Actually, there is a value in Apple choosing sides. Microsoft is heavily invested in HD DVD. The VC-1 codec that is used on a large percentage of HD DVD's is a renamed version of Microsoft's WMV format and the interactive features of HD DVD are powered by Microsoft's HDi. Stopping MS from getting another stranglehold on technology seems like a pretty good reason to me.
And if, as you suggest, universal, dual-formats players win, then both formats lose. Current dual-format players cost more than buying 2 different players for each format. There's also the retail aspect to think about with 2 formats sucking up valuable shelf space. This CES should be about ditching the losing format if HD content is to survive.
As long as both formats support AVC Apple's fine. DVD Studio Pro 4.x can deliver HD content on DVD discs in MPEG2 and AVC support now. No VC-1 support without a Telestream plugin as of today.
Apple voted for HDi as an interactive layer (DVD Forum Vote). We must not forget that Apple really isn't the fondest of JAVA either. I'm not talking about STB for Universal players. I'm talking about a bare drive that can be put in a Mac Pro. The LG (if you can find it) is $299 by next year the drives could be as low as $199. That makes moving to a Universal drive a no brainer IMO.
Apple isn't a content provider like a studio is so there's no stress for them to ditch anything. If they can support both formats affordably and make money doing so they will. The money for Apple is in authoring...they are well insulated against the failing of either format.
I've ben looking at the few combo players that have been, and are, out there. The problem with all of them is that they are danged expensive. $1,000!
This would mean that we shouldn't expect HD playback for almost another year. Bonkers!
Apple must take sides now. If they put players in their less expensive machines, they will influence the outcome. Those who don't agree with that haven't paid attention to the figures.
Apple users buy digital downloads, and media, at a far higher clip than do their PC buying friends.
Sony has sold millions of PS3's, while MS has sold only 120 thousand HD-DVD add-ons for the 360. While HD-DVD has sold about 35% more stand alone players than has Blu-Ray, BD movies are selling at a 2 to 1 clip. That's important, because it's the amount of media sold that will determine who wins this.
If Apple could add a few million more BD players to the mix this year, it could move BD over the top.
Apple must get involved.
I doubt it. What's in it for Apple? If BD wins ...so what. Time Machine doesn't work with BD discs. BD means Apple has to add DRM virtual machine to their OS that's already showing weakness. Apple doesn't own studios so they reap any rewards there. Most of the people screaming about HD DVD or Blu-ray and killing format wars are doing so for their own edification. They want to know that "they" are buying the right product. Whateva..it's not rocket science here. Even if either format dies they will still playback great HD content seeing as how HD camcorders are growing very fast.
Storage size for backups AND media durability are huge for me. Why didn't HD-DVD go for better durability as well?
Because HD DVD didn't go for better anything.
Current capacity: 60% of Blu-ray for each layer.
Future capacity: Prototype Blu-ray discs have been made with up to 8 layers. HD DVD is struggling to get to three.
Read speed: Slower than Blu-ray.
Burner speed: Slower than Blu-ray and likely to stay that way since the older DVD technology it's based on is causing too many problems with the blue laser scattering in the thick substrate.
Scratch resistance: Far lower than Blu-ray.
Long term archival stability: Questionable since it uses organic dyes just like writable DVDs and CDs, while BD-R uses phase-change material.
Price: Much vaunted, but in practice, writable HD DVD discs have turned out to be more expensive than Blu-ray blanks in terms of $/GB, and slower as well (1x rated compared with 2x rated).
Quite frankly, for computer use, there's not a single advantage to HD DVD. And that's why Apple would be smart to choose Blu-ray.
Quite frankly, for computer use, there's not a single advantage to HD DVD. And that's why Apple would be smart to choose Blu-ray.
All HD DVD players have access to the internet- all of them. Blu-ray players do not. Know what you are speaking about before you put your foot in your mouth.
All HD DVD players have access to the internet- all of them. Blu-ray players do not. Know what you are speaking about before you put your foot in your mouth.
I think he means for computer uses and not STB movie playback. I'd agree with him as well. Blu-ray has more of an advantage within a computing realm than HD DVD but I still think Optical technology is only good when it's really cheap. I don't have a use for $14 writable discs (too expensive). I generally don't need to transport 25-50GB of data.
I think online backups will be the future coupled with pooled (and redundant) storage at home (think ZFS). Portable storage will be handled by flash drives (once 16GB can be had for less than $50).
All HD DVD players have access to the internet- all of them. Blu-ray players do not. Know what you are speaking about before you put your foot in your mouth.
Soooo, use your HD DVD player for computer purposes much? Somebody definitely put his foot deep into his mouth here and it's not me.
P.S. The best-selling Blu-ray player is the PS3, which -- surprise -- can access the net. It can even do it wirelessly out of the box if you already have a wireless router. Can your beloved HD DVD players do that?
P.S. The best-selling Blu-ray player is the PS3, which -- surprise -- can access the net. It can even do it wirelessly out of the box if you already have a wireless router. Can your beloved HD DVD players do that?
The xBox-flavored ones can, yes. Difference is, the HD DVDs can actually do something once they get online, while blu-Ray won't get internet-based features until they reach their Profile 2.0 status this time next year. That's HD DVD's big advantage by the way; it's a finished format
Storage size for backups AND media durability are huge for me. Why didn't HD-DVD go for better durability as well?
51GB of storage space is the highest amount ratiefied amongst both platforms and that is with HD DVD (of course no discs have been made in that Triple Layer config yet)
HD DVD doesn't need a protective layer because its protection layer is 6x thicker than Blu-ray. While many tout the durability of Blu-ray let is not forget that it's scratch resistent but if you should happen to penetrate the film covering your disc is toast and cannot be repaird. HD DVD can be repared using the same DVD disc repair technique.
I think he means for computer uses and not STB movie playback. I'd agree with him as well. Blu-ray has more of an advantage within a computing realm than HD DVD but I still think Optical technology is only good when it's really cheap. I don't have a use for $14 writable discs (too expensive). I generally don't need to transport 25-50GB of data.
I think online backups will be the future coupled with pooled (and redundant) storage at home (think ZFS). Portable storage will be handled by flash drives (once 16GB can be had for less than $50).
Irony?
A $14 disc holding 25-50GB is no good compared to a $50 16GB flash drive
BTW remember when CDs were $20 then they were $15 then they were $10.. now what are they? pennys??
I definitely understand this, and as a fellow movie buff I completely understand this, but it's been proven time and time again that the quality between HD DVD and Blu-ray is practically non-existent, so why is everyone in such a hurry in getting either format immediately and then having a debate about which is better?
Frankly, NEITHER are any worth any salt. Until content is there, until there's a multi-format player, it's not worth getting either one.
w00master
I would say it's pretty much impossible to judge whether one format delivers higher quality than the other. Dual format releases from Warner (and previously Paramount) are using the same video encodes and thus should look exactly the same. But Paramount stated that Transformers on HD DVD lacked lossless audio because there was insufficient disc space, which seems to clearly indicate that HD DVD is already reaching certain limits. And it makes you wonder what compromises Warner has to make with audio and video when creating dual format releases. Or look at a release like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix where the Blu-Ray contains 12 audio tracks versus 4 on the HD DVD, which is great from a studio perspective since than can produce one disc usable in every market instead of having to create a U.S. version, German version, Japanese version, etc.
I also never said that either format was better than the other. At the time I purchased my PS3, the only HD DVD exclusive studio was Universal, thus the format war winner seemed a pretty foregone conclusion.
I do not understand your comment about there not being content. I already own 50 movies on Blu-Ray (only 6 of which I previously owned on DVD) and if I could afford it, I'd probably own 2 or 3 times that number.
If you really want content to grow, dual-format players are not the answer. They are the death of both formats. Movie studios, movie retailers, electronics manufacturers, and consumers do not want two formats to deal with.
The xBox-flavored ones can, yes. Difference is, the HD DVDs can actually do something once they get online, while blu-Ray won't get internet-based features until they reach their Profile 2.0 status this time next year. That's HD DVD's big advantage by the way; it's a finished format
With luck, Apple choosing Blu-ray will help turn HD DVD into a finished format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
51GB of storage space is the highest amount ratiefied amongst both platforms and that is with HD DVD (of course no discs have been made in that Triple Layer config yet)
And probably never will. It's vaporware they've been touting for over a year. Besides, you conveniently omit that even Toshiba itself has admitted that the third layer would have a lot of read errors, so it will not have 51GB capacity in the real world sense. I don't even want to think about the write errors if they ever created triple layer HD DVD-R.
Quote:
HD DVD doesn't need a protective layer because its protection layer is 6x thicker than Blu-ray. While many tout the durability of Blu-ray let is not forget that it's scratch resistent but if you should happen to penetrate the film covering your disc is toast and cannot be repaird. HD DVD can be repared using the same DVD disc repair technique.
Something strong enough to penetrate the Durabis coating on a Blu-ray disc would create a scratch too deep to polish out on an HD DVD disc. So much for your repair.
Sony influence is better than MS? Please, explain how?
Significantly greater storage capacity? I could care less. That's what Hard Drives are for.
I'm not a big fan of MS any more than any of us here, but seriously how is Sony better? Sorry, I don't buy it at all.
w00master
BD uses Java to run the disk OS. HD-DVD uses a MS software standard. I would like to move away from more MS control over standards.
Sony has done a few stupid things the lasp couple of years, but it's not a determined attack on everything as Ms has done over the past two decades. Big difference.
HDD storage has nothing to do with Bd and HD-DVD disk capacity.
But, if you're a photographer, or moviemaker, you would appreciate the 50 GB of recordable back-up BD gives you over the 30 GB of HD-DVD. We really don't like storing our files on a HDD. There are good reasons why that is no good for more than short term storage, though many are forced to do so.
Comments
hmmm, i'll believe it when i see it.
um, not quite. very limited HD-DVD creation, and no Blu-Ray, and i'm not hopeful of much change to that in the near future.
Quite. HD-DVD and Blu-ray are not content. Content is what goes onto those media.
Apple does indeed market a complete line of HD content creation tools.
And stop saying "um."
Actually, there is a value in Apple choosing sides. Microsoft is heavily invested in HD DVD. The VC-1 codec that is used on a large percentage of HD DVD's is a renamed version of Microsoft's WMV format and the interactive features of HD DVD are powered by Microsoft's HDi. Stopping MS from getting another stranglehold on technology seems like a pretty good reason to me.
And if, as you suggest, universal, dual-formats players win, then both formats lose. Current dual-format players cost more than buying 2 different players for each format. There's also the retail aspect to think about with 2 formats sucking up valuable shelf space. This CES should be about ditching the losing format if HD content is to survive.
As long as both formats support AVC Apple's fine. DVD Studio Pro 4.x can deliver HD content on DVD discs in MPEG2 and AVC support now. No VC-1 support without a Telestream plugin as of today.
Apple voted for HDi as an interactive layer (DVD Forum Vote). We must not forget that Apple really isn't the fondest of JAVA either. I'm not talking about STB for Universal players. I'm talking about a bare drive that can be put in a Mac Pro. The LG (if you can find it) is $299 by next year the drives could be as low as $199. That makes moving to a Universal drive a no brainer IMO.
Apple isn't a content provider like a studio is so there's no stress for them to ditch anything. If they can support both formats affordably and make money doing so they will. The money for Apple is in authoring...they are well insulated against the failing of either format.
I've ben looking at the few combo players that have been, and are, out there. The problem with all of them is that they are danged expensive. $1,000!
This would mean that we shouldn't expect HD playback for almost another year. Bonkers!
Apple must take sides now. If they put players in their less expensive machines, they will influence the outcome. Those who don't agree with that haven't paid attention to the figures.
Apple users buy digital downloads, and media, at a far higher clip than do their PC buying friends.
Sony has sold millions of PS3's, while MS has sold only 120 thousand HD-DVD add-ons for the 360. While HD-DVD has sold about 35% more stand alone players than has Blu-Ray, BD movies are selling at a 2 to 1 clip. That's important, because it's the amount of media sold that will determine who wins this.
If Apple could add a few million more BD players to the mix this year, it could move BD over the top.
Apple must get involved.
I doubt it. What's in it for Apple? If BD wins ...so what. Time Machine doesn't work with BD discs. BD means Apple has to add DRM virtual machine to their OS that's already showing weakness. Apple doesn't own studios so they reap any rewards there. Most of the people screaming about HD DVD or Blu-ray and killing format wars are doing so for their own edification. They want to know that "they" are buying the right product. Whateva..it's not rocket science here. Even if either format dies they will still playback great HD content seeing as how HD camcorders are growing very fast.
Storage size for backups AND media durability are huge for me. Why didn't HD-DVD go for better durability as well?
Because HD DVD didn't go for better anything.
Current capacity: 60% of Blu-ray for each layer.
Future capacity: Prototype Blu-ray discs have been made with up to 8 layers. HD DVD is struggling to get to three.
Read speed: Slower than Blu-ray.
Burner speed: Slower than Blu-ray and likely to stay that way since the older DVD technology it's based on is causing too many problems with the blue laser scattering in the thick substrate.
Scratch resistance: Far lower than Blu-ray.
Long term archival stability: Questionable since it uses organic dyes just like writable DVDs and CDs, while BD-R uses phase-change material.
Price: Much vaunted, but in practice, writable HD DVD discs have turned out to be more expensive than Blu-ray blanks in terms of $/GB, and slower as well (1x rated compared with 2x rated).
Quite frankly, for computer use, there's not a single advantage to HD DVD. And that's why Apple would be smart to choose Blu-ray.
Significantly greater storage capacity? I could care less. That's what Hard Drives are for.
Hard drives aren't archival devices.
Because HD DVD didn't go for better anything.
Quite frankly, for computer use, there's not a single advantage to HD DVD. And that's why Apple would be smart to choose Blu-ray.
All HD DVD players have access to the internet- all of them. Blu-ray players do not. Know what you are speaking about before you put your foot in your mouth.
All HD DVD players have access to the internet- all of them. Blu-ray players do not. Know what you are speaking about before you put your foot in your mouth.
I think he means for computer uses and not STB movie playback. I'd agree with him as well. Blu-ray has more of an advantage within a computing realm than HD DVD but I still think Optical technology is only good when it's really cheap. I don't have a use for $14 writable discs (too expensive). I generally don't need to transport 25-50GB of data.
I think online backups will be the future coupled with pooled (and redundant) storage at home (think ZFS). Portable storage will be handled by flash drives (once 16GB can be had for less than $50).
All HD DVD players have access to the internet- all of them. Blu-ray players do not. Know what you are speaking about before you put your foot in your mouth.
Soooo, use your HD DVD player for computer purposes much? Somebody definitely put his foot deep into his mouth here and it's not me.
P.S. The best-selling Blu-ray player is the PS3, which -- surprise -- can access the net. It can even do it wirelessly out of the box if you already have a wireless router. Can your beloved HD DVD players do that?
P.S. The best-selling Blu-ray player is the PS3, which -- surprise -- can access the net. It can even do it wirelessly out of the box if you already have a wireless router. Can your beloved HD DVD players do that?
The xBox-flavored ones can, yes. Difference is, the HD DVDs can actually do something once they get online, while blu-Ray won't get internet-based features until they reach their Profile 2.0 status this time next year. That's HD DVD's big advantage by the way; it's a finished format
Quite. HD-DVD and Blu-ray are not content. Content is what goes onto those media.
Apple does indeed market a complete line of HD content creation tools.
true enough, however what is the point of creating 'content' if you have nowhere to put it (ie on a medium such as Blu-Ray or HD-DVD) for consumption?
And stop saying "um."
um, no.
Our sources indicate that the possible names of this new product include 'MacBook mini' or 'MacBook slim'.
Call it the MacBook 2. Simple. Elegant. Effective. Co-exists with the MacBook and MacBook Pro.
Storage size for backups AND media durability are huge for me. Why didn't HD-DVD go for better durability as well?
51GB of storage space is the highest amount ratiefied amongst both platforms and that is with HD DVD (of course no discs have been made in that Triple Layer config yet)
HD DVD doesn't need a protective layer because its protection layer is 6x thicker than Blu-ray. While many tout the durability of Blu-ray let is not forget that it's scratch resistent but if you should happen to penetrate the film covering your disc is toast and cannot be repaird. HD DVD can be repared using the same DVD disc repair technique.
I think he means for computer uses and not STB movie playback. I'd agree with him as well. Blu-ray has more of an advantage within a computing realm than HD DVD but I still think Optical technology is only good when it's really cheap. I don't have a use for $14 writable discs (too expensive). I generally don't need to transport 25-50GB of data.
I think online backups will be the future coupled with pooled (and redundant) storage at home (think ZFS). Portable storage will be handled by flash drives (once 16GB can be had for less than $50).
Irony?
A $14 disc holding 25-50GB is no good compared to a $50 16GB flash drive
BTW remember when CDs were $20 then they were $15 then they were $10.. now what are they? pennys??
I definitely understand this, and as a fellow movie buff I completely understand this, but it's been proven time and time again that the quality between HD DVD and Blu-ray is practically non-existent, so why is everyone in such a hurry in getting either format immediately and then having a debate about which is better?
Frankly, NEITHER are any worth any salt. Until content is there, until there's a multi-format player, it's not worth getting either one.
w00master
I would say it's pretty much impossible to judge whether one format delivers higher quality than the other. Dual format releases from Warner (and previously Paramount) are using the same video encodes and thus should look exactly the same. But Paramount stated that Transformers on HD DVD lacked lossless audio because there was insufficient disc space, which seems to clearly indicate that HD DVD is already reaching certain limits. And it makes you wonder what compromises Warner has to make with audio and video when creating dual format releases. Or look at a release like Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix where the Blu-Ray contains 12 audio tracks versus 4 on the HD DVD, which is great from a studio perspective since than can produce one disc usable in every market instead of having to create a U.S. version, German version, Japanese version, etc.
I also never said that either format was better than the other. At the time I purchased my PS3, the only HD DVD exclusive studio was Universal, thus the format war winner seemed a pretty foregone conclusion.
I do not understand your comment about there not being content. I already own 50 movies on Blu-Ray (only 6 of which I previously owned on DVD) and if I could afford it, I'd probably own 2 or 3 times that number.
If you really want content to grow, dual-format players are not the answer. They are the death of both formats. Movie studios, movie retailers, electronics manufacturers, and consumers do not want two formats to deal with.
The xBox-flavored ones can, yes. Difference is, the HD DVDs can actually do something once they get online, while blu-Ray won't get internet-based features until they reach their Profile 2.0 status this time next year. That's HD DVD's big advantage by the way; it's a finished format
With luck, Apple choosing Blu-ray will help turn HD DVD into a finished format.
51GB of storage space is the highest amount ratiefied amongst both platforms and that is with HD DVD (of course no discs have been made in that Triple Layer config yet)
And probably never will. It's vaporware they've been touting for over a year. Besides, you conveniently omit that even Toshiba itself has admitted that the third layer would have a lot of read errors, so it will not have 51GB capacity in the real world sense. I don't even want to think about the write errors if they ever created triple layer HD DVD-R.
HD DVD doesn't need a protective layer because its protection layer is 6x thicker than Blu-ray. While many tout the durability of Blu-ray let is not forget that it's scratch resistent but if you should happen to penetrate the film covering your disc is toast and cannot be repaird. HD DVD can be repared using the same DVD disc repair technique.
Something strong enough to penetrate the Durabis coating on a Blu-ray disc would create a scratch too deep to polish out on an HD DVD disc. So much for your repair.
Sony influence is better than MS? Please, explain how?
Significantly greater storage capacity? I could care less. That's what Hard Drives are for.
I'm not a big fan of MS any more than any of us here, but seriously how is Sony better? Sorry, I don't buy it at all.
w00master
BD uses Java to run the disk OS. HD-DVD uses a MS software standard. I would like to move away from more MS control over standards.
Sony has done a few stupid things the lasp couple of years, but it's not a determined attack on everything as Ms has done over the past two decades. Big difference.
HDD storage has nothing to do with Bd and HD-DVD disk capacity.
But, if you're a photographer, or moviemaker, you would appreciate the 50 GB of recordable back-up BD gives you over the 30 GB of HD-DVD. We really don't like storing our files on a HDD. There are good reasons why that is no good for more than short term storage, though many are forced to do so.
Where did yo get any idea I was saying anything different about the PS3?
I went from this statement:
Probably because there are a vast amount of PS3's are gaming consoles, and not movie players. Duh..
I if that wasn't what you meant, then I apologize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker
Where did yo get any idea I was saying anything different about the PS3?
I went from this statement:
Quote:
Probably because there are a vast amount of PS3's are gaming consoles, and not movie players. Duh..///
I if that wasn't what you meant, then I apologize.
What?