BD vs. HD - Blu-ray Forum

m1a1 · 01-10-2006, 12:08 PM

ok, this may seem like a really supid question and if it is let me know.
but can someone relaly explain the difference between BD tech and HD tech?
or post a link that will explain the difference.

Knight-Errant · 01-10-2006, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by m1a1

ok, this may seem like a really supid question and if it is let me know.
but can someone relaly explain the difference between BD tech and HD tech?
or post a link that will explain the difference.

Both Bluray disk (BD) and HD-DVD (High-Definition Digital Video Disc) are HD (High-Definition) formats.

However they are marketed by separate companies and so have different names and they are incompatible with eachother.

A BD will not play in an HD-DVD player, and vica versa.

Also, both BD and HD-DVD are blue laser technologies, meaning they scan their disks using a violet rather than red laser beam. This is to allow more fine detail to be placed on the disks increasing their storage capacity.

In essence, think VHS and Betamax. Both were analogue video tape formats which were incompatible with eachother.

Toshiba is the main interest involved in HD-DVD (along with several others) whilst Sony pushes Bluray disk (along with several more others).

Hope this helps.

m1a1 · 01-10-2006, 09:07 PM

well i knew that part of the hd vs bd.
i really wanted to know any technical differences, whether one is better then the other etc...

DaVinci42 · 01-10-2006, 09:50 PM

Reasons why Blu-ray movies can look & sound better than HD-DVD.

1) Higher capacity: 50GB vs 30GB

Allows for higher bitrate encoding using less lossy compression. The extra space might actually be useless without item #2.

2) Higher Data transfer rate: 54.0Mbps vs. 36.55Mbps

This allows for for higher quality video & audio. Lossless audio can take up a lot of bandwidth, up to around 18-20Mbps depending on the codec. The limit for video is 40Mbps. So a balancing act still needs to be performed to provide the maximum quality. But the 50% higher data transfer rate can definetly be used.

Just look at the difference between Superbit DVDs & regular editions to see the effects of less compression. Or the 2 disc Extended LOTR vs the regular version.

3) Natively progressive 1080 movie discs.

HD-DVD is natively interlaced like DVDs & needs to be deinterlaced for progressive output. Such deinterlacing can easily introduce artifacts. I guarentee that all new TVs sold in 5-10 years will be progressive scan. Smaller tvs don't need the extra resolution of 1080 & larger TVs will all be 1080p.

m1a1 · 01-11-2006, 12:04 AM

thanks, do you have any links to further read on that?

James Morrow · 01-11-2006, 12:13 AM

Another minor detail is that BD is about what you can get whilst HD DVD is about what you can get away with ...

HD DVD shows what you can achieve using 1990s (DVD) technology and a blue (violet) laser. In contrast, BD is about identifying what you can achieve using modern technology and a blue (Violet) laser. Not surprisingly, the DVD-based option was considered and rejected during the development of Blu-Ray, because it was essentially a compromise that limited the potential afforded by the new 405nm laser both in the short and the longer term. For example, the maximum capacity HD-DVD consists of four layers of 15GB each, double-sided (two layers per side) - based upon existing DVD18 technology. In contrast, at launch the maximum capacity BD has two 25GB layers and is single-sided, but both Sony and TDK have demonstrated four layer 100GB discs (single-sided) and Sony have demonstrated eight layer 200GB recording (again single-sided).

… and this is before one considers the many potential further enhancements available as the technology matures, including – for example – multi-level recording, active layer addressing, etc..

It’s hardly surprising that a Toshiba spokesperson has described AOD (HD DVD) as a stepping stone towards Blu-Ray. … but what’s the point of jumping on to a stepping stone towards the future when the future is already here? Unless you want to sell a lot of compromised kit on that stepping stone and then sell the no compromise version a few years down the line. It might make sense to salesmen, but to customers it all adds up to broken promises, disillusionment and extra cost.

For example, HD DVD documents talk of high definition at 25Mbps as offering “the ultimate quality” but push 8Mbps because 25Mbps means multi-layer for HD DVD. Yet if 25Mbps gives “the ultimate quality”, how is it that digital cinema specifies 250Mbps for a 2K video signal (2048 by 1080 pixels maximum) which is roughly equivalent to 1080p (with an additional 57Mbps for audio etc.) If 25Mbps provides the ultimate, why are they wasting ten times this bandwidth in digital cinemas? Ultimately it comes down to hype. If one can convince the majority of the public that 720p at 8Mbps is wonderful (and compared to 1930s based standard definition PAL and NTSC it very likely is) then you can sell them short (and sell them again a little later.)

Back to the Future
This is reminiscent of the Xbox site which describes the Xbox 360 as having “next generation audio” sufficient to live up to an “audiophile’s dream,” which turns out to be 48kHz PCM … not even 96kHz – let alone 192kHz. More of an audiophile’s nightmare ….

phloyd · 01-11-2006, 01:22 AM

The DCI stuff is much less compressed than any of the consumer formats.

I believe that they have every frame represented in JPEG2000 format.

Yeah, should be pretty good

Cheers!

shiltz · 01-11-2006, 02:28 PM

Blu-ray is technicaly superior in basicaly every way to HD-DVD, capacity, transfer speeds, supporting companies, video quality, I was definatly going to get Blu-ray over HD-DVD until the one huge sticking point just came out recently, price.

Blu-ray's announced prices so far are downright rediculous, now I would be will to pay say 10-20% more for Blu-ray over HD-DVD, but right now the MSRP's for the Blu-ray players announced are about 200-400% more than the HD-DVD players and the Blu-ray media is equaly rediculous, $42.99 for a single 50GB BD-R disk is insane, I can buy a dual layer DVD burner itself for less than a single DL Blu-ray disk, they really need to get their act together and price the Blu-ray properly it it will die, two weeks ago I had absolutly zero interest in HD-DVD, I was Blu-ray all the way, now with some pricing info released i'm seriously starting to consider HD-DVD instead because reagless of how much better Blu-ray is I can't simply justify spending $1-2k for a player when I can get an HD-DVD one for $500.

Scrollall · 01-11-2006, 03:28 PM

I was also on the BD bandwagon until the pricing came out. Hopefuly once it goes mass market the costs will reflect that move. However all is not quite as straight forward as it would seem. Read this article yesterday:

Quote:

HD DVD: Blu-ray Has Problems
BetaNews
January 7, 2006, 5:34 PM
Having finished speaking to Blu-ray, BetaNews sat down with a representative from HD DVD to discuss how the Microsoft-backed format will compete with Blu-ray. Toshiba HD DVD expert Mark Knox gave a thorough explanation of the optical disc drive technology, and said that because of Blu-ray's complicated design, HD DVD will triumph in the format war.

Blu-ray's difficulties, Knox explained, begin with the technology itself, and the idea that its 50GB dual-layer capacity is superior to HD DVD's 30GB. Through the use of better codec technology, such space is not actually needed for high-definition movies. In fact, Blu-ray admitted to BetaNews that most discs won't go beyond the 25GB mark.

Although both formats are being demoed at the show, there has been much speculation about production problems in the Blu-ray camp. Knox confirmed the rumors, and said the problem involves Blu-ray's numerical aperture. In order to store more data on a disc, the laser is bent into a cone shape.

The aperture setting on standard DVD is 0.6, with the setting for HD DVD a slightly smaller 0.65. The additional capacity is provided by the blue laser technology. However, in order to store a full 25GB per layer, Blu-ray has adopted a 0.85 aperture, meaning the divots on the optical layer are smaller and more prone to error.

Additionally, the smaller aperture requires a thinner disc and smaller layer spacing, which makes the medium more vulnerable. Initially, Blu-ray was designed with an external cartridge to protect the disc. But now, the group is utilizing a special protective coating that has not yet been finalized due to disagreements.

Given HD DVD's design, the requirements are similar to standard DVDs, which has eliminated manufacturing problems. Knox said that Blu-ray could see a much higher production flaw rate, as the equipment has minimal room for error during both the medium and content manufacturing, as well as the reading of discs by Blu-ray players.

Additionally, Knox refuted claims that Blu-ray's use of Java for its menu system and interactive features will make development easier. He explained that Blu-ray is actually using an imported specification from Europe named JEM. Due to JEM's large number of instructions, it will be nearly impossible for hardware manufacturers to ensure devices will function under any circumstance.

Knox said that HD DVD can verify that every disc will play on every player, as its iHD specification is DHTML-based rather than built with Java. This also means reduced production time for studios and firms developing the HD content. Hewlett-Packard recently asked Blu-ray to adopt iHD, but the group balked at the demand.

Regarding the notion of limited content in the HD DVD format, BetaNews was told that while HD DVD does not have the number of studios its rival touts, the Blu-ray Disc Association simply wanted "as many logos as possible on their PowerPoint slide."

Knox highlighted the fact that of the American Film Institute's Top 100 movies, more than 60 were from studios supporting the HD DVD format, and a majority of the major-grossing films of the last three years were from those same studios. HD DVD has focused on quality, not quantity, Knox said.

HD DVD recently signed foreign and independent studios, including European filmmaker Studio Canal. By the end of 2006 HD DVD will have roughly 200 titles available, more than Blu-ray has announced thus far.

Another problem plaguing Blu-ray development is a requirement placed on the organization when it signed a deal with Fox Studios. Fox had demanded that high-definition DVDs utilize a stricter copy-protection format than AACS, which is employed by both Blu-ray and HD DVD. While HD DVD rejected the demand, Blu-ray conceded.

Knox said Fox was unhappy with the decision to let consumers watch movies where they please using Mandatory Managed Copy. Managed Copy has become a contentious point in the next-generation DVD battle, with HP demanding that Blu-ray require the technology on all discs. However, as Fox's proprietary DRM will run after AACS, the studio could theoretically restrict such portability.

This proprietary format is also rumored to have delayed the PlayStation 3, which will include a Blu-ray drive for the masses. Pioneer is set to launch a $1,800 Blu-ray player in May.

HD DVD, meanwhile, is launching its first players in March. Toshiba will bring two models to market with price points of $499 and $799 USD. The high-end model will feature improved output connections for home theater aficionados who have componentized systems.

For the average consumer, with surround sound systems "from a box," the $499 HD DVD player will be sufficient, Knox said. Consumers will see the $499 models in stores such as Best Buy, while the $799 player will be available through specialty retailers where home theater buffs can additionally purchase high-end audio systems.

James Morrow · 01-11-2006, 07:53 PM

... what do you expect a Toshiba HD DVD expert to say? ... ;^>

... and I'd always assumed that 50 was larger than 30 - certainly if you want to back up your PC data it is likely to be an advantage - and if most movies don't go past 25GB then you can issue a single layer BD-ROM where HD DVD has to go dual layer.

... plenty of holes in this press release - for example, it seems a little bizarre to state that HD DVD will have more titles available by the end of the year than BD has announced by today ...

... also, HD DVD does not have similar requirements to DVD, because the manufacturing tolerances have to be tighter in order to support the much higher data density than DVD, etc. ...

... on a related topic, those who complain about the high cost of blank BDRs/BDREs forget two things: first, blank DVDRs/DVDRWs started off as being pretty expensive too, and second, the HD DVD camp is currently rather quiet on the recorder front (405nm lasers of the power they require are not exactly cheap) making the cost of any blank HD DVDR/HD DVDRW media rather academic ...

"For the average consumer, with surround sound systems from a box, the $499 HD DVD player will be sufficient" says a great deal - good enough, it will suffice - not "will be superb." It might be a travesty of what "high definition" was defined as being in the early 1960s, but well, it's a good enough ...

... and will the average consumer be prepared to pay for optional extras such as a remote control? ...

shiltz · 01-11-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Morrow

"For the average consumer, with surround sound systems from a box, the $499 HD DVD player will be sufficient" says a great deal - good enough, it will suffice - not "will be superb." It might be a travesty of what "high definition" was defined as being in the early 1960s, but well, it's a good enough ...

... and will the average consumer be prepared to pay for optional extras such as a remote control? ...

Well from what Crutchfield.com has for info on the $499 Toshiba HD-DVD player it does come with a remote, and well honestly even if it didn't you're still talking $499 for the player plus $30 for a universal remote vs $1000-$1800 for a Blu-ray player with the remote, now either that's gota be one damn fancy remote or companies selling Blu-ray players are ripping off the consumers since hardware wise there isn't that big of a difference in cost (suposedly the hardware for the Blu-ray drive for the PS3 costs about $200), $600 is the upper limit of what I would consider an acceptable price as a consumer, over that and i'll probably end up going HD-DVD, i'd much rather go Blu-ray, but not if they are going to rip me off like that.

James Morrow · 01-12-2006, 12:06 AM

Just because product A costs more than product B doesn't necessarily mean that the makers of product A are ripping you off. The minor issue of quality can come into it. Yes Blu-Ray employs more advanced technology than HD DVD, and this may result in a slight price premium - but don't forget that 1080i is inherently flawed and of significantly lower quality than 1080p, with the result that a well made low price BD player playing a film in 1080p should be able to outperform the best HD DVD player playing the same film in 1080i. So where's the rip-off there? None, except that the HD DVD machine is hamstrung by its own built-in compromises.

If you don't care about quality and "future-proofing," go for the HD DVD machine. If you want something that gives you the best of current consumer technology and that will not be recognised as inferior and dismissed as "yesterday's technology" within a year or so, go for a BD machine.

It's your choice - but remember that you're not comparing like with like ...

shiltz · 01-12-2006, 01:36 AM

Well seeing as there is only one TV sold that actualy accepts a 1080p input 1080p support currently isn't that important, basicaly all 1080p TV's sold except for one only actualy accept 1080i, they do display at 1080p using a line doubler, but they don't actualy accept a 1080p input. Even sony who is the one that designed Blu-ray and the main one pushing 1080p doesn't actualy sell a TV that accepts a 1080p signal.

Also 200-400% more is not a "slight price premium", 10-20% is a slight premium and that would be totaly acceptable, 200-400% is ourageous and a ripoff.

Shadowself · 01-12-2006, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shiltz

Also 200-400% more is not a "slight price premium", 10-20% is a slight premium and that would be totaly acceptable, 200-400% is ourageous and a ripoff.

First, it's 100% to 260% more, not 200-400% more. (A $2,500 item is 400% more than a $500 item. A $1,800 item is 260% more than a $500 item.)

Also you are comparing the lowest priced, "cheap" item with items across the entire range of the competition.

The lowest priced BDA drive I've heard of so far is approximately $1,000. The lowest priced HD-DVD drive is approximately $500. The BDA drive is really only 100% more. -- Sure, that's a huge price difference, but as I've said before it is only one manufacturer out of many manufacturers which have not announced.

Additionally, the $1,000 BDA player seems to be a "mid range player" from the descriptions I've read, whereas the $500 HD-DVD player appears to be a very cheap, "loss leader" variant.

Maybe it would be more realistic to compare the midrange $800 HD-DVD player announced with the $1,000 BDA player. In this case the price differential (or premium) is only 25% -- closer to the 10% to 20% you claim would be reasonable for you.

However, I still maintain that the Blu-ray group must be nearly the same price as the HD-DVD group once everyone is shipping players -- if only to kill the perception that they are too high priced if for no other reason.

James Morrow · 01-12-2006, 08:31 AM

Remote Possibility

Incidentally, Shiltz, I'm not sure where the "no remote" comment came from initially, but Crutchfield's HD DVD blurb does not unequivocally state that it includes a remote control: Details - remote control is not the same as: Included Accessories - remote control, any more than Battery Powered means that a device includes batteries. Yes, most people would assume that a remote control is included - and it may well be, despite previous press information - but the ad is ambiguous in this instance.

If the package doesn't include a remote control, I assume that either the salesperson would explain that, in order to minimise costs the remote control is an optional extra, or you would be left to discover the truth when you got home - only to have to go back to the store to order it ...

At least you can still operate the main functions of a player without the remote - unlike battery-powered Christmas presents without the batteries ...

shiltz · 01-12-2006, 01:17 PM

If you go into the features tab on crutchfield page on it that tell what a product does or doesn't come with and what it can and can't do, on that it does list multifuntion remote as yes. Now admititly that couldn't be 100% accurate since it's still a ways for the release of it and it could change, but i've never heard of anything like that coming without a remote, remotes add practicaly nothing to the cost of the unit, few bucks maybe, it's a standard thing on basicly any home AV component.

James Morrow · 01-12-2006, 08:29 PM

Good point, Shiltz - although if the information that it didn't come with a remote as standard was true that might explain why a "multibrand" remote is included. Perhaps Crutchfield decided that it would save time, effort and general hassle to supply a cheap universal remote along with the player themselves - sounds like a sensible move to me.

The Bleeding Edge ...

Talking of good points, as you say, many current 1080 displays do not accept and display 1080p signals via the HDMI input(s) - but then again, there's currently very little if any 1080p material to display. With the mass launch of Blu-Ray the material will be there, and not surprisingly, many manufacturers are readying their full 1080p capable displays to take advantage of it. As consumers it makes sense for us to make sure that our systems are 1080p from end to end - otherwise we're wasting our money. Given copy protection issues, it's advisable to ensure that any display you buy accepts 1080p inputs via HDMI, and of course that the high definition player outputs true 1080p from 1080p material. Unfortunately, no HD DVD player currently provides 1080p whilst nearly all BD players do.

01-10-2006, 12:08 PM	#1
m1a1 Junior Member Member since:Jan 2006 Location:Detroit, MI	BD vs. HD ok, this may seem like a really supid question and if it is let me know. but can someone relaly explain the difference between BD tech and HD tech? or post a link that will explain the difference.

01-10-2006, 09:50 PM	#4
DaVinci42 New Member Member since:Jan 2006	Reasons why Blu-ray movies can look & sound better than HD-DVD. 1) Higher capacity: 50GB vs 30GB Allows for higher bitrate encoding using less lossy compression. The extra space might actually be useless without item #2. 2) Higher Data transfer rate: 54.0Mbps vs. 36.55Mbps This allows for for higher quality video & audio. Lossless audio can take up a lot of bandwidth, up to around 18-20Mbps depending on the codec. The limit for video is 40Mbps. So a balancing act still needs to be performed to provide the maximum quality. But the 50% higher data transfer rate can definetly be used. Just look at the difference between Superbit DVDs & regular editions to see the effects of less compression. Or the 2 disc Extended LOTR vs the regular version. 3) Natively progressive 1080 movie discs. HD-DVD is natively interlaced like DVDs & needs to be deinterlaced for progressive output. Such deinterlacing can easily introduce artifacts. I guarentee that all new TVs sold in 5-10 years will be progressive scan. Smaller tvs don't need the extra resolution of 1080 & larger TVs will all be 1080p. Last edited by DaVinci42; 01-10-2006 at 09:55 PM.

01-12-2006, 01:36 AM	#13
shiltz Member Member since:Jan 2006	Well seeing as there is only one TV sold that actualy accepts a 1080p input 1080p support currently isn't that important, basicaly all 1080p TV's sold except for one only actualy accept 1080i, they do display at 1080p using a line doubler, but they don't actualy accept a 1080p input. Even sony who is the one that designed Blu-ray and the main one pushing 1080p doesn't actualy sell a TV that accepts a 1080p signal. Also 200-400% more is not a "slight price premium", 10-20% is a slight premium and that would be totaly acceptable, 200-400% is ourageous and a ripoff. Last edited by shiltz; 01-12-2006 at 01:38 AM.

01-12-2006, 08:31 AM	#15
James Morrow Member Member since:Jun 2004	Remote Possibility Incidentally, Shiltz, I'm not sure where the "no remote" comment came from initially, but Crutchfield's HD DVD blurb does not unequivocally state that it includes a remote control: Details - remote control is not the same as: Included Accessories - remote control, any more than Battery Powered means that a device includes batteries. Yes, most people would assume that a remote control is included - and it may well be, despite previous press information - but the ad is ambiguous in this instance. If the package doesn't include a remote control, I assume that either the salesperson would explain that, in order to minimise costs the remote control is an optional extra, or you would be left to discover the truth when you got home - only to have to go back to the store to order it ... At least you can still operate the main functions of a player without the remote - unlike battery-powered Christmas presents without the batteries ... Last edited by James Morrow; 01-12-2006 at 08:34 AM.

01-10-2006, 09:07 PM	#3
m1a1 Junior Member Member since:Jan 2006 Location:Detroit, MI	well i knew that part of the hd vs bd. i really wanted to know any technical differences, whether one is better then the other etc...

01-11-2006, 12:04 AM	#5
m1a1 Junior Member Member since:Jan 2006 Location:Detroit, MI	thanks, do you have any links to further read on that?

01-11-2006, 12:13 AM	#6
James Morrow Member Member since:Jun 2004	Another minor detail is that BD is about what you can get whilst HD DVD is about what you can get away with ... HD DVD shows what you can achieve using 1990s (DVD) technology and a blue (violet) laser. In contrast, BD is about identifying what you can achieve using modern technology and a blue (Violet) laser. Not surprisingly, the DVD-based option was considered and rejected during the development of Blu-Ray, because it was essentially a compromise that limited the potential afforded by the new 405nm laser both in the short and the longer term. For example, the maximum capacity HD-DVD consists of four layers of 15GB each, double-sided (two layers per side) - based upon existing DVD18 technology. In contrast, at launch the maximum capacity BD has two 25GB layers and is single-sided, but both Sony and TDK have demonstrated four layer 100GB discs (single-sided) and Sony have demonstrated eight layer 200GB recording (again single-sided). … and this is before one considers the many potential further enhancements available as the technology matures, including – for example – multi-level recording, active layer addressing, etc.. It’s hardly surprising that a Toshiba spokesperson has described AOD (HD DVD) as a stepping stone towards Blu-Ray. … but what’s the point of jumping on to a stepping stone towards the future when the future is already here? Unless you want to sell a lot of compromised kit on that stepping stone and then sell the no compromise version a few years down the line. It might make sense to salesmen, but to customers it all adds up to broken promises, disillusionment and extra cost. For example, HD DVD documents talk of high definition at 25Mbps as offering “the ultimate quality” but push 8Mbps because 25Mbps means multi-layer for HD DVD. Yet if 25Mbps gives “the ultimate quality”, how is it that digital cinema specifies 250Mbps for a 2K video signal (2048 by 1080 pixels maximum) which is roughly equivalent to 1080p (with an additional 57Mbps for audio etc.) If 25Mbps provides the ultimate, why are they wasting ten times this bandwidth in digital cinemas? Ultimately it comes down to hype. If one can convince the majority of the public that 720p at 8Mbps is wonderful (and compared to 1930s based standard definition PAL and NTSC it very likely is) then you can sell them short (and sell them again a little later.) Back to the Future This is reminiscent of the Xbox site which describes the Xbox 360 as having “next generation audio” sufficient to live up to an “audiophile’s dream,” which turns out to be 48kHz PCM … not even 96kHz – let alone 192kHz. More of an audiophile’s nightmare ….

01-11-2006, 01:22 AM	#7
phloyd Blu-ray Guru Member since:Dec 2003 Location:California Trading Score:5	The DCI stuff is much less compressed than any of the consumer formats. I believe that they have every frame represented in JPEG2000 format. Yeah, should be pretty good Cheers!

01-11-2006, 02:28 PM	#8
shiltz Member Member since:Jan 2006	Blu-ray is technicaly superior in basicaly every way to HD-DVD, capacity, transfer speeds, supporting companies, video quality, I was definatly going to get Blu-ray over HD-DVD until the one huge sticking point just came out recently, price. Blu-ray's announced prices so far are downright rediculous, now I would be will to pay say 10-20% more for Blu-ray over HD-DVD, but right now the MSRP's for the Blu-ray players announced are about 200-400% more than the HD-DVD players and the Blu-ray media is equaly rediculous, $42.99 for a single 50GB BD-R disk is insane, I can buy a dual layer DVD burner itself for less than a single DL Blu-ray disk, they really need to get their act together and price the Blu-ray properly it it will die, two weeks ago I had absolutly zero interest in HD-DVD, I was Blu-ray all the way, now with some pricing info released i'm seriously starting to consider HD-DVD instead because reagless of how much better Blu-ray is I can't simply justify spending $1-2k for a player when I can get an HD-DVD one for $500.

01-11-2006, 03:28 PM	#9
Scrollall New Member Member since:Jan 2006	I was also on the BD bandwagon until the pricing came out. Hopefuly once it goes mass market the costs will reflect that move. However all is not quite as straight forward as it would seem. Read this article yesterday: Quote: HD DVD: Blu-ray Has Problems BetaNews January 7, 2006, 5:34 PM Having finished speaking to Blu-ray, BetaNews sat down with a representative from HD DVD to discuss how the Microsoft-backed format will compete with Blu-ray. Toshiba HD DVD expert Mark Knox gave a thorough explanation of the optical disc drive technology, and said that because of Blu-ray's complicated design, HD DVD will triumph in the format war. Blu-ray's difficulties, Knox explained, begin with the technology itself, and the idea that its 50GB dual-layer capacity is superior to HD DVD's 30GB. Through the use of better codec technology, such space is not actually needed for high-definition movies. In fact, Blu-ray admitted to BetaNews that most discs won't go beyond the 25GB mark. Although both formats are being demoed at the show, there has been much speculation about production problems in the Blu-ray camp. Knox confirmed the rumors, and said the problem involves Blu-ray's numerical aperture. In order to store more data on a disc, the laser is bent into a cone shape. The aperture setting on standard DVD is 0.6, with the setting for HD DVD a slightly smaller 0.65. The additional capacity is provided by the blue laser technology. However, in order to store a full 25GB per layer, Blu-ray has adopted a 0.85 aperture, meaning the divots on the optical layer are smaller and more prone to error. Additionally, the smaller aperture requires a thinner disc and smaller layer spacing, which makes the medium more vulnerable. Initially, Blu-ray was designed with an external cartridge to protect the disc. But now, the group is utilizing a special protective coating that has not yet been finalized due to disagreements. Given HD DVD's design, the requirements are similar to standard DVDs, which has eliminated manufacturing problems. Knox said that Blu-ray could see a much higher production flaw rate, as the equipment has minimal room for error during both the medium and content manufacturing, as well as the reading of discs by Blu-ray players. Additionally, Knox refuted claims that Blu-ray's use of Java for its menu system and interactive features will make development easier. He explained that Blu-ray is actually using an imported specification from Europe named JEM. Due to JEM's large number of instructions, it will be nearly impossible for hardware manufacturers to ensure devices will function under any circumstance. Knox said that HD DVD can verify that every disc will play on every player, as its iHD specification is DHTML-based rather than built with Java. This also means reduced production time for studios and firms developing the HD content. Hewlett-Packard recently asked Blu-ray to adopt iHD, but the group balked at the demand. Regarding the notion of limited content in the HD DVD format, BetaNews was told that while HD DVD does not have the number of studios its rival touts, the Blu-ray Disc Association simply wanted "as many logos as possible on their PowerPoint slide." Knox highlighted the fact that of the American Film Institute's Top 100 movies, more than 60 were from studios supporting the HD DVD format, and a majority of the major-grossing films of the last three years were from those same studios. HD DVD has focused on quality, not quantity, Knox said. HD DVD recently signed foreign and independent studios, including European filmmaker Studio Canal. By the end of 2006 HD DVD will have roughly 200 titles available, more than Blu-ray has announced thus far. Another problem plaguing Blu-ray development is a requirement placed on the organization when it signed a deal with Fox Studios. Fox had demanded that high-definition DVDs utilize a stricter copy-protection format than AACS, which is employed by both Blu-ray and HD DVD. While HD DVD rejected the demand, Blu-ray conceded. Knox said Fox was unhappy with the decision to let consumers watch movies where they please using Mandatory Managed Copy. Managed Copy has become a contentious point in the next-generation DVD battle, with HP demanding that Blu-ray require the technology on all discs. However, as Fox's proprietary DRM will run after AACS, the studio could theoretically restrict such portability. This proprietary format is also rumored to have delayed the PlayStation 3, which will include a Blu-ray drive for the masses. Pioneer is set to launch a $1,800 Blu-ray player in May. HD DVD, meanwhile, is launching its first players in March. Toshiba will bring two models to market with price points of $499 and $799 USD. The high-end model will feature improved output connections for home theater aficionados who have componentized systems. For the average consumer, with surround sound systems "from a box," the $499 HD DVD player will be sufficient, Knox said. Consumers will see the $499 models in stores such as Best Buy, while the $799 player will be available through specialty retailers where home theater buffs can additionally purchase high-end audio systems.

01-11-2006, 07:53 PM	#10
James Morrow Member Member since:Jun 2004	... what do you expect a Toshiba HD DVD expert to say? ... ;^> ... and I'd always assumed that 50 was larger than 30 - certainly if you want to back up your PC data it is likely to be an advantage - and if most movies don't go past 25GB then you can issue a single layer BD-ROM where HD DVD has to go dual layer. ... plenty of holes in this press release - for example, it seems a little bizarre to state that HD DVD will have more titles available by the end of the year than BD has announced by today ... ... also, HD DVD does not have similar requirements to DVD, because the manufacturing tolerances have to be tighter in order to support the much higher data density than DVD, etc. ... ... on a related topic, those who complain about the high cost of blank BDRs/BDREs forget two things: first, blank DVDRs/DVDRWs started off as being pretty expensive too, and second, the HD DVD camp is currently rather quiet on the recorder front (405nm lasers of the power they require are not exactly cheap) making the cost of any blank HD DVDR/HD DVDRW media rather academic ... "For the average consumer, with surround sound systems from a box, the $499 HD DVD player will be sufficient" says a great deal - good enough, it will suffice - not "will be superb." It might be a travesty of what "high definition" was defined as being in the early 1960s, but well, it's a good enough ... ... and will the average consumer be prepared to pay for optional extras such as a remote control? ...

01-12-2006, 12:06 AM	#12
James Morrow Member Member since:Jun 2004	Just because product A costs more than product B doesn't necessarily mean that the makers of product A are ripping you off. The minor issue of quality can come into it. Yes Blu-Ray employs more advanced technology than HD DVD, and this may result in a slight price premium - but don't forget that 1080i is inherently flawed and of significantly lower quality than 1080p, with the result that a well made low price BD player playing a film in 1080p should be able to outperform the best HD DVD player playing the same film in 1080i. So where's the rip-off there? None, except that the HD DVD machine is hamstrung by its own built-in compromises. If you don't care about quality and "future-proofing," go for the HD DVD machine. If you want something that gives you the best of current consumer technology and that will not be recognised as inferior and dismissed as "yesterday's technology" within a year or so, go for a BD machine. It's your choice - but remember that you're not comparing like with like ...

01-12-2006, 01:17 PM	#16
shiltz Member Member since:Jan 2006	If you go into the features tab on crutchfield page on it that tell what a product does or doesn't come with and what it can and can't do, on that it does list multifuntion remote as yes. Now admititly that couldn't be 100% accurate since it's still a ways for the release of it and it could change, but i've never heard of anything like that coming without a remote, remotes add practicaly nothing to the cost of the unit, few bucks maybe, it's a standard thing on basicly any home AV component.

01-12-2006, 08:29 PM	#17
James Morrow Member Member since:Jun 2004	Good point, Shiltz - although if the information that it didn't come with a remote as standard was true that might explain why a "multibrand" remote is included. Perhaps Crutchfield decided that it would save time, effort and general hassle to supply a cheap universal remote along with the player themselves - sounds like a sensible move to me. The Bleeding Edge ... Talking of good points, as you say, many current 1080 displays do not accept and display 1080p signals via the HDMI input(s) - but then again, there's currently very little if any 1080p material to display. With the mass launch of Blu-Ray the material will be there, and not surprisingly, many manufacturers are readying their full 1080p capable displays to take advantage of it. As consumers it makes sense for us to make sure that our systems are 1080p from end to end - otherwise we're wasting our money. Given copy protection issues, it's advisable to ensure that any display you buy accepts 1080p inputs via HDMI, and of course that the high definition player outputs true 1080p from 1080p material. Unfortunately, no HD DVD player currently provides 1080p whilst nearly all BD players do.

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals