HD-DVD titles coming Q4 2005
http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2005/Jan/1106003.htm
-- Above the Law
-- Alexander
-- Angels in America (HBO)
-- Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (New Line)
-- Batman Begins
-- Blade (New Line)
-- Catwoman
-- Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
-- Constantine
-- Contact
-- Dark City (New Line)
-- The Dukes of Hazzard
-- Eraser
-- Executive Decision
-- Final Destination (New Line)
-- Friday (New Line)
-- From the Earth to the Moon (HBO)
-- The Fugitive
-- Gothika
-- Hard to Kill
-- Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
-- Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
-- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
-- House of Wax (2005)
-- The Last Samurai
-- The Mask (New Line)
-- The Matrix
-- The Matrix Reloaded
-- The Matrix Revolutions
-- Maverick
-- Million Dollar Baby
-- The Music Man
-- Mystic River
-- Next of Kin
-- North by Northwest
-- Ocean's Eleven
-- Ocean's Twelve
-- Passenger 57
-- The Perfect Storm
-- The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
-- The Player (New Line)
-- The Polar Express
-- Red Planet
-- Rush Hour (New Line)
-- Se7en (New Line)
-- Soldier
-- The Sopranos (HBO)
-- Spawn (New Line)
-- Swordfish
-- Troy
-- Under Siege
-- U.S. Marshals
-- Wild Wild West
Some good stuff coming. HD-DVD players should be $1000
-- Above the Law
-- Alexander
-- Angels in America (HBO)
-- Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (New Line)
-- Batman Begins
-- Blade (New Line)
-- Catwoman
-- Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
-- Constantine
-- Contact
-- Dark City (New Line)
-- The Dukes of Hazzard
-- Eraser
-- Executive Decision
-- Final Destination (New Line)
-- Friday (New Line)
-- From the Earth to the Moon (HBO)
-- The Fugitive
-- Gothika
-- Hard to Kill
-- Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
-- Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
-- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
-- House of Wax (2005)
-- The Last Samurai
-- The Mask (New Line)
-- The Matrix
-- The Matrix Reloaded
-- The Matrix Revolutions
-- Maverick
-- Million Dollar Baby
-- The Music Man
-- Mystic River
-- Next of Kin
-- North by Northwest
-- Ocean's Eleven
-- Ocean's Twelve
-- Passenger 57
-- The Perfect Storm
-- The Phantom of the Opera (2004)
-- The Player (New Line)
-- The Polar Express
-- Red Planet
-- Rush Hour (New Line)
-- Se7en (New Line)
-- Soldier
-- The Sopranos (HBO)
-- Spawn (New Line)
-- Swordfish
-- Troy
-- Under Siege
-- U.S. Marshals
-- Wild Wild West
Some good stuff coming. HD-DVD players should be $1000
Comments
Originally posted by iBlah
Hmm.. will we be able to play the HD-DVDs on our G5s without upgrading to an HD-DVD drive? Awesome stuff...!
No, we won't. Nobody ever said that we would.
bit like SACD
or i could be reading it wrong...
Blu-Ray on the other hand has 25GB per layer (50GB per disc) and they have already shown media with one 25GB layer for HD content and two 4.7GB layers for DVD content and has plans on adding another layer for 50GB of HD content. Obviously Blu-Ray is leaps and bounds ahead of HD-DVD and not only has plenty of room for 1080p using h.264 but also any extra feaures, all on a single disc.
Bottom line: Consumers will be forced to buy combo players that can handle both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD media in order to get all the movies they want.
Originally posted by 1984
Also, they are limited to just 15GB per layer (30GB per disc) so even if they do come out with them (and I'm sure they will be forced to in order to compete) it will leave only 15GB for HD content. That might be enough for 1080p using h.264 though any extra features will likely have to be put on a second disc unless they plan on lowering the bitrate to an unacceptable level.
Why can they only use one layer for the HD content?
Originally posted by othello
you will be able to play HD-DVD discs in a normal DVD player/drive but you won't get the benefit of the extra features.
bit like SACD
or i could be reading it wrong...
hd-dvds require a blue laser to read/write them. so no that wont happen.
Originally posted by BRussell
Why can they only use one layer for the HD content?
This is only if they decide to create HD-DVD/DVD hybrid discs. One layer would be used for HD content and the other(s) used for DVD content. They haven't done this yet as far as I can tell. Otherwise a plain HD-DVD can use both layers for 30GB of HD content per disc but that means no backwards compatability.
Blue-Ray already has a hybrid disc with one 25GB layer for HD content and another two layers for DVD content. This is a three-layer hybrid disc. Plans are in the works for a four-layer hybrid disc that would allow 50GB of HD content in addition to the DVD content. As far as pure HD content goes Blu-Ray has the single layer 25GB and dual layer 50GB discs with four-layer 100GB discs in the works as well as eight-layer 200GB discs as a possibility though that's obviously pushing it.
Blu-Ray is a far more robust format. It was designed from the ground up using blue lasers with large storage capacities and HD recording in mind. At the time the large storage capacities were needed as they were going to use MPEG-2 exclusively. HD-DVD started out with red lasers and MPEG-4 but had to give up on that pretty quickly. As efficient as MPEG-4 was they found using red lasers would not give them the storage capacity needed so they made the move to blue lasers as well. Recording was and still seems to be something of an afterthought.
HD-DVD used to have two advantages over Blu-Ray. It used the more efficient MPEG-4 codecs and the discs were cheaper to produce. This was back when they were still planning to use red lasers however. The tables have turned. Now that both formats use blue lasers the disc manufacturing costs are now roughly the same, a fact that was made clear at CES this past week. If two HD-DVD discs are needed in order to include extra content (time will tell) then Blu-Ray actually ends up being cheaper. Blu-Ray also now uses the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD as well as MPEG-2.
One good thing that has come out of this format war is that Blu-Ray forced HD-DVD to use blue lasers and HD-DVD forced Blu-Ray to use MPEG-4 codecs. So competition really is a good thing... to a point. Most studios have pledged non-exclusive commitment to one format or the other (meaning they are free to release movies on both formats if they wish) but we will still need to buy more expensive combo players if we want to watch all our shows.
Originally posted by OS X Guy
I hate to say this but... I think we are in for a "VHS - Beta" war again! Sony's Blu-Ray uses a blue laser while HD-DVD uses a modified red laser (for cost). I hope that Apple will support Blu-Ray (more storage capacity)! I think, Blu-Ray will ultimately win out, though it will not be as quickly as the DVD did vs Divix!
No, both use a blue lasers. HD-DVD held out as long as they could but eventually gave up on using red lasers. Your right though, BD is vastly superior in every possible way. Still, I don't know that there will be any clear winner this time around. It's going to be messy, that's for sure.
Originally posted by 1984
No, both use a blue lasers. HD-DVD held out as long as they could but eventually gave up on using red lasers. Your right though, BD is vastly superior in every possible way. Still, I don't know that there will be any clear winner this time around. It's going to be messy, that's for sure.
"BD is vastly superior in every possible way"
Is that a fact? Ok I'm game..other than total storage size give me other reasons why BD is superior. Both formats employ the same codecs and laser wavelength. Blu Ray is more expensive to manufacture. I'm pretty sure that overall storage size is blu rays only claim to fame here and Hollywood cares squat about that unless the they can save the most money on production.
Originally posted by hmurchison
"BD is vastly superior in every possible way"
Is that a fact? Ok I'm game..other than total storage size give me other reasons why BD is superior. Both formats employ the same codecs and laser wavelength. Blu Ray is more expensive to manufacture. I'm pretty sure that overall storage size is blu rays only claim to fame here and Hollywood cares squat about that unless the they can save the most money on production.
Greater capacity and faster read/write speeds will be especially important for recording. I would rather have 50GB available to record my shows than 30GB. How about 100GB? Sign me up! The manufacture cost issue is greatly exagerated, a holdover from the early days when HD-DVD was still using red lasers to keep costs down. Today the difference is pennies. I suppose those pennies add up so they can simply pass the cost on to the consumer. I don't know about you but paying say 50 cents more for almost twice the capacity seems like a bargain to me. Being able to put your movie and extras on a single disc would save considerable money and Hollywood should damn well better take that into consideration. They need to look at the big picture. History has shown us that you can never have enough capacity. In fact, it has shown we always end up needing more. Why should we have to settle for a dumbed down format like HD-DVD when we can have Blu-Ray?
Blu-Ray:
One 25GB layer for HD content and two 4.7GB layers for DVD content
HD-DVD:
One 15GB layer for HD content and one 4.7GB layer for DVD content
The good news is that if HD-DVD does turn out to be a low-capacity sham, Hollywood probably won't be able to force it down our throats. DVDs aren't just for movies anymore: Whichever disk wins out will almost certainly become the standard for new computers, game consoles, and other gadgets, just as CD and DVD drives did. It's unlikely that computer users?or computer manufacturers?will settle for a medium that stores 30 gigs of data rather than 200 because it saves Warner Bros. a little money.
Full article
Originally posted by 1984
Greater capacity and faster read/write speeds will be especially important for recording. I would rather have 50GB available to record my shows than 30GB. How about 100GB? Sign me up! The manufacture cost issue is greatly exagerated, a holdover from the early days when HD-DVD was still using red lasers to keep costs down. Today the difference is pennies. I suppose those pennies add up so they can simply pass the cost on to the consumer. I don't know about you but paying say 50 cents more for almost twice the capacity seems like a bargain to me. Being able to put your movie and extras on a single disc would save considerable money and Hollywood should damn well better take that into consideration. They need to look at the big picture. History has shown us that you can never have enough capacity. In fact, it has shown we always end up needing more. Why should we have to settle for a dumbed down format like HD-DVD when we can have Blu-Ray?
What I said in another thread on this:
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. 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.
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.
I think a major consideration for Hollywood studios would be the anti-piracy measures that are incorporated on the disks themselves. So, I don't think it will only come down to cost and availability. Hollywood wants to cover their ASSets as much as possible and therefore the format with the more robust security from pirating will also get a favorable nod. And from what I remember reading in an article, Blu-Ray has the edge in this category. I'll try to find it for everyone. I'd also reverse the last question on you, what good is a disk with not enough space on it?
I know, I know your still probably reeling in you mind that you can still record 3 hours of hd content on an HD-DVD disc, but what happens when you think of television series that come on disc like Alias, 24, Southpark, Smallville, etc.? HD-DVD's short comings come into plain view, because they'll have to distribute multiple episodes on different disks, whereas Blu-Ray can potentially have all the episodes on one disk. And, as 1984 has stated previously, the cost savings associated with this is realized with Blu-Ray. Another advantage that Blu-Ray has over HD-DVD is the special protective coating that TDK has developed exclusively for Blu-Ray, which is impervious to liquid such as ink and highly scratch resistant as I remember having people demonstrate by mushing a Blu-Ray disc into dirt, writing on it with a sharpe, and then wiping it off and having the movie on the disc play flawlessly. I haven't heard of anything in the HD-DVD camp that compares to this, as this I think will have monumental importance to the DVD successor as a scratch now damages a whole lot more data given the higher blue wavelength.
I could also see a potential Blu-Ray advantage in the fact that given its higher capacity, movie manufacturers could couple their movies with games that could be played on Playstation 3 as Playstation 3 WILL in fact play Blu-Ray movies in its next iteration.
Just some other advantages of Blu-Ray that might be being overlooked.
Greater capacity and faster read/write speeds will be especially important for recording.
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#3.2
Both read at 36Mbps. Write speeds really aren't the issue. It's encoding of the codecs.
I find it funny that some BR fans tend to downplay the higher production costs. I've read that bargaining for production materials goes down to the fraction of a penny. Thus is BR is even 1 penny more per disc that's an untenable situation for a producer who's looking to get maximum profit for each disc. There's no need to "pass the cost on to the consumer" when you can have the lower production costs from the get go.
As for computer uses that doesn't play a part in what Hollywood does. They don't care if the computer industry benefits from larger capacity. Typically Hollywood wants a feature length film on one disc with decent amount of extras.
I think both formats have what it takes to be the successor..only time will tell.
Originally posted by kupan787
What I said in another thread on this:
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.
I've said this over and over again but clearly it doesn't register for some reason:
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
So it is your argument that is moot as Blu-Ray is not limited to MPEG-2. Both formats support H.264 and VC-1 MPEG-4 codecs but Blu-Ray has a 50GB capacity as opposed to 30GB. Blu-Ray will hold almost twice as much using the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD. Blu-Ray has a 25GB hybrid disc as opposed to 15GB too which is very improtant.
What video codecs will Blu-ray support?
The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) have stated that MPEG-4 AVC High Profile (H.264) and Microsoft's VC-1 video codec (the proposed SMPTE standard based on WMV9) will be mandatory. They will also include MPEG-2 support for playback of HDTV recordings and DVDs. Please note that this simply means that all Blu-ray players and recorders will have to support playback of these video codecs, it will still be up to the movie studios to decide which video codec(s) they use for their releases.
Just in case it still hasn't registered:
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
Sorry but I just can't understand why people are so stuck on an inferior format like HD-DVD. Get over the name already. Stick up for the consumer for a change. Screw the execs that want to give you a crappy format in order to save a penny. These are the same idiots that replace the music on TV series DVD releases for the same reason.
Originally posted by 1984
I don't know how many times I have to say this:
Blu-Ray supports the very same MPEG-4 codecs as HD-DVD.
Did I say it didn't? The funny thing is you are saying that HD-DVD just "added" in blue laser tech recently, at the last minute. Did you know that Blu-Ray initially was only MPEG 2? They only added in H.264 and VC-1 after the fact, and once the "pressure" was on. Had they not, I don't think it would have even had a chance.
There is a point of diminishing returns with codecs. So just "throwing more space at it" doesn't help. Both formats support the same codecs. Both formats have more than enough space to display high def movies, at the highest quality setting. The extra space that Blu-Ray offers will NOT give you a higher quality movie. Yes, you can cram more extras on a Blu-Ray disk, but by my calculations, an HD-DVD disk has more than enough space to hold a 3 hour movie, at the highest quality, and still have room for the same amount of extras that are on a traditional DVD today.
Blu-Ray will very likely succeed far better in the computer space. But I think Hollywood cares more about security and money, than space for extras. I honestly don't care which format wins, but spreading information that makes one format look exceedingly better than the other isn't a good idea. Both formats are perfectly suited as a replacement for DVD, and both will offer you the highest quality movies.