The bet: Blu-ray vs HD DVD

[BLUpassion]

Hey everyone!
A friend of mine and I have a bet ($200) that one format is better than the other in the technical specs arena. I have put my money on BD simply for the fact that we all know it is superior. Now i just need to back it up with facts and I would like your help please.

Basically im lookin for any links, charts, tables, or what-have-you to back up my claim. Ive found a few different things, mostly from this site, but i need more as my opponent, if you will, is overly stubborn and hates to be wrong. So once and for all I would love to silence him about this.

Thank you in advance for your time.

[w_tanoto]

try wikipedia, open blu-ray or HD DVD, then search for comparison of high definition format article link. Some of them have source stated.

I would buy some share on Blu-ray if it is possible, as I believe BD will win this battle.

Long live blu-ray

[nhaase]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray

Go to the comparison chart about 3/4 of the way down the page. Be sure to point out storage capacity, for sure, as well as bitrates for all audio codecs and video transfer. Also point out BD+ under security and the mandatory hard coating to protect the 50gb of data. If that's not enough, sorry to say, but your friend has a neurological problem and the $200 would be paid out in monopoly money even if he did admit defeat.

[dobyblue]

Technical specs? That's the easiest.

Data
Blu-ray 54.825 Mbps
HD DVD 36.55 Mbps

Audio/Video
Blu-ray 48 Mbps
HD DVD 30 Mbps

You win.

[w_tanoto]

don't forget it's supported by Walt Disney!!!
The only one sided with HD DVD exclusively is Universal and a studio I can't remember the name.
The rest of it have BD release.
the percentage: 67% Blu-ray

Here is the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...l_disc_formats

[CptGreedle]

Take a look at this:

[CptGreedle]

Some important things to note:
HD-DVD claimed to have the ability to add a 3rd layer that would give it 45 GB, but that has been all but scrapped since there are too many problems with it and will not play in existing players.
The Numerical Aperture is the amount of data on the disc per mm. The larger the number, the tighter the data is.
The Track Pitch (I believe) is the space between the data. The smaller the data, the smaller the empty space.
The Hard Coating on the BD is a new technology that is tougher than HD-DVD and DVD protective coating and is .5mm thick.
Blu-ray discs also have Uncompressed Audio which most (if any) HD-DVD's can not handle due to the disc size restrictions (30GB).
BD-j is Java based, making it easier to program for. HDi is proprietary Microsoft programming language which is currently in the lead in interactivity but BD-j is still evolving and a new update is expected soon.

All BD players (that I can find) run DVDs (common misperception).
The XBOX 360 add-on can only support up to 1080i since the XBOX only outputs at 1080i maximum, which the PS3 supports FULL 1080p.
HD-DVD discs are cheaper to manufacture per disc, but Blu-ray discs are cheaper to manufacture per Gigabyte. The difference in price is negligible and does not affect overall price or sales.

[BLUpassion]

You guys are awesome. Thanks so much. I really really appreciate this.

[jorg]

also the studio and hard ware suport!!!:
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-1...s/4/Index.html

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

Some important things to note:
HD-DVD claimed to have the ability to add a 3rd layer that would give it 45 GB, but that has been all but scrapped since there are too many problems with it and will not play in existing players.

That got replaced in January with TL51 (three layers @17GB per layer) with a possible 50% boost in the mux bandwidth (i.e. trying to duplicate BD specs).

Seems even a bigger fairy tale to me, but last I heard it had been put before the DVD Forum for ratification. Really it would be a brand new HD DVD, probably causing the current players to become obsolete.

Gary

[WriteSimply]

Instead of taking that bet, just tell him to give you only half the bounty and spend that other half on BD discs that he himself could enjoy.


fuad

[dakota81]

Originally Posted by BLUpassion

Hey everyone!
A friend of mine and I have a bet ($200) that one format is better than the other in the technical specs arena. I have put my money on BD simply for the fact that we all know it is superior. Now i just need to back it up with facts and I would like your help please.

Basically im lookin for any links, charts, tables, or what-have-you to back up my claim. Ive found a few different things, mostly from this site, but i need more as my opponent, if you will, is overly stubborn and hates to be wrong. So once and for all I would love to silence him about this.

Thank you in advance for your time.

You're never going to get him to accept your reasonings, just like you will never accept any of his reasonings for HD DVD being better. Good luck.

Another forum I visit has one user with a signature that goes something like "Never get into an argument with an idiot, he'll just bring you down to his level then beat you with experience." Now I'm not calling your friend an idiot, but I think you get the general idea. You will never win the bet.

[BLUpassion]

I think I'll win. Thats why im asking for the tech stuff. They are definitive numbers that will not change and show that the Blu-ray format is better than the HD-DVD format. I know your not calling him an idiot, but i wouldnt take offense if you did either. Either way, all if the info given thus far is great and will definitely silence his big mouth.

PS: i better win, i need that 200 for more movies

[BLUpassion]

Originally Posted by nhaase

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray

__________________
HD-DVD is the shaft. When you buy it, YOU get shafted.

I love your sig btw.... I should repeat it to my friend.

[CptGreedle]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

That got replaced in January with TL51 (three layers @17GB per layer) with a possible 50% boost in the mux bandwidth (i.e. trying to duplicate BD specs).

Seems even a bigger fairy tale to me, but last I heard it had been put before the DVD Forum for ratification. Really it would be a brand new HD DVD, probably causing the current players to become obsolete.

Gary

Thanks for the info.
Looks doubtful too. But on the other hand, there is in development a 4 layer Blu-ray disc that can hold 100 GB.
It will probably also go the same direction as the 3 layer HD-DVDs, but it is there if they need to bring it in.

[movies3]

your at the best site for all the facts you need to know

[BLUpassion]

After two rounds of debating heavily... BD - 2 HDDUD - 0

Every point that has been brought up by my friend I have countered with why BD is better. His source was an article from June of 2006. 2006!!!

He went thru so many different things and i just cam back and put him in his place!!

[CptGreedle]

Well Done!

So did you get the $200? Or did you already spend it on BD movies?

[CptGreedle]

also, just curious, what were some of the "arguments" that he put forward?

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

Thanks for the info.
Looks doubtful too. But on the other hand, there is in development a 4 layer Blu-ray disc that can hold 100 GB.
It will probably also go the same direction as the 3 layer HD-DVDs, but it is there if they need to bring it in.

There's also 3-layer 100GB and 6-layer 200GB (33GB per layer). But, these 100/200GB plans have always been for recordable use (BD-R/RE). Nobody has yet said they intend on pushing the replication beyond 2-layer.

And these 3-8 layer ideas will never see much use if the economics of layers doesn't improve radically. For the product to sell successfully:

1 x N-layer price <= N x 1-layer price

We're still not even close to that with DVD+R DL.

Gary