backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 89 comment(s) - last by Link.. on Apr 10 at 3:58 PM

If you can tell the difference, Halo 22 should look best on Blu-ray
Sony commits Blu-ray to be bigger than HD DVD, literally

Although the high definition optical format camps are divided into two, they both share many of the same characteristics. Both formats support nearly identical video and audio codecs and when all things being equal, should deliver identical experiences.

Aside from movie studio exclusives support, the main differentiating factor between the formats is storage space. In their current market iterations, Blu-ray Discs hold a 20GB advantage with its dual-layer 50GB media when compared to HD DVD’s dual-layer 30GB discs.

Sony realizes this distinct advantage, and is committing to rolling out 80 percent of all its forthcoming Blu-ray titles as 50GB discs, according to Video Business.

When transferring a film onto Blu-ray, compression engineers may utilize the extra 20GB to attain higher bit rate video and to accommodate lossless audio streams. While many dual-format releases of late, such as The Departed, feature identical video streams encoded with the same codec, engineers recognize that the added space afforded by Blu-ray can be spent to improve quality.

The encoders responsible for Nine Inch Nails: Beside You In Time, released on both HD DVD and Blu-ray acknowledges the difference. On the difference between the HD DVD and Blu-ray versions of the concert, a FAQ document on the NIN Web site reads, “Technically speaking, the video quality of the Blu-ray version has a slight edge over the HD DVD: It was encoded at a slightly higher bit rate due to the Blu-ray spec's higher bandwidth capabilities for encoded video streams. However, this difference is nominal and would only be noticeable by a pair of well-trained eyes on an extremely expensive professional 1080P monitor.”

No matter how indistinguishable the differences 20GB may make, Sony is keen on using every bit of that extra space to prove its superiority over HD DVD.

“It’s important, especially in this phase, that we make sure we are showing the absolute best quality in video and audio, and 50GB accomplishes that,” said Sony worldwide president David Bishop.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
cool
By Moishe on 4/3/2007 8:05:24 AM , Rating: 2
It's smart to make a real difference in the quality. Even if most people can't tell the difference, at least Sony can truthfully say "it's higher quality than HD-DVD".

On the other hand, I won't be able to tell the difference, but it does give people another reason to buy into blu-ray or more validation if they've already made the decision.




RE: cool
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 8:30:08 AM , Rating: 3
Except for the fact that, at least for now, most BD movies are in the 25GB format and thus smaller than HD-DVD. And, even at half-capacity, the average person still can't tell a difference between the two formats...except for the early BD films encoded on Mpeg-2. You just don't need 50GB (or usually even 30GB) to encode HD movies under VC-1.

Seriously, in the case of movies, the capacity difference is a nonissue. Its relevant only for data storage.


RE: cool
By Moishe on 4/3/2007 8:40:31 AM , Rating: 5
I agree. This wouldn't sway me. But if Sony starts using the space to encode a higher-than-HD-DVD-quality video they will have that "checkbox" checked on the list of reasons why to buy blu-ray. Like I said, some people are already sold on blu-ray and this may just act as validation for their previous purchase. Either way I think it's a smart way to use the space for movies since the space IS there to be used.

Reality is if you have 50GB capability and are only using 25GB, then the whole argument is pointless. Capability is nice, but until it's used it's just a checkmark on a feature list.


RE: cool
By GoatMonkey on 4/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: cool
By zsouthboy on 4/3/2007 11:28:32 AM , Rating: 4
Um. No.

There is no 2160p spec.

There is no display capable of displaying 4x the resolution of 1080p.

There is no digital video recorder recording at that resolution.

In short: no.


RE: cool
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: cool
By GoatMonkey on 4/3/2007 12:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
You guys always take the bait. It would be awesome if they could though.


RE: cool
By Cygni on 4/4/2007 1:31:19 AM , Rating: 2
wow, you completly missed the point, didnt you?

And yes, there are displays capable of 3840x2160.

Even if there werent, his point was futureproofing. As in the FUTURE.


RE: cool
By NainoKami on 4/3/2007 12:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
What's the point? You can't tell the difference anyway unless you have a HUGE screen and sit abnormally close to it...

http://www.audioholics.com/education/display-forma...


RE: cool
By Lazarus Dark on 4/3/2007 12:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
hmm. thanks for the link. Good read. I agree, 2160p or quadhd is not necessary for video. But I would love one as a pc display for photoshop and for some serious multitasking. I think gaming would really benifit from quadhd, especially if you had a curved screen, that would be extremely immersive.

As far as the 480p vs 720p vs 1080p debate, I would always choose 1080, because even if my viewing distance was too far to notice the difference between a 720p display and 1080, I can tell the difference between 720 scaled and 1080 native res on the same display (my 1080p Westinghouse). So, since most hd is 1080 and hddvd and bd are 1080, I would go with the native res of most hd content.


RE: cool
By GoatMonkey on 4/3/2007 1:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
I won't be satisfied until I have an ultra high definition imax in my house.

Obviously, it doesn't matter at this point even if they did this it would mean scaling up the video and then scaling it back down to play it back. The source video is usually not good enough yet for it to matter. And someone else mentioned that 50gb is not enough anyway. I just wanted to see some reactions to that post.

I don't believe that it's not possible for movie studios to record in higher definition though. I think there are even some film formats that could give you the level of clarity you would need to make a 2160p or 1440p video look good.

Major motion picture studios should be recording more than they need in order to create a super-hidef version in the future when we have media and displays that can handle it.

It's pretty clear that even if the standard for higher resolution televisions is not yet written into a spec, that it is coming. You have higher resolution 30" displays from Apple and Dell already. They are not intended as televisions of course, but it shows that there is already a need for it.

You know you want to reply. Do it.


RE: cool
By NainoKami on 4/3/2007 4:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
You're still missing my point. At normal viewing distances 2160P, or whichever resolution above 1080P you want to mention, isn't intelligible. You can't see the pixels in the first place, so why increase resolution which includes: Higher cost and a new format, as Blu-ray doesn't support that high bitrates!
A few things that can be of much greater significance is colour depth, compression ratio, black levels (ie. mastering of the actual footage to get the levels right), and pure and simple competent people doing the actual transfer. A lot of things can go wrong in a transfer from film to digital formats, and you really tend to notice with all these nice displays we can suddenly afford. 1080P has AWESOME potential! Now we just need good transfers! (Not saying there aren't any, but there are movies out there that are pretty bad transfers, all things considered)


RE: cool
By dever on 4/3/2007 1:33:12 PM , Rating: 2
Try using the display as a computer monitor as well, or trying to view small text and you'll quickly see that the 1920x1080 resolution has validity. My 15" laptop is 1920x1200 and I love using it at it's native resolution. I love the extra real estate.


RE: cool
By NainoKami on 4/3/2007 4:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
We are not talking about a computer here. I have a 23" 1920x1200 screen and I love it, but even sitting a few feet from it I can't see the pixels - at all! I have better than 20/20 vision (ie. about 20/15 to 20/10), but film is one thing, and computing is another... And I hate to be nit-picky, but I think the subject was films...


RE: cool
By darkpaw on 4/6/2007 3:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
Great link, thanks. I bought a flat screen in February, and went cheap with a 37" 720p instead of being an idiot and maxing my credit for a 1080p.

Definately looks like the better choice in the end and I can always pickup a 1080p in a few more years when they drop down to the price I paid for my cheap 720.


RE: cool
By BZDTemp on 4/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: cool
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 9:42:41 AM , Rating: 4
> "And you know this how? Have you checked most BD movies?"

It's been reported by several trade journals; the full list of 25GB BD movies is available online.

> "I think you need to do some reading on compression tech since you're naming MPEG2 as if it is a bad thing. "

MPEG2 has lower image quality than VC-1/H.264 at a given bitrate. The early 25GB BD films that used MPEG2 suffered from a very "soft" picture, and more compression artifacts.

This is pretty basic stuff, and not really open to debate.


RE: cool
By Spivonious on 4/3/2007 9:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
pwned


RE: cool
By SunAngel on 4/3/2007 9:54:27 AM , Rating: 1
You can go to this website and learn all about the current and previous movies released on Blu-ray.

http://www.blu-ray.com/

Nearly everything is being produced on the 50GB discs with a variety of formats from MPEG-2 to to VC-1 to MPEG-4 AVC.


RE: cool
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 10:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
Most new releases are now BD-50. The stuff already out is primarily BD-25. For instance, 16 Blocks, Rocky, Terminator, Total Recall, A Knights Tale, The Brothers Grimm, BulletProof Monk, Windtalkers, Underworld Evolution, etc, etc, etc.


RE: cool
By Roy2001 on 4/3/2007 1:47:54 PM , Rating: 3
Agree that 30GB is more than enough for VC1/AVC coded movies. If you have to fill 50GB with a single move with AVC instead of MPEG2, I am afraid that the bit rate is so high that current BD player won't be able to handle/decode them.


RE: cool
By Belard on 4/3/2007 3:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
That 25GB format is a single layer... And how many titles on HD-DVD are single layered? Wait, that would make them 15GB!

Your math is a bit off... A full HD-DVD disc is a bit bigger than a half full BlueRay disc.


RE: cool
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 4:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "That 25GB format is a single layer..."

Which is what I said. Whats your point?

> "...And how many titles on HD-DVD are single layered?"

Not many, but there are a few. Again, whats your point? My statement was that, given most movies can easily fit within 25GB that, for movies, anything much beyond that is wasted. Yes, Blu Ray can ship a full season of 24 on 3 disks rather than 4...but no, that's not exactly a huge factor in winning the format war.


RE: cool
By therealnickdanger on 4/3/2007 8:32:27 AM , Rating: 3
I would just like it if either side would commit to telling the truth about "legitimate copy" policies.


RE: cool
By Aikouka on 4/4/2007 5:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
The problem I see with this, Moishe, is that even the article states that most people with their set-ups will see almost no discernible differences if any at all.

Then you've got terms like "higher quality" which the numbers are right, if you encode at a higher bitrate, you do have the chance (depending on what's on the screen) for a better picture overall. There's no denying that. But that's like comparing the MFLOPs of a processor to another. It's a viable method of showing how fast a processor can execute (certain: i.e. floating point) operations. But the thing is... consumers may never even see that tangible difference, even though it exists.

Not the best example ever, but I think it gets the point across. So what I think this [bit rage bragging] amounts to is just another word you'll hear thrown around amongst the now defunct Circuit City sales team when they try to sell you expensive things :P.


Comes Down To Price
By kelmon on 4/3/2007 7:57:50 AM , Rating: 2
If we're unlikely to notice the difference in quality between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray then, as far as I am concerned, the decision between the 2 formats will be down to the price. Amazon seems to be flogging the cited Nine Inch Nails at the same price for both formats so it looks like the cost of the player will likely be the deciding factor.

If Blu-Ray is unable to make a noticeable difference with the extra 20GB then it's not much use. In this case they are going to need the best priced players in order to "win" this battle since that will likely be the next thing that consumers will look at (assuming that they don't consider the price the most important factor to begin with).

Mind you I still consider both formats unnecessary so 20GB makes bugger-all difference to me...




RE: Comes Down To Price
By Goty on 4/3/2007 8:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
You don't necessarily need the lowest priced players, all you need is market penetration.


RE: Comes Down To Price
By ATC on 4/3/2007 12:00:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't necessarily need the lowest priced players, all you need is market penetration.

And a little thing called studio support. IMHO, the first format to be offered by all major studios will be the victor. And BD is one major studio away from that.


RE: Comes Down To Price
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 12:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
The consumer doesn't care about studio support; they care about how many films they can buy, and how much they cost. Right now, most movies are not being released in either format....all the studios are just "testing the waters" so to speak. Even the Sony-owned ones.

By the way, while BD leads in major studios, HD-DVD leads in total studios: 21 to 20.


RE: Comes Down To Price
By ATC on 4/3/2007 12:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The consumer doesn't care about studio support

That's a very narrow vision and out of touch comment.

Most DVD sales are driven by releases from the major studios. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself.
What makes you thing it will be different with BD or HD-DVD?

Let me give you an extreme case scenario; say out of the top ten box office releases, all ten are on BD and 6 are on HD-DVD? Would you still stand by your "the consumer doesn't care about studio support" comment?


RE: Comes Down To Price
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 12:26:00 PM , Rating: 3
> "What makes you thing it will be different with BD or HD-DVD?"

Past history. As of three months ago, HD-DVD led in total releases, even though BD had more "exclusive" studios. Today, BD has a small edge in total releases...but HD-DVD has more total studios. In a few months, the situation could be reversed again.

The studio count doesn't matter. What counts is the number of films those studios are releasing. A studio can "support" a format with a single release. That in itself does nothing for the format. Title volume is everything.


RE: Comes Down To Price
By Gatt on 4/4/2007 12:11:56 AM , Rating: 1
Um,

Studio count and number of titles are directly proportional.

HD-DVD has exactly 1 exclusive studio with mainstream titles.

Library size sells formats, HD-DVD loses by a factor of something obscenely large considering the number of studios. One studio isn't going to make HD-DVD win.

It's over, was a long time ago.


RE: Comes Down To Price
By Yawgm0th on 4/4/2007 1:06:32 AM , Rating: 3
Studio count and title volume are not directly proportional. There's a high correlation, but that's not the same thing.

HD-DVD has 21 studios, while Blu-Ray has 20. Yet, Blu-Ray has released more titles, because the studios supporting Blu-Ray have more titles to release and/or have chosen to release more titles.

Given the hypothetical situation of that one mainstream studio having more titles released than the several mainstream Blu-Ray-supporting studios, HD-DVD would be winning, because it would have a higher title volume, despite the lower number of studios supporting it. Obviously that isn't the case, but the point is the same.

Masher's point is entirely correct. No consumer cares about more studios supporting a given format. It's about how many titles are released. You see to think you're arguing about who's winning, but Masher didn't imply an opinion as to that matter in any regard. His point is that people aren't paying attention to the studios; they're paying attention to releases.

Masher is completely right on this one.


RE: Comes Down To Price
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 8:47:27 AM , Rating: 5
> "Amazon seems to be flogging the cited Nine Inch Nails at the same price for both formats so it looks like the cost of the player will likely be the deciding factor"

I don't think players will sway the format war by itself...media costs are too large a part of the picture. Personally, I see one of two scenarios happening.

1) HD-DVD gets the first sub-$200 player and studios start exploiting cheaper HD-DVD mastering/production costs to sell titles at or very near standard DVD costs. HD-DVD wins.

or 2) HD-DVD and BD titles continue in price parity, and very slowly descend over time. Eventually BD wins through sheer exhaustion.


RE: Comes Down To Price
By Chadder007 on 4/3/2007 9:48:55 AM , Rating: 5
Then Holographic disc comes out and bust both of them... I think im going to sit out the whole HD video player war.


RE: Comes Down To Price
By SunAngel on 4/3/07, Rating: -1
RE: Comes Down To Price
By bplewis24 on 4/3/2007 12:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
You don't believe studio support will factor into this at all?

I recently read a poster say that Universal is rumored to be considering opening themselves up to Blu-ray by the end of summmer. Have you heard/read anything like that? Wouldn't that be a huge factor in this whole thing?

Brandon


RE: Comes Down To Price
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 12:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think studio support per se is important...what counts is the number of titles released. One studio releasing 20 films is more of a factor than ten studios with one release each.

So far, HD-DVD and BD have been seesawing back and forth on total titles. If one of the two ever gets to the point of having 2-3 times the material as its competitor, then the battle is pretty much going to be over.


VHS vs Betamax all over again.
By johnprice on 4/3/2007 8:48:42 AM , Rating: 1
Can anyone else see where this is heading?
Its gonna be the format wars all over again.

In the 80s VHS always had its clear advantages over Betamax i.e. better rental services and more porn available.
The only thing that Sony's betamax had was better technical specifications... much like Blu-Ray by the looks of things.

It will be interesting to see how this goes.




RE: VHS vs Betamax all over again.
By Spivonious on 4/3/2007 9:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
Umm...where have you been for the past year?

And, as much as I hate to admit it, Blu-Ray currently has more movies out than HD-DVD, and more players in the market (mostly thanks to the PS3).

Either Blu-Ray wins, or everyone does dual format players, like the whole DVD-R/DVD+R scene.


RE: VHS vs Betamax all over again.
By SiN on 4/3/2007 11:04:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but there is more porn content on HD-DVD.
Doesn't matter anyway, Betamax was still used in studios for its higher quality however it had a shorter play time than VHS.

BR has the same play time as HD DVD, and then some. And as mentioned, it has barely noticable quality over HD DVD.
I personaly see this, and saw it like this previously, as Sony bloating BR content.

VHS porn content = VHS boom
Internet porn = Internet boom
DVD porn content = DVD boom
Verdict still out on HD/BR DVD

I can see BR winning through marketing and blind purchases as TV's are now comming with Blu Ray Ready stickers, which i think is unfair compitition. They were ready and able for both if they display 1080P.

I can also see HD winning through price comparrison, as it was and still is and will be cheaper to adopt the HD DVD standalone players.

However, PS3 throws a spanner in the works. I don't think BR would be the favoured format if it weren't for PS3.

I'm not a Sony Hater, just not happy with their consumer relations. Which in turn has turned me off them. I'm waiting before joining the Next gen DVD format anyway. Save myself a few €€€.


RE: VHS vs Betamax all over again.
By jeffbui on 4/3/2007 11:36:28 AM , Rating: 2
Internet porn has made the physical media porn influence disappear. People won't just leave the internet and go back to using a DVD/HDDVD/BDROM.


RE: VHS vs Betamax all over again.
By ATC on 4/3/2007 12:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree with that. This time around the porn industry will have very little influence.

Having said that, HD-DVD was only initially ahead of BD in porn-industry backing due to BD pressing capacity allocation (due to Sony/Disney agreement from when a porn clip made it on to a batch of Disney discs - remember that fiasco?).

That allocation has already begun with factories coming on line.

Both formats will equally support the porn industry but in a discrete way to protect their respective public images. Another reason to take the porn industry out of the loop for as far as what format will prevail.


RE: VHS vs Betamax all over again.
By SiN on 4/4/2007 10:03:16 AM , Rating: 2
To counter both your claims, 20+ GB HD movies over the net? Good luck with your patients on that one, we don't have the infastructure yet to see something like that take off with the "Movie" industry. It'll be a while before such a thing is a viable source of revenue, untill then, HD/BR will be king when they're mainstreem. And while porn grosses more than than the american sports put together and hollywood your looking at BR/HD DVD being the format of choice for now.

So depending on which side of the fence the porn industry takes up with will have an edge, and as far as i'm aware they want to sit on the fence but find it hard with the BR format.


By bkiserx7 on 4/4/2007 2:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
RE: VHS vs Betamax all over again.
By Link on 4/10/2007 3:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
girl/boyfriendless single geeks for HD masterbatetion experience at their leaving room. LOL


RE: VHS vs Betamax all over again.
By Link on 4/10/2007 3:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
HD-DVD: A must have electronic gadget for girl/boyfriendless single geeks for HD masterbatetion experience at their leaving room. LOL


By Assimilator87 on 4/3/2007 10:56:04 AM , Rating: 2
I thought that both formats could support the same bitrates, resolutions, and lossless audio, leaving only capacity as the deciding factor in determining technical superiority. If that is in fact the case, then why don't they just make HD-DVDs look just as good and sound just as good as BD-ROMs and just use another disc if the size goes over 30GB?




RE: BD-ROM's Only Advantage is Capacity per Layer
By SunAngel on 4/3/07, Rating: -1
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 11:35:19 AM , Rating: 1
Neither format is "future-proofed" beyond 1080p, given neither supports anything beyond this, nor will ever be able to...not without incapacitating the entire existing player base, at least. If the need for more resolution materializes, it will do so on a new format. Period.

There is no "greater value" to having a few more unused GB on a movie release. Right now, the only value BD brings to movies is for those with a runtime of four or more hours.


By threepac3 on 4/3/2007 11:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm... If I remember correctly early DVD players didn't support Progressive Scan PS2 included. They (DVD-Forum) didn't create a whole new format to support this.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 12:01:58 PM , Rating: 3
For the simple reason that DVDs were already (for the most part) encoded in progressive format, but played interlaced, as current TVs (when DVD was introduced at least) could only display 480i. The situation isn't true with BD/HD-DVD...you're seeing the film in its native format. Any resolutions beyond 1080p is going to require a format change. New players and new discs.

And please, let not have anyone reopen the old "DVDs are interlaced" debate. Surely that factoid should have been put to bed by now.


By threepac3 on 4/3/2007 11:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
That solutions guarantees HD-DVD no longer holds price strength over Blu-ray.


By ArneBjarne on 4/3/2007 4:57:59 PM , Rating: 1
BD also supports higher bitrate 54.0 Mbit/s vs 36.55 Mbit/s


By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 6:42:09 PM , Rating: 2
Again, a feature that, while it may be useful for data, is useless for movies....except in the rare case of one coded with an inefficient codec.


By ArneBjarne on 4/4/2007 3:04:47 AM , Rating: 2
The bitrate in the BD movie spec is obviously relevant for BD movies only and not for BD data discs at all.

Are your DVD data discs affected in any way by the 1x DVD speed specified in the DVD movie format?


By joex444 on 4/5/2007 10:45:26 PM , Rating: 2
Let's say that 90% of that is video, it's about right, gives 5Mbits for audio (all audio tracks).

Then, let's say you use 50Mbits total, so you've just used 45Mbits for video.

Now, let's see what HD is, compared to SD: 1920*1080/(720*480) = 6. So, 45/6 = 7.5Mbits.

Now, DVD only allows 9.8Mbits for video + audio, and it usually averages about 5.5Mbits on a decent release. Some extreme releases are in the 7Mbit range.

Now, recall that DVD uses MPEG2 and HD/Blu Ray use H.264 (AVC1). Awesome, so we've just shown that Blu-Ray can store as much information as a DVD at 7.5Mbits. Then we can take the HD equivelant rate = 36/54 * 7.5 = 5 Mbits.

Wait, is 5Mbits in H.264 enough quality for a DVD? Well, as a comparison, I have some mighty fine H.264 samples of 1280x544 material encoded at 6.4Mbits. Converting for resolutions, this is equivelant to 3.1Mbits SD.

So, what I've just shown is that HD-DVD offers 62% more bitrate than is needed.


This is nonsense
By DoaRules on 4/3/2007 8:44:43 AM , Rating: 1
Um hello have they forgotten about Toshiba's 51GB HD DVD disc.




RE: This is nonsense
By Zandros on 4/3/2007 9:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
Can existing HD-DVD players read three more densely packed layers?


RE: This is nonsense
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 9:51:00 AM , Rating: 2
Toshiba has said existing players "may" be compatible with the 51GB format, but they won't know for sure until the spec is finalized.


RE: This is nonsense
By goodstuff on 4/3/2007 9:53:43 AM , Rating: 4
No they can't, and as of now they're vaporware just like HD-DVD's TL45 discs that never materialized. Blu-Ray also has 200GB discs from TDK, but they don't play on current players.


CRT VS LCD/PLASMA
By SiN on 4/3/2007 8:30:28 AM , Rating: 2
Would this show any noticable differance on a CRT screen compaired to LCD/Plasma? I don'y know if you can get a 1080P CRT but i'm just thinking about SED and the likes... I haven't looked into 1080P TVs so i don't know. I'm not even sure if they're available.

If you can get a 1080P CRT and there is noticable dif then maybe Sonys argument holds water.




RE: CRT VS LCD/PLASMA
By phusg on 4/3/2007 8:43:47 AM , Rating: 2
Sure you can get 1920 × 1080 pixel @ 100 Hz refresh rate CRT's, in fact quite a few people may already have one as a computer monitor. This would be one of the few setups where I think you might see the difference. Once you sit >3 meters away, as most people do from their TVs, you're going to have a hard time seeing this difference.


RE: CRT VS LCD/PLASMA
By Jedi2155 on 4/3/2007 11:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
Although screen size and being able to see the difference is also important. I have a 19" CRT that can do 1920x1440 (albiet @ 60 Hz) but it is extremely difficult to see the difference of video past 1280x720p. You would need at least a 21" to see a real difference.


The future of Blu ray...
By daftrok on 4/3/2007 1:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
When you think about these two formats, the average consumer sees two identical sides. It's like playing a game at 720p and then playing it at 728p. You can't see the difference. Imagine when Blu-ray comes out with 75 GB of space (50GB on one side for the movie, 25 GB on one side for the extra content). With purely 50 GB JUST for the movie, you can push these movies to a higher resolution that is a lot closer than people would think: 1440p. If you are saying that there is no difference between 1080p and 1440p then clearly you haven't seen it, because it is identical to saying that I can't see the difference between a 2 Megapixel picture and a 4 Megapixel picture. You don't need 50 GB for 1080p movies, but dammit you need it for 1440p, and when in two years 1440p is introduced and another 2 years after that they become all the rage like 1080p is now, you're gonna be glad you went Blu-ray. HD DVD and Blu-ray are identical quality wise, but those 20GB, the majority of companies supporting Blu-ray and the movie choices is what makes Blu-ray the clear winner in this race.




RE: The future of Blu ray...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 1:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "If you are saying that there is no difference between 1080p and 1440p then clearly you haven't seen it..."

Most consumers can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p, this is a fact. As for formats beyond 1080p, its a moot point. Any extra space on a BD-50 disc will not be used to support higher-resolution formats. The spec doesn't currently support any, and if they were ever added, it would mean new players, with additional processing power.

You might see 2160p releases in 10+ years. But if so, they'll be on a totally new format which bears little relationship to either HD-DVD or BD.


RE: The future of Blu ray...
By Sartori42 on 4/4/2007 5:07:52 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your reasoning....

First, I can't imagine anyone who wants to flip over their discs. It may seem like a silly thing, but it was such an issue with laserdiscs (remember those?) that they came up with players with complex mechanisms to play both sides so the consumer wouldn't have to physically flip the discs.

To compare the formats, as this article does, you have to compare apples to apples; a 2-sided HD-DVD versus a 2-sided BD. 30 GB versus 50 GB. Even tho the technology exists, have we gone beyond 2-layer DVDs? No, not to any extend worthy of discussion. The BD would seem to have an advantage in capacity that SHOULD allow producers more flexibility to add content, or improve compression codecs, or whatever. The extra capacity should give them the flexibility to improve the consumer's experience. So, apples-to-apples, they have a better tool with BD. Now, whether or not anyone takes full advantage of the capabilities of BD, only time will tell.

While I can't see a future for a half-measure like 1440p, one can assume there will come a day when we will move to something like 2160p. But, before that, like we have now with SD DVD players, I think you'll see upsampling HD DVD players. But, HD video is still in its infancy now, so that is a long way off.

Then, there's the data storage capacity, which is clearly a BD advantage. It won't determine the market winner, but it will be a factor.


Mep
By Mitch101 on 4/3/2007 2:30:29 PM , Rating: 2
I only know of 1 movie that takes up over 30 gig in TS format in 1080P and its just over 3 hours long. So the 20 gig extra is just waste. Remeber a lot of this extra stuff is audio like 2 channel audio, French audio, german audio, etc. So maybe Blue Ray can hold a few more languages.

30 gig is plenty.

But I will stick with HD-DIVX and 1080i output over DVI.

I get around 2 hours on standard DVD-9 and Im willing most people cant tell the difference anyhow.




RE: Mep
By SunAngel on 4/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mep
By Mitch101 on 4/3/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mep
By SunAngel on 4/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Mep
By Mitch101 on 4/4/2007 9:11:40 AM , Rating: 1
Yea Microsoft really botched WMV encoding. Sad because it really has a lot of promise its just not stable and hard to tell if its working at all.

Still time for it to make a comeback if they clean it up and provide an easier interface being more intuitive and less resource intensive. Maybe someone else needs to slap a third party gui to it to fix what Microsoft cant seem to do.

Its probably what keeps it from being a popular encoding format.


More than Image Quality
By Chernobyl68 on 4/3/2007 11:30:28 AM , Rating: 2
There's more than improved image quality that can be included in the extra space.
How about making sure more titles have alternate sound formats? DTS anyone? right now very few DVD movies ship with DTS, but many more have it in a theatrical release.
And is Sony ever going to create a home theater standard for is SDDS theater sound format?




Pfff... just their problem
By thartist on 4/3/2007 12:09:21 PM , Rating: 2
If the video difference is unperceptible in real-world use, and audio doesn't need to be "uncompressed" to be excellent, this whole point is worthless.-

This war is being fought with paper firearms.




Extra content?
By geddarkstorm on 4/3/2007 3:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
Well, on the video side of things, an extra 20 gigs can easily be used to fit extra/supplemental content into a disk. Such as interviews, behind the scenes, and outtakes (which is the only extra content I ever view, but none the less). Heck, some DVDs even have mini games (over the hedge) associated with the movie, so an extra 20 gigs can be used to stuff all sorts of fluff that some people may like. Emphasis on some of course, but in the end we can't know till it happens.

From what I see, what's most important at this point in time is which technology has the greatest capacity for future enhancement: not for the sake of movie industry video and audio, which doesn't need super amounts of data, but for the sake of storage or science and archival video etc., where an extra 20 gigs can be incredibly useful and reduce costs associated with having to use many more disks. All this stuff has been focussed mainly on the movie industry, but that's not where these disks will find their only use, and ultimately the untility of a format over a broad range will define its economic success. Bluray is obviously superior in storage, so that's a boon right there for it in the computer/science/governmental worlds where storage space is everything. However, even then the expandability of the technology is most important (as we remember what happened to Laser Disks eh? They seemed nice and flooded the science world, but then were creamed since they had no future expandibility).




20GB difference
By wallijonn on 4/4/2007 1:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
If 20GB really makes a difference, then why still include movie trailers which take up space? Does that mean that Blu-Ray disks will come with even more movie trailers, past the 20 minutes which seem the norm for Disney movies? Can I expect each Blu-Ray movie to now have 30 minutes of trailers? Yes, the same goes for HD-DVD - they'll be able to squeeze in 20 to 30 minutes of movie trailers.

Both camps say that the movie can be directly accessed. And how long do you think that will last? It used to be that one could insert a disk in and go get a cola while the trailers played. Now they've shifted the trailers to after you press the play button. If they can be that smart, then they'll find some way to completely fill up the extra space with useless trailers, videos, commentaries, story boards, box art, game demos, links to on-line stores, etc.




Blu Ray is losing
By Sharky974 on 4/6/2007 3:23:28 AM , Rating: 2
Poor Marcus Yam.




blue ray
By speed99 on 4/6/2007 2:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
now in thai don't news this story
---------------------------------
http://koh-samui99.blogspot.com




THERE'S NO SIZE ADVANTAGE
By smudge1 on 4/8/2007 1:56:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised many of you haven't seen this article.
http://www.techspot.com/news/24095-toshiba-beats-b...




Over looked?
By Ke on 4/9/2007 4:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
It seems everyone has assumed that the 50Gb on BD must solely be used for the main feature. Exta content greatly boosted DVD sales, would it not be convenient to have all of that extra content (high quality) on one disc?




By jabber on 4/10/2007 6:25:04 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone tried Superbit DVDs? Basically strip off all the extras (who wants them anyway?) and use the space to up the bit rate. I have a few and the average bit rates do indeed run higher (30 to 50% depending on length of film) but is it a drastic improvement? I'd have to say no, it's there but its subtle. Yes I have run standard and Superbit versions to compare and there is a little bit of extra smoothness/shaprness (depending) to the image but this could also be down to advancements in mastering techniques between the two versions if they were produced a few years apart. There is more to producing good picture quality than just stonking great bit rates.




LOL! Great caption on the photo
By SunAngel on 4/3/07, Rating: -1
RE: LOL! Great caption on the photo
By Moishe on 4/3/2007 8:06:56 AM , Rating: 5
Just wanted to point out that this has nothing to do with the game consoles. We're just talking about the format wars here. Not everything comes down to Sony vs. Microsoft or Xbox360 vs PS3.


RE: LOL! Great caption on the photo
By SunAngel on 4/3/07, Rating: -1
RE: LOL! Great caption on the photo
By masher2 (blog) on 4/3/2007 10:10:50 AM , Rating: 4
Err, what victory? Blu Ray and HD-DVD combined are still being outsold by VHS and, until a month or two ago, were even being outsold by the 'failed' UMD movie format. The facts are simple...neither side has won. At the moment, they're both losing.


By Sharky974 on 4/6/2007 3:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
Actually HDDVD is showing greater long term signs of winning:

DVDwars.com shows HDDVD making massive gains on Blu-Ray at amazon.

Highest selling HDDVD at amazon once again routinely outselling highest Blu-Ray.

HDDVD/Blu Ray stand alone hardware at amazon, well that isn't even a competition. Blu Ray stand alone sales aren't even a blip on the radar.

In stand alone players, Blu-Ray has been completely routed. If it wasn't for PS3, the format would already be buried.

The Matrix recently announced for first release on HDDVD due to technical issues with Blu-Ray.

Burgeoning HDDVD exclusives such as the TV show "Heroes" from Universal.

BD backer Samsung recently announcing a hybrid HDDVD/Blu-Ray player, showing lack of confidence in BR.

The fact the low cost Chinese manufacturers are aiming for $199 stand alone HDDVD players by this Christmas.

The fact Sony needed a quick victory, but instead things are dragging out longer and longer.

The list really just goes on and on. The sad thing is, Sony pissed away the video game market to win Blu-Ray, and now it looks like they wont even do that..


By Moishe on 4/3/2007 11:31:14 AM , Rating: 4
I fail to see how this matters. I don't think DT is an anti-Sony site. There are users on both sides who are fanboys, but the site is just giving us news blurbs. Regardless though, this is about formats and not about some MS vs Sony contest.

It gets old to have Sony vs MS brought up on unrelated news.


RE: LOL! Great caption on the photo
By killerroach on 4/3/2007 8:12:48 AM , Rating: 3
I take it you're not familiar with how Nine Inch Nails catalogues their albums... each successive release is called a "Halo", based on the shape of the disk. They've been doing this since the late 1980s, and, apparently, continue to do so.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




17 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki