It doesn't appear that HD-DVD has any media featuring both DVD and HD-DVD layers yet so you would not be able to do this. 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...
You seem to be assuming that getting 1080p out of an HD-DVD would require more data capacity. This doesn't necessarily follow.
Movies are nearly always shot at 24 frames-per-second. Shown at 1080i or 1080p, you're still only getting 24 fps of real image data, whether it's 30 interlaced frames or 60 non-interlaced frames. The only difference is going to be in the way the player converts the same amount of data into either 30 or 60 frames.
So, how much data should a two hour long HD movie require?
Let's assume 1920x1080 pixels, at 1.5 bytes (12 bits) per pixel. (8 bits luminance per pixel, 4 bits of chroma (two 8-bit chroma values, shared among four pixels)). That's about 3 megabytes per frame.
Multiplied by 24 frames per second, and 3600 seconds per hour, and 2 hours: 537 GB (by powers of 10, not by powers of 2).
Then compress, figuring a 30:1 compression rate: about 18 GB, just over one layer. Plenty of room for longer movies, or lower compression, while delivering a nice 1080p picture.
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.
Yes, you said that the extra capacity of Blu-Ray didn't matter because HD-DVD used the more efficient MPEG-4 codec as opposed to MPEG-2.
As I pointed out in an earlier post Blu-Ray forced HD-DVD to switch to blue lasers and HD-DVD forced Blu-Ray to add MPEG-4 codec support. This is the one good thing this format war has done. It means that whatever format wins it will be significantly better than what it would have been without competition to drive it further.
Quote:
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.
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that Blu-Ray is better. You have two formats that can use the same codecs. One has 30GB while the other has 50GB with 100GB on the way. Don't forget that recording will be very important as poeple will want to record their shows in HD. DVHS is not a long term soultion for this and HD PVRs do not let you archive.
Then compress, figuring a 30:1 compression rate: about 18 GB, just over one layer. Plenty of room for longer movies, or lower compression, while delivering a nice 1080p picture.
How about fitting bonus materials, both theatrical and directors cuts of the movie and maybe a nice high-resolution 13.1 soundtrack all on a single disc? If you need two HD-DVD discs to do this then it negates any cost savings. You need to look ahead and make the format as future-proof as possible rather than saying it should be enough. History has shown that it never is.
I don't think either of these formats will eliminate the other. I think people will simply have to buy combo decks that can handle both. Decks that can handle playback of both formats shouldn't be too expensive. Decks that can record both formats? That's another story.
Yes, you said that the extra capacity of Blu-Ray didn't matter because HD-DVD used the more efficient MPEG-4 codec as opposed to MPEG-2.
Ok, I didn't word that right. What I mean was that HD-DVD was using a more efficient codec than HDTV (H.264 vs MPEG2). I didn't mean it was more efficient than Blu-Ray.
Quote:
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that Blu-Ray is better. You have two formats that can use the same codecs. One has 30GB while the other has 50GB with 100GB on the way. Don't forget that recording will be very important as poeple will want to record their shows in HD. DVHS is not a long term soultion for this and HD PVRs do not let you archive.
Whose to say that HD-DVD wont come out with Quad+ layer disks? Just because they haven't shown off test labs with them doesn't mean they aren't working on it.
What do you mean that HD PVRs don't let you archive? Isn't that the whole point of a PVR? I have never used an HD TiVO (or the HD Comcast box) but I would have to believe that you can save HD shows, or else what is the point of it (in fact, I believe the Comcast box says explicitly that it can store up to 8 hours of HD footage)? Plus, as hard drives comes down in price, I could easily see 500 GB (2x250GB drive) or greater capacity PVRs come out. You could archive around 67 hours of full quality HD material on a 500GB PVR (and even more using H.264 instead of MPEG2).
I wonder what the cost difference will be for movies utilizing this new HD-DVD format?
Between existing retail DVD disks and retail Blu-Ray/HD-DVD disks? I don't know, but I bet not much. What was the difference between VHS and DVDs in the early going? Tapes and CDs? Maybe $10-20 more at first (so a retail HD DVD might be $39.99), but I bet it will come down with time. This is how I see things going:
2007 - Your next DVD player purchase will be a high def DVD player. It wont cost much more than a decent DVD player today ($150-250), and will play CD, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (but not both), VCD/SVCD, DVD, SACD, and DVDA. It will hook up to any TV (HD or not), and downconvert HD material for a standard def TV.
2008 - VHS is finally dead, and new releases aren't put out on this medium any longer.
2005-2015 - DVDs are continued to be created and released (much like VHS tapes were in the early going). Slowly over time, less and less titles will come out on DVD.
2005 - High def DVDs will slowly creep onto the market
2008 - High def DVDs will finally start outselling normal DVDs (both players and disks)
While on the one hand I can see HD-DVD/Blu-Ray combo players coming out, at the same time I could see that once that becomes economically feasible (putting 3 optical pickups in a single device), I would be willing to bet that one format will have created market dominance, and there wont be a need for such a combo device.
How about fitting bonus materials, both theatrical and directors cuts of the movie and maybe a nice high-resolution 13.1 soundtrack all on a single disc? If you need two HD-DVD discs to do this then it negates any cost savings. You need to look ahead and make the format as future-proof as possible rather than saying it should be enough. History has shown that it never is.
My point was only about 1080p and the feasibility of it given 30 GB per disc -- and that it's just as feasible as 1080i from a 30 GB disc, because the signal delivery format doesn't make a difference when the source material is properly-encoded 24 fps material.
Beyond that... I have no major interest in the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray debate. Either would do fine by me, so long as the dust settles quickly and there isn't a long, drawn-out format war. Blu-Ray sounds technically superior, but if the market settles on HD-DVD for price or political reasons, it still sounds like it'll serve me quite well too.
Extras could well be standard-def video in many cases. Use up 18-20 GB for the movie, and you'll still have more than enough room for a few short HD extras and some painfully long SD extras.
The last thing I need is anyone tempting me into installing 13.1 speakers Because of room layout, most people can't even arrange 5 or 6 speakers (plus subwoofer) in a reasonably proper fashion. Hell, how many idiots have their two speakers in a mere stereo set-up both together on the left side or right side of the TV?
What do you mean that HD PVRs don't let you archive? Isn't that the whole point of a PVR? I have never used an HD TiVO (or the HD Comcast box) but I would have to believe that you can save HD shows, or else what is the point of it (in fact, I believe the Comcast box says explicitly that it can store up to 8 hours of HD footage)? Plus, as hard drives comes down in price, I could easily see 500 GB (2x250GB drive) or greater capacity PVRs come out. You could archive around 67 hours of full quality HD material on a 500GB PVR (and even more using H.264 instead of MPEG2).
If you have to erase a show you were saving to make room for a new one it isn't exactly archiving is it? Eventually you are going to run out of room on the hard drive, especially when recording HD content. I've also seen these things fail and the saved shows lost in the process. You need removable recordable media like HD-DVD or Blu-Ray to archive HD content. Same as using a PVR with a DVD-R drive. The discs are the archive, not the internal hard drive.
The last thing I need is anyone tempting me into installing 13.1 speakers Because of room layout, most people can't even arrange 5 or 6 speakers (plus subwoofer) in a reasonably proper fashion. Hell, how many idiots have their two speakers in a mere stereo set-up both together on the left side or right side of the TV?
Well, I don't want it either but it is the new Dolby Digital Plus format that will be used on HD-DVD and BD discs. I'm sure they will include a standard 7.1 soundtrack as well but that means there will be multiple surround tracks on these discs to take up even more space. Strange there has been little talk of using these formats to replace DVD-A/SACD audio. Don't get me started on the artocity that is DualDisc.
Comments
Originally posted by 1984
It doesn't appear that HD-DVD has any media featuring both DVD and HD-DVD layers yet so you would not be able to do this. 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...
You seem to be assuming that getting 1080p out of an HD-DVD would require more data capacity. This doesn't necessarily follow.
Movies are nearly always shot at 24 frames-per-second. Shown at 1080i or 1080p, you're still only getting 24 fps of real image data, whether it's 30 interlaced frames or 60 non-interlaced frames. The only difference is going to be in the way the player converts the same amount of data into either 30 or 60 frames.
So, how much data should a two hour long HD movie require?
Let's assume 1920x1080 pixels, at 1.5 bytes (12 bits) per pixel. (8 bits luminance per pixel, 4 bits of chroma (two 8-bit chroma values, shared among four pixels)). That's about 3 megabytes per frame.
Multiplied by 24 frames per second, and 3600 seconds per hour, and 2 hours: 537 GB (by powers of 10, not by powers of 2).
Then compress, figuring a 30:1 compression rate: about 18 GB, just over one layer. Plenty of room for longer movies, or lower compression, while delivering a nice 1080p picture.
Originally posted by kupan787
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.
Yes, you said that the extra capacity of Blu-Ray didn't matter because HD-DVD used the more efficient MPEG-4 codec as opposed to MPEG-2.
As I pointed out in an earlier post Blu-Ray forced HD-DVD to switch to blue lasers and HD-DVD forced Blu-Ray to add MPEG-4 codec support. This is the one good thing this format war has done. It means that whatever format wins it will be significantly better than what it would have been without competition to drive it further.
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.
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that Blu-Ray is better. You have two formats that can use the same codecs. One has 30GB while the other has 50GB with 100GB on the way. Don't forget that recording will be very important as poeple will want to record their shows in HD. DVHS is not a long term soultion for this and HD PVRs do not let you archive.
Originally posted by shetline
Then compress, figuring a 30:1 compression rate: about 18 GB, just over one layer. Plenty of room for longer movies, or lower compression, while delivering a nice 1080p picture.
How about fitting bonus materials, both theatrical and directors cuts of the movie and maybe a nice high-resolution 13.1 soundtrack all on a single disc? If you need two HD-DVD discs to do this then it negates any cost savings. You need to look ahead and make the format as future-proof as possible rather than saying it should be enough. History has shown that it never is.
I don't think either of these formats will eliminate the other. I think people will simply have to buy combo decks that can handle both. Decks that can handle playback of both formats shouldn't be too expensive. Decks that can record both formats? That's another story.
Originally posted by 1984
Yes, you said that the extra capacity of Blu-Ray didn't matter because HD-DVD used the more efficient MPEG-4 codec as opposed to MPEG-2.
Ok, I didn't word that right. What I mean was that HD-DVD was using a more efficient codec than HDTV (H.264 vs MPEG2). I didn't mean it was more efficient than Blu-Ray.
Well, I think it's pretty obvious that Blu-Ray is better. You have two formats that can use the same codecs. One has 30GB while the other has 50GB with 100GB on the way. Don't forget that recording will be very important as poeple will want to record their shows in HD. DVHS is not a long term soultion for this and HD PVRs do not let you archive.
Whose to say that HD-DVD wont come out with Quad+ layer disks? Just because they haven't shown off test labs with them doesn't mean they aren't working on it.
What do you mean that HD PVRs don't let you archive? Isn't that the whole point of a PVR? I have never used an HD TiVO (or the HD Comcast box) but I would have to believe that you can save HD shows, or else what is the point of it (in fact, I believe the Comcast box says explicitly that it can store up to 8 hours of HD footage)? Plus, as hard drives comes down in price, I could easily see 500 GB (2x250GB drive) or greater capacity PVRs come out. You could archive around 67 hours of full quality HD material on a 500GB PVR (and even more using H.264 instead of MPEG2).
Originally posted by phishy
I wonder what the cost difference will be for movies utilizing this new HD-DVD format?
Between existing retail DVD disks and retail Blu-Ray/HD-DVD disks? I don't know, but I bet not much. What was the difference between VHS and DVDs in the early going? Tapes and CDs? Maybe $10-20 more at first (so a retail HD DVD might be $39.99), but I bet it will come down with time. This is how I see things going:
2007 - Your next DVD player purchase will be a high def DVD player. It wont cost much more than a decent DVD player today ($150-250), and will play CD, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray (but not both), VCD/SVCD, DVD, SACD, and DVDA. It will hook up to any TV (HD or not), and downconvert HD material for a standard def TV.
2008 - VHS is finally dead, and new releases aren't put out on this medium any longer.
2005-2015 - DVDs are continued to be created and released (much like VHS tapes were in the early going). Slowly over time, less and less titles will come out on DVD.
2005 - High def DVDs will slowly creep onto the market
2008 - High def DVDs will finally start outselling normal DVDs (both players and disks)
While on the one hand I can see HD-DVD/Blu-Ray combo players coming out, at the same time I could see that once that becomes economically feasible (putting 3 optical pickups in a single device), I would be willing to bet that one format will have created market dominance, and there wont be a need for such a combo device.
Originally posted by 1984
How about fitting bonus materials, both theatrical and directors cuts of the movie and maybe a nice high-resolution 13.1 soundtrack all on a single disc? If you need two HD-DVD discs to do this then it negates any cost savings. You need to look ahead and make the format as future-proof as possible rather than saying it should be enough. History has shown that it never is.
My point was only about 1080p and the feasibility of it given 30 GB per disc -- and that it's just as feasible as 1080i from a 30 GB disc, because the signal delivery format doesn't make a difference when the source material is properly-encoded 24 fps material.
Beyond that... I have no major interest in the HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray debate. Either would do fine by me, so long as the dust settles quickly and there isn't a long, drawn-out format war. Blu-Ray sounds technically superior, but if the market settles on HD-DVD for price or political reasons, it still sounds like it'll serve me quite well too.
Extras could well be standard-def video in many cases. Use up 18-20 GB for the movie, and you'll still have more than enough room for a few short HD extras and some painfully long SD extras.
The last thing I need is anyone tempting me into installing 13.1 speakers
Originally posted by kupan787
What do you mean that HD PVRs don't let you archive? Isn't that the whole point of a PVR? I have never used an HD TiVO (or the HD Comcast box) but I would have to believe that you can save HD shows, or else what is the point of it (in fact, I believe the Comcast box says explicitly that it can store up to 8 hours of HD footage)? Plus, as hard drives comes down in price, I could easily see 500 GB (2x250GB drive) or greater capacity PVRs come out. You could archive around 67 hours of full quality HD material on a 500GB PVR (and even more using H.264 instead of MPEG2).
If you have to erase a show you were saving to make room for a new one it isn't exactly archiving is it? Eventually you are going to run out of room on the hard drive, especially when recording HD content. I've also seen these things fail and the saved shows lost in the process. You need removable recordable media like HD-DVD or Blu-Ray to archive HD content. Same as using a PVR with a DVD-R drive. The discs are the archive, not the internal hard drive.
Originally posted by shetline
The last thing I need is anyone tempting me into installing 13.1 speakers
Well, I don't want it either but it is the new Dolby Digital Plus format that will be used on HD-DVD and BD discs. I'm sure they will include a standard 7.1 soundtrack as well but that means there will be multiple surround tracks on these discs to take up even more space. Strange there has been little talk of using these formats to replace DVD-A/SACD audio. Don't get me started on the artocity that is DualDisc.