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.
