Format war over. Checkmate HD-DVD

[maek]

If your looking to buy the most cost-effective way to drive a new vehicle or own a home, then your correct! GM and Africa have WON! Thanks for clearing things up.

Cost effective how? In terms of initial sale, then yes. But when you throw things into the mix like reliability, quality, and resale value, are you getting the most bang for your buck? That's why Joe Six Pack buys a Geo Metro and I drive Hondas. Geo Metro dies at 80,000 miles while my car lasts twice as long and I still get $5,000 after it's totaled on the Interstate.

How about getting a house in Ethopia? True, very cheap, but...location location location.

My point is that price, although a factor, is not the be all and end all of a purchasing decision for me. If I'm looking for additional storage, then HD-DVD burned at 15 GB versus Blu-Ray at 25 GB is not the purchase for me.

See how it works?

[maek]

I agree. Ultimately, the companies that have the most to gain are the ones who are not going to side with either and incorporate both. That way, heavyweights like Sony in one corner and Toshiba (ok, that's funny...but they have Universal on their side) in the other can keep coughing cash into their formats.

Ultimately, they will have to come to terms with acknowledging both formats because no one is backing down.

DVD+R and DVD-R ARE still around. Before, the companies that fronted either had players that would exclusively play one or the other. Now, it's practically prevalent that they support both.

My Philips DVD burner, for example, will handle either format...but wait...didn't they develop DVD+R? I also seem to recall that Sony was part of that same alliance and yet they, too, play both formats. Hmmm....

In addition, I just wanted to add that the debate will likely rage for some time and the likely end result will be the same as DVD-/+R.

[SatStorm]

rhegedus, I doubt that in the UK most people already own a TV set with a 1080i/p panel. This must be your personal opinion and it is far from the official EISA statics regarding the UK market.

First of all, people with Plasma screens and 42"-, don't have full HD panels. There are a couple of mid 2007 plasma models with Full HD, but they don't sell well. Only few have them.
Second, people with flat screens (both LCD and Plasma) bought before mid 2006, are with HD Ready Screens.

The full HD panels appeared in the market around late 2005. During 2006 there were very - very expensive. Only recently (early summer of 2007) those panels became affordable and people adapt them.

So, unless all the British replaced their TV Screens the last months, I highly doubt that the majority of the British own 42+ Full HD televisions.

edDV, we count StDef and HiDef TV according the vertical lines for a reason. The horizontal framesize is something to talk about, but not so important IMO.
Keep in mind, that there are 1024x1080i DVB /S2 channels in Europe right now, same way there are 352/480/528/544/640 X 576 channels on SD DVB /S. Those 1024x1080i DVB/S2 channels are called "full 1080i". Call it a half true or another marketing trick, but exists.
Also, I own a couple of authored HD DVDs (burned on DVD-R), that come from DVB /S2 rips. On my Samsung M91, a mid 2006 HD Ready TV with LED Backlight, the visual difference between those home made HD DVDs and the commercial ones, do exist, but not to the point to talk about it.
This is my opinion of course and most of my friends (and people from my job) that we talk about it, agreed with me.
There are also many people that sees a difference, but those people are the minority. I never talk about the minorities: I tend to talk from the point of the advance user not the enthusiast of our era.
Of course, I talk for smaller Panels (up to 42"). On bigger ones, indeed the differnce shows!

[videopoo]

Cost effective how? In terms of initial sale, then yes. But when you throw things into the mix like reliability, quality, and resale value, are you getting the most bang for your buck? That's why Joe Six Pack buys a Geo Metro and I drive Hondas. Geo Metro dies at 80,000 miles while my car lasts twice as long and I still get $5,000 after it's totaled on the Interstate.

How about getting a house in Ethopia? True, very cheap, but...location location location.

My point is that price, although a factor, is not the be all and end all of a purchasing decision for me. If I'm looking for additional storage, then HD-DVD burned at 15 GB versus Blu-Ray at 25 GB is not the purchase for me

Are you planning on selling your HD DVD or BD player after 5 years? Cost Effective as in the cheapest way to enjoy HD on disc. What does location have to do with a HD on disc player? People don't treat a DVD players like cars or homes anyway so the analogy is kinda weird.

If you plan on writing or storing info on BD then you must have alot of money. HDD is much cheaper and more reliable to store data.

You'll start seeing HD DVD burners soon...Maybe....Mine comes in the mail today

[edDV]

...
edDV, we count StDef and HiDef TV according the vertical lines for a reason. The horizontal framesize is something to talk about, but not so important IMO.
Keep in mind, that there are 1024x1080i DVB /S2 channels in Europe right now, same way there are 352/480/528/544/640 X 576 channels on SD DVB /S. Those 1024x1080i DVB/S2 channels are called "full 1080i". Call it a half true or another marketing trick, but exists.
Also, I own a couple of authored HD DVDs (burned on DVD-R), that come from DVB /S2 rips. On my Samsung M91, a mid 2006 HD Ready TV with LED Backlight, the visual difference between those home made HD DVDs and the commercial ones, do exist, but not to the point to talk about it.
This is my opinion of course and most of my friends (and people from my job) that we talk about it, agreed with me.
There are also many people that sees a difference, but those people are the minority. I never talk about the minorities: I tend to talk from the point of the advance user not the enthusiast of our era.
Of course, I talk for smaller Panels (up to 42"). On bigger ones, indeed the differnce shows!

I agree that vertical is more important and that most HDTV sets in the field resolve less than 1280x768 at the display but for those consumers that do buy a 1920x1080p LCD, they will see a large advantage to Blu-Ray or HD DVD vs. what they get via 1024x1080i DVB/S2. Larger plasmas are beginning to be offered with 1366x768 vs 1024x768 panel resolutions. Those will show some advantage.

At least over here we get 1920x1080i over terrestrial broadcast and cable although the TV stations mostly use 1440x1080i or 1280x720p equipment.

[dcsos]

Did you get your HD-DVD burner?
Do HD-DVD burners actually exist?
I can't find them!

Mine comes in the mail today

[/quote]

[rhegedus]

rhegedus, I doubt that in the UK most people already own a TV set with a 1080i/p panel. This must be your personal opinion and it is far from the official EISA statics regarding the UK market.

First of all, people with Plasma screens and 42"-, don't have full HD panels. There are a couple of mid 2007 plasma models with Full HD, but they don't sell well. Only few have them.
Second, people with flat screens (both LCD and Plasma) bought before mid 2006, are with HD Ready Screens.

The full HD panels appeared in the market around late 2005. During 2006 there were very - very expensive. Only recently (early summer of 2007) those panels became affordable and people adapt them.

So, unless all the British replaced their TV Screens the last months, I highly doubt that the majority of the British own 42+ Full HD televisions.

No, what I said was that for new TVs, 42" is the norm, the majority being 1080p. That is, for new meaning for sale now, not 2005, 2006...

[maek]

Cost effective how? In terms of initial sale, then yes. But when you throw things into the mix like reliability, quality, and resale value, are you getting the most bang for your buck? That's why Joe Six Pack buys a Geo Metro and I drive Hondas. Geo Metro dies at 80,000 miles while my car lasts twice as long and I still get $5,000 after it's totaled on the Interstate.

How about getting a house in Ethopia? True, very cheap, but...location location location.

My point is that price, although a factor, is not the be all and end all of a purchasing decision for me. If I'm looking for additional storage, then HD-DVD burned at 15 GB versus Blu-Ray at 25 GB is not the purchase for me

Are you planning on selling your HD DVD or BD player after 5 years? Cost Effective as in the cheapest way to enjoy HD on disc. What does location have to do with a HD on disc player? People don't treat a DVD players like cars or homes anyway so the analogy is kinda weird.

If you plan on writing or storing info on BD then you must have alot of money. HDD is much cheaper and more reliable to store data.

You'll start seeing HD DVD burners soon...Maybe....Mine comes in the mail today

My...I'm trying to make a point that there are other factors to consider, but one tends to take it a little too literally.

Ok - here is one example of a "factor to consider." Blu-ray stores 25 GB, not the paltry 15 GB of HD-DVD. Blu-Ray can theoretically handle 200 GB as an upper threshold, HD-DVD can handle a paltry 60 GB. The average consumer probably doesn't understand all that GB stuff, but they do understand the concept of "more." So, if I can store 166% more on a Blu-Ray disc, then let's consider the implications of maybe storing more material at the same compression rate as an HD-DVD disc OR let's consider being able to store movies at a HIGHER bitrate. Higher bitrate = better quality, perhaps? Same bitrate = more material on one disc (perhaps more TV episodes on a disc compared to HD-DVD)? DVD-comparable bitrates = 3 1/2 hours on HD-DVD versus 5.89 hours on Blu-Ray?

I'm glad that your HD-DVD burner is coming in the mail. My Blu-Ray burner is already installed and working quite well with Sony Vegas Pro 8, thank you...no coasters yet. Also, once you've burned 150 GB worth of material, I'll be asking you why you need to buy 10 discs when I only had to buy 6.

Of course, that's only what I burn with. Ultimately, I'm still looking for dual-format because I know that idiots like Universal and Microsoft (now THERE'S an endorsement of quality) are not likely to back down.

[videopoo]

Of course I didn't take it literally

I guess were talking about 2 different things then. If your choice is BD based on the amount of storage - fine. I thought we were talking about "format wars" and which the basic consumer will consider as they go into a store and purchase a player and discs. I believe the consumers will take cost as a deciding factor - and clients as well.

I author HD DVDs for a living and there's no way any of my clients can afford BD so I guess I'm biased. Sony and Panasonic are the only sources for BD authoring (there are some independent companies though)

Your right there are other factors to consider - authoring costs, HD DVDs support for more advanced features (namely PIP) and the testing media is ultra-cheap (DVD+R) - Although is much tougher to author an HD DVD then a BD-HDMV title.

I not arguing just pointing out you made a good analogy as it relates to price and what people will use to consider a certain purchase.

My burner was made available from one of my vendors. The only one in Orange County and its already paid for. with the work. But just so you know there s no way I would spend the money for a BD or HD DVD burner if I wasn't involved directly with the authoring or providing a service to clients - this isn't a hobby for me. I'm not into ripping crap off my DVR so I can put 9 eps of some show on a single disc.

Yes dual format players and burners will be the norm this time next year.

[maek]

Ok...sorry for the confusion. No disrepect intended.

I'm not "ripping" for Blu-Ray, though; I am using the example as a potential cost savings in future media releases only.

[dcsos]

Meanwhile, he still hasn't gotten his HD-DVD burner, has he?

Did you get your HD-DVD burner?
Do HD-DVD burners actually exist?
I can't find them!

Mine comes in the mail today

[pepegot1]

AnyDVD recommends HD-DVD, as it is better, from their point of view, in the future.

[videopoo]

Meanwhile, he still hasn't gotten his HD-DVD burner, has he?

It's sitting here on my desk. It's a Prototype and it's made in China of course. Funny thing it came with a European to US power converter. No time to use it yet.

[maek]

AnyDVD recommends HD-DVD, as it is better, from their point of view, in the future.

I found this from this website...http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/19/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-state-of-the-s-union-s-division/. Here's a quick synopsis.

"Blu-ray discs are more expensive, but hold more data—there, that's all."

Also: "Herein lies the issues associated with the higher cost of Blu-ray discs. This thinner surface layer is what makes the discs cost more; because Blu-ray discs do not share the same surface layer thickness of DVDs, costly production facilities must be modified or replaced in order to produce the discs. A special hard coating must also be applied to Blu-ray discs, so their surface is sufficiently resilient enough to protect the data a mere 0.1mm beneath—this also drives the cost up. The added benefit of keeping the data layer closer to the surface, however, is more room for extra layers." In other words, that is why Blu-Ray discs can theoretically hold 200 GB over HD-DVD's theoretical limit of 60 GB.

That said, if Porsches were affordable, wouldn't you like to have one?

I don't know if I would take recommendations from a company that sells $50 software.

[dcsos]

Meaning I can't get one.. drat..I'll have to wait to author my own HD-DVD's unless I can justify "REPLICATION"
(## + $$)

It's a Prototype

[/quote]

[Conquest10]

That said, if Porsches were affordable, wouldn't you like to have one?

No, I wouldn't. My dream car is a Toyota Prius.

BTW, the thread title is a joke aimed at you Blu-Ray fanboys that say the exact same thing with every little bit of news that comes out about Blu-Ray. I personally don't care who wins even though I have an HD-DVD player. I just can't see myself buying a PS3 because Sony intentionally made it $600 for their own personal greed. With M$ its optional if you want HD-DVD playback. Sony makes it mandatory for one to pay for it.

[Conquest10]

And for those who constantly bash HD-DVD for not having burners out, how much HD content can you possibly have that you need an HD-DVD burner immediately?

[edDV]

That said, if Porsches were affordable, wouldn't you like to have one?

No, I wouldn't. My dream car is a Toyota Prius.

Ahh the Prius, that is more fun tech. I watched them disassemble this one down to the component parts at the Embedded Systems Conf in San Jose last year. Turns out much of this car was designed in Silicon Valley.

http://www.windowsfordevices.com/news/NS7263877449.html


PS: Same conf featured a Quad-Core Xeon powered motorcycle by Orange County Choppers.

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070403corp.htm

[maek]

That said, if Porsches were affordable, wouldn't you like to have one?

No, I wouldn't. My dream car is a Toyota Prius.

BTW, the thread title is a joke aimed at you Blu-Ray fanboys that say the exact same thing with every little bit of news that comes out about Blu-Ray. I personally don't care who wins even though I have an HD-DVD player. I just can't see myself buying a PS3 because Sony intentionally made it $600 for their own personal greed. With M$ its optional if you want HD-DVD playback. Sony makes it mandatory for one to pay for it.

Amusing...I wouldn't say that I'm a Blu-Ray fanboy. Nor would I accuse you of being a Toshiba seedling.

I'm simply refuting an argument that states "HD-DVD" is better. I haven't seen anything that really supports this. Blu-Ray supports higher memory capacity and bitrates. So in what way is HD-DVD better? It's a serious question. Calling me a fanboy isn't adding to this discussion, but it is making me have rather nasty flashbacks to 5th grade.

My contention, as stated in previous posts, is that I would rather get a dual-format player and watch the opposing sides eventually adopt each other. As an example, DVD +/-R are BOTH still available. For a while, there were players that would only fully support one or the other according to whomever developed the technology; sometimes, it was a crapshoot if an opposing format would actually play. Now, you're hard-pressed to find ANY player that won't support BOTH (ESPECIALLY burners)...even if it belonged to a maker that supported only one format to begin with. My Philips burner right now will burn both...but weren't they originally only supporting one format? Sorry to sound like a broken record, but you're the one accusing me of being a Blu-ray fanboy.

On another note...PS3 for $600? Are you still finding websites that sell it for that much? And, in all seriousness, I would rather have a hydrogen fuel cell car once they become affordable. Those hybrids still use dead animal sludge.

And for those who constantly bash HD-DVD for not having burners out, how much HD content can you possibly have that you need an HD-DVD burner immediately?

How about those with HD camcorders? Yes, they exist.

[Conquest10]

Well, up until last month. The PS3s were still $600. Now they are $500 with a crippled version at $400.

HD-DVD is not better than Blu-Ray. Neither is Blu-Ray superior to HD-DVD. But that is for movies. I've always said that Blu-Ray was a better format for data backup because of the larger capacity. None of that makes a difference when it comes to movies. Like I said earlier, Blu-Ray may have a larger capacity but it still has a maximum bitrate for video that is not much more than that of HD-DVD. So the larger space does not make much of a difference when it comes to movies.

If you really want to make a disc of your home movies for the time being you can author HD-DVD to regular DVDs. It is too early to be buying costly burners right now while they are still in the first generation and for a format that might not be around in the future.

[videopoo]

So in what way is HD-DVD better?

Not that it makes it better but HD DVD is up on BD in advanced content. Picture-in-picture was supported by HD DVD players since the beginning but I don't believe any BD player yet supports this feature. Once BD players support this feature these is NO difference in quality and interactive features for both formats.

BD does support BD-J but the games and features done so far can easily be done with HDi and Jscripting. The bottom line is Sony tried to re-invent the wheel and gave us another wheel that looks exactly the same as the competitor....go figure. The higher bitrate issue really means nothing since at those rate levels a bitrate of 20 mb/s is undistinguished from a rate of 35 mb/s using advanced VC-1 or AVC encodes.

Until someone shows the world what BD-J can really do then I'll stick with HD DVD.

[edDV]

For me at least, the blank media needs to come down in price 10x. I'd pay $1.50 for 15GB and maybe $2.00 for 25GB. Until then, I'll buy hard drives.

[lordsmurf]

As an example, DVD +/-R are BOTH still available. For a while, there were players that would only fully support one or the other according to whomever developed the technology;

No. No, no, no.

DVD-R and DVD+R are just blank discs. Nothing more. DVD-Video is the format.
Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are entirely different formats.

Players still only "officially" support one media. Almost everything belong to the RW Alliance and uses Alliance specs, or belongs to the DVD Forum, using Forum specs. While some will "use" both, the sub-format of the DVD-Video spec used (DVD+VR, DVD-VR) is always picked. It's not both. Players don't care, but those still list preferences for one or the other. Almost nothing "does both". Not officially. But about 85-90% of all players support both formats (DVD-R and DVD+R) in reality. As you plod along with DVD-RW, and DVD+RW and DVD-RAM, those all sway a bit here and there.

Your comparison is flawed.

And while it's nice to talk about a "whole 10GB" more on Blu-Ray, it's minimal difference in an age where 500GB hard drives are now the norm. Consider this, against 10 years ago:
1.44MB floppy = 4.38GB disc
2.88MB floppy = 7.85GB DL disc
100MB zip disc = 15GB HD DVD-R
125MB superdrive = 25GB BD-R
650MB CD-R = 500GB external hard drives

People need to have some perspective on the 15GB vs 25GB non-sense. It's is very much non-sense. Look at the big picture, and quit being a measurebator (nod given to Ken Rockwell, great term).

[edDV]

DV and HDV are 13GB /hr. Talk to me when cheap blanks handle 3+hr or >40GB.

I think Sony and the DVD forum were so busy implementing DRM "features" they didn't notice hard drive and now flash erasable technology overtaking their turf.

Black Friday saw 4GB $17 flash drives. Next year these will be 8GB or maybe even 16GB.

[rhegedus]

That said, if Porsches were affordable, wouldn't you like to have one?

No, I wouldn't. My dream car is a Toyota Prius.

Does that come in hetero?

[rhegedus]

And while it's nice to talk about a "whole 10GB" more on Blu-Ray, it's minimal difference in an age where 500GB hard drives are now the norm. Consider this, against 10 years ago:
1.44MB floppy = 4.38GB disc
2.88MB floppy = 7.85GB DL disc
100MB zip disc = 15GB HD DVD-R
125MB superdrive = 25GB BD-R
650MB CD-R = 500GB external hard drives.

You've lost me.

If the size difference between 4,38Gb and 7.85Gb was and still is an issue then why isn't 15Gb vs 25Gb or 30Gb vs 50Gb?

[maek]

As an example, DVD +/-R are BOTH still available. For a while, there were players that would only fully support one or the other according to whomever developed the technology;

No. No, no, no.

DVD-R and DVD+R are just blank discs. Nothing more. DVD-Video is the format.
Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are entirely different formats.

Players still only "officially" support one media. Almost everything belong to the RW Alliance and uses Alliance specs, or belongs to the DVD Forum, using Forum specs. While some will "use" both, the sub-format of the DVD-Video spec used (DVD+VR, DVD-VR) is always picked. It's not both. Players don't care, but those still list preferences for one or the other. Almost nothing "does both". Not officially. But about 85-90% of all players support both formats (DVD-R and DVD+R) in reality. As you plod along with DVD-RW, and DVD+RW and DVD-RAM, those all sway a bit here and there.

Your comparison is flawed.

And while it's nice to talk about a "whole 10GB" more on Blu-Ray, it's minimal difference in an age where 500GB hard drives are now the norm. Consider this, against 10 years ago:
1.44MB floppy = 4.38GB disc
2.88MB floppy = 7.85GB DL disc
100MB zip disc = 15GB HD DVD-R
125MB superdrive = 25GB BD-R
650MB CD-R = 500GB external hard drives

People need to have some perspective on the 15GB vs 25GB non-sense. It's is very much non-sense. Look at the big picture, and quit being a measurebator (nod given to Ken Rockwell, great term).

Thanks for the clarification regarding DVD +/-R. I agree that it was a weak analogy at best, but it is an example of how the industry couldn't settle on a standard even if it was just blank media. However, with the considerable amount of money invested in BD and HD-DVD, do you think that it's likely to differ from an analogous point of view? Did the +R or -R standard ever get resolved or did everyone just decide, "Hell, let's just make burners that do both and screw it."

And while it's nice to talk about a "whole 10GB" more on Blu-Ray, it's minimal difference in an age where 500GB hard drives are now the norm. Consider this, against 10 years ago:
1.44MB floppy = 4.38GB disc
2.88MB floppy = 7.85GB DL disc
100MB zip disc = 15GB HD DVD-R
125MB superdrive = 25GB BD-R
650MB CD-R = 500GB external hard drives.

You've lost me.

If the size difference between 4,38Gb and 7.85Gb was and still is an issue then why isn't 15Gb vs 25Gb or 30Gb vs 50Gb?

I agree with rhegedus.

Also, do you acknowledge that the potential of Blu-Ray is still upwards of 200 GB in the long-term and only 60 GB for HD-DVD based on potential layer expandability? It seems to me that if you're thinking about the long-term impacts of a format then you should consider its full potential.

Call me a measurebator all you want; I'm looking at it from a perspective of being able to place more viewable media on a disc without the need to switch over. For a typical movie, I understand that it's laughable. From the perspective of nostalgics out there who want to see Murder She Wrote, however, the attraction of being able to watch an entire season without changing a disc has its appeal (assuming, of course, that you expand Blu-Ray to its 200 GB theoretical limit). Scoff at it if you want, but the TV episode market share on DVD's has been very substantial lately and accounts for a great deal of shelf space at Best Buy and Fry's Electronics. And if you really care for the math, we're talking about a 67% difference, not 25%. Also, a 10 GB difference is certainly more substantial. If it means that I can put 6-hours worth of footage and use a 67% higher bitrate, guess which one I'll likely go with?

Or maybe it's not really worth the difference. Who knows? In the meantime, I'll be tossing popcorn and watching the debate continue. I'll just wait for the dual format players to become reasonable in price; if one format does somehow die, then at least I'll be able to play the other format regardless. There are at least 2 players on the market that can do it; 2 different companies that are setting their sights on those who want to play it safe.

[SatStorm]

I don't think LS means size difference.

2.88MB floppies use to be rare, almost like DL DVD-Rs today.
DL DVD-Rs exist, as 2.88mb floppies once, and you can buy them everywhere if you like, but the majority prefer and use DVD-Rs same way the majority used 1.44 floppies back then.

IMO lordsmurf here has a good point: for storage BD and HD DVD is like zip/superdrive disks.

A couple of years ago, they (the technicians of the big ones) use to say that BD gonna turn the PC storage medium, while HD DVD the movie medium. Unfortunatelly this "format war" managed to make us all hold the adaption of a HD optical format.

The only TRUE HD format I know and I can have today dirty and cheap, is authored HD DVDs on DVD-R discs. It's a cheap solution too.

[dcsos]

So why is it that HD-DVD burners are non-existent?
They had announcements of BURNER AVAILABILITY
as early as 2006.
Now its NOV 2007 and nothing was delivered.
Does anyone know why?
Are they having problems getting this format to work.
I've heard there are laptops that burn HD-DVD already out in JAPAN
but they take 2 hrs per burn.
What gives?
Does HD-DVD work as a 'burnable' medium?

and speaking of obsolete formats
And where can I get 650MB blank CD's? (instead of 700's)

[rhegedus]

The only TRUE HD format I know and I can have today dirty and cheap, is authored HD DVDs on DVD-R discs. It's a cheap solution too.

I agree.

The set-top players could have used existing optical drives and media and the decoding handled by a suitable chipset.

The two most obvious formats would have been WMV-HD and DivX-HD. I'm not sure of the lagalities of DivX but I'm pretty sure that Microsoft would have placed some pretty draconian restrictions on the use of WMV-HD.

That said, even with a 8.5Gb DL will only get you so far with 1080p content.