What do you think blu-ray offers over HD-DVD ?

[ianh64]

Having been the the Amir and Kevin show last night, and seeing from a Microsoft perspective, the virtues of VC-1 and HD-DVD interactivity, I would like to know what people think that blu-ray offers over and above HD-DVD as a consumer video format.

I would like to make it clear that we were not privvy to any breaking news regarding studio support, but it seems odd to me that HD-DVD is of more benefit to studio's and duplicators than blu-ray but many still remain in the blu-ray camp. With this in mind, other than those studios wishing to further protect their content with BD+ encryption on blu-ray, do you feel that studio support, currently exclusive to blu-ray (or HD-DVD) will remain loyal to a single format? If more studios supported both formats, assuming Sony remains loyal only to blu-ray, would this influence your first answer?

Reading between the lines, I think that blu-ray expected to snuff out HD-DVD long before now. Now that it has not happened, and HD-DVD has gained significant momentum compared with blu-ray rather than SD DVD, maybe studios and distributors previously aligned with blu-ray will be forced to reconsider their options.

[zeroprobe]

Personally I prefer bluray. When it comes down to it both formats can offer the same codecs so it goes on storage space for me. BD50 will be the normal one day offering higher bitrates over hddvd. I also digg the name and the fact ps3 is an all in one unit with no addons.

Of course you will need the extra space with these 3 hour epics they pump out nowadays.

Take aside all of the Sony hate and previous screw ups and you know bluray is superior to hddvd in every way. I want the 'Superior' product in my home that can fit 8 eps of a tv show rather than 5 on a disc.

[Rasczak]

Some excellent points Ian,

Originally Posted by ianh64

I would like to know what people think that blu-ray offers over and above HD-DVD as a consumer video format.

Personally I feel the answer is very little.

do you feel that studio support, currently exclusive to blu-ray (or HD-DVD) will remain loyal to a single format? If more studios supported both formats, assuming Sony remains loyal only to blu-ray, would this influence your first answer?

A think Universal (for HD DVD) and Sony (for BluRay) are both very entrenched in their respective formats. I can't see either going 'dual' anytime soon. However all the other studios - both those who are exclusive on the HD DVD and BluRay sides - will invariably go where the market does. Fox is a classic example. They held out for as long as they could with DVD - but in the end they followed the market. Now whilst I don't think the new formats will get the sales figures to force a studios hand so quickly I do feel they will eventually have to bend to pressure.

I think that blu-ray expected to snuff out HD-DVD long before now. Now that it has not happened, and HD-DVD has gained significant momentum compared with blu-ray rather than SD DVD, maybe studios and distributors previously aligned with blu-ray will be forced to reconsider their options.

Indeed. It was interesting to read Panasonic's perspective in the last issue of HCC. They were very much surprised that the format war actually happened - and even more so at the success of HD DVD. I honestly believe the format war has got to the stage now where an outright 'kill' of one format or the other is just not possible - both formats have exclusive studios/titles, both have extensive support and both have legions of fans.

My personal prediction is that, over the months and years ahead, we will see more and more studios and consumer electrics companies go 'dual'. On the studio side we know that Lionsgate and BV have little to gain from remaining exclusively BluRay. Fox and Disney have slightly higher vested interest in the format - but nothing that won't shift if the money is elsewhere. And Sony are about as entrenched as you can get.

As for dual players - well most rumours place such machines around the third generation - so highend players Q4 2008, mid range players Q4 2009, upper-budget models Q4 2010 and mass market thereafer...

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by zeroprobe

Of course you will need the extra space with these 3 hour epics they pump out nowadays.

VC1 can encode upto 6 hours onto a BD25. The extra 5GB offered by HD DVD30 will provide space for a lossless soundtrack as well

you know bluray is superior to hddvd in every way.

[zeroprobe]

Originally Posted by Rasczak

VC1 can encode upto 6 hours onto a BD25. The extra 5GB offered by HD DVD30 will provide space for a lossless soundtrack as well

Yeh extra 5gb over a single layer bd. Why not talk the equivalent bd disc 50gb over the 30gb hddvd offers at dual layer.

Dual layer bd discs are already out so you can't say they are non existent yet because thats simply not true.

[Rasczak]

Originally Posted by zeroprobe

Yeh extra 5gb over a single layer bd. Why not talk the equivalent bd disc 50gb over the 30gb hddvd offers at dual layer.

Because when you can get a VC1 encode that is transparent with the master, multiple lossy soundtracks, extras and a lossless soundtrack on a HD DVD30 then the extra 20GB isn't really the relevant. And compression is only going to get more effective - not less.

[Pincho Paxton]

Originally Posted by zeroprobe

Yeh extra 5gb over a single layer bd. Why not talk the equivalent bd disc 50gb over the 30gb hddvd offers at dual layer.

Dual layer bd discs are already out so you can't say they are non existent yet because thats simply not true.

I'ts like saying.... "I,ve found a way to make a callendar that can hold 24 months!"

There are only 12 months so you don't need the other 12.

[ianh64]

BD dual layer discs are currently produced in prototype duplicating facilities. They have a 1 in 10 yield, so basically for every 1 disc that is produced, 9 are binned. At present, this is no great problem, as a production run of 100,000 discs yielding 10,000 good discs is still a fair proportion of total players. Dual layer is inherrently hard for blu-ray, dual layer for HD-DVD has been going on since dual layer DVD's - the more modern of replication facilities can switch between SD-DVD and HD-DVD production at the press of a button. HD comes free for these replicators. Blu-ray is a completely differenct way of doing things, inherrently more difficult, inherrently slower and inherrently more expensive - and always will be. Hence limited facilities for replicating dual layer DVD's - I can't see the studios being happy with more expensive and slower replication as we all know that in the end, all that matters to those that matter is profit.

As for storage space. Other than to counter the innificiencies of MPEG-2, in real terms, for consumer video, offers nothing that HD-DVD can offer or even better. VC-1 coding of HD is 2:1 more efficient than MPEG-2. So a 30GB dual layer HD-DVD disc is equivalent to a 60GB blu-ray disc. Oddly, I see no advantage in blu-ray here, infact the advantage is with HD-DVD. If blu-ray also contains a VC-1 encode, then it is likely to have been encoded for HD-DVD first. In this case, the VC-1 encode is simply ported to blu-ray. Exactly the same picture quality, no benefit to blu-ray. So what about a blu-ray only VC-1 encode. Well since you get near perfect replication with VC1 at bit rates in the 10-15Mbs (normally 12Mbs) mark, there is no benefit to be gained going above this level. So even the longest movies ever produced (and associated HD sound tracks and extras [often more than BD]) will still fit on a HD-DVD disc.

So what you are saying is that blu-ray is superior due to storage? So how come that there is no real world benefit of this extra storage to blu-ray over HD-DVD? I've seen it with my own eyes, heard it from the horses mouth - albeit the one with the Microsoft colours on the jacket.

We shall tick that one up to the marketing men & women doing a good job on behalf of blu-ray.

[DocDVD]

Originally Posted by ianh64

Having been the the Amir and Kevin show last night, and seeing from a Microsoft perspective, the virtues of VC-1 and HD-DVD interactivity, I would like to know what people think that blu-ray offers over and above HD-DVD as a consumer video format.

Hm, nothing? (Except region coding and more DRM)

I keep always hearing that BD is so much better because it has more space and can fit longer movies on one disc...
*yawn

I've read an interesting articel a couple of months ago where a studio exec stated that the average customer is so used to "2-disc special editions" that a single disc - even with the same amount of extras - is viewed as the inferior product.

I don't really need the entire LOTR extended cut one one HD disc - if it's on two HD-DVDs I'm quite fine if I get a TrueHD track on the disc(s) as well.

[zeroprobe]

You will come up with anything to make the 50gb bd disc a disadvantage. Bottom line is they are a reality and will be and can be mass produced if need be. Your talk about 1 in 10 was probably a news link from 5 years ago.

And yes compression gets better on BOTH formats but bluray with the higher bitrates. There is always a need for extra space, think of bumper pack movies and more extras like that 10dvd of the matrix or the 24 season 5 boxset on 2 bd discs instead of 5 hddvd discs.

There can never be enough storage space who are you kidding.

[hottstuff]

The only real future advantage blu ray can offer is a double HD movie boxset on one disc and even then it may be too pricey.
HD-DVD will soon be able to offer triple layer and so BD advantage wont be so great.

I dont prefer either format , but if one is cheaper than the other with very similar if not identical results , thats the ADVANTAGE for me.

[DocDVD]

Originally Posted by zeroprobe

You will come up with anything to make the 50gb bd disc a disadvantage. Bottom line is they are a reality and will be and can be mass produced if need be. Your talk about 1 in 10 was probably a news link from 5 years ago.

And yes compression gets better on BOTH formats but bluray with the higher bitrates. There is ALWAYS a need for extra space, think of bumper pack movies and more extras like that 10dvd of the matrix or the 24 season 5 boxset on 2 bd discs instead of 5 hddvd discs.

There can never be enough storage space who are you kidding.

I didn't make the 50GB disc a "disadvantage", I was merely pointing out that it doesn't matter from a consumer perspective.

And for the "never enough space"... well, depends on what you fill it with.

I'd rather have a VC-1 compressed movie with TrueHD audio than a MPEG2 coded one with DD5.1...

[zeroprobe]

Originally Posted by DocDVD

I didn't make the 50GB disc a "disadvantage", I was merely pointing out that it doesn't matter from a consumer perspective.

And for the "never enough space"... well, depends on what you fill it with.

I'd rather have a VC-1 compressed movie with TrueHD audio than a MPEG2 coded one with DD5.1...

even with VC-1 the size is getting tight on hddvd discs, especially with the higher bitrate encodes. Hardly no room for any big extras.

I sometimes feel like the only bluray defender, or as a group we are not as threatened and defensive.

[DocDVD]

Originally Posted by zeroprobe

even with VC-1 the size is getting tight on hddvd discs, especially with the higher bitrate encodes. Hardly no room for any big extras.

I sometimes feel like the only bluray defender, or that we as a group are not as threatened and defensive.

That comes to personal preference - I always prefered the movie on one disc and the extras on another.
For the feature film, space it not an issue IMO - I also rather prefer the medium with a better protective layer as well.

It all comes down to your own personal preferences, if you like BluRay enjoy it - no need to feel as the only defender.

I made (from a consumer point of view) the following comparison:

BluRay

• more space
• more studio support
• region locked
• potentially stricter DRM
• old codecs and audio formats (at time of my decision)

HD-DVD

• less space
• less studio support
• no region coding
• new codecs and Dolby TruHD tracks from the beginning

So BluRay has the potential to be as good as HD-DVD at a premium price and also makes my life harder with a region locking scheme.

For me the choice was (and still is) clear...

[av-phile]

VC-1 is said to be getting more effcient. I have no doubt it will have better efficiencies over the years so that lower bitrates and 30GB media would be more than enough for typical hollywood films plus the usual extras. Does the market need 50gb storage for practical HT purposes?. Perhaps. Using VC1, I think you can fit Spiderman 1 and 2 in one. Or two star wars episodes each for just a 3-disc boxset, each with their own extra feature set. Or you can have a 2-hr movie and 5 - 6 hours of special features, alternate takes and endings, in which case, the 2-hr movie becomes more of an extra. Rght now, I wouldn't be surprised if a 2-hr movie in VC1 and the usual extras would leave a BD50 with more empty space than written spac.

But I doubt studios would maximize such a huge storage capacity, not because they can't but won't. They know their markets just love multi-disc packages.

I think what is overlooked here is that Blurry has a higher audio bitrate headroom than HD DVD. If i recall right the table of comparison I came across a few months back, the bitrate ceilings for DolbyTrueHD and DTS-HD indicated for Blurry are higher than those for HD DVD. I am just not sure if this advantage has been exploited to make any substantial advantage in terms of audio quality for practical HT use. Then again, maybe this bitrate headroom advantage is not really relevant when you've reach a certain bitrate value for any audio format.