Blu-ray or HD-DVD?

[ba43]

This is a question for you and I need your advice. I am in the market for the next generation of video and digital formats. However, there are two formats out there vying for my $$$. Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

Why should I purchase a Blu-ray player and start to back this format?

My primary interests are movies, music, games, computer applications.

I know that HD-DVD players are half the cost of Blu-ray, but I want to know which format you think I should support and why.

Please enlighten me.

BA43

[Petra]

well, do you want to watch
- Spiderman
- Pirates of the Caribbean
- X-Men
- Wolverine (2008)
- Casino Royale & James Bond series
- Chronicles of Narnia
- Finding Nemo
- Plus the rest of all Sony/Columbia/MGM/20th Century Fox/Disney/Buena Vista/Miramax/Touchstone Picture/LionsGate. These studios release their movies only in blu-ray

(Warner/Paramount/Dreamworks are not exclusive to Blu-Ray)

if you do, then choose Blu-Ray, as simple as that

on HD-DVD, you have Universal studio, ...that's it

[JTK]

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

^^ Our homepage. Take your time.

[theknub]

don't forget black hawk down, kingdom of heaven, ice age, etc etc....

aside from studio support, blu-ray double sided discs are 50gb while dual sided hd-dvd is 30gb. so, from a gaming and compuer perspective, 20 gigs of more data/space is fantastic. same goes for archival and the like. and a final note, BR offers higher bit rates than hd-dvd and higher peak rates.

[Dave]

Because:
HD DVD may not last long enough to enjoy it.
Blu-ray is more secure. The discs are more durable.
Blu-ray has more future potential.

[Polyh3dron]

If the studios use Blu-Ray to its potential, it will be a better format. I mean in a battle between a 50GB and a 30GB format, which format do you think would be better? The problem is, some studios are still using the MPEG-2 codec on Blu-Ray which wastes all of that extra space and they're wasting the format's potential.

Initial HD-DVDs looked better than Blu-Ray discs looked better because they used the VC-1 codec on their 30GB discs, and at that time Blu-Ray discs were only available in a 25GB format. Warner is now putting out Blu-Ray discs, but they are usually identical to their HD-DVD counterpart minus a big feature such as Dolby TrueHD lossless audio. The BD versions could be much better but as of now it seems that Warner doesn't feel like utilizing the BD's extra space. Slowly but surely though, the studios are starting to use the BD to its potential and if this trend continues, it will be the clear winner.

The only thing going for HD-DVD is the support it's getting from Universal, and the fact that a couple other studios like to put a couple more extras on the HD-DVD version of a film because that's the format they are rooting for. The BD has better specs though, and the biggest HD-DVD proponent can't dispute that.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Polyh3dron

If the studios use Blu-Ray to its potential, it will be a better format. I mean in a battle between a 50GB and a 30GB format, which format do you think would be better? The problem is, some studios are still using the MPEG-2 codec on Blu-Ray which wastes all of that extra space and they're wasting the format's potential.

Initial HD-DVDs looked better than Blu-Ray discs looked better because they used the VC-1 codec on their 30GB discs, and at that time Blu-Ray discs were only available in a 25GB format. Warner is now putting out Blu-Ray discs, but they are usually identical to their HD-DVD counterpart minus a big feature such as Dolby TrueHD lossless audio. The BD versions could be much better but as of now it seems that Warner doesn't feel like utilizing the BD's extra space. Slowly but surely though, the studios are starting to use the BD to its potential and if this trend continues, it will be the clear winner.

The only thing going for HD-DVD is the support it's getting from Universal, and the fact that a couple other studios like to put a couple more extras on the HD-DVD version of a film because that's the format they are rooting for. The BD has better specs though, and the biggest HD-DVD proponent can't dispute that.

You are right on a most points, but I would like to point out that MPEG2 is not the codec of choice for all studios, some use it on BD50s because they have said it has the most faithful reproduction of the film master when at high enough bitrates.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Polyh3dron

Initial HD-DVDs looked better than Blu-Ray discs looked better because they used the VC-1 codec on their 30GB discs, and at that time Blu-Ray discs were only available in a 25GB format.

I think it showed the difference between Microsoft expending a huge amount of effort on the initial releases on HD DVD, versus Sony making several mistakes. One, Sony didn't choose pristine masters. And two, they decided to show off LPCM before they had the capacity to support it properly.

One of the early questions was whether HD DVD studios could justify the mastering and compression costs to hit the initial quality in perpetuity. They definitely did a best foot forward. But recently the realities of the business have caught up, and VC-1 titles are arriving that are getting relatively poor reviews to some MPEG-2 titles on BD25.

Hopefully what will happen is that except for short titles, TrueHD or DTS Master HD will be used on BD25, and LPCM should be used only for BD50.

I actually support the use of LPCM. It doesn't cost the studio anything to supply (if they are going BD50 anyway), and so it encourages it's use on many titles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far there hasn't been a single HD DVD title that is 1.85 and has IME and lossless audio.

Gary

[GTP]

BD wins with audio via far more PCM titles from Sony/Disney as well as DTS-MA on all Fox titles...compared to a handful of titles from Warner with DD-HD. for hd dvd.

BD players are all far better functioning players than the Toshiba hd dvd glitch filled players with hdmi errors, freeze ups during brand new movie playback...and no resume play feature.

BD has around 90% studio support and hd dvd around 40%...so BD wins easily here.

The picture quality has evened out the last month or so...so this is a tie.

BD has all the CE support + the PS3....which has already outsold all HD players combined...and has really barely launched as far as numbers go.

The best looking non animated titles on BD are MPEG-2....so don't let anyone try and use this as a negative...and both of these titles have hi res audio via either PCM or DTS-MA.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by GTP

BD wins with audio via far more PCM titles from Sony/Disney as well as DTS-MA on all Fox titles...compared to a handful of titles from Warner with DD-HD. for hd dvd.

BD players are all far better functioning players than the Toshiba hd dvd glitch filled players with hdmi errors, freeze ups during brand new movie playback...and no resume play feature.

BD has around 90% studio support and hd dvd around 40%...so BD wins easily here.

The picture quality has evened out the last month or so...so this is a tie.

BD has all the CE support + the PS3....which has already outsold all HD players combined...and has really barely launched as far as numbers go.

The best looking (snip) titles on BD are MPEG-2....so don't let anyone try and use this as a negative...and both of these titles have hi res audio via either PCM or DTS-MA.

I would go as far as to say on both formats (BHD and KoH).

[Blue]

That just about takes care of the software side, but the hardware side of things you have Toshiba for HD-DVD and if you don't like like the Toshiba badge on the front, well you can get an RCA. It's possible a few other comapanies may produce hardware, but nearly all the rest of CE market are well behind Blu Ray. Where do you think the computer Industry is going to end up 30GB or 50GB? Even M$ would have been behind it if Blu Ray had chosen their operating system instead of Sun's Java.

[Deane Johnson]

if you don't like like the Toshiba badge on the front, well you can get an RCA

Actually, you can get a Toshiba with an RCA badge on the front.

[GTP]

Originally Posted by Deane Johnson

Actually, you can get a Toshiba with an RCA badge on the front.

Yep...and it suffers from the same exact hdmi errors, new movies freezing up during playback, sync problems with audio, player lock up and no resume.

I tried the RCA version of the HD-A1 also......and sold all but a handful of Universal titles afterwards.
After some of the initial reports for the newer HD-A2....I will probably not even bother trying that player and sell my remaining Universal titles.

In contrast to this....I have bought 40 BD movies since owning the Philips and now also the Sony player.....because these BD players actually work as advertised as far as playback goes.

[dobyblue]

Originally Posted by Polyh3dron

Warner is now putting out Blu-Ray discs, but they are usually identical to their HD-DVD counterpart minus a big feature such as Dolby TrueHD lossless audio.

Unfortunately they've only bothered to put a TrueHD track on about 5 titles.
It's pretty sad really, Warner, Paramount and Universal should really get on the lossless audio train.

[iceman]

The next gen Toshiba HD DVD player HD-A2 will also cost as much as a BD player (about $1000), so the price advantage is also gone.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Deane Johnson

Actually, you can get a Toshiba with an RCA badge on the front.

Exactly.

In the end, it's Toshiba or nothing with HD-DVD.

Nothing is better.