goood, why are they trying to become Blu-ray so badly?? And at the last minute? ***

In this case, in this "war", the formats are very different in capacity. Not like in other "Wars"****


Blu-ray is twice as good than hd-dud AT least. Probably 4 times as good. That's a huge difference.

That's no 98% vs 99% or 1-2% difference, that's no 1.05x or 5% difference.

We're talking 80% more capacity now (1.80x) (27 GB vs 15 GB, 54GB vs 30GB) and 122% to 344% later (2.22x to 4.44x) (100GB and 200GB Blu vs that 3 layered 45GB hd prototype)

(And i have something else to say about the number (or magnitude) of differences near the end of this post )**

So in this case, and i can't stress this point hard enough cus this is the point that really matters, it's not like ooh VHS will give me a 5% difference than Beta or Super Audio A will give me a 1 or 2% difference over Super Audio B, which is NEGLIGIBLE. So it's like this:

With Blu-ray we'll get something as good (or maybe even better! see begining and end of post) as 35mm Widescreen prints. So with Blu-ray you will get something equivalent to 100% the original Widescreen image and with hd-dud you won't. You'll get 50% (or less) and with DVD you're getting 20%. (or less)

What do YOU prefer?

100% the film, 50% the film, or 20% the film?

(Even if it were not perfection (100% vs 99 or 98%), well 99% is always much better than 48 or 49%, or 18 or 19% , isn't it? ***** i have more to say about movie perfection at the end too )

Oh and here comes the so touted advantage of hd-dud: cheaper prices.
Well as i posted on a previous post aparently due to the way hd-dud disc physical structure is made, the high powered lasers used in the hd-dud players are very costly while the low powered ones used on Blu-ray are much much cheaper (both use blue lasers now)
And remember that the partners on the Blu-ray Alliance have come with a triple colored laser (for CD/DVD/BD compability) does anybody know if Toshiba is gonna buy this from them (more $$ for Toshiba) or it has down the pike their own triple head or are they gonna actually use several lasers on their players to play everything? Of course that's all player's costs.
What about disc manfacturing? the hd-dud is supposedly cheaper cus they only have to modify or retrofit the dvd disc pressing plants with new parts, that should be "cheaper". well what about the dvds that are made on those plants? They'll have to move into other NEW plants? To maintain dvd consumer demand? retrofit an old plant and make new dvd plants don't sound much cheap to me than :

New Blu-ray plants being made anew, newly designed and optimized for Blu-ray disc production..

And what about the discs themselves, well apparently with all the companies involved on the Blu-ray Alliance (much more numerous than the almost singlehandled Toshiba) contributing to research and development, and the way the materials are being designed, it seems that Blu-ray disc production is projected to cost as cheap as DVD production if not even cheaper. Even if it where a little more, I'd gladly pay a little more for discs that give me a 100% of the movie instead of 20%. or 50%. of it. What i want is THE MOVIE.

That's why i buy discs.


But since were talking about pressing plants and other costs, this is the news on the Blu-ray camp this week on the Blu-ray and Tom's Hardware sites:

<a href="http://www.blu-raydisc.com/assets/downl ... f">Blu-ray discs ready for Mass Production and Cost Effective Manufacturing</a>

<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20 ... l">Blu-ray media to be priced in line with DVDs</a>

"Broad acceptance and adoption of Blu-ray Disc has contributed to process improvements and cost efficiencies that bring the long-term cost of manufacturing BD-ROM discs in line with current DVD replication costs. Germany-based Degussa believes that Blu-ray discs will be able to be mass-produced in the single-digit Euro cents range at launch. Production yields are expected to exceed 90 percent. Replication facilities in the United States are getting set up to mass produce BD-ROM Discs. Technicolor establishing a complete pilot BD disc manufacturing process by July 2005 and Cinram already awaiting the delivery of commercial lines. Commercial mass production of Blu-ray media will begin after the completion of pilot production in July of this year. Initial production will include 25 GByte and 50 GByte media with tests of 200 GByte discs already being completed in labs."



**okee What about this i said earlier about Blu-ray being much more quality than disc size/space specs alone? well it's not only disc space alone that makes PQ (picture quality). It's also lines of resolution (in the case of Blu it's 1080 x 1920 p) (now ). And it's also video compresor codec quality (well mpeg4 can compress up to 3 times better than mpeg2 at this moment). BUT it's also bitrate transfer speed!

soooo with little fanfare while Toshiba was saying they're prototyping a 45GB 3-layer disc, TDK announced their 100GB Blu-ray disc can do twice X the previously achieved bitrate transfer capacity, up from 36Mbps to 72Mbps! If you have read some of Luke recent dvd reviews he has mentioned that their average bitrate is like 6Mbps to 7Mbps. So Blu-ray will have the capacity do more than 10 times that! Now, add 10 times the bitrate with 3 times the compression efficiency (of mpeg4) and you have a video signal that is 30 TIMES the quality of your 16:9 coded widecreen DVD (40 times your 4:3 displayed one) Think about that the next time you watch the tiny letterboxed or widescreened image of Sleeping Beauty or The Incredibles on your current 4:3 or 16:9 TV. With Blu-ray you can get an image that looks 30 to 40 TIMES clearer and bigger. I'd think we could kiss compression artifacts, noise, and pixels goodbye and say hi to seamless incredibly sharp detailed images larger than life.

MOVIE in my house.







***Hey in a sense this Beta vs VHS anything you can do I can do better story sounds just like the hd-dud vs Blu story but the Sony roles are reversed in a way:

On the Beta , Sony was basically alone, (i think Sanyo? and one or two others made Beta machines too) while everybody else was doing VHS. Sony refused to budge and join the other format that was being embraced by the others, while trying to battle it out by upgrading or changing their specs just to be like the other camp or actually outdo it, with all this preemptive Super Beta Hi Fi ED thing while kind of playing around with their format's only advantage (slighly better video quality) with all their complications and add-ons. In this case now, Toshiba is kind of the loner (with its similar less numerous manufacturer backed format against the multidunal Blu-ray alliance), keeps changing from red to blue laser from double sided glue dvd layer to 2 layer to 3 layer to dvd layer i'm getting lost here! from 720p to 1080i in a desperate attempt to outdo a superior product. (and in a sense the VHS would be called a Superior product too cus they designed it after Beta and learned a trick or two from the start which enabled in the end to outdo Beta without losing compability) All this looks like deja vú to me No need to look at history if you liv'd it



****Well you could say there was actually a similar war to this one . or two. DVD vs VHS . or if you must, DVD vs LD.



Full Frame DVD is like 3x VHS
16:9 coded Widescreen DVD is like 4x letterboxed Widescreen VHS
Full Frame DVD is likee 1.25x Full frame LD
16:9 coded Widescreen DVD is like 1.66x letterboxed Widescreen LD

Who won there?


Academy Blu is like 5x Full Frame DVD
Widescreen Blu is 6 times 16:9 coded Widescreen DVD
Widescreen Blu is 8 times letterboxed widescreen DVD <- (how you watch it on a 4:3 Display)
Blu is 2 to 4x hd-dud





*****Okeeeee about the grand finale. You know, i recently saw Sin City on the theater and Sin City was shot with HD 1080 x 1920 p cams (the previous HD made movies seem to've been shot on 1080 x 1440 cams, and in digital presentations presented in only 1024 x 1280 DLP projectors) and i saw this movie on a 35mm film print. You know what? I'm always complaining about the shoddy state of current theatrical presentations qualities but in this case i lucked out and the two Sin City presentations i saw were tack sharp focused. Maybe the projectionist likes tack sharp fishnets.. On one i even saw the full frame (i guess the 1.78 HDTV 1080 x 1920) cus i could see the black borders of the print.
What amazed me was the incredible sharpness and cleaness of this image. it looked so good i was thinking was this shot on HD or film?? It looks even as good as some 70mm! I guess with digital you can sharpen the Digital Intermediate just good enough before striking the actual prints, cus here i was seeing an image going through a projector lens (so it's being softened by it) that in some respects looked even BETTER than 35mm film. Sharp edges, true detail (i think i even saw once the place were a toupee glue web thingie was attached (or was it my imagination! ) and the cleaness of the image that only fine grained true Cinemascope and 70mm bring with their grain-freed-ness it transported me way beyond the usual film reality like good 70mm does. And hey this was 1080 x 1920 derived! Soooo if carefully done, what Guido says is true: Blu-ray better than perfectly-done theatrical in some cases, even! What more could you want? Music? In 10.2 DTS channels??





_________________
(Btw, Dire Straits' Brother in Arms in 6 channel SACD was out this week )
(i want my, I want my, i want my Blu-ray disc)

[Mr. Toad]

Deathie I cant believe you cant tell the massive difference....



between Coke and Pepsi.

[TM2-Megatron]

Probably a little technical for most people.....interesting read, though. I'm mostly versed on the new optical formats, but I can't claim to have been around during the Beta and VHS thing.

...(*wonders why people that double dip 30 million times on their dvd purchases don't wanna do it for hd)...

I've never double-dipped on any DVD, personally. I've always waited a 2-or-more disc edition out, even if it took years (which it did in the case of Spaceballs, Dawn of the Dead and several other movies). In any case, I may double-dip for Blu-Ray on some of my favourites that I already have on DVD; I'll have to wait and see.