Anoth BS article posted: Sound Advice: Not backing down on HD DVD pick

[BBlue]

Pure BS!

Sound Advice: Not backing down on HD DVD pick

Don Lindichspecial To The Star Tribune

Last update: November 25, 2007 – 4:42 PM
Q When you say your recommendation of HD DVD comes down to three things, I think you could actually distill it down to just No. 3. Your first reason, "Picture and sound quality are identical between formats," doesn't favor one over the other. No. 2, the lack of support for Blu-ray features in most players, is also a nonissue unless you can tell me that HD DVD has features unavailable in any Blu-ray player. So, if I follow you correctly, the only advantage of HD DVD is lower initial cost, if one discounts the higher capacity and potential of Blu-ray discs. You simply appear to dislike Sony.

STEVEN KELLY

A First, Blu-ray is backed by a group of companies, and I have nothing against Sony. In fact, I just bought its top TV and admire the many contributions it has made to the world of television. I am not a Blu-ray fan, though, and do not deny it. I have good reasons for feeling the way I do about HD DVD vs. Blu-ray.

HD DVD players do have features that Blu-ray players lack: mandatory picture-in-picture decoders and Web interactivity.

With picture-in-picture, you can open a second video stream with features such as director's commentary and behind-the-scenes looks at how the action sequences were made while you watch the actual scene unfold in the main picture. With Web interactivity, you can connect your HD DVD player to an Ethernet Web connection and download fresh content to enhance your discs. To see an interactivity demo, check out the Look and Sound of Perfect (www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com.

Blu-ray is just now announcing stand-alone players that can do picture-in-picture, and that is a lone model from Panasonic. The promised Web interactivity, BD-Live, is not available on any Blu-ray players, although developers are working on it. Others are starting to speak up about this. Clint DeBoer, editor-in-chief of Audioholics.com, had this to say on his blog:

"HD DVD is a completed spec. Blu-ray is a 'we're not done yet; gimme just a few more months and maybe we'll get it completed' spec. Let me repeat that: Blu-ray does not offer the same features as HD DVD, and the HD DVD features have been ready since Day 1. There is currently no player on the market (as of this writing, though they are coming out prior to the holidays) that handles dual stream video and BD Profile 1.1. For some odd reason, the TV commercials don't tell you this."

Blu-ray can certainly deliver a wonderful experience, and I don't want anyone to think otherwise. As I said, both formats have terrific video and sound quality. You can get a lot more for your money elsewhere, though. HD DVD's advanced features, affordability and universally supported completed spec make it an easy recommendation.

These strong advantages far outweigh Blu-ray's extra disc space. To its credit, Blu-ray's additional capacity does provide more opportunities to use better-sounding audio tracks (lossless compression), but few people have systems that can reveal the differences, and even then they would be minor if the track is well done. As it is, plenty of HD DVDs have lossless audio tracks.

[MallardRider]

Much of what he is saying is true but there is absolutely no denying that with Blu-ray's sales outnumbering HD-DVD's, such extras and interactive "eye candy" won't cut it.

Yes, HD-DVD does offer such features that Blu-ray doesn't - for now.

I think he needs to read up more on HD-DVD's limitations before adopting a format.

[Titus]

I still dont really see the point of this post.. no offense its just gonna drag out more of the same comments we see over and over including this one...

[quetzalcoatl]

Lets see if he has enoguh guts to respond to my email. A little more than 20% titles being lossless is enough on HD. When BD has almost 61%.

[Whytewash]

while I agree with some part of the argument, I dont agree with it all. I understand the Blu does not have a completed profile yet. It is a given. The fact that Blu Ray has the ability to expand FAR beyond the reaches of HD DVD however is not mentioned.

Also, i DO NOT agree with the fact that the article said the extra space doesnt mean much! That is totally bullshit! who wants all three Pirates movies on 8 discs (50 GBx3 = 150 GB + 25 GBx3 = 75 GB TOTAL = 225 GB or 7.5 dual layer HD DUD discs.) Well thought out argument but poorly delivered from the HD DUD camp.


Sry about the rant. If you cant understand it I apologize. Ive been drinkin...

[Beta-guy]

the write up says ""HD DVD is a completed spec. Blu-ray is a 'we're not done yet; gimme just a few more months and maybe we'll get it completed' spec." how exactly is HD-DVD a complete spec? we're not even sure TL51 will work in the current HD-DVD players!

here's how I see it, Blu-ray is a foundation format, build the foundation first and throw on the small features next, while HD-DVD is a cute extra's format, tweaking an existing format and then throw on small features the format clings too for dear life...

[patrick99]

Another red shill, obviously.

[Robmx]

People always think there isn't a difference between the two due to the fact companies like WB use the same setup for both Blu and HD DVD.... If neutral companies would use the the power of both machines then people would see the difference !

[joeorc]

Originally Posted by BBlue

Pure BS!

Sound Advice: Not backing down on HD DVD pick

Don Lindichspecial To The Star Tribune

Last update: November 25, 2007 – 4:42 PM
Q When you say your recommendation of HD DVD comes down to three things, I think you could actually distill it down to just No. 3. Your first reason, "Picture and sound quality are identical between formats," doesn't favor one over the other. No. 2, the lack of support for Blu-ray features in most players, is also a nonissue unless you can tell me that HD DVD has features unavailable in any Blu-ray player. So, if I follow you correctly, the only advantage of HD DVD is lower initial cost, if one discounts the higher capacity and potential of Blu-ray discs. You simply appear to dislike Sony.

STEVEN KELLY

A First, Blu-ray is backed by a group of companies, and I have nothing against Sony. In fact, I just bought its top TV and admire the many contributions it has made to the world of television. I am not a Blu-ray fan, though, and do not deny it. I have good reasons for feeling the way I do about HD DVD vs. Blu-ray.

HD DVD players do have features that Blu-ray players lack: mandatory picture-in-picture decoders and Web interactivity.

With picture-in-picture, you can open a second video stream with features such as director's commentary and behind-the-scenes looks at how the action sequences were made while you watch the actual scene unfold in the main picture. With Web interactivity, you can connect your HD DVD player to an Ethernet Web connection and download fresh content to enhance your discs. To see an interactivity demo, check out the Look and Sound of Perfect (www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com.

Blu-ray is just now announcing stand-alone players that can do picture-in-picture, and that is a lone model from Panasonic. The promised Web interactivity, BD-Live, is not available on any Blu-ray players, although developers are working on it. Others are starting to speak up about this. Clint DeBoer, editor-in-chief of Audioholics.com, had this to say on his blog:

"HD DVD is a completed spec. Blu-ray is a 'we're not done yet; gimme just a few more months and maybe we'll get it completed' spec. Let me repeat that: Blu-ray does not offer the same features as HD DVD, and the HD DVD features have been ready since Day 1. There is currently no player on the market (as of this writing, though they are coming out prior to the holidays) that handles dual stream video and BD Profile 1.1. For some odd reason, the TV commercials don't tell you this."

Blu-ray can certainly deliver a wonderful experience, and I don't want anyone to think otherwise. As I said, both formats have terrific video and sound quality. You can get a lot more for your money elsewhere, though. HD DVD's advanced features, affordability and universally supported completed spec make it an easy recommendation.

These strong advantages far outweigh Blu-ray's extra disc space. To its credit, Blu-ray's additional capacity does provide more opportunities to use better-sounding audio tracks (lossless compression), but few people have systems that can reveal the differences, and even then they would be minor if the track is well done. As it is, plenty of HD DVDs have lossless audio tracks.

and the HD DVD is complete huh..what about managed copy..what ever happened to that. was that not the main reason for Microsoft to choose HD DVD over Blu-Ray..? or since "IHD" was done before BD-J o'l what a load of BS in of itself..thats the only reason we are in this mess in the first place. Blu-Ray backers of the BDA said NO to IHD because they thought BD-JAVA was better interactive software in the long run.

Well of course that did not go over too well with Microsoft instead they used THEIR Hold on the Computer software market to leverage this So called War. good for them ,because its evident HD DVD could not win on its OWN merits,
its pretty sad When one company with so much power in the IT industry is keeping a format alive just to spite all the other's.

HD DVD "the look and sound of Microsoft"


remember BETAMAX even though it was a better technology at the time than VHS its the same thing "ONE company keeping a format alive just to spite the rest" but that just goes to show even with all the press saying its a "Sony format" in the case of Blu-Ray its not just a SONY format...but with Toshiba HD DVD is a Toshiba only format.

[The Guardian]

I've seriously never understood why some people think web interactivity and (true) picture in picture is so important?

IMHO they're just gimmicks. Sure some people might like them, but are they a deal-breaker for anyone?

[welwynnick]

Originally Posted by BBlue

Pure BS!

Sound Advice: Not backing down on HD DVD pick

Don Lindichspecial To The Star Tribune

STEVEN KELLY

HD DVD players do have features that Blu-ray players lack: mandatory picture-in-picture decoders and Web interactivity.

With picture-in-picture, you can open a second video stream with features such as director's commentary and behind-the-scenes looks at how the action sequences were made while you watch the actual scene unfold in the main picture. With Web interactivity, you can connect your HD DVD player to an Ethernet Web connection and download fresh content to enhance your discs. To see an interactivity demo, check out the Look and Sound of Perfect (www.thelookandsoundofperfect.com.

Blu-ray is just now announcing stand-alone players that can do picture-in-picture, and that is a lone model from Panasonic. The promised Web interactivity, BD-Live, is not available on any Blu-ray players, although developers are working on it. Others are starting to speak up about this. Clint DeBoer, editor-in-chief of Audioholics.com, had this to say on his blog:

"HD DVD is a completed spec. Blu-ray is a 'we're not done yet; gimme just a few more months and maybe we'll get it completed' spec. Let me repeat that: Blu-ray does not offer the same features as HD DVD, and the HD DVD features have been ready since Day 1. There is currently no player on the market (as of this writing, though they are coming out prior to the holidays) that handles dual stream video and BD Profile 1.1. For some odd reason, the TV commercials don't tell you this."

HD DVD's advanced features, affordability and universally supported completed spec make it an easy recommendation.

These strong advantages far outweigh Blu-ray's extra disc space. To its credit, Blu-ray's additional capacity does provide more opportunities to use better-sounding audio tracks (lossless compression), but few people have systems that can reveal the differences, and even then they would be minor if the track is well done. As it is, plenty of HD DVDs have lossless audio tracks.

Even though it's saying the same things over and over again, there are some specific reasons given for going HD.

HOWEVER, they are the very same reasons that HD had in it's favour at it's inception. Since then, they have not afforded HD any greater success than BD; quite the opposite in fact.

Moreover, when we want to chose a new format, we need to consider where we are likely to be in the future, not where we were a year ago. Internet interactivity and dual decoders (high def ones at that!) ARE in the roadmap for BD, and what we will have to live with in the future should form the basis of any valid decision. There's absolutely no point taking any sort of short-term perspective about something as significant as a new format.

Although HDDVD may yet survive the format war through Toshiba simply buying up studios and consumers, they won't win because of these transient standards and questionable interactivity advantages.

Nick

[BStecke]

Why is everybody so focused on what everything does now? If this is a format that is going to last ten years or so, then why settle for the one with the worst potential? The films themselves are offered in better quality on Blu-ray, but the gimmicky features are somehow taking precedent over that. I wish I could kill the guy who came up with the whole "value-added" craze. People need to have some patience. By this time next year, Blu-ray will have everything HD DVD does with better picture and sound quality.

[bferr1]

If extra features like PiP commentary come at the expense of overall PQ, then I say they can keep those extra features. Not interested.

[LynxFX]

I can think of three other things that HD DVD doesn't have over BD.

1. HD DVD won't play Disney titles.
2. HD DVD won't play Sony titles.
3. HD DVD won't play Fox titles.

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by BBlue

"HD DVD is a completed spec."

He is ignorant of some things going on behind the scenes (or knows and isn't telling the truth). The HD DVD group wouldn't be working on things to add or change if they were complete. I think it is a good thing for HD DVD that they are looking at the future and improvements they can make to HD DVD, but there are people out there making claims about them being complete, when they don't know what they are talking about.

I do believe that all HD DVD players supporting PiP and networking is an advantage for that side, but it is sad to see people ignorant of what is going on behind the scenes making false claims.

--Darin

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by darinp2

I do believe that all HD DVD players supporting PiP and networking is an advantage for that side, but it is sad to see people ignorant of what is going on behind the scenes making false claims.

All iPODs support iTunes. Isn't that an amazing accomplishment too?

I'm rather tired of the phrase "all HD DVD players". The first non-Toshiba deck couldn't even do HDi.

Gary

[darinp2]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

All iPODs support iTunes. Isn't that an amazing accomplishment too?

I'm rather tired of the phrase "all HD DVD players". The first non-Toshiba deck couldn't even do HDi.

Are you talking about the LG combo that didn't meet the requirements for even a 1.0 HD DVD player (even though it could play HD DVDs)? If I said, "all official HD DVD players" would that make you feel better?

And honestly, I'm not sure what you are arguing about. If you want to use the iTunes analogy, then you could say that the specs for Blu-ray players were written much like if iPods didn't have to support iTunes. Do you think that PiP and networking are features that are even close to as important to next generation discs as iTunes is to iPods? If not, your analogy really doesn't work and if so, the Blu-ray side really dropped the ball.

--Darin

[LynxFX]

One could also easily say not all HD DVD players support the 1080p picture stored on the disc. Some only display 1080i. This isn't much different than legacy profile 1.0 players not getting PiP, but rather having to play the stream seperately from the extras menu.

Reguardless, if the PS3 is updated to profile 1.1 then the BD group has had a compatible player out since Nov 17th, 2006.