Ding-ding, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD formats, take your corners!
Interesting bit of news I came across today regarding Disney and Buena Vista publicly supporiting the Blu-ray format. Equally as intriguing but not in the following article is the fact of Paramount, NBC Universal, Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema falling into the HD-DVD camp. However, some of these studios, namely Warner Bros. was no big suprise in supporting the HD-DVD format.
So as far as I know, the camps look like this (as far as movie studio support goes):
Blu-Ray - Sony, MGM, Walt Disney, Buena Vista, (Possibly 20th century Fox)
HD-DVD - Paramount, NBC Universal, Warner Bros. New Line Cinema
What are the bets on Pixar? I'm hoping Blu-Ray!
Well, Pixar is distributed through Disney until 2006, right? So they would go with Blu-Ray until at least then, and then who knows who they team up with after (or go it on their own...)
I believe Fox said they would go with Blu-Ray, but not exclusively. So basically it is a moot point for who gains an advantage with them.
At this point, I honestly don't care who wins. Both formats support the same codecs, with Blu-Ray slated to have more storage per layer. I am not big on all the extras crammed onto disks today, I just want high quality movies. So the size issue isn't a big one, as I can almost safely bet that both will look about the same quality wise (Blu-Ray gets to pack more extras on one disk, HD-DVD will ship two disk sets like DVD does today).
All I care about is how soon they come out at reasonable prices. I have a HD set, and through Comcast I get 3 all HD channels (INHD1, INHD2, and Discovery), and 6 partial HD channels (NBC, ABC, PBS, FOX, ESPNHD, and HD-Special Events). I would love more high def content, and this looks like it will be the way to get it!
I'm waiting for universal drives that play both Blu Ray and HD-DVD. Why should I have to choose. Digital Data is all the same once it hits the chips. The media means nothing really.
I'm waiting for universal drives that play both Blu Ray and HD-DVD. Why should I have to choose. Digital Data is all the same once it hits the chips. The media means nothing really.
This is the most likely scenario. There will be no true "winner" of this format war. Manufacturers will simply be forced to make combo players.
Blu-ray is clearly the better format with 50GB dual-layer discs and 100GB 4-layer and maybe 200GB 8-layer discs being developed while HD-DVD is strugling with 30GB dual-layer discs. The more storage space you have available to you the less the need to use more compression. Why bother with a HD format when you have to use more compression to fit your material on a disc? The only thing HD-DVD has going for it is the name but sadly it may be enough.
I can see HD-DVD discs being targeted to Joe consumer and Blu-ray discs being targeted to those who want the best video and audio quality. Most studios who have pledged support to a particular format have not said it was exclusive meaning they are free to release on both formats. The Sony-owned studios being the obvious exception.
There will be three types of players available:
HD-DVD only (most mainstream and generic brands)
Blu-Ray only (Sony)
Combo players (mainly higher-end brands at first, then mainstream)
I don't think there will be a winner and loser here. It is quite a bit different than the situation with SACD vs DVD-A, mainly because HD Video is driving the industry. Blu-ray will be the ideal format for computer manufacturers to adopt due to it's significant advantage in storage capacity.
I'm waiting for universal drives that play both Blu Ray and HD-DVD. Why should I have to choose. Digital Data is all the same once it hits the chips. The media means nothing really.
I'm not entirely certain you'll find that's true in this instance. While DVD+ and DVD- were relatively similar technically BR and HD-DVD aren't except for the fact they use lasers on somewhat similar wavelengths.
I'm not entirely certain you'll find that's true in this instance. While DVD+ and DVD- were relatively similar technically BR and HD-DVD aren't except for the fact they use lasers on somewhat similar wavelengths.
Both platforms have standardized on the same 3 codecs. MPEG2, AVCFreXT and VC-1. Once the data is pulled from the optical disc it is virtually identical. The only thing preventing Universals from being made initially will be cost of the optical heads.
Both platforms have standardized on the same 3 codecs. MPEG2, AVCFreXT and VC-1. Once the data is pulled from the optical disc it is virtually identical. The only thing preventing Universals from being made initially will be cost of the optical heads.
They would have to pack in 3 optical heads (DVD, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD). I don't know how cost feasible that will be for at least a couple of years, and by that point one or the other might have "won" over enough consumers to warrant it the winner.
HDTV has a bitrate around 18 mb/s (and that is using the mpeg2 codec). HD-DVD is using more efficient codecs, but still lets assume that you want maximum quality, so you use that same 18mb/s bitrate with H.264 or VC-1. You are looking at about 1 hour = 7.6GB. So an HD-DVD disk could hold a 3 hour movie and extras at the highest quality. So really any arguments that Blu-Ray will give us higher quality video because of its greater size is moot. It wont, they will have the same quality. And the 200GB disks I seriously doubt hollywood will have any use for, the computer market is more likely.
I think that this "format war" will come down to cost and availability. Blu-Rays only advantage at this point is disk size, but that really equates to nothing for hollywood (what good is a disk which has empty space on it). I could see Blu-Ray having success in the computer market place, and HD-DVD owning the home theater market. But I don't really care who wins, just as long as one of them gets out with the movies I like.
Kupan I agree, it all depends on how agressive the price declines. DVD optical head assemblies had a slow decline but somehow I think BR/HD-DVD will be a few years max. If Sony can afford to put BR playback in the next Playstation then I'm sure by 2008 universal players should be cheaper than 1st gen BR or HD-DVD players.
Quote:
but still lets assume that you want maximum quality, so you use that same 18mb/s bitrate with H.264 or VC-1. You are looking at about 1 hour = 7.6GB. So an HD-DVD disk could hold a 3 hour movie and extras at the highest quality.
While that's a possibility I don't think you'll see that happen for various reason. One, which I've read numerous times, is that WM9-HD levels off above 12kbps and you quickly see diminishing returns. Thus I think we see VC1 and h.264 staying withing their own respective "sweet spots" for encoding. MPEG2 looks great at 25mbps but it's 20+ yrs old and isn't as complex as the newer codecs.
I agree I think your point about the space is moot because I see MPEG2 as a stopgap. As long as you can squeeze 3-4 hrs of high quality on a disc it'll fly.
Format Wars suck but hell bring it on. I want HDTV sets to take off and get even cheaper. We need the content.
HDTV has a bitrate around 18 mb/s (and that is using the mpeg2 codec). HD-DVD is using more efficient codecs, but still lets assume that you want maximum quality, so you use that same 18mb/s bitrate with H.264 or VC-1. You are looking at about 1 hour = 7.6GB. So an HD-DVD disk could hold a 3 hour movie and extras at the highest quality. So really any arguments that Blu-Ray will give us higher quality video because of its greater size is moot. It wont, they will have the same quality. And the 200GB disks I seriously doubt hollywood will have any use for, the computer market is more likely.
That would make sense if Blu-Ray only supported MPEG-2. However, this is not the case and has not been for some time now. Blu-Ray supports the very same codecs as HD-DVD. 50GB of H.264 or VC-1 is better than 30GB of H.264 or VC-1. No contest. End of story.
The less compression needed the better. Personally I would rather record the native MPEG-2 transport stream being broadcast rather than re-encode it with one of these other codecs. Still, these codecs are part of the Blu-Ray spec and will be useful when space is more important than quality. But then Blu-Ray will also have 100GB and maybe 200GB discs as well. Imagine how many programs you could record using H.264 and a 200GB disc! Oh, and Blu-Ray has faster read/write times too.
Empty space on the disc? I don't think so. Even after using the highest quality bitrate possible (don't forget high-quality audio) imagine all the extras they could pack in. This whole "Eh, it's good enough" attitude is what ends up biting you in the ass later on. Never underestimate the need for storage capacity. Look at all the DVDs on the market with extra discs being required for extra content. It's important to make the HD format as future-proof as possible. Why not strive for the best? Can you imagine people saying the G4 is good enough for the next 10 years so why bother with the G5? No way!
i just finished a 4 page paper on high-definition dvd's. h.264 and HD-DVD is the way to go. h.264 is a superior codec, more SMPTE friendly, and not microsoft controlled. HD-DVD is similar to existing DVD's in structure, so manufacturers will not have too much of a problem catering to the new discs. i'll post the whole paper if you want, but im tired right now. anyways, blu-ray doesnt necessarily suck, but it is definitely a "DVD+R" at best.
i just finished a 4 page paper on high-definition dvd's. h.264 and HD-DVD is the way to go. h.264 is a superior codec, more SMPTE friendly, and not microsoft controlled. HD-DVD is similar to existing DVD's in structure, so manufacturers will not have too much of a problem catering to the new discs. i'll post the whole paper if you want, but im tired right now. anyways, blu-ray doesnt necessarily suck, but it is definitely a "DVD+R" at best.
Well, I'm way curious - and if you're all like snoozy; that's what copy and paste was made for baby!
i just finished a 4 page paper on high-definition dvd's. h.264 and HD-DVD is the way to go. h.264 is a superior codec, more SMPTE friendly, and not microsoft controlled. HD-DVD is similar to existing DVD's in structure, so manufacturers will not have too much of a problem catering to the new discs. i'll post the whole paper if you want, but im tired right now. anyways, blu-ray doesnt necessarily suck, but it is definitely a "DVD+R" at best.
Again, Blu-Ray supports H.264 so why it would be a "DVD+R at best" is beyond me. It has both the superior codec and significantly higher capacity. I am going to write a paper on why the G4 processor is clearly superior to the G5 now.
It [Blu-Ray] has both the superior codec and significantly higher capacity.
That sounds a little misleading. Blu-Ray doesn't have a superior codec over HD-DVD, they all share the exact same selection of codecs (I know what you were saying, just clarifying for the the less informed). And as I mentioned a few posts up, Blu-Rays storage capacity gains mean virtually nothing for the non-computer market. You can fit the highest HD quality movie (with a running time of at least 3 hours) with extras onto an HD-DVD. You wont get any higher quality on a Blu-Ray disk with its extra storage, because at that point the bitrate of the codecs have passed the point of diminishing returns.
And as I mentioned a few posts up, Blu-Rays storage capacity gains mean virtually nothing for the non-computer market.
I don't know about the statement above, but I could envision the entire LOTR trilogy, or the entire Matrix triglogy on a single disc rather than having to buy seperate discs for each one when it comes to Blu-Ray. That, to me would be a benefit that does mean something to the non-computer market. Especially when you consider the capacity that the Blu-Ray discs could reach--100 GB and 200 GB. Heck, if you're getting that big you could fit all 6 Star Wars movies on one disc. Now that would be sweet.
Also, it is my understanding that TDK has developed a special clear protective coating for Blu-Ray discs exclusively that is impervious to liquid, such as ink, and highly scratch resistant as I remember reading somewhere where they actually took a Blu-Ray disc and smashed it into some dirt, wiped it off, put the disc back into the player and the movie that was contained on it played flawlessly. Yet another advantage that I can think of that Blu-Ray has over HD-DVD discs.
Moreover, how do the anti-piracy technologies in either of these formats stack up? Anyone know? Because, to me, Hollywood studios I would think would hold this in high regard.
Also, wouldn't it be interesting if on Blu-Ray discs, because of their higher capacity, included computer games / PS3 games along with the movie??? That, to me might be another added benefit that might mean something. Anyways, just some fleeting thoughts.
Comments
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/pr...4/041115c.html
So, ya think we could see drives in PowerMacs come summer 05? First an iPod partnership, now a Blu-Ray one?....Sign me up!
Originally posted by marzetta7
Nov 15, 2004 - HP to Introduce Blu-ray Disc Drives in PCs Next Year
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/pr...4/041115c.html
So, ya think we could see drives in PowerMacs come summer 05? First an iPod partnership, now a Blu-Ray one?....Sign me up!
Summer 2005? Maybe I'll even have time to save up and get that High-Def camcorder recorder too.
However playback only devices might be a few hundred cheaper if they can reach some economy of scale with putting the BR mech in the Playstation 3
Interesting bit of news I came across today regarding Disney and Buena Vista publicly supporiting the Blu-ray format. Equally as intriguing but not in the following article is the fact of Paramount, NBC Universal, Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema falling into the HD-DVD camp. However, some of these studios, namely Warner Bros. was no big suprise in supporting the HD-DVD format.
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/...99&newsLang=en
So as far as I know, the camps look like this (as far as movie studio support goes):
Blu-Ray - Sony, MGM, Walt Disney, Buena Vista, (Possibly 20th century Fox)
HD-DVD - Paramount, NBC Universal, Warner Bros. New Line Cinema
What are the bets on Pixar? I'm hoping Blu-Ray!
Originally posted by marzetta7
So as far as I know, the camps look like this (as far as movie studio support goes):
Blu-Ray - Sony, MGM, Walt Disney, Buena Vista, (Possibly 20th century Fox)
HD-DVD - Paramount, NBC Universal, Warner Bros. New Line Cinema
What are the bets on Pixar? I'm hoping Blu-Ray!
Well, Pixar is distributed through Disney until 2006, right? So they would go with Blu-Ray until at least then, and then who knows who they team up with after (or go it on their own...)
I believe Fox said they would go with Blu-Ray, but not exclusively. So basically it is a moot point for who gains an advantage with them.
At this point, I honestly don't care who wins. Both formats support the same codecs, with Blu-Ray slated to have more storage per layer. I am not big on all the extras crammed onto disks today, I just want high quality movies. So the size issue isn't a big one, as I can almost safely bet that both will look about the same quality wise (Blu-Ray gets to pack more extras on one disk, HD-DVD will ship two disk sets like DVD does today).
All I care about is how soon they come out at reasonable prices. I have a HD set, and through Comcast I get 3 all HD channels (INHD1, INHD2, and Discovery), and 6 partial HD channels (NBC, ABC, PBS, FOX, ESPNHD, and HD-Special Events). I would love more high def content, and this looks like it will be the way to get it!
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm waiting for universal drives that play both Blu Ray and HD-DVD. Why should I have to choose. Digital Data is all the same once it hits the chips. The media means nothing really.
This is the most likely scenario. There will be no true "winner" of this format war. Manufacturers will simply be forced to make combo players.
Blu-ray is clearly the better format with 50GB dual-layer discs and 100GB 4-layer and maybe 200GB 8-layer discs being developed while HD-DVD is strugling with 30GB dual-layer discs. The more storage space you have available to you the less the need to use more compression. Why bother with a HD format when you have to use more compression to fit your material on a disc? The only thing HD-DVD has going for it is the name but sadly it may be enough.
I can see HD-DVD discs being targeted to Joe consumer and Blu-ray discs being targeted to those who want the best video and audio quality. Most studios who have pledged support to a particular format have not said it was exclusive meaning they are free to release on both formats. The Sony-owned studios being the obvious exception.
There will be three types of players available:
HD-DVD only (most mainstream and generic brands)
Blu-Ray only (Sony)
Combo players (mainly higher-end brands at first, then mainstream)
I don't think there will be a winner and loser here. It is quite a bit different than the situation with SACD vs DVD-A, mainly because HD Video is driving the industry. Blu-ray will be the ideal format for computer manufacturers to adopt due to it's significant advantage in storage capacity.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I'm waiting for universal drives that play both Blu Ray and HD-DVD. Why should I have to choose. Digital Data is all the same once it hits the chips. The media means nothing really.
I'm not entirely certain you'll find that's true in this instance. While DVD+ and DVD- were relatively similar technically BR and HD-DVD aren't except for the fact they use lasers on somewhat similar wavelengths.
Originally posted by Telomar
I'm not entirely certain you'll find that's true in this instance. While DVD+ and DVD- were relatively similar technically BR and HD-DVD aren't except for the fact they use lasers on somewhat similar wavelengths.
Both platforms have standardized on the same 3 codecs. MPEG2, AVCFreXT and VC-1. Once the data is pulled from the optical disc it is virtually identical. The only thing preventing Universals from being made initially will be cost of the optical heads.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Both platforms have standardized on the same 3 codecs. MPEG2, AVCFreXT and VC-1. Once the data is pulled from the optical disc it is virtually identical. The only thing preventing Universals from being made initially will be cost of the optical heads.
They would have to pack in 3 optical heads (DVD, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD). I don't know how cost feasible that will be for at least a couple of years, and by that point one or the other might have "won" over enough consumers to warrant it the winner.
HDTV has a bitrate around 18 mb/s (and that is using the mpeg2 codec). HD-DVD is using more efficient codecs, but still lets assume that you want maximum quality, so you use that same 18mb/s bitrate with H.264 or VC-1. You are looking at about 1 hour = 7.6GB. So an HD-DVD disk could hold a 3 hour movie and extras at the highest quality. So really any arguments that Blu-Ray will give us higher quality video because of its greater size is moot. It wont, they will have the same quality. And the 200GB disks I seriously doubt hollywood will have any use for, the computer market is more likely.
I think that this "format war" will come down to cost and availability. Blu-Rays only advantage at this point is disk size, but that really equates to nothing for hollywood (what good is a disk which has empty space on it). I could see Blu-Ray having success in the computer market place, and HD-DVD owning the home theater market. But I don't really care who wins, just as long as one of them gets out with the movies I like.
but still lets assume that you want maximum quality, so you use that same 18mb/s bitrate with H.264 or VC-1. You are looking at about 1 hour = 7.6GB. So an HD-DVD disk could hold a 3 hour movie and extras at the highest quality.
While that's a possibility I don't think you'll see that happen for various reason. One, which I've read numerous times, is that WM9-HD levels off above 12kbps and you quickly see diminishing returns. Thus I think we see VC1 and h.264 staying withing their own respective "sweet spots" for encoding. MPEG2 looks great at 25mbps but it's 20+ yrs old and isn't as complex as the newer codecs.
I agree I think your point about the space is moot because I see MPEG2 as a stopgap. As long as you can squeeze 3-4 hrs of high quality on a disc it'll fly.
Format Wars suck but hell bring it on. I want HDTV sets to take off and get even cheaper. We need the content.
Originally posted by kupan787
HDTV has a bitrate around 18 mb/s (and that is using the mpeg2 codec). HD-DVD is using more efficient codecs, but still lets assume that you want maximum quality, so you use that same 18mb/s bitrate with H.264 or VC-1. You are looking at about 1 hour = 7.6GB. So an HD-DVD disk could hold a 3 hour movie and extras at the highest quality. So really any arguments that Blu-Ray will give us higher quality video because of its greater size is moot. It wont, they will have the same quality. And the 200GB disks I seriously doubt hollywood will have any use for, the computer market is more likely.
That would make sense if Blu-Ray only supported MPEG-2. However, this is not the case and has not been for some time now. Blu-Ray supports the very same codecs as HD-DVD. 50GB of H.264 or VC-1 is better than 30GB of H.264 or VC-1. No contest. End of story.
The less compression needed the better. Personally I would rather record the native MPEG-2 transport stream being broadcast rather than re-encode it with one of these other codecs. Still, these codecs are part of the Blu-Ray spec and will be useful when space is more important than quality. But then Blu-Ray will also have 100GB and maybe 200GB discs as well. Imagine how many programs you could record using H.264 and a 200GB disc! Oh, and Blu-Ray has faster read/write times too.
Empty space on the disc? I don't think so. Even after using the highest quality bitrate possible (don't forget high-quality audio) imagine all the extras they could pack in. This whole "Eh, it's good enough" attitude is what ends up biting you in the ass later on. Never underestimate the need for storage capacity. Look at all the DVDs on the market with extra discs being required for extra content. It's important to make the HD format as future-proof as possible. Why not strive for the best? Can you imagine people saying the G4 is good enough for the next 10 years so why bother with the G5? No way!
Blu-Ray all the way baby!
Originally posted by ipodandimac
i just finished a 4 page paper on high-definition dvd's. h.264 and HD-DVD is the way to go. h.264 is a superior codec, more SMPTE friendly, and not microsoft controlled. HD-DVD is similar to existing DVD's in structure, so manufacturers will not have too much of a problem catering to the new discs. i'll post the whole paper if you want, but im tired right now. anyways, blu-ray doesnt necessarily suck, but it is definitely a "DVD+R" at best.
Well, I'm way curious - and if you're all like snoozy; that's what copy and paste was made for baby!
Originally posted by ipodandimac
i just finished a 4 page paper on high-definition dvd's. h.264 and HD-DVD is the way to go. h.264 is a superior codec, more SMPTE friendly, and not microsoft controlled. HD-DVD is similar to existing DVD's in structure, so manufacturers will not have too much of a problem catering to the new discs. i'll post the whole paper if you want, but im tired right now. anyways, blu-ray doesnt necessarily suck, but it is definitely a "DVD+R" at best.
Again, Blu-Ray supports H.264 so why it would be a "DVD+R at best" is beyond me. It has both the superior codec and significantly higher capacity. I am going to write a paper on why the G4 processor is clearly superior to the G5 now.
Originally posted by TWinbrook46636
It [Blu-Ray] has both the superior codec and significantly higher capacity.
That sounds a little misleading. Blu-Ray doesn't have a superior codec over HD-DVD, they all share the exact same selection of codecs (I know what you were saying, just clarifying for the the less informed). And as I mentioned a few posts up, Blu-Rays storage capacity gains mean virtually nothing for the non-computer market. You can fit the highest HD quality movie (with a running time of at least 3 hours) with extras onto an HD-DVD. You wont get any higher quality on a Blu-Ray disk with its extra storage, because at that point the bitrate of the codecs have passed the point of diminishing returns.
Originally posted by OverToasty
Well, I'm way curious - and if you're all like snoozy; that's what copy and paste was made for baby!
download the doc
i'm not an english major, so please dont evaluate my ability to write.
I don't know about the statement above, but I could envision the entire LOTR trilogy, or the entire Matrix triglogy on a single disc rather than having to buy seperate discs for each one when it comes to Blu-Ray. That, to me would be a benefit that does mean something to the non-computer market. Especially when you consider the capacity that the Blu-Ray discs could reach--100 GB and 200 GB. Heck, if you're getting that big you could fit all 6 Star Wars movies on one disc. Now that would be sweet.
Also, it is my understanding that TDK has developed a special clear protective coating for Blu-Ray discs exclusively that is impervious to liquid, such as ink, and highly scratch resistant as I remember reading somewhere where they actually took a Blu-Ray disc and smashed it into some dirt, wiped it off, put the disc back into the player and the movie that was contained on it played flawlessly. Yet another advantage that I can think of that Blu-Ray has over HD-DVD discs.
Moreover, how do the anti-piracy technologies in either of these formats stack up? Anyone know? Because, to me, Hollywood studios I would think would hold this in high regard.
Also, wouldn't it be interesting if on Blu-Ray discs, because of their higher capacity, included computer games / PS3 games along with the movie??? That, to me might be another added benefit that might mean something. Anyways, just some fleeting thoughts.