Why no one talks about the problems HD DVD have?

[Dave]

Some people cant get enough of "hey see that pixel over there looks a bit better on those first HD DVDs than on BDs" (but not always) and then use terms like "delivers" ...
First of all curently i agree that HD DVD delivers... but for how long?

HD DVD have 15GB and 30GB media. 15GB is useless. 30GB is filled to the last bit. From now on movies will require more than 30GB. Then what? - oh yes i know.. "SUPER DUPER DVD" will come in charge... People get real, DVD of any form is lost forever! No mather if you put something before DVD or after DVD it is still the damn DVD!

For how long people will think sampling rates up to ONLY 96kHz is enough???
Blu-ray can store eight channels with sampling rates up to 192kHz and 24-bits!

HD DVD will have the smalest lifespan of all optic media ever released!


I wonder how some forum gurus can make people opinion change so much...
Look otside. Bigest companys support BD, every one drops HD DVD and smart people are waiting for the winner to come on top.

[zombie]

Originally Posted by Dave

HD DVD have 15GB and 30GB media. 15GB is useless. 30GB is filled to the last bit. From now on movies will require more than 30GB.

Have you actually seen the combo discs using 15GB? They look terrific. Also, most of the 30GB discs are not using anywhere near the full capacity. Some movies are using as little as 17GB! There most definitely is room to grow for most movies even with HD DVD. If and when Blu-ray is delivering the goods and putting HD DVD to shame then you can spout off about how short of a lifespan you believe HD DVD will have. As of right now though, it's Blu-ray's lifespan that's in jeopardy. There's simply no valid excuse for the crap that is available on BD right now. All of that Blu-ray potential means squat if it isn't utilized.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Dave

Some people cant get enough of "hey see that pixel over there looks a bit better on those first HD DVDs than on BDs" (but not always) and then use terms like "delivers" ...
First of all curently i agree that HD DVD delivers... but for how long?

HD DVD have 15GB and 30GB media. 15GB is useless. 30GB is filled to the last bit. From now on movies will require more than 30GB. Then what? - oh yes i know.. "SUPER DUPER DVD" will come in charge... People get real, DVD of any form is lost forever! No mather if you put something before DVD or after DVD it is still the damn DVD!

For how long people will think sampling rates up to ONLY 96kHz is enough???
Blu-ray can store eight channels with sampling rates up to 192kHz and 24-bits!

HD DVD will have the smalest lifespan of all optic media ever released!


I wonder how some forum gurus can make people opinion change so much...
Look otside. Bigest companys support BD, every one drops HD DVD and smart people are waiting for the winner to come on top.

I think you need to do some more research, chief.

A little hands on, firsthand experience might help, too, while you're at it.

Good job on this thread not even lasting five minutes at AVS. That has to be a time record somewhere...

[AV_Integrated]

DVD of any form is not lost forever, or else BD doesn't have a chance. HD-DVD and Blu-ray are very, VERY similar. I believe that the specs for both formats allow for the HD audio formats which include the higher bitrates you have mentioned.

15gb is NOT enough, as 25GB isn't for BD. While 30GB may work with VC-1 encoded movies, it doesn't leave a lot of room for growth. But, my understanding is that HD-DVD can go to triple layer discs in existing and future players - that's 45GB.

IMO, the most obvious downsides to HD-DVD are very simple: A lack of industry support. It is a very good format that is inferior on paper, but not in a way that will seriously impact video performance. It is a format that is delivering right now what BD is not, and it is coming in at a price that makes Blu-ray look silly.

Yet, despite that, HD-DVD hasn't the support from CE manufacturers and from studios. Without that support, HD-DVD really doesn't have a chance. I don't see HD-DVD as superior, but I do see it as being easier and perhaps being 'enough' to give everyone all the HD movies they wanted. Yet, without support, I have no intention of buying their player and perhaps being out $500+. I also have no intention of spending $1K+ on a Blu-ray player.

I'll wait, and continue to advise the same of others.

[zombie]

^ All good points AV.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by AV_Integrated

<snip>

Great post!

[AV_Integrated]

Originally Posted by JTK

Great post!

Thanks - and yet I've been called a fanboi for BD no less than a dozen times at AVS....

Go figure.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by JTK

I think you need to do some more research, chief.

A little hands on, firsthand experience might help, too, while you're at it.

Good job on this thread not even lasting five minutes at AVS. That has to be a time record somewhere...

I ve done research and it shows that HD DVD sucksh big timwe

And this thread was deleted 12 times in AVS because there is no free expresion of opinion and people are censored and fooled that HD DVD is better where world companys says it is not.
And all of you say the same and have the same weak points to make it look as of HD DVD is better. It is not, it is just cheaper

AV_Integrated, do not believe that the specs for both formats allow for the HD audio formats which include the higher bitrates. It is not that way

[hmurchison]

Dave

Both formats at their best are wonderful. Eschew the fighting buddy...pick the format you want knowing that the best HD experience in your life awaits you. Save the debating skills for a more meaningful topic.

[BTBuck1]

Originally Posted by AV_Integrated

Thanks - and yet I've been called a fanboi for BD no less than a dozen times at AVS....

Go figure.

AV_Integrated, it's a pleasure to have someone like you on these boards. Honestly we got a solid crew of level headed people here. My fav forum by far.

And I too have been called a BD Fanboi no less than a dozen times at avs too....

Oh wait, I AM A BD FANBOI!!!! w00t!

[Dave]

Originally Posted by hmurchison

Dave

Both formats at their best are wonderful. Eschew the fighting buddy...pick the format you want knowing that the best HD experience in your life awaits you. Save the debating skills for a more meaningful topic.

Yeah i know it hurts to show that HD DVD sucks

[BTBuck1]

Dave, seriously...

If there is one person on this forum who would love to see BR win, and HDDVD lose it's me.

However, you're going about whatever it is you're trying to acheive all wrong.

To the point where, short of the Mod's wanting to see us roast you into oblivion, this thread should be closed, and you considered warned that this will not be tolerated here any more than it was on hddvdAVSforums.com

[Dave]

I will shut up and just wait untill Sony releases their BD player. Then i will laugh big

[Dave]

Originally Posted by nyg

Some movies are using as little as 17GB!

Yes. Exactly! When 17 is the smallest, this means that 15GB HD DVD is already outdated. Automatically half of the HD DVD media variants are already in the past

Originally Posted by nyg

As of right now though, it's Blu-ray's lifespan that's in jeopardy

Hmmm. Toshiba vs. Sony and others? If you say so

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Dave

I will shut up and just wait untill Sony releases their BD player. Then i will laugh big

Do you promise? Can we hold you to that?


Honest to God: If you're going to be a fanboy, at least be a WELL INFORMED one?

You're as bad as any of the HD-DVD trolls at AVS are. Honestly. You give Blu-Ray supporters a bad name.

[AV_Integrated]

Originally Posted by Dave

Yes. Exactly! When 17 is the smallest, this means that 15GB HD DVD is already outdated. Automatically half of the HD DVD media variants are already in the past

Dave, your points are weak. HD-DVD could go triple layer which would put it in line with Blu-ray for storage space. Blu-ray can NOT go beyond 50GB for movie discs, this is per spec. HD-DVD can. So, that's enough.

As well, HD-DVD DOES look great. They have a ton of overhead for transfer rates so they can up bit-rates or audio codecs and get more out of everything.

BD does not require advanced audio codecs, so I'm not sure where it gets the advantage with audio. Where are you getting info that HD-DVD does not support advanced audio codecs? Moreso, because most movies aren't mastered at that level, does it really impact consumers?

It has been a while since I looked at the specs, but I thought DTS-HD was supported by HD-DVD as an allowed audio format? Links please if you have info to the contrary.

I get WHY you support Blu-ray. I feel that Blu-ray will win. But, please, your arguements are non-existent. You gotta recognize what BOTH formats have going for them. Price IS a big thing, and HD-DVD is delivering right NOW. So, you aren't going to win many arguements until you actually have both hardware and software from Blu-ray that truly proves to be superior.

For that matter, most people don't expect it to be superior. They expect Blu-ray to be 'identical' in quality to HD-DVD.

Then it's even a tougher arguement for you (and me)... How do you justify paying 2 times the price for a product that is identical in video and audio quality?

Those are the arguements you have to deal with, and it isn't a 'because I said so' answer. Step up your arguements, because most of us have heard them all before.

And we still (mostly) support Blu-ray.

[Shadowself]

Originally Posted by AV_Integrated

15gb is NOT enough, as 25GB isn't for BD. While 30GB may work with VC-1 encoded movies, it doesn't leave a lot of room for growth. But, my understanding is that HD-DVD can go to triple layer discs in existing and future players - that's 45GB.

Do you have anything to back up your understanding that existing players can read triple layer HD DVD disks (45 GB)? I hope you're correct as this would allow HD DVD to work for epic scale movies (3+ hours). If not then the people with first generation HD DVD players will be locked out of the triple layer disks when (if?) they arrive. Without additional facts, I tend to believe that currently shipping HD DVD players won't read triple layer, 45 GB, disks any more than currently shipping Blu-ray players will read quad layer, 100 GB, disks.

However, I do believe 25 GB is enough for some works -- once they get to using VC-1 or AVC. However, those epics still won't fit on 25 GB though and still look & sound like anything any of us would value.

As some of you have probably guessed, I'm in this for the long haul. I won't buy a box of either type for personal use until mid 2007. Maybe the format war will be over by then, maybe not. My personal guess at this point is, "not".

Right now Blu-ray looks much better on paper. 25 GB offers more flexibility than 15 GB, same with 50 GB verus 30 GB. Future disks of 100 & 200 GB look better than 45 GB. And from what I've read there can't be a 90 GB HD DVD disk because of the way the disks are done physically. But both format's versions of higher density are not very far from vapour (lab demonstrastions only IIRC).

HD DVD had a bad launch. Blu-ray had an even more horrible launch. I would expect that both of them will hit their stride -- on a technical footing, not necessarily on a consumer sales footing -- by mid 2007. That's when I expect to decide and put my money down.

[AV_Integrated]

Yes, I actually wonderes specifically about HD45 discs being possible so I posted the question at AVS where there actually are industry insiders asking questions of engineers, etc...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...11#post8008211

It should be possible with the existing players and all future players. If I were in HD-DVDs shoes, I would play the 45GB card about the exact same time that Blu-ray actually delivered 50GB discs.

[zombie]

Dave:

This is your only warning. Stop with the blatant trolling or find another forum to post at. It's all fine and good to prefer Blu-ray but if you're going to trash talk HD DVD then you'd really serve your purpose better by sticking to the facts. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Thread closed.