Um, yes I can. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Extended Edition. Rather than coming on 4 discs, with BluRay I'd be surprised if they couldn't get it in both 1080i and all the extras on one disc. With HD-DVD I'd have my doubts that they'd be able to do that without sacrificing quality.
Further, last I checked, BluRay had made optional a number of lossless audio formats. Those lossless formats are going to require more space than your usual Dolby Digital AC3 or DTS tracks. And before anyone says anything about how it's a waste of space/unnecessary/etc., let me remind you that people who buy into BluRay or HD-DVD aren't doing it because they want XviD quality with MP3 audio, they're doing it because they want the absolute best quality so they can push their home theatre systems as far as possible.
Finally, HD-DVD costing less at the outset is a fallacy. The initial cost associated with BluRay disappears when economies of scale take effect (which they will). Remember: you're dealing with hundreds of thousands or millions of units. I could see the issue of new hardware (BluRay) vs. retooled hardware (HD-DVD) if duplicators were doing small runs of 100-200 discs, but most stuff coming out on BD or HD-DVD early on are going to be commercial products ordered in the tens or hundreds of thousands if not more.
No, no assumptions. The 8-layer variant of BD is 200 GB: that works out to 25 GB/layer. The 4-layer variant of BD is 100 GB: that also works out to 25 GB/layer. The 3-layer variant of HD-DVD is 45 GB: that works out to 15 GB/layer. The 2-layer variant of HD-DVD is 30 GB: that works out to 15 GB/layer. And of course single layer HD-DVD discs are 15 GB.
If anything, with more layers I expect capacity per layer to decrease, not increase, and since the HD-DVD camp haven't indicated what capacity they expect from their 8-layer media, it makes me wonder if they'll even manage to get 120 GB out of their format. Contrast this against Sony who have said 200 GB has always been on the drawing board and have demo'd 200 GB 8-layer tech at trade shows.
The copy protection on MD was a major problem. IIRC MD also suffered from lower quality than CD (either MD was lossy, or MD had a lower frequency range). You're right tho that MD caught on in Japan.
And about being naive, you'd be the textbook case. Anyone comparing a computer business to one who does disc duplication is simply comparing apples to oranges. Duplicators are a cost of doing business, and given that they're a one-time cost, most duplicators who have large studio contracts probably won't even wince at the idea of having to buy some new equipment when, in the long run, it won't matter to their bottom lines.
That's purely personal preference. What looks good to you at 15 GB/hour may look like crap to me. IMO, the more space they have to allocate to bitrate the better. Further, extra capacity means that a disc loaded with extras (documentaries, interviews, etc) need not be included at the expense of the main movies bitrate/quality.
You're probably thinking of H.264 (MPEG4), and it seems that both HD-DVD and BluRay are going to utilize that CODEC. I haven't heard of anything specific to HD-DVD that would set it apart other than the supposed benefit of being able to produce HD-DVD on retooled duplication equipment (a red herring, IMO).
The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) is still in the process of finalizing the BD-ROM specification, but they have stated that MPEG-4 AVC High Profile (previously called FRExt) and Microsoft's VC-1 video codec (the proposed SMPTE standard based on WMV9) will be mandatory. They will also include MPEG-2 support for playback of HDTV recordings and DVDs. Please note that this simply means that all Blu-ray players and recorders will have to support playback of these video codecs, it will still be up to the movie studios to decide which video codec(s) they use for their releases. The BDA expects the BD-ROM specification to be finished some time in the beginning of 2005.
Both of the major candidate next-generation DVD rival formats planned for product deployment in late 2005 include the H.264/AVC High Profile as a mandatory player feature -- specifically:
The HD-DVD format of the DVD Forum
The Blu-ray Disc format of the Blu-Ray Disc Association (BDA)
All things being equal again, that leaves capacity as the only thing seperating the two formats as far as I can tell.
Up until recently BluRay players have required the discs to be in caddies (like old CD-ROM's). But thanks to work by TDK, newer media/players can handle discs in the buff (ala present day DVD players). They're still more prone to scratches (AFAIK), but hopefully they get it to be at least as durable as DVD prior to the launch this fall/winter.
Sure, but that was a CODEC.;) I don't think they're going to drop the ball with BluRay; and unlike ATRAC [MP3, etc], MemoryStick [CompactFlash] or MiniDisc [Compact Disc], the existing alternative(s) for BluRay [HD-DVD] are inferior.
There has already been talk of four layer (100 GB capacity) and eight layer (200 GB capacity) BluRay discs. (Search Google for the eight layer stories, I think The Register reported on that as well, and it was actually sometime last year I believe).
The thing to keep in mind is the capacity per layer and BluRay has that over HD-DVD. BluRay seems to be getting 25 GB per layer to HD-DVD's 15 GB per layer. If HD-DVD did manage to have eight layers they'd only realize 120 GB capacity to BluRay's 200 GB capacity.
Only someone who was naive about economics would buy into the argument that HD-DVD was superior because it could utilize existing duplication equipment. When you're dealing with hundreds of thousands or tens of millions of discs duplicated each month/year/whatever, the cost of buying new hardware vs. retooling existing hardware becomes nearly non-existant.
Actually, only certain studios seem to do that. I've found that most of the movies I watch don't have that problem (20th Century Fox and Miramax don't, while I seem to recall every Paramount or Disney movie insists on you seeing everything before reaching the main menu).
You're not suggesting boycotting the competing formats at least, but if you want to complain, complain to the individual studios who can't seem to accept that you actually bought (and now own, or did I license it?) their product and just want to see what you bought.
The problem is that they're not identical. BluRay is technically superior. It can hold more content at the same bitrate HD-DVD uses, or it can hold the same amount of content at a higher bitrate than HD-DVD uses. I imagine that'll be especially useful for long movies like any of the Lord of the Rings films in their Extended Edition form.
I think the economics argument is a red herring though. AFAIK the big argument against BluRay is that duplicators would need to purchase all-new equipment to produce BluRay discs. HD-DVD's claim to fame is that you can retrofit production onto existing DVD duplication hardware.
The thing is, the hardware purchase is a single expense. AFAIK the media/materials used cost the same. Once you start manufacturing hundreds of thousands or millions of discs, the cost per disc of the all-new hardware quickly approaches zero.
Left with that reality, it comes down to which is technologically superior and offers the most bang for the buck, and the answer to that is BluRay.
I don't think Sony is about to repeat their Beta experience.:P
Honestly, it's an inferior format to Blu-Ray. I can't understand why these studios and companies are lining up behind HD-DVD when something vastly better is available and won't significantly affect costs (especially if production is in volume, economies of scale will take over and pretty much eradicate any concerns with having to use all-new equipment).
Sadly, it seems Miramax (the company behind Lord of the Rings) is in the HD-DVD camp. I just hope their relationship with HD-DVD isn't an exclusive one...
The original poster said that the *ONLY* difference between the system was a regsistry key. That's patently false in many ways that anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together could see.
And yet, as per usual with someone making your defense, you're interestingly unable to provide a single example to prove your point.
You're a moron. Just because they aren't listed prominently in the legal paperwork doesn't mean they didn't donate legal expertise and/or money to help fund the defense of those cases.
That, in addition to the tangle of other wires needed to make this mess all work.
HDMI should reduce the amount of cabling needed for connections between components and your receiver, but you're right, for speakers there doesn't seem to be a clear solution.
I'm confused: what part of "unconditional surrender" didn't you grasp? Keeping their emperor, in case you hadn't figured it out, was a condition. One cannot surrender unconditionally if one has conditions.
As for the rest, I think LurkerXXX covered that quite nicely.
The morons here are the ones not understanding that they would not have surrendered how they did without the atomic bomb. The morons here are the ones who would have let the war drag on for another year or more before said surrender made. Fact is, those bombs saved lives; more than they took.
From what the/. write-up says, this sounds good (well, except for Microsoft backing it, that worries me), but what about reforming/fixing copyright? There's just no need nor justification for copyrights lasting as long as they do, nor for the things the DMCA does to people who just want to watch movies how they want to, not how the media corporations want them to.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, yes I can. Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Extended Edition. Rather than coming on 4 discs, with BluRay I'd be surprised if they couldn't get it in both 1080i and all the extras on one disc. With HD-DVD I'd have my doubts that they'd be able to do that without sacrificing quality.
Further, last I checked, BluRay had made optional a number of lossless audio formats. Those lossless formats are going to require more space than your usual Dolby Digital AC3 or DTS tracks. And before anyone says anything about how it's a waste of space/unnecessary/etc., let me remind you that people who buy into BluRay or HD-DVD aren't doing it because they want XviD quality with MP3 audio, they're doing it because they want the absolute best quality so they can push their home theatre systems as far as possible.
Finally, HD-DVD costing less at the outset is a fallacy. The initial cost associated with BluRay disappears when economies of scale take effect (which they will). Remember: you're dealing with hundreds of thousands or millions of units. I could see the issue of new hardware (BluRay) vs. retooled hardware (HD-DVD) if duplicators were doing small runs of 100-200 discs, but most stuff coming out on BD or HD-DVD early on are going to be commercial products ordered in the tens or hundreds of thousands if not more.
No, no assumptions. The 8-layer variant of BD is 200 GB: that works out to 25 GB/layer. The 4-layer variant of BD is 100 GB: that also works out to 25 GB/layer. The 3-layer variant of HD-DVD is 45 GB: that works out to 15 GB/layer. The 2-layer variant of HD-DVD is 30 GB: that works out to 15 GB/layer. And of course single layer HD-DVD discs are 15 GB.
If anything, with more layers I expect capacity per layer to decrease, not increase, and since the HD-DVD camp haven't indicated what capacity they expect from their 8-layer media, it makes me wonder if they'll even manage to get 120 GB out of their format. Contrast this against Sony who have said 200 GB has always been on the drawing board and have demo'd 200 GB 8-layer tech at trade shows.
The copy protection on MD was a major problem. IIRC MD also suffered from lower quality than CD (either MD was lossy, or MD had a lower frequency range). You're right tho that MD caught on in Japan.
And about being naive, you'd be the textbook case. Anyone comparing a computer business to one who does disc duplication is simply comparing apples to oranges. Duplicators are a cost of doing business, and given that they're a one-time cost, most duplicators who have large studio contracts probably won't even wince at the idea of having to buy some new equipment when, in the long run, it won't matter to their bottom lines.
You're probably thinking of H.264 (MPEG4), and it seems that both HD-DVD and BluRay are going to utilize that CODEC. I haven't heard of anything specific to HD-DVD that would set it apart other than the supposed benefit of being able to produce HD-DVD on retooled duplication equipment (a red herring, IMO).
Also of interest is the H.264 article on Wikipedia, specifically the Applications section--
All things being equal again, that leaves capacity as the only thing seperating the two formats as far as I can tell.
Up until recently BluRay players have required the discs to be in caddies (like old CD-ROM's). But thanks to work by TDK, newer media/players can handle discs in the buff (ala present day DVD players). They're still more prone to scratches (AFAIK), but hopefully they get it to be at least as durable as DVD prior to the launch this fall/winter.
You're right, I'm retarded. It is of course NLC not Miramax that was behind LoTR.
Sure, but that was a CODEC. ;) I don't think they're going to drop the ball with BluRay; and unlike ATRAC [MP3, etc], MemoryStick [CompactFlash] or MiniDisc [Compact Disc], the existing alternative(s) for BluRay [HD-DVD] are inferior.
There has already been talk of four layer (100 GB capacity) and eight layer (200 GB capacity) BluRay discs. (Search Google for the eight layer stories, I think The Register reported on that as well, and it was actually sometime last year I believe).
The thing to keep in mind is the capacity per layer and BluRay has that over HD-DVD. BluRay seems to be getting 25 GB per layer to HD-DVD's 15 GB per layer. If HD-DVD did manage to have eight layers they'd only realize 120 GB capacity to BluRay's 200 GB capacity.
Only someone who was naive about economics would buy into the argument that HD-DVD was superior because it could utilize existing duplication equipment. When you're dealing with hundreds of thousands or tens of millions of discs duplicated each month/year/whatever, the cost of buying new hardware vs. retooling existing hardware becomes nearly non-existant.
Actually, only certain studios seem to do that. I've found that most of the movies I watch don't have that problem (20th Century Fox and Miramax don't, while I seem to recall every Paramount or Disney movie insists on you seeing everything before reaching the main menu).
You're not suggesting boycotting the competing formats at least, but if you want to complain, complain to the individual studios who can't seem to accept that you actually bought (and now own, or did I license it?) their product and just want to see what you bought.
The problem is that they're not identical. BluRay is technically superior. It can hold more content at the same bitrate HD-DVD uses, or it can hold the same amount of content at a higher bitrate than HD-DVD uses. I imagine that'll be especially useful for long movies like any of the Lord of the Rings films in their Extended Edition form.
They utilize the same video CODEC's, so, I'm sorry, that's impossible.
I think the economics argument is a red herring though. AFAIK the big argument against BluRay is that duplicators would need to purchase all-new equipment to produce BluRay discs. HD-DVD's claim to fame is that you can retrofit production onto existing DVD duplication hardware.
:P
The thing is, the hardware purchase is a single expense. AFAIK the media/materials used cost the same. Once you start manufacturing hundreds of thousands or millions of discs, the cost per disc of the all-new hardware quickly approaches zero.
Left with that reality, it comes down to which is technologically superior and offers the most bang for the buck, and the answer to that is BluRay.
I don't think Sony is about to repeat their Beta experience.
Honestly, it's an inferior format to Blu-Ray. I can't understand why these studios and companies are lining up behind HD-DVD when something vastly better is available and won't significantly affect costs (especially if production is in volume, economies of scale will take over and pretty much eradicate any concerns with having to use all-new equipment).
Sadly, it seems Miramax (the company behind Lord of the Rings) is in the HD-DVD camp. I just hope their relationship with HD-DVD isn't an exclusive one...
And yet, as per usual with someone making your defense, you're interestingly unable to provide a single example to prove your point.
I believe a "kthx" is in order. Have a nice day.
You're a moron. Just because they aren't listed prominently in the legal paperwork doesn't mean they didn't donate legal expertise and/or money to help fund the defense of those cases.
HDMI should reduce the amount of cabling needed for connections between components and your receiver, but you're right, for speakers there doesn't seem to be a clear solution.
NARA needs to open up tons and tons of GMail accounts. Where do I send my invites so I can contribute?
I'm confused: what part of "unconditional surrender" didn't you grasp? Keeping their emperor, in case you hadn't figured it out, was a condition. One cannot surrender unconditionally if one has conditions.
As for the rest, I think LurkerXXX covered that quite nicely.
The morons here are the ones not understanding that they would not have surrendered how they did without the atomic bomb. The morons here are the ones who would have let the war drag on for another year or more before said surrender made. Fact is, those bombs saved lives; more than they took.
From what the /. write-up says, this sounds good (well, except for Microsoft backing it, that worries me), but what about reforming/fixing copyright? There's just no need nor justification for copyrights lasting as long as they do, nor for the things the DMCA does to people who just want to watch movies how they want to, not how the media corporations want them to.