View Full Version : HD-DVD and Blu-Ray merger still a possibility!
DeadKenny
27-06-2006, 12:50
According to Toshiba...
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/06/27/toshiba_open_to_bluray_hddvd_merger/
Just makes me think that buying a player now is not a good idea. Apart from 1st generation issues and high costs, there's the issue of which format wins and then also if they merge they could be effectively creating a new format thus making existing players redundant.
Either way, sounds like they don't see this as a mass market format yet otherwise they wouldn't even entertain the idea at this stage.
thescrounger
27-06-2006, 13:14
It's a bit too late now? The stuff is out in the shops.
I don't want a merger, I want HD-DVD to win. :D
It's a bit too late now? The stuff is out in the shops.
I don't want a merger, I want HD-DVD to win. :D
I don't want a merger, I want Blu-ray to win. :D
I just want everyone to get along... :cry:
thescrounger
27-06-2006, 15:10
I don't want a merger, I want Blu-ray to win. :D
For a format that has titles out with image quality not up to the standard of the current HD-DVD titles, you must have shares in Bluray. :nuts:
I just think it's pathetic.
From what I've seen so far, they've had Years to get this off the ground, and they have bugger all movies, and the players are a joke consisting of a Drive mounted in a giant case which pretty much contains a PC.
What have they been doing?
Where are all the custom circuit boards/chipsets?
It's like they only started working on this a few months ago.
Would not touch current models with a barge pole.
For a format that has titles out with image quality not up to the standard of the current HD-DVD titles, you must have shares in Bluray. :nuts:
Read http://www.thedigitalbits.com/ comments. I was a bit peeved at Blu-ray since I heard of the picture issues. However, give it 6 months and 50Gb with VC1 or H264 codecs and the discs will sit on HD-DVD. Plus, I hate Toshiba DVD players so i'll be looking forward to a nice Pioneer 2nd Gen player.
Back on topic, its too late for a merger, forget it! Even if it wasn't released, Sony is too stubborn to change the spec!
SAD UPDATE: my 1,920 post! Hmm, I want that res on my Blu-rays :)
ShakeyJake
27-06-2006, 18:04
According to http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2006/06/22/hybrid_hd_player_from_samsung_and_toshiba/ there's a player coming out that plays both! yay!
thescrounger
27-06-2006, 18:12
Read http://www.thedigitalbits.com/ comments. I was a bit peeved at Blu-ray since I heard of the picture issues. However, give it 6 months and 50Gb with VC1 or H264 codecs and the discs will sit on HD-DVD.
Give it 6 months?? Game over for Bluray if it takes them another half a year to sort out these problems.
HD-DVD all the way!
Give it 6 months?? Game over for Bluray if it takes them another half a year to sort out these problems.
HD-DVD all the way!
I was more thinking of 6 months as being the absolute max. Fair point, If Blu-ray isn't sorted by then, then they can shove it.
Grandmaster
28-06-2006, 06:33
Read http://www.thedigitalbits.com/ comments. I was a bit peeved at Blu-ray since I heard of the picture issues. However, give it 6 months and 50Gb with VC1 or H264 codecs and the discs will sit on HD-DVD.
:lol: There's still this bizarre idea that capacity = better for a movie playback platform. The plain and simple fact is that a VC1/AVC encoded movie will not need 50GB. Not even with extreme picture quality. Not even with the inclusion of lossless audio codecs.
Short of movies coming with hours upon hours of extreme encoded HD extras, 30GB is more than enough space. There could well be a case of HD-DVD movie releases spanning onto two disks if things really get silly, but even then it will work to HD-DVD's advantage - 'Two Disk Collector's Set' is a better marketing spin than 'One DIsk Collector's Set'.
In real world scenarios, it all comes to down to TV series boxsets: less episodes per disk on HD-DVD if both formats use VC1/AVC. But less episodes per disk for Blu-Ray if they insist on using MPEG2.
BTW you talk about Sony's stubbornness - I'm inclined to agree and think that for this reason they're going to stick with MPEG2.
DeadKenny
28-06-2006, 21:41
:lol: There's still this bizarre idea that capacity = better for a movie playback platform. The plain and simple fact is that a VC1/AVC encoded movie will not need 50GB.
Besides, HD-DVD can go up to 45GB now with triple layers! ;) So the capacity thing is really a non-issue. Other than capacity I really don't see technically what people see between the two. The rest is down to branding, licencing, corporate control and costs.
:lol: There's still this bizarre idea that capacity = better for a movie playback platform. The plain and simple fact is that a VC1/AVC encoded movie will not need 50GB. Not even with extreme picture quality. Not even with the inclusion of lossless audio codecs.
Short of movies coming with hours upon hours of extreme encoded HD extras, 30GB is more than enough space. There could well be a case of HD-DVD movie releases spanning onto two disks if things really get silly, but even then it will work to HD-DVD's advantage - 'Two Disk Collector's Set' is a better marketing spin than 'One DIsk Collector's Set'.
In real world scenarios, it all comes to down to TV series boxsets: less episodes per disk on HD-DVD if both formats use VC1/AVC. But less episodes per disk for Blu-Ray if they insist on using MPEG2.
BTW you talk about Sony's stubbornness - I'm inclined to agree and think that for this reason they're going to stick with MPEG2.
50Gb may be more than enough but its just really the capacity. Blu-ray has a higher transfer rate and for some advanced audio codecs as well as multiple video streams, Blu-ray is the proper option. HD-DVD is not really future proof, as i'm sure there will be features that soon find its limits!
In terms of the MPEG2, it has been reported that Sony are only using it because its quicker for them to encode movies. It is also due to the fact that VC1 is Microsoft and Sony would prefer not give them any credit due to their HD-DVD support. H264 encoders are still not up to par at the moment, so they aren't really an alternative.
I believe Fox will be using VC1 for their movies in the 4th Qtr! Don't get me wrong, if Blu-ray doesn't show its stuff by late this year then fine, go HD-DVD!
Yes I'm a hypocrit, but its too early to pick a format from their initial releases. Blu-ray is better on paper in the long run and has the support from studios and hardware makers.
thescrounger
29-06-2006, 10:43
50Gb may be more than enough but its just really the capacity. Blu-ray has a higher transfer rate and for some advanced audio codecs as well as multiple video streams, Blu-ray is the proper option. HD-DVD is not really future proof, as i'm sure there will be features that soon find its limits!
.
At the end of the day, you're just saying it has more capactity. Despite Grandmaster just saying that with the right codecs 30GB is more than enough. I'm not quite sure where this future proofing stuff is coming from either, because technically neither format is future proof.
Also:
Besides, HD-DVD can go up to 45GB now with triple layers! ;) So the capacity thing is really a non-issue.
Grandmaster
29-06-2006, 12:49
50Gb may be more than enough but its just really the capacity. Blu-ray has a higher transfer rate and for some advanced audio codecs as well as multiple video streams, Blu-ray is the proper option. HD-DVD is not really future proof, as i'm sure there will be features that soon find its limits!
Bandwidth between the two is pretty much the same actually, and HD-DVD will be running Dolby TrueHD too. Blu-Ray most certainly is not the only 'proper' option. HD-DVD is just as 'proper.' That's the whole point, the formats are interchangeable. Being an advocate of either is ludicrous.
In terms of the MPEG2, it has been reported that Sony are only using it because its quicker for them to encode movies.
Er, MPEG2 encoders have been around for a decade now, the technology is antiquitated relatively speaking. They may well be quicker than VC1 and AVC encoders but we're talking about two hours of footage here, not days! Encoding time is irrelevant on a proper production.
It is also due to the fact that VC1 is Microsoft and Sony would prefer not give them any credit due to their HD-DVD support. H264 encoders are still not up to par at the moment, so they aren't really an alternative.
If h.264 is not up to par, why are Sony themselves using it on PSP? Every UMD video title is a standard definition 720x480 video file encoded into AVC. Why are Apple using (an admittedly poor version) of it on their Quicktime trailers? How come the open source people have been encoding using the x264 project for ages, and can achieve better results than Quicktime and even VC1? :?:
Yes I'm a hypocrite...
Nope, just ill-informed...
..but its too early to pick a format from their initial releases. Blu-ray is better on paper in the long run and has the support from studios and hardware makers.
The studios will go where the money is. And what does support actually mean exactly? Fox may well say that they're supporting Blu-Ray but where are the titles? If they've announced specific ones, what ones have they announced? Why are *all* the HD titles out now by and large back catalogue filler? Even the best Sony want to put out is The Fifth Element, hardly the stuff to make people rush out and buy machines. Let's face it - UMD got better titles :lol:
Despite this talk of 'studio support', none of them have committed with their big titles, the disks that will make people buy machines. The fact is that despite public announcements of 'support', they're all hedging their bets at the moment.
Indeed, from where I'm sitting right now, the only truly 'big time' title I've seen announced is Lord of the Rings... er, on HD-DVD.
ill-informed? Yikes, no need to get offensive! This thread is turning into a real argument thread. Whats the point of all this "mine is better than yours stuff" :shrug:
In regards to the triple layer HD-DVD, I think the spec is geared towards PC usuage as is the quad layer blu-ray. The Video part of the blu-ray and HD-DVD specification is only 2 layers.
Grandmaster
29-06-2006, 13:07
Ill-informed is not an insult, it's an observation based on the multiple inaccuracies in your post and from where I'm sitting, it's not an argument thread, it's a discussion.
I'm not an advocate of either format. I've posted it many times - HD is not ready to enter the mainstream because the DVD format is so damn good - something which that Fifth Element comparison video illustrates rather well IMO.
A format was is pathetic and useless, especially when by and large they do the same thing in exactly the same way. An HD-DVD and Blu-Ray merger would definitely be the way forward - stuff the early adopters, the whole notion of HD movies is heading the same way as DVD-Audio and SACD unless there is a single unified format with 100% support.
DeadKenny
29-06-2006, 21:42
50Gb may be more than enough but its just really the capacity. Blu-ray has a higher transfer rate and for some advanced audio codecs as well as multiple video streams, Blu-ray is the proper option. HD-DVD is not really future proof, as i'm sure there will be features that soon find its limits!
Transfer rate is also irrelevant as like with DVD the actual rate required for home players for movies is much lower than the spec of the disc format. The only thing capacity and transfer rate is relevant to is for PC drives where fast backups are required. Again, take DVD as an example where DVD-Writers can run at 8x speed or more, but playback of movies is still 1x no matter what.
Audio codecs is disc format independent. That the Blu-Ray camp may use different codecs is irrelevant to the disc format. HD-DVD is just as capable of coping with the codecs, just as any other format is with enough capacity.
At the end of the day the two in terms of discs are just a medium for storing a shed load of data.
At the end of the day the two in terms of discs are just a medium for storing a shed load of data.
Indeed, even a super super super dooper multi layer boring old CDR would be just as good as the new formats.
As long as it holds data and can pass the data to the electronics it could be a shoebox full of memorysticks :)
The way I see it, is that because of the amount of money Sony have plowed into Blu-ray makes the chances of them merging the format with HD-DVD very, very slim.
The fact that they need the royalties from every disc that is sold to get them back into somesort of financial shape really means they'll continue until it's entirely failed or has won the battle.
James
Ben Martin
26-07-2006, 15:02
In regards to the triple layer HD-DVD, I think the spec is geared towards PC usuage as is the quad layer blu-ray.the implication being that it is unfair to compare triple-layer HD-DVD to dual-layer blu-ray? i totally disagree.
dual-layer HD-DVD is a reality now, as is single-layer blu-ray. so for the time being HD-DVD is actually the capacity king. naturally it will be well surpassed by dual-layer blu-ray, but when will that be? it's been delayed several times and in bill hunt's articles about his early blu-ray experiences (good and bad) on thedigitalbits, he comments on sony's continuing inability to get dual-layer blu-ray out of the labs.
so triple-layer HD-DVD and dual-layer blu-ray are currently the next stage of each format, and thus it's more than appropriate to compare them. of course, it's a moot point to some degree as far as home video is concerned because, as grandmaster and others have said, dual-layer HD-DVD can provide everything dual-layer blu-ray can in terms of image resolution/quality, sound quality etc.
don't get me wrong, i'm also trying not to take sides. and whichever genuinely had the larger capacity would certainly be my preference for PC use.
Read http://www.thedigitalbits.com/ comments. I was a bit peeved at Blu-ray since I heard of the picture issues. However, give it 6 months and 50Gb with VC1 or H264 codecs and the discs will sit on HD-DVD.
Why should anyone wait 6 months for Sony to get the job done properly, especially when we will still have to stump up twice the cost of an hd-dvd player or plump for an over-priced console?
Back on topic, its too late for a merger, forget it! Even if it wasn't released, Sony is too stubborn to change the spec!
Indeed, they are still bitter over betamax and want to get back at the world like a chastised child. :razz:
Why should anyone wait 6 months for Sony to get the job done properly, especially when we will still have to stump up twice the cost of an hd-dvd player or plump for an over-priced console?
ok don't wait 6 months, go buy HD-DVD now! I'm sure Dixons has plenty in stock :p
My point is that all this squabbling about HD-DVD and Blue Ray is purely academic as you can't buy either in UK right now hence they are both vapourware right now.
I will make my choice when they are both out in the UK, i was behind blue-ray at first because of the capacity but now i'll wait. I think jumping on the HD right now is a big mistake as i want a 1080p TV set and i won't get the full HD-DVD or blue-ray effect on a 720p set
Hemzoozlefluff
29-07-2006, 00:39
50GB isn't 'needed' but it's helpful for containing episodic stuff a lot easier. I'd certainly prefer less disc changes.
Ben Martin
29-07-2006, 09:33
though that advantage is tempered by choice of codec. 50GB of MPEG2 obviously allows you more hours of video than 30GB of MPEG2, but its lead over 30GB of VC1 is less pronounced.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.