Slashdot Mirror
HD DVD vs Blu-ray Direct Comparisons
An anonymous reader writes "With today's release of three movies on Blu-ray, Warner Home Video has become the first studio to release movie titles on both high-def formats, making it finally possible to do an apples-to-apples comparison of the same titles on both formats . High-Def Digest has just posted reviews of all three titles — 'Training Day,' 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang' and 'Rumor Has It' — comparing video, audio and extras to the previous HD DVD releases. Their verdict? Due to issues with image cropping, audio selection and supplemental features on the Blu-ray discs, the HD DVD versions win this first face-off."
Earlier adopters are the only ones that will see these shortcomings in either format.
Once it matures, who's going to know the difference. After reading all three of these fluffy articles, I still have no idea which format is "better" because there was no control.
I choose Betamax.
My ZooLoo
Review summary: Training Day was boring on HD-DVD, but very interesting on Blu-ray.
Training Day Kiss Kiss Bang Bang Rumor Has It
This post climbed Mt. Washington.
neither.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Hooray for the terrific initial movie titles released!!
So are the image problems are result of the encoding technique used on the blue-ray? You'd think with the increase in disc size that they would use a better scheme. Is this a fault of the movie producer or Sonys default encoding scheme? Anyone have any ideas???
Consumers.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Isn't the PlayStation 3 essentially going to decide the "better" format? If* the PS3 sells in large volumes, then that means that Blue Ray will be de facto High Definition format?
*When
Summation 2
Summary: HD-DVD beat Blu-Ray in all 3 of the movies.
Like I've been saying, it's VHS and Betamax all over again, even with Betamax losing.
Looks like Sony is loosing it on all fronts lately. The only reason they are still alive, is that they have deep pockets (still)... The concept was great, but I guess they overcomplicated Blu-Ray technology with those extra (and useless) content protection layers that their engineers could not deliver in time and they shipped it half-baked. Too bad. Let's see if they can regroup...
Early in the life of DVD, The Matrix was the one disc that really got a lot of attention. It's what convinced me that DVD was more than worth the cost - from the surround sound to the higher definition playback, it was plainly superior. Seeing it on VHS and then on DVD made me realize how much I was missing from the experience. I have yet to see either new format in action, but from all I've heard, there is no compeling reason (even when it becomes affordable) for the average Joe to upgrade from DVD to HD or Blu-ray. I highly doubt those three movies above are going to convince anyone.
They're using two different players. Doesn't that invalidate this test?
Unless there is a player out there that supports both formats, no. Mind you, it mind be far easier to build a machine to play either format than building a VCR that could play both VHS and Beta.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
Authoring can also cause major differences.
A studio may provide more resources and time for one format and not another, causes inequalites in the final product.
Because the Playstation 3 will not achieve the type of market dominance the PS2 has. Not even in your Sony fanboy wet dreams.
Well, if this were a truly scientific experiment, then yes, the lack of a control would invalidate the results. However, the review is ultimately going after something a little more nebulous, the movie watching experience, even if they don't explicitly say such.
Moreover, doesn't the hardware's quality speak volumes about a formats potential in the market place? If the players don't work properly, who gives a flying f#@k about how great the format is? Especially since Sony will likely keep the price of blu-ray players artificially inflated b/c they're, you know, Sony.
my pet machine
Who buys it? People who have disposible income I guess. Time and again people buy products that get obsoleted by new models or new technology but it shouldn't be factor in whether you buy something now. How times do people buy new computers or cars? If you can afford it and you feel you'd appreciate it or get your moneys worth, go for it.
15 years ago I had a room mate that refused to buy audio CD's because he figured something was bound to replace it soon. I suppose now that iTunes is available he's waiting on the next big thing to supplant it. I never felt that was a good way to base my purchases on.
Especially since I mostly watch HD for Sports, not movies. DVD quality movies still look quite nice on my TV... Good enough that I don't have any reason to blow $1,000 on a new format that has almost no movies. It's just not a big enough jump over DVD for me to care. I've got better things to spend that kind of money on.
Because until people buy them, there can't be a winner. Compulsive buyers of bleeding edge tech are needed to produce the winner in the first place.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is different because these are two competing technologies. Not buying CDs because something better will come out is just ignorant because there is no alternative. CDs were clearly the go ahead platform, whereas blu-ray and hddvd is undecided. One will eventually go away leaving the other the winner... thus the VHS/Betamax analogy.
http://religiousfreaks.com/In cases of monopoly this might make sense, but Sony is trying to lauch a new format here. Keeping the prices inflated (for any reason) is going to drive consumers towards HD-DVD.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
Or, at least, my prediction has further evidence. :)
I have a simple rule these days about deciding what formats to pick. I simply pick "not Sony" and I'm pretty much always right. Sony stuff seems to look good on paper, but the implementation ends up sucking.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It's an unfair comparison. The first batch of Blu-Ray video releases are still using MPEG-2 rather than AVC or VC-1, and the only available player out there so far (Samsung) is broken.
Besides, between the two formats there's no quality difference when both are using the same encoding and resolution. Not counting Blu-Ray's superior physical characteristics (which give it greater storage capacity), it will come out the victor anyway, as it has far better studio support.
The real question is this: are you happy with what you have? DVDs suit me better than VHS because they do not degrade and I can skip through them instead of having to fast and rewind. What do these new technologies bring to the table? Better image quality. Honestly I am perfectly happy with DVD quality, therefore I will be saving my money for something better.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
This is not surprising at all.
Until Sony actually finds their brain and starts using modern compression techniques(y'know, ones that aren't a decade old), this will only continue. Really, MPEG-2? H.264 and the HD-DVD VC1 completely blow MPEG-2 out of the water with regards to quality/space. The Blu-Ray discs' extra space might make it closer when they start making dual-layer discs, but that's far away, and unless they also switch compression, HD-DVD will still be better.
And what does all this mean? Nothing of course. If the public actually sees fit to buy these clunkers in droves, then whoever has advertising wins. I do hope they both flop, but that's an argument for another day.
At some point you have to expect that a comparison is between things that are different, and there aren't any players capable of playing both formats.
What's frustrating about this test, though, is that there are so many differences between the players that it would almost seem necessary to go through a calibration routine with each player to ensure that the display device was properly calibrated for the source.
It'd also be nice to take the results of the test to the respective manufacturers and ask them about the output from each player and see if they have any feedback about the problems; the fact that the Samsung player is so new and that patches and firmware upgrades are likely probably makes an early comparison like this meaningless.
The technically superior standard almost never wins in the US.
We chose x86 over PPC
We chose VHS over BetaMax
We chose 8VSB over OFDM (for HDTV Broadcasting)
We chose CDMA over GSM (only just now starting to change)
And now we will probably end up with BluRay because of some gaming console... (PS3)
No mention of DRM and spyware...
Me I will wait until the players are $99 and the labels have "Spyware free" stamped on them. I am still causious after the Sony/MGM root kit. Let us not forget.
This is especially true with blu ray because they're using MPEG-2 which is what standard DVD are encoded as. HD DVD is using VC-1 (I think) which is superior. Blu ray supports VC-1 they just haven't gotten around it releasing movies with it.
In cases of monopoly this might make sense, but Sony is trying to lauch a new format here. Keeping the prices inflated (for any reason) is going to drive consumers towards HD-DVD.
This is SONY we're talking about. They don't know how to push a new format; They think that by pushing it at a high price it'll drive the format. They haven't learned any lessons in 20 years.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
PLEASE, WAKE UP: Warner Home Video Inc. is member of the HD DVD Promotion Group.
So what would you expect? A better Blu Ray release?
The VHS/Betamax war was in the early 80s. Who of the "early adopters", who are usually between 20 and 30 years old, would remember that?
Besides, don't underestimate the "ohhh, shiny" effect.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Let us assume that the original content was identical (odds of being the same are slim) now my limited understanding of the details of these two formats aside. but MPEG2 is still MPEG2 no mater how the data is stored on the disc. AC3/DTS audio is still AC3/DTS audio regardless of the format of the disc. It's the players responsability to convert those 1 and zeros back into a media stream that then gets processed and transmitted to the output devices. what is really being compared in the reviews is not the content but the preparation methods used
Smile It hurts!
They do a faceoff with Criterion Collection versions for movies that actually matter.
How were they encoded? Which bitrates were used?
At the decoding, were there any noise-filter used?
How could the author called his monitor a HDTV reference when it's only capable of 1366 x 768 (which is not full HD but more like half-HD, full HD is 1920x1080)
Only the loser is already certain: The customer who lets himself be locked in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The problem the film industry has it that most modern films are rubbish. Most modern 'actors' and 'stars' are nobodies who got lucky. Have you seen Brad Pitt 'acting' in Twelve Monkeys? What a joke.
Hopefully one day soon, most of the public will get a clue and stop buying this rubbish - the vast majority of good films have already been MADE, and they are almost all available on DVD. DVDs work fine for me - I can back them up, I can make copies so I can put my original on the shelf and keep a copy upstairs and a copy downstairs. My DVD player's screen is only 7 inch - I don't need the extra resolution that the new format offer.
But when it comes to PC storage - they are a good idea. I can back up current DVD movies to them, thousands of MP3s, give them to friends, back up large parts of my hard drive (i.e. all my personal stuff, pictures, music that I made, standard applications that I need every day, etc.etc.)
The movie and music 'industries' are run by idiots with no taste. I for one don't give two hoots what either of them think about the new formats - I will wait until one has died, or until all recorders and players support both formats.
I keep hearing that the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD is just like the VHS vs Betamax from the past. There is a real problem with this analogy. With VHS vs Betamax, there wasn't any existing technology that did the same thing (unless you count reel projectors, which I don't). One of those technologies HAD to win because the market demanded the technology and there was no alternative.
The Blu-ray vs HD-DVD debate leaves out the very important aspect of existing DVD players and recorders. The market isn't really demanding a newer prettier picture quality or better sound or additional features that don't already exist on regular DVDs. With DVD-R camcorders now catching on in the consumer market, there's an even more compelling reason to stick with the older technology. It's an added feature the neither new format supports.
I predict that Blu-ray and HD-DVD will go the way of DAT and SACD. There may be a new format in the future but it's too soon and not advanced enough to take over the market. There will be a niche market for them just like Laserdisc for the true videophiles but that's all.
How about comparing both to DVD as well? I'd sure like to know why I am expected to pay 50% more for a blue-ray version of a movie than a regular DVD version.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Sony launched Betamax, Samsung launched VHS. One licensed their product to other vendors and the other didn't. Guess which? Sony hopefully learned from their mistakes in the 80's and plans to license their new technology to allow for better competition and pricing which is half the reason betamax failed. The other half is the fact that beta tapes could only hold 60 minutes while VHS tapes could hold a 2 hour movie which was a huge advantage and people flocked to VHS despite the better quality of Betamax. We'll see how this plays out.
I'm a bit confused... don't the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray specs both support the same video codecs (I believe the audio codecs between the two can differ)? But Blu-Ray supports a larger stream and larger available space. I believe they just had the specs for the two in the last Videographer and that's where I'm recalling this from, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong. In any case, if that is true, it makes no sense that Blu-Ray would be inherently worse quality... quite the opposite.
HOWEVER... that said, as someone else alluded to, if the ultimate output is worse, it's worse. It's the difference between theoretical and in practical. I would just keep in find that these are both first-gen players, which were probably somewhat rushed, to boot... and first-gen discs, so the art of compressing for next-gen discs certainly hasn't been mastered. In theory I would think Blu-Ray would have the edge, but we'll see how things pan out.
They're using two different players. Doesn't that invalidate this test?
The biggest HD-DVD supporter among the studios fucks up a Blu-Ray release? That alone should invalidate this test.
Thus spoke the voice of consumers everywhere!
The third most important thing I have learned in life: Squeeze anything hard enough and it eventually makes a noise.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'll stick with DVDs. Probably for another decade at least.
Same. If and when it stops becoming a valid option, I have pretty much resigned myself to not buying videos anymore.
Let's hear it for hollywood!
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Training Day
What?
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Who?
Rumor Has It
Wazzat?
These are their flagship release titles? Oh, I can't wait until these formats crater.
I am guessing it will go the way of DVD+- can anyone give reasons why we wont just see players that do both? Heck when was the last time you really had to pay attention to which DVD you bought? Almost everyone has +- players so I go for cheaper disks every time. I imagine that is what the blueray and HD-DVD will come down to. In the long run no one will really care, they will look for price and packaging, consumers dont care too much about the technology behind it.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
Indeed, VHS was initially inferior to Betamax but improved faster than Betamax. Sony also helped kill Betamax by refusing to release movies on it or sth(?)
Thus I predict BD will fail due to its Sony link.
AFAIK, all of the currentl BluRay movies were encoded with MPEG-2, even though the format supports MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 and VC1/WMV9.
In addition to the players, you have to expect differences due to the teams that put the releases together. If it's the same team and they're more familiar with HD-DVD, then they're likely to put together a nicer HD-DVD product. If it's a different team, then there might also be differences in skill level and quality control. Throw in differences in brand new, first generation players and you're unlikely to get a perfect apples to apples comparison of what the technologies are capable of.
Though this is certainly a good attempt at comparison, the real truth will only come from building concensuss over time.
TW
I think it's safe to say that Sony is the worst company in history when it comes to competance in launching new formats.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
What is there to compare here? The format of the media storage is completely irrelevant to the quality of the movie. The movie is encoded in a binary, compressed codec. The combination of the codec, the compression level, the decoder in the player, and the quality of the components in the player - these are what determine the quality of the movie.
And since both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray support the same codecs, it is almost totally dependant on the player. The disc format of the movie doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
What a stupid article. Why not write an article comparing a movie viewed in a white to a movie viewed in an black house? It would have about the same difference on image and sound quality.
In cases of monopoly this might make sense, but Sony is trying to lauch a new format here. Keeping the prices inflated (for any reason) is going to drive consumers towards HD-DVD.
It would be a perfectly valid argument except that Sony has a long track record of shooting themselves in the foot in exactly this manner.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Unless either of these formats is scratch resistant I think I'll stick with hardrives, thanks. How they ever got people to buy little disks that get the crap scratched out of them no matter what you do is beyond me - it's a recipe for paying for the same thing twice if you ask me.
Haiku for you!
BluRay and HDDVD support the same three video codecs: MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC (H.264), and VC-1 (WMV9).
AFAIK, all of the current BluRay titles were encoded with MPEG-2. I don't know about the current HDDVD titles.
It's anybodys guess at this point. PS3 is so overpriced at launch that it's no longer a done deal by a longshot. It all depends on what each console has to offer to gamers next holiday season. Xbox 360 has suffered due to lack of good exclusive titles, which supposedly is getting fixed this winter. At the same time PS3s launch lineup is still very much in the dark.
PS3 may still turn out to be the biggest turkey in the universe of game consoles, or it might pwn everything. At 300$ at launch it would absolutely surely wipe floor with everything.
At 599$, with crippled version having no HDMI, nobody knows what happens yet.
My personal bet is that X360-Wii -combo will beat PS3 for the first year, until lot more games are ready, and Sony, after bleeding for a while, goes for broke and drops the price. HD DVD/Blu-ray fight will be an irrelevant sideshow, as the movies are way overpriced and offer no serious benefits unless you buy a super-expensive TV. Whoever first gets the standalone player price down and offers more *movie* features wins. Additionally, if, say, HD-DVDs DRM gets cracked first, and people can start making 'backups' of their HD content bit like you can muck with DVDs today, Blu-ray will insta-lose the fight right there unless they can counter with technical merits (none so far, the formats are almost identical) or price (not likely with sony).
DVD format : born in 1995.
The matrix : made in 1999!
Four years later != "early in the life of DVD", dude. Are you sure you're not talking about another movie or format?
Anyway, I'm pretty much like you - I'll adopt whatever format will succeed, so no hard thoughts. But jesus christ, I couldn't stand VHS back when it was the ONLY thing available, just as I hated floppies of *any* kind. These things broke/deteriorated so damn fast and sometimes by their own damn selves that I was happy to embrace anything that resembled a CD.
For this format war - it's not going to be about the movies. It's going to be about marketing. And walk into any electronics or hi-fi store, and the same dumb "know-it-all", "you need at least two gigarams of speed to run microsoft word" clerk is always eager to sell... Sony products.
Of course, I hope my prediction is false! The biggest winner would be the hybrid/combo player that everyione can agree on. Meanwhile, I'll be perfectly happy with my divx player.
And I wasn't even using my "from on high" voice! About your sig: what are the first most important things?
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
I don't understand the big deal for both hd-dvd and blueray. The only reason I will be getting a blueray player is because I will eventually get a ps3. And I will be using the ps3 to play _GAMES_ not watching blueray movies. I do not care about either format and will continue to buy dvds. It just doesn't make sense to me to upgrade from dvd.
AFAIK, BluRay holds 25 GB (GigaBytes) per layer, and HDDVD holds 15 GB (GigaBytes) per layer. I have already seen 50 GB BD-ROM blanks at Frys (albeit for $39) so I know the dual layer BluRay discs are already possible. I've also heard that many HDDVD movies are shipping on 30 GB (dual layer) discs. That said, it is entirely possible that the current BluRay movies are shipping on single layer 25 GB discs to save money in manufacturing as it would be cheaper to stamp a single layer disc and "25 GB is close enough to 30 GB".
AFAIK, both BluRay and HDDVD support the same three codecs: MPEG-2, H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC), and VC-1 (WMV9).
AFAIK, the current BluRay authoring software only supports MPEG-2 at this time, so the initial discs were encoded with MPEG-2... even though VC-1 and H.264 codecs have been on the market for several years...
AFAIK, the current HDDVD authoring software supports MPEG-2 and VC-1, and the initial discs have been using VC-1.
We won't be able to see a true Apples to Apple comparison until we can compare two discs that used the exact same codec at the exact same bitrate, or even the exact same H.264 / VC-1 data.
Umm ... JVC launched VHS in 1976, not Samsung:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHS
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
One other thing to keep in mind is that the Samsung model used in the comparison has a now-known defect in one of the video chips, it is a chip for processing high-definition, it's not a format-specific chip. I would regard the video comparisons are completely moot until that gets fixed.
In the end, I expect both formats to have equivalent picture quality for movies, save for player-specific issues or mistakes in the authoring.
Even the audio feature comparisons are moot as far as I'm concerned. Except for deliberate choices (leaving out an audio track) or mistakes in the authoring, I don't expect there to be a difference because both formats generally allow the disc producer to use the same sets of audio codecs.
The whole idea of A-B comparison is interesting, but because, as you state, they haven't isolated all the variables, it really isn't sufficient.
I burn my movies to DVD... and sometimes.. if they're 700MB I even burn them onto CD...
Hey, that would make a good EFF anti-DRM video!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I agree about most movies these days being rubbish. It's like they don't want to think about making great movies these days. They just want to throw a bunch of money at some tired old formula and do a half assed job with it and expect to bank on that. I will say that I did enjoy Twelve Monkeys though. I am a Bruce Willis fan I won't lie heh.
As far as PC Storage goes I do agree, but the thing is I haven't even begun to take advantage of what DVD can do yet. I mean for people who do a lot of backups I can completely understand the need for more space, but I don't have that need. Large games or apps that come out haven't gotten to the point yet where they are taking up a bunch of DVD's (kind of like how some old games took up 10+ cds.. that bothered me). That's mostly what my DVD player gets used for in my computer. I burn a few movies here and there, but I mostly use it to either play music cd's, burn music cd's (mp3 cd's for my car... it would be great if it could play mp3's off dvd) and install apps/games. That's about it. I only backup important files and and that isn't very often. My music collection takes up the most space and I can burn it on just a few DVD's. I don't really need too since I own most of the CD's but I'm too lazy to rip them all again. Most Docs that I want to keep don't take up much space. 1 DVD is more than enough for me.
For me, a new format to replace DVD could stand waiting another 2 or 3 years.
All of the movies compared are older movies, granted, not too old, but old enough. I'd like to see a comparison side-by-side of something like A Scanner Darkly, or a brand new movie. The comparisons are still worthless because HD DVD has had more time for to be perfected, Blu-Ray is still in the process of getting better.
I'll stick with downloading movies from the net, and watching them on my 19" CRT monitor.
Yesterday I watched a 1280 pixel wide Blade Runner, which had amazing quality (it was a 3.8GB
factor 966971: 966971
The other interesting thing is that some features, such as the bookmarks for scenes, have nothing whatever to do with the medium on which the information is stored but just what the media packagers and media players want to do with various bits of information on that media.
However, as others have correctly noted, the problem here is that people do not evaluate things based on technical merit, but only on the experience they get from something. Unfortunately there is no way to get around this. Probably the most disturbing thing is that the author of the article, while noting in several places that there were certain differences in HDMI outputs, etc., failed to adequately describe the differences in the things he was analyzing.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Isn't this all really about enhanced DRM and content protection using the lure of higher definition -- that most of use won't really notice past a few feet, or care about after a few beers? Kind of a "ignore the man behind the green curtain" (Wizard of Oz) kind of thing?
Aren't these new players are designed to thwart fair use and be disabled remotely. What are we willing to give up for the bright and shiny pictures? Are we all fish? Until my current player dies, it's rather good enough for me.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Yes but without all these early adopters - where would the rest of us be? doesnt someone have to drive the bleeding edge so the rest of us can eventually buy or adopt a mature technology?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Due to issues with image cropping, audio selection and supplemental features on the Blu-ray discs, the HD DVD versions win this first face-off.
Okay, so due to issues WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FORMATS THEMSELVES, HD-DVD won. This means nothing.
Not only that CD's are way the hell better than Tapes. The difference is much larger than DVD -> Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.
Go back to listening to tapes for a while and you'll see. Want to listen to a song in the middle of the tape? Bah. Fast forward, hit play every few seconds to see where you're at, fast forward some more, oops passed it, rewind... ehh.. screw that.
Plus the quality of the sound, the amount of space they holds, the fact that they don't get warn out from over use (unless you scratch the hell out of it)...
The list goes on.
Nah, neither of these technologies will become "the next betamax".
They're more likely to both become the next SACDs and DVD-Audios...
Right now, I'm not seeing either being a roaring success. Sony's insistance on basing the PS3 on Blu-ray may help ensure the format isn't lost completely, but I'm seeing two scenarios playing out here.
The first is CD (DVD) and SACD (HDDVD) and DVD-Audio. (Blu-ray)
The other is VHS (DVD) and Laserdisc (one of these formats, probably Blu-ray.)
Most consumers, either way, will stick with DVD. It works. We already have large movie collections on DVD. The quality of DVD is fine - not perfect, but largely acceptable. There are no substantial operational improvements the new formats have over DVD. The user friendliness of the technology is the same. And the equipment needed for the new formats, for now, looks to be substantially more expensive.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
CDMA is the technically superior standard. Code Division Multiplexing allows much more efficient use of bandwidth than the much more simple Time/frequency Division Multiplexing that GSM uses.
The progression is Analog->TDM/FDM->CDMA
UMTS is also based on Code division multiplexing and is the intended successor to GSM for markets supporting GSM.
So in this case we chose right, we are now backtracking the pattern though.
I have read the articles, but I can't say that this is in favour of the author of the articles.. Why? since he comments on all BR's being a bit dark, and all the disks having a 'wrong' ratio should have rang a bell that it surely is the player... But the fact that the HD-sound tracks have been dumped doesn't bode well for the Blue Ray... And why the hell they chose to use Mpeg2 compression on BR while it could also be encoded in VC1 is a mistery... The only good comparison would be to rip the disks to Harddrive and then use the same player for comparison, that way, the standalone player can't be the problem.. I've got 3 different dvd-players, and they all have a different ratio and color when I put in the same dvd.. But I guess a really decent reviewer would have known of these kinds of things...
Hold on I was sure the blueray was the bigger size?
The biggest CURRENTLY AVAILABLE format is HD-DVD:
BluRay: 25GB/layer * 1 layer = 25 GB
HD-DVD: 15GB/layer * 2 layers = 30 GB
Furthermore, the video encoding scheme used by HD-DVD is more efficient--BluRay is still encoded similar to standard DVDs though in a few weeks some BluRay discs using identically encoded video as HD-DVD will start showing up. I'm not all that certain studios will spend extra money to produce excluseinve content to take advantage of the extra 5GB on HD-DVD.
One thing that isn't discussed much is that although the two formats can use identically encoded video, IIRC they have different DRM schemes and different programming methods (for interactivity/menus). The reviewer was quite disappointed with the performance of BluRay for interactivity--its responsiveness was much poorer than that of the HD-DVD release, so much so that it more than erased the benefit of faster initial start-up of Blu-ray. Combine the inferior quality of these releases with the fact that there is less selection of BluRay players, and they cost much more than HD-DVD, and the smaller number of titles than HD-DVD, and BluRay has an uphill battle on its hands to escape the fate of becomeing the Betamax of the 21st century.
Take note that BluRay has the largest POTENTIAL size. I THINK current BluRay players are dual-layer capable, but even if they are this capability isn't well tested as there is no capability to mass-produce dual-layer discs yet. That'll take another year, at which time there will be an ample 20GB extra room on BluRay vx. HD-DVD. If BluRay can hang on for another year then this could be what it needs to come out on top. More importantly studios will have to actually take advantage of the space for meaningful exclusive content, and hardware vendors will have to bring down the price of BluRay players to be much closer in price to HD-DVD. Consumers will pay a premium for the extra capacity, but only a small one, and the quality had better improve from the current offerings.
In the end though, content will win this war. Given how things are shaping up BluRay will be second fiddle for a couple of years IMO. I don't know if either format will win total domination either--in another decade it won't matter how the bits are patterned on the little shiny plastic discs, because even today the little shiny plastic disc as a distribution medium is slowly going extinct. The kind of people who have HDTV sets today are also the kind of people who have digital cable or sattelite, and digital HTDV service offers video-on-demand and/or PVR digital recording. Just as iTunes and similar services are surging as CD sales flatten out and decline, electronic distribution of video content will change the industry.
you WILL notice a difference on a 1080p projection screen or 42"+ 1080 HDTV (i.e. not that EDTV crap).
Not buying CDs because something better will come out is just ignorant because there is no alternative.
No alternative? I believe the parent mentioned iTunes and then of course you have mini-disc, sacd (still a "cd" but not a standard cd), and one or two dvd formats such as DVDA (I think that's what it's called).
If however you meant there is no easily accessible alternative for the majority of music then yea, you'd be correct. I know there isn't much on the dvd formats, or if there is I can't seem to find it which is why I only own a dozen or so titles in that format. I don't think much if anything was released on mini-disc... wasn't that more of a record-it-yourself format? And iTunes while being wildly popular doesn't yet have the selection of standard cd's.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
No, you're doing the wrong test. You need a typical crt based 27 inch television in a room with average lighting and a group of normal people. Then you let them watch the movies, but don't tell them if they are watching HD-DVD or Blu-Ray or plain DVD. Then you ask them for their opinion on which was best. Of course, since these are supposed to be HD formats, you would probably want to use an HD TV instead of that 27 inch TV, but you get the idea.
What is important is not which is technically the best, but what is perceived the best to the viewer. Also, not what is best under the optimum viewing conditions, but under the normal viewing conditions (since most people don't have the optimum viewing conditions).
Then the final question to ask the viewers, assuming if they can tell the difference between the formarts and the plain DVD, is give them the cost of the players and movies for the HD formatted movies compared with the plain DVD and ask them if, in their opinion, if they feel the improved quality is worth the extra price?
Unless you have a good tape player that senses the volume of the recording and continues playing when you hit the end of a song... ;)
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Do you just like to hear yourself talk?
Maybe they should tighten things up. Sony is way too loose! I hope they don't lose because of their looseness.
so... people still do not realize that Sony is not in "control" of this format? It is not a proprietary tech. Samsung is one of the 15 companies responsible for making blu ray, Sony is not.....and can not, force thier hand on the matter. This hate mongering for Sony on the web is leading to some very inaccurate statements and comparisons. Some people need to wake up and see the potential of Blu ray instead of harping it down because they want to see sony's demise.
And how many homes actually have such small-penis-compensating televisions?
I was pretty sure Warner was backing HD-DVD, and that this might be some weird attempt to sabotage Blu-Ray, and in searching for evidence (turns out my bizarre conspiracy theory was just that), i found this info:
i ng_article.cfm?article_id=8150
;)
http://www.homemediaretailing.com/news/html/break
Warner is actually banking on Blu-Ray, having officially signed up to support the media. So let's keep going with 'the player is the problem', i guess, if you're dead set on adopting Laserdisc2006 or whatever it is we're bickering about.
Not to mention that I can put DVDs on my iPod or computer for that long plane ride. I'll stick with CDs and DVDs as long as possible.
If both formats can provide similar experiences, wide adoption is more important. I think HD DVD will win because I think it is the cheaper and easier alternative. I say this because the manufacturing costs are lower, the player is cheaper, movies (hybrid dvd's aside) are cheaper, and there's a larger collection of HD DVD movies. All things, I think, are pointing to HD DVD since it's the path of least resistance. I think people are wishy-washy because they know they know Bluray to be the larger, albeit more expensive, of the two formats. HD DVD's are ultimately a better compromise and a more realistic successor to standard DVD's. For mass adoption, we basically need to think about middle america. I think Bluray is coming off as a upper-end product where HD DVD is much closer to the middle. Whomever gets closest to the meat of the market first will win - it's ultimately based on who has the movies and who has the cheaper player. Also, I just thought I'd mention Dune will be coming out on HD DVD sometime this year supposedly, so I'm looking forward to it.
For most of my friends and family, The Matrix was purchased a good 2 years after they bought their DVD players. Yes, it was a demanding video, and yes it's menu system required some fimrware updates on many older DVD players, but it was by no means an early DVD. By the time The Matrix was on DVD, most people already had DVD players. The last remining transition came when DVD players became cheaper than VHS players and tapes started dissapearing from store shelves, not because of The Matrix.
I think a determining factor will be which format gains a hold on the PC, affordable, burnable drive niche because the world seems to be leaning more and more towards downloadable media content.
The porn industry is going to decide this one, just like they decided the betamax vs VHS.
My wager is that they'll go HD-DVD, which means the rest of us will too, despite Sony's best efforts.
Training Day wasn't the first HD-DVD, btw, Island Fever 3 with Tera Patrick was.
Draw around the disc with a marker. Replace the power cable with a solid silver cable and plugs. Get video cables spun from the finest unobtanium by tibetan monks. It all makes a difference.
Some comparisons are inherently subjective. Making sure there is no bias is almost more important. For example, if you walked into the reviewers' house and found all Sony products there, they are going to be more inclined to lean the way of Sony on purely opinion based observations. Brand loyalty is invaluable to companies.
-- Dave
THat was all completely worthless and untrue. It's sad that it has been mentioned probably a million times over the last few months on slashdot that both HD-DVD and blu-ray have the same god damn aacs copy protection with ict. Search wikipedia for more details.
Hmmm... Pie...
Better image quality. Honestly I am perfectly happy with DVD quality, therefore I will be saving my money for something better.
/. favourite: more DRM, oh and they both still have region encoding.
You forget the
Truth be told if it wasn't for the region encoding, I wouldn't have a good reason to using solutions that get round the DRM.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
I've seen them at Best Buy, but not the same disc. Even so, the results of this article are suprising because the Blue Ray dispay at BB is a wonder to behold - colors so vivid its makes my mouth water. The HD display, on the other hand, looks dark - I wouldn't trade it for my home DVD player.
> he even states the cropping issue with blu-ray is "likely a player issue"
at the beginning he also stated that he was using the only blue-ray player available on the market. so that site appears to covers all you need to know if your considering a purchase, as a early adopter. (ie available content, available harware)
as far as the superior disk, ignoring all hardware issues, has to be the Blue-ray disk, because of pure size capabilty. after all packaging (media robust ness), cost, and algorithmic dificulty is all about manufacturing issues (proer CPU choice, volume discounts,...) But i don't see how theory has any bearing on anything usefull in the purely entertainment atmosphere of this topic, both formats are perfectly capable of storing enough HD content (unlike the VHS/betamax issues) so it is all about implementation, and appears Blue-ray is behind.
May have been 'born' in 1995, but remember that redbook audio CD was 'born' in the late 70's; wasn't widely adopted for quite a while.
Matrix was one of the first real blockbuster movies, released 'day and date' with the VHS version, and specifically designed to really showcase what DVDs could do.
Remember also that up until around '98/'99, we were still waging the battle against Circuit City's DivX format of pay-per-view discs.
1999 really was about when the format started to take off in a serious way. This was back when there were still complaints about day-and-date releases, knowledgeable insiders pointing out that there were warehouses full of Men In Black DVDs, and people were importing the laserdisc for The Phantom Menace from Japan, as Star Wars wasn't going to be released on DVD.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Why do you think it was posted Anon? Browse at +1.
I'm not a sports fan, though I am a movie buff. If I were to buy either HD format it would be for the movies. Sports would have been far down my list as a subject I would have thought would become an HD success. Clearly I was wrong. Not being a sports fan I've often wondered what HD adds to the game. Does it really look that much better?
Just curious.
TW
The only people who are worried about DRM are people like this.
The studios are only trying to protect themselves from thieves.
Managed Copy will allow you to make legal copies of your own movies.
Remember that the PS3 is gonna cost a fortune, and every hardcore gamer and magazine I know has been critical of it so far. You're right that it may help, but unless either BluRay or PS3 is a success first, it won't help the other much.
I wonder if either one of them will become a 'winner'. I know these can hold much more content, true HD quality, but, I'm just wondering how many of Joe Consumers out there are gonna flock to this?
I mean...DVD, is spread far into the general market. And I think the general public is quite happy with it. I dunno if HDTV or the HD dvd's are really presenting a compelling incentive to the avg. non-techie consumer to dump all they've just invested in over the past 10 years or so...to start all over again? With the still high prices of HD viewing televisons and players, combined with the strains the gas prices are putting on already taxed family budgets...I dunno if any of these are going to 'take off' in a big way. If it doesn't happen soon...the 'next' step forward will come out before these get adopted.
It will be interesting to see...I for one am not in a hurry to jump in on the HD dvd stuff....but, since I got a projector capable of HD quality...I may experiment with some FOTA capturing of HD signals...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Have we forgotten that Sony was the company who brought us the Walkman? and along with Phillips the CD?(Based on technology developed by Battelle's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) Sony has a proven track of innovation, however I admit that the have lost their way in the past few years.
It also does not have the quality of standard cd's either....that's why I'm not interested in purchasing them...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
BluRay is scratch resistant. That is the reason the disks are thicker than CDs, DVDs or HD-DVDs.
And how many homes actually have such small-penis-compensating televisions?
Half the Japanese nation?
Or would it just turn into the pain in the ass that is DVD+R/DVD-R?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
And that is exactly why this is not an HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray review, it is a "this player and disc vs. that player and disc" review.
Really, there is nothing to "review", at least consumer-wise, about HD-DVDvs. Blu-ray. The data formats on the discs are the exact same. Other than one of them having *potentially* higher quality due to more avaialab le space allowing higher bitrate (and we all know this is *never* going to happen, that space will be either full of fluff or wasted), there is no difference to the consumer other than adoption and price issues.
No alternative? I believe the parent mentioned iTunes and then of course you have mini-disc, sacd (still a "cd" but not a standard cd), and one or two dvd formats such as DVDA (I think that's what it's called).
Okay, how many of the "alternatives" you describe were available 15 years ago? You know, like from when the guy wrote this part:
15 years ago I had a room mate that refused to buy audio CD's....
I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart.
Sounds more like someone biased against blu ray making his case. His ranting about the cropping is a bit nuts. I understand you don't want 2.39:1 movie cropped to 4:3, but here its more like like cropped to 2.35:1. You are not seriously losing anything.
Show us some screen shots to demo how bad this is, rathter than rant about it.
The meaning of is is was. I.e., the gp was using the historical present.
I don't want either unless they are cheaper than DVD's, are playable on OSS, don't phone home.
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
Someone with enough screen real estate to justify the purchase... Last Christmas my Dad treated himself (and the family) to a 50inch Panasonic Plasma (they keep their sets for 10years+ this is going to be around a while). Although the DVD's look good, I was surprised myself when I compared them to the HDTV broadcasts we could watch at 1080i on cable, the solid state media is simply put to shame. Which shouldn't be the case. HD-DVD's and Blueray are meat to fill this void. Yeah compare anything in HD, to a regular broacast, on a *20inch* screen, and no doubt from a normal viewing distance the differences are minute at best. Jack that up to 50inches+ and differences are readily apparent. So for me, the decision of buying a high def player is going to depend on when I purchase a tv that would acutally do it justice. Or, like my last DVD player, when I can get one for free when I sign up for a new credit card
I dunno. the 3.5" floppy did pretty well.
Will HD-DVD "win" the war? I hope so because the quality is better, but if it doesn't, who cares? My $436 HD-DVD player not only plays the HD-DVD format (which looks MUCH better than regular DVD; in fact, it even looks better than braodcast HD) but in addition it upscales regular DVDs to 720p so that they look better as well. If the format dies, I still have a kick-ass upconverting DVD player that plays all of my current movies (and any HD movies I happen to purchase before then). For that price, it was a no-brainer for me.
>> (and we all know this is *never* going to happen, that space will be either full of fluff or wasted)
Like FBI warnings? previews that are hard to skip? Logos that must be viewed? THX animation that hurts the ears?
They are like movie theaters, sit for 10-15 mins waiting for the main feature, plus be bored by slide commercials!
Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
It's really quite amazing how much better the picture quality is on HD DVD / BLU Ray vs. regular DVD. I, like you, was very skeptical and could see no reason for the upgrade. I was very very wrong. The images are absolutely stunning. Almost 3-D. Go read any credible review and you'll get the same impression. The difference in quality is very similar to the difference between VHS and DVD. One review I read said something along the lines of "I really wasn't prepared for what I saw on the screen" I know I'm going to get the units of measure wrong here, but to try to illustrate the point. If you have seen High Definition on cable or Satellite you should have noticed how much better it looks than even upconverted DVDs. HD broadcasts are put out in 19 mbits or some such measure. HD DVD and Blu Ray have a maximum of 36 mbits (or whatever). Nearly twice the amount of infomation in the picture when compared to an HD broadcast. Do yourself a favor and get to any decent A/V shop and check out an HD or BR player. It'll be well worth your time ( and gasoline)
If the vm is fast enough, it could enable the blu-ray killer app. Be-jewled on dvd (I hate that game.... but it still is very popular).
One of the reviews mentions the menus are even slower on Blu-ray than they are on DVDs, routinely taking two or three seconds for even the simplest of operations.
The reviewer said something to the effect of DVD being OK, but I disagree. Every DVD menu that I've ever seen on any player already trends towards the slow side. I understand taking a moment to load new content, but what's up with taking a second to register the pressing of the "up" or "down" button?
Why, in 2006, does every piece of consumer electronics feel (and often look) like it's being powered by a Nintendo Entertainment System, with some sort of auto-delay-on-input circuit added for extra measure? I understood it in 1996, but ten years later and if anything it's worse; every generation seems to get slower and slower. My TiVo Series 2 is actually a little slower than my Series 1, which I thought was impossible. My Comcast cable box when I tried it last year had multi-second response times for everything. My cell phone can't seem to do anything in less than half a second, except input text. For every DVD player I've ever seen (except the PS2), you can see it drawing the menus and stuff to the screen. Come on! You can't draw text to the text in less than half-a-second? My Commodore 64 seemed to manage that feat, even when running in BASIC!
I realize that not all consumer electronics are going to act as snappy as my computer, but must it feel like I'm doing everything over the web with a 9600 dial-up connection?
What ever happened to the stuff with HD-DVD playing at 1/4 the resolution unless your TV supported encryption over HDMI? Where did that go? If they didn't enable that on current models, there is no way they are going to get away with adding it to future players.
You can get so much more emotionally involved in the film when the resolution of the video is far greater.
The plots become more involved, the acting improves, the direction and production values are doubled, if not trebled!
Of course you have to use the right cables between your player and display equipment. I personally use $1000/yard pro-5u-CKA component cables to ensure that hidden nuances in the story become obvious.
Menu access times. From the frickin' article, http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/kisskissbangbang.
This comparison is absurd on its face. The cropping, color saturation and encode quality issues described in the article have no inherent correlation to the capabilities of either format. They are entirely dependent on decisions made by the DVD author/encoder. The author/encoder can make either format look good or bad or just different *at will* unless the author is deliberately trying to make the disks for a valid comparison and, even then, biases might accidentally creep in.
There's no reason to believe the studio made any effort to author these titles to maximise their utility as comparison sources. Occam's razor dictates they paid somebody to author each version (and likely a different somebody) to some standard of quality (person with sign-off authority for the product) and gave no thought to creating 'reference standard' examples for either format.
Then, as somebody else mentioned, there's the player problem.
-AC
The formats have a lot of differences, actually. One that people on /. might be most interested in is the fact that HD-DVD has a feature build in to allow "fair use" - you can copy your movie to your PC *legally* (unlike DVD, for example). Blu-Ray doesn't allow that at all. I can't remembr the technical term fo the HD-DVD fair use thing. Yes, it's still DRM, but regular DVDs have (crackable) DRM in them as well.
There's a lot of other differences that you can look into if you're really interested. It's not quite as black and white as you're making it.
I'm not sure there is going to be a "Winner". There is already a hybred drive in the works. I see two scenerios.
1. Hybred drives become the norm and most people have no idea which format they are renting/buying because it all works in their player. Since these media morons can't seem to compromise, I see this as the best case scenerio.
2. Blu-Ray wins simply because in a few years there will be 10 million PS3's in homes. I'm not saying this is good/bad/whatever, its just simply the facts.
I'm an early adopter with a HDTV and there is no way I would buy any of these players, which isn't a good sign.
//TODO: Insert catchy phrase
Ha! You almost had me convinced, but you forgot the all-important Jedi hand wave!
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
Even with DRM, DVDs are a lot easier to share digitally than VHS!
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
I'm not a sports fan either but the super bowl looked fantastic in HD. It was a very noticable difference and the wider view also had an impact. The olympics looked great too. Yes, I can see how sports fans would love HD.
Yes, but again, do I need that? I enjoy my older 32" Sony with two tuner PIP. I would rather spend my money actually going to the events (sports, concerts, etc.) than buying a nicer TV on which to watch them. I know that things like Discovery HD offer worlds that I will never be able to experience firsthand, but I am still happy with my arrangement.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
Ah but you left out the oh-so-important details in your effort to spread FUD!
1. How much does a managed copy cost us? Remember this?: "replacements are readily available at affordable prices"
2. How many managed copies can be made? As I recall, Microsoft was trying to get a minimum of 1 into HDDVD (no details on price, just 'you must allow 1 copy') while Sony left it out of their spec entirely.
3. How many hoops will we have to jump through for a managed copy? Everybody'd better study up on contract law and watch your Suncoast/BestBuy receipt start looking like a cell phone bill on steroids.
4. What kind of ridiculous schemes (say, phoning home, for instance) will get in the way of playing the managed copy where we want when we want? By the way, did you miss the PSP and the UMD movie fiasco? You know, the whole re-buy-your-DVDs-on-UMD-for-$25-each deal?
Actually, y'know what, you should write for the local newspaper! You seem to have the same knack for actively confusing readers in accordance with corporate PR and conveniently "forgetting" to ask any real questions that mught be, well, informative or useful.
CAPTCHA=corrode (pretty fitting, the braindead media and people like you have really corroded my faith in humanity as a whole over the last decade)
Which will win? HD-DVD Why? Because the larger consumer mass has NO IDEA what a Blu-Ray player is. The name itself gives no clue as to what the product is. But when you mention HD-DVD, which has _DVD_ in the name, they'll understand what it is. For me, I'll stick with my upconvert DVD player. Works fine for me, and it's 1/7 the price of an HD-DVD player.
Future ruler of a small Asian-Pacific island
Fluffy articles? No way! He copied and pasted several paragraphs between the three reviews, it must have been quality material!
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
You bring up a good point. As a college student without a TV in his dorm, the vast majority of my DVD watching is on good 'ole lappy. Even if my computer had the required drive, would I notice a difference?
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
In much the same way CD's failed because of their Sony link? Excluding Sony's more recent behavior in CD releases, everyone seems to forget they were one of companies responsible for the success of the CD format. Your reasoning seems faulty, but that doesn't mean I think your prediction is wrong (or right).
The Walkman wasn't a format, so that would be relevant only if Sony brought us the audio cassette too.
Key phrases: "along with Phillips," "based on... by [someone else]."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Good for them, they can continue buying this crap like they bought laserdisk until the price drops...
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
Your comment is part of the issue. As someone producing the tech for making these discs I know for a fact that the encoders have a lot to do with the issue just as DVD did in its beginning. The second issue is the decoder and its immaturity. Any comparison done now is practically pointless. One generation from now you wont see a difference other then the features differences between the to format spec.
Considering the majority of HDTV owners still don't have a single HDMI input, the companies decided that enabling this downscaling flag would basically kill the formats outright. Until all the first and second generation (And even a lot of third generation) of HDTV adopters upgrade their HDTVs to something more current, this will probably never be enabled.
They say they may enable it in the future, but not until a few years after the format gets off the ground. You are correct in the fact that they will now never be able to enable this flag. Ever. People typically don't replace their TV sets very often. Perhaps every 10-15 years, or even longer for a lot of people.
DVD format released June-July 1997.
Format was specified in 95.
Matrix was the first movie that really made the players step up to the plate and fix the problems everyone was complaining about. It used just about every feature of the DVD format. There were MANY players that just could not play it.
Personally I am going to wait about 3 years. I was an early adopter on the orig DVD. Getting 2 of the original 12 DVDs. I got burned on a lot of double dipping. I am going to pick and choose my movies this time. 99% of my collection is just fine on DVD. Raiders, BTTF, Close Encounters, T2, Star Wars, Mummy, ID4, Fight Club on HD/BR you betcha. Most of the rest of my 700 or so I will just leave on DVD they play just fine.
I agree there. The big difference between this war and the VHS/betamax one was that back then there wasn't really a practical alternative (that I can remember at least, I had like 5 when we got our first and only betamax). The only other home movie player I saw were some very big, bulky and complicated 8 mm film projectors some people had, and the movies that were much more expensive than the beta tapes when they came out and less practical to handle, so it was obvious one of them would stick because frankly, there wasn't really anything else.
This time, though, there's DVD that's just as practical as any of the new formats, a LOT more widespread, and I'd bet that for 95% or more (most likely more) of the population worldwide that doesn't have an HDTV it would look just as well as any of the new formats. Heck, lots people I know here in Venezuela have their DVD player connected to 14" TVs with 19" considered a big one, and sometimes I'm considered kind of "snobbish" for buying original DVDs because of the quality and extras instead of the pirated VCDs or shakycam DVDs they sell on the streets
I don't doubt one of these formats (or maybe even a third one) will take hold several years from now when HDTV starts being the norm rather than the exception... but I really doubt that there are enough people right now to make either one of the formats to become really dominant for the time being.
yep. the CDMA carriers, on the other hand, aren't necassarily as good as the GSM ones and I really like my SIM card :(
"I choose Betamax."
Betamax rocks man! Last time I was at my parents house I watch Star Wars and Wargames on Betamax!
"Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
Exactly my point. I'll consider the technology when it becomes too cheap and compelling to ignore. If the prices on the players come down to around the $100 mark and the media is just as cheap as DVDs, it'd be worth it, but to spend $1000 on a player with discs that are hard to find and pricey is just dumb. It's one of the reasons LaserDisc failed. Sure - it had better quality, but cost and convenience are important too.
In a word, yes (moreso than a regular CRT TV) In addition, HD-DVD (not Blu-Ray) allows you to (legally) copy a movie from the disk to your harddrive, albeit with DRM if I recall.
I think it would, though I haven't actually seen it. Consider the recent World Cup, it'd have been so much nicer to be able to see who's who on the field, even in wide overview camera angles.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
They're using two different players. Doesn't that invalidate this test?
.35 caliber ammunition -- they can't be fired from the same gun.
No, it's just a known limitation of the experimental setup. This is a little like trying to compare 9mm and
These two disc formats can't be played using the exact same equipment. Even if there were a player out that played both, it would need separate sensing and decoding hardware, so the processing path will never be fully identical.
The best that can be done is to use several players of each format so that player-specific issues can be recognized. (Which, to be sure, this article doesn't do.) It would also be a good idea to review titles that weren't all transferred by the same shop, once some are available. It's possible that some of the problems with these blue ray discs have to do with WHV's transfer process rather than the format. These are early days.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
the problem with beta was that the length of the tapes were too small to fit an entire movie. Quality wise beta was/is supperior to VHS in every other aspect. Studios were using BetaCam until fairly resently. Sony has a lot invested in the HD Cam market so the entire tool chain is more "optimized" towards Blue Ray.
I used to agree with this sentiment, until I saw King Kong being played on a LCOS HD TV. It was freakishly good and unquestionably better than existing DVD quality. The real question is choosing the winning format. I think that most of us will wait until there is a winner (and by that time the high prices will have fallen).
Of course to get that 1080p projector for your projection screen you're looking at spending around $10,000 minimum. You can get 1080p LCD projection TVs (for around $2500, or more for Sony's XRD), but the vast majority of televisions being sold as "HD" only actually offer up to 1280x720 (though there seem to be a large number offering something like 1366x768 - really weird), and with projectors it's even worse.
So score one for HD DVD's VC1 compression codec over the MPEG2/AVC scheme used for Blu-ray
Both Blu-Ray and HD DVD support both VC1 and MPEG2/AVC, if I'm not mistaken. They are comparing the encoding on a specific movie, but imply that it's inherent to the format.
Unfortunately, due to disc space limitations, Warner has elected to drop the [TrueHD Dolby Digital] track altogether on the Blu-ray release. [...] But more troubling is that Warner has also dropped the Dolby Digital-Plus track off of this Blu-ray release
Disc space limitations on Blu-Ray? 25GB on a single layer is really not enough (compared to 30 on a dual-layer with HD DVD) that two audio tracks had to be dropped? Something is fishy here.
E pluribus unum
How do you do a head-to-head comparision of a new format with two players that have issues and limitations? From the article: "But first, a note on this comparison. I hooked up both my Toshiba HD-XA1 HD DVD player and Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray player to my HP Pavilion reference HDTV via its two HDMI inputs. Note, however, that the first-generation Toshiba HD DVD decks are not capable of outputting native 1080p signals (unlike the Samsung), so it was up to the HP's internal processing to upconvert the Toshiba's 1080i signal to 1080p. Also, given the Samsung's much-publicized problems with its HDMI output (due to a reported faulty noise reduction chip that results in a degraded signal via the deck's HDMI out -- Samsung is planning to correct the problem on future shipments as well as issue a firmware upgrade sometime this Fall), I also compared both the Toshiba and the Samsung via component out to ensure the most fair comparison possible between the two discs."
After reading the article and being surprised that they didn't include the "Dolby Digital Plus" (which I hadn't heard of before) on the Blue-ray releases, I quickly looked up DD+ which seems to suggest that the audio tracks on blu-ray discs are capped at about 1/4th the bitrate of the hd-dvd audio track. Anyone know if this is accurate, and if so, anyone have any idea why they would do this?
CDMA is technically superior to GSM.
GSM uses a TDMA infrastructure which is greatly inferior to CDMA.
How inferior? The new GSM 3G standard uses CDMA. That's a pretty ringing endorsement by those who actually understand and design GSM. Perhaps you could take some clues from them?
Also, in HDTV, it's COFDM, not OFDM.
I'd also point out x86 took off in the US when it was up against Apple's 6502-based machines and 68000-based machines back in the early 80s. PPC didn't come around until 1993/4. To say the US chose x86 over PPC is really odd.
And furthermore, it's pretty difficult to argue HD-DVD is technically superior when BluRay and HD-DVD support the same DRM and content formats, and at the physical later, BluRay stores twice as much.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
You can't make backup copies in case the disc becomes damaged. Stick with DVD, although I hope HD-DVD kicks Blu-ray's (RIAA/Sony) ass.
Winner or not, I'm just going to wait until prices fall. Once I can get an HD-DVD player as cheaply as I can get a DVD player today ($30 at Sam's Club) I do not plan to make the change. Since I don't know what I'm missing, I am still happy with basic cable and a several year old TV.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
HD's a lot more important in sport because the camera's very far out.
Well put. I wish I could mod you up.
However, the issue looks more like the player than anything else. I also want to point to the fact that even they realize that Blu-Ray is going to win and are making movies for it. Not to keep beating a dead horse, but there currently isn't 100k HD-DVD units sold and in 4 months there will be 2 million Blu-Ray players. In a year it will be close to 10 million. The war is over and HD-DVD lost. Sorry Toshiba and Microsoft you lost this one. It is time to go back to the drawing board and figure out a new plan of attack. Perhaps downloadable content? Not including a HD-DVD player in the 360 appears to be a mistake.
I do agree that the average Joe user is completely fine with DVD BUT that same Joe user that will buy a PS3 is in the exact same demographic of a HDTV owner, and when they go to rent a movie from Blockbuster or Netflix they will try the blu-ray version to see what it looks like. They will like it better and then start the process of getting blu-ray disk over time. The snowball effect will begin.
What will drive HD-DVD sales? Computer users? Heck most computer users want larger storage and again Blu-Ray wins hands down on that front as well. 50GB is better than 30GB any day AND 200GB (max) is way better than 45GB (max).
Again, the war is over one month after the PS3 is released.
It is somewhat funny to see another company leverage a monopoly to have a product become a "standard" against the king of illegal monopoly practices.... Microsoft.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
TrueHD is a lossless audio format and can have a bitrate that's a lot higher than the video bitrate on a standard DVD. So yes 5 gigs can make or break a studio's audio format decision especially since Sony can't produce a two layer movie yet. Why the reviewer thinks anyone needs lossless audio is another discussion!
The high-definition itself does help a lot following small, fast-moving objects, so as far as seeing the action it's more of a help in hockey or tennis than basketball or football.
Independently of how "helpful" it is, though, the hi-def is nice for the same reason it's nice in movies: it just looks better, and gives you more detail. And widescreen lets you see more of the product.
I mean, it's not like you can't follow what's going on in a VHS copy of Lawrence of Arabia. But god does it look better on hi-def widescreen (or 70mm projection if you get a chance).
Similarly, seeing all the fog players blow out on a cold day, the condition of the grass, dirt stains on the uniforms after a slide, etc don't help you follow the action any better but they do make it "feel" more immediate and make it more fun to watch.
Seeing a great film cut to pan-and-scan is just silly, you miss 30% or so of the visuals. Somewhat similarly, widescreen lets you see more. You can follow positioning and motion away from the ball, and really get a feel for team strategy instead of just following the action of whoever has the ball at the moment..
rage, rage against the dying of the light
One more word (besides Betamax): MiniDisc.
/write to a media that would be truly funcitonal and flexible.
Instead of levereging the core Playstation fanboys to allow MiniDisc to solidify itself in the next generation of portable devices (aka PSP), Sony instead launches the terrible UMD format.
It is now a year or so after the launch of yet another Sony media format (this time with the option to repurchase all of your movies on a smaller, more restricted format!) and Wal Mart hardly sells the UMD movies that Sony tried to push down their PSP early adopter throats.
Disclaimer: I do own a PSP and a DS Lite. Both systems are nice, but the PSP really feels like it missed the boat.
Sony could have solidified their apparent estranged relationship with the MiniDisc format in the US and world by releasing a PSP that could read from
Instead they handicap the PSP with the FRAGILE, piece o' crap UMD disk and a newest-flavor-of the month Memory Stick Pro Duo X3- now faster and even more expensive memory!
My prediction: Sony will lose (loose for most Slashdotters) yet another format war.
~ milesy20
I'm hoping that with the oncoming war between BluRay and HD-DVD, that prices for DVD-R9 blank media will fall through the floor.
I know we're talking about movies and not blank media, but it's quite possible that much cheaper DVD-R9 may hold back either format from the PC.
I can hope, at least.
Umm, wait a minute............
So what if it's the next BetaMax, isn't your VHS a betamax too since it's no longer supported (or soon to be gone altogether)?
:)
Everything eventually is replaced, some sooner than later. If you're waiting to see what will pan out, you miss all the fun in the interim. Life is for living, not regretting buying stupid shit you don't need.
Here's your permission slip to live some... Go out there and enjoy, live like you're going to die tomorrow but plan like you're going to live forever
...or senses silence, and breaks in the middle of a song.
:)
Also, how do you handle a live concert that has continuous sound?
I for one was more than ready for the CD and DVD revolutions. I hate tape.
Let's not forget all sorts of crippling DRM, which is probably one of the main reasons movie execs are drooling over this crap. And this time, it's not just a joke like CSS. Lest we forget, according to Wikipedia HD DVD has sophisticated audio watermarking, HDCP downconversion, and other crap. Blu Ray is just as bad, with "dynamically-changing keys for the cryptographic protections", HDCP, digital watermarking, and so forth.
I think I'll stick to plain DVDs and save my money.
http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
I am going to buy one or the other sometime after this coming Christmas. I figure that there will be adequate sales figures out there after the Christmas purchases, when a lot of both of these systems will be purchased, to determine which format is going to be the eventual winner. Unless that dual player thing actually comes to be, in which case I'll just buy that.
Best Slashdot comment ever
I saw the first blueray players setup at the local electronics retailer yesterday. Frankly, I wasn't impressed. I have an HDTV and a decent new progressive scan DVD player.
When I first walked in to the store, and saw the big scren tv playing its movie, I wasn't wowed, I did NOT say: "Damn, that's clear, that can't be a DVD! Is it BlueRay? HDDVD? I gotta find out more!"
I just assumed it was a regular DVD, and didn't give it much thought. I didn't have the slightest idea that I was looking at a BlueRay presentation until I noticed the blue ray logo on the advertising signage underneath.
This is a miles away from when I saw my first DVD, when I was literally amazed. Especially because at that time I mostly watched rented VHS, which were always somewhat worse for the wear.
Factor in the premium for the HD player and the movies themselves. ($46 bucks for movies I would typically pick up for under $20, often under $15)
So, will I get one? Yeah, eventually, when the price comes down to around 200-300, the format war is settled (or rendered irrelevant by cheap dual-mode players), and title availability is high. My first impression left me disctinctly underwhelmed. Paying *that* much more for soemthing that doesn't look even half *that* much better just isn't worth it to me.
Your mileage will, of course, vary.
It sounds like more of a comparison between Warners abilities at authoring HDDVDs and Blu-rays rather than the actual format. Someone should over up-convert some source material, hand it to the best of both camps, and see what the winner is then.
. . . but if you are listening to progressive rock or classical then you'll want to smash the fooking thing because it's stopping three or more times every single song because the "tracks" aren't at a normalized volume like manufactured pop is.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
However when buying an electronics device you take into account how it will be usful in a month and not just the moment - otherwise you'd just be thinking as if you were renting it.
Any consideration of a player purchase would have to take into account the range of codecs future movies would use - and as noted that is the same for both formats. Thus I'm afraid it is your comment that makes no sense for a potential HD video buyer.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Your message could lead someone to think the "crippled" version wsa $600. Not so, it's $500. And it's not crippled, it has everything you need to play games OR movies at 1080p - you can do 1080p over component, and even newer full 1080p TVs support this.
Since the ICT flag will not be turned on for some time due to the large numbre of people that cannot make use of HDMI even if they bought a capible PS3, there is no need to support HDMI at all.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I am curious - what is it like to work at Sony?
Actually a far more interesting question is, what kind of lights do you use to see with your head so far up your ass? Is not there a terrible burning heat?
First, as you say the sheer volume of PS3 units in comparison to HD-DVD players will be a huge advanatge for the PS3.
But the even bigger advanatage comes with the combination of the PS3 and Netflix, which many people already use. When people discover they can do Blu-Ray rentals they will do so just to try it out on the system they bought just for gaming, and when they see how much better Blu-Ray is than normal DVD systems they will start buying Blu-Ray instead of DVD's for new releases they really like.
Someone buying into the HD-DVD system is already comitted to that format, but the larger audience of the PS3 can be sucked into casually consuming Blu-Ray media far quicker which will ramp up with word of mouth.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Mind you, it mind?
Miiine!
Your points fall flat if the people pushing Blu-Ray continue to use mpeg2. Every single review has stated that they're using mpeg2 and HD-DVD is using VC-1, resulting in a far better picture. If they've got so much more space available, why the hell aren't they using it?
Sorry, but I just can't see a lot of people going out to buy a PS3 just to watch Blu-Ray movies. By the time it gets released, HD-DVD could easily have taken over the market, especially at the price point the players will be at.
I guess we'll both have to wait and see what happens when the PS3 comes out, but I just don't see it taking over the market of hi-def players.
Ask your parents...
The third most important thing I have learned in life: Squeeze anything hard enough and it eventually makes a noise.
Actually there are some good deals out there.
I recently saw (online) a 56" Samsung DLP TV, which is 1080p and includes the HD tuner for under $1700.
And my credit card is feeling quite nervous...
Once I saw the technology preview (well, it was one back then) called the of the Liquid Demo from the Microsoft site, showing off the 1280 x 720 (720p) resolution, I was sold. DVD gives "acceptable" quality and you won't notice the difference on the mayority of screens. With high resolution LCD screens, these old formats will become a thing of the past. High resolution MPEG4 is the way of the near future, and I expect that won't last *that* long either.
i candvideo/hdvideo/contentshowcase.aspx .wmv file. Talk about idiotic ways of distributing movies. It's not like .zip will offer much more compression anyhow.
Try some content, if you can handle WM9, don't mind DRM for a technology showcase, and have a serious computer (2.4GHz..3GHz). Broadband would be a good idea too.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/mus
By the way, the downloads are self extracting zip's just holding the
Because stuffing a blu-ray player into a gaming system with a completely new architecture and selling that system for less than the blu-ray players cost is "artificially inflating the price"
I am already watching video on DIVX burned to DVD-R's on a $70 DVD player I bought at a local store. I can store 8 hours of DIVX movies on a single disk that look acceptable on my HDTV. It would be trival to encode HD quality DIVX files and store them on a DVD and play them back with a player that supports it, and many of them already do support it. In fact, I am already encoding HD DIVX movies, I have an HD video recorder and it is easy to convert the file to DIVX.
It is pathetic that they are tying the format used to encode a video to the media onto which it is encoded. And it is going to be all locked down with DMCA protected DRM that is going to fail quickly and they are going to ruin more peoples lives for just breaking weak encryption again.
Step one, use the format which is more robust and can store more data. Step two, support multiple formats. Step three, eliminate DRM and encryption, which pirates can easily bypass by recording a bit for bit copy of an entire disk.
Was I the only one that found this review a tad weird. It was presented as comparing two media formats, but reading the reviews it became pretty obvious to me that the guy was in fact comparing two players. I mean - it's highly likely that exactly the same mpeg-2 source was used for both discs - I mean why on earth encode it twice? 3 reviews and it all 3 he complains about the same things - different aspect ratio and darker images on blue ray. Ahem - could it be that one player was crap compared with the other one?
Actually if was Philips who was responsible for BOTH the CD and Audio Cassette. ;)
Not bad for a little Dutch company
Now re-read that...
I'll paraphrase... "Sony is going to drive consumers to the competitors."
Therefore, there is no perfectly valid argument being made (the wrong assumption being that SONY kept the price high to get people to buy Blu-Ray "because it's more expensive, it must be better")... but if there were, then yes, driving the consumers to the competitor would be a pretty well-placed shot in their own foot.. but if that's what they set out to do, I guess they still win in a suicidal sort of way?
Parents bringing their 4 year olds to the 2.5 hour long Superman Returns. Do I need to paint the picture on that?
Not being able to go to the loo midway.
Going to Alexander as a Vangelis fan and discovering front right channel is missing ("we're terribly sorry, sir, we blew an amp").
Noisy pop corn eating sms texting teenagers.
THX having become purely a marketing spec.
All those fantastic things are soon to be replaced by a 50" HDTV (not native but 1080p processing) plasma by Panasonic. Already have a great Rotel surround sound system where I'll have consistently solid sound. Then just need to add beer and snacks costing a quarter, not having to drive anywhere.
I'll be happy with DVDs to start with, but I'll be buying either HDTV or Bluray (in form of a playstation) within a year. The price of one HDTV DVD is only slightly more than two people going to the movies, and I'm pretty sure rentals will catch on soon enough.
The future is looking good for HT enthusiasts - and bleak for the movies.
ISO certified == THX certified
Well, those are actually two genres I listen to quite a bit, and I probably haven't bought more than 3 tapes (I started buying CDs in about 6th grade), so it's not an issue, I was just saying that the feature is there.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
I'm personally just going on a name basis. Lets face it, Blue-Ray is a much cooler name than HD. Thats how I chose N'Sync over the Backstreet Boys... I mean, um...
If Sony can prevent dual players then they will, Sony has an almost Apple-like NIH syndrome. ATRAC3, Memory Stick Pro, Betamax - all dead or useless because Sony doesn't play well with anybody else.
Sony will see Bluary die rather than let it become popular in a manner they don't like.
$
$
You must be using a non-standard definition of "done quite well," because MiniDisc and MemoryStick are both niche formats themselves. The only measurement by which they've "done quite well" is that they didn't completely crash and burn like Betamax and ATRAC3 did.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I'm sorry, but this isn't a format comparison. It's a codec comparision. It's an encoder/compressionist comparison. It's possibly a DVD author comparison. It's a product line comparison. And it's a player comparison. But there is absolutely no way to legitimately attribute any of the issues to the formats themselves.
OTOH, given that there is no way to look at the data directly, it's impossible to do an analysis to determine where all the issues lie. Yet another reason the closed system they are forcing down our throats keeps us from differentiating between poor codec choices, crappy encoding, incompetent authoring, garbage players, or inferior formats.
Then again, maybe that's what they want....
So I take it all back. Since I can't assign the issues to where they belong, Blu-Ray sucks more than HD-DVD. If that's what they wanted, then screw 'em.
Xesdeeni
Click this link to offer your input on the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD battle. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=448982367487
The real winners: Consumers.
By shooting themselves in the foot with this stupid format competition, the studios have ensured that even the most brainless, gullible consumers won't be rushing out to buy either of these horrible DRM-laden formats. Hopefully they will continue to sabotage their own efforts to destroy fair use until some other format arises which is not so unmitigatedly evil.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Philips did not come up with the CD, the Original development and prototype was built by James Russel at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory of Battelle Memorial Institute. Here's the link on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Russell
I agree it wasn't a format but it still innovated in the area of portable audio. The argument is innovation. And it was Sony who had the vision to invest in the CD and decided to partner with Philips probably because of development costs.
Thank you. At least someone here noticed that. Sony is pushing an MPEG-2 codec that sucks in comparison to a modern one. This will make the video quality of blu ray inferior even on a 50GB disk. Why? I suspect Sony gets money for every MPEG-2 device and every MPEG-2 disk sold. Clear evidence that Sony will sacrifice the quality their customers get for $ in their pockets. What better reason to boycot anything blu ray or Sony for that matter?
I saw some of the world cup on an HDTV, and I was trying to explain it to a friend.
The only analogy I could think of at the time is that it is like the difference between playing quake2 on a voodoo1 at 512x384 and playing it at 1024x768 on a voodoo3.
Same game, same pictures, but a whole world of extra detail.
I'd mod you up, but I can't.
I don't understand why everyone thinks BR is a sony-only thing. Probably because it makes it easier for the hate to flow out.
Sony is to Blu-Ray what Microsoft is to HD-DVD. (ie. not the inventor/sole owner/etc.)