Majority Of Customers Prefer Blu-Ray

bonch writes "A poll shows Blu-ray as the preferred choice, as conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates. Customers were given a side-by-side comparison of HD-DVD and Blu-ray. The results were that 58 percent of the 1,200 polled chose Blu-ray, and 26 percent were undecided. Generally speaking, HD-DVD is preferred by those seeking to reduce manufacturing costs while Blu-ray is preferred by those more interested in features and data storage." Sony's PS3 is to use the Blu-Ray format.

Comments

Uh-huh.

[Musteval]

And what percentage were convinced by the cool name and blueness, rather than the fact that one is slightly different?

Re:Uh-huh.

[agraupe]

Umm... probably 80-100%. That's the point of marketing. Whatever speeds its adoption is a good thing, because it is technically superior.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Musteval]

You're telling me that it's a good thing that 80-100% of people support a technology because of its name? Hey, I've got a new DVD format! It's called "Free porn!" It's identical to a floppy disk, but anybody using it has to pay ten thousand dollars to me.

Re:Uh-huh.

[DarkEdgeX]

The problem is that they're not identical. BluRay is technically superior. It can hold more content at the same bitrate HD-DVD uses, or it can hold the same amount of content at a higher bitrate than HD-DVD uses. I imagine that'll be especially useful for long movies like any of the Lord of the Rings films in their Extended Edition form.

Re:Uh-huh.

[surefooted1]

Generally speaking, HD-DVD is preferred by those seeking to reduce manufacturing costs while Blu-ray is preferred by those more interested in features and data storage.

Yea, because the average consumer cares about manufacturing cost vs. features and data storage.
This poll is about useless.

Re:Uh-huh.

[mattspammail]

That sounds promising! I want one of those.

Re:Uh-huh.

[MCraigW]

AOL leads all other ISPs in usage. MS Internet Explorer is the most widely used browser with around 80% of all users.

Polls like these have little meaning.

Who funded the poll?

Re:Uh-huh.

[Parham]

Apparently the market LOVES bad spelling. If you check out http://www.blu-ray.com/ you can actually find a spot where they spell "Blu-ray" as "Blue-ray" (check under the headline titled "Jan 18, 2005 - Sonopress Joins Blu-ray Disc Association"). I think they're undecided on the name...

Re:Uh-huh.

[macdaddy357]

Blu-ray has a higher capacity, and that sure sounds better to me. Either way, I would like to see true high definition on DVDs now, not another format war like the one that halted DVD burners until drives did both, and the one that killed AM Stereo and quadraphonic records before they even got off the ground.

Re:Uh-huh.

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

No, but the market does LOVE the actual website belonging to the Blu-Ray Disc Association: blu-raydisc.com.

And I'm pretty sure the market is ECSTATIC about the copyright notice at the bottom of the site you mentioned:

This web site is not affiliated with the Blu-ray Disc Association. All trademarks are the property of the respective trademark owners. © 2002-2005 Blu-ray.com. All rights reserved.

Re:Uh-huh.

[ZephyrXero]

Just barely. A blu-ray disc can hold roughly 50GB of data using dual layers, but an HD-DVD can hold up to 45GB using its new triple layer technology. The other very important fact is that current DVDs and HD-DVDs' plastic coating are both .8 milimeters thick while blu-ray discs will only be .1, and thus much much easier to scratch. You combine that with the fact that manufactures will have to buy all new equipment for Blu-ray, as opposed to only slight upgrades to current tech with HD-DVD, and Blu-ray will cost us, the consumers, much more as well... For an extra 5 gigs of space? no thanks...

Re:Uh-huh.

[ZephyrXero]

45GB for HD-DVD vs. 50GB for Blu-ray isn't that big a difference...

Re:Uh-huh.

[mog007]

Not only is the increased capacity of Blu-Ray appealing to me, but I really like the possibility of a multiple layer disc. Isn't it something like 9 layers of possibility on Blu-Ray.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Mozk]

"A poll conducted by the group backing the Blu-ray next-generation DVD standard shows that the technology is supported by a majority of consumers, putting rival HD DVD on the defensive."

It's fairly obvious that they skewed the questions towards themselves. There's no way they were unbiased about it.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Seraphim1982]

I don't know about HD-DVD, but the Blu-ray companies claim they will eventually support up to 8 layers (200GB), and I belive a 4 layer (100GB) disk has already been produced. In addition recordable disks will likely be limited to one or two layers, where the larger per-layer capacity of Blu-ray will be important.

Re:Uh-huh.

[JLF65]

You obviously don't follow the news closely... Blu-Ray can do 100G now, and Toshiba's scratch resistant coating will be standard on all Blu-Ray discs. Since it will be used on all discs, it will add less than a penny to the cost of the disc.

You gotta keep a close eye on the news - things are changing almost daily.

Re:Uh-huh.

[ribo-bailey]

But how many libraries of congress will it hold?

Re:Uh-huh.

[ZephyrXero]

Guess I missed that one, but now that I look it seems to be true. I still don't know what to think about this "scratch resistant coating" stuff though...

Re:Uh-huh.

[fbg111]

Whatever speeds its adoption is a good thing, because it is technically superior.

The branding sure failed with VHS and Betamax though...

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the bottom of the 3rd page! Which (incidently) is only accessible by typing the page's address in the address bar of your preferred browser you will clearly see that the poll is funded by Sony! :-)

Re:Uh-huh.

[DarkEdgeX]

If you're going to do capacity comparisons, at least use the same number of layers.

45 GB for HD-DVD is with 3 layers. If the BluRay disc had 3 layers, it'd have a capacity of 75 GB, a 30 GB difference. (FWIW I haven't heard of any attempts at a 3 layer BD, but 4 layer BD media has been created and that has a capacity of 100 GB).

Re:Uh-huh.

[agraupe]

No offense, but in what world is 10% not a big difference? Also, as others have said, more layers could be added to Blu-ray to increase capacity, whereas HD-DVD is squeezed as it is.

How much of it is just the name?

[AtariAmarok]

How much of this customer preference is just the name? "Blu-Ray" is easy to remember, and does not sound like much anything else. "HD-DVD" sounds like just more tech alphabet soup, or part of a features list string for a Dell desktop ad.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[DigitumDei]

Yes, and right now its just the name of the hardware.

I bet whichever format gets more of the "cool stuff" to begin with will more than likely be the format that wins, regardless of the actual technology.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[theNote]

Kind of reminds of when you had to decide whether you were going to get DVD+R or DVD-R discs.
Now you can get a dual format drive for less than $50 and not have to worry about it.
I'm guessing after a little while we'll see the same thing happen with the new formats and nobody will care which one you're using.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[dsginter]

"Blu-Ray" is easy to remember, and does not sound like much anything else.

Unfortunately, the plan is to call it a "BD-ROM" or "BD-RAM", depending on rewritability. I can see it now:

CD-ROM
CD-R
CD-RW
DVD-ROM
DVD-R
DVD-RW
DVD +R
DVD+RW
BD-ROM
BD-R
BD-RW
BD+RW
HD-DVD
HD -DVD-R
HD-DVD-RW
HD-DVD+RW

I think the plan is to get the consumer to actually pass out when shopping for media. Then, the store clerks will just steal their wallets.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[jacexpo069]

Right, like how the name FIREWIRE blew the jumble of letters USB2 right out of the water, even if it was technically superior

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[afd8856]

Are you refering to iLink or to IEEE1394?

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[AtariAmarok]

"Right, like how the name FIREWIRE blew the jumble of letters USB2 right out of the water, even if it was technically superior"

You are comparing apples and oranges. These are two entirely DIFFERENT interfaces.

More relevant is how the "better name" Firewire really eclipsed Sony's name for the same thing (something like IEEE-1394, I think).

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Golias]

Heh. Your post reminded me of the old "Arkansas Literacy Test" joke:

MR Snakes
R Not
OSAR. CMBDIs?
L All B...
MR Snakes!

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're thinking of i.Link. ;)

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Sentry21]

Nonsense! I look forward to shopping for my first dual-layer 52x/52x/48x/32x/24x/16x/8x/4x/2x/2x/2x/4x/2x/2x/2x CD/DVD/BD/HD-DVD+/-RW/RAM drive.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[NutscrapeSucks]

Unfortunately, Apple restricted the use of the "Firewire" brand name in the early days, so most PC implementations were forced to use the unsexy "IEEE1394" moniker.

However, the real reason USB2 was victorious is because it is free technology while Firewire still requires some sort of licensing fee. Hopefully now that Apple and Intel are in bed, they can come to some sort of agreement and 1394 will become a standard PC chipset feature.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Dogtanian]

Kind of reminds of when you had to decide whether you were going to get DVD+R or DVD-R discs. Now you can get a dual format drive for less than $50 and not have to worry about it. I'm guessing after a little while we'll see the same thing happen with the new formats and nobody will care which one you're using.

My understanding (gained mainly via my memory of /., so take it with a pound of salt) is that Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are far more different at a fundamental level, and it wouldn't be as simple to produce devices that support both formats.

Of course, it would probably be possible to squeeze technology to read both types of disks into a single drive, but in a worst-case scenario, this could involve (essentially) two separate mechanisms in the same case, costing at least twice the price.

Who'd buy *that*?

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Pollardito]

i can't imagine that they don't share a large number of parts, even if those parts don't operate under the same logic. some portion of any laser disc drive's is devoted to just spinning and stabilizing the disc, and some portion of the drive is dedicated to feeding the data to the output port that connects to your PC. since those portions could surely be used for both formats, production cost should be less than double if only for that.

otoh, i thought i heard that one of the two consortiums had vowed not to certify drives by manufacturers in the other consortium. it'll probably be non-technical barriers like this that ultimately slow down production of dual drives.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[onkelonkel]

Newfie Version

MR Docks
R Not
Cedar Wings
Whale Oil Beef Hocked

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[rootofevil]

at this point, unless you are scraping the very bottom of the barrel, most new pcs/new motherboards come with both usb2 and FW ports.

some (sonys) will mostly have the worthless 4pin ports, while most opt for the 6pin (powered) ports.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Neon Spiral Injector]

FireWire is Apple's name for the IEEE standard 1394. Sony actually called it iLink.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[NutscrapeSucks]

I don't think so. I just checked Dell, and even the high-end Dimensions only have 1394 as an optional add-on. I've never seen a business PC with Firewire.

Unfortunately, the current situation is that Firewire is basically a non-feature unless one is doing DV editing. However, it's not too late -- if Intel could build it into their chipsets without paying a licence fee, FW would be immediately become nearly universal.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Wordsmith]

And then there's BD Huang (sp?) of Oz and Law & Order fame.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[schwartzbag]

I would like to see it called a BRD for Blu-Ray Disc. Once they make a new version of Dance Dance Revolution for PS3, that'll make for a BRD/DDR reunification just like East and West Germany.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot Poland!

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

M R Ducks.
M R Not Ducks.
O S A R.
M R Not Ducks.
C D E D B D Wings?
L I B. M R Ducks.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[gamer4retro]

I totally disagree. I think that because DVD is such a household name and HD is becoming that way that HD-DVD sounds much more appealing to the general public. It's familiar and easy to remember.

Blu-Ray sounds like a neon fish. There's no reference point for the customer and most of them don't know what it is. At least with HD-DVD most people can make a logical guess.

If we're going purely by name I think HD-DVD will win out. But if we're looking at quality and marketability my vote is for Blu-Ray.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[spleck]

Yeah, Betamax sounds much better than VHS!

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[tabrnaker]

There's your problem, you checked Dell! If they figured out how to sell computers without power supplies, i'm sure they'd make those optional as well.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[psbrogna]

I don't believe that's the way it will go. If history has taught us anything, it has taught us that the solution with the largest marketing budget will win.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[benwaggoner]

Actually, FireWire is the dominant protocol for compressed video applications, which is a huge market. And it's used widely for external storage as well.

Sure, it isn't used for keyboard and other areas where real-time performance isn't critical, but it doesn't have any advantages there.

Where isosynchronous performance is critical, FireWire does very well.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Total_Wimp]

I think the plan is to get the consumer to actually pass out when shopping for media. Then, the store clerks will just steal their wallets.

I love the fact that this was modded +5 insightful instead of +5 funny. I guess the modders were insightful too.

For extra points you could point out that with the new RFID credit cards, the clerks wont even need to fish in the victims pockets.

TW

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

The real plan is to call rewritable Blu-Ray discs "BD-Re", which should be easier for non-technological people to remember.

And it's easier to say, too. Which would you rather explain to someone: HD-DVD-RW or BD-Re?

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[NutscrapeSucks]

I have no argument against the tech, and I use it myself.

However, Apple priced it out of the general peripheral market, dooming it to the DV niche. Even for harddrives, most general users would be better off with USB2 for reasons of compatibility and cost, leaving Firewire to the low-end RAID niche.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Gulthek]

The parent said, "unless you are scraping the very bottom of the barrel." Dell is in business to make money, so of course they make anything possible optional. They buy in bulk the cheapest motherboards that have the bits that are selling their machines. Do you think they throw in an Asus or Abit just because it is a "high-end" machine?

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[AtariAmarok]

"Yeah, Betamax sounds much better than VHS!"

Actually, it does. Which is why in a similar survey, Betamax might have won over VHS... and, similarly, the survey results would have nothing to do with whether or not either format ended up winning in the end.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[benwaggoner]

DV certainly doesn't feel like a niche to me!

And it's not just for consumer SD stuff. FireWire is also used for DVCPRO-HD, HDV, the AJA Io uncompressed systems, etcetera.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[the_weasel]

Dell is in business to make money, so of course they make anything possible optional.

Why thats so insightful. Dell is so unlike all those other companies, who are only in business to make me happy.

Are my sarcasm tags showing?

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[dr.badass]

How much of this customer preference is just the name? "Blu-Ray" is easy to remember, and does not sound like much anything else. "HD-DVD" sounds like just more tech alphabet soup, or part of a features list string for a Dell desktop ad.

I doubt they mentioned the name, as is typical for such surveys. "Technology A" and "Technology B" are probably what was presented. On paper (and in surveys paid for by the Blu-Ray group) Blu-Ray comes out on top every time.

I don't agree with your assessment of the names, though. HD-DVD sounds like "High Definition DVD", which is exactly what it's supposed to be. Any consumer interested in High Def. video in the near future is going to know what HD and DVD mean, whether they know the technical details or not. Blu-Ray sounds like a fish or a rock band, and "BD-ROM" is truly meaningless.

I think HD-DVD is likely to win out on it's marketability alone.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[ImpTech]

The Latitude my company furnished me with has firewire built-in. And its not as though they bought it special... I have no particular use for firewire.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[festers]

And Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are two entirely DIFFERENT formats. Blu ray/HD DVD are similar, yet incompatible ways of recording data to a disc, Firewire/USB2 are similar yet incompatible ways of external data transfer. What the hell is your point?

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Phat_Tony]

"it isn't used for keyboard and other areas where real-time performance isn't critical"

Funny, I've always had a strong preference for keyboards that work in real-time. Rather than, say, typing a paper now, and then coming back later to see if the computer's finished importing it so I can look at it. In fact, some people even like to use keyboards as part of a real-time interface for controlling their computers.

Firewire's advantage isn't it's ability to work in real time; plenty of real-time devices like keyboards, mice, webcams, and networking run on USB. It's initial advantage for video was bandwidth, which stopped USB1 from doing real-time DV video, and a good protocol for handling realtime video, including remote controlling a video source.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[jdigriz]

That's funny. No really. I get the joke. But monolingual English speakers aren't likely to get it. In English it was the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the German Democratic Republic, (GDR). Bundesrepublik Deutschland has much better cadence though.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[benwaggoner]

Trust me, your fingers can handle a lot more latency than 250 Mbps of video data.

FireWire 400 does a lot better job of sustaining high bitrates of streaming data than USB2 does. Which is why non-real time tasks like copying files off a digital camera use USB, while real-time video transfer uses FireWire.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Adrilla]

B.D. Wong

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Phat_Tony]

You are confusing latency and bandwidth, which are completely different things. Latency is the time between stimulus and response; bandwidth is the data transfer rate.

Saying "your fingers can handle a lot more latency than 250 Mbps" is nonsensical- 250Mbps is a measure of bandwidth, not latency. I couldn't find any statistics on a latency difference between USB and Firewire interfaces, and any latency either has is going to be something in milliseconds that will never be apparent to humans no matter what the application. External drives that have dual Firewire/USB interfaces don't even bother to quote different latency specs for the different interfaces, it's so close to identical.

As I said, Firewire had greater bandwidth, so if you needed to move a lot of data in real time, then that was an advantage. Firewire became the standard for video instead of USB because USB 1.1 didn't have enough bandwidth to handle a DV stream, and it probably helped stop USB2 from taking over later that Firewire was designed specifically to handle a DV video stream and has great protocols for doing so. USB2 could probably do as good of a job- the latency's effectively the same as Firewire, and the bandwidth is competitive. You can find many pages online testing, measuring, and debating the merits of Firewire and USB2 for various real-time uses, like MIDI. Note, this article on MIDI latency doesn't even mention the latency of USB and Firewire, only the read/write speeds- the bandwidth, because the latency of the interfaces is irrelevant. USB2 actually wins the realtime data transfer test in their comparison because it achieves faster write speed. If you look around, there are a lot of other real-world tests online showing USB2 and Firewire to have similar bandwidth, and the latency of the interfaces isn't even an issue.

Again, your division of tasks with non-realtime using USB and realtime using Firewire is a coincidence of the two things you pointed out. Plenty of realtime applications are done through USB, and plenty of tasks that aren't time sensitive are done through Firewire. I could as easily switch your sentence around to say "Which is why non-real time tasks like tape backup drives use Firewire, while real-time webcam video uses USB." You can get webcams, printers, hard drives, and all sorts of things with either interface or both. Firewire rules video transfer for the reasons I've mentioned, and USB rules keyboards and mice because USB chips were much, much cheaper than Firewire chips a few years ago. Neither ever had anything to do with latency, and neither has anything to do with current bandwidth differences between Firewire and USB2.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[identity0]

No kidding. I'm as much a geek as anyone here, but I went for a few years without buying a writable DVD drive because I didn't have to write that much data. When I went to the store, I find that they have like a half-dozen standards, and some drives can read DVD-R, DVD+R, and DVD-RW, but not DVD+RW, some can read DVD-R and DVD-RW but not teh +R or +RW...

"What, you mean there's a difference between the ones with the dash and ones with the plus?"

Utter confusion. I can only imagine what some non-techie would have done.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Tim Browse]

Not so much, no. USB2 is way more common than Firewire on modern motherboards. In fact, if you can find a new motherboard without USB2, you're doing well.

It's trivial to find a motherboard without firewire. I know, I've just been choosing a motherboard. I was looking for a microATX board, with firewire - I had some other criteria, but those two are sufficient to cut the choices right down...well, actually it's the Firewire criterion that does that. There seem to be about 4 such boards on the market (there are about 300 mATX boards currently available in total, according to Intel's motherboard search tool). Things are a bit better if you go for an ATX board.

It really is quite uncommon for motherboards to have integrated firewire.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[fayk]

He's not entirely confusing the two - USB2 has a faster theoretical limit, but you'll find in actual practice this is never sustained.

For an end user just copying a few files to a device (MP3 player or otherwise) or making the occasional backup it's not a big deal.

For more serious data-intensive applications, I find FW400 preferable to USB2's theoretical peak of 480.
FW800 even more but you'll have to have some nice hardware to saturate that, of course.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[pipingguy]

Don't forget the CD-R, CD-RW, CD-... consumer confusion of a while ago.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually a professional drummer in the grove can detect midi latencies of a couple of milliseconds, it throws off their beat.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[ozanbaba]

this makes a lot of sence, and Blu-Ray is shiny, too. (blue colours and everything else)

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[0u1N0i1X]

If a consumer can learn about CD-R, CD-RW, CD+R, CD+RW, and DVD-*...then they can learn about BD-ROM or BD-DVD, or whatever.

If we take this competition between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD in the context of ONLY name recognition... then yes. HD-DVD wins out. But in the real world...The factors involved is much broader than *just* name recognition.

Blu-Ray, the name itself attracts attention. It makes people ask, "What's that all about? What new about it? What makes it better?" Questions, questions, questions...This is good for Sony. HD-DVD sounds like an improved version of DVD. But the questions about it end there. Especially if they learn about what Blu-Ray can offer.

If you think Blu-ray sounds like a fish or rock band, that's only because you are purposely taking it out of the technology context just to find fault with it. When I heard about Sony's new media format -- Blu-Ray -- the first thing that popped into my mind was a "BLUE LASER BEAM (Especially when they have blue disc in all the PR photos)" And that was me just browsing the news casually one day...(just like consumers do). If you imagine a consumer waking around in the video section of Best Buy asking quesitons...I'd bet you that most people would not be thinking about "fish" the first time they hear the word, "Blu-Ray."

Next, if Sony wants this media format to become standard, then they need to do a little bit on their end too by making it less costly to the manufactures; overtime. They should not charge huge licensing fees for it (or they will repeat the Beta debacle). Technically speaking -- consumer use wise -- the BD-ROM offers a lot more than the HD-DVD. Storage and scalability are key features. Consumers wont mind paying a little more as long as they get to *experience* the benefits; i.e. better content packed into one disc.

On the manufacturing cost side. That's something that the big boys will have to work out. If they didn't like the deal, they wouldn't have signed up. So, I'm sure later that Maxell, Sony, BASF, Memorex, TDK, and other media brands will work out the details on the cost of the manufacturing part. That's transparent to the user for the most part. Cost will come down if more and more people use the format. Remember when a pack of 25 DVD+R's cost $65?! Today you can buy a pack of 300 for $65! So, Sony can't drop the ball on this. Play nice! :)

Back to the consumer....One of the positives of using Blu-Ray is that the players/recorders that manufactured for the market *will be* backwards compatible with all other forms of media; DVD, CD, etc...That will be the first question a casual consumer ask, "Will this new Blu-Ray PLAYER, play my old DVDs?" The answer is YES!

Think of it like this. We consumers will buy a player that has a Blu-Ray sticker on the front. What do we get? A player that can play BD-ROM, BD-RW, BD-R, BD-RAM, AND CD-ROM, CD-R, CD+R, DVD-ROM, DVD-R, DVD+R, etc....As you leave the store, you ask, "So, what's the big deal about the Blu-Ray disc?" All you know is that it has more media packed into one disc. It just works. In the future...if for some reason Blu-Ray is pulled off the market you can still use that Blu-Ray player for all your other DVD, CD media for years. No risk. Not any more than a current DVD player.

So, this debate about Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD is not as simple as Beta vs VHS or Firewire vs USB. There are a lot of other factors that differ from those other standards.

Think about the first time you see a Blu-Ray player in the stores. What will you think? What will the first thing you ask yourself (or the sales rep)? Cost? Functions? Compatibility with other formats? What? Id' say it's an easy buy. Even if there aren't that many BD-ROM on the market just yet. The players come first. Then the movies come later (and backup media like BD-R).

Anyways, who knows? Maybe someday will all go to Best Buy and get a BD-Player for all our movie/music needs.

DVD? What's that?

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[dr.badass]

Questions, questions, questions...This is good for Sony. HD-DVD sounds like an improved version of DVD.

I really don't see your point here. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both basically improved DVDs. They are discs that contain video; neither format does anything strikingly different. So again, HD-DVD sounds like what it is. Blu-Ray sounds like something other than what it is.

When I heard about Sony's new media format -- Blu-Ray -- the first thing that popped into my mind was a "BLUE LASER BEAM

HD-DVD also uses a blue laser. Furthermore, who cares?

Next, if Sony wants this media format to become standard

They're going to have to stop being Sony. Sony of MiniDisc, MicroMV, ATRAC3, MemoryStick, and many other proprietary formats. By using it in the PS3, they've committed themselves to using Blu-Ray even if it fails in the larger market.

"Will this new Blu-Ray PLAYER, play my old DVDs?" The answer is YES!

What's your point? HD-DVD players will do this as well. This is not a win for either format; it's to be expected.

I stand by my belief that it will all come down to marketability.

Re:How much of it is just the name?

[0u1N0i1X]

I really don't see your point here. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are both basically improved DVDs. They are discs that contain video; neither format does anything strikingly different. So again, HD-DVD sounds like what it is. Blu-Ray sounds like something other than what it is.

Well, if are just talking about the technical aspects of the media, that's correct. But that's not the main factor you were saying that would cause people to choose one over the other. You were saying that name (or lack of knowledge of Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD). Yes, both *are* improved DVDs. But that's technical. You were bringing up the point that the name's would distract/confuse the consumers. I'm saying that if the name "HD-DVD" was the ONLY factor then yes, HD-DVD would win. But *with* the existence of more storge combined with proper marketing, consumers could be educated on the features of Blu-Ray and not give up anything to boot. And... I don't think a "fish" is what people think when they first hear Blu-Ray in a video store. So, I don't believe that "Blu-Ray sounds like something other than what it is." Not in the context of a video store or tech magazine. Maybe in a Bait and Tackle shop or a Fishing Trade magazine.

HD-DVD also uses a blue laser. Furthermore, who cares?

Yes, I know. But Toshiba is not pushing that term because they don't have to. They already have the DVD name. Again, if all we were going by what the naming convention is, then HD-DVD has the edge. But with marketing, pricing, technology, and name. I'd say that Sony will win format war because they have too much going for it. Regardless of the lack of a familiar name (DVD). That's not enough for Toshiba. "Come with us! We have a familar name, but less storage than Blu-Ray!"

So, "who cares (about the blue laser)" is not the question. It's what benefit does it provide the consumer that a company like Sony use a term like Blu-Ray in order to attract customers and manufacturing attention? This is just one factor in a field of many.

So, I wasn't just saying that just because Sony's media uses a blue laser that, *that* would be the end all determining factor. I was mentioning the blue laser because you said that people think of a "fish" or "rock band" when they hear the term Blu-Ray. I disagree with that. If Sony publishes in a Fishing magazine, then yes. But they wont do that. Most of the marketing will be center around technology channels.

Also note that the term Blu-Ray is the trademark. The media will actually be called BD-ROM or BD-R or something like that. It's like we don't see COMPACT DISC on all the media, we see CD. We don't see DIGITAL VERSATILE DISC on all the media, we see DVD-ROM. So, the larger terms will be trademarked on the media, but the actually media will be categorized as BD-ROM.

What's your point? HD-DVD players will do this as well. This is not a win for either format; it's to be expected.

My point is that that feature is part of the over all package. It's not a hindrance or risk if someone buys a Blu-Ray PLAYER. Yes, HD-DVD player would have that too. But why do that if you can enjoy the extra storage benefits that Blu-Ray would provide that HD-DVD does not.

Sony is using a VHS model. They are taking what's made the VHS successful. Better in the case of Beta was that the picture quality was actually more clearer. That's a technical aspect. But another aspect not related to quality was storage space on the VHS tape vs the Beta tape.

So, when the consumer thinks, which one is better. That "better" could be related to storage space on the tape. Beta was *not better* in that area because they didn't have the same amount of record time as the VHS tapes did. So, VHS was more practical.

Well, guess what? Blu-Ray is taking this same approach. They are providing the users and manufactures that more space per disc. This is a form of "better." And not related to the actually picture quality. That's another issue. Which is what Beta was trying to proove: "We ar

Pepsi Challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't like one of those setup Pepsi challenges where they would shake up a bottle of Coke making it flat so the people would choose Pepsi is it?

Now why is it I think that all side-by-side comparisons can be equated to the Pepsi challenge? Well with a rhetorical question I'll be the one that answers it for you. If you're seeking a certain result you will find it; thus, whatever side-by-side comparison done always seems like a Pepsi challenge whereby the results are skewed by either a deliberate or unconscious malicious act in some way.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[sbrown123]

I liken this to more how TV resellers adjust the color and contrast settings on televisions so customers think one has a better picture compared to one next to it.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[ergo98]

This isn't like one of those setup Pepsi challenges where they would shake up a bottle of Coke...

Good bit of conspiracy theory there, however Pepsi wins taste tests quite soundly - for many people the sweet flatness of Pepsi is more enjoyable than Coke for a single taste. These same people might find Pepsi vile and disgusting after drinking a whole can, or on a hot day multiple cans, but in the taste test they'd often flag Pepsi as being the superior product under unrealistic conditions.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[bevanhouston]

Pepsi would win the "Pepsi Challenge" because customers prefer a sweeter drink when they only take a sip. The real soft drink challenge is to give a customer a 12 pack to take home for a week, and get him or her to rate it then. Coke actually comes out on top in these studies, but the failure to understand this is the big reason for the whole "New Coke" flop. (Malcolm Gladwell breaks this down in "The Tipping Point")

I wonder if there is any corollary to visual presentation?

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[Richthofen80]

Not to be a dick, but do you have proof of this?

I used to work at Sears for a year and a half, selling televisions. for 90% of the TVs, we left the color balances as they came from the factory. Some were kinda off / bad, and we adjusted them for the better.

Most *good* manufacturers spend time to make sure that the default settings are well balanced.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[jocknerd]

I actually preferred New Coke to Coke. But I was a teenager at the time. Sweet drinks were the requirement. Now I can't drink any soft drink that isn't diet.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[AlinuxNCSU]

Actually, I think he writes about it in Blink. He may also have done so in The Tipping Point, but I doubt it.

Good books!

-Alex

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[yasth]

Well I overheard a manager ordering some sets to be moved around because whatever little feed thing he had was giving static on some outputs, and he wanted the cheap sets there. I mean not a big deal, but I imagine that sort of handicapping goes on a lot.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

New coke was intended to taste like diet coke, but with real sugar instead, so it doesn't surprise me you'd be a diet coke drinker if you liked new coke... :-)

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[Impotent_Emperor]

I only drink Coke when I am eating food and, even then, the Coke must taste reasonably good while eating the food (IMO, Coke doesn't go so well with ramen, etc.).

When not eating, I'll drink root beer or some other liquid.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[dpbsmith]

Funny you should mention that.

My son was about 7 years old when they were doing the Pepsi Challenge in a mall.

He took it very seriously. Tasted both and said that he preferred the one that turned out to be Pepsi.

When they foolishly asked him "why," he says very seriously, "It's colder, and it has more carbonation."

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[SilentSheep]

A 7 year-old said 'carbonation'?? Don't u mean he said it was more bubbly/fizzy?

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[sznupi]

Using deafult settings is the problem (at least here in EU, Poland, specifically). They're all...well, colours are waaays too saturated (it just doesn't look like real world dammit), contrast also way too high. But people buy this trick ("oh, look how nice, intensive colours, this TV must be good), and the funniest thing is when they see my TV on (rare sight...but still), and say something like "is it broken?" or "why do the colours aren't as nice as on mine" when THE COLOURS ARE SET TO MIMICK REALITY.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[dpbsmith]

No, he used the word "carbonation." That was part of what made it so funny.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[Superfarstucker]

in short, people are idiots and don't know what a good picture looks like. They think lots of red + high white level + high black level (no shadow detail & oversaturation) = looks good. TV manufacturers adjust according. People seem to think 'vivid' is superior to real.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer Sugar-Free Zing, myself.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[Beatbyte]

THE COLOURS ARE SET TO MIMICK REALITY.

Reality TV sucks! Maybe that's why they thinkk your TV is broke.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[jridley]

Sounds like when I try to shop for speakers. Everything in the reasonable price range seems to have hyper-thundered bass. I want FLAT response. I don't want my speakers to color my music, I want them to reproduce what I send to them and be invisible.
I suppose if the music you're listening to is crap, maybe making things shake is an alternative way to make it entertaining.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[Fastball]

Vincent: Remember, I just got back from Silicon Valley.
Lance: Am I a script kiddie? Are we on IRC? No... You're in my home. Videophiles who know the difference between good shit and bad shit, this is the house they come to. Now, my shit, I'll take the Pepsi challenge with that Silicon Valley shit, any day of the fuckin' week.
Vincent: That's a bold statement.
Lance: This ain't Silicon Valley, Vince. This is a sellers market. HD-DVD is fucking dead as... dead. Blu-Ray, it's coming back in a big fucking way.

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[greed]

You're describing the video equivelent of the "super bass booster".

My TV is set for realistic colour, and my speakers are set for realistic sound.

And none are Realistic--is that Radio Shack brand name even still around these days?

Re:Pepsi Challenge

[supertoad]

the pepsi challenge failed because most people could tell the difference, and picked pepsi because they thought it was the "right" answer, not necessarily because the drink they liked better.

History Repeats...

[Manip]

If history of technology has shown us anything, in a two horse race the cheapest normally wins unless their is a VERY good reason for it not to.

This might be one of those cases; HD-DVD seems perfectly capable as a higher capacity DVD; why would people want to pay a premium for a few more features about 10% higher quality?

Re:History Repeats...

[DarkEdgeX]

I think the economics argument is a red herring though. AFAIK the big argument against BluRay is that duplicators would need to purchase all-new equipment to produce BluRay discs. HD-DVD's claim to fame is that you can retrofit production onto existing DVD duplication hardware.

The thing is, the hardware purchase is a single expense. AFAIK the media/materials used cost the same. Once you start manufacturing hundreds of thousands or millions of discs, the cost per disc of the all-new hardware quickly approaches zero.

Left with that reality, it comes down to which is technologically superior and offers the most bang for the buck, and the answer to that is BluRay.

I don't think Sony is about to repeat their Beta experience. :P

Re:History Repeats...

[jimbolauski]

"why would people want to pay a premium for a few more features about 10% higher quality" Where did you get your 10% it's more like 60%. Blue Ray can hold 50Gb and HD-DVD can hold 30Gb. If I were asked in a poll which disk do I prefer a $5 50Gb or a $4 30Gb I would choose the 50Gb disk. Most other features are similar so this is the only real difference.

Re:History Repeats...

[Transplant]

Your argument is true only if the reduction in production costs is passed on to the consumer. If history is anything to go on, it won't be. CD's and DVD's are much cheaper to manufacture than casettes and VHS tapes, but which cost more when you walk into your local hypermart?

My bet is that if both of these formats hit the market, they'll be priced so similarly that consumers will make their choice based on features, not cost.

Re:History Repeats...

[baadger]

Actually after a quick visit to Wikipedia and a Google search it seems HD-DVD will be triple layered and may be able to hold a capacity of 45GB - Source

Not to mention the consumer appeal of having a standard DVD compatible layer.

Re:History Repeats...

[DarkEdgeX]

There has already been talk of four layer (100 GB capacity) and eight layer (200 GB capacity) BluRay discs. (Search Google for the eight layer stories, I think The Register reported on that as well, and it was actually sometime last year I believe).

The thing to keep in mind is the capacity per layer and BluRay has that over HD-DVD. BluRay seems to be getting 25 GB per layer to HD-DVD's 15 GB per layer. If HD-DVD did manage to have eight layers they'd only realize 120 GB capacity to BluRay's 200 GB capacity.

Re:History Repeats...

[Pablo El Vagabundo]

" If history of technology has shown us anything, in a two horse race the cheapest normally wins unless their is a VERY good reason for it not to.

This might be one of those cases; HD-DVD seems perfectly capable as a higher capacity DVD; why would people want to pay a premium for a few more features about 10% higher quality?"

Histroically it is the format that the porn industry chooses.

But in this case the clear winner is Blue-Ray, becuase of the PS3. Why would the indsutry choose anything else once there is that many players out there???

Re:History Repeats...

[Keebler71]

You are right on. What people "want" or "prefer" is largely irrelevant. What they will pay for is all that matters.

For instance, almost everyone I know complains about Southwest Airlines - particularly the dreaded "Cattle Call" seating assignments... yet when push comes to shove (pun) their planes are full of paying passengers and they are the only major airline to post a profit every quarter since 9-11.

Re:History Repeats...

[Kjella]

Well, the primary reason it's not quite like that is that the low-end is already covered by DVDs. HiDef DVD is only for those that have bought HDTV equipment, which is sort of pricy.

The real decider here is indirect deployment. XBox 360 will have DVD. PS3 will have Blue-Ray. Revolution will have DVD. That makes me very comfortable that Blue-Ray is a format that will remain supported for a very long time. If HD-DVD flops, MS chooses BD for their next console after 360, what is left?

When I buy a movie on Blue-Ray now, I expect it to be pretty much as good as it gets for several decades. I don't expect any "SuperHDTV" or "SuperHD-DVDs" for a very long time. That makes me very interested in making it last. And I'm still waiting until the dust settles regarding DRM before I buy a HDTV screen, it's no good if I can't play content on it. I was looking at the Westinghouse 37" LCD, but it has DVI-HDCP which has some incompatibilities with HDMI-HDCP. Great.

Kjella

Re:History Repeats...

[Threni]

> Histroically it is the format that the porn industry chooses.

No, the porn industry - a tiny fraction of the mainstream movie industry - uses whatever format people can buy and watch.

Re:History Repeats...

[ergo98]

but it has DVI-HDCP which has some incompatibilities with HDMI-HDCP

Where'd you read that? It is my understanding the DVI-D and HDMI are "transports" (really wire standards, with HDMI making it a single connector instead of an additional audio connector), and HDCP is the protocol. It is my understanding that the protocol works the same regardless of transport (e.g. at either end the data looks exactly the same).

Re:History Repeats...

[Hast]

Considering that a 1080i movie is about 15GB per hour it doesn't really make much sense with 200GB discs.

While BluRay has the upper hand in capacity triple layer HD-DVD will last for a while at the very least.

Re:History Repeats...

[KDR_11k]

I think most MPAA members prefer HDDVD because the manufacturers won't moan as much when they switch to the next format in three years to get all those suckers to buy their movie collections yet again.

Re:History Repeats...

[NutscrapeSucks]

From the sounds of it, the BluRay people are taking PC applications seriously. A 200GB disk would be very desirable as a consumer backup medium.

Re:History Repeats...

[DarkEdgeX]

a 1080i movie is about 15GB per hour

That's purely personal preference. What looks good to you at 15 GB/hour may look like crap to me. IMO, the more space they have to allocate to bitrate the better. Further, extra capacity means that a disc loaded with extras (documentaries, interviews, etc) need not be included at the expense of the main movies bitrate/quality.

Re:History Repeats...

[thePjunisher]

A tiny fraction? Only guns and drugs are bigger industries than porn. They release something like 10000 titles on DVD every year. If the porn industry descides to go with one format exclusively, that's it, that format will 'win'....

Re:History Repeats...

[baadger]

:D You're assuming there is no difference in the physical construction of the layers and through how many layers wavelength of laser can penetrate in that material.

Just a thought, I can't be arsed to mini-research into it.

Re:History Repeats...

[DarkEdgeX]

No, no assumptions. The 8-layer variant of BD is 200 GB: that works out to 25 GB/layer. The 4-layer variant of BD is 100 GB: that also works out to 25 GB/layer. The 3-layer variant of HD-DVD is 45 GB: that works out to 15 GB/layer. The 2-layer variant of HD-DVD is 30 GB: that works out to 15 GB/layer. And of course single layer HD-DVD discs are 15 GB.

If anything, with more layers I expect capacity per layer to decrease, not increase, and since the HD-DVD camp haven't indicated what capacity they expect from their 8-layer media, it makes me wonder if they'll even manage to get 120 GB out of their format. Contrast this against Sony who have said 200 GB has always been on the drawing board and have demo'd 200 GB 8-layer tech at trade shows.

Re:History Repeats...

[Junnonen]

Well, the optical resolution of 35 mm film is more than 1080 lines, so there is still much room for improvement. And if I remember correctly, there has already been some "super HDTV" experiments done in Japan (with megaresolution camera as a source, not film)...

Trust me, they WILL sell us all their old movies once again in about 20+ years.. :)

Re:History Repeats...

[forkazoo]

I'm more interested in putting SD on a big Blu-Ray. Imagine all of Star Trek and Doctor Who... On one disc. It'd be great to be able to bring it around.

Re:History Repeats...

[AvitarX]

Maybe, but things are different then in the VHS/Beta times.

With VHS/Beta there was no alternative for at home video, you either got VHS or went to the theater, so porn was a big selling point in gettting new devieces. Now that people already have access to pornographic video there will not be as huge of a need to go out and buy a video recorder.

The only evidence I have is the backroom at the video store where my girlfriend worked. The penetration (pun intended) of DVD in the porno room was far lower then in the regular movie room, implying to me that Porno users are not in general early adapters. The ratios of rentals reflected this too.

An interesting aside, there was far more gay porn rented on DVD then on VHS. It was not uncommon for 75% of DVD rentals to be gay while 25% of VHS would be. Also old men seamed to drive the porno industry, so it is no exactly an early adopter situation.

All of this taken from one store in a college town, so it may not be typical.

Re:History Repeats...

[The Lynxpro]

"This might be one of those cases; HD-DVD seems perfectly capable as a higher capacity DVD; why would people want to pay a premium for a few more features about 10% higher quality?"

Circuit City's DIVX was cheaper up-front with its media (not the player itself). The titles had far less features than their DVD title counterparts. DIVX lost. There is a parallel here.

And we cannot use the picture quality of Beta vs. VHS as some sort of point in the favor of HD-DVD because both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have almost an equal amount of hardware companies committed to the competing standard. Blu-Ray has the advantage though because practically the entire computer industry (with hesitation from Microsoft due to concerns about the Xbox360) backs Blu-Ray. And then there's the 900 lbs. gorilla, the Sony Playstation3.

I do expect Windows Media to be dropped from the official list of video codecs of Blu-Ray. I just can't see Sony wanting to pay a royalty to Microsoft for it per every Playstation3 shipped. And its almost a total consensus that H.264 is better anyways, with or without Apple pimping it.

Re:History Repeats...

[Threni]

> A tiny fraction? Only guns and drugs are bigger industries than porn.

Incorrect.

> They
> release something like 10000 titles on DVD every year.

The number of releases of porn DVDs is barely relevant to any discussion of the size of a given markek sector.

> If the porn industry descides to go with one format exclusively, that's it,
> that format will 'win'....

There's simply no proof for this statement.

Re:History Repeats...

[Anonymous Coward]

Um...considering CDs and DVDs are about 20 cents each now, I'd say the casettes and VHS tapes cost more. So...erm...get your facts straight?

Re:History Repeats...

[constantnormal]

OK, so at the retail level, exactly what IS the difference in price between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray?

If it's only about a buck, then the price is probably secondary to the quality and quantity of the data contained therein, so that if a Blu-Ray disk can contain more goodies than a single-layer HD-DVD, it would get the nod.

Other factors include the cost of enabling an HD-DVD/Blu-Ray drive to also read (and write) CDs and contemporary DVDs. What is the projected cost to the consumer of each of these types of drive?

For all the furor surrounding the HD disk format issue, I have not seen any estimates for these important data.

Re:History Repeats...

[shirai]

Salvos in the HD/Blu-Ray war:

• Blu-Ray originally did not support MPEG4 and VC1 which meant that picture quality was inferior, even with higher capacity. Blu-Ray later added VC1 AND MPEG4.
  
• HD-DVD originally had less capacity than Blu-Ray. A recent change has upped the capacity to within 5% of Blu-Ray which is probably negligible.
  
• HD-DVD introduced DVD/HD-DVD hybrids meaning we can have a DVD movie and the HD version on one disc for forward/backward compatibility.
  
• Blu-Ray introduced the same (via JVC) shortly after.
  
• HD-DVD cheaper to manufacture (and faster to start manufacturing) because they can be stamped on the same lines as DVDs with little modification (this is the big selling point of HD-DVD and seems to be the one thing Blu-Ray can never match)
  
• Blu-Ray still has (marginally) higher capacity than HD-DVD but has made an experimental 200GB drive. Blu-Ray *appears* to have more growth though capacity as it is now seems to be pretty close.
  

I used to prefer HD-DVD due to support of better codecs meaning a better picture, even with less capacity.

Then I preferred Blu-Ray for its higher capacity and high picture quality when they decided to support the new codecs. Then HD-DVD increased its capacity.

Now I just wish the two camps would get together and give us a single format.

That said, the fact that HD-DVD can be built on the same lines as DVD seems to be a pretty strong argument. It sure would keep the introductory costs of next-gen media cheaper.

They have been trying to work it out for some time now but the big fight is who's disc structure they are going to use. Neither are budging on this facet.

Re:History Repeats...

[Blimey85]

I love Southwest Airlines because they are cheap and because they don't assign seats before hand. Say you buy a ticket and then a friend or family member decides to go with you... on other airlines you need to change your seat usually so you can both sit together because most likely the seats next to you have been filled. With Southwest you just get another ticket for that flight and you get to sit wherever. No hassle. I don't care where I sit on a flight when I fly alone... they all go to the same place. Isle, window, in the middle... front of the plane, back of the plane, whatever. It's all the same to me. None of the seats are super comfortable and none are worse than others... in my experience anyway... so let me on the plane and get me to where I'm going... for the nice cheap price that always seems to be quite a bit below the competitors.

Re:History Repeats...

[dakirw]

True enough. Sitting towards the front can be better though - you get to get off of the plane first.

Re:History Repeats...

[Keebler71]

I always board first because we have a small child and I still choose the second or third-to-last row of the plane. Why? Because it is as far back as I can get (those seats are safer) while still being able to recline my seat and not being super close to the offensive odor of the lav.

Re:History Repeats...

[Chandon Seldon]

You're going to have trouble getting all of Star Trek and Dr. Who on one disk unless you're talking about really low quality video.

There have been 29 seasons of Star Trek and about 20 seasons of Dr Who. If we call an average season 24 episodes, and an average episode 30 minutes, and we encode at 1 gig/hour, we're talking about over 500 gigs of video.

On the other hand, being able to get an entire 7 season star trek series onto one disk at full quality would be pretty cool.

Re:History Repeats...

[dakirw]

True, the sitting in front probably works best for someone who doesn't have much luggage. Sitting in the back (and preboarding) gives you a better chance of stowing your luggage in the overhead bins.

Re:History Repeats...

[Hast]

I got that number from blu-raydisc.com who claim that 1080i is 40Mbit/s. I assume they know that they are talking about and used a "standard" defenition of compression. (Just like you can use different bitrates for MPEG2, but some are standard for normal DVDs.)

Re:History Repeats...

[pipingguy]

If history of technology has shown us anything, in a two horse race the cheapest normally wins

My first computer monitor was a 15" no-name, cheap-o rebranded thing (relatively expensive 10 years ago) and it lasted about 7 years.

Both of my higher-end Mitsubishi Diamond Pros died within 3.5 years. Now I'm using a Samsung LCD panel and wondering how long it will last.

Re:History Repeats...

[jimi the hippie]

I honestly don't think it will take that long.

Re:History Repeats...

[heli0]

"None of the seats are super comfortable and none are worse than others"

Not quite: http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Northwest_Airline s/Northwest_Airlines_Boeing_757-200_A.php

Re:History Repeats...

[SanityInAnarchy]

If history of technology has shown us anything, in a two horse race the cheapest normally wins unless their is a VERY good reason for it not to.

So what's the "very good reason" that AMD is (was?) losing, despite the fact that last I checked, AMD was cheaper per gigahertz and gave more speed per gigahertz?

Of course, how much more will it cost for blu anyway?

Re:History Repeats...

[Transplant]

I'm not talking about bargain bin or public domain movies that Wal-Mart sells 10 for $1 out of a shopping cart somewhere near their electronics section. I'm also not talking about blank media, which is obviously cheaper (and helps prove my point about being cheaper to produce). I'm talking about your average studio release movie... as an example, here's "Office Space" (though this applies to pretty much every major release)... $8.98 VHS, $14.99 DVD.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/6305 499365/qid=1121525338/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-366728 0-5155168?v=glance&s=video
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000 069HPL/qid=1121525332/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/104-366728 0-5155168?v=glance&s=dvd

So, in your own words... erm... get your facts straight.

From the very start of TFA

[Lord of the Wazz]

A poll conducted by the group backing the Blu-ray next-generation DVD standard shows that the technology is supported by a majority of consumers, putting rival HD DVD on the defensive.

Shock horror, the Blu-ray guys have come up with a poll that says their product is better. Next story please...

Re:From the very start of TFA

[elrous0]

Be careful, they might come after you with their blu-rayguns.

-Eric

Re:From the very start of TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

Shock horror, the Blu-ray guys have come up with a poll that says their product is better. Next story please...

The next story will be a dupe. But after that, it will be a story about the HD-DVD guys calling the the Blu-ray guys "asshats" because they could only eke out a 58% preference in their own poll. Followed by a story where 59% of the people polled like HD-DVD better.

Re:From the very start of TFA

[benwaggoner]

Yeah, and note that they didn't even SHOW ANY CONTENT. It was basically a comparison of marketing sheets.

But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Anonymous Coward]

As we all know from the VHS-beta wars, which format wins out depends not on what consumers want, but what the pornography industry prefers.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[jurt1235]

Small error there: What does Sony (biggest backer of blu-ray)allow? is the better question. Philips (the inventors of Beta) did not allow porn to be published on their format. The VHS people did allow this, thus the public nicely bought the VHS (sex sells).

So if Sony allows porn on the blu-ray, they are at least equal in competition (on that level).

The price will come down with volume, and ps3 will mean volume enough to be competitive

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[OBeardedOne]

I agree, but that was in the days when the porn industry was just getting on its feet. Porn used to be relegated to dingy peep show haunts on the strip but then this amazing new technology came along (cheap video cassettes) and allowed people to easily distribute the porn and even make it at home. As you quite rightly pointed out, Betamax won because it was preferred by the pornographers.

With the veritable mass of new media formats available today, it is unlikely that the porn industry will have such an influence on the dominant new formats. More likely it will be whichever company can drum up the most 3rd party support and the generic hardware manufacturers will be a major target. In line with your Betamax v VHS argument, history has proven that it won't necessarily be the best technology that wins.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[ceeam]

Stop the fuck modding this shit "Insightful". I guess I've read this sentence almost verbatim at least 100 times here on slashdot (and I tend to browse at +4 or +5).

Some reasons:
1) Unlike VHS/beta these media is not only used for movies. Far from it. I guess most BR discs for PS3 would be games. And I guess at least half of my discs at home are not video (and most of the others are filled with *.avi but I digress).
2) VHS was more practical. Really.
3) Sony are nuts about their proprietary formats.
4) Most of the people do _not_ purchase porno. If you're past-teen single loser that does not mean you are typical. In fact we are minority (and even then _I_ do not purchase porno).

Well - really - I was a bit young to remember when beta had a chance and may not know all the details but claiming that new universal media format would be decided by _porno_industry_ is a bit silly, no?

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Kjella]

The porn industry prefers SD over HD so you can't see the boob job scars, unclean skin and that the "20yos" are actually 30 and a thick layer of make-up. That is the norm. I'm sure a few high-enders like Playboy and such will come out with solid HDTV releases, but most of the industry don't want to. It screws up both the "cheap equipment" and "cheap actors" bit, the price of the DVD platter isn't the real issue.

Kjella

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[OBeardedOne]

"Betamax won" Uh, I choose to disregard this reality and substitute my own.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[oneandoneis2]

Apparently a thin film of Vaseline on the camera lens will still fix most of those problems ;o)

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[PhilHibbs]

According to Wikipedia, it was the capacity of the early tapes that led pornographers to use VHS. I can't imagine Sony being able to block the sales of tapes based on their content back in those days. Maybe they could have used trademark law to prevent them from being labelled as Betamax.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[_Spirit]

Small correction:

Sony invented Beta, Philips invented Video2000, both were technically superior to VHS.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Golias]

Most of the people do _not_ purchase porno. If you're past-teen single loser

Psst: Porno is sometimes purchaces by married people, including women. Shhhh! Don't tell anyone, though. It's important that we pretend the entire multi-million-dollar industry is driven by skeevy 40-something single pervs in yellow trenchcoats, so we can all continue to be morally outraged about it.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[goodcow]

Sony allows porn on their new UMD format for PSP, so I don't think they'll have a problem about porn on Blu-Ray.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[OldeTimeGeek]

Philips (the inventors of Beta)

Phillips, huh? That'll be real news to Sony - the inventor of the U-Matic and Beta formats. Philips did, however, co-develop the LaserDisc format with MCA.

Did not allow porn to be published on their system

Not quite. Porn was available on Beta long before you could get movies - even bootlegs. Anybody with two VCRs, a camera, a bunch of tapes and a lot of spare time to make copies could produce and publish porn. In fact, friend of mine had one of the first model Beta machines and proudly demonstrated it to his friends by showing a movie that he had gotten from a local dealer. It was a porno flick.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

multi-million-dollar industry

Try multi-BILLION dollar industry. That said, I don't see porn playing as large a role in this battle as VHS vs. Beta. Back then all porn (basically) was purchased in such a way. Today I'd guess MUCH more is downloaded than purchased from a store, so the media isn't that important. I wouldn't be too suprised if soon you can only purhcase it on the internet. No need to spend the money producing physical media when people are so willing to pay to just download it.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Golias]

I wouldn't be too suprised if soon you can only purhcase it on the internet.

You are forgetting that some people prefer the annonymity of cash purchases when it comes to that sort of thing, especially if they are not the only member of their family who reads the monthly credit-card statements.

I don't think the beaded curtains at news-stands and downtown video stores are going away any time soon.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Zero to Hero]

Uhh, ... bigger is better?

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Lumpy]

or more realistically today, what the china knockoff and cheap player manufacturers choose.

Sony and the other "megacorps" have no chance of fighting against the sheer power of the China companies.

they can manufacture 200times more than the competition with 1/10th the costs.

If Joe blow goes shopping for a HDDVD player and sees HD-DVD players for $99.95 while Blu-Ray players are $399.99

guess what one wins.

Want a hint? look at he format winning in the SACD versus DVD-Audio format war.... SACD is losing so fast you can smell it rotting. I cna buy many different el-cheapo dvd players that support the DVD-audio disc format, only expensive ones support SACD due to the licensing.

once again, a format that SONY supports is not going to be the winner. (no suprise there.)

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Pollardito]

it'd be interesting to see what portion of that multi-billion is movies sold on disc. it IS a large industry, but a lot of it is online or in pay-per-view and other outlets that wouldn't be at all affected by HD-DVD or Blu-Ray

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Anonymous Coward]

All this talk of porn is ridiculous. Pron MAY have had an impact on the VHS-Beta wars (though I actually think it had more to do with who the movie studios supported, and that probably came down to price), but the fact is that in 2005 you can get as much porn as you can eat from the internet for free - do people actually BUY porn DVDs? If so, why? Even more so, who CARES if the porn can run for longer or offer better picture quality than existing (cheap) DVD-Videos? You take more than 3 hours to jack off?

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[The Lynxpro]

"It screws up both the "cheap equipment" and "cheap actors" bit, the price of the DVD platter isn't the real issue."

The pro-am groups already use PowerMacs and the pro level of DV cams. Moving up to HD DV cams and newer Macs won't be that much of a financial burden on those folks. I'm sure the MILF Hunter isn't gonna be phased by this march to HD content.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[The Lynxpro]

"Small correction:
"Sony invented Beta, Philips invented Video2000, both were technically superior to VHS."

And Ampex beat them both in the category of "first."

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Anonymous Coward]

Most porn stars prefer 10" hard di(s)ks

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Digz]

Urban legend.. Sony is the inventor of Beta, and the licensing only covered production of hardware - not content of tapes.

Wiki

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[dasdrewid]

My high-school theatre techy told us about how much better beta was than vhs. He then went on to tell us how he inherited his grandfather's (massive) beta porn collection. And that was back when it took money to make porn... Now that joe blow (pun) with a $500 camera and a $500 pc can make professional looking porn, I'd say both formats are gonna do just fine...

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[piltdownman84]

I don't know why everyone still comes back to what format porn prefers.

I can see it mattering back in the day with VHS vs Beta because it was a big step up for porn. I mean before that you were left with either with magazines or going to some sleazy dirty picture house. VHS was massive for porn because it was really the first time people could watch these movies at the comfort of their own home. Now HD porn isn't really that much of a step up. I mean there isn't that much of an advantage of HD porn over DVD porn. I can see early adopters getting a VCR just for porn so they can watch it at home, but I don't think many will update to HD just for porn. I doubt porn will really have much of an influence at all.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[evilviper]

I'm sure a few high-enders like Playboy and such will come out with solid HDTV releases, but most of the industry don't want to.

Are you kidding? Playboy is the connoisseur of the airbrush.

That said, all this about HDTV allowing you to see more is idiotic. The vertical resolution is only twice as good, AT MOST. Pull the camera further away from the subjects, and you're right back to the same resolution.

Current HDTV cameras have extremely high resolutions, which sucks no matter what the subject is. It's like watching 1970s live basketball games again, where the color is terribly screwed up. If the porn industry is the force behind new cameras that make people look harfway human, more power to them.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[jurt1235]

Shame on me. I am dutch, love to think that Philips invented Beta (mostly since video2000 has completely disappeared into the mist of time (-:, even with the cool name "Video2000", year 2000 was far far away).

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[Pranadevil2k]

They're allowing pornographic UMDs for the PSP. That's a proprietary format on a proprietary handheld. If Sony is going to make the decision, I'd say they don't care about porn on their disks.

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[sillybilly]

That reminds me, when are we going to get rid of the blatant age-discrimination that goes on in the porn industry? Just cuz somebody gets to be over 50 with at least 15 more years of productivity ahead of her, it doesn't mean she should lose her job to some ditsy just-18 fresh-snatch! What happened to equal opportunity employment laws?

I prefer 8" floppy disks

[Anonymous Coward]

But that doesn't mean anything, since I'm a classic/vintage computer user (PDP-11)
Seriously, though...how do surveys this early in the technology curve for the next-DVD-replacement mean anything?

Re:I prefer 8" floppy disks

[BronxBomber]

They dont mean anything.

Their only purpose is to keep the tech buzzwords fresh in the minds of the consumer in between Jerry Springer reruns.

Re:I prefer 8" floppy disks

[Anonymous Coward]

Well which one'll record Springer 'n my stories easier? This VCR thingy is too hard to figure out.

Re:I prefer 8" floppy disks

[mr_gerbik]

I prefer 8" floppy disks

Your wife doesn't! Believe me, I would know...

That's the one

[AtariAmarok]

That's the one where the Pepsi rep makes sure that he pees in the Coke bottles before each and every "Taste Challenge".

Re:That's the one

[partycrasher]

and still only 50% prefers the Pepsi...

Re:That's the one

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet it *still* tastes better than Pepsi.

If it were up to the customers...

[Jjeff1]

On DVD's we wouldn't have to sit thru FBI warnings or have region restrictions, or not allowed to fast forward thru scenes.
That survey is good to make people think they're being listened to. They're not.

Re:If it were up to the customers...

[DarkEdgeX]

Actually, only certain studios seem to do that. I've found that most of the movies I watch don't have that problem (20th Century Fox and Miramax don't, while I seem to recall every Paramount or Disney movie insists on you seeing everything before reaching the main menu).

You're not suggesting boycotting the competing formats at least, but if you want to complain, complain to the individual studios who can't seem to accept that you actually bought (and now own, or did I license it?) their product and just want to see what you bought.

Re:If it were up to the customers...

[oneandoneis2]

That's one of the biggest things that tempts me to build a Linux media center to replace my current DVD player: mplayer lets me skip all that crap at the start of the disc.

Maybe it's unreasonable of me, but I resent being forced to play some "Don't download DVD's, it's theft" crap before I can watch the movie that I bloody paid for.

On a rental disc, I can accept it. I can even accept mandatory adverts on hired discs. But not on my own, paid-for discs, thanks very much.

Re:If it were up to the customers...

[Xugumad]

What's even worse is the disks that disable the stop button. Can't remember what it was, but I'd put a DVD in, then suddenly something came up, so tried to stop it. And couldn't. I think I eventually got the standby button to stop the whole mess, but for goodness sake!

Re:If it were up to the customers...

[evilviper]

That's one of the biggest things that tempts me to build a Linux media center to replace my current DVD player: mplayer lets me skip all that crap at the start of the disc.

Tempts you? Hell, I did it years ago.

Then you just add-in a capture card, and you've got a DVR.

Less money up-front than a Tivo, and it can do far, far, far more. Edit out commercials, convert to any format you want, burn to DVD, CD, SVCD, etc.

Once you've got a remote hooked-up and configured, a computer is easier to use than a typical DVD-player.

To be expected

[saterdaies]

Blu Ray discs hold more data. Anyone hearing a run down comparison is going to go with blu ray. Personally, I'm still a bit scared about potentially loosing data because the layer of protection is so small. Of course, I'm sure the comparison didn't say "the protection layer is almost non-existant in blu ray discs".

It might be an unfounded fear, but I won't know that for at least a year after I get blu ray stuff.

Re:To be expected

[Blkdeath]

Anyone hearing a run down comparison is going to go with blu ray. Personally, I'm still a bit scared about potentially loosing data because the layer of protection is so small.

Based on personal and professional experience (friends and clients) this may be a misnomer. They could make the protection layer 2mm thick and customers would still use their discs as coasters (or skating rinks for mice).

Re:To be expected

[metamatic]

Personally, I'm still a bit scared about potentially loosing data because the layer of protection is so small.

I hope you only use 650MB CDs, then. Because those larger CDs don't obey the CD standards, risking loss of data...

Re:To be expected

[earnest murderer]

Of course, I'm sure the comparison didn't say "the protection layer is almost non-existant in blu ray discs".

That's a feature, so you don't get bored of your favorite movies.

Actually the protection layer issue is supposedly mitigated by a new polymer coating that TDK produces.

If only the industry would apply it to other media.

Re:To be expected

[dudeX]

I could have sworn that Blu-Ray discs will use that new polymer that is highly scratch resistant to cover the discs. There was even a few Slashdot stories on this technology.

HD-DVD is retarded

[DarkEdgeX]

Honestly, it's an inferior format to Blu-Ray. I can't understand why these studios and companies are lining up behind HD-DVD when something vastly better is available and won't significantly affect costs (especially if production is in volume, economies of scale will take over and pretty much eradicate any concerns with having to use all-new equipment).

Sadly, it seems Miramax (the company behind Lord of the Rings) is in the HD-DVD camp. I just hope their relationship with HD-DVD isn't an exclusive one...

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[harlingtoxad]

HD-DVD holds more hours of HD video despite Blu-Ray holding more raw data.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[DarkEdgeX]

They utilize the same video CODEC's, so, I'm sorry, that's impossible.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[dbfruth]

And Beta was better than VHS. It is all about the money, if HD-DVD alows them get by with a minimum amount of retooling they will choose HD-DVD. It dosen't matter that it will cost abouth the same in the long run (royalties excluded). Unfortunatly the way most major companies look at things today is "how will this increase shareholder value TODAY" Screw the long term.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently you're retarded as well. New Line Cinema was responsible for LoTR. NLC is owned by Time Warner. Miramax is a Disney owned studio (although they are soon to split ways).

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[DarkEdgeX]

Only someone who was naive about economics would buy into the argument that HD-DVD was superior because it could utilize existing duplication equipment. When you're dealing with hundreds of thousands or tens of millions of discs duplicated each month/year/whatever, the cost of buying new hardware vs. retooling existing hardware becomes nearly non-existant.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[DarkEdgeX]

You're right, I'm retarded. It is of course NLC not Miramax that was behind LoTR.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[Deliveranc3]

My understanding of the advantage of HD-DVD is that is uses an advanced codec as standard with significantly better compression than MPEG2 and better audio encoding.

Though I applaud that effort, as a movie pirate I still dream of the day I can fit all my movies on one disk, and for the I need more size!

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[HairyCanary]

Really? I just did some research and it appears that HD-DVD will use H.264, while Blu-Ray will use MPEG-2. As I understand it, the comparison is 7-8 Mb/sec for H.264 vs 12-20 Mb/sec for Blu-Ray (same quality video).

This would seem to eliminate the capacity argument for Blu-Ray. And Toshiba has created a three-layer HD-DVD, which has a 45GB capacity ... which is very close to Blu-Ray. From my standpoint, HD-DVD is looking like the technologically superior choice.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[DarkEdgeX]

I already covered the capacity argument here. As far as the video CODEC's go, check out this from the FAQ at www.blu-ray.com--

The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) is still in the process of finalizing the BD-ROM specification, but they have stated that MPEG-4 AVC High Profile (previously called FRExt) 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. The BDA expects the BD-ROM specification to be finished some time in the beginning of 2005.

Also of interest is the H.264 article on Wikipedia, specifically the Applications section--

Both of the major candidate next-generation DVD rival formats planned for product deployment in late 2005 include the H.264/AVC High Profile as a mandatory player feature -- specifically:

• The HD-DVD format of the DVD Forum
• The Blu-ray Disc format of the Blu-Ray Disc Association (BDA)

All things being equal again, that leaves capacity as the only thing seperating the two formats as far as I can tell.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[DarkEdgeX]

You're probably thinking of H.264 (MPEG4), and it seems that both HD-DVD and BluRay are going to utilize that CODEC. I haven't heard of anything specific to HD-DVD that would set it apart other than the supposed benefit of being able to produce HD-DVD on retooled duplication equipment (a red herring, IMO).

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[sandwiches]

You've never worked closely with any business, then. I've run a computer business for years and let me tell you that no matter how much better you tell companies they'll be, in the long run, if they buy new hardware, they'll almost always opt to simply fix what they have or upgrade little by little.

I have worked with many newspapers still running DOS for their accounting computers, orthodontists offices running Windows 3.1 for their patient information databases, etc.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[DarkEdgeX]

And about being naive, you'd be the textbook case. Anyone comparing a computer business to one who does disc duplication is simply comparing apples to oranges. Duplicators are a cost of doing business, and given that they're a one-time cost, most duplicators who have large studio contracts probably won't even wince at the idea of having to buy some new equipment when, in the long run, it won't matter to their bottom lines.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[Deliveranc3]

If the codecs are identical then yea Blu-Ray definitly takes the crown.

Guess the only thing remaining to the slashdot community is to try and ensure the superior technology is adopted.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[Shkuey]

Capacity and access speed, both of which BR wins. Price is another matter, the HD-DVD camp claims it costs only a few pennies more for an HD-DVD over a typical DVD, while Sony et al is still researching cheap BR pressing techniques.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[The Lynxpro]

"Sadly, it seems Miramax (the company behind Lord of the Rings) is in the HD-DVD camp. I just hope their relationship with HD-DVD isn't an exclusive one..."

Miramax is part of Disney. Disney is backing Blu-Ray. You mean New Line Cinema, which is a part of Time Warner, who is currently backing HD-DVD in order to preserve its percentage of IP rights to DVD since they and Toshiba developed the original standard.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[sandwiches]

I'm sorry. What an idtiot I am.

Here I was thinking that my clients' computers were a cost of doing business and that given their one-time cost, most businesses who have large contracts shouldn't even wince at the idea of having to buy new equipment when in the long run, it shouldn't matter to their bottom lines.
I was wrong, though... but maybe that's just me because my analogy is like apples to your oranges.

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

It's okay, once you get used to being stupid and wrong all the time, your life just starts to take off in all sorts of new directions.

Of course they prefer it.

[91degrees]

Blu Ray has a sexier name. HD-DVD sounds like somethign for an IBM PC.

Re:Of course they prefer it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversely, "Blu Ray" sounds like something Marvin the Martian would use. "Now I shall zap you with my Blu Ray. A hahahahahaha."

Re:Of course they prefer it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds cool. Bugs Bunny then turns bright blue and gets very depressed.

Re:Of course they prefer it.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing smart people with Apple vanity. If it was named iRay then maybe you have a point.

Re:Of course they prefer it.

[Anonymous Coward]

No of course, you couldn't possibly consider using something that might sound like "IBM PC (or compatible)". It has to sound different like "Apple Macintosh".

Re:Of course they prefer it.

[91degrees]

By IBM PC, I mean one of these. Not a compatible.

All things being equal, I will go for the one with a nicer name.

Re:Of course they prefer it.

[Anonymous Coward]

So is the Blu or the Ray that turns you on? I think it is just the latter.

Oh Ray!

Re:Of course they prefer it.

[Maltheus]

Good thing they didn't call it "Big Blue Ray" or you'd be in quite a pickle.

Re:Of course they prefer it.

[Anonymous Coward]

But HD DVD sounds like High Definition DVD.

Re:Of course they prefer it.

[91degrees]

Only to a techy who grew up in the era of floppy disks.

To most people it sounds liek an impenetarable acronym.

Re:Of course they prefer it.

[bullitB]

It's a near-homonym for "Blurry."

That kinda name really reminds people of sharp, high definition video, I guess.

Not to be confused with...

[Anonymous Coward]

The study's editor insightfully removed the "death-ray" option from the final results, despite an 82% preference rate among the 12-32 demographic.

Exactly the same codecs on both

[SgtChaireBourne]

Probably most of it, in the consumer poll. Most people don't know much other than the name. That said, the two variants are basically the same except for the storage capacity and manufacturing process.

On the software side, they encompass the same codecs. It'd be nice if the BBC or some consortium of similar institutions could get the proprietary codec off the Blu-Ray spec and put an open standard on there instead. Dirac or Theora could do for video what the web (HTML+HTTP) did for the net.

Last I heard, the audio codec was not selected. That would be a prime use for Vorbis.

And I, for one, welcome our blu-ray overlords

[elrous0]

You can't trust a poll made by someone who's biased.

Hey, 2 out of three are accurate. So just wait until they're three and hope that two of them agree.

-Eric

Consider the source

[Anonymous User 2000]

If you bother to RTFA it says in the first paragraph this poll was commissioned by a pro Blu-ray group.

I wonder how a HD-DVD backed poll would have turned out (oh wait, no I don't).

Re:Biased polls are useless

[I confirm I'm not a]

You can't trust a poll made by someone who's biased.

You can't trust polls anyway - a third of participants tell porkies. (Mind you, this was reported in El Reg right next to an article saying that 1/3 of medical studies were bogus, and 1/3 of Americans believe in Ghosts - maybe this article is the 1 in 3 that's accuracy-challenged...)

I'm going to start non-believing 1 thing in every 3 I'm told. That'll fix it!

Blu-ray loses big time

[mrRay720]

Seriously, if you're running your own biased survey, you've loaded the dice in your favour, and you still only get 58% of the vote for something most people can't tell apart anyway, something is wrong.

What isn't said there, is that all 1200 of these consumers work for Sony.

Re:Blu-ray loses big time

[kannibal_klown]

Seriously, if you're running your own biased survey, you've loaded the dice in your favour, and you still only get 58% of the vote for something most people can't tell apart anyway, something is wrong.

Wow, I know people don't usually read the article, but at least read the post. You're forgetting the hefty "undecided" number.

According to the survey:
Blu-Ray: 58%
HD-DVD: 16%
Undecided: 26%

58 trounces 16 no matter how you cut it.

Then again, you being skepticaly of an unbiased survey isn't exactly wrong.

Re:Blu-ray loses big time

[mrRay720]

I never said otherwise, and never mentioned HD-DVD's result.

But still, a survey along the lines of:

"Do you like blu-ray (hands out freebies and offers free sex from Natalie Portman to the interviewee), or do you like HD-DVD (spits and cusses at the interviewee)?"

isn't a very good one.

Well, I'm convinced

[BaudKarma]

Sounds like the Blu-Ray people have the clearly superior product. I guess I'll be stopping by Frys on my way home from work to pick one up.

On second thought, they'll probably all be gone if I wait that long. I'd better swing by during lunch.

Re:Well, I'm convinced

[Anonymous Coward]

You think you're being funny, but Sony's been making blu-ray drives and discs for a while now.

Re:Well, I'm convinced

[BaudKarma]

Yep. I guess I'll have to take a long lunch and check the Frys in Japan.

the geeks will decide

[aoty]

Seeing how most consumers don't own televisions that support hi-def content, the only people who will care about Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD are the geeks, folks who are likely to understand the difference and who will extract benefit from one format over the other. Joe Sixpack is perfectly happy watching his full frame flicks that he rents from Blockbuster on his 27" set.

This may be one format war where the best product actually wins.

Re:the geeks will decide

[cyxxon]

And for the same reasons I predict neither wins. Joe Sixpack is just not interested in either since he already can pay all the movies on his DVD player and would probably rather boycott studios who discontinued the DVD in favor of either HD-DVD or Blu Ray.

Re:the geeks will decide

[Blkdeath]

Seeing how most consumers don't own televisions that support hi-def content, the only people who will care about Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD are the geeks, folks who are likely to understand the difference and who will extract benefit from one format over the other. Joe Sixpack is perfectly happy watching his full frame flicks that he rents from Blockbuster on his 27" set.

I'd be careful there; with no payments until 200x, no interest equal payments for 24/36 months, etc. you'd be surprised what kind of home theatre Joe Sixpack has in his house. 52" Hi-Def screen, 7.1 digital receiver with pre-amp, 1000w tower mains, 100w sub-woofer, 5-disc DVD player connected with Monster Component video and digital optical audio cables, XBox and PS2 with A/V upgrade pack, RFI filtering power centre, ...

In short Joe Sixpack has a better theatre setup than I do.

Re:the geeks will decide

[petgiraffe]

1000w tower mains, 100w sub-woofer

Sounds like Joe's got some seriously mismatched components there.

Re:the geeks will decide

[Anonymous Coward]

In short Joe Sixpack has a better theatre setup than I do. ...which he adjusts incorrectly and uses to watch his full frame flicks that he rented from Blockbuster.

Re:the geeks will decide

[bodester17]

"Seeing how most consumers don't own televisions that support hi-def content".....Except when the whole nation switches over from analog to digital TV. By that time most people will have a HD TV or at EDTV so then more people than just the geeks will care.

Re:the geeks will decide

[Anonymous Coward]

you'd be surprised what kind of home theatre Joe Sixpack has in his house. 52" Hi-Def screen, 7.1 digital receiver with pre-amp,

Who is this Joe Sixpack guy? Do you think he will let me use his home theater?

Re:the geeks will decide

[ilyaaohell]

What in the hell are you talking about? The hell is your point? That poor people own a hundred thousand dollars worth of electronics equipment? What the hell?

Re:the geeks will decide

[Cowclops]

Though it doesn't change your point, Joe Sixpack buys a $5000 TV and $200 home theater in a box from my experience. I sell TVs at a major electronics/appliance retailer and nobody realizes that theres better audio out there than the garbage we sell. We do have some awesome TVs though, and people do buy them.

Re:the geeks will decide

[Anonymous Coward]

7.1 digital receiver with pre-amp

Because those pesky 5.1 digital receivers with no pre-amp (i.e. no volume control or input switching) just wouldn't cut it.

Re:the geeks will decide

[Blkdeath]

Because those pesky 5.1 digital receivers with no pre-amp (i.e. no volume control or input switching) just wouldn't cut it.

Go big or go home! :)

Re:the geeks will decide

[Neoncow]

You must be new here. We're not talking about poor people. We're talking about dumb people.

Everyone knows intellectuals like us are the poor ones.

Will be obsolete before the dust settles...

[dpbsmith]

Sigh... not again...

...the early adopters who back the wrong horse will be punished and will learn a life lesson that will make them reluctant to embrace new technology...

...the general public will sit back waiting for the dust to settle...

...it will take five years before you can walk into a video store and see which format is the "normal" one, and see a choice of models at low prices stacked up in the local K-Mart or Costco...

...and just as I buy one, they announce the next pair of competing, incompatible (or compatible-in-"many"-but-not-mine) standards.

As Theotocopulos says in the H. G. Wells movie Things to Come: "Stop this 'progress!' Stop it, I say!"

Re:Will be obsolete before the dust settles...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, me and all those other "soon to be" PS3 owners will go for BR, making it not a matter of choice. HD-DVD doesn't seem to have some sort of "killerapp", so I guess BR wins. If not, I wont care, as I wont be using it for anything else than games anyway. At least not until there is a reason to do so, if there ever is...

Re:Will be obsolete before the dust settles...

[Mornelithe]

Is that really a big problem, though?

You buy a DVD+-R drive today, and then in 5 years, you buy either a blu-ray or hd-dvd drive, and then 5 years after that, you buy whatever comes out on top after them.

What's wrong with waiting until one wins to buy it? That way you get the additional benefit of being able to buy a faster drive for $60 instead of the slow $300+ model that early adopters will buy. It's not feasible for most people to buy these drives the moment they're announced anyway, whether there is one standard or five.

Or is it that you need more than 8 GiB/disc today (assuming DL media, which is still quite expensive, unfortunately)?

Semi-Meme

[Anonymous Coward]

Blue-Ray confirms it: HD-DVD is dead

Feature List

[bigmurd]

Sounds like they missed the price tag out of the feature list. If you compared the feature list of Fords and Ferraris, you'd expect people to want the Ferrari more - but what do people buy? Getting slowly annoyed with these skewed PR surveys. Surely press hacks must be getting bored of filling space with meaningless copy?

Re:Feature List

[Eclypser]

The comparison is not Ford to Ferrari it's SUV vs. Wagon. The SUV has features that people don't need such as off-road capability and being able to tow 5000lbs. They have negatives such as being harder to drive and park, poor fuel economy, and they used to cost more.
Wagons drive like cars, because they are cars, they get better fuel economy and sometimes they carry more then their SUV counterparts that are built on the same platform (BMW X5 vs 5 series wagon).
Yet what is all of america (me included) driving? SUVs. Why? Because even though we don't need the ability to tow or go off roading, some of us like being able to know we can. The rest of the people are doing it just because it's the thing to do. Recently my friends bought an SUV instead of minivan to carry their kids. I told them they would be happier in the long run with the minivan. They didn't want a minivan because it is a minivan. What happened? They don't drive the SUV because the gas mileage is so bad.
So what does this tell us?
1. America will buy what is popular. If Blu-Ray is in the PS3, it will gain a certain amount of popularity just for this point. Remember when people would buy the PS2 just because they got a DVD player also?
2. America will buy what is slightly more expensive then another product only after it has been established as the thing to have. Then they will buy it just because it's the thing to have. Look at iPods as an example. 3. America will buy what is available. This means who starts selling first at Wally-Mart. Not who is the first to release hardware.

Re:Feature List

[Eclypser]

If you look at the people who can afford a Ford GT or a Ferrari 360 Modena, they are buying the Ferraris because they are Ferraris, even though they cost more. And they are waiting in line to do so.

Re:Feature List

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot of people on the waiting list to get the Ford GT too and, since they are being built in limited number, a lot of those people won't get one.

Re:Feature List

[jmichaelg]

The comparison is not Ford to Ferrari it's SUV vs. Wagon.

Hmmm, I think you missed the parent's point. Without price data, the poll is meaningless. You wouldn't choose a SUV over a wagon if the SUV cost $100,000 and the wagon was $25,000.

Sony's comment about "work longer to pay for it..." makes me think the Ferrari analogy isn't that far off the mark.

Re:Feature List

[BagMan2]

Blu-ray is not inherently more expensive than HD-DVD. It is only more expensive because of the newer technology it uses (both on the manufacturing and player ends). It won't take long for 3rd party manufacturers to start producing dirt-cheap players of either format.

I expect Blu-ray players to be price-competitive with HD-DVD players, so I don't think price will be a huge factor in determining which format consumers want.

Ultimately, if the PS3 sells well (and it very likely will sell over 10 million units in the first 2 years), then it will be impossible for studios to ignore producing content in that format.

Marketing does it all

[cazzazullu]

Since when are "the customers" supposed to select the "best" alternative? Isn't it almost always the one with the biggest publicity budget that wins? "oh yeah, I have heard somewhere about that thingy, but look at this! It is everywhere! It must be good!" Even here on my desk I have several things which are here only because of publicity/public acceptance and which have alternatives that are cheaper and better in quality (coca cola, dell computer, imation cdr's, macdonalds lunch, ...)

Re:Marketing does it all

[Anonymous Coward]

Egad !

You have Coca Cola, a Dell computer, Imation CDs AND MacDonalds on your desk ?

Sir, I feel for you. You are clearly in hell... hell I say...

Twikki

[AtariAmarok]

"Unfortunately, the plan is to call it a "BD-ROM" or "BD-RAM","

And now Sony will dust off that damn pan-faced robot from "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" for commercials: "BD BD BD BD BD BD".

Blue Ray

[KrunZ]

Maybe people who voted actually wanted these rays: http://www.crystalinks.com/bluecrystals.html

FYI: Google gives a ration 1:3 for "blue-ray" vs "blu-ray".

HUH?

[torpedo20]

Quote from TFA: "A poll conducted by the group backing the Blu-ray next-generation DVD standard shows..." I stopped reading right there..

Consumers also thought beta was better than VHS

[voss]

So what...

VHS didnt win because it had a better picture, VHS won because it was less costly.

HD-DVD has better backwards compatibility(hd-DVD players play older DVDs more easily)

Re:Consumers also thought beta was better than VHS

[shidoshi]

What exactly does "more easily" mean? DVD compatibility will be in every Blu Ray player, and the end user - you - won't see any difference.

Re:Consumers also thought beta was better than VHS

[almostmanda]

No, VHS won because Sony wouldn't license porn. But, with the porn UMDs out there that Sony seemed happy to license, it looks like they have learned from their mistake on that one.

Re:Consumers also thought beta was better than VHS

[sznupi]

More easily? You imply that Blue Ray players have ANY problems?

Re:Consumers also thought beta was better than VHS

[smcallah]

I have porn that was prerecorded on Beta. So I doubt that was the case.

Re:Consumers also thought beta was better than VHS

[Theaetetus]

HD-DVD has better backwards compatibility(hd-DVD players play older DVDs more easily)

Do you have a reference for this?

'Cause, part of the Blu-Ray spec is that all players have to be backwards compatible with DVDs and CDs. So, no Blu-Ray players have problems with DVDs and/or CDs.

Re:Consumers also thought beta was better than VHS

[voss]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/technology/0506/27/0te ch-229234.htm

detroit news, june 27 2005

"...This time around, a split-the-baby compromise is virtually impossible, both sides acknowledge. That's because the core difference lies with a single aspect of the disc -- a thin layer of plastic that sits just above the metal surface on which data is written. An HD DVD disc calls for a 0.6 millimeter coating, while a Blu-ray disc requires 0.1 millimeters.

While that doesn't seem like much, the half-millimeter gap amounts to a technological chasm. HD DVD's thicker coating is the same as current DVDs, which allows manufacturers to use existing disc stamping equipment to make the new discs. That gives HD DVD a significant cost advantage and more predictability about what those costs will be, backers say. HD DVD players can also rely on some of the same technology as conventional DVDs, making it easier to build players that can
handle both generations of disc.

That's an important feature, given how many conventional DVDs movie buffs already own, backers say.

Blu-ray's thinner coating requires all new manufacturing equipment, but it's the secret behind the disc's higher capacity. Because the laser travels through a thinner layer of resin, it's able to focus more sharply and write 67 percent more data onto the disc itself. "

Re:Consumers also thought beta was better than VHS

[Digz]

No, this is an urban legend. Sony's licensing had nothing to do with content - it was only to do with hardware. The 1 hour limit is more likely what kept pornographers away from Betamax. Wiki

Re:Consumers also thought beta was better than VHS

[Theaetetus]

While that doesn't seem like much, the half-millimeter gap amounts to a technological chasm. HD DVD's thicker coating is the same as current DVDs, which allows manufacturers to use existing disc stamping equipment to make the new discs.

See, the discussion was about player incompatibility, not manufacturer assembly line incompatibility.

The Blu-Ray players are fully backwards compatible with previous media. How else do you think PS3s will be able to play PS3, PS2 (DVD-ROM) and PS1 (CD-ROM) discs?

Seems obvious...

[leinhos]

Sony's PS3 is to use the Blu-Ray format.

Well that should be enough for 85% of the people who read /. -- seems like it's already a done-deal.
The other 15% would probably go with whatever Xbox-360 comes with...

Reminds me of my favorite quote

[Gillious]

"There are three types of lies - lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

If the cheapest wins, then I vote for DVD

[expro]

There are not just two competing standards. If I am looking for something to replace DVD, the biggest competition seems to be DVD, which itself has not really replaced CDs for many uses and will clearly be the cheaper price. The better the standard, the more compelling it could be to make inroads against CDs and DVDs. Who is going to buy either one? There needs to be more-compeling features, better capacity, more robust, etc., especially since there are so many other issues that are even less-well defined on the new media than the older media, such as how long it will last. How about a standard that at least allows me to back up, just in case? I bet that this would be far more compelling to users.

actually

[rtphokie]

The majority of consumers have no opinion becuase they have no idea what either technology is and dont really care because they do not own HDTVs

Re:actually

[Kumorigoe]

I was thinking the exact same thing. How do they expect average people to understand this new technology. I frequent these type of seedy web sites, and I still don't completely understand it.

Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[tkrotchko]

The capacity of HD-DVD is not enough to hold movies and extras at 1080i.

So it seems to me if studios favor HD-DVD its because they want to sell us all the movies on HD-DVD, and sell us the movies again on HD-DVD mkII which will have more capacity.

From my narrow perspective, Blu-Ray would make a good medium for backup now that 300-500G hard drives are increasingly common.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[Anonymous Coward]

Interlaced video formats have no place in the future - if they aren't planning on a progressive scan standard, I'm not fucking interested.

Let's leave interlace in the 20th century, then all those flat panel displays will start to make sense.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[Hast]

Triple layer HD-DVD is 45GB and Blu-Ray (double layer) is 50GB. I think both of them will be able to cover HD-Video just fine.

According to blu-raydisc.com 1080i is 40Mbit/s. That works out to 36G for a 2 hour movie. Drawback is naturally that this will mean that monster movies like LOTR will still be multi disc (if they are at 1080i) but that goes for both formats.

Personally I think this discussion is a bit pointless. We all know that it will end up another DVD(+|-)R[W] thing were we end up with all if them in one box in the end.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[EpsCylonB]

Triple layer HD-DVD is 45GB and Blu-Ray (double layer) is 50GB. I think both of them will be able to cover HD-Video just fine.

I though HD-DVD was just a normal dvd with the video stored with higher quality compression ?

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[Chosen Reject]

Yes, Except that Blu-Ray has already reached 100GB. And there are rumors of a 200GB version. At 1080i there are over 21 million pixels to account for, which is more than 7 times as much as the current resolution. DVD's hold 9.4 GB. Mutliply by 7 and your over 63GB. Yes there is a new compression technology, but it would have to be able to just about halve the current compression in order to fit it on either disc you mentioned.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[cheesybagel]

No. HD-DVD uses higher frequency, lower amplitude lasers as well to make for higher density. The difference is someone else is pushing it. It is like DVD-R vs DVD+R all over again.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[cheesybagel]

s/amplitude/wavelength.

Gotta get some coffee...

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[TechniMyoko]

Except there's already 8 layered Blu-Ray at 200 gigabytes

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[spleck]

More HD-DVD garbage... They say HD-DVD is cheaper to manufacture because its so similiar to regular DVD that they can reuse equipment... but what DVD equipment can produce a triple-layer disc?

They're just going both ways: we're cheaper, no we're big too... but both?

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of an interlaced flat panel, so all the de-interlacing electronics is already in there, so I don't see your point. Japan already had an analog 1125 line HDTV in the freaking 60s, so I don't see the jab at the 20th century either...

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[benwaggoner]

And how the heck would you know that? The Blu-ray camp has made that assertion, but it simply isn't born out in real-world testing.

Last week, for a test, I put a 123 minute movie on a DVD-9 using MPEG-2, using the HD DVD format (via Apple's DVD Studio Pro 4). Average of around 8.5 Mbps. Looked pretty darn good at 1920x1080.

HD-DVD gives you 30 GB, and the use of H.264 and VC-1 for codecs. No problem AT ALL sticking "Return of the King Extended Edition" on a single side of HD-DVD. So using codecs that are 2x better and 3x more capacity, yeah, HD-DVD is just fine. Single layer HD-DVD will be fine for the vast majority of films, and even offers more minutes per disc at HD than DVD gives us minutes of SD today.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[Anonymous Coward]

If capacity is the most important issue, neither format is large enough. Even BluRay will only hold about 2 hours of video at 1080i (of course they can crank up the compression as needed). The best solution I've seen is a third format - holographic disc (http://www.engadget.com/entry/9772446245622191) which stores multiple bytes per cell instead of single bits. They can put about 1 terrabyte on a disk, and Toshiba just became an investor in Optware (the Japanese company that owns the technology) http://www.optware.co.jp/english/index_what.htm ... Things could get interesting if Toshiba (one of the main companies behind HD-DVD) suddenly backs a format with 20 times Blu-Ray's capacity.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[daggre]

If capacity is the most important issue, neither format is large enough. Even BluRay will only hold about 2 hours of video at 1080i (of course they can crank up the compression as needed). The best solution I've seen is a third format - holographic disc (http://www.engadget.com/entry/9772446245622191) which stores multiple bytes per cell instead of single bits. They can put about 1 terrabyte on a disk, and Toshiba just became an investor in Optware (the Japanese company that owns the technology) http://www.optware.co.jp/english/index_what.htm ... Things could get interesting if Toshiba (one of the main companies behind HD-DVD) suddenly backs a format with 20 times Blu-Ray's capacity.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[dr.badass]

I though HD-DVD was just a normal dvd with the video stored with higher quality compression ?

You're supposed to think that, even though it isn't technically true. And that's why I predict HD-DVD will be more popular. It's easier to market something when you don't have to explain what it is to every potential customer.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[tkrotchko]

Its this level of data that we need within the next 2-3 years but won't get it.

Workstations/PC's are increasingly coming with about 500 G in storage. I realize this is not all data, but its mostly data. How do you back up raw video footage? Tape? SAN? Neither is practical except for large companies IMHO.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[Hast]

1) Most DVDs are not filled to 9GB.
2) The codecs used for HDTV are a lot more efficient. (A normal MPEG4 can typically reduce a normal DVD movie to 1.5 or 2 GB.)
3) I got my numbers from a source at least somewhat related to BluRay.
4) It doesn't matter that BluRay has a lot more space. The topic was if it will fit a movie or not. Once it fits a movie all else is bonus, but not requirement.

My point here wasn't that HD-DVD was better than BluRay. It's quite obvious that BluRay can fit more data. The point was that HD-DVD is sufficient at least for the time being. Personally I don't care what we use, I'll just get a dual play which plays both formats.

Preferences include costs

[_iris]

58% don't prefer Blu-ray. They prefer the appearance of Blu-ray images. The next question is the more important one: How much more money would you be willing to pay over the HD DVD to get the Blu-ray image. My guess is that ~85% would say less than 20% more money.

Personally, I only buy DVDs on sale, at $10 or less.

Re:Preferences include costs

[iainl]

Actually, it's 85% of people performing a comparison set up by the BluRay team thought that they made the BluRay image look nicer than the HD-DVD image.

Given I could make you a DVD that compares unfavorably to a long-play VHS tape without too much effort, what do you want to bet this wasn't a fair test?

I'm not so sure about Sony

[tkrotchko]

"I don't think Sony is about to repeat their Beta experience."

They certainly haven't learned from their ATRAC experience.

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[DarkEdgeX]

Sure, but that was a CODEC. ;) I don't think they're going to drop the ball with BluRay; and unlike ATRAC [MP3, etc], MemoryStick [CompactFlash] or MiniDisc [Compact Disc], the existing alternative(s) for BluRay [HD-DVD] are inferior.

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[Politburo]

But what was so inferior about MD? It caught on in Japan.. so it would seem like there is some marketing or cultural, not technical, difference that caused this. To my knowledge, MD was used by radio stations for liners, beds, etc.. Similar to how beta continued to be used by TV broadcasters.

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[cheesybagel]

So was VHS.

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[DarkEdgeX]

The copy protection on MD was a major problem. IIRC MD also suffered from lower quality than CD (either MD was lossy, or MD had a lower frequency range). You're right tho that MD caught on in Japan.

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[benwaggoner]

Can you give a real-world example where Blu-ray would provide a better experience than HD-DVD for "Hollywood" style content. Sure, as a floppy disc replacement for rewritable files. But for read-only video content?

Bear in mind that once you get a high enough peak data rate, higher data rates don't look any better. So it isn't that the capacity of Blu-ray means all discs will look better - for the vast majority of films, both formats would let you use a maximum legal bitrate throughout the file. It's only titles where the greater capacity of Blu-ray over HD-DVD means you can use a higher average bitrate that you'd see a difference. And I suspect that'll come in somewhere north of 5 hours per side. Not a lot of content out there where you care about watching for more than 5 straight hours without interruption. And given that HD-DVD is cheaper to manufacture (at least at the outset) at a given bitrate, HD-DVD would be cheaper per minute of video. Sure, maybe an entire HD TV show season might take 3 HD-DVD discs instead of 2 Blu-ray discs, but does that difference really have much consumer value?

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[DarkEdgeX]

Um, yes I can. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Extended Edition. Rather than coming on 4 discs, with BluRay I'd be surprised if they couldn't get it in both 1080i and all the extras on one disc. With HD-DVD I'd have my doubts that they'd be able to do that without sacrificing quality.

Further, last I checked, BluRay had made optional a number of lossless audio formats. Those lossless formats are going to require more space than your usual Dolby Digital AC3 or DTS tracks. And before anyone says anything about how it's a waste of space/unnecessary/etc., let me remind you that people who buy into BluRay or HD-DVD aren't doing it because they want XviD quality with MP3 audio, they're doing it because they want the absolute best quality so they can push their home theatre systems as far as possible.

Finally, HD-DVD costing less at the outset is a fallacy. The initial cost associated with BluRay disappears when economies of scale take effect (which they will). Remember: you're dealing with hundreds of thousands or millions of units. I could see the issue of new hardware (BluRay) vs. retooled hardware (HD-DVD) if duplicators were doing small runs of 100-200 discs, but most stuff coming out on BD or HD-DVD early on are going to be commercial products ordered in the tens or hundreds of thousands if not more.

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[benwaggoner]

I'm 100% confident I can do a perfect quality LoTR: RotK: EE on a dual-layer single side of HD-DVD.

As I said in another post, I was able to get adequate quality of 123 min on a DVD-9 with HD MPEG-2. With a better codec like H.264 or VC-1 (about a 2x improvement in compression efficiency) and bigger capacity (about 3x for dual-layer HD-DVD), we're done. Multiple channels of audio, etcetera.

Now, it won't necessarily be LOSSLESS audio, but who cares. It'll be audibly perfect, even if now a bit-for-bit copy of PCM. Really, even DTS is arguably overkill for 99% of home theaters. 448 Kbps AC-3 exceeds the acuity of most of our ears already. Bear in mind that's what the you're hearing in the cinema already.

I've got a whole rant about the pointlessness of Superbit and DTS as well.

And yes, if both formats are successful, prices will converge over several years. But HD-DVD WILL be cheaper at the outset, which could make a significant difference.

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[DarkEdgeX]

Now, it won't necessarily be LOSSLESS audio, but who cares. It'll be audibly perfect, even if now a bit-for-bit copy of PCM. Really, even DTS is arguably overkill for 99% of home theaters. 448 Kbps AC-3 exceeds the acuity of most of our ears already. Bear in mind that's what the you're hearing in the cinema already.

You lost me here. Why you're trying to persuade people on the next-gen uber HDTV movie format when your attitude is that lossless is a waste and that VC1/H.264 at low bitrates is "quality" is beyond me. What's your interest here? If you don't give a shit how it looks or sounds, you can stick with SD DVD and leave the rest of us to BluRay/HD-DVD.

As far as LOTR:ROTK:EE is concerned, that's a 251 minute long movie according to iMDB. That works out to 15,060 seconds. Assuming HD-DVD ships this fall with 2 layer discs being available (I don't think 3+ layer HD-DVD or BD is realistic just yet for mass production), that's 30 GB of space. 30 GB = 30,720 MB = 245,760 Mb. That works out to 16.32 Mbit/sec of bandwidth for the full movie. With VC1/H.264 at 1920x1080 you're going to want 15-19 Mbit/sec for maximal video quality.

I trust you see the problem with HD-DVD. No room left for audio let alone extras. With BluRay's 50 GB capacity we get the following numbers: 50 GB = 51,200 MB = 409,600 Mb. That works out to 27.2 Mbit/sec of bandwidth for the full movie. More than enough for the whole 251 minute movie plus some high quality multichannel audio tracks (maybe even lossless). Extras are still iffy, but you're still a lot better off than you were with HD-DVD.

In so far as HD-DVD being cheaper, that's a red herring. Economies of scale will make any cost associated with BluRay disappear in short order. AFAIK the materials involved cost the same for both formats, the only cost for BluRay that's beyond HD-DVD is the cost of the duplicator hardware itself (HD-DVD can be retrofitted onto existing DVD hardware IIRC). But when you're dealing with hundreds of thousands or tens of millions of units per movie, the cost of those duplicators quickly disappear.

I think HD-DVD is going to lose out here, I just hope this format war ends quickly so people can be saved the pain of having to rebuy movies in whichever format succeeds...

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[benwaggoner]

Mathematically lossless doesn't matter for end users - what they care about is perceptually lossless.

The compressed audio codecs available on the HD disc formats should make perceptually lossless trivial, even for high-end audio systems. There's no point in doing better than that. If you take someone with good ears and a home theater, and do an A/B comparison, and they can't say which is better, we can just pick the lower data rate option, right?

Also, remember that home theater audio has been WAY better than video forever. Laserdiscs were doing 384 Kbps 5.1 AC-3 a decade ago. The real story of HD is bringing the video up to the audio standard we've had the potential for quite a while.

I often find myself irritated by the quality of digital video, but how often to people complain abut the AUDIO quality of digital video compared to the source? When a DVD doesn't sound good, it's due to limitations in the source material, not the compression.

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[DarkEdgeX]

I'll say again, if quality doesn't matter then that's what DVD and VHS is for. I like to believe that HD-DVD and BluRay are attempting to fill the niche of moviephiles who can discern differences between the lower quality of DVD and the higher quality of HD-DVD/BluRay.

Otherwise, what's the point in releasing the format if you're still going to go with low bitrates and lossy formats? Most DVD's are anamorphic already and when played through a good DVD player look pretty nice on an HDTV monitor-- the average "end user" probably won't care that HD-DVD/BluRay offers 1920x1080 resolution or better audio formats (with better frequency ranges/quality).

I mean, I do hope one of the formats takes off like wildfire, I just hope it's the one more technically capable of dealing with the demands that HD video and high quality audio require. And IMO, HD-DVD is not the format that should succeed in the market.

Re:I'm not so sure about Sony

[benwaggoner]

Went out of town for the weekend with the wife and kids. I don't know if anyone is still reading this, but if they are...

Ah, some numbers we can work with. Thanks.

Based on the encoders I've worked with (mainly Inlet Fathom for VC-1 and Apple's for HD H.264), you hit visually lossless with typical movie content around 12 Mbps for VBR encodes. It's certainly better at 10 Mbps than ANY ATSC D-VHS or other consumer HD you've likely seem to date. The 1080p24 MPEG-2 samples on the disc image I'm distributing are more like 17 Mbps, and they look pretty darn good, and that's just with Apple's middle of the road encoder.

Bear in mind that the WMV HD DVD-ROM titles are using Microsoft's weaker encoders, with CBR encoding around 8-10 Mbps. So we can already do about 50% more efficient with Fathom 2-pass VBR VC-1.

As for lossless being a waste, lossless audio is like lossless video. Anyone clamoring for the latter? No? Because we reach the "good enough" point for media well before we reach mathematically lossless. Now good content, good ears, and good systems mean more bits are required to hit the "good enough" point. And that's fine. But given a modern audio codec, 768 Kbps is clearly enough for great sounding 96 KHz 24-bit 7.1. But mathematically lossless with that some content would come out to the ballpark of 8 Mbps. Yes, a higher data rate than the VIDEO on today's DVD. And I'll say right now, with movie content NO ONE is going to be able to tell the difference between that 8 Mbps and, a 1 Mbps VBR encodes WMA9 Professional stream. Now, I've only got a $10K or so audio system, so i can't say that it would NEVER matter between 768 CBR and 1000 VBR. But I sure can't hear it today.

So, back to your assertion, we should be able to do the movie just fine, and that's the longest movie that anyone is likely to care about - obviously 99% of features are going to be just fine even if your assertions are correct. Personally, I don't care if the extras are on a second disc. I just don't want to have to flip it in the middle of a presentation.

I give

[theantipop]

Honestly, the two technologies are close enough in features that I would much rather just avoid a format war than have to deal with the bullcrap I put up with to write to a DVD.

Common Sense

[TwoTailedFox]

It really is Common Sense. Blu-Ray *is* the superior format, plus it has a better, more futuristic-sounding name.

Durability?

[popcultureicon]

The only question I have is how tough are these formats? Will they be more resistant to scratching than DVD, or worse? No one seems to be talking about this, instead focusing on the capacity. I assume that both will have adequate space for me to view my future HD videos, but which format will allow me to view those same videos ten years in the future? Or does physical quality even matter any more, and I'm just being a naive optimist? If I'm paying more for each game I buy in the next generation, I don't want to have to pay twice for any of them.

Re:Durability?

[DarkEdgeX]

Up until recently BluRay players have required the discs to be in caddies (like old CD-ROM's). But thanks to work by TDK, newer media/players can handle discs in the buff (ala present day DVD players). They're still more prone to scratches (AFAIK), but hopefully they get it to be at least as durable as DVD prior to the launch this fall/winter.

Did they include the player price difference?

[m50d]

That's the main selling point of HD-DVD. Blu-ray has more data storage, but it's cheaper to make players for HD-DVD. If they're looking solely at features, of course blu-ray will win.

Re:Did they include the player price difference?

[sznupi]

??

Costs of players are virtally the same...only manufacturing costs of the discs differ (or rather: will differ initially)

Re:Did they include the player price difference?

[m50d]

AIUI they can manufacture the lasers using the same methods as DVD for HD-DVD, but need to rework the factories to produce ones for Blu-ray, meaning the players for HD-DVD can be cheaper.

Re:Did they include the player price difference?

[sznupi]

You understand it wrong. Methods are the same in case of lasers/(forgot english world: the thing that moves them - and that's the more expensive part of the two). And inanu case they need to design new ones. What you wrote applies to discs however (and I somehow doubt it will have impact on price of movies in shops...)

Re:Did they include the player price difference?

[sznupi]

Crap, forgot to mention one thing: you ARE right to some extent, in that Blu-Ray players are more capable (marginally from my perspective, but still). However I also doubt this will have any impact: first players will be helluva expensive in both cases, and when the time of 50$ players with razor thin margins will come, probably one of the formats will be the winner for a long time...

I think they'd want a ford

[tkrotchko]

"If you compared the feature list of Fords and Ferraris, you'd expect people to want the Ferrari more "

Since most people since to prefer SUV's and pickups, I think Ford just might win that comparo...

Re:I think they'd want a ford

[jridley]

They'd especially choose Ford if you also revealed the fact that Ferrari owners need to be able to adopt a live-in mechanic.

What about C3D

[zlogic]

Remember the C3D company? They invented a CD which could hold a nearly infinite number of layers because each of them is completely transparent, but if the laser is focused on a layer and shining on it, the layer is self-illuminating.
C3D presented this technology back in 1999 or even earlier, they even had working prototypes.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/1999/11/29/BU19966.DTL
These discs could hold as much as 140 gigabytes of data!
Compared to this, blu-ray looks kind of outdated.
But the company went banckrupt (I think), and now in 2005 we are presented a technology IMHO less advanced than C3D.

Re:What about C3D

[MenTaLguY]

I'm guessing they went under because they were either asking too much for patent licenses, or because they were poor salesmen.

( 2005 - 1999 ) < 14, so most likely whichever creditor ended up with the patents is still still sitting on them.

We'll probably see a revival of the technology when someone willing to license the patents (under reasonable terms) acquires them, or the patents expire.

Re:What about C3D

[BagMan2]

Blu-Ray supports multiple layers as well and already has a solid road-map in place to reach sizes up to 200gb. Compared to this, C3D looks kind of outdated.

Re:What about C3D

[Anonymous Coward]

C3D presented this technology back in 1999 or even earlier, they even had working prototypes.

The prototypes demonstrated publicly only held 14GB, which is what current DVDs can do, albeit with two sides. This was all they got to work. Between the materials cost and the specialized laser (that couldn't read CDs or DVDs), it wasn't very viable. Blu-Ray/HD-DVD do exactly as current DVDs, just with a shorter wavelength. They are much, much, simpler.

As advanced as the technology may be, if it's not cheap enough to produce millions of units, it'll never catch on. C3D was just ahead of their time.

Exactly

[cryptochrome]

It's not just Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD... you also have to include DVD in there, which as far as most consumers think is just fine. They aren't going to upgrade their hardware without a compelling reason - and the only compelling reason considered here is image quality on HDTV. That won't push hardware sales.

Video game console sales will, however. Folks will be a lot more inclined to buy next-generation disks if they've already got a player sitting around and don't have to buy an expensive separate unit.

PC applications might help push things along, but not until we start seeing multiple-DVD programs and filesets. Few applications generate that much data outside of video.

VHS won due to cheaper licensing.

[MtViewGuy]

The biggest reason why VHS won was the fact that JVC (the developer of the Video Home System format) and its majority shareholder Matsushita Electric offered extremely low licensing terms for other companies to manufacture VHS recorders--far lower than that of what Sony wanted for the Betamax format.

Besides, VHS had another huge advantage, notably longer recording times at all recording speeds, something highly desirable for recording complete TV seasons, miniseries or sporting events. And VHS easily matched Beta improvements in sound and picture quality with VHS Hi-Fi audio and Super VHS higher-resolution recording.

Re:Biased polls are useless

[hilaryduff]

apart from the clear bias in this 'poll' it makes me laugh out loud to imagine anyone seriously caring for one moment what 1200 people think of two products costing vast amounts of money to develop. if blu-ray seriously think a little 'first blood' in the unfortunate format war theyre entering into is going to make any difference to the outcome, theyre in even more trouble than i thought.

Paid advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really care what kind of sunglasses other people wear and I don't see how that is either nerd news or that it matters. Yeah, Blu-blockers are ok but so wha

Oh, never mind.

Totally the name...

[agentfive]

We get tons of people who write in at TV Snob.com about whether the HD-DVD format or Blu-Ray is better - we give them the storage answer but I think this poll is way off - it's more in the 75% range for people who know about Blu-Ray because of the name.

Depends on whether it's recordable...

[Anonymous Coward]

For selling pre-recorded disks, it doesn't matter too much. 30GB is enough for HD video.

For recordable disks, bigger wins. People will buy the disk with more capacity as long as the price difference is marginal, just as they did with 650MB vs 700MB CDRs.

Re:Depends on whether it's recordable...

[Anonymous Coward]

But the thing is, the price difference *isn't* marginal. HD-DVD is so much cheaper to produce then Blu-Ray, it's not funny. (Since, existing dvd-manufacturing eqipment can easily be retrofitted...)

Re:Depends on whether it's recordable...

[Anonymous Coward]

But the thing is, the price difference *isn't* marginal. HD-DVD is so much cheaper to produce then Blu-Ray, it's not funny. (Since, existing dvd-manufacturing eqipment can easily be retrofitted...)

There was initially a substantial price difference between 650 vs 700 MB CDRs, and between CDRs and DVDRs. However once the capital expenditures in the new equipment are paid off, the cost of raw materials and labor is about the same. Thus in the long term the manufacturing cost is about the same, so the format with the greater capacity is preferable to consumers.

But, as stated, this only applies to consumer-recordable media. Hollywood is known for pouring money into things of questionable value (eg DIVX, degrading DVDs, etc.)

Java!

[junkgui]

There is a bunch of Java programers that stand to make some money on blue ray winning out. Depending on how hard it is to execute code on these set-tops it could open a huge home-brew scene...

Re:Java!

[owlstead]

Nope, the Java programmer will not make significantly more money. Reason: the one that exploits his Java programs will make the money. You know: GET THE LATEST RINGTONES, SCREENSAVERS AND GAMES FROM ... NOW! commercials.

The Wrong Horse

[raygundan]

Sadly, I have already backed the wrong horse, by buying an HDTV early enough that it didn't have digital inputs. "Sure," I thought to myself, "It's not digital, but I'll bet component analog is the lowest-common-denominator standard that will work with everything down the road." Unfortunately, we already know for certain that HD-DVD won't output HD on component outputs or DVI. Sony doesn't seem like the type of company who'd open things up, either, so I'm not holding my breath there.

I guess I won't be buying a HD disc player of any sort until after I wear out my TV, unless hell freezes over and Sony comes out and supports HD on component outputs.

Wrong horse, indeed. I can't even buy either of the players yet, and I'm already screwed by obsolescence. Thanks, guys!

TDK solved Blu-Ray durability issue.

[MtViewGuy]

I think you forgot that a few months ago TDK demonstrated a new optical disc material that is extremely scratch proof, which made it possible for Blu-Ray discs to no longer need the protective caddies that Blu-Ray discs now sold in Japan require.

As such, when Blu-Ray recorders and players finally reach the US market in 2006 they will look like today's DVD players and recorders, which means substantially reduced production costs even with the drive mechanism. Blu-Ray--in my opinion--will probably win out over HD-DVD because its higher recording capacity makes putting movies in 1080-line progressive scan format on a single disc vastly easier, not to mention the fact computer users will prefer Blu-Ray discs for higher recording capacity per disc (very important to archive increasingly higher resolution digital still photos and movies downloaded from MiniDV/MicroDV camcorders).

Of course Blu-ray's better

[Silkejr]

The whole idea of these new discs is to increase data storage. Why would we want to adopt the smaller storage when more is obviously better?

It's already been decided

[burnetd]

Lest face it, this time next year there will be a few thousand HD-DVD players sold to early adopters and a few million Blu-Ray players sold disguised as PS3's.

There will also be hell of a lot more people who won't what to upgrade from the DVD players they brought last year.

Over here in the UK we might have actually have PS3's by then and possible be in four figures for the number of people watching HDTV.

How is this accurate?

[mr. mulder]

How many average-joes have a Blu-Ray drive already. Hello!?!?

I Agree

[ArchAngel21x]

If we are going to switch to a new DVD format, let's make the switch worthwhile. HD DVD is just a half ass attempt.

Colours

[theseeria]

Before I knew blu-ray had more capacity then hd-dvd... I still prefered and [i'm being serious here], why? Because it spelt blue, blu, seriously.

Shoppers button mashing

[msobkow]

Far more likely is that some button-mashing shopper was "testing" the remote and played around with the settings. Sales staff in most stores don't have a real vested interest in getting you to buy one model or another, and fewer still would think of messing with the settings to make a model look bad.

The real margins are in selling "extended warranties", not the actual sets.

how about a better poll

[akhomerun]

how about if you took a poll saying "which next generation DVD player would you buy...

$400 BluRay player from Sony
$200 HD-DVD player from every other manufacterer"

i wonder who'd win. by the time blu-ray comes out, sony's consumer electronics will be even further in the dirt than it is now.

Sure Blu-Ray is probably a better format, but why bother when HD-DVD can deliver a movie of the same quality and be backwards compatible AND cheap?

Blu-Ray will always cost more because movie studios will have to release 2 (sometimes 3 because of the UMD) formats. With HD-DVDs, a layer can be made for regular DVD players so you don't have to support the previous generation's format

Who are these "Customers" ?

[NewStarRising]

"Customers" prefer ...

What customers? I didn't think Blu-Ray or HD-DVD were on the market yet.
Or do they mean "People who have bought anything ever" ?
Or "People that we think will become customers" ?

Blur?

[KrunZ]

"cool name and blueness"
But its Blu-Ray not Blue-Ray

Blur is just as close to Blu as Blue

"Would you like this new super-duper HiTech++ system using special blur rays, sir?"

Re:Blur?

[GTRacer]

But its Blu-Ray not Blue-Ray

But it is, isn't it? I thought Blu-Ray was a literal reference to the fact that the laser is blue instead of red to take advantage of the narrower wavelength.

GTRacer
- Doesn't care as long as GT5 doesn't suck

Re:Blur?

[edgar_is_good]

Except "blur" sounds like "blur" and "blu" sounds like "blue"...

Re:Blur?

[ZephyrXero]

Yes, but HD-DVDs also use a blue laser... "blu-ray" is just a marketing gimmick. Then again, so is HD-DVD ;)

Uh, that could backfire.

[crovira]

Some people might prefer the taste of donkey piss over Pepsi.

Specially if the Pepsi rep has diabetes (the usine will taste sweeter.)

Re:Uh, that could backfire.

[iwan-nl]

Specially if the Pepsi rep has diabetes (the usine will taste sweeter.)

OMG! Please don't tell me how you know that...

Re:Uh, that could backfire.

[Impotent_Emperor]

Specially if the Pepsi rep has diabetes (the usine will taste sweeter.)

OMG! Please don't tell me how you know that...

He must have done the most disgusting thing ever: he read a book.

The rest of us will continue with drinking piss to check its flavor, thank you very much.

Re:Uh, that could backfire.

[cheesybagel]

People with diabetes have a higher glucose content in the blood. When they test diabetes in the blood or urine, that is what they are testing for. The more diabetes the sweeter the urine will be I guess. But I somewhat doubt it will cancel out the taste of salt.

Blew-Ray?

[crovira]

Lucky Ray, and then he got leprosy and AIDS.

Re:Blew-Ray?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent retarded.

Content over technology

[msobkow]

You're right -- the format that has the most content (i.e. movies and games) available at local shops will be the one that wins the format war. The other may have some penetration in the computer industry for data, but it's content that sells the consumer.

Look at Sony's SACD. You can't find content other than what Sony themselves sell, and even that is almost impossible to find except by going online. DVD Audio may not be technically as good, but it's what people buy when given a choice. What's the point of buying a player that has nothing to play?

Re:Content over technology

[bleaknik]

Unfortunately, there are lots of stupid peoples who insist that compressed, lossy, DRMed .WMA files are the wave of the future.

I'm sorry, but the music industry really pisses me off.

First, they have been over charging on Music CDs for 20 years...

Then they fight every form of electronic distribution of music...

And they're completely ignoring those audiophiles among us who want to actually pay good money for SACDs... even though there's no content.

Of course, Format Wars have basically killed the chances for either technology to take off... DVD-A or SACD.

Which brings me to another gripe. DVD-A is impressive, and I appreciate the fidelity that 24-bit multichannel sound can provide... But it's still Pulse Code Modulation. One of the gripes with CDs was that they sounded almost too mechanical. Sure, technically they were correct, but the softness (analog imperfection) of a good LP just couldn't be reproduced with PCM. SACD was designed to diminish this flaw (yes, I know 24-bit PCM is an improvement over 16-bit PCM).

Yup. Music Industry pisses me off. Let us use our media as we want, let us share, and go fuck yourselves. Sorry for the profanity. /shrug.

Re:Content over technology

[JebusIsLord]

You're making shit up. SACD isn't PCM at all, and it isn't 24-bit either.

Of course, this is irrelevant to the fact that you CAN reproduce the softness (frequency distortion) of an analog recording by recording in analog and then encoding it. Lots of artists do this. 2 channel, 16-bit, 44.1kHz recordings sound identical to DVD-audio (2-ch, 24-bit, 192kHz) when mastered identically, according to numerous listening tests on hydrogenaudio.org.

What you ARE getting with these new formats 5.1 sound (which is nice!) and unbroken DRM (which is the real reason for their existance).

Re:Content over technology

[bleaknik]

Ok. Not making shit up. The 24-bit/PCM comment was meant to reference to DVD-Audio. Sorry for the confusion. SACD actually encodes 1-bit audio at 2.8 MHz.

You're right, a lot of artists do record in analog and then copy to digital, but there is still a loss in the conversion. In fact, every conversion creates some loss. Not making that up, either.

You're right 16-bit/44.1 kHz records do sound quite a bit like 24-bit/192 kHz records. This is due to the physical limitations of the human ear. Most people can only hear sounds between roughly 20 Hz and 20 kHz. CDs have a theoretical frequency response up to 22 kHz, while DVD-As have a theoretial value up to 96 kHz. Since the human ear can only distinguish sounds up to 20kHz, DVD-A isn't providing much more for our ears to hear, but it does give a more precise reproduction of the sound wave.

I do have some issues about 5.1 sound. I like the theory, but I can't say I've ever been to a concert with theatrical 5.1 surround sound.

And "unbroken DRM"... I'm sorry, but all DRM is broken, by definition. Heh.

Re:Content over technology

[CRCulver]

Look at Sony's SACD. You can't find content other than what Sony themselves sell, and even that is almost impossible to find except by going online.

SACD is most popular among the classical music crowd. Labels like Naxos and EMI offer many of their latest releases in both CD and SACD (and Naxos even has DVD Audio too, hooray for choice). No need for me to go online to buy any of this, my local Tower Records has a large SACD section.

SACD was never marketed to people who like general popular radio-friendly music, because such people are much less likely to have audiophile inclinations.

Re:Content over technology

[JebusIsLord]

Exactly, who the hell cares if DVD-audio and/or SACD is more "precise" in its reproduction if the human ear cannot distinguish it? So the "higher fidelity" argument is crap. It is akin to arguing that digital video should encode ultra-violet light as well as visible. What a waste.

Now for 5.1 sound. Are you telling me that everything you hear at a concert is coming from in front of you? Surely there is crowd noise, reverberations etc. coming from the sides and behind. Not critical, but this is a measurable if arguable benefit to the new formats, unlike the previously mentioned B.S.

Re:Content over technology

[bleaknik]

To be honest, Jebus, I'd rather not hear the audience in a recording. ;) That's always my biggest gripe about live CDs... heh. Good point on the reverberations, though. In the ideal world, everyone would always listen to music in the ideal listening environment with the ideal blah blah blah. Surround Sound setups (5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 9.1, 10.2, 17.3, 37.9, 1003791.9, etc.) make it easier to reproduce the original acoustics.

Now, I don't know about you, but I can tell subtle differences between CD and DVD-A or between CD and SACD (In 2.0 Stereo Mode). There's a certain warmth that the CD versions seem to lack (Linkin Park - Reanimation, to name one album). Have you noticed this? Kind of curious... Most of my friends and family swear there's no noticible difference; they think I'm crazy... /shrug.

Serpenthead

[AtariAmarok]

"Mr Snakes!"

Is that James Carville's new nickname?

New study!

[illtron]

How about this new study: 99.999% of consumers have no idea WTF blu-ray is, making the previous study essentially meaningless.

Not that I'm bashing blu-ray; it's clearly superior, but average Joe Best Buy has no god damn clue.

Most important things for me ...

[Misagon]

Most important thing for me is that it does not use a Microsoft codec such as WMV 9 that has been discussed so far.

I believe the computer industry is going to decide this time in BluRay's favor, if it can deploy equipment fast enough.

The extra storage space does not matter to movies. HD-DVD can store up to four hours of HDTV content already in really good quality. I am talking of a bitrate significantly higher than current HDTV broadcasts.

One thing that bugs me with current DVD:s is that major movies are released in both letterbox and pan&scan. Why not have one format, with movie stored on disc in full resolution cinemascope, 24 frames per second, progressive like the movie was shot and let a smarter player downconvert it to whatever equipment the user has!

If I watch a movie shot in cinemascope (2.35:1) on a 16:9 TV set the choices I have are having black borders on top and bottom or black borders on the left and right - I want the movie to fill the screen! I also don't want to see any 3:2 pulldown artifacts or the movie 4% faster than in the theatres. Please please make it right!

Re:Most important things for me ...

[ilyaaohell]

The whole reason it's called "pan and scan" is because an actual human editor sat down and editted the letterboxed film by PANNING across the frame to the parts of it that are the most "important" (based on the specific shot) and throw out everything else. It's not just a matter of zooming in on the center of the frame (which DVD players and most widescreen TVs can already accomplish).

It's for this reason that you can't have an "automatic" system that pans and scans the frame to make it full screen, unless you can convince all the directors of the world to not fill the sides of the frame with anything important.

Re:Most important things for me ...

[Misagon]

Yes, but there is no reason that there can't be a track on the disc with panning information.

I had already thought of that but forgot about posting it for some reason.

Re:Most important things for me ...

[ilyaaohell]

"...there is no reason that there can't be a track..."

I can think of one very good reason: The movie producers wouldn't want to waste time and money to encode such a trivial feature, and the hardware makers wouldn't want to waste time and money building the capability into their device.

Aside from your own comment, this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone requesting a feature like this.

VHS vs. Beta

[rAiNsT0rm]

And everyone picked VHS... we all know it was sooo much better. Glad the public is always right!

Reliability?

[Jugalator]

Generally speaking, HD-DVD is preferred by those seeking to reduce manufacturing costs while Blu-ray is preferred by those more interested in features and data storage.

Personally, I'm the most interested in a format that can be at least as reliable (preferrably even more) than the DVD-R format. Now that would be something for data archival -- a common format that's reliable as hell. Especially as the storage size keeps increasing, I keep finding this to be an important factor. But for some reason you rarely hear about it in the Blu-ray/HD-DVD debate, but rather just what's more costly. If Blu-ray is more expensive but also clearly more reliable in addition to a greater storage, I'll happily pay at least 50% more for one of those than a HD-DVD.

Re:Reliability?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't really care about this sort of debate, but I did want to point out to you that Blu-ray lacks much of a protection layer and will probably be easily damaged and unreliable. If I were you I'd stick to dvds for now.

But Googlefight says...

[TheKidder]

HD-DVD will win! 1,000,000 results vs. 800,000.

Re:But Googlefight says...

[greylion3]

You probably didn't enclose either in double quotes.
When I do that, I get:

"HD-DVD": 909,000
"Blu-ray": 815,000

To me, that's still a close race.

Re:But Googlefight says...

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, but include the results for BD-ROM and Blue-Ray and its a different story.

It's all about the syllables

[Galley_SimRacer]

Blu-ray: two syllables HD-DVD: five syllables Blu-ray wins!

Irrelevant

[MacGod]

In the end, which format "wins" won't be based on a "here's the features, pick your favourite" type of poll. The marketing and cost of each will be a huge factor, but more importantly, it will rely on network effects. Whichever format can get more released for it will, because if I go into Best Buy and see 200 Blu-Ray movies and 30 HD-DVD movies, my choice will be easy and all other factors will be irrelevant.

I prefer Blu-Ray

[merc]

... attached to sharks' friggin' heads.

Looking at history...

[Chris Mattern]

It's noticeably better quality, it's more expensive, it's backed by Sony...

...yep. It's doomed.

Chris Mattern

Re:Looking at history...

[evilviper]

It's noticeably better quality, it's more expensive, it's backed by Sony...

But this time around, it's ALSO higher capacity than the competition.

It's open and a standard, so the fees and totalitarian rule of Sony won't be a problem this time around.

Actually, I think they're both doomed (look at VHS vs LaserDisc).

Which one

[sxmjmae]

Is there a specific drive or is it just the key word?

Say if I was looking for a new burner which one would be the best?

To me they just tested to see if the individual lied about which tech they have heard about HD DVD versus Blu-ray.

It doesn't matter...

[micradigitalis]

Streaming, on-demand video is the future.

I think both of these formats have an uphill battle against the fact that we aren't far away from a subscription service with access to a library of HD-quality movies and shows...

This for example, was most recently in the news.

Spam, Spam, Spam

[SnowDog74]

Could I have some news with my advertisements? Do these guys understand the concept of Diminishing Marginal Return?

Shame on Slashdot for posting an article that's rife with spamvertising floaters and more ads than news.

Buy a better DVD player

[bucklesl]

I see this complaint everytime a DVD-related article shows up.

Instead of purchasing a computer just to play DVDs, just buy a better DVD player that skips straight to the movie. I have had a Zenith DVB318 for almost a year that searches for the movie and jumps directly to it. If you are watching TV shows on DVD, however, it will sometimes jump to a different episode.

If you jump to the DVD menu while playing a movie to change some options or move somewhere else, it may display the FBI warning and whatnot. However, it will let you fast forward through them.

It also upconverts to HDTV resolution through component inputs. You will have to downgrade the firmware on newer units to this since they have bowed to the movie industry to disable this functionality.

AVS Forum thread on player

Trademarking

[Anonymous Coward]

Presumably Blu-Ray is a more sure-fire name than Blue-Ray would be when it comes to trademark registration?

No one asked me

[ehaggis]

I prefer 8-track.

Blu-Ray + Java + Longhorn

[slasho81]

Will Longhorn support Blu-Ray? If so, the standard says a Blu-Ray player must support Java. In that case, will Longhorn support Java?

Customers not polled

[Blinkslowly]

The headline says customers. But unless they bought both technologies I doubt they are customers, just participants in a study. A study which probably doesn't take into account cost and other factors.

Right...

[DaveCBio]

The number of "average" consumers that have a clue when it comes to is pretty damn low. They were given a bullet point list and keeping in line with the usual tendencies they chose the one with the most bullet points and do you want to bet that Blu-Ray had the most bullet points? Back in the early days of word processors I had a conversation with a software distributor as to why Word was starting to outsell Wordperfect and he said Word had a bigger feature list on the back of the box. From that day forward I always paid attention to that aspect of marketing and he was right. People always assume more is better.

I'm voting for

[iminplaya]

whoever comes through with a two week all inclusive paid vacation in the Canadian Rockies, with three hookers wrapped in mink.

In other news ...

[xwin]

Reports show that majority of the customers prefer macdonalds. The same reports show that majority of the customers prefer not to be fat as well as not to excersize. Another reports show that clock is still blinking on most VCRs. The bottom line is that majority of the customers ether does not know what they want or want something for completely the wrong reason.

Re:Polls - Mod's are retarted

[Anonymous Coward]

I trust polls just about as much as I trust W on WMD issues.

The mod's are retarted. This was clearly a joke. I'm a Republican Bush supporter and even I laughed at it. Mod's need to get a lilfe.

Nerd Humor

[bleaknik]

The World Famous Dr. Eisenburg finishing his lecture on the importance of careful observation one day.

He immediately moved on to a new subject, and he explained to his class that as a doctor, one can learn a great deal about what disease the patient has by tasting their urine. He then lowers his hand into a beaker of urine and sticks his index finger in his mouth.

His class cringes. "Now class, I want you all to do the same. When this beaker has finished its way around the class, we will further our discussion."

One by one each student gingerly places their hand into the beaker and then into their mouths.

Finally the beaker finishes its way around, and the Dr. Eisenburg picks it up. "Now class, if you had paid attention to our earlier conversation, you would have noticed my middle finger was placed in the urine, and my index finger went into my mouth."

"Sony's PS3 is to use the Blu-Ray format."

[Elwood P Dowd]

But the Millenium Falcon will use HD-DVD!

Sony's PS3 will use whichever format is more widely used a quadrillion years from now when they actually start building hardware.

the real question ...

[psbrogna]

is, is this one of the 33% of studies that are inaccurate? c.f: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/1 3/2255243&tid=99&tid=14

The DVDxR challenge

[King_TJ]

Yep.... The goal of the whole industry has really been to obfuscate things to the point where the vast majority of customers are too confused to make valid purchasing decisions on technical facts.

For one thing, look at the debate on whether DVD-R or DVD+R (or for that matter, + or -RW) was the best format to burn your movies onto for "best compatibility" with set-top players. This was the main reason I bought my first DVD-R drive, after much research. (The consensus seemed to be that movies recorded to DVD-R media had your best shot at playing back right in a randomly used player.) Know what, though? I tried 4 different DVD set-top players I owned and had poor results getting my media to play back properly in any of them! Typically, they'd start playing ok but as they got further through the movie, they'd start stuttering and skipping around, and finally just stop with an error message. One of these included my Playstation 2 I owned at the time!

Much more recently, I tried burning a movie to a piece of DVD+R media and put it in one of these same players that gave me all the trouble before. Know what? It plays my movies perfectly whenever I record them on DVD+R!

But truthfully, results vary. I could bring this same movie in to any Circuit City or Best Buy store right now and try it on all the set-top players on the shelf, and I guarantee it would work in 40 ot 50% and choke in the others. Many that choked would probably play my stuff on DVD-R that I had no many problems with.

(Oh, and I tried - and +RW media too. Had really bad luck with that. I don't think any of my players even recognized it as valid media... but my players are all at least 2 year old models too.)

As yet another example, look at the blank media sold for "music recording". Some customers are tricked into thinking they need this type of more expensive media if they want to burn music CDs. (That would just make logical sense, based on the labeling/packaging, right?)

Well I would PREFER...

[digithead]

...a HD DVD player that actually outputs HD (720p or 1080i) via analog component cables. My ANCIENT Mitsubishi HDTV that I bought 2 years ago doesn't have HDMI/DVI. But I guess that the MPAA and company are comitted to making it obsolete and I should give up on what I prefer.

Mod Parent Up!

[ZephyrXero]

Nice to see someone who actually knows something about the technologies chiming in ;)

Both are Stillborn due to Excess DRM.

[guidryp]

The market for those that have equipment that can show the resolution difference of HD content is pretty small. DVD offered something for everyone, HD offers something for a tiny percentage.

Infintesimally small percentage when you factor in the ultra DRM on these machines that require DRM connections everywhere in the chain or drops back to standard DVD resolution by downsampling.

I would be a prime candidate for next generation disk, I have been completely turned off by DRM overkill. So while at first I was drooling over the possability of HD LOTR goodness, I have completely given up caring as I won't be buying in for the DRM from hell setup.

And you can bet the vast majority of people like my Mom and Grandmother who only have DVD because I bought them one will NEVER swith.

I think it is toast just like the DRMd Super Audio CDs...

It's more expensive, more restrictive, more complicated, but hey you get better quality if you have all the right gear and the planets align.

The differences, Torrent of a HD-DVD, and a plan

[benwaggoner]

Capacity differences won't be that big a deal here - both are very large for movie content.

Video codecs are the same.

Copy production is likely to be the same.

But there still are significant differences:

First, you can make a HD-DVD today. Apple's DVD Studio Pro 4, which shipped a few months ago, can make a HD DVD disc. I've made two so far. Heck, here's a torrent to a copyright-free one:

http://216.99.212.233:6969/torrents/HD_DVD_TEST.dm g.torrent?1C6B407CD6671B2BB03F55C49D67CEB584A74D90

The only player I've tested so far is DVD Player 4.6, running on a Mac G5. I believe Moonlight will be releasing a player for Windows soon. But from a first mover perspective, HD DVD is quite a bit close to having content be released. I wouldn't be surprised if there are 100+ HD-DVD discs on the market before the first Blu-ray.

HD-DVD requires very little capital cost to add to a current DVD production line. Not true of Blu-ray.

Blu-ray has a thinner plastic layer, so all things being equal, it won't be as durable.

And lastly, Sony has lost EVERY consumer format war they've participated in these last few decades. If anything, them owning content has proved to be more disynergistic than synergistic. Other media companies would be more interested in UMD if Sony didn't own a competing company.

Honestly, as others have posted, it's much worse to have two good formats than one, since customer confusion could sink both (leaving HD IPTV a likely winner). Better for the industry to coalesce around one format and declare it an early winner.

I pick HD-DVD, mainly because I can already make them, and I know it's already good enough. If we just had Blu-ray, I'd back it enthusiastically, but I think it's better we geeks declare a winner early (even if it's arbitrary) to avoid a drawn out format war. It's better for one to lose quickly.

You left out a few

[ahecht]

By my count, these are the current (or almost released) formats: CD-ROM CD-RAM CD-R CD-RW DVD-ROM DVD-R DVD-RW DVD-R DL DVD-RW DL DVD+R DVD+RW DVD+R DL DVD+RW DL To which we can add: BD-ROM BD-R BD-RW HD-DVD HD-DVD-R HD-DVD-RW

A torrent to an actual HD DVD disc

[benwaggoner]

Folks,

I also posted this as a reply, but I figured some non-nested browsers might want to see this as well.

If I could break with Slashdot tradition and post an actual example instead of half-understood innuendo, here's an actual HD-DVD for your edification

I made a HD-DVD a few weeks ago with Apple's DVD Studio Pro 4. Here's a torrent to a .dmg file of it. The only player I've tested this with is DVD Studio Pro 4.6 on a Mac G5, but I think there is a beta Moonlight player that could do this as well. I'd be curious to hear about anyone not on a G5 Mac that can get this to play.

It's nothing fancy, but I say a big advantage of HD DVD is that I CAN ALREADY MAKE THEM!

http://216.99.212.233:6969/torrents/HD_DVD_TEST.dm g.torrent?1C6B407CD6671B2BB03F55C49D67CEB584A74D90

Re:A torrent to an actual HD DVD disc

[DarkEdgeX]

For people reading this and buying into his arguments, please read my response, already posted to him elsewhere in this story.

BTW: Another thing to consider is that BluRay drives/burners will be coming out in August or shortly thereafter (from Pioneer, should come out shortly after they release the Pioneer DVR-A10 / DVR-110 this month). I've read nothing about HD-DVD burners being available. On top of this, I've seen screenshots of Ahead's Nero Burning ROM with support for BluRay (it's listed as another media type alongside CD, DVD, etc). And Ahead's Nero InfoTool shipping right now will detect if a drive supports BluRay media. For the record: it does not detect HD-DVD capabilities.

As for authoring content, this is really a non-issue. You can use MPEG2 with BluRay and it'll work fine; and what's more, thanks to the extra storage space provided by BluRay, you won't have to sacrifice quality despite the higher bitrate than H.264/VC1. That just leaves the issue of authoring menus/interactive content, and honestly, I'm not too worried about that. Sony owns a nice stable of video production tools and they'd be fools not to update them to work with their new BluRay format. Couple that with the support in Nero for burning the media and, as far as the PC is concerned, the only thing holding back BluRay production is the lack of physical drives to burn the discs with.

Re:A torrent to an actual HD DVD disc

[evilviper]

It's nothing fancy, but I say a big advantage of HD DVD is that I CAN ALREADY MAKE THEM!

What are you talking about? You don't have an HD-DVD burner, I'm sure. If you're just talking about making the HD-DVD image, well hell, anybody can make an image for any format once the specs are out. The codecs are all standard stuff that's been around for a couple years.

In other words ZERO advantage. 100% bullshit.

Re:A torrent to an actual HD DVD disc

[evilviper]

I'd be curious to hear about anyone not on a G5 Mac that can get this to play.

Remember me?

I've (partially) downloaded that torrent, and had no problems what-so-ever playing it with MPlayer on Linux.

Any x86 OS with MPlayer (or Xine) should have no problems playing it. In time, native WMV3 implimentations will become available, and non-x86 systems will be able to play it with MPlayer/Xine/VLC.

It adds up.

[gumpish]

45GB for HD-DVD vs. 50GB for Blu-ray isn't that big a difference...

I'll just bet you're one of those marketroids working for a storage manufacturer that likes to define 1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes. Bastage!

Re:It adds up.

[rwise2112]

Fargin bastages! Iceholes!

You too can be Joe Six-pack

[jahknow]

In short Joe Sixpack has a better theatre setup than I do.

But here's the catch: Joe Sixpack is 39 and still lives with his mum.

will this still be when both are available?

[Anonymous Coward]

sadly enough vhs vs betamax was before i had any technical knowledge, but from what i hear betamax had superior quality, but vhs was probably cheaper.
i can imagine when people get polled before release they want the best things, but when they're actually in the store, they look at their wallet and choose the cheapest solution...

They've definitely learned from that *big* mistake

[vlad_petric]

They allow xxx-rated movies on the PSP.

Re:Price Difference

[vertinox]

There is quite a different between $5 and $10 for a disc vs $20,000 and $100,000 for a car.

I think people would most likely not flinch at a $5 price difference but I don't see discs being $20 in price difference.

But obviously, if the choice in the store was Debbie Does Dallas at $40 on Blue Ray vs Toy Story on HD-DVD for $10 then we already know which one is going to win out.

Hint: Not the one with Tom Hanks :)

Next Headline!

[DanielNS84]

Majority Of Customers Prefer FX-57
Posted by Zonk on Friday July 15, @08:54AM
from the we-have-a-winnah dept.
bonch writes "A poll shows FX-57's as the preferred choice, as conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates. Customers were given a side-by-side comparison of Pentium Pro's and FX-57's. The results were that 58 percent of the 1,200 polled chose the FX-57, and 26 percent were undecided. Generally speaking, the Pentium Pro is preferred by those seeking to reduce manufacturing costs while FX-57's is preferred by those more interested in features and speed." Alienware's Aurora is to use the FX-57.

And you missed out one as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed out DVD-RAM (which is actually my current favorite format for backups - for me they're the new floppies).

Although I also have a wonderful LG drive that does all CD and DVD formats in one (so I buy DVD-RAM disks for rewritable use and DVD+R for permanent burning as the booktype can be set to DVD-ROM - this means that disks play back in most drives that normally only work with pressed ROM disks).

Get your numbers right

[BobPaul]

45GB for HD-DVD vs. 50GB for Blu-ray isn't that big a difference...

No, 5GB isn't that big of a difference. The problem is that in order to do 45GB, HD-DVD's need to use 3 layers, while they were only intended to ever do 2 layers. Yes, they did recently hit 3 layers, but they will probably never get to 4 layers and they will only be sold as 2 layers when they first come out.

Blue Ray was intended, right out of box to get to 8 layers. Right now with 2 layers they're at 50GB. They've already done 4 layers (100 GB) and wholey expect to get to the 8 layers in the future. This is a format with room to grow. HD-DVD just BARELY squeezed in 3 layers and still doesn't reach the capacity of a 2 layer Blu-Ray disk.

It's no contest.
200GB > 100GB > 50GB > 45GB > 30GB. (The two at the bottom are 3 and 2 layer HD-DVD respectively)
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!

Re:Get your numbers right

[Trejkaz]

Sizes aside, how is Blu-ray holding up for backwards compatibility with DVD?

And can't we just have drives which do both HD-DVD and Bluray so that people stop bitching either way?

Re:Get your numbers right

[BobPaul]

Someone (Toshiba I think?) did a test with a blue ray disk that had 1 layer of standard DVD and then 2 layers of blue ray. This would allow the movie only on the standard DVD layer (4.5gb) but allow for the full range of extras on the other layer.

The HD-DVD camp did a test that had a Single layer of normal DVD and then a single layer of the HD-DVD. Now that they're up to 3 layers, I would imagine they could do a 1 and 2 just like the blue ray camp did.
--
Don't fight Firefox! Let FireFox fight YOU!

Re:Get your numbers right

[Trejkaz]

That's getting pretty interesting. I wonder whether it will end up that someone makes a disk that has a layer of DVD, a layer of HD-DVD and a layer of Bluray. ;-)

Customers?

[Morinaga]

Excuse me but who are these customers that use both of these products?

OH, I think I understand now. By "customers" they really mean "of people given a demonstration".

So if we go in to the way-back machine and do the same thing with VHS vs Beta would we find that these same "customers" chose Beta?

Real customers prefer something when it has been used by them in a non-controlled environment. Especially when the old Coke vs Pepsi taste testers aren't wearing large large Pepsi T-shirts and hand you a flat, luke-warm Coke.

How seriously can you take such a poll when it the artile begins, "A poll conducted by the group backing the Blu-ray next-generation DVD standard shows..."?

So I'm clear, Blu-ray promoters take a "poll" and it somehow it turns in to "A majority of customers prefer Blu-ray"? It's amazing how informal polls of people trying to avoid survey takers in a mall somewhere turns in to "customers prefer". I find marketing very fasinating because of how inept it appears when I get hit up for a tampon commercial during a football game. Then I see something like this when a promoter can get headlines such as this one. Nice job guys, you earned every penny on this one.

How many preferred DVD without DRM shit?

[kt0157]

How many people preferred to do nothing and stick with DVD when they were told they'd have to upgrade to Longhorn and/or buy a new TV with DRM shit in order to watch it?

Me mememememememeeeee! So that's at least 1.

K.

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you get an HD-DVD burner? Or do you mean you theoretically made an HD-DVD?

Re:What?

[benwaggoner]

I made a HD DVD format disc, on red laser media.

So it's high definition media and all, but with a capacity of only what DVD-9 can do.

That said, I'll expect a lot of early HD DVD titles to be done that way, since for shorter content without much extras, and using H.264 or VC-1, DVD-9 is easily enough space.

Bear in mind that the 2-hour test I did was with MPEG-2. It would have been perfect quality if the tool supported 1080p24 H.264, which it doesn't yet for some reason.

Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan already has Blu-Ray recorders and readers, and Sony is about to come out with their second gen or them. Over there, Blu-Ray seems to be catching on.

"These days, the 4.7 Gigabyte DVD disc is on the high-end of our optical storage capacity, as we are still waiting for Blu-Ray to reach our shores. The Japanese don't have this problem as they have been able to purchase Blu-Ray recorders/players for a while. In fact, Sony is already selling their second generation of recorders. The single-side cartridge media holds 23 GB, with plenty of room for future improvement." Toms Hardware Guide : http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050715_1350 22.html

Mod parent down, WRONG

[DarkEdgeX]

I already corrected you elsewhere in this same topic. ROTK:EE simply will not fit on HD-DVD without a visible and quantifiable quality loss (both in video and audio). Not to mention that extras will not fit on the same disc as the movie (while with BluRay, it's very likely possible they could squeeze ROTK:EE onto a single BluRay disc).

And you know how?

[benwaggoner]

Well, you asserted a different opinion than I did, but as you're wrong, I don't consider it a correction :).

Why don't you back up and explain why you think it will be impossible. I think I've explained why I think it would be.

And again, bear in mind I've actually personally put a two hour feature on a HD DVD format disc as a test, so I'm basing my assertion on some practical experience here.

data layer physical layer

[benwaggoner]

Er, isn't the image the more interesting thing?

Which would you rather have? A disc image of a good DVD, or a DVD-ROM of a bad AVI?

Data trumps the physical layer. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of early HD titles wind up on DVD-9 medium, since it'll be a little cheaper, and will also be playable in lots of computers as well as new players.

I can make a 2 hour movie on a disc that'll play in HD-DVD players in HD. I can do it on DVD-9 today, and on a blue laser format before long. This is a good thing.

I know because I learned math

[DarkEdgeX]

I'm not going to continue to beat you with facts-- why not follow the link where I presented hard numbers, something you haven't done, and where I explained the math so that even a 4 year old could follow along and see how wrong you are.

The fact of the matter is this: for reasons that escape me, you seem heavily biased towards HD-DVD. Perhaps you've some stake in it (training, consulting, or something else?), or perhaps you're genuinely naive. In any event, despite your insistance that ROTK:EE would work fine on HD-DVD, the fact is, it wouldn't without sacrificing quality (lower video bitrate, fewer audio options / lower audio bitrate), convenience (in order to maximize quality, video would need to be split to two discs), content (extras would need to be either left out entirely or put on a seperate disc) or some combination of the above.

Re:I know because I learned math

[benwaggoner]

Our fundamental disagreement is on two points.

#1: What data rate is required for "good enough" HD with VC-1 or H.264 for a movie like RotK. I think it's lower than you're asserting, and I think this based on my own experience encoding very similar content.

#2: Whether or not high quality lossy compressed audio is acceptable. I argue that 1 Mbps compressed audio is more than good enough for even very high end home theater installations with very picky listeners.

If I'm wrong on 1 & 2, than yes, your math is correct. But if I'm correct, than disc capacity isn't a significant restraint in this case. So, care to make a more specific stab at arguing those?

Now, certainly, one can define an edge case where Blu-ray needs only 1 disc and HD DVD needs two. But in the case of the longest film out there with significant Slashdot cred, I don't feel this is the limitation. For this particular movie, one can put the whole title on one dual-layer side of HD-DVD with a reasonable number of high quality audio tracks (certainly as many and better than what's on the DVD).

Now, yes, it might be possible that the Blu-ray version could use extra capacity to put the standard def features on the same disc. But if the extra stuff is also HD, both formats will probably require two discs.

Re:data layer physical layer

[evilviper]

Er, isn't the image the more interesting thing?

No, not at all. The image is pretty trivial to make, whereas fitting a large quantity of data on a (relatively) cheap media is the interesting part.

I can make-up an image format for a 100TB disc if you want, and start releasing images for it (to be recorded to disc when it comes out in 50 years).

Which would you rather have? A disc image of a good DVD, or a DVD-ROM of a bad AVI?

This really makes no sense at all. The content is the same either way. Whether you've converted the video to DVD-Video or an MPEG file on a DVD-ROM, makes no difference to me. It is trivial to convert one to the other.

Data trumps the physical layer.

Sure, but how does that (in your mind) somehow give HD-DVD any advantage at all over BluRay? The physical layer is the interesting part, because the data is (almost exactly) the same either way.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of early HD titles wind up on DVD-9 medium, since it'll be a little cheaper, and will also be playable in lots of computers as well as new players.

Actually, that's the case right now. Besides Terminator 2, there's also a lot of IMAX movies that come on a DVD-9 in HD-WMV. If not for the dammed DRM, I would buy a few.

I've already seen plenty of HD material available for download. Star Wars Episode 2 and Terminator 3 in 720p. They're about 4GBs each and look quite good. It's just a shame there aren't any GOOD movies available in HD yet (without loads of DRM).

Re:data layer physical layer

[benwaggoner]

Listen, my point is that the fact I can make the disc image is an advantage to HD DVD, since it gives me a quite meaningful sense of compression efficiency today. I can't make a Blu-ray disc today for testing, which is a disadvantage to its format.

Make sense?

Re:data layer physical layer

[evilviper]

Make sense?

No, none. Sorry.

since it gives me a quite meaningful sense of compression efficiency today

What the heck are we talking about? HD-DVD and BluRay both use exactly the came video codecs, so the "compression efficiency" should be exactly the same with BOTH. If that's not what you meant, please explain.