quote:

Blu-Ray has already been owned as far as the first batch of movies are concerned. HDDVD has come out ahead in terms of both visual and audio quality, AND it' s cheaper.

...irrelevant.... ...and likely to be proven false...

Well it was a test by a website, comparing the movies side by side, so its not irrelevant, and most likely not false!

Sony likes failing on formats, or rather it seems like they do since they have done it more than once, somehow i dont think 3rd times a charm (or what ever number it is)

As has been stated before, watch which format the porn industry goes for, as history tells, thats what who will win!

...irrelevant.... ...and likely to be proven false..

It' s not about the disc , but about the movie codec used by both and it won' t be proven wrong.

most people are not particularly bothered by HD, but will quickly change their minds after shelling out $600 for a PS3...

Problem is that at US$600 most people will not actually buy a ps3.

...sily me...

....most people will prefer spending $1,000 on a standalone HD-DVD player instead right?...

Well it was a test by a website, comparing the movies side by side, so its not irrelevant, and most likely not false!

It' s not about the disc , but about the movie codec used by both and it won' t be proven wrong.

....it' s irrelevant because;

1) the differences are minute
2) video codecs are upgraded frequently
3) consumer electronics customers won' t give a flying f*ck

Sony likes failing on formats, or rather it seems like they do since they have done it more than once, somehow i dont think 3rd times a charm (or what ever number it is)

......i can' t tell if that point is lame as comparing Blu-ray to UMD.......

As has been stated before, watch which format the porn industry goes for, as history tells, thats what who will win!

...the porn industry has already made it' s decision.... ...streaming, pay-on demand content is the future for porn, movies, TV and gaming.... ...Sony have already stated that PS4 will likely offer these broadband-only services exclusively...

What I don' t understand is:
Why did Warner Home Video use mpeg 2 codec on the blu-ray video and the better VC-1 codec on HD-DVD?

I mean I could understand it if blu-ray didn' t support anything better but...

ORIGINAL: Blu-ray.com FAQ

What video codecs will Blu-ray support?

MPEG-2 - enhanced for HD, also used for playback of DVDs and HDTV recordings.
MPEG-4 AVC - part of the MPEG-4 standard also known as H.264 (High Profile and Main Profile).
SMPTE VC-1 - standard based on Microsoft' s Windows Media Video (WMV) technology.

So... why?

Yeah, the fable combat looks umm very good! Now howz about some actual
colour and textures so we can see how smooth it will run..

1) the differences are minute

Not really - while the difference in Video Quality is a bit better on HD-DVD, it' s also worth pointing that 15GB movie (with great Sound options) on HD DVD looks exactly the same as the one on 25GB blue ray (without those sound options).

It means this compression method sux , cause 30GB Hd DVD movie looks better than 25GB BD (and also has sound options unavailable for BD).

If BD needs 50GB to be as good as 30GB HD-DVD , than their codec isn' t really worth supporting.

2) video codecs are upgraded frequently

Are you crazy? It' s not a divix codec man - it' s a high end codec and it stays as it is for quite a while.

ORIGINAL: ]GaNgStA[

It means this compression method sux , cause 30GB Hd DVD movie looks better than 25GB BD (and also has sound options unavailable for BD).

If BD needs 50GB to be as good as 30GB HD-DVD , than their codec isn' t really worth supporting.

It' s the same as dvd, mpeg 2, but apparently br supports vc1 the same as hd-dvd, why why didn' t warner encode with such?

Interesting

When I started reading the comparisons a couple of weeks ago I was under the impression that sony had somehow trapped studios into using the outdated MPEG-2 codec. But that' s not the case at all. Even Sony' s own website says it supports AVC and VC1.

Have any other studios released titles on both formats yet? I seem to remember that when Warner Bros. first got into the DVD format the quality and extras weren' t all that great either. I think they may have focused more on being FIRST than being BEST.

I thinking I' ll wait for someone like Disney to release some titles before I trust direct comparisons.

quote:

1) the differences are minute


Not really - while the difference in Video Quality is a bit better on HD-DVD, it' s also worth pointing that 15GB movie (with great Sound options) on HD DVD looks exactly the same as the one on 25GB blue ray (without those sound options).

It means this compression method sux , cause 30GB Hd DVD movie looks better than 25GB BD (and also has sound options unavailable for BD).

If BD needs 50GB to be as good as 30GB HD-DVD , than their codec isn' t really worth supporting.


quote:

2) video codecs are upgraded frequently


Are you crazy? It' s not a divix codec man - it' s a high end codec and it stays as it is for quite a while.

.....so companies can' t change the codec completely or upgrade the current model?....

...

....sorry, but personally i think this whole point is being totally exaggerated....

....Blu-ray is more expensive and should in actual fact be a superior product when you weigh all it' s positives together.....

......there is just no way that it could stand half a chance if it' s extra cost came hand in hand with inferior performance....

...or do people here think that Sony, Apple, MGM etc are really that idiotic?.......

..or do people here think that Sony, Apple, MGM etc are really that idiotic?.... ...

Imagine you spent millions upon millions developing a format, you would want to sell it, even if better options already exist! Blu ray, has better copy protection than HD dvd, most find it to exsesive!

Yeh, if you want to make money, sell your own origanal stuff.

The ONLY 2 reason Blu-Ray has gathered so much support is 1) Sony' s success with Playstation and Playstation 2 and 2) it' s copy protection.

.....so companies can' t change the codec completely or upgrade the current model?....

Why would anybody want to buy a player that constantly needs upgrading?! It' d require the firmware to be updated for it to be fully compatible with codec revisions, but as Gangsta already pointed out they' re not using Xvid or DivX, codecs like Mpeg 2 don' t get updated and stay the same for years and years.

....Blu-ray is more expensive and should in actual fact be a superior product when you weigh all it' s positives together.....

And as a storage medium you' be be right. As a film medium then Blu-ray has zero advantages over HD-DVD.

3) consumer electronics customers won' t give a flying f*ck

So you have the option to buy a $400 HD-DVD player or a $1000 Blu-Ray player and you know that HD-DVD movies are NOT inferior to their Blu-Ray opponents and you' d still consider spending an extra $600 on a Blu-Ray player?! I don' t know about you but the average consumer isn' t exactly made of money.



Also note that it' s the licencing and royalty costs that are forcing studios to use Mpeg-2 for the Blu-Ray movies. The discs cost enough themselves and Mpeg-2 works out cheaper for them at this point and since nobody knows which way it' s going to go yet i expect many 1st generation Blu-Ray movies to be encoded using Mpeg-2.

Majik, your forgeting the Ps3 is also blue ray player, which retails for 500 - 600.

The differaces between the Two are minor, really no body cares if Hd dvd can show a slighty crisper picture becuase in the end, nobody is going to notice [unless you have some sort of 1080i 60inch hdtv].

People want things cheap and fast, they want them to last and they dont want to buy things again. Aka buying dvds on br/hddvd they allready own again.

Majik, your forgeting the Ps3 is also blue ray player, which retails for 500 - 600.

Good point.

Also note that it' s the licencing and royalty costs that are forcing studios to use Mpeg-2 for the Blu-Ray movies. The discs cost enough themselves and Mpeg-2 works out cheaper for them at this point and since nobody knows which way it' s going to go yet i expect many 1st generation Blu-Ray movies to be encoded using Mpeg-2.

Thanks for the answer Majik.

The differaces between the Two are minor, really no body cares if Hd dvd can show a slighty crisper picture becuase in the end, nobody is going to notice [unless you have some sort of 1080i 60inch hdtv].

The average consumer doesn' t really check things out much before they buy it, if at all. Blu-ray sounds like the better option, whether it is or isn' t, it is also a key component of ps3 which many people will buy. (Sony are really gonna push the advertising on it). Unless the joe bloggs has both versions side by side and pays close attention, they really wont notice.

If blu-ray takes off well or with the advent of PS3, hopefullymovie studios would be willing to put better codecs to use, I' m sure hope sony will at the very least.

You have to understand that making a next gen dvd and deciding which codec it will use is done at the same time and by the same people.

Guys who decide on what Blue Ray Disc will be capable of also pick one of the available (or develop their own) codec for use in this particular formats life cycle.

If it weren' t so - your DVD player wouldn' t be able to play the newest DVD movies without you updating it.

Those two camps are not only HD DVD Vs Blue Ray - these are also HD DVD codec vs Blue ray codec and HD DVD security system vs BD security system.

Every next gen format consists of the storage (disc) , codec (the one this particular disc will support) and security system.

BD wins in STORAGE and SECURITY , while HD DVD wins in Video Quality od it' s CODEC.

It' s more complicated than that though.

if HD DVD wins in Video Quality, then it' s clear that BDisc' s storage means nothing for movies (30HD DVD looks at least as good as 50GB BD movie and has extra features)

Since security isn' t our concern (our as customers) , the winner is obvious.

But like Majik said - people are just people and they don' t know shit.

Well Blu-Ray players must by standard support Mpeg-2, VC-1 and Mpeg-4 so studios can encode the films in whichever they like, and HD-DVD supports exactly the same. Mpeg-2 is cheaper for studios to use and is obviosuly the prefered option in light of the disc costs. HD-DVD discs cost less to produce and so those same companies have can afford to use a different (better) and more expensive codec.

But yeah, everything else Gangsta said is right.

ORIGINAL: ]GaNgStA[

while HD DVD wins in Video Quality od it' s CODEC.

ok I can' t agree...

Blu-Ray.com FAQ

Video codecs
MPEG-2 - blu-ray and hddvd
MPEG-4 AVC - blu-ray and hddvd
SMPTE VC-1 - blu-ray and hddvd

So they both appear to support both the same video codecs, audio too. but according to their site, BR has a higher max bitrate, which can only be a good thing also BR has a higher data transfer rate for video and audio (54Mbps vs 36.55Mbps).

Surely this all points to br being the better format, just current costs being the only prohibative factor.

.....so companies can' t change the codec completely or upgrade the current model?....

Why would anybody want to buy a player that constantly needs upgrading?! It' d require the firmware to be updated for it to be fully compatible with codec revisions, but as Gangsta already pointed out they' re not using Xvid or DivX, codecs like Mpeg 2 don' t get updated and stay the same for years and years.

...that question was a shot in the dark because i simply refused to believe the crap that was going around about the codecs....

....i can' t be bothered to spend an age reading up on it, but what ummai is saying makes sense to an individuals common-sense and, rather conveniently, leads us all the way back to my original statement:

Blu-Ray has already been owned as far as the first batch of movies are concerned. HDDVD has come out ahead in terms of both visual and audio quality, AND it' s cheaper.

...irrelevant.... ...and likely to be proven false...

3) consumer electronics customers won' t give a flying f*ck

So you have the option to buy a $400 HD-DVD player or a $1000 Blu-Ray player and you know that HD-DVD movies are NOT inferior to their Blu-Ray opponents and you' d still consider spending an extra $600 on a Blu-Ray player?! I don' t know about you but the average consumer isn' t exactly made of money.

....well it' d depend on how much the individual was willing to spend, as with or without a marginally better video codec, the $1000 Blu-ray player will be a superior product.....

...but i really shouldn' t of taken it there as my argument for Blu-ray' s success is based 100% on it being standard in the PS3....

Bishonen it' s not likely to be proven false. HD-DVD discs are cheaper to manufacture and they' re sold at a lower cost to the studios, the players are MUCH cheaper because the drives are much cheaper to manufacture and thus the products are cheaper for the end user.

Because the discs are cheaper studios are (at the moment) using a better codec to encode their films and therefore (for now) the quality of the picture is better. Using Mpeg-4 or VC-1 would mean added cost to studios putting out films on Blu-Ray as the discs are more expensive themselves and that would then drive up the cost of the movie for the end user which would translate into lower sales figures

As far as standalone player are concerned then HD-DVD comes out ahead as the performance is exactly the same and yet HD-DVD players are cheaper.

As far as the movies go, right now HD-DVD has the edge of having a slightly better quality picture and having more titles available on the market.

As far as PC' s and next gen DVD drives go then Blu-Ray has the advantage of more storage space.

What WE should be talking about is Blu-Rays inclusion in PS3 and whether that will make Blu-Ray successful or whether Blu-Rays potential failure in other markets could spell doom for Sony' s next gen games machine.

It should be noted that Sony have tried time and again with various mediums and every one has bombed badly or been outdone with relative ease.