Next Generation DVDs

[gkarris]

I don't know if anyone has run this poll lately...

I was just at Best Buy and got to see the newer Blu-Ray movies playing. I think it's true, Blue Ray movies have a lot of artifacting (I think it's because they use MPEG-2 still). HD DVD does not (MPEG-4?).

Well, hey, I had to watch a copy of Stargate SG-1 I missed which I just bought off of iTunes in the higher res and on my iPod with the doc on S-Video on my projector, I think it looks better than Blu-Ray!!!

Thoughts?

[MovieCutter]

Both camps over-promised and under-delivered. On top of that, the squabbling between the two is causing the consumer to not consider either. We won't have a clear winner for quite some time, and we may even have a next-next gen DVD format or, hopefully, digital downloads will take the market right out from under Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

[Bibulous]

I think I will wait till I have a HD TV, that may be a while.

I am interested in data storage capabilities of the new disks so I hope one "wins" soon so the prices can come down and speeds go up.

[grizzlybrice]

Does anyone know of a site that has been reviewing both HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray Discs that has image captures from the transfers? I want to see it online 'cause I just do. Perhaps compared to each other and to regular DVDs?
If not... they should.

[nitynate]

WTH are you all talking about?

I use BetaMax.




Duhh.

[jhu]

bah, you kids. i still use reel-to-reel film, and that's the way i like it!

[eyemacg5]

bah, you kids. i still use reel-to-reel film, and that's the way i like it!


As in the stuff they use in the cinema/ theatre thats awesome its lots better quality than normal dvds or even HDTV :)


-jake

[Clydefrog]

I will keep my DVD thank you very much!

[gkarris]

Yea, but doesn't Apple back Blu-Ray? Doesn't Apple always back the winning format (like for the Macintosh when they adopted 3.5 inch floppies)?

[jholzner]

Yea, but doesn't Apple back Blu-Ray? Doesn't Apple always back the winning format (like for the Macintosh when they adopted 3.5 inch floppies)?

Yep, and firewire on the iPod :P

[BoyBach]

HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? I couldn't care less.

What's wrong with the normal DVD's that I use now?

[Sdashiki]

bah, you kids. i still use reel-to-reel film, and that's the way i like it!

Film is the only true high definition medium. Always will be IMO.

You can blow up film alot more than you could blow up 1080p images without loss of quality.

that said, its in all consumers best interests to WAIT for the dust to settle.

then NO ONE is left with obsolete stuff.

then again, if no one buys anything....

[~Shard~]

Yea, but doesn't Apple back Blu-Ray? Doesn't Apple always back the winning format (like for the Macintosh when they adopted 3.5 inch floppies)?

Actually, they back both standards - Apple is part of the DVD Consortium, therefore backing HD-DVD as well. And no, Apple does not always back the winning format. Remember DVD-RAM? :p ;)

If you ask me, the format war is already over - and both formats lost. I will be adopting neither. I'll just wait for HVD in a few years or something similar which really revolutionizes the industry. Blu-Ray/HD-DVD is not it. :cool:

[clayj]

Here's something I wrote about this subject on another forum... good parts are in red:

OK, for a long time I was torn between these two formats... but what I just heard yesterday has convinced me that Sony has BLOWN IT with Blu-Ray and that HD-DVD is the superior format.

Here's the skinny:

Blu-Ray does have higher video throughput rates and per-layer video storage rates than HD-DVD. BUT, Blu-Ray disc makers (i.e., movie companies) are all using the 10 year old MPEG-2 video codec, which is not as efficient as the new VC-1 codec that HD-DVD makers are using. So Blu-Ray is using an older codec that requires MORE disk space and MORE video throughput than HD-DVD to produce the same results. HD-DVD discs are all using the latest technologies, so they're using the space they have more efficiently; Blu-Ray is wasting its advantages by using older technologies.
Because HD-DVD disc makers are all using VC-1, HD-DVD movies actually do look better than Blu-Ray movies. Blu-Ray movies, since they are using MPEG-2, actually don't look much better (if at all) than standard DVDs. (Did you know that 95% of the original bits of a movie are eliminated during the authoring process? That's how good the codecs for DVDs and HD discs are... 1 terabyte of uncompressed source data is being compressed down to 8.5 GB of space.)
Right now, dual-layer HD-DVD discs (15 GB per layer x 2 layers = 30 GB per disc) are in production, and you can actually buy movies on dual-layer HD-DVD. Blu-Ray discs are all still ONE layer (25 GB per layer)... Sony can't get the dual-layer Blu-Ray discs to work.
HD-DVD discs are MUCH more scratch resistant than Blu-Ray discs, because of the construction of the discs. HD-DVD discs contain their bits further inside the disc (at least .6 mm below the surface), while Blu-Ray discs contain data a mere .1 mm inside the disc. If you scratch a Blu-Ray disc, or even get fingerprints on it, you can ruin it.
Also, because of their design, it's possible (and practical) to make hybrid DVD/HD-DVD discs, where one side of the disc is a regular DVD and the other side is an HD-DVD. This is NOT POSSIBLE with Blu-Ray.
And the HD-DVD spec includes a lot of MANDATORY technologies, such as built-in Ethernet (so your HD-DVD player can communicate with the Internet for downloads, updates, and even live connections to new disc content), persistent memory (so you can bookmark clips from HD-DVD discs), and dual video-decoders (so you can do PIP off of a single disc... the main movie running normally, with a PIP of the director giving commentary, for example). These technologies are all OPTIONAL on Blu-Ray and none of them are in use in any available or announced Blu-Ray player.
Anyway, based on this, I've decided to back HD-DVD. I'm going to wait for the HD-DVD add-on for the Xbox 360, since it's only going to cost $200 and it'll be much easier to incorporate into my home theatre system... if it works well, then I'll consider a standalone HD-DVD player when there's more choice of players on the market (right now only the two Toshiba models are available).

Go HD-DVD!

[2nyRiggz]

From what I've seen from BR and HD-DVD...I'll stick with DVD. I only saw show model players playing and I know they are not in the best of shape but I really can't see a difference between them.

DVD is here to stay...well at least until the all in one HDVDBR comes out.



Bless

[clayj]

From what I've seen from BR and HD-DVD...I'll stick with DVD. I only saw show model players playing and I know they are not in the best of shape but I really can't see a difference between them.

DVD is here to stay...well at least until the all in one HDVDBR comes out.



BlessWell, that's the other thing, isn't it? So many standard DVD players (including the Xbox 360, when the Fall Dashboard Update comes out) can do upconversion of standard DVDs to 720p, 1080i, or even (in the case of the 360) 1080p... and so many DVDs have been remastered lately that the difference in image quality between an upconverted DVD and an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movie is quite small.

But I think it's indisputable at this point that if you compare the HD-DVD version of a movie with the Blu-Ray version, the HD-DVD version ALWAYS looks better due to consistent use of VC-1. The Blu-Ray side are cheaping out by using MPEG-2 and it's hurting them.

[XNine]

Wow, Clay. Talk about the most biased comparison I've ever read.

You hilight every little thing you don't like about BR, yet the fact that HD DVD having to need ETHERNET support (which is more than likely used for piracy rather than "updates") isn't in red? :rolleyes:

I don't care which wins, I just want one format already.

[~Shard~]

Wow, Clay. Talk about the most biased comparison I've ever read.

Sounds like he's just stating proven facts regarding the codecs, thickness, etc. Facts are the facts, they don't lie. Show me similar facts (detrimental or otherwise) pertaining to HD-DVD and I'll take those into consideration as well, but for now, I don't see anything wrong with this information - I found it informative. If similar negative aspects of HD-DVD exist, I'd like to read about those too, but I haven't come across any as of yet. If you have any, please provide some links, I'd love to read them as well. :)

[NJuul]

Here's something I wrote about this subject on another forum... good parts are in red:

OK, for a long time I was torn between these two formats... but what I just heard yesterday has convinced me that Sony has BLOWN IT with Blu-Ray and that HD-DVD is the superior format.

Here's the skinny:

Blu-Ray does have higher video throughput rates and per-layer video storage rates than HD-DVD. BUT, Blu-Ray disc makers (i.e., movie companies) are all using the 10 year old MPEG-2 video codec, which is not as efficient as the new VC-1 codec that HD-DVD makers are using. So Blu-Ray is using an older codec that requires MORE disk space and MORE video throughput than HD-DVD to produce the same results. HD-DVD discs are all using the latest technologies, so they're using the space they have more efficiently; Blu-Ray is wasting its advantages by using older technologies.
Because HD-DVD disc makers are all using VC-1, HD-DVD movies actually do look better than Blu-Ray movies. Blu-Ray movies, since they are using MPEG-2, actually don't look much better (if at all) than standard DVDs. (Did you know that 95% of the original bits of a movie are eliminated during the authoring process? That's how good the codecs for DVDs and HD discs are... 1 terabyte of uncompressed source data is being compressed down to 8.5 GB of space.)
Right now, dual-layer HD-DVD discs (15 GB per layer x 2 layers = 30 GB per disc) are in production, and you can actually buy movies on dual-layer HD-DVD. Blu-Ray discs are all still ONE layer (25 GB per layer)... Sony can't get the dual-layer Blu-Ray discs to work.
HD-DVD discs are MUCH more scratch resistant than Blu-Ray discs, because of the construction of the discs. HD-DVD discs contain their bits further inside the disc (at least .6 mm below the surface), while Blu-Ray discs contain data a mere .1 mm inside the disc. If you scratch a Blu-Ray disc, or even get fingerprints on it, you can ruin it.
Also, because of their design, it's possible (and practical) to make hybrid DVD/HD-DVD discs, where one side of the disc is a regular DVD and the other side is an HD-DVD. This is NOT POSSIBLE with Blu-Ray.
And the HD-DVD spec includes a lot of MANDATORY technologies, such as built-in Ethernet (so your HD-DVD player can communicate with the Internet for downloads, updates, and even live connections to new disc content), persistent memory (so you can bookmark clips from HD-DVD discs), and dual video-decoders (so you can do PIP off of a single disc... the main movie running normally, with a PIP of the director giving commentary, for example). These technologies are all OPTIONAL on Blu-Ray and none of them are in use in any available or announced Blu-Ray player.
Anyway, based on this, I've decided to back HD-DVD. I'm going to wait for the HD-DVD add-on for the Xbox 360, since it's only going to cost $200 and it'll be much easier to incorporate into my home theatre system... if it works well, then I'll consider a standalone HD-DVD player when there's more choice of players on the market (right now only the two Toshiba models are available).

Go HD-DVD!


Nice, except that everything in red is wrong according to the wikipedia links on HD-DVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD-DVD) and Blu-Ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray).

[~Shard~]

Nice, except that everything in red is wrong according to the wikipedia links on HD-DVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD-DVD) and Blu-Ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray).

Thanks for the links, this is the kind of information I was talking about above! Very interesting - I love reading up on this kind of stuff.... :)

[clayj]

Wow, Clay. Talk about the most biased comparison I've ever read.

You hilight every little thing you don't like about BR, yet the fact that HD DVD having to need ETHERNET support (which is more than likely used for piracy rather than "updates") isn't in red? :rolleyes:

I don't care which wins, I just want one format already.Wow, Oni. I know you're a PS3 fanboy, but seriously...

As Shard noted, everything I wrote is FACTS. HD-DVD includes Ethernet support (in the form of Ethernet ports on the players), but it is not required for a disc maker to use it. It's there to allow for cool features. The Blu-Ray spec doesn't include Ethernet as an option, and no Blu-Ray player to date includes Ethernet. The FACTS are that Sony has some cool advantages (higher disc capacity and video throughput), but to date these advantages are being totally WASTED because of stupidity at both Sony and the movie studios. The folks who are implementing HD-DVD are doing it right.

Yes, I too want a single format. I hate that we have two HD formats... if there'd been ONE format, I'd've gotten an HD disc player and movies the first day they were released, just as I did with DVD.

Nice, except that everything in red is wrong according to the wikipedia links on HD-DVD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD-DVD) and Blu-Ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray).Hmm. Looks like things may have changed a bit since I first wrote what I wrote.

Doesn't change the fact that Blu-Ray movies look like crap when compared to HD-DVD movies.

[bembol]

iHD DVD! LOL

Only supported by 3 Studios and the Titles that are available/coming are Unbelievable! Not the brightest release but the Reference A/V Quality & New U-Control, exclusive to HD DVD by Universal take it to the next level!

I currently have 21 HD DVD's to date and will have 40+ by Christmas!

I don't know what Sony/Blur-ray is doing, where is Fox/Disney? MPEG-2 on a $1,200 CAN player is a joke...I borrowed the Samsung Blur-ray and just couldn't believe it!

Also, one of the Toshiba's advantages that Bur-ray can't touch is, Upconverting DVD's...I'm watching X3: The Last Stand. LOL

[gkarris]

Wow, I went online to see the pros and cons of each format. When someone posts a pro/con of one system, they post the rebuttle of it on the other....

Like, I heard that Blu-Ray only has MPEG-2 right now, but it is capable of MPEG-4 and studios backing both formats will start releasing Bluray in MPEG-4 since they have to encode the movie in that for HD-DVD anyways.... what about the current Bluray titles?

I heard that Sony does have the dual layer Blurays available, and hybrid DVD/BD available also...

I saw a post of a guy online who actually hooked up his Samsung to a massive HP 60"(?) monitor that actually takes 1080p/24 scan signal (I guess a lot of TVs will take only 1080i and will upscale it to 1080p inside the TV) and he says Bluray is great! Do people actually have this sort of monitor?

Then, there's this whole 1080p/24 discs and if you want 1080p/60 Bluray has to take 1080p/24 go to 1080i/60 then to 1080p/60... what?

Then, I heard that the HD-DVD players if you have a 720p set that the player will take a 1080i disc, down it to 480p, then up it to 720p. They recommend to make the player output 1080i and have your set take it down to 720p (which my projector won't do, it just takes any signal you give it and shows that).

Wow, I'm now sooooo confused, I'm going to watch my Laserdiscs and Betamax for a while.....

[ReanimationLP]

Blu-Ray with MPEG-2 does have a lot of artifacting compared to HD-DVD. :/ And this is on a 1080p Sony HD display using the HDMI outputs.

Wee. 1500 posts. ^-^

[LastLine]

Smart money says HD-DVD. Why? Who wants a player and media run by a monopoly such as Sony?

[gkarris]

Smart money says HD-DVD. Why? Who wants a player and media run by a monopoly such as Sony?

Back in my day - between Laserdisc, CED, Beta, and VHS, VHS was the cheapest, and it won out....
(CED I think was a bit cheaper but you couldn't record).

Looks like HD-DVD is destined to be the winner....

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I'm going to wait until the dust settles.

Don't see myself trying to replace a medium DVD collection any time soon, and as long as I don't have a HDTV replacing the old DVD player makes no sense whatsoever, and even whenever I get myself a HD ready (as they're called here) flat screen TV, I will probably still be more than satisfied with DVD quality for a while...

...and by then the dust should have settled... ;)

[~Shard~]

Neither format impresses me. This is not like the move from VHS to DVD, or cassette tape to audio CD. I just don't see a big enough improvement to warrant me adopting either technology. Consumers jumped on board when CDs were released back in 1982 because the format offered not only a new digital media but also a way to instantly access tracks across an entire "album". Convenience, not technology, drove this format to almost instant consumer adoption. Fast forward a bit to 1997 when the first DVD player was released. Again, convenience, not technology, drove people to the market en masse. Unlike VHS tapes, the new DVD format was smaller, easily navigated and would not wear down over time like existing tape-based formats. Hell, even the concept of a shiny plastic disc was cool!

Plus, what do the new high definition DVD formats really offer consumers over DVD? Technology and more storage. Is this enough? I'd say no. Consumers, most of whom rarely know how to properly configure their players or home theater systems, are perfectly content with their current DVD players (and indeed some have just jumped on board to DVD in the last several years). While the potential for more extras and alternate endings exists due to increased storage on the new media, there isn't really a compelling reason for consumers to migrate over to the new high definition DVD formats in large numbers the way I see it.

[Zwhaler]

WTH are you all talking about?

I use BetaMax.




Duhh.

Haha I remember those days...

[ksz]

I don't know how the format war is going to play out, but right now the advantage lies with HD-DVD. A recent example of a lose-lose outcome from a format war is SACD versus DVD-A. Both are essentially dead despite the availability of universal players. This was probably due to the lack of popular titles, lack of simultaneous release of new titles, and the general market trend towards downloaded music.

However, I purchased HD-DVD earlier this year and now have about 30 titles. At screen sizes smaller than 50 inches, I suspect high-def isn't going to provide a significant and patently obvious improvement in picture quality, but at projection sizes of 70 inches and higher (such as my 120-inch front projection screen), the difference is night and day. All those extra pixels of real information fill up the screen with a smooth and stunning picture.

I am enjoying HD-DVD so much because the difference in picture quality is simply that obvious. The difference in sound quality between a well-recorded CD and SACD/DVD-A was much less apparent.

[steamboat26]

I think that blu ray is more promising but so far, their movie selection sucks.
I will wait until a clear winner is chosen, but i am betting that HD-DVD will win.

[Cube54]

I voted for 'Blu-ray' and I don't care which format wins the movie war.

Why Blu-ray?? Data Capacity ->>>>car mp3 player anyone??

The dual-layer version of Blu-ray (writer) holds about 48 gb verse about 32gb for hd-dvd

Imagine slipping in your fav. Blu-ray music dvd & then driving to & from work for a whole year and not hearing the same song twice. :D

[Chundles]

Up-converting DVD player for me, I'll wait and see how this whole HD malarkey turns out.

[srobert]

Looks like consumers are taking all the flak for now.

I've seen some TV commercials that already are stating "Now on HD DVD" or "Now for Blu-Ray". It seems that right now, no matter which format you choose, you'll end up missing out on some of your favorite titles that are only available for the opposing format. :-/

e.g.:
Batman Begins (HD DVD only for now. Not Blu-Ray)
The Italian Job (Blu-ray only for now. Not HD DVD)
The list could go on and on.

It won't be fun waiting years for one of the format to kick the bucket before I can get all my favorites in a single format… and that is assuming that one of the two really dies.

I was expecting more studios to go "bi" from the start. Maybe it's too expensive.

Anybody knows of a site that lists all exclusives for both Blu-Ray and HD DVD?

[mkrishnan]

I'm going to ignore for now, and possibly ultimately go with downloads, depending on how the tech works. Truth is I very, very rarely watch DVDs. My viewing is almost all either DVR'd television or movie theaters. I buy maybe one DVD a year, and maybe rent one or two more. And then every few years I go on a viewing binge....

[llahsram]

Anybody knows of a site that lists all exclusives for both Blu-Ray and HD DVD?

It doesn't do a side-by-side comparison, but you can find a list of upcoming HD-DVD and Blu-Ray titles from the various studios on the High-Definition Release List (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/hdformats/highdefreleases.html) at The Digital Bits.

[ebow]

I thought this was going to be a thread about Star Trek: The Next Generation DVDs. :( I guess I didn't see what forum it's in since I loaded the thread from the MacRumors homepage.

I used to know gobs of specs about new & upcoming formats (at least gobs compared to most joe-consumers) but I've mostly given up on keeping up. I'm not even going to upgrade my 8 year old TV to HD until either (a) I have to (it breaks) or (b) good HD sets move into the SD price range. So as I voted, DVD is good enough for me, thanks.

[srobert]

Ok. I compiled my own list out of curiosity. Thought I would share my observations with you.

As of October 17, 2006:
There are at least 77 HD DVD movies available (Excluded 3 music concerts)
There are at least 59 Blu-Ray movies available (Excluded 7 music concerts)
26 titles are availble for both formats (18 Warner Bros and 8 Paramount)
Only Warner Bros and Paramount make titles for both formats
Warner Bros and Paramount have more titles available as HD DVD than Blu-Ray
Universal Studios distribute to HD DVD only so far (32 titles)
Sony Pictures Entertainment distribute to Blu-Ray only so far (19 titles)
Lionsgate distribute to Blu-Ray only so far (9 titles)
MGM distribute to Blu-Ray only so far (3 titles)
Buena Vista distribute to Blu-Ray only so far (4 titles)

List of Warner Bros movies available for both Blu-Ray and HD DVD

16 Blocks
Blazing Saddles
Corpse Bride
Firewall
Fugitive (The)
Full Metal Jacket
Good Night, and Good Luck.
House of Wax
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Lake House (The)
Lethal Weapon
Lethal Weapon 2
Rumor Has It...
Space Cowboys
Swordfish
Syriana
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Training Day

List of Paramount movies available for both Blu-Ray and HD DVD

Æon Flux
Four Brothers
Italian Job (The)
Lara Croft: Tomb Raider
Sahara
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Sleepy Hollow
U2: Rattle and Hum

Sources:

Wikipedia: List of HD DVD releases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HD_DVD_Releases)
Wikipeida: List of Blu-ray releases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Blu-ray_releases)

[~Shard~]

I'm not even going to upgrade my 8 year old TV to HD until either (a) I have to (it breaks) or (b) good HD sets move into the SD price range.

January 1, 2009 it is then! :p ;) :D

[MarkCollette]

Part of the problem with any high definition disk format is that you're still constrained by the fact that HD televisions are a balkanised market. Will the television take in 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p? What format will the player output? What version will the disk be encoded in? Which one will do the conversion, and will it do it optimally, or crappily?

I have way more faith that a downloaded video that's non-interlaced will play as well as possible right on my computer screen.

[gkarris]

Part of the problem with any high definition disk format is that you're still constrained by the fact that HD televisions are a balkanised market. Will the television take in 480p, 720p, 1080i, 1080p? What format will the player output? What version will the disk be encoded in? Which one will do the conversion, and will it do it optimally, or crappily?

I have way more faith that a downloaded video that's non-interlaced will play as well as possible right on my computer screen.

I finally have to report that I think there's a winner and a looser:

Winner: The large corporations!!!
Looser: The consumer!

I went out last night to shop around for stuff and in preparation for the holidays, dealers are putting up high-def displays.

There's a lot of ranting and raving on how bad Bluray looks, but last night I saw it in all its stunning glory: A Panasonic Bluray player ($1200) on a Pioneer Elite LCD Display ($8,000) with a VC-1 encoded movie. Wicked expensive. But, I saw HD discs for the first time on a display that can handle it (1920x1080 in 1080p). I guess you can get more inexpensive 1920x1080 displays (around $2000).

But, the popular thing to buy now is the 1024x768 displays. I actually saw in a store 2 Samsung LCD displays, one 720p, the other 1080p, and with a 1080i signal (Discovery HD Channel), the 720p is "grainy".

Then, when someone hooks up a HD-DVD or Bluray to it, they get crap.... now they learn they have to go out and buy a better display. Then there's this whole HDMI thing (like my projector has component inputs).

The large corporations are laughing to the bank...

I think the future will be in DVD quality still delivered in DVD format for those who like to collect, and downloadable for those who want to play movies on an iPod/iTV/computer....

[backsidetailsli]

definelty going to wait for the dust to settle. i dont wanna waste any money on something thats not going anywhere

[MarkCollette]

I wonder what the difference in quality would be between:

A. An existing DVD encoded in MPEG2 at x bitrate

B. A DVD disk, but encoded in H.264 at x bitrate (not transcoded from the DVD, but rather directly encoded from masters)