As we all have been "taught" now, yes, it will of course look better. It's a frickin Blue laser. What do you not get?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray [misc discussion]
- Thread starter MRU
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
As we all have been "taught" now, yes, it will of course look better. It's a frickin Blue laser. What do you not get?
HD-DVD and Blu-ray both use a blue laser and MPEG-4.As we all have been "taught" now, yes, it will of course look better. It's a frickin Blue laser. What do you not get?
The correct answer is:
No, there is no visible difference between the Blu-ray and HD-DVD versions.
Crap. Let me go find some quotes without context and half-truths to prove you wrong.
On top of that, I bet the audio is uncompressed, which makes it better. Don't worry about the video being compressed though, that's unimportant. Bathe in the uncompressed sound.
vision is what you lack my friend. if you look to the future you would think about having this format over the long run. im not saying ALL movies need to be more than 30 GB (is this another case of cognitive dissonance?) and I never said that, but SOME movies do and will over the next 10 years.
its not misqouting when you are qouting the relevant section for the topic at hand. i took an entire paragraph, no "snipping" except taking the one paragraph that was relevant. we were discussing the size constraints of hd-dvd, not the opinion of the people over at hidifdigest.com.
yes, the supplements were on the second disc because they couldn't even fit fullHD audio or Uncompressed audio on one disc, let alone extras! laughable.
im not really sure what the point of your post is....do you think hd-dvd is better or something? why? please explain your view point instead of dismissing mine.
Um, mkubal, as GFLPraxis said, they both use a blue laser. Check Wikipedia if you don't believe either of us. And the difference in laser just means you can put more of something onto the disc, not that it's of better quality, specifically. One can follow from the other, sure, but it doesn't have to.As we all have been "taught" now, yes, it will of course look better. It's a frickin Blue laser. What do you not get?
GFLPraxis: I didn't think so, but I was actually hoping that maybe Ed H and any other people who've watched it could give their opinion.
Sarcasm never comes across well on the interwebs. I had hoped the smiley would have helped.
I think what you don't understand is that they CAN fit those movies on a 30 gig disc. No one seemed to have a problem with DVDs that had two discs, one for the bonus materials. In fact people seemed to think they were getting more because of it.
Let me ask you this: Posit that the HD DVD 51GB disc becomes a reality and that all new players can play them (and perhaps some older ones). Would you switch to HD DVD then because of the extra gig of space? I mean, you have to have vision. Think of the future without that 1 extra gig. Awful really.
No, that was your answer to me saying that I hoped you weren't complaining about the audio. You responded with a qoute out of context that made it seem like the audio was crap and conveniently left out the large portion that directly followed your quote that praised the audio as some of the best out there.
How tragic that someone might have to get up off the couch and change discs to watch the crappy bonus material. Although with DVDs no one seemed to have a problem with this.
The point was to counter the FUD.
How many MacRumors people have A/V set ups where they can actually listen and tell the difference between compressed and uncompressed 5.1 audio? I certainly do not. The difference between Apple lossless and a 64kbps song is pretty obvious, but I suspect that more 80 or 90% of the current Blu Ray & HD DVD watchers they don't have the equipment or finely tuned ears to tell.
While I want uncompressed audio and the best CODEC out there on principle, it's not like I have 1/10th of the funds or equipment to actually be able to tell the difference-- thus I have to base my opinions on snooty A/V review magazines that are far far removed from the reality of my 5 year old HDTV and receiver.
If and/or when one of these formats 'wins,' or gets replaced by downloading in a few years' time there will still be some dweebs out there arguing that their particular format of choice was superior. Maybe they will even have a point, like the Amiga and Sega fans and their respective torches they still carry.
I just hope that this particular format war is not dragged out to the point where they become obsolete by better technology-- and I currently fear that is exactly what is going to happen-- thus I have not purchased either format. If they had managed to come to a compromise I'd be building a movie library instead of prattling on in an internet forum.
While I want uncompressed audio and the best CODEC out there on principle, it's not like I have 1/10th of the funds or equipment to actually be able to tell the difference-- thus I have to base my opinions on snooty A/V review magazines that are far far removed from the reality of my 5 year old HDTV and receiver.
If and/or when one of these formats 'wins,' or gets replaced by downloading in a few years' time there will still be some dweebs out there arguing that their particular format of choice was superior. Maybe they will even have a point, like the Amiga and Sega fans and their respective torches they still carry.
I just hope that this particular format war is not dragged out to the point where they become obsolete by better technology-- and I currently fear that is exactly what is going to happen-- thus I have not purchased either format. If they had managed to come to a compromise I'd be building a movie library instead of prattling on in an internet forum.
you obviously have not read through this forum:
I agree with you that perceived value is increased with a second disc; and having supplements on a second disc is not an issue. BUT, the issue is hd-dvd requires trueHD or uncompressed audio, and transformers (hd-dvds poster movie) could not meet the requirements DUE TO LACK IN SPACE (on one disc)
this is a matter of fact, and the sole reason I qouted that paragraph from the hd-dvd boys over at hidefdigest.com (im sure they thought the audio, sounded good)
i would switch to hd-dvd/neutral if warner goes exclusive hd-dvd, thats it. not if the 51 GB (quad layer) hd-dvd reaches the market.
by not reading through the forum you also missed the fact that in 2006, TDK unveiled a 100 GB (quad layer) blu-ray disc, that does not require hardware updates. i love that there is a 50 GB difference between each formats quad layer disc.
you really think I was posting all of that because there are 2 discs? its because the movie couldnt meet its own formats requirements bc of the size limitation. its not FUD, its truth. internalize it how you want.
edit: i would also go hd-dvd if apple did (exclusively)
Few questions:
1. For those of us that just tuned in, what's the argument FOR HD-DVD? If it's cost, then what happens when you need 2 HD-DVD discs vs 1 Bluray for 50GB of content? In that case one BD would be both more economical and more environmentally friendly than 2 HD-DVDs.
2. If tri-layer, quad layer or even 8 layer discs are mass produced, can the current players even read them? How would they know where to focus the laser?
It just seems that we can have HD-DVD, then the next thing and update every few years, OR bluray, which will last longer before we need to span across multiple discs.
1. For those of us that just tuned in, what's the argument FOR HD-DVD? If it's cost, then what happens when you need 2 HD-DVD discs vs 1 Bluray for 50GB of content? In that case one BD would be both more economical and more environmentally friendly than 2 HD-DVDs.
2. If tri-layer, quad layer or even 8 layer discs are mass produced, can the current players even read them? How would they know where to focus the laser?
It just seems that we can have HD-DVD, then the next thing and update every few years, OR bluray, which will last longer before we need to span across multiple discs.
Sarcasm never comes across well on the interwebs. I had hoped the smiley would have helped.
Ah, hehe. I wasn't thinking clearly at the time either - darn lack of sleep!
It's primarily cost and the fact that there is no region locking whatsoever. There's already 50 GB HD-DVDs.
The reality is that both mediums have more than enough space for what is needed. Blu-ray just holds more than the other, but both are plenty.
There is currently no region coding on current HD DVDs. However, the DVD Forum has approved region coding, just no studios have chosen to use it yet.
exactly.
haha, we've been over this praxis! the 50 GB disc is in development and not playable on all of those toshibas people have. you must have been too worried about my apostrophes to pick up on that. besides, there is a reason they are developing the 50 GB disc, they know they need it. same reason blu ray unveiled a 100 GB disc last year (i have to say these things over and over)
ive already told the people on this thread that as well.
Just because discs are getting bigger doesn't mean compression won't get better.
you love compression dont you? so, you are arguing that hd-dvd's lack of space will BECOME a NON-ISSUE as compression gets better?
you must have bought an hd-dvd player because no sane person would expect the content to conform to the media! (unless of course they are stuck with a $200 POS)
you mean kinda like sony expected it back in the atrac player days ?
therefor. because of your definitition, sony = no sane person
(and that's coming from somebody who wears a sony sweater currently
)
Note that I own a PS3 and no HD-DVD player currently.
Also, my point was, simply having more storage is only one side of the coin. Being able to make things smaller without losing quality is the other.
memory sticks are still around.
the ps3 is overpriced for bums. not for people looking to buy blu-ray.
when did I ever say sony was sane?
i must have got you mixed up with another person. you must be the guy with a ps3 and no blu-rays?
anyways, are you just throwing that in as a side note? i think most people understand compression willl always get better, but we are talking about blu-ray and hd-dvd....care to further develop your thoughts?
the ps3 is overpriced for bums. not for people looking to buy blu-ray.
when did I ever say sony was sane?
Note that I own a PS3 and no HD-DVD player currently.
Also, my point was, simply having more storage is only one side of the coin. Being able to make things smaller without losing quality is the other.
i must have got you mixed up with another person. you must be the guy with a ps3 and no blu-rays?
anyways, are you just throwing that in as a side note? i think most people understand compression willl always get better, but we are talking about blu-ray and hd-dvd....care to further develop your thoughts?
Yeah, it sounds like you mixed me up with someone else. No biggy. I am indeed the one with the PS3 and no Blu-ray movies.
It was mostly a side note - since I don't think that most of the Blu-ray backers will ever use anything compressed, regardless of if it keeps the same quality or not, and who knows what the HD-DVD camp will do. If I take it further, it could be that compression will be good enough eventually to let the best in video and audio that we currently can get on a disc (1080p with PCM audio or whatever it's called) will fit even on a 15 gig HD-DVD and 25 gig Blu-ray.
It was mostly a side note - since I don't think that most of the Blu-ray backers will ever use anything compressed, regardless of if it keeps the same quality or not, and who knows what the HD-DVD camp will do. If I take it further, it could be that compression will be good enough eventually to let the best in video and audio that we currently can get on a disc (1080p with PCM audio or whatever it's called) will fit even on a 15 gig HD-DVD and 25 gig Blu-ray.
No; HD-DVD's 'lack of space' is already a non-issue. Modern compression allows a HD movie to fit on a dual layer DVD; HD-DVD has plenty of space. Compression will only continue to improve!
It's 15 GB per layer vs 25 GB per layer, with both formats having dual layer disks on the market and both working on tri-layer. 30 vs 50 GB is not bad at all; I'd hardly call 30 GB lacking in space. It can hold plenty.
if the first blockbuster movie for a format is cut short due to lack of space (coming straight from paramounts mouth) its hard/impossible to argue that its a non-issue. transformers was a dual layer disc and could not fit, and once again so you might remember this time, transformers was a dual layer disc and could not fit.
what is your definition of 'plenty'? as long as it can fit some of the stuff, its plenty? besides, why are you happy with 'plenty' when you can have twice as many GBs at a lower cost per GB?
you are really good at regurgatating what has already been said in this thread
compression getting better is irrelevant, it will get better for both formats at the same rate, and movies will keep getting longer. also, people will be using blu-ray for data storage and will seriously appreciate an extra 20 GB on each dual layer disc.
black friday week
update on the matter at hand:
The high-definition format war tilted even more heavily in favor of Blu-ray Disc despite a rash of inexpensive HD DVD players sold through Wal-Mart and other discount retailers in recent weeks. Nielsen VideoScan data for the week shows 72.6% of high-definition discs purchased by consumers were Blu-ray and just 27.4% were HD DVD. HD DVD players have been selling for as little as $98, one-fourth the lowest street price for a Blu-ray player.
link
i wont even say anything to avoid being accused of spreading FUD
update on the matter at hand:
The high-definition format war tilted even more heavily in favor of Blu-ray Disc despite a rash of inexpensive HD DVD players sold through Wal-Mart and other discount retailers in recent weeks. Nielsen VideoScan data for the week shows 72.6% of high-definition discs purchased by consumers were Blu-ray and just 27.4% were HD DVD. HD DVD players have been selling for as little as $98, one-fourth the lowest street price for a Blu-ray player.
link
i wont even say anything to avoid being accused of spreading FUD
Ohh this is interesting discussion
I have a question, how do most people know how many HDDVD and Blu Ray sold in set time?
Also I thought this war was gonna end already by end of this year, because LG and Samsung was coming out with dual format at resonable price of 300-500 4th quarter?
link
Thats what happen for DVD +/- war, dual format .
I predicted when the war started that Blu Ray was for computers for its large capacity while HDDVD was for movies, guess I was wrong.
I have a question, how do most people know how many HDDVD and Blu Ray sold in set time?
Also I thought this war was gonna end already by end of this year, because LG and Samsung was coming out with dual format at resonable price of 300-500 4th quarter?
link
Thats what happen for DVD +/- war, dual format .
I predicted when the war started that Blu Ray was for computers for its large capacity while HDDVD was for movies, guess I was wrong.