Slashdot Mirror
Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD Not Over Yet
samkass writes "Here is a good summary of the latest technical wheeling-and-dealing between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Among things that were new to me: the addition of a "red" 9GB HD format to Blu-Ray that would make initial Blu-Ray content (that fits) even cheaper than HD-DVD. Also, more discussion about managed copy (AACS, BD Plus, and ROM Mark) and iHD (HD-DVD) vs BD-J/Java (Blu-Ray)."
Isn't Blu-Ray Sony's technology? Does it come with a free rootkit?
I'll be damned it I buy with my own money a device that decides where, how and in what way I watch the media I buy with my other money. Get me a DRM-Free device and I'll rush to buy it.
What would porn choose?
I don't get it.
"The resulting disc will be encoded with a high-definition video codec, and though it will be a red-laser disc (not a blue-laser disc as used by the other formats within the Blu-ray Disc specifications), it will only play back in Blu-ray Disc players and recorders. Even though vendors will be able to manufacture the disc on existing DVD production lines, it is clearly not the same as an HD-DVD. (One of HD-DVD's strengths is its purported ability to be produced at a low cost on existing, albeit modified, DVD production lines)."
If it's existing DVD production, is it readable by *existing* DVD players like those in a computer. In other words can I get a codec and play it in a PC, (even if I need to update the DVD firmware to do it)?
Sure the codec means it won't immediately be playable on the DivX/MPEG4/DVD boxes, but can it play on a PC?
If they can do that, that would be a HD-DVD killer.
Anything that supports Sony's Blu-Ray will not be supported by me personally, or grudgingly from my company. When you can't trust your supplier's scruples, you can't sell their products to the end user.
So, personally, anything using Blu-Ray will not be purchased by me.
Company wise, Blu-Ray will only be used at the express request from the customer.
I don't care! I don't care if BluRay is technologically superior to HD-DVD. I don't care if I can fit a whole extra GB on one type of disk, or if the other uses a slightly higher laser frequency, or if one can be be-rewritten 2billion times instead of "only" 1.7billion. Don't give a shit, thanks anyway!
Just agree on a fucking format and stick with it. I won't be buying anything; either BluRay or HD-DVD, until one format is clearly ahead. That means you; every single one of you petty little bastards, will lose out. Just like you all lost on on DVD writer format wars. Do I care what the difference is between DVD-R & DVD+R? Have I ever even seen a DVD-RAM disc? Fuck no, I just want to write a DVD that can be read in other drives. How much R&D did you all waste? How much additonal design is required to acomodate all these different standards? How many sales oppurtunities have been wasted because you've confused the market?
Same thing here. Now get on with it.
At 9GB the short answer is no. Most likly the laser spacings will be tighter, this adjustment can be done easily on the production lines, but much more difficult to do on the average player.
You can't polish a turd, no matter how big and blue it is.
Oh really, and MS support via the 360 for HD-DVD won't have a cancelling effect on this?
This keeps getting stated on here, and it is entirely untrue. People are confused because Microsoft tepidly put their backing behind HD-DVD, yet the Xbox360 actually uses neither - it is standard old school 9GB DVD.
"Blu-ray Will Win a Pyrrhic Victory Over HD-DVD."
So, they will win the platform war, but so many Sony employees will be killed in the process that it will be judged to have not been worth it?
Bold prediction there.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
If Sony's new tech patent that allows discs to "lock in" to the first device they play on makes it into Bluray, you can bet your ass I'll be buying HD-DVD. While one could argue "but PS3 is going to be bluray!" I'll argue back that PS3 isn't looking all that hot these days. Personally, I'll be buying the format whose copy-protection is most flawed. I intend to keep my movies for longer than 5 years, and I don't think the solution to bit-rot is to buy the damn discs again in 10 years.
------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
You take the blue laser and the story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red laser and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the data pits go.
The bottom line is which format holds more data, is cheaper and is consumer-friendly, IMHO.
From http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#1.5 and http://www.hddvdprg.com/hddvd/hddvd_3.html
---How much data can you fit on a Blu-ray disc?
A single-layer disc can fit 23.3GB, 25GB or 27GB.
A dual-layer disc can fit 46.6GB, 50GB or 54GB.
HD-DVD can hold 15, 30, 32GB
---How much video can you record on a Blu-ray disc?
Over 2 hours of high-definition television (HDTV) on a 25GB disc. About 13 hours of standard-definition television (SDTV) on a 25GB disc.
HD-DVD can hold 4hrs HDTV on 15GB disc, 8hrs HDTV on 30GB disc
---How fast can you read/write data on a Blu-ray disc?
According to the Blu-ray Disc specification, 1x speed is defined as 36Mbps.
HD-DVD speed is 36.55Mbps
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
While all these corporations squabble endlessly over proprietary formats, hardware specs, marketing schemes, and temporary alliances, the fact is that the true future of digital content distribution WILL be online.
Not likely. Perhaps when FIOS becomes commonplace and available to every person on the face of the planet, but there is no chance that the mainstream user will accept on-line access as the only way to gain video in the near future.
A two-hour movie in really good, MPEG-2 quality takes up approximately 7-8 GB, depending on audio options. Even with a 6 Gb cable connection, that takes roughly three hours to download. (For those who hadn't noticed, that means that it would take longer to download than to watch, so streaming at full quality is not an option.)
Now, bring in HD. About 75 minutes of HD-quality material takes roughly the same amount of space. Expand that to a 2-hour movie and you're looking at anywhere between 12-14 GB of data. That same 6 Gb cable connection would take about six hours to download that movie. In the same amount of time, I could have run to the nearest BR/HD-DVD rental store, watched the movie -- possibly twice -- and returned it. This of course assumes that your "unlimited use" ISP doesn't then knock your ass down for using up "too much" of your "unlimited use" bandwidth after downloading three or four HD movies. And don't even THINK about doing streaming HD unless you've got some enormous network pipe to your house!
Even discounting the fact that every house will NOT be connected via FIOS (or even broadband) in the coming years, thus requiring a physical medium in order to watch the video content, people want a physical medium without restrictive DRM. That has been proven time and time again. The recent Sony debacle should be proof enough of that. People are obviously buying physical discs even though the music is available on-line.
Video games are also sold on-line by a lot of different vendors for a discounted price, yet boxed media are still preferred. Why? Because there is a comfort factor in having the disc in your hands, not worrying about if your computer is connected to the Internet in order to install and play it. There's also no concern about downloading it again or having to authenticate it again (for the most part), and so on.
Ah, so then comes the argument about backing the movies or games off to another medium in the event of a recovery or for backup purposes. Oh, wait. We can't use that argument because there is no need for physical media if everything is distributed on-line! You said so yourself.
On-line definitely has its place. The success of iTunes and the recent announcements by major networks to have their shows distributed electronically is definitely a step toawrds on-line distribution. But unless you plan on every house in the world having a dedicated DS3 connection, the notion that all material - particiularly HD - will be distributed exclusively through digital means is preposterous at best and will likely not come in any of our lifetimes. I guess that you also expect people to have multi-terrabyte storage for each system as well. After all, all of that content has to be stored somewhere when it's downloaded. Or did you actually expect people to be on-line for every movie that they want to watch? Well, I guess that makes a market for automotive broadband on the newest Winnebago line, doesn't it?
Oh, and by the way -- ALL technology is "temporary" because new technology is always evolving from old technology. So, your statement about "temporary technology" alone is fallacious.
In the meantime, please let us know what it is that you have been smoking because it seems like it's some really good shit. The fact that you've been modded as "Insightful" is staggering - or else it's indicative that mod points shouldn't be handed out as much as they are.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
I favor the boycott approach to both formats for now.
e ature_id=01&tree=&itempath=&model_id=MDL101546
There are several formats that can be used to create HD content on existing DVD disks.
Windows HiDef Media
Divx
Quicktime (via h.264/mpeg4)
H.264 (mpeg4)
H.264 is the future of HD broadcast and you can fit an entire 2 hour HD (720p or 1080i/p) movie on existing DVD disks with room to spare
JVC already has a player out that plays all these formats including m2t files (HDV in mpeg2 format)using existing DVD writable formats.
We should simply bypass Sony and Toshiba and finally use our PCs and home theater servers the way we want to.
And it would all be legal.
Funny thing is, for once, MS is on our side, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
here is the link to the jvc SRDVD-100U
http://pro.jvc.com/prof/Attributes/features.jsp?f
Has built in ethernet and streaming capabilities (movies, audio...). Pretty cool, but may be to expensive to some.
All I saw was "HD-DVD 9GB HD HD-DVD AACS, BD Plus, and ROM Mark iHD (HD-DVD) vs BD-J/Java (Blu-Ray)"
My acronym cup runneth over...
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
VHS, by a resounding, total victory. This despite the fact that neraly all broadcast material was produced on the professional Betacam format. So why'd +- both survive where there was only one video format? Compatibility. It is trivial to build drives that can write both + and - disks, in fact I can't find one that won't write both any more. Also, both read in almost all drives. There are some that have problems with one or the other, but it's pretty rare. So, that being the case, consumers don't give a shit. They'll just buy whatever is cheap and/or convenient.
Not the case with HD-DVD and Blu-ray. They aren't compatible and it looks like no plans to make it so. So you need one player for one, a different one for the other. History has shown that shit won't fly. People will buy one format, not two. So there's very likely to be a winner and a loser in this format war unless dual HD-DVD/Blu-ray players come out.
Read the article, Blu-Ray allows just as much freedom in copying media (which is to say a vrey protected version of same).
Consider that Apple and Sony and HP and Dell are all in the Blu-Ray consortium, whereas over on the HD-DVD side there's Microsoft and... I'm not sure who else but not many other major tech companies. Which format do you think is going to be more able to allow copying between many different devices from different manufacturers (again all protected of course) instead of just between different Microsoft products?
If your idea of freedom is being able to buy whatever form of Microsoft box you like to play media - count me out!
I'm sure neither of course will let you play media on Linux, so to say you prefer one over the other is to proclaim allegence to only one particular brand of salt to the exclusion of all others.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley