Blu-ray prices go up following HD DVD's death

[terjeber]

Are the discs considered hardware?

Do discs play themselves without the hardware?

Are you serious? Do you actually read and understand what you post? You said this thread was about hardware

Actually, he didn't. I did. And yes, this thread was about the price of hardware and no discs are not hardware they are software. Remember, you do not own a movie you purchase, you own the right to watch it as you please, there is a bit of a difference. Your money pays for the movie, not the disc. Disc production cost is an irrelevant fraction, even on Blu-Ray now, of the price of the movie. Last I saw the replication cost is now less than $1 pr disc and dropping fast.

[terjeber]

But isn't that an issue of restoration rather than final delivery? Some Technicolor (and other technology) movies are simply beyond full restoration.

Don't like what I see with BD, and I'm not alone. Toshiba's HD-DVD was much better.

I find this to be quite an interesting statement, and I'd love for you to elaborate on it if you can. You see, I don't think this can be true. Given the following realities, how can one be better than the other?

• The two formats use the same encoding technologies, so all factors constant, they should have identical encoding.
• Given the identical encoding, hardware manufacturers use off-the-shelf components in the production of players, which means that the decoding chips in an HD DVD and a Blu-Ray player should be the same. In other words, the bit stream coming over the HDMI cable from an HD DVD and a Blu-Ray player should be identical.
• On a Blu-Ray disc there is some more space, and the format allows for a 30% higher bit rate. In theory this should mean that a Blu-Ray company should be able to squeeze a bit more picture or audio information into the bit stream. So far this has generally been given to audio. Not a surprise, the studios would encode the video for the lowest common denominator until the format war was over.

So, given that we today basically have identical encoding and identical decoding, how can HD DVD be better than Blu-Ray? Given a theoretical better encoding (more space and bandwidth) going forward, how does your statement make sense?

[Scooter_NJ]

A spec is a spec is a spec. If both formats claim 1080 capabilities using the same codec..so be it. I prefered the HD-DVD over my BD player simply because...

The HD is a finalized format. With BD I have had a variety of playback problems and freeze ups. So picture wise, granted..looks swell in both. More dependent regards picture quality is what proccessor is used.

[terjeber]

My information comes from reading what others have to say, and from looking at the two media myself.

I'm sorry, but I think you need new glasses or new reading material. In the cases where studios published on both formats, they generally used the exact same video for the two formats. Given that the video is exactly the same, tha the decoder chip (which is off-the-shelf stuff) is exactly the same, then you have that the bitstream going over the HDMI cable to your TV is identical for the two formats. Stating that one of them has better image quality than the other in that case requires a monumental religious experience.

The quality differences are easily distinguishable. I am talking about BD's color problems, not lines of resolution.

What color problems? The two formats use the same encoding, and once the bits move from your player to your TV, they are the same. No difference. How that color is represented on your TV is not a factor of either Blu or HD DVD. How can the "difference" between identical images be "easily distinguishable".

"There is nothing "inherently" wrong with Blu-ray from a quality standpoint..." I disagree. Strongly.

Based on what? So fare you are not making sense at a technical level. Your statements are in fact utterly absurd. You are claiming that there are vast differences between two items that are identical.

As for HD-DVD, this is not likely the thread to debate it, so I leave HD-DVD out of the equation. Let's just talk about Blu-Ray.

Well, right now we are looking at you saying that two technologies who produce identical visual results are vastly different in some respect. That is what I am trying to look into here. Ignoring that would be like ignoring a mountain dropped on my foot to look at my new shoes.[/quote]

It's not good enough for me,

But an identical visual experience from HD DVD would have been? That's absurd in the extreme.

and it will all change again within the year anyway

No, it probably won't. Here is my prediction. Blu-Ray is the last and final disc-based format. Ever.

Ghastly color. Compression artifacts, even on a 36" tv. That's just not good enough.

This is just sad. Are you blaming Blu-Ray for a bad encode? Are you really that clueless?

[terjeber]

BTW, I strongly disagree that Blu-ray produces "ghastly colors". I've had both BD and HD-DVD and I don't see a difference.

That's because you are sane and seeing. As long as the studios (the few that did) were releasing on both formats, given that both formats supported exactly the same encoding etc, they released identical products on the two. They would have continued to do so going forward, encoding for the space of the HD DVD and putting the same video content on both.

It would take a religious experience to tell the difference since there would have been none. The dude must be on some serious drugs swallowed with a phenomenal amount of Toshiba Cool Aid.

[terjeber]

All things being equal, it appears (to me) that Blu-Ray's problem is over-compression. That's what I get from forums like:
http://boardreader.com/tp/Compression+artifacts.html

Damn. You are FUNNY. Really. Clueless too, but funny. Yes, compressing movies will reduce their quality. Obviously. Just go watch a DVD on a decent sized display. Most of them look terrible even on my Oppo up-scaling player. Some just look bad.

Now, HD DVD and Blu-Ray uses the same compression technologies, and since we had two formats with different capacities and different bit rates, the studios that released for both formats used the one with the lowest capacity as the target. This meant that when they released they encoded the movie for HD DVD and they released this on both formats. That is, they put identical movies on their discs, leaving a good amount of spare capacity on Blu discs and not to forget, a good amount of spare bandwidth.

Since the format war is now over, the studios can encode (compress as you say) for the format with the higher capacity. That would be Blu. They can encode at higher bit rates given the higher bandwidth. Storage is almost irrelevant, both formats had enough storage for a good movie (but perhaps not for all the sound alternatives).

So, you are complaining that the more capable format won and you'd rather keep the less capable format since it is the less capable format that is the reason for the less than ideal quality of the Blu movies?

Would you like to share some of the drugs you are on with the rest of us? I can do with some good hallucinogenic stuff today.

I also find it astounding that you claim you want the best there is and then refuse HD quality. HD (both formats) are insanely better than VHS of any kind, or even professional Betacam. They are both also significantly better than DVD, not just in the higher resolution, but also in the color representation. HD color representation is a more significant improvement over DVD than was DVDs improvement over VHS.

Not only is HD and Blu-Ray a significant improvement over VHS/DVD, but in most cases Blu-Ray is also an improvement over film in theaters. The way film is printed and duplicated today means that the horizontal resolution that you catch in the theaters is about the same as you get on a big-screen TV at the appropriate viewing distance. Since film is reflective, given a good TV, Blu-Ray (or HD DVD for that matter) can give you a better viewing experience (but perhaps not social experience) than you get in the movie theater.

A good example is the movie "Pan's Labyrinth". This movie has been released in a variety of formats. In the theater, on DVD and on Blu-Ray. The best quality viewing experience for Pans Labyrinth you get from the Blu-Ray release. Both detail (resolution) and color is an improvement over the theater release.

So, why would you watch it on anything but Blu?

[Video Head]

All things being equal, it appears (to me) that Blu-Ray's problem is over-compression. That's what I get from forums like:
http://boardreader.com/tp/Compression+artifacts.html

Damn. You are FUNNY. Really. Clueless too, but funny. Yes, compressing movies will reduce their quality. Obviously. Just go watch a DVD on a decent sized display. Most of them look terrible even on my Oppo up-scaling player. Some just look bad.

Now, HD DVD and Blu-Ray uses the same compression technologies, and since we had two formats with different capacities and different bit rates, the studios that released for both formats used the one with the lowest capacity as the target. This meant that when they released they encoded the movie for HD DVD and they released this on both formats. That is, they put identical movies on their discs, leaving a good amount of spare capacity on Blu discs and not to forget, a good amount of spare bandwidth.

Since the format war is now over, the studios can encode (compress as you say) for the format with the higher capacity. That would be Blu. They can encode at higher bit rates given the higher bandwidth. Storage is almost irrelevant, both formats had enough storage for a good movie (but perhaps not for all the sound alternatives).

So, you are complaining that the more capable format won and you'd rather keep the less capable format since it is the less capable format that is the reason for the less than ideal quality of the Blu movies?

Would you like to share some of the drugs you are on with the rest of us? I can do with some good hallucinogenic stuff today.

I also find it astounding that you claim you want the best there is and then refuse HD quality. HD (both formats) are insanely better than VHS of any kind, or even professional Betacam. They are both also significantly better than DVD, not just in the higher resolution, but also in the color representation. HD color representation is a more significant improvement over DVD than was DVDs improvement over VHS.

Not only is HD and Blu-Ray a significant improvement over VHS/DVD, but in most cases Blu-Ray is also an improvement over film in theaters. The way film is printed and duplicated today means that the horizontal resolution that you catch in the theaters is about the same as you get on a big-screen TV at the appropriate viewing distance. Since film is reflective, given a good TV, Blu-Ray (or HD DVD for that matter) can give you a better viewing experience (but perhaps not social experience) than you get in the movie theater.

A good example is the movie "Pan's Labyrinth". This movie has been released in a variety of formats. In the theater, on DVD and on Blu-Ray. The best quality viewing experience for Pans Labyrinth you get from the Blu-Ray release. Both detail (resolution) and color is an improvement over the theater release.

So, why would you watch it on anything but Blu?

Wow. You are a very interesting and curious person...

[DereX888]

Are the discs considered hardware?

Do discs play themselves without the hardware?

Are you serious? Do you actually read and understand what you post? You said this thread was about hardware and i brought it to your attention that it was about software as well. Reading is one thing, comprehension is another.

"Well, firstly, the topic of this thread was the price of hardware, not of software. "
Do this look familiar to you?

Exactly as you've said: Reading is one thing, comprehension is another.
I'd suggest a bit further for you: first learn how to read, because you obviously can't distinguish between authors of a nested quotes in a posts longer than few words... and that's a basic online-reading skill, ya'know...

[Video Head]

Did (does) HD-DVD not have the same HDCP and region protection as Blu-Ray?

Blu-ray has the same AACS encryption as HD-DVD -- which has already been cracked. But it has a second layer, BD+, which has not.

Thank you.

[rhegedus]

I don't see the relevance of BD+ unless you're planning to rip and reproduce HD material.

Under such circumstances surely the complete absence of a HD-DVD burner is more of a more of a hindrance?

[cracula]

Are the discs considered hardware?

Do discs play themselves without the hardware?

Are you serious? Do you actually read and understand what you post? You said this thread was about hardware and i brought it to your attention that it was about software as well. Reading is one thing, comprehension is another.

"Well, firstly, the topic of this thread was the price of hardware, not of software. "
Do this look familiar to you?

Exactly as you've said: Reading is one thing, comprehension is another.
I'd suggest a bit further for you: first learn how to read, because you obviously can't distinguish between authors of a nested quotes in a posts longer than few words... and that's a basic online-reading skill, ya'know...

I stand corrected. This online stuff is something i need more work at. Ahh the taste of humble pie

[satviewer2000]

They are all at loggerheads with a 50/50 lockstep attitude: they see the skyrocketing sales of HDTV sets and want a piece of that action, but they're terrified of thousands of high-def discs floating around just waiting for some Polish or Chinese 12-year-old to crack them.

This is an excellent analysis, with the exception of this statement. BD (and HD-DVD) have ALREADY been cracked. Any person with some internet knowledge can find all kinds of BD/HD-DVD hi-def quality material from various places on the internet (I won't say where) to acquire for their own collection even as we speak.

[jagabo]

BD+ has not been fully cracked. You can rip to to your hard drive and play the files with PowerDVD but that's about it.

[FulciLives]

BD+ has not been fully cracked. You can rip to to your hard drive and play the files with PowerDVD but that's about it.

That is distressing to know.

I wonder how many (all?) Blu-Ray discs have BD+ ... in other words do all have it or only some or what?

Also I don't understand how you can rip it to your computer for playback but then can't do nothing with it? Can you re-encode it or ... ???

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[rhegedus]

I wonder how many (all?) Blu-Ray discs have BD+ ... in other words do all have it or only some or what?

A handful at most. The only one I've come across is The Simpson's Movie.

I've managed to rip and re-encode everything else.

[jagabo]

I wonder how many (all?) Blu-Ray discs have BD+ ... in other words do all have it or only some or what?

A handful at most...

How long do you think it will be before the situation is reversed?

[rhegedus]

I don't know. It may not be.

Every copy protection measure has been broken to date. I don't see many studios willing to pay royalties for a feature that may be worthless in a few months.

[jagabo]

I don't know. It may not be.

Every copy protection measure has been broken to date. I don't see many studios willing to pay royalties for a feature that may be worthless in a few months.

Is that why DVDs are no longer CSS encrypted?

[sanlyn]

All things being equal, it appears (to me) that Blu-Ray's problem is over-compression. That's what I get from forums like:
http://boardreader.com/tp/Compression+artifacts.html

Damn. You are FUNNY. Really. Clueless too, but funny. ....
So, why would you watch it on anything but Blu?

My, my, the BluRay boys are not only a bit color blind, but they get snippy about any criticism of their very imperfect new toy.

If everything about the two technologies is "identical" (even tho you've gone to the trouble of pointing out how they are different), and you can't see any differences between the two (even though you've taken the trouble to point out the differences that cause you to favor one over the other), then why does it matter to you that I don't like Blu-Ray? You mean you really bought and kept an Oppo player? So your insensitivity to midtone and shadow density loss doesn't bother you, and neither does your inability to see the Mediatek decoder's problem with cyan? A number of people have noticed these problems, one of them even had the nerve to post a scathing one-star review on Amazon, of all places, against Sony's Blu-Ray players! Kinda made me feel a little better, tho, to see that I wasn't the only viewer who noticed that so many Blu-Ray discs and players just wouldn't let an image bloom naturally. But, then, most BluRay people seem overly involved with numbers rather than concepts that are more difficult to define.

Spend your money, then, and enjoy. I returned my Oppo player a week ago (my wife thought the Oppo's image looked grimy, and my neighhbor complained it was too green), and brought my Sony BluRay back to its roost at BestBuy, and both because I didn't like the color, and didn't like the lack of snap or brilliance in the image, and didn't like all the artifacts. There are plenty of opposing views about the technology, its implentation, and the players used. Many are posted here and elsewhere. Many people, besides me, didn't buy BluRay for any of several reasons. For one thing, I still don't see many high-end a/v shops carrying Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD for that matter), but they're selling $2500 SD players all day long. Believe it or not (you probably don't), but many video hobbyists agree with me and disagree with you. It seems there are likes and dislikes on both sides, and plenty of posts and documentation to justify both.

Uh, after looking over your post and the information therein, I wouldn't use the word "clueless" quite so freely when referring to those with whom you disagree.

[rhegedus]

Is that why DVDs are no longer CSS encrypted?

Ha ha.

But CSS encryption has been circumvented, so why the concern about BD+?

[jagabo]

Is that why DVDs are no longer CSS encrypted?

Ha ha.

But CSS encryption has been circumvented, so why the concern about BD+?

Given that Blu-ray now has a monopoly on high def discs and that AACS has been totally cracked, there will be a lot of pressure on movie studios to use BD+. I suspect virtually all new Blu-ray releases will use BD+.

[bbanderic]

Is that why DVDs are no longer CSS encrypted?

Ha ha.

But CSS encryption has been circumvented, so why the concern about BD+?

Given that Blu-ray now has a monopoly on high def discs and that AACS has been totally cracked, there will be a lot of pressure on movie studios to use BD+. I suspect virtually all new Blu-ray releases will use BD+.

BD+ will be cracked as well, we all know that, just like all the copy-protection schemes that came before it. This concern about BD+ or anything like it is a non-issue, it's only something for the Blu-ray haters to talk about, for now.

[maldb]

So, how is it that "the public" didn't chose Blu-Ray? Was the fact that "the public" chose Blu-Ray movies over HD DVD movies 2-1 for the entire 2007 a result of Sony having all its employees out there buying movies? BTW, Sony doesn't own Blu-Ray any more than they own DVD.

Yes, Blu-Ray outsold HD-DVD.

Good, so the public chose Blu over HD DVD. That settles it then. Why would anyone then state that it was not the public who chose?

I've been away for awhile and have just read all of these comments with some amusement - it really gets hot aorund here!. With respect to BD movies outselling HD-DVD, everyone seems to miss the obvious reason: most movies were exclusive to BD. As a father of 2 little girls, I can assure you that they want their Disney movies - which are available exclusively on BD - same for Spider-Man, etc. It was just a matter of time before HD-DVD died - they simply did not have the movies (read: studio support) available that the public wanted.

Pure and simple: HD-DVD was outsold and died because they did not have the movie studios onboard like BD did. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs their head examined.

[sanlyn]

Pure and simple: HD-DVD was outsold and died because they did not have the movie studios onboard like BD did.

I think that sums up the argument, maldb, and makes moot any debate about which format is/was "better". I'm glad I didn't sink anything into either format. As it is, word is out that any Blu-Ray stuff you buy today is obsolete even as price gouging on BD is already underway.

It isn't difficult being king of the hill when there's no competition.

[rhegedus]

Price gouging?

I just bought I am Legend for $18.95. The two-disc Special Edition SD is $22.99.

[bbanderic]

All things being equal, it appears (to me) that Blu-Ray's problem is over-compression. That's what I get from forums like:
http://boardreader.com/tp/Compression+artifacts.html

Damn. You are FUNNY. Really. Clueless too, but funny. ....
So, why would you watch it on anything but Blu?

My, my, the BluRay boys are not only a bit color blind, but they get snippy about any criticism of their very imperfect new toy.

If everything about the two technologies is "identical" (even tho you've gone to the trouble of pointing out how they are different), and you can't see any differences between the two (even though you've taken the trouble to point out the differences that cause you to favor one over the other), then why does it matter to you that I don't like Blu-Ray? You mean you really bought and kept an Oppo player? So your insensitivity to midtone and shadow density loss doesn't bother you, and neither does your inability to see the Mediatek decoder's problem with cyan? A number of people have noticed these problems, one of them even had the nerve to post a scathing one-star review on Amazon, of all places, against Sony's Blu-Ray players! Kinda made me feel a little better, tho, to see that I wasn't the only viewer who noticed that so many Blu-Ray discs and players just wouldn't let an image bloom naturally. But, then, most BluRay people seem overly involved with numbers rather than concepts that are more difficult to define).

Spend your money, then, and enjoy. I returned my Oppo player a week ago (my wife thought the Oppo's image looked grimy, and my neighhbor complained it was too green), and brought my Sony BluRay back to its roost at BestBuy, and both because I didn't like the color, and didn't like the lack of snap or brilliance in the image, and didn't like all the artifacts. There are plenty of opposing views about the technology, its implentation, and the players used. Many are posted here and elsewhere. Many people, besides me, didn't buy BluRay for any of several reasons. For one thing, I still don't see many high-end a/v shops carrying Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD for that matter), but they're selling $2500 SD players all day long. Believe it or not (you probably don't), but many video hobbyists agree with me and disagree with you. It seems there are likes and dislikes on both sides, and plenty of posts and documentation to justify both.

Uh, after looking over your post and the information therein, I wouldn't use the word "clueless" quite so freely when referring to those with whom you disagree.

...Now the Oppos are junk too? The Oppos which are WIDELY regarded by video enthusiasts everywhere as having some of the best DVD players on the market.

I'm really starting to think that your problem isn't with Blu-ray or Oppo DVD players at all, maybe you need to learn how to calibrate your set to get the most out of your players. Better yet, maybe you should stay away from digital all together and stick with your VHS and vinyl record players. From your comments on this thread nothing digital seems to make you happy.

[DereX888]

BD+ has not been fully cracked. You can rip to to your hard drive and play the files with PowerDVD but that's about it.

Yes, but that's just a matter of time.

Probably no one pissed enough, or persistant enough, haven't faced this obstacle yet.
Few years later someone reading old posts such as this one will be laughing at us

Pure and simple: HD-DVD was outsold and died because they did not have the movie studios onboard like BD did.

I think that sums up the argument, maldb, and makes moot any debate about which format is/was "better".

Not exactly.
Unlike any previous 'format wars' this time it was not the consumer(s) who decided and chose one over another, but the corporations.

S*ny in particular have learned its lesson from Beta failure, and they acted and responded this time better (for them).
Lengthy "market war" would have cost them way more than pulling the strings it holds in the movie business and paying off the competition now, thus effectively ending the 'war' before both side were financially involved in it too deep with no way out.
Fortunately for S*ny, HD-DVD wasn't "to be or not to be" for their competition, and the competition didn't have any influence in the movie business at all (unlike S*ny), because from hardware point I can bet that probably the standalone HD-DVD players were outselling standalone BR-DVD players at any given moment in time of their competition.

[jagabo]

BD+ has not been fully cracked. You can rip to to your hard drive and play the files with PowerDVD but that's about it.

Yes, but that's just a matter of time.

But in the tiny minds of studio execs the fact that BD+ hasn't yet been cracked looms large. They will demand it for all new releases.

[DereX888]

BD+ has not been fully cracked. You can rip to to your hard drive and play the files with PowerDVD but that's about it.

Yes, but that's just a matter of time.

But in the tiny minds of studio execs the fact that BD+ hasn't yet been cracked looms large. They will demand it for all new releases.

That's why I added:

Probably no one pissed enough, or persistant enough, haven't faced this obstacle yet.
Few years later someone reading old posts such as this one will be laughing at us smile.gif

[ejai]

I've seen some very bad HD conversions, as I stated before people are not concern about a more sharper, artifact driven image that some here speak about. The quality of a few Blu-ray movies leave much to be desired if you are concerned about quality. Why pay more for less?

The average Joe does not care about HD.