Blu-ray vs. HD DVD (2008)

16465676970132

Comments

  • Reply 1321 of 2639
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kupan787 View Post


    It was the movie Next.



    Some stats:



    Size: 2.99 GB

    Time: 1:36:20

    Total Bitrate: 4430kbps

    Resolution: 1280x530



    Your 4.33Mb/s rental is on par with my HD rental from iTS.
  • Reply 1322 of 2639
    glossgloss Posts: 506member
    I just got back from watching Persepolis, which was phenomenal. The movie is going to look absolutely gorgeous on Blu-ray, and I can't wait to buy it.
  • Reply 1323 of 2639
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kupan787 View Post


    It was the movie Next.



    Some stats:



    Size: 2.99 GB

    Time: 1:36:20

    Total Bitrate: 4430kbps

    Resolution: 1280x530



    interesting... does this mean that 16:9 aspect ratio format movies will come at a bigger file size for same duration?



    Did you see any compression artifacts at that bit rate?



    Which hardware (aTV/mac/pc) did you use?.... cpu/gpu?



    One last question, what was the audio codec?



    TIA!.





    BTW, I almost pulled a trigger on the LG combo drive for $230 shipped from newegg. Still bit more than I would like to pay. The PowerDVD Ultra just got an update for BD profile 1.1 and perhaps it may be the best future proof BD player route w/out getting a gaming console.
  • Reply 1324 of 2639
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Your 4.33Mb/s rental is on par with my HD rental from iTS.



    Not sure what you mean, as that rental was from the iTunes Store.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post


    interesting... does this mean that 16:9 aspect ratio format movies will come at a bigger file size for same duration?



    Probably, but not sure. Don't know of too many movies which are 16:9...most are like 1.85:1 or 2.15:1 or whatever.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post


    Did you see any compression artifacts at that bit rate?



    Nothing glaring. Do you mean like a block, or odd streaking?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post


    Which hardware (aTV/mac/pc) did you use?.... cpu/gpu?



    AppleTV.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bitemymac View Post


    One last question, what was the audio codec?



    Looks like maybe AC3? But the file is protected, and when opening it in Quicktime to get details, it acts funny. I am not too sure how to tell though. But I only have a 2.1 setup, so it sounded fine to me.
  • Reply 1325 of 2639
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Walter seriously bottom line show me the numbers that exist right now to justify your position. And I'll want links to your sources. Then I'll be optimistic like you.



    Which point?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    I'm used to playing this game in " Political Outsider ".



    Oh, it's a game?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    By the way the growth rate for DVD made it clear it had it " in the bag " by the end of the 4th year. True it didn't surpass VHS until later but it was clear long before then what was going to happen.



    Show ME the numbers for BDs FOURTH year history has already proven to not repeat itself as some were predicting it would, ie "SONYS" BD format has "won"



    Did DVD have to fight against an equal and opposing optical format in its first 2 years? NO.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Also Walter technology is moving so much faster now days.



    Thats why I can't understand your 180, you implied that it was too soon for a new video format, but now you are saying tech. moves much faster, which is it?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    That's why I said 10 years is too long.



    You also thought 5 years was pushing it for BD, but it took DVD 8 years to "win" against VHS, now you want your pessimistic cake to be eaten by your pessimistic teeth, by saying 4 years.. ok, lets come back to this in 2ish years time. unless of course you have one of those crystal ball things?? because it seems no matter what is said, you have your pessimistic outlook that won't be changed no matter what, maybe in order to apply reasoned logic properly, you need to re-examine your stance, rather than just keep insisting you are right, and then later claim "logic" failed.



    Logic would say that, with new perceptions and new information, re-evaluation and adjustment are necessary, so that one is in a constant state of updating. bullishly sticking to a perception is not logical.







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    Something not even discussed here will come along by then. Purhaps something like movies on a swipe card with no moving parts. Now that would be a serious contender if they could get the data to fit on such a thing.



    Just speculation of course but you know something like this will happen.



    Anything IS possible, and one could infer LIKELY, but we still havent got the jet cars the tinfoil dresses, blonde wigs or "meal in a pill" we were "promised" would happen in 2000.



    currently, as I have already stated, Downloads seem most likely [i]eventually[i/], but will take time to become adopted as a standard, however the problem is that there are currently multiple standards, and as we have just witnessed even 2 formats will not fair well up against each other.
  • Reply 1326 of 2639
    Glorious ruler steps down



    also in other news, Toshiba OFFICIALLY says "we can't win"



    Quote:

    "If we had continued, that would have created problems for consumers, and we simply had no chance to win,"



    no chance, eh? isnt that what some of us had been saying for YEARS.
  • Reply 1327 of 2639
    elixirelixir Posts: 782member
    i feel bad for those that believed the format war would last longer and went out and got an HD-DVd player.



    man they are bitter right now
  • Reply 1328 of 2639
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post


    Thats why I can't understand your 180, you implied that it was too soon for a new video format, but now you are saying tech. moves much faster, which is it?



    It kind of comes back to the whole numbers game Microsoft played with the Vista launch. They were saying how the launch blew away the XP launch in terms of sales. What they didn't account for was how much computers have taken off since 2001, and how with more computers in play it is easier to reach higher sales.



    Likewise, fast forward 10 years from DVD. Most people know what optical disks are now, and so the market for Blu-Ray is much bigger than the market for DVD was back when it first started. So if anything, I think that Blu-Ray needs to have sales figures higher than DVD to really be considered "on-pace".
  • Reply 1329 of 2639
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post


    Which point?







    Oh, it's a game?









    Show ME the numbers for BDs FOURTH year history has already proven to not repeat itself as some were predicting it would, ie "SONYS" BD format has "won"



    Did DVD have to fight against an equal and opposing optical format in its first 2 years? NO.









    Thats why I can't understand your 180, you implied that it was too soon for a new video format, but now you are saying tech. moves much faster, which is it?







    You also thought 5 years was pushing it for BD, but it took DVD 8 years to "win" against VHS, now you want your pessimistic cake to be eaten by your pessimistic teeth, by saying 4 years.. ok, lets come back to this in 2ish years time. unless of course you have one of those crystal ball things?? because it seems no matter what is said, you have your pessimistic outlook that won't be changed no matter what, maybe in order to apply reasoned logic properly, you need to re-examine your stance, rather than just keep insisting you are right, and then later claim "logic" failed.



    Logic would say that, with new perceptions and new information, re-evaluation and adjustment are necessary, so that one is in a constant state of updating. bullishly sticking to a perception is not logical.











    Anything IS possible, and one could infer LIKELY, but we still havent got the jet cars the tinfoil dresses, blonde wigs or "meal in a pill" we were "promised" would happen in 2000.



    currently, as I have already stated, Downloads seem most likely [i]eventually[i/], but will take time to become adopted as a standard, however the problem is that there are currently multiple standards, and as we have just witnessed even 2 formats will not fair well up against each other.



    Actually it did have a competing optical format. It was called Laserdisc. There was also the dumb DIVX launched by Circuit City. It died a quick death. But the main format was tried and true VHS. And while not optical it was the one to beat. Now let's see if they can do it with DVD. Which for many reasons is a completely different ball game.



    I never said it was too soon for a new format. I said that people had just accepted DVD. And when compared to VHS isn't a long time. People love DVD. Mainly because they look better than tape and are cheap now days. Much cheaper ( and more titles ) than BR. All I'm saying is that those are the challenges. And I don't see them as easy or a cakewalk.



    There's alot more problems with downloads than multiple standards.





    I'm still waiting for those numbers from right now that make you so optimistic Slocombe.
  • Reply 1330 of 2639
    Your comparison with LD is wrong. LD was around WAY before DVD, and it was an analog optical format, not a digital one like DVD. So LD can't be considered a competitor to DVD in any way, as DVD came about much later, and was vastly superior.
  • Reply 1331 of 2639
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kupan787 View Post


    Not sure what you mean, as that rental was from the iTunes Store.



    I'm aware of that. I'm trying to find an average bitrate based on more than one sampling.
    "Your 4.33Mb/s rental [from iTS] is on par with my HD rental from iTS."
  • Reply 1332 of 2639
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    There will be no need for a Blu-ray vs HD DVD (2009)
  • Reply 1333 of 2639
    I am greatly relieved that Toshiba has made it official. Now, when can I get a Profile 2.0 Blu-Ray player for $199?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post


    no chance, eh? isnt that what some of us had been saying for YEARS.



    Yes you were, Captain Pompous. But it wasn't a sure thing until this past January when Warner went blu. It could just have easily gone the other way, as it all came down to who had more studios.
  • Reply 1334 of 2639
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Elixir View Post


    i feel bad for those that believed the format war would last longer and went out and got an HD-DVd player.



    man they are bitter right now



    There were some who wanted it to go on longer and actually end in a stalemate. As much as I hate to see someone lose out on a tech investment that would have been a horrible outcome. I'm glad it's done just 2 months into 2008.



    On the other hand, their HD DVD players are probably more useful than my laserdisc player
  • Reply 1335 of 2639
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,015member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe View Post


    Glorious ruler steps down



    also in other news, Toshiba OFFICIALLY says "we can't win"







    no chance, eh? isnt that what some of us had been saying for YEARS.



    Well, not "no chance." But for the last 12 months it was clear they were highly unlikely to win. I have to hand it to them...they really gave it their all. I actually thought things might change with the Paramount deal. When that didn't pan out in terms of sales, it was over.
  • Reply 1336 of 2639
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mercury52 View Post


    Your comparison with LD is wrong. LD was around WAY before DVD, and it was an analog optical format, not a digital one like DVD. So LD can't be considered a competitor to DVD in any way, as DVD came about much later, and was vastly superior.



    Yeah, LaserDisk had an "e" in the name so obviously the two aren't comparable.
  • Reply 1337 of 2639
    banchobancho Posts: 1,517member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    Yeah, LaserDisk had an "e" in the name so obviously the two aren't comparable.



    Jokes aside though, Mercury52 was absolutely correct. Laserdisc was introduced back in the 70's and was in no way a competitor with DVD.



    Ah, the days of stopping halfway through a movie to flip over a 12" plastic disc and listen to those motors work to get all that mass up to speed.
  • Reply 1338 of 2639
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I'm aware of that. I'm trying to find an average bitrate based on more than one sampling.
    "Your 4.33Mb/s rental [from iTS] is on par with my HD rental from iTS."



    Oh, got it. Sorry, I thought you were implying I had gotten it elsewhere.



    BTW, did you also rent yours on the AppleTV? Seeing as you can't do HD rentals, except for on the AppleTV you must have. So just curious how you were able to get information about your rental.
  • Reply 1339 of 2639
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bancho View Post


    Jokes aside though, Mercury52 was absolutely correct. Laserdisc was introduced back in the 70's and was in no way a competitor with DVD.



    Ah, the days of stopping halfway through a movie to flip over a 12" plastic disc and listen to those motors work to get all that mass up to speed.



    Well obviously we are all aware that LD is older than DVD. But they were most certainly competitors at one time.



    Your point, about not needing to flip disks, demonstrates that people could indeed choose between the two formats and ended up going with VHS or DVD. Given the finite number of formats that have ever existed, no format-war analogy is going to be perfect. Yet that doesn't mean that the analogies should be ignored. Ignoring history is not a particularly enlightened analytical technique.
  • Reply 1340 of 2639
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kupan787 View Post


    Oh, got it. Sorry, I thought you were implying I had gotten it elsewhere.



    BTW, did you also rent yours on the AppleTV? Seeing as you can't do HD rentals, except for on the AppleTV you must have. So just curious how you were able to get information about your rental.



    My method...

    Within the iTunes applications there will be the AppleTV listed in the left-hand column under Devices. I highlighted that and in the right-hand section saw the storage capacity bar toward the bottom of the window listing, in different colours, the types of media I have on the AppleTV. If you click on the bar, it will cycle though the number of each item, the capacity used and the duration. Since the HD movie rental was the only video item I had on the device it was a simple matter to extract the rough data and make the calculations
    Note: I do not claim that my method is as precise as cracking open the box or SSHing in to extrapolate the exact data for video and audio.

Sign In or Register to comment.