Blu-ray Macs: Early 2007? [Archive]

MacRumors

Nov 21, 2006, 06:24 PM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

ThinkSecret believes that Apple will start to receive Blu-ray drives from Sony in February. While the site has previously reported that Apple may also back rival format HD-DVD (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061017094834.shtml), this information perhaps pegs Blu-ray equipped Mac Pros early next year.

The information is tempered by the fact that ThinkSecret has not been extremely accurate in recent history. In addition, AppleInsider currently believes that the Mac Pro is due to receive an update before the end of the year (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/10/20061025231946.shtml), which would make an early-2007 update to the Mac Pro 3 updates in half a year, which is an unusually fast sustained-pace for pro-system upgrades.

While the possibility certainly exists that Apple could introduce Blu-ray functionality in a system other than the Mac Pro first, and indeed ThinkSecret leaves that door open by not specifying which Mac would start shipping with the drives first, most educated speculation points to Apple's pro systems being the first to benefit (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060713232130.shtml) from the upgrade.

LastLine

Nov 21, 2006, 06:30 PM

Hmm....I say no - I don't like the idea of Apple jumping on either format this fast...

Spanky Deluxe

Nov 21, 2006, 07:07 PM

I couldn't care either way. It'll be a CTO if they do indeed add them. I'd rather wait for the media wars to subside or wait for Hybrid Blu Ray/HD-DVD drives to become available at a reasonable price before I bother with this stuff. I mean the last few disks I've burned have been Boot Camp install disks! I can't remember the last time I burnt a DVD, my back of 25 still sits there unused!

KindredMAC

Nov 21, 2006, 07:07 PM

Delicious-Apple

Nov 21, 2006, 07:19 PM

It could be a simple BTO option (for the 2G Mac Pro including new 8-Core Model) ;)

Eidorian

Nov 21, 2006, 07:27 PM

*buys a Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive and hacks it for OS X* :rolleyes:

sixstorm

Nov 21, 2006, 07:28 PM

Blu-Ray = HUGE waste of time . . . unless you are looking at JUST storage. If you are looking for movie playback, HD-DVD is the way to go.

Rocketman

Nov 21, 2006, 07:41 PM

Steve loves the iMac. I predict the 24" iMac will ship with Blu-Ray first.

I could be right!

BTO!

Rocketman

maxp1

Nov 21, 2006, 07:51 PM

Isn't Sony having a supply problem with it's blue diodes? I can't imagine that they would divert any of their small supply away from manufacturing PS3s and toward a computer manufacturer who doesn't benefit them.

Rocketman

Nov 21, 2006, 07:51 PM

This whole subject raises a certain polarization occuring in society right now. No, not democrat vs. republican, but bandwidth available vs. bandwidth starved.

If you have bandwidth, you can store your content on servers and local discs.

If not, you are relegated to CD's and DVD's and other forms of sneakerware and mail-ware.

Hughesnet has taken a big step to help remote but financially solvent folks, but the poor and remote remain screwed.

Ever tried a software update without broadband???

Rocketman

Quboid

Nov 21, 2006, 07:55 PM

n't that raise the already high price of apple computers. I say there's no need and thats too fast of an upgrade for my liking.

jholzner

Nov 21, 2006, 08:00 PM

If you are looking for movie playback, HD-DVD is the way to go.

Why? Care to explain? They are both viable formats and blu-ray has more storage.

swingerofbirch

Nov 21, 2006, 08:11 PM

Mark my words: iTV will be the first Apple product to ship with blu-ray.

GregA

Nov 21, 2006, 08:25 PM

Mark my words: iTV will be the first Apple product to ship with blu-ray.Damn, exactly what I was wondering. You beat me.

iTV will be great, I'm very interested in it. It has 2 pieces lacking IMO - but both of these would increase the cost significantly, and I see the value of a cheap device. Perhaps a higher end version could:
1) Play DVDs. And next year people will start looking at high definition more seriously... so why not give it to them.
2) Record TV. You need a receiver (FTA? Cable? Sat?) and hard disk though.

I guess it's possible that an iTV-Pro (bad name) could be a hybrid of MacMini + BluRay + iTV.

longofest

Nov 21, 2006, 09:08 PM

I guess it's possible that an iTV-Pro (bad name) could be a hybrid of MacMini + BluRay + iTV.

what do you think the price tag on that would be??? I'm guessing you're talking a solid $999 or more for that, which is the definition of a premium product. I'm not so certain how well it would do...

BlueRevolution

Nov 21, 2006, 10:03 PM

Wishful thinking. I wish. :)

mahonmeister

Nov 21, 2006, 11:25 PM

Mark my words: iTV will be the first Apple product to ship with blu-ray.

Huh? Are you being sarcastic?

Lets get some HD DVD drives too. Just because Blu-ray has a huge capacity doesn't mean it is the best for all situations.

scottlinux

Nov 22, 2006, 12:18 AM

Blu-Ray = HUGE waste of time . . . unless you are looking at JUST storage. If you are looking for movie playback, HD-DVD is the way to go.

Why do you say that? Blu-Ray has more space than HD-DVD. I think more people buy into HD-DVD because it has a better sounding name.

Blu-ray
25GB (single-layer)
50GB (dual-layer)

HD-DVD
15GB (single-layer)
30GB (dual-layer)

So it is not a waste of time. I take it you do not work in digital video or audio. I could easily use a Blu-ray drive. I currently have audio projects split across several DL-DVDs to back them up.

I could care less about HD-DVD or Blu-ray movies, personally. And you need a HDCP video card to playback movies.

The Mac Pros clearly have two optical drive bays. We knew this was coming. (Duh.) There is a special sata connector on the logic board that is unused and undocumented at the moment. Most think it is for the new blu-ray drives.

The one thing missing in this story is the price. The blu-ray burners are currently $700-$1000. Yee-ouch!

thejadedmonkey

Nov 22, 2006, 12:42 AM

The one thing missing in this story is the price. The blu-ray burners are currently $700-$1000. Yee-ouch!

And since when has price ever stopped Apple from doing something?

iEric

Nov 22, 2006, 12:48 AM

LOL that's pretty funny considering I don't even burn DL DVDs yet and they're going to start putting Blu-ray in. (that is if the rumor is true) even if it's not, it's still funny to me.

twoodcc

Nov 22, 2006, 01:08 AM

*buys a Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive and hacks it for OS X* :rolleyes:

now there's an idea :)

but i think this is good for Apple. whatever they do, i'm sure it'll be the right decision

Eidorian

Nov 22, 2006, 01:16 AM

now there's an idea :)

but i think this is good for Apple. whatever they do, i'm sure it'll be the right decisionWell they've gotten it to play DVD's on OS X. :D

No we just need playback software and it should work just fine for HD-DVD.

caliguy

Nov 22, 2006, 01:39 AM

I like the idea of Blu-ray more. It just seems more of a Blu-ray/HD DVD and Apple/Microsoft thing. I don't know.. it sounds better I guess :).

I'm so excited for MacWorld. There's a lot to be told.

spicyapple

Nov 22, 2006, 01:43 AM

Here's to hoping they also release an update to iDVD (and DVDSP) so I'm able to burn HDV movies to Blu-ray, otherwise, I see no point of having BR drives. :)

yankeedoodle

Nov 22, 2006, 02:00 AM

And since when has price ever stopped Apple from doing something?

Apple ususally wants to rock the industry. When Apple was first to introduced the SuperDrive (DVD-R) in 2001 (Steve: "We decided to start 2001 with a bang!") it did not just put the drive into the Mac's case (like everybody else would have done), they also introduced iDVD -- a breakthrough application concerning functionality, quality and ease of use at that time.

Video-BluRay and -HD-DVD discs are not just blown-up DVDs, they also feature a whole new menu layer that supports a kind of java and offers much more functionality than the menus in a conventional DVD. That does however mean that you will need a completely new software to author BluRay (or HD-DVD) discs. And I am sure that Apple is about to come up with exactly such a software -- be it called iDVD HD (!) or iDVD Blu (!) or whatever name seems to be appropriate -- and that Apple will introduce it together with the drive. That's the Apple way (that we all love so much): not just a naked device, but a complete solution from iMovie HD (caputres HD video) to iDVD HD. (The same of course will be true for the professional software line Final Cut HD and "DVDStudio HD".)

Eidorian

Nov 22, 2006, 02:07 AM

Apple ususally wants to rock the industry. When Apple was first to introduced the SuperDrive (DVD-R) in 2001 (Steve: "We decided to start 2001 with a bang!") it did not just put the drive into the Mac's case (like everybody else would have done), they also introduced iDVD -- a breakthrough application concerning functionality, quality and ease of use at that time. I'll agree that killer hardware needs good killer software to back it up. iDVD greatly complemented the SuperDrives.

Video-BluRay and -HD-DVD discs are not just blown-up DVDs, they also feature a whole new menu layer that supports a kind of java and offers much more functionality than the menus in a conventional DVD. Interactivity escapes me on discs. Really are you going to sit through it or do you just want to watch video?

Balli

Nov 22, 2006, 03:35 AM

Why not? Apple could do like they always do and have some insane combo drive out before everyone else...

How about an Ultra Drive???? It could burn/play CD's, DVD's, BRD's and HD DVD's!

Now that would be one sweet piece of machinery!

I don't see any real reason a laser couldn't be made that would read and write to both next gen medias.

I would be surprised if Apple offered just offered a Blue-Ray drive. They are either going to offer a hybrid drive (which I hope they do), or the are going to offer both Blue-Ray and HD-DVD as build to order options, and let the public decide.

Furze

Nov 22, 2006, 03:53 AM

I'd be very surprised if there's blu-ray in the next six months. Sony has delayed release of the PS3 in the UK until March, when it hopes to have enough diodes. Even then they probably won't have enough to barely satisfy to market, even at £400 each! If Apple did release blu-ray macs, I can't see it being across the entire range. Cost, availability and market acceptance doesn't seem to be there yet.

zv470

Nov 22, 2006, 04:26 AM

GregA

Nov 22, 2006, 05:02 AM

what do you think the price tag on that would be??? I'm guessing you're talking a solid $999 or more for that, which is the definition of a premium product. I'm not so certain how well it would do...If a MacMini had a BluRay drive... I'm sure it'd be $1000 or more. Most BluRay players cost that.

Rather than think "what would an iTV cost if it added a BluRay?".... perhaps the question is "can Apple make the best BluRay player out there, and integrate it with iTunes?"

Dagless

Nov 22, 2006, 05:27 AM

I don't think I'd buy a Mac for a long time then! I'm not putting my good money down on a format that may not be the dominant one.

GregA

Nov 22, 2006, 06:12 AM

I don't think I'd buy a Mac for a long time then! I'm not putting my good money down on a format that may not be the dominant one.I won't be buying a BluRay player yet either... then again, I don't have a high-definition screen... so why would I bother? And I agree I'd rather wait till the format wars finish.

However... I still think the introduction of these new players is a great opportunity for Apple to get into the living room as high end users buy in.

I'd pay a _small_ amount extra now for an iTV that plays DVDs too.

2ndPath

Nov 22, 2006, 06:27 AM

Well... to me it doesn't make sence to put HD drivers (be they Bluray or HD DVD) exclusively into Mac Pros. HD content is for the masses... It shouldn't be a high-end only feature... you want everyone to be able to play HD... so they have to re-buy their DVD collections as HD. :P ...well you do! ;)

Right now Bluray (and HD DVD?) drives are too expensive to be included in Macs across all lines. When Apple introduced the Super Drive, drives for reading DVDs were included in most macs already and stand-alone DVD-players were common. So it was reasonable to offer the possibility of authoring DVDs with a pro machine. Today the Bluray writers are coming without a significant installed base of Bluray readers. Therefore an introduction of a Bluray Drive into a Mac Pro makes less sense.

On the one hand all Mac Pros are build to order, which makes it easy for Apple to offer a Bluray drive as an option for those few who want it and are willing to pay today's high prices. On the other hand, these drives can easily be installed by the user and thus it is not really necessary for Apple to offer it right away.

To those who were suggesting iTV as a possible machine with a Bluray drive: The prototype didn't include one, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the final machine won't. However the price of Bluray drives alone is much higher than the announced price for iTV of $300.

GregA

Nov 22, 2006, 06:34 AM

To those who were suggesting iTV as a possible machine with a Bluray drive: The prototype didn't include one, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the final machine won't. However the price of Bluray drives alone is much higher than the announced price for iTV of $300.
I don't think anyone suggested iTV adding Bluray by default. Though it was suggested that a MacMini might see Bluray before MacPros.

Optional Bluray is far more interesting.

4np

Nov 22, 2006, 06:52 AM

Please... in the MacBook Pro revision... :) Along with a better GPU

hvfsl

Nov 22, 2006, 07:28 AM

Mark my words: iTV will be the first Apple product to ship with blu-ray.

I don't think it will ship with a BluRay drive, but you will be able to stream your BluRay movies (or HD-DVD movies if Apple supports the drive) from your Mac to the iTV.

lorductape

Nov 22, 2006, 07:45 AM

Damn, exactly what I was wondering. You beat me.

iTV will be great, I'm very interested in it. It has 2 pieces lacking IMO - but both of these would increase the cost significantly, and I see the value of a cheap device. Perhaps a higher end version could:
1) Play DVDs. And next year people will start looking at high definition more seriously... so why not give it to them.
2) Record TV. You need a receiver (FTA? Cable? Sat?) and hard disk though.

I guess it's possible that an iTV-Pro (bad name) could be a hybrid of MacMini + BluRay + iTV.

2. it would NOT need a hard drive, it would record straight to your mac.

and yes, I do like the idea of iTV also being a DVD player.

I also think that apple should wait to send blu-ray with MACS until HDDVD/bluray flares down, and we know who won... although I'm confident it will be bluray. however, they should go ahead with bluray in iTV, it would be much less of an investment to replace a bluray drive to an HDDVD drive when shipping if it's between a less expensive product like iTV. if they had to in macs, it would be an excuse for a new line of macs, which is something apple has been releasing way too often latley.

I don't think anyone suggested iTV adding Bluray by default. Though it was suggested that a MacMini might see Bluray before MacPros.

Optional Bluray is far more interesting.

I think bluray should be optional in the mac, but with the iTV, bluray should not be optional(instead be the standard), but a DVD drive should be optional. if the buyer wants a dvd drive, they get bluray. no other options.

Rocketman

Nov 22, 2006, 08:26 AM

I won't be buying a BluRay player yet either... then again, I don't have a high-definition screen... so why would I bother? And I agree I'd rather wait till the format wars finish.

However... I still think the introduction of these new players is a great opportunity for Apple to get into the living room as high end users buy in.

I'd pay a _small_ amount extra now for an iTV that plays DVDs too.

I think the end to end solution approach of Apple will not end at blu-ray software.

I imagine 2 new HD-TV displays with iTV built in to them and hub software for your mac for "offline storage" ala air tunes.

New content and features on iTunes supporting overnight downloading of HD content, etc.

I downloaded a video yesterday. 72.6Mb for 8.4 SECONDS of 1024x560 pixels image at 24 fps! It took several minutes on a 3Mb connection!

Content delivery is going to require innovative thinking in a bandwidth crippled world.

Rocketman

Kuska

Nov 22, 2006, 08:54 AM

May be way off here, do optical drives work with Time Machine? If so I'd imagine the bigger capacity could be quite useful ?

bigandy

Nov 22, 2006, 09:10 AM

I would be surprised if Apple offered just offered a Blue-Ray drive. They are either going to offer a hybrid drive (which I hope they do), or the are going to offer both Blue-Ray and HD-DVD as build to order options, and let the public decide.

I don't. HD-DVD is just awful compared to Blu Ray.

scottlinux

Nov 22, 2006, 11:11 AM

I don't think anyone suggested iTV adding Bluray by default. Though it was suggested that a MacMini might see Bluray before MacPros.

Optional Bluray is far more interesting.

For MacMini and iTV, there could be a blu-ray drive that would fit. I think Sony makes a blu-ray equipped notebook.

But I think yes the Mac Pros will have a Blu-ray burner soon. For storage.
For anyone who doubts this, just look at the front of the case. There are two optical drive bays.

A Mac Pro could possibly play back blu-ray movies IF there is a Mac HDCP video card installed, and IF there is any software for playback. Those are two big 'IFs' right now.

AND then you'd have to have a proper display:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060214-6177.html

So there are a lot of 'ifs' that have to happen to enjoy watching blu-ray movies on your Mac. But as a storage device, the technology is ready right now.

Rocketman

Nov 22, 2006, 11:38 AM

A Mac Pro could possibly play back blu-ray movies IF there is a Mac HDCP video card installed, and IF there is any software for playback. Those are two big 'IFs' right now.

AND then you'd have to have a proper display

So there are a lot of 'ifs' that have to happen to enjoy watching blu-ray movies on your Mac. But as a storage device, the technology is ready right now.

Doesn't an iMac 24 already meet all those "ifs"? It has an HDTV format display, presumably with graphics support to play to it. The remainder is content I/O. Right?

Rocketman

GFLPraxis

Nov 22, 2006, 12:38 PM

I don't. HD-DVD is just awful compared to Blu Ray.

Is this Blu-ray fanboyism just because Apple said they'd back it? (They're also backing HD-DVD, just haven't said much about it)

HD-DVD uses the same manufacturing process and is VASTLY cheaper to produce, while still having 60% of the capacity of the much more expensive format. Note how HD-DVD drives cost have as much as Blu-ray drives. HD-DVD media costs a fraction of Blu-ray media in production costs. And HD-DVD is harder to scratch.

And Blu-ray is partially controlled by Sony, who has a terrible track record with trying to control formats.

"just awful" is an overstatement.

Eidorian

Nov 22, 2006, 12:42 PM

Is this Blu-ray fanboyism just because Apple said they'd back it? (They're also backing HD-DVD, just haven't said much about it)I wonder this as well. There seems to be a lot of Blu-Ray fans just because Apple "said" they'd back it. I still like my hacking the Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive idea for now.

ChrisA

Nov 22, 2006, 01:23 PM

Blu-Ray = HUGE waste of time . . . unless you are looking at JUST storage. If you are looking for movie playback, HD-DVD is the way to go.

We are talking about a Mac Pro here. It's unreasonable to use a Mac Pro as a movie player. Any Blue Ray disk drive would be used by people who are creating HD content. Today, this might even by some guy who shoots wedding videos and wants to give the couple a Blue Ray disk. It's perfectly reasonable for Apple to get these drives and HD-DVD drives out ASAP. People with HD camera need these.

Yes, the average web surfer has little justification for a (likely) very expensive DVD burner.

bigandy

Nov 22, 2006, 02:35 PM

Is this Blu-ray fanboyism just because Apple said they'd back it? (They're also backing HD-DVD, just haven't said much about it)

HD-DVD uses the same manufacturing process and is VASTLY cheaper to produce, while still having 60% of the capacity of the much more expensive format. Note how HD-DVD drives cost have as much as Blu-ray drives. HD-DVD media costs a fraction of Blu-ray media in production costs. And HD-DVD is harder to scratch.

And Blu-ray is partially controlled by Sony, who has a terrible track record with trying to control formats.

"just awful" is an overstatement.

I know my way around the formats, and I knew this before Apple put their name by one.

I want BluRay to succeed because it's technically the superior product.

Blu Ray was designed, from the start, to be rewritable - RW HDDVD discs haven't as high a capacity as the production discs - not the case with BR: it can hold 50Gb per disc, period.

That said, TDK has developed a 200Gb writable BR disc - holding a rather impressive 33Gb per layer (6 layers = 200Gb).

I think HD-DVD is lagging behind somewhat.

Maybe this "Blu Ray fanboyism" is indeed, from the majority, because Apple chose to support it first - but in my case, it certainly isn't. and I don't appreciate being labelled with the potential "w00t omg!!!!1!1!!!!! blu ray1!!!!!11!" types.

Eidorian

Nov 22, 2006, 02:42 PM

I know my way around the formats, and I knew this before Apple put their name by one.

I want BluRay to succeed because it's technically the superior product.

Blu Ray was designed, from the start, to be rewritable - RW HDDVD discs haven't as high a capacity as the production discs - not the case with BR: it can hold 50Gb per disc, period.

That said, TDK has developed a 200Gb writable BR disc - holding a rather impressive 33Gb per layer (6 layers = 200Gb).

I think HD-DVD is lagging behind somewhat.

Maybe this "Blu Ray fanboyism" is indeed, from the majority, because Apple chose to support it first - but in my case, it certainly isn't. and I don't appreciate being labelled with the potential "w00t omg!!!!1!1!!!!! blu ray1!!!!!11!" types.1. Hidden text is white not silver.
2. I know of Blu-Ray's magical 200 GB discs. Enjoy paying the price and burning that experimental bugger.
3. HD-DVD can triple layer to 45 GB.

DavidLeblond

Nov 22, 2006, 02:59 PM

May be way off here, do optical drives work with Time Machine? If so I'd imagine the bigger capacity could be quite useful ?

Bigger capacity drives would be perfect for backup, but not for Time Machine. Unless you wanted to use 1 disc per day and never wanted to restore an intermediate version. ;)

Reaver

Nov 22, 2006, 03:52 PM

I know my way around the formats, and I knew this before Apple put their name by one.

I want BluRay to succeed because it's technically the superior product.

Blu Ray was designed, from the start, to be rewritable - RW HDDVD discs haven't as high a capacity as the production discs - not the case with BR: it can hold 50Gb per disc, period.COLOR]

last time I heard blu-ray was still using the Mpeg2 codec for encoding and decoding there media as for HD-DVD using a more advanced codec with far more superior video quality. for a person who says he knows his way around the formats and says that blu-Ray is the technically superior product it wouldnt seem so in this case. just because you can cram 50gigs of media onto a dual layer disc doesnt always mean you have the superior product.

both formats have there advantages and disadvantages I am along side other poeple with waiting before jumping to a conclusion on to which one I will be using, and the whole blu-ray thing just brings back memory of the whole betamax era and that was a sony controlled format and we see who won that war VHS

GregA

Nov 22, 2006, 04:16 PM

last time I heard blu-ray was still using the Mpeg2 codec for encoding and decoding there media as for HD-DVD using a more advanced codec with far more superior video quality.

Blu-ray and HDDVD players handle the same 3 formats - MPEG2, MPEG4-AVC (h264), and VC1. So that shouldn't be a deciding factor.

There is some argument about which is the best quality when you have lots of bandwidth (eg >20Mbps). The nature of MPEG4 makes it great in low bandwidth situations as it is more aware of motion than MPEG2 and uses that in compression. Some research is saying that when you get high bandwidth, this same nature of compression leads to unnecessary blurring.

I personally haven't seen a comparison.

If you're right that Bluray producers are only using MPEG2 that may be a reason - or perhaps the producers are just being lazy. They've got more space than they need, and they're simply using it. It's also taking advantage of the systems they've refined over many years (and which are still used in HD FTA transmissions).

So for me it all comes down to
1) does a movie need that space? (or will it in 5 years time?)
2) does it cost significantly more to make one of the disks?
3) does it cost significantly more to make one of the players?
4) bigger is better for computer storage
in reality in comes down to
5) politics - which format gets the most backers?

I wouldn't mind being able to burn MPEG4-AVC to regular DVDs for now to increase the quality and length (... provided it's played on a player that can handle it... can HD-DVD and Bluray players both play newer compression from today's DVD formats?)

hvfsl

Nov 22, 2006, 05:07 PM

I think a few things need to be cleared up:

-Fox is only supporting BluRay at the moment and will only change if it is a failure (which is very unlikely now). So no Star Wars on HD-DVD
-BluRay movies are now using H.264 and VC-1.
-BluRay is more expensive at the moment, but then prices do come down. I paid £160 for my DVD writer back in 2002 (which was cheap at the time), they can now be get for not much more than £20.
-BluRay is a lot more future proof, what happens when we move beyond current HD resolutions and use higher quality audio. Those 200GB disks are starting to look a bit more useful when you compare them to the 45GB of HD-DVD.
-You can't really compare BetaMax to BluRay. For one thing BetaMax only supported 90min tapes in the beginning, making it not the best choice for movies.

numbersyx

Nov 22, 2006, 05:12 PM

Blu-Ray is not backwards compatible (HDD is) so won't that cause a problem for existing media? No current DVDs will be able to play on the drives and neither will data CD/DVDs burned on conventional format.

hvfsl

Nov 22, 2006, 05:21 PM

bigandy

Nov 22, 2006, 05:42 PM

1. Hidden text is white not silver.
2. I know of Blu-Ray's magical 200 GB discs. Enjoy paying the price and burning that experimental bugger.
3. HD-DVD can triple layer to 45 GB.
1. I didn't mean to make it white. I meant to make it silver. Don't smartarse around, it was meant to be shown.
2 + 3. One word - futureproofing. A format that can expand to 200Gb is far more likely to stand the test of time than one that can triple layer to 45Gb.

last time I heard blu-ray was still using the Mpeg2 codec for encoding and decoding there media as for HD-DVD using a more advanced codec with far more superior video quality. for a person who says he knows his way around the formats and says that blu-Ray is the technically superior product it wouldnt seem so in this case. just because you can cram 50gigs of media onto a dual layer disc doesnt always mean you have the superior product.

both formats have there advantages and disadvantages I am along side other poeple with waiting before jumping to a conclusion on to which one I will be using, and the whole blu-ray thing just brings back memory of the whole betamax era and that was a sony controlled format and we see who won that war VHS
You'll note then, that last time you heard, HD-DVD was using MPEG2 as well. They've both moved on to superior codecs. I stand by what I said - nobody's proven me wrong, only proven themselves as lacking some facts that a few others have pointed out since I last posted. (See the quote below, for example).

Comparing this to the betamax era is not exactly clever - the only similarities are there are two formats fighting to win.

Blu-ray and HDDVD players handle the same 3 formats - MPEG2, MPEG4-AVC (h264), and VC1. So that shouldn't be a deciding factor.
(...)
There is some argument about which is the best quality when you have lots of bandwidth (eg >20Mbps). The nature of MPEG4 makes it great in low bandwidth situations as it is more aware of motion than MPEG2 and uses that in compression. Some research is saying that when you get high bandwidth, this same nature of compression leads to unnecessary blurring.

If you're right that Bluray producers are only using MPEG2 that may be a reason - or perhaps the producers are just being lazy. They've got more space than they need, and they're simply using it. It's also taking advantage of the systems they've refined over many years (and which are still used in HD FTA transmissions).

To be honest, if I was a producer in this situation I'd probably stick to MPEG2 as well right now. While H264 and all that are better compression, I do believe they're better suited to situations where there is less available space - such as on a PVP. In a next gen DVD situation, where you've got 50Gb+ to play with, where you've one 2hr movie to put on the disc, with a few extras, you've got plenty of space to play around with - so why not use the format that's likely to look a little better because it's not so compressed?

I run the TV station at my University - and I know it's not exactly on a par with some BBC productions and the suchlike, but from what I've seen when editing and exporting stuff, when you're dealing with high bandwidth content like HD, the less compression the better - and MPEG2 doesn't exactly look bad. In fact, on a machine that can handle the information, you'd struggle to notice a difference at all.

Reaver

Nov 22, 2006, 05:56 PM

[QUOTE=bigandy;3082579]Comparing this to the betamax era is not exactly clever - the only similarities are there are two formats fighting to win.QUOTE]

the comparison I was making with the betamax era comment was that sony had the betamax and then the other format was VHS (which ended up winning in the long run). I stated this because someone earlier said something about sony controlled format which they have a poor track record with. I stopped looking into both of these formats when I found out the prices of the product involved with the release *Players, movies, and then how the studios would market there movies for release* I will do like I did when DVD first came out I will wait to see what happens and till the price comes down before making my move to Hi-Def movies. like I stated before I think both formats offer up perks and have there downfalls, I think blu-ray would be a better choice for its storage size but I see problems in the future if sony cant keep up with the demand of its production of parts for the blu-ray players and such. HD-DVD was first on the scene and I think it has a better picture but is lacking in the storage area I think that if it wants to compete with blu-ray in the volume factor they will have to get there compression process under control.

and on the codec side both formats are using Mpeg2,VC-1 and the H.264 codec, this was found off of wikipedia while searching and comparring both formats.

2ndPath

Nov 23, 2006, 04:13 AM

HD-DVD was first on the scene

I know HD-DVD came out first but are there any drives for recording HD-DVDs? I've seen shops offering Bluray-Recorders and Bluray recordable media, but not nothing like that for HD-DVD. Did I just look in the wrong places, or is Bluray ahead of HD-DVD in that respect?

BGil

Nov 23, 2006, 05:02 AM

hvfsl

Nov 23, 2006, 05:15 AM

I hope all the Blu-ray fans know that the 200GB disc is a fantasy. Sure, they can be made but you also need a player capable of recognizing 6 layers. They are having enough trouble producing drives that can read 2 blu-ray layers so 6 layers in not going to happen. Futhermore, the most popular Blu-ray player on the market, the PS3, will never read those discs.

250GB hard drives go for 60-70 bucks now so theres no point in paying whatever exhorbant price it's going to cost for that six layer disc and drive. Using Blu-ray for storage is dumb. By the time it gets cheap enough to be in everyone's computer (several years from now) then hard drives and flash drives will be even cheaper.

Two years from now, 750GB hard drives will be $100 or less (even today they are only $350. Compare that to Blu-ray drives and discs). Flash drives will be upwards of 40-50 GB's and iPod Nano's will probably come with 20-30GBs'. The only thing next gen disc formats will be good for is movies and HD-DVD is just fine for that and much cheaper.

Where are you getting your facts about BluRay layers from, because that is not what I have heard?

For starters, they were having problems producing dual layer (50GB) disks, but they seem to be going into full production now. Plus having 6 layer BluRay disks was meant to be in the spec from the beginning.

HD-DVD is fine for now, but what happens when you want to fit a 3hour + movie onto a disk with an uncompressed HD audio stream, this is BluRay comes in.

numbersyx

Nov 23, 2006, 07:17 AM

DVD/CDs should play in HD-DVD and BluRay drives just fine.

No they won't. Blu-Ray players cannot play conventional CDs or DVDs. That is their big drawback. They are not backwards compatible.

hvfsl

Nov 23, 2006, 07:32 AM

No they won't. Blu-Ray players cannot play conventional CDs or DVDs. That is their big drawback. They are not backwards compatible.

This is one can do DVDs and BluRay disks just fine. It's just a matter of putting the correct laser in the drive.

http://www.dabs.com/ProductView.aspx?Quicklinx=43QC&CategorySelectedId=11155&PageMode=1&NavigationKey=11155,47300000&InMerch=1&v=2#infoarea

Optical Storage

* CD / DVD Rewrite Speed
* 4x (DVD-RW) / 8x (DVD+RW) / 2x (BD-RE)

* Read Speed
* 8x (DVD) / 2x (BD)
* Supported Media Types
* BD-R
* BD-RE
* BD-ROM
* DVD+R
* DVD+R DL
* DVD+RW
* DVD-R
* DVD-R DL
* DVD-ROM
* DVD-RW
* Type
* BD-RE
* Write Speed
* DVD:8x(±R),2x(-R DL),2.4x(+R DL)/BD:2x(-R)

Josias

Nov 23, 2006, 09:34 AM

I would expect them to introduce rev. 2 (8 core) Mac Pro's at MacWorld in January, and then later on add Blu-ray as an option, just like the 750 GB drives.:)

Cehtna

Nov 23, 2006, 11:26 AM

...Blu-Ray players cannot play conventional CDs or DVDs. That is their big drawback. They are not backwards compatible.
The Playstation 3 can read theese formats, and it got a Blu-Ray drive:

CD Disc media (read only):
PlayStation CD-ROM
PlayStation 2 CD-ROM
CD-DA (ROM), CD-R, CD-RW
SACD Hybrid (CD layer), SACD HD
DualDisc (audio side), DualDisc (DVD side)

DVD Disc media (read only):
PlayStation 2 DVD-ROM
PLAYSTATION 3 DVD-ROM
DVD-Video: DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R, DVD+RW

Blu-ray Disc media (read only):
PLAYSTATION 3 BD-ROM
BD-Video: BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RE

Say, why cant BR-drives read DVD disks again?

gkarris

Nov 23, 2006, 12:43 PM

Betamax, L-750: 1.5 hours BI, 3 hours BII, 4.5 hours BIII
VHS, T-120: 2 Hours SP, 4 Hours LP, 6 Hours EP

I had a Betamax, even though the tapes were smaller and picture better, the higher capacity VHS won out.

Also, I heard on an Eighties program that the nail in the coffin was the porn industry went with VHS...(now I'm hearing they're going to pick Bluray).

Looks like Bluray the eventual winner...

I do have the HD-DVD drive for my XBox 360 - the HD picture is sweet...
(note: you do have to go online and see which movies actually have HD quality, some are being remastered from the original like "Star Trek Original Series" for HD, else you're really only getting DVD quality)

Llewellyn

Nov 23, 2006, 04:17 PM

When Apple gets into HD I would expect them to first offer BluRay drives in their consumer macs as a build to order option to better complement their efforts with the iTV and iTunes Movie store. It isn't essential to these products but simply puts another "feather in their hat" to attract first time buyers and switcher. Apple likes a "WOW" factor in it's products.

I doubt you'll see one in an iTV — they just cost too much and they want the box to be attractive to a wide audience. However there is nothing stopping Apple (or a third party) from making an external BluRay drive in the same form factor as the Mac Mini and the iTV. Then you can add it whenever you're ready without making any other purchase prematurely obsolete.

As for BluRay vs. HD DVD? HD DVD will carry a lead in the beginning. The short-term economics favor this format. However, in the long run BluRay will surpass HD DVD. (I think we'll see a two thirds, one third split.) The key is a killer application utilizing the extra space of the BluRay. If a movie takes 5gb what does it matter that the disc can hold 50gb? How many documentaries and commentaries do you really want on a disc?

The technical superiority of BluRay will be the choice for professionals needing the vast space offered by the format. (eg. SD or Super Definition movies for theatres and arenas screens, and for digital storage & archive.)

Most consumers really don't care that much about which format wins, they just don't want to be stuck with a Beta. Unlike tapes, this is less of a concern with HD Disks. There will be hybrid drives and HD video will take off.

Most consumers will buy whichever costs less so long as it does the job and we'll achieve "peaceful coexistence" between the formats. (I think typical consumers don't really care if the DVDs they buy are DVD-R or DVD+R as long as it gets the job done.) Hopefully the first HD drives Apple offers will be hybrids.

GregA

Nov 23, 2006, 04:41 PM

However there is nothing stopping Apple (or a third party) from making an external BluRay drive in the same form factor as the Mac Mini and the iTV. Then you can add it whenever you're ready without making any other purchase prematurely obsolete. That's a good idea. No decoding hardware required in an external drive (the iTV should have the hardware for that). So it comes down to an external Bluray reader, and if they can make it cheap enough (???) it means that people can buy one sooner if they want, and later they can buy a hybrid

Most consumers really don't care that much about which format wins, they just don't want to be stuck with a Beta.Agreed.

Jschultz

Nov 23, 2006, 06:52 PM

No they won't. Blu-Ray players cannot play conventional CDs or DVDs. That is their big drawback. They are not backwards compatible.

Umm. Did I miss something? I work at Circuit City and we put DVD's and burnt DivX discs in all the time, on our Samsung Blu-Ray player. :confused:

Unless we're talking about blu ray drives...I've never used those.

Jschultz

Nov 23, 2006, 06:53 PM

That's a good idea. No decoding hardware required in an external drive (the iTV should have the hardware for that). So it comes down to an external Bluray reader, and if they can make it cheap enough (???) it means that people can buy one sooner if they want, and later they can buy a hybrid

Agreed.

Agreed again. That's why I'm holding out. I can get a Samsung Blu ray player for rediculously cheap via manufacturer accomodations, but I'm not going to be stuck with a expensive door stop in 6 months, you know?

sintaxi

Nov 24, 2006, 07:21 AM

Blu-Ray = HUGE waste of time . . . unless you are looking at JUST storage. If you are looking for movie playback, HD-DVD is the way to go.

couldnt agree more. In fact I feel HDDVD will be better for storage as well due to its cost.

gugy

Nov 24, 2006, 05:51 PM

blu-ray would be great when the recordable media is $5 per disc. Until then it would be nice only to play movies. But seriously the media got to be cheap soon. Pay $25 for a 50gig disc is a joke. I rather go to Fry's and pay $89 for a 300gig hard drive.
I agree that the MacPro will be the first to get it. I think Apple will wait until February to bring the Octo-core mac Pro's with Blu-ray.:eek:

PODshady

Nov 24, 2006, 09:56 PM

Personally I would wait untill either Blu-ray or HD-DVD becomes the standard

mdntcallr

Nov 25, 2006, 02:10 AM

Blu-Ray = HUGE waste of time . . . unless you are looking at JUST storage. If you are looking for movie playback, HD-DVD is the way to go.

you are so wrong. Blu-Ray is pretty good. And it is taking off in a good way now that PS3 is out, and the other consumer models ie player from sony, samsung, panasonic and more.

mdntcallr

Nov 25, 2006, 02:14 AM

No they won't. Blu-Ray players cannot play conventional CDs or DVDs. That is their big drawback. They are not backwards compatible.

Before being stubborn about things you believe are facts, you may want check first!!!

Product Description
The new Sony BDP-S1 Blu-ray Disc home player from Sony offers a host of new high-definition entertainment possibilities. The BDP-S1 features 1920 x 1080p output, the highest HD signal output currently available through a HDMI™ connection. If your HD-capable television does not have an HDMI connection, you can still get the Blu-ray experience - the 1080i analog output allows for HD-capable televisions without HDMI to enjoy Blu-ray Disc features. The BDP-S1 is also compatible with standard DVDs with the added feature of 1080p upscaling through HDMI, which gives new life to existing DVDs libraries3.

the Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray Disc Player. Be among the first to view Blu-ray format discs on your HDTV. You'll marvel at the clarity and full-color spectrum of every scene, while multi-channel sound puts you in the center of the action. The Samsung Blu-ray player gives you full 1080p native output and up-conversion for your current catalog. This player also offers backwards compatibility to current dvds and CD playback. So get ready to take the next step in superior technology with Samsung!

BGil

Nov 25, 2006, 12:48 PM

Where are you getting your facts about BluRay layers from, because that is not what I have heard?

For starters, they were having problems producing dual layer (50GB) disks, but they seem to be going into full production now. Plus having 6 layer BluRay disks was meant to be in the spec from the beginning.

HD-DVD is fine for now, but what happens when you want to fit a 3hour + movie onto a disk with an uncompressed HD audio stream, this is BluRay comes in.

I didn't say they were having a problem producing the discs. I said the issue was with producing the drives.

Even if multiple layers are in the spec, current drives and all drives in the forseeable future can't read 6 layers. In fact, nothing on the market now can read more than 3 layers.

Movies aren't getting longer. They've been about the same average length for 50 years now. The occassional 3 hour movie + uncompressed 7.1 audio stream will fit fine on 30GB HD DVD.

The audio track is going to take up about 8GB's (max) and the movie would probalby take up another 20 (max). But no one is going to use uncompressed audio because we have all these nice compressed HD formats that works so well and are so much harder to pirate. Keep in mind that most of the HD-DVD's on today' market are on single layer discs (15GB's) so you don't need another 15GB's for that extra movie time. At best you might need that extra space for the bonus features but even then you can use a second disc (like they do today) or make the disc double sided.

zelman

Nov 26, 2006, 12:10 AM

remember when the emac had the best optical drive of any apple machine?

the future

Nov 26, 2006, 08:24 AM

Keep in mind that most of the HD-DVD's on today' market are on single layer discs (15GB's) so you don't need another 15GB's for that extra movie time.

This is absolutely wrong. ALL movies released on HD-DVD so far are on dual layer (30 GB) discs. Unlike Blu-ray, HD-DVD does not have any capacity to spare; on some european discs (Serenity, for example) they actually had to lower the video bitrate because they needed room for more audio tracks (as in Europe it makes more commercial sense to produce one disc for the whole maket so you'll need english, german, french, spanish etc. audio on it).

Btw. Blu-ray doesn't only have a clear capacity, but a just as clear bandwith advantage (48 vs. 30 Mbps). The format is just way more future-proof.

Digitalclips

Nov 26, 2006, 02:50 PM

It could be a simple BTO option (for the 2G Mac Pro including new 8-Core Model) ;)

I agree and perhaps a burning version too. There is a need out there this for those of us creating HD content with FCPro HD and DVD Pro which will no doubt get an update to support whatever new drives Apple provide.

Digitalclips

Nov 26, 2006, 02:54 PM

I'll agree that killer hardware needs good killer software to back it up. iDVD greatly complemented the SuperDrives.

Interactivity escapes me on discs. Really are you going to sit through it or do you just want to watch video?

Training and games come to mind ...

Digitalclips

Nov 26, 2006, 03:01 PM

Betamax, I had a Betamax, even though the tapes were smaller and picture better, the higher capacity VHS won out.

Don't forget Sony won out at the professional end of the market with Beta in one form or another (Umatic, BetacamSP and Digi-Beta etc.) totally dominationg cameras and decks in production and TV studios. It was only the consumers who voted with their check books for crappy VHS.

princealfie

Nov 27, 2006, 02:15 PM

And why blu-ray? It's expensive and should Mac be on the bleeding edge just to please one guy?

Hobofuzz

Nov 27, 2006, 03:05 PM

I don't trust Sony.
You never know when their products are going to explode.

Hobofuzz

Nov 27, 2006, 03:07 PM

Don't forget Sony won out at the professional end of the market with Beta in one form or another (Umatic, BetacamSP and Digi-Beta etc.) totally dominationg cameras and decks in production and TV studios. It was only the consumers who voted with their check books for crappy VHS.

Except in this case, Blu-Ray is the crappy VHS. VHS could hold more video than Betas, but with lower quality. Same goes for Blu-Ray now. Blu-Ray holds more, but uses the crappy old regular DVD encoding. HD-DVD uses a newer encoding method that spits out very, very high-quality video at a fraction of the size of a Blu-Ray movie. That's why Blu-Ray needs so much space, the movie files are huge.

GregA

Nov 27, 2006, 03:16 PM

Except in this case, Blu-Ray is the crappy VHS. VHS could hold more video than Betas, but with lower quality. Same goes for Blu-Ray now. Blu-Ray holds more, but uses the crappy old regular DVD encoding. HD-DVD uses a newer encoding method that spits out very, very high-quality video at a fraction of the size of a Blu-Ray movie. That's why Blu-Ray needs so much space, the movie files are huge.

I think you ought to get your facts straight.

HD-DVD uses either
1) MPEG2 (ie regular DVD encoding)
2) MPEG4-AVC (ie h264 which Quicktime works tightly with), or
3) VC-1 (ie: Microsofts Windows Media Player 9 format)

Bluray uses either
1) MPEG2
2) MPEG4-AVC, or
3) VC-1

It is the PHYSICAL format of the disk that's different. Nothing else.

edit: Note also that MPEG2 at 25Mbps has been found to be better than MPEG4-AVC or VC-1 at 25Mbps in tests. At 15Mbps the newer ones win easily. Regular DVD maxes out at 10Mbps.

Digitalclips

Nov 27, 2006, 04:54 PM

Except in this case, Blu-Ray is the crappy VHS. VHS could hold more video than Betas, but with lower quality. Same goes for Blu-Ray now. Blu-Ray holds more, but uses the crappy old regular DVD encoding. HD-DVD uses a newer encoding method that spits out very, very high-quality video at a fraction of the size of a Blu-Ray movie. That's why Blu-Ray needs so much space, the movie files are huge.

Interesting concept. I am pretty sure a 90 minute Betamax held the same length video as a 90 minute VHS :p . Perhaps you are thinking of the slow record / play mode on VHS decks?

However I think you will find you are totally incorrect about Blu-Ray v HD DVD.

Whatever, I hope there is a dual format support player and burner on the horizon.

Rocketman

Nov 28, 2006, 09:50 PM

I saw a TV ad today, probably on CNBC for Superman the movie, not sure which one, but probably the latest. Available on DVD, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.

All formats.

Rocketman

bozigle

Nov 29, 2006, 06:03 AM

Well
Looking back at the way Apple handle new tech (firewire,bluetooth,HD) they have to do something about bluray and hddvd (not much reason to argue on wich as long as only one remains).
But there is also little point in just providing the player/burner/combo if this is just to play movies.
I guess iLife and DvdStudio need to support those new formats in their next instalment and so does MacOs and quicktime.
Stevy was a strong supporter of HD format very early i don't see that changing now that the supports are out.

Bozigle

Erasmus

Nov 30, 2006, 04:55 AM

Er...

I'm probably flogging a well dead horse, but...

HD-DVD uses different formats to Blu-Ray?

My CDs full of backed up mp3's have a different format to the original CDs.

Seems to me any disc is in whatever format you put on it. I'm sure that there is nothing but pride stopping Sony from using the HD-DVD encoding on their Blu-Ray discs that is apparently so much better than what they use now.

After all, any computer or media player isn't going to care what media you put in it, as long as it can pull a string of 1's and 0's off it...

bigandy

Nov 30, 2006, 05:42 AM

However I think you will find you are totally incorrect about Blu-Ray v HD DVD.
You are correct - the two formats can handle the same encoding. MPEG2, MPEG4-AVC and VC1

Er...

I'm probably flogging a well dead horse, but...

HD-DVD uses different formats to Blu-Ray?

My CDs full of backed up mp3's have a different format to the original CDs.

Seems to me any disc is in whatever format you put on it. I'm sure that there is nothing but pride stopping Sony from using the HD-DVD encoding on their Blu-Ray discs that is apparently so much better than what they use now.

After all, any computer or media player isn't going to care what media you put in it, as long as it can pull a string of 1's and 0's off it...
You're slightly off the mark here. Yes, a computer can read those MP3s on your CDs, but what happens if you put them in a bog standard CD Player - they won't work. Same with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Yes, you can store any format on them via a computer, but could the players read them? No. The players have decoders for a specific set of codecs - they won't play a Word file, for example.

The argument here (which has gone round in circles several times due to a lack of information on the subject) is that the standalone players on either side of the fence don't play the same files, or one's better quality than the other, or something. :rolleyes:

shayesky

Nov 30, 2006, 07:45 AM

As someone who produces video for a living for customers (weddings), I can tell you the requests for HD delivery have been few at best. $500 and $900 players and $850 PC burners are just out of the realm of affordability at this point. It is going to take 2 more years before an affordable, and viable customer solution is available for DISC based media. However, the easiest, cheapest and fastest way to deliver HD content to customers is via a Mediacenter which connects directly to the TV. I have had quite a few customers pay the extra few hundred for me to setup one of these units for them, and it works great.

Like most of you, I am holding out for a dual format burner before I start producing HD on DVDs.

bigandy

Nov 30, 2006, 07:47 AM

shayesky

Nov 30, 2006, 08:23 AM

it took DVDs a couple years to catch on. I master everything back to tape
in HDV. So, down the road, I can make those customers HD DVD or Bluray.

Erasmus

Nov 30, 2006, 07:27 PM

You're slightly off the mark here. Yes, a computer can read those MP3s on your CDs, but what happens if you put them in a bog standard CD Player - they won't work. Same with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD. Yes, you can store any format on them via a computer, but could the players read them? No. The players have decoders for a specific set of codecs - they won't play a Word file, for example.

The argument here (which has gone round in circles several times due to a lack of information on the subject) is that the standalone players on either side of the fence don't play the same files, or one's better quality than the other, or something. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure that it's only software that stops this from happening. Modern DVD/CD players can play mp3 CDs, and can probably play mp3 DVDs. I'm sure that they could play short DVD movies recorded onto CDs or a few CDs recorded onto a DVD, although I've never looked or tried it.

Today, you are correct. But in a few years, when third parties start building these things, this will change. The first DVD player we got can't play music on rewritable CDs. The newer, cheap crappy one can.

As "Standalone Players" become more complex and become more and more like computers themselves, what you stick in them and what format it is will become more and more irrelevant.

GregA

Nov 30, 2006, 07:50 PM

As "Standalone Players" become more complex and become more and more like computers themselves, what you stick in them and what format it is will become more and more irrelevant.

The formats on HD-DVD and BluRay DVD are the same - so no quality difference there. They are the same 3 formats being pursued by HD TV providers around the world often with PayTV

The disks themselves have different capacities and require different lasers to read them. They also have different copy-protection schemes. It's quite possible to make a player that can handle both, but at the moment you can't license both Bluray copy-protection and HDDVD copy-protection on the same player. It'll happen with time.

Links

Nov 30, 2006, 08:43 PM

....The disks themselves have different capacities and require different lasers to read them....
Wrong, both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD formats use the same 405 nm blue-violet laser diodes.

Links

Nov 30, 2006, 08:50 PM

GregA

Nov 30, 2006, 09:01 PM

Wrong, both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD formats use the same 405 nm blue-violet laser diodes.
Thanks Links.
All I knew was that Sony was having trouble supplying their blue lasers.
I assumed they were different to HD-DVD.

So one laser will do both eh? Does it need different configuration in any way?

Links

Nov 30, 2006, 09:12 PM

Thanks Links.
All I knew was that Sony was having trouble supplying their blue lasers.
I assumed they were different to HD-DVD.

So one laser will do both eh? Does it need different configuration in any way?
The lens and focusing systems are different.
Here's a spec sheet comparing the two.

http://www.cyberlink.com/english/support/bdhd_support/bd_vs_hddvd.jsp

GregA

Nov 30, 2006, 09:14 PM

The lense and focusing systems are different.But one laser in a single player could be used for both formats?

Erasmus

Nov 30, 2006, 09:41 PM

But one laser in a single player could be used for both formats?

I daresay the one laser could be used for both formats, plus DVDs plus CDs. Why not? DVD players today use the same laser (99% sure) to read both DVDs and CDs. Just depends where and how well you focus it.

Links

Nov 30, 2006, 09:43 PM

But one laser in a single player could be used for both formats?
Yes, it's the "brain" the chip that does the work.
There is such as chip, but as you can imagine, neither side would want it to be "approved" for use.

BTW, Toshiba's second gen HD DVD players has been delayed (joining Sony) due to the lack of blue lasers.

Stinkythe1

Nov 30, 2006, 10:28 PM

Heh... nevermind.

Multimedia

Nov 30, 2006, 11:24 PM

AppliedVisual

Dec 1, 2006, 12:16 AM

Yes, it's the "brain" the chip that does the work.
There is such as chip, but as you can imagine, neither side would want it to be "approved" for use.

BTW, Toshiba's second gen HD DVD players has been delayed (joining Sony) due to the lack of blue lasers.

Yep, and Ricoh has developed a lens system that allows for the blue diode lasers to read every current disc format out there simply by re-alignment and focust of the primary lens. Combine that with chipsets like the new one from Broadcom that include support for CD/DVD/HD-DVD/BD all on a single chip, low-cost universal players are not too far off. The only thing holding them up is typical industry politics and that supposed BluRay license clause that says that BluRay licensed devices can't support competitors' formats (DVD Audio, HD-DVD), but Sony won't confirm or deny such a license restriction and their licens agreement is protected by NDA. So only BluRay license partners know for sure and they're not allowed to say. I do know that LG/Marantz, Pioneer and Samsung all announced universal players over the last year or so and all three have later come back to say that it won't happen. Even LG, who is intertwined with Philips -- another developer of a universal player chipset, has come back to say that they will not pursue a universal player at this time... Weird.

I think the licensing restriction rumor is bogus though. I don't know if it's entirely legal for them to make such restrictions in many markets (including the USA with antitrust laws). Not only that, but component makers must license BluRay technology rights in order to create these universal capable devices... And wouldn't creating such a device as a universal HD-DVD + BluRay capable chip be in violation of such a restriction?

lord_flash

Dec 1, 2006, 10:04 AM

So, what gives? I'm in the UK where neither are really selling at all, since the only real HDDVD drive has been put back to later this month and the PS3 is delayed until March, but I'm still surprised that there is so much debate over which is best.

I mean in the Betamax v VHS days there were two debates - maximum storage (in minutes, VHS won hands down) and highest quality (Betamax led the way). As it turned out, people didn't care what looked best if the end of a movie didn't fit on the tape, so VHS won.

For Blu-ray and HD DVD, however, when the compression formats are the same, the maximum space = the maximum duration. In other words, why anyone should choose to be in the HD DVD camp is beyond me.

With crappier 1080i transfers it probably doesn't matter, but 1080p will be able to make use of every bit of that extra 20GB, as anyone who has ever mastered a DVD and had to make uncomfortable bit-rate/duration trade offs will know.

Remember that only a few HD TVs really show off the potential of HD - 1080p is the future, and space will be vital. As screens get better, poor transfers crammed into too little space become more obvious.

I'd like to have seen more Blu-ray sooner, and with Apple as a know leader in the video production field it is a shame that they've not been standard - subsidised even - in MacPros since they appeared. It'd be nice for some companies to take the lead and kill HD DVD before it's got started. Sony have done their bit with the PS3. Come on Apple...

KipCoon

Dec 1, 2006, 10:27 AM

Yep, and Ricoh has developed a lens system that allows for the blue diode lasers to read every current disc format out there simply by re-alignment and focust of the primary lens. Combine that with chipsets like the new one from Broadcom that include support for CD/DVD/HD-DVD/BD all on a single chip, low-cost universal players are not too far off. The only thing holding them up is typical industry politics and that supposed BluRay license clause that says that BluRay licensed devices can't support competitors' formats (DVD Audio, HD-DVD), but Sony won't confirm or deny such a license restriction and their licens agreement is protected by NDA. So only BluRay license partners know for sure and they're not allowed to say. I do know that LG/Marantz, Pioneer and Samsung all announced universal players over the last year or so and all three have later come back to say that it won't happen. Even LG, who is intertwined with Philips -- another developer of a universal player chipset, has come back to say that they will not pursue a universal player at this time... Weird.

I think the licensing restriction rumor is bogus though. I don't know if it's entirely legal for them to make such restrictions in many markets (including the USA with antitrust laws). Not only that, but component makers must license BluRay technology rights in order to create these universal capable devices... And wouldn't creating such a device as a universal HD-DVD + BluRay capable chip be in violation of such a restriction?

Not to mention they are just hanging themselves by not allowing a multi format player out anyways. I don't want 2-3 DVD players on my shelf to play the various formats out there. I have about 330+ DVD's right now that I refuse to repurchase in a HD or Blu-Ray:P

bloodycape

Dec 1, 2006, 11:52 AM

Interesting concept. I am pretty sure a 90 minute Betamax held the same length video as a 90 minute VHS :p . Perhaps you are thinking of the slow record / play mode on VHS decks?

However I think you will find you are totally incorrect about Blu-Ray v HD DVD.

Whatever, I hope there is a dual format support player and burner on the horizon.

I think it was Nec or LG who had plans for that about a month ago but it was nixed because of some issues the HD and Blue-ray manufactures had with the idea or something.

Ryan5505

Dec 3, 2006, 08:21 PM

These are just thoughts:
I would rather see a Blu-Ray drive in the macs, BUT; Steve is a big player with Disney, and Disney is on the side of HD-DVD. But on other hand, BLU disk hold more storage, and seem as if this would be great for PRO users.

As for the cost of a mac going up, well yes if its a build to order option. But sony or apple could take a loss on the technology to get it out the door and into peoples hands first. Each PS3 is rumored to be around 800 dollars to produce, sony is taking a large loss to get the bluetooth, blueray, wifi, 20-60GB system into peoples hands, the added blu-ray player is going to pay off I believe for large game files. Sony using only top technology is a good thing I believe, a premuim price, but apple also charges a premium price. If Apple and Sony want, they can loose on the drive to get it into peoples homes.

Sony also owns many movie companies, which could keep bluray above others.

The day of the PS3 release, I walked into a best buy at 12:30 in the afternoon and 5 PS3 showed up randomly after the riots. I purchased one, and watched the talidega nights blu-ray movie which was included. You can tell the difference in the quality.

Box sets of DVDs could now go down to only having ONE disc. That would be nice to have then 10 DVDs for maybe a TV show.

gctwnl

Dec 4, 2006, 01:59 AM

January: introduction of iTV
- iTV
- iTV HD (with Bluray)

Apple wants to be in HD very much (remember "year of HD?") and they want to be in the living room. I think a BTO option or two versions will fit the Apple strategy nicely.

G

bobber205

Dec 4, 2006, 04:26 PM

Is there anyway we can say "screw this" and have somebody make a drive that reads both Blue-Ray and HD-DVD. Will Sony ever get desperate enough to allow something like that? :p

bigandy

Dec 4, 2006, 04:40 PM

Is there anyway we can say "screw this" and have somebody make a drive that reads both Blue-Ray and HD-DVD. Will Sony ever get desperate enough to allow something like that? :p

we've had that conversation in this thread already, i'm sure... :rolleyes:

charkshark

Dec 5, 2006, 11:30 PM

Apple wants to be in HD very much (remember "year of HD?") and they want to be in the living room. I think a BTO option or two versions will fit the Apple strategy nicely.

G

Apple for sure wants to be in the cutting edge of HD. I believe they will introduce Bu-Ray as an OPTION on most macs, in Q1 2007, likely a MSWF announcement.

princealfie

Dec 5, 2006, 11:36 PM

Apple for sure wants to be in the cutting edge of HD. I believe they will introduce Bu-Ray as an OPTION on most macs, in Q1 2007, likely a MSWF announcement.

I dunno , Bluray looks like one dead format.

GregA

Dec 6, 2006, 02:48 AM

I dunno , Bluray looks like one dead format.You reckon?

I haven't seen much indication of bluray being any more or less dead than HD-DVD. It's pretty early in the game and there are some deep pockets playing.

sixstorm

Dec 6, 2006, 02:04 PM

Blu-Ray is more expensive, does not look as good as a HD-DVD movie and does have better storage ATM, but that doesn't mean that someone could make a higher capacity HD-DVD in the future. And don't give me the "Well, you don't own both players . . . You don't know what you're talking about . . ." crap. It completely blows my mind how people want to invest in something like Blu-Ray when it's so darn expensive. Normal people in the real world don't have that kind of money to spend on a movie player and storage device.

w00master

Dec 6, 2006, 04:41 PM

Personally, I'm not a fan of either one. It's the fault of these two sides that we're in this mess (Bluray vs. HD DVD). Personally, I think to be REALLY cutting edge is to completely avoid either format and go directly to digital downloading. Apple already has "some" of the infrastructure and (I believe) is building on that. Why care about Bluray or HD DVD when, iTunes will (eventually) have downloadable HD movies. Heck, the XBox 360 already offers this!

As for physical storage, I can understand going for one of these formats, but for movies/content distribution. Screw both of those formats. Go digital distribution all the way!

w00master

mcarnes

Dec 7, 2006, 04:03 AM

Haha! Good one. I guess it takes an idiot to see that Blu-Ray is more expensive, does not look as good as a HD-DVD movie and does have better storage ATM, but that doesn't mean that someone could make a higher capacity HD-DVD in the future. And don't give me the "Well, you don't own both players . . . You don't know what you're talking about . . ." crap. It completely blows my mind how people want to invest in something like Blu-Ray when it's so darn expensive. Normal people in the real world don't have that kind of money to spend on a movie player and storage device.

You really don't have a clue at all.

TMay

Dec 7, 2006, 04:27 AM

So, a kid gets this idea to shoot an indie film. See that the Panasonic AV-HVX200P can shoot 1080P resolution at 24 fps. Drops $5K on the camera and drops another $2k on a couple of 8GB P2 memory. Then another $2k on a Firestore.

Now he can shoot, hot swap the P2 and download to the Firestore, but maybe not quite continuously, at about 1 GB per minute.

Then, he takes the Firestore, ingests it into his 2007 Mac Pro 8 core with its BTO Pioneer BDR-102A Blu-ray burner, and using Final Cut Pro and DVD Studio and his 30 inch Cinema display, edits and burns his "film" to Blu-ray for initial distribution.

Bottom line. Content producers won't lose any sleep over another $1k for a 50 GB Blu-ray burner, and Apple looks like a winner yet again.

Whether Apple will deliver a BTO Blu-ray player option is the real question. I think that they will, and I don't think there will be an HD-DVD option.

sixstorm

Dec 7, 2006, 11:04 AM

You really don't have a clue at all.

And how is that? Great of you to say something like that and not back it up. Not trying to be rude but geez, that's all there is to it. BLU RAY IS EXPENSIVE!!!!!!

w00master

Dec 7, 2006, 11:22 AM

http://tinyurl.com/upxlc

Personally, (as stated previously), I'm against BOTH formats, but this article caught my eye.

AppliedVisual

Dec 7, 2006, 01:10 PM

And how is that? Great of you to say something like that and not back it up. Not trying to be rude but geez, that's all there is to it. BLU RAY IS EXPENSIVE!!!!!!

Yes, BluRay is expensive... So is HD-DVD.... So was DVD when it first arrived on the market. The first 4 DVD players were all over $1K on introduction, industry "experts" were predicting the format was DOA... FOX studios thought DVD was a joke and they initially backed DVHS.

But now what are you comparing BluRay to when you say it's expensive? If you're comparing to HD-DVD, then you're wrong. Current BluRay players aren't much more expensive than the available HD-DVD players. The (fixed) Samsung now has an MSRP of $849, the Philips releases this month at $799. Yes, that's more than the Toshiba HDA1 HD-DVD player (and I own one of those, they suck), which can now be had for about $400. The RCA branded unit is $369 at my local Sam's Club, but it's not the same player... It's actually WORSE! Yes, folks, RCA and Toshiba found a way to screw up that player even more.

Anyway, player costs aside, let's consider the advantages that BluRay now has over HD-DVD...

On average, BD discs are $8 cheaper when comparing MSRP. Hmmmm....

HD-DVD guys had a stroke of obvious common-sense when they decided to put a DVD release on one side of a disc and the HD version on the flip side. Too bad they haven't realized sales are poor for those discs because they're charging double - dumbasses.

With the release of Playstation3, Sony more than quadrupled their HD disc player marketshare overnight and now the number of installed Blu-Ray players is expected to exceed the number of HD-DVD players by a factor of nearly 5 to 1 by the end of they year - or when all PS3 pre-orders are filled.

LG will be releasing their second (a budget model, only 1080i) BluRay player this spring (March/April), with a target MSRP under $450. Sony has stated at many of their trade show events and BluRay demonstrations that they predict BluRay player prices to fall a lot faster than DVD player prices did, citing players under $200 by the end of '08 and should have models of their own in the $300's on the market by the end of '07. ...Which that will already be so in a few months once PS3 is readily available and the first price adjustment hits this summer or so.

Personally, I'm not a Sony fanboy and I don't care for a lot of what they do or how Sony or Toshiba has handled this whole "format war". But for Toshiba and the HD-DVD camp to actually overcome Sony and BluRay at this point, it will be nearly impossible unless they can suddenly start offering a better player than their current HDA1 model at < $300. Not going to happen. They're about to start shipping the A2 with an MSRP fo $499 again and the XA2 player is $999 and delayed until next year. They're going the wrong way...

AppliedVisual

Dec 7, 2006, 01:26 PM

As for physical storage, I can understand going for one of these formats, but for movies/content distribution. Screw both of those formats. Go digital distribution all the way!

w00master

The problem with digital distribution is connectivity. Even though broadband has done a great job in propegating throughout many parts of the world, the majority of people on the net still don't have broadband, or if they do, it's not a connection fast enough to make it convenient to stream or download HD content. ...That day is rapidly approaching, but we're still a couple years off. Apple beginning to offer near-DVD quality video on iTunes is a huge milestone in this regard and it shows that their own infrastructure is there and should continue to improve. HD will flow naturally as new products continue to arrive on the market and market interest expands. Your average consumer (according to studies done recently by Forbes and Consumer Reports regarding downloadable media) is intrigued, but still prefers physical media. And it doesn't help that they know the downloads won't be cheaper... Right now, they're maybe saving $1 by downloading from iTunes and they're getting an inferior product vs. a DVD. And at this point in time, why would Joe Consumer want to buy a movie like Cars for $12.99 from iTunes, when he can buy it at the local store along with his groceries for $14.99, still rip it to his iPod and have the disc in his family DVD library. Hmmm.... Hopefully devices like iTV will change some of this. Personally, I won't buy an iTV until I can acquire media from iTunes in equal or better quality vs. BluRay or HD-DVD for the same price or less. ...And even then, they had better offer something of value there. Because I can walk a couple blocks to rent a movie for $1 per night. Or I can have a continuously revolving selection of movies from Blockbuster or Netflix (even in HD-DVD or BD) for $15/month.

sixstorm

Dec 7, 2006, 02:00 PM

Yes, BluRay is expensive... So is HD-DVD.... So was DVD when it first arrived on the market. The first 4 DVD players were all over $1K on introduction, industry "experts" were predicting the format was DOA... FOX studios thought DVD was a joke and they initially backed DVHS.

But now what are you comparing BluRay to when you say it's expensive? If you're comparing to HD-DVD, then you're wrong. Current BluRay players aren't much more expensive than the available HD-DVD players. The (fixed) Samsung now has an MSRP of $849, the Philips releases this month at $799. Yes, that's more than the Toshiba HDA1 HD-DVD player (and I own one of those, they suck), which can now be had for about $400. The RCA branded unit is $369 at my local Sam's Club, but it's not the same player... It's actually WORSE! Yes, folks, RCA and Toshiba found a way to screw up that player even more.

I personally don't own a Toshiba Player but do have roommates that own the XBOX 360 add-on and it doesn't suck. Even other people I know online own the HDA1 and they love it.

Anyway, player costs aside, let's consider the advantages that BluRay now has over HD-DVD...

On average, BD discs are $8 cheaper when comparing MSRP. Hmmmm....

Woah! Where are you shopping? Walmart has HD-DVDs ranging from $19.99-$29.99, whereas Blu-Ray discs are all $29.99-$39.99. Look at Amazon.com, EBGames, Tower Records, anywhere. Blu-Ray discs are more expensive than HD-DVD discs.

HD-DVD guys had a stroke of obvious common-sense when they decided to put a DVD release on one side of a disc and the HD version on the flip side. Too bad they haven't realized sales are poor for those discs because they're charging double - dumbasses.

I really don't know what to think about the combo sets, but it seems like a good deal if you wanted to upgrade later. I don't see the problem with that I don't guess.

With the release of Playstation3, Sony more than quadrupled their HD disc player marketshare overnight and now the number of installed Blu-Ray players is expected to exceed the number of HD-DVD players by a factor of nearly 5 to 1 by the end of they year - or when all PS3 pre-orders are filled.

Now if you wanna talk about a crappy BR player, the P$3 is one. I've heard nothing good about BR playback on the P$3 at all, only bad stuff. Sony has done a terrible job with the PS3 IMO and will be struggling to get out consoles for the next year. I really don't know why anyone would wanna buy that POS anyways . . . horrible console right now.

LG will be releasing their second (a budget model, only 1080i) BluRay player this spring (March/April), with a target MSRP under $450. Sony has stated at many of their trade show events and BluRay demonstrations that they predict BluRay player prices to fall a lot faster than DVD player prices did, citing players under $200 by the end of '08 and should have models of their own in the $300's on the market by the end of '07. ...Which that will already be so in a few months once PS3 is readily available and the first price adjustment hits this summer or so.

Sony? Going down in price? Wow, that's a nice dream. I know that Sony doesn't solely own BR technology, but I don't see them lowering prices for a long time. Also, we all know Sony's winning streak with their own formats . . . :rolleyes:

Personally, I'm not a Sony fanboy and I don't care for a lot of what they do or how Sony or Toshiba has handled this whole "format war". But for Toshiba and the HD-DVD camp to actually overcome Sony and BluRay at this point, it will be nearly impossible unless they can suddenly start offering a better player than their current HDA1 model at < $300. Not going to happen. They're about to start shipping the A2 with an MSRP fo $499 again and the XA2 player is $999 and delayed until next year. They're going the wrong way...

HDTV prices have fallen quite a bit and people are going to start looking for HD content, starting with cable TV and movies. I think that unless Sony (and others) dramatically drop the price of the BR players and discs, they will overcome HD-DVD. It is ALL going to come down to the prices. Yes, it could come down to the movie exclusives but price is a bigger factor.

I don't mean to sound hateful, but there's no use of calling someone "uninformed". Hell, as far as I know, you are just as informed as me.

mcarnes

Dec 7, 2006, 02:01 PM

sixstorm

Dec 7, 2006, 02:42 PM

Blu-Ray holds nearly twice as much as HD-DVD (50GB vs. 30GB). That is a no brainer. The street price of movies is about the same. They have been slow to release *good* movies on Blu-Ray because of difficulties with the VCI encoder and the fact that they could only use single layer (25GB) discs. But that all changed last month and the latest movies have both. HD-DVD is already maxed out, but Blu-Ray really just got started last month (with VCI and 50GB).

Give it a few months. I think blu-ray will easily pull ahead. I mean, we're talking about another 20GB per disc for extra features, better quality, etc. etc. HD-DVD almost feels like old technology compared to blu-ray.

Like I've said before, BR is good for storage (I agree with you on the space on their discs). I wouldn't say that HD-DVD is maxed out, you never know if they could come out with a 50GB disc. Anyways, why would you need that much space for a 1080p movie plus a few special features? Most people don't even care about the extra stuff unless it's a gag reel or sometimes deleted scenes. I honestly think extra features on some HD-DVDs are pointless (I'd never use them) like coloring your car in Fast and Furious Tokyo Drift. WTF? I just wanna watch the dang movie.

I would like to see more digital downloads and distribution going on as well. Some people I work with at Blockbuster don't like the fact of just downloading something, they want a physical copy in their hands. I tell them all the time that digital downloading is coming and physical discs prolly have the chance of being phased out. I'm sure within the next 5-10 years everyone will have some sort of a computer controlling their TV and movies, all coming from a particular source (via Internet, via iTunes, via Cable Provider).

mcarnes

Dec 7, 2006, 03:31 PM

Anyways, why would you need that much space for a 1080p movie plus a few special features? Most people don't even care about the extra stuff unless it's a gag reel or sometimes deleted scenes.

I remember when the first iPod came out I wondered who the hell needs a whopping 5GB for an MP3 player...

If you scale up a current DVD to HD, you need about 50GB to do it, and thats a current DVD which really isn't that great to begin with.

640x480 = 307200 pixels
1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels

2073600 / 307200 = 6.75
If a current DVD is about 8GB, then 8 x 6.75 = 54GB

I know codecs are better now and so on, but my point is that more space is always a good thing, and you cannot forsee now how that will be useful later.

And a 50GB HD-DVD disc does not exist. Maybe in theory, but not right now.

sixstorm

Dec 7, 2006, 03:45 PM

I remember when the first iPod came out I wondered who the hell needs a whopping 5GB for an MP3 player...

If you scale up a current DVD to HD, you need about 50GB to do it, and thats a current DVD which really isn't that great to begin with.

640x480 = 307200 pixels
1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels

2073600 / 307200 = 6.75
If a current DVD is about 8GB, then 8 x 6.75 = 54GB

I know codecs are better now and so on, but my point is that more space is always a good thing, and you cannot forsee now how that will be useful later.

And a 50GB HD-DVD disc does not exist. Maybe in theory, but not right now.

If they can fit a 1080p movie with loads of extras on a 30GB HD-DVD, then the job is done. And you never know, there could be a 50 GB HD-DVD in the near future.

I don't think that BR will go away now or the next year or so, but with sales and costs, BR *looks* to be heading downhill.

mcarnes

Dec 7, 2006, 03:52 PM

If they can fit a 1080p movie with loads of extras on a 30GB HD-DVD, then the job is done. And you never know, there could be a 50 GB HD-DVD in the near future.

Why would they need a 50GB HD-DVD if the "job is done"?

sixstorm

Dec 7, 2006, 04:07 PM

Why would they need a 50GB HD-DVD if the "job is done"?

It's just for the storage freaks out there, they "need" the extra space. I could say the same thing for BR. If you could get a 1080p movie with loads of extras, why go over 30GB?

I really wish some companies could make hybrids drives; Blu-Ray for storage and HD-DVD for movies. That would make the world spin a little smoother huh? :D

mcarnes

Dec 7, 2006, 04:22 PM

If you could get a 1080p movie with loads of extras, why go over 30GB

Some movies will need it. Like the Lord Of The Rings ROTK Extended Edition (http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Platinum-Special-Extended/dp/B000634DCW/sr=1-1/qid=1165529753/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-6893652-0627662?ie=UTF8&s=dvd) (250 minutes). In HD-DVD, this movie will likely be on 2 discs just like the DVD version. But on Blu-Ray it will probably just be one disc. That's just an example of how over 30GB might be useful.

Personally, I have not bought into either system. Maybe summer 2007 I'll pick one and get the whole thing.

Neonguy

Dec 7, 2006, 10:24 PM

You people seriously waiting for Blu-Ray and invest in them? They are ways overprice. I saw a Sony one for $799, then a Pioneer one for $999. I guess you people have a lot of money to waste on this. That is almost as much as a Computer such as an iMac.

sixstorm

Dec 8, 2006, 12:40 AM

Some movies will need it. Like the Lord Of The Rings ROTK Extended Edition (http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Platinum-Special-Extended/dp/B000634DCW/sr=1-1/qid=1165529753/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-6893652-0627662?ie=UTF8&s=dvd) (250 minutes). In HD-DVD, this movie will likely be on 2 discs just like the DVD version. But on Blu-Ray it will probably just be one disc. That's just an example of how over 30GB might be useful.

Personally, I have not bought into either system. Maybe summer 2007 I'll pick one and get the whole thing.

That's a good point but I don't think it will be much of a concern to the regular movie watcher if a 2 or 3 disc SD-DVD isn't on one disc with BR or HD-DVD.

I'm planning on purchasing the HD-DVD add-on next week for the 360 so there goes my support lol. I dunno, it just seems to me that HD-DVD is the cheaper option and most people will go for that. Once more people buy into HD-DVD, that means BR won't be selling that much and some studios might have to reconsider their choice of format and movie exclusives. And like I've said before, BR would be great for storage, and just storage alone. Who wouldn't wanna just buy a pack of BR discs and backup an entire HDD in a matter of 2-4 discs? It's a nice alternative to what we have today.