More HD-DVD misinformation

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Was reading reviews of The Matrix on Amazon and came across this:

"As an early adopter of media platforms for years. I feel as a customer you get the highest value at the dawn of a new format. This along with Warner's own, 'Mutiny on the Bounty' and Universal's 'The Deer Hunter' are examples. I along with most, do not care for the second two films, but if i look at it like some long animatrix episodes them i guess 'The Matrix' sure costs alot! Look if you got the hardware to run these double-sided discs!!! (sick) run it! Were talkin 30GB on each side, 60 gigabyte discs! (take that bluray lol) x 5, this should be called 300! [Note to Buyers] *Buyers Beware* Animarix is in SD if anyone cares to begin a petition, i am at arms..."

Note the highlighted phrase. Now note the specs claimed on HD-DVDs own site:

http://www.thelookandsoundofperfect....FSgNIgod1FAE3A

"HD DVD discs are dual layer with 30 GB of storage"

Yeah, not 60GB, dude.

[FilmmakingFiasco]

I think they're saying 30gb on each side equals 60gb on one disc.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

I've read the entire page and I think if they held 60GB of storage they'd make that claim. You are thinking of the combo discs which contain a separate format on both sides. Doesn't really help you if you are only interested in HD and not standard def now does it? Just check HD-DVD's own site and look at the specs. Even if it did have 2 HD-DVD sides, which it doesn't, isn't it kind of retarded to have to get up and flip the disc over? Is this a vinyl LP?

[Shin-Ra]

Originally Posted by FilmmakingFiasco

I think they're saying 30gb on each side equals 60gb on one disc.

It's still nonsense as nobody ever quotes maximum capacity as what a double-sided disk can hold and obviously a double sided Blu-ray would hold more - 100GB.

Spread the facts!

[ClaytonMG]

Wait... I thought that the whole Matrix thing was an HD-DVD on one side, then a standard DVD on the other... Meaning at most a 38gb flipper... Math hurts!!!

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

Wait... I thought that the whole Matrix thing was an HD-DVD on one side, then a standard DVD on the other... Meaning at most a 38gb flipper... Math hurts!!!

That's how I read it, but as Shin-Ra explains, that is not the standard way to compute capacity anyway... you just take the max on 1 side. Anyone can make a 2-sided disc.

[dialog_gvf]

Actually, Blu-ray can't currently have double-sided discs. It's a 1mm substrate + data + cover. Clearly Warner's TotalHD must eliminate this limitation, since it is a double-sided disc.

But, people hate flippies. They are no different from a usage point of view as two discs, but they lose the nice silkscreen cover.

Besides, a certain MS VP used to be on about how people perceive two discs as a much better value than one flippy.

The final argument against them for HD DVD is that they cost at least 2.4x the price of a single disc to make (DVD-18 == 2.4 DVD-9) . So it's cheaper to make two discs than one flippy.

Gary

[aaronwt]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

That's how I read it, but as Shin-Ra explains, that is not the standard way to compute capacity anyway... you just take the max on 1 side. Anyone can make a 2-sided disc.

If that was the case there would be combo discs on BD just like HD DVD!

[miked924]

Yeah the Matrix hd dvds are basically combo discs...one side is hd the other is sd....and the last 2 bonus discs are just plain dvds! Seems like they were in rush but the movies look really good

[ClaytonMG]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Actually, Blu-ray can't currently have double-sided discs. It's a 1mm substrate + data + cover. Clearly Warner's TrueHD must eliminate this limitation, since it is a double-sided disc.

I think you mean Total HD, right? The dumbest idea from Warner?

[remember]

On the HD-DVD website. . . http://www.thelookandsoundofperfect....FSgNIgod1FAE3A
it sais. . HD-DVD's record 8 hours of video. (Its in the middle of the tech specs chart, next to "Recording time".) I have a feeling its only for basic 720 HD resolution recording,(instead of full 1080), but again, the way its written its gotten me suspicious and confused.

Now, I'm pretty sure that the Blu-ray only does 4 hours, atleast again from what I remember when reading the manual for the Sony BWU-100A burner I just bought.

What makes this even more confusing, is that again, from my understanding, the HD-DVD's are 30GB's and Blu-Ray's are 50GB's, or 15GB's and 25GB's, respectively, if only using one layer/side of the disc's.

Can anyone explain this?

[theknub]

remember, you are remembering wrong

the amount of video is not really limited by length like a CD. it's the amount of data. so it really depends on the compression used.

a double layer BRD can hold 50gb while a single only 25

a double layer hd-dvd can hold 30gb while a single only 15

[bluflu]

Question is does it really matter? In six months they'll be using recycled HD DVD discs as fill for potholes.

[Shadowself]

As I understand it, there is no physical or technical reason why Blu-ray cannot have dual sided, dual layer disks. It's just not part of the specs at the moment so there is no "standard" way of doing it. (I doubt anyone will see any outside of a lab until there is a spec for it.) Therefore the HD DVD supporters claim Blu-ray is "limited" to 50GB.

Also, my understanding is dual layer, dual sided disks are part of the HD DVD specs. Thus there is a "standard" way of doing it. Therefore the HD DVD supporters claim their standard supports 60GB disks. Though I know of none that have been created.

This 50 single sided / 60 double sided is why the foolish among the HD DVD fanboys claim the HD DVD specs support higher data amounts per disk than Blu-ray.

The problem with this idea is that unless you're showing some of the old films with specific "intermission" times in the film, there is *NO* good place in which to break the film so you can flip it over to use the other side. Therefore in order for HD DVD supporters to see a relatively high bit rate, long duration film they must spoil the movie experience by stopping everything and flipping over the disk before continuing.

For this reason alone, at least to me, a high bit rate version of LOTR:ROTK EE will never make sense on HD DVD (even ignoring the 30 Mbps cap on the video bit rate).

(As an aside, as I understand the specifications, there is no physical way to do dual sided, triple layer HD DVD disks so the theoretical limit is 60GB, but it is physically possible to do dual sided, 6/8 layer Blu-ray disks so the theoretical limit is 400GB. I doubt we'll ever see them though -- even in a lab.)

[remember]

Why did someone erase my post? My "My profile" shows I have 3 posts, but only 2 are listed. 1 was erased in this thread?

But since the member "theknub" was responding to my question, whatever exactly it was. . . Dont HD-DVD and Blu-ray use the same compression systems? If 1 compression system can compress better than the other and obviously both HD-DVD and Blu-ray can produce 1080p quality, why wouldn't one of the formats use the better compression technique?

I think my question was about why HD-DVD can hold 8 hours vs. on 2 hours or 4 hours max on a 50GB Blu-ray disc? Yes, yes the compression used, . . .Don't both formats use MPEG 2 and 4? Why wouldn't Blu-ray use the better compression?

[Shin-Ra]

Originally Posted by remember

HD-DVD can hold 8 hours vs. on 2 hours or 4 hours max on a 50GB Blu-ray disc?

This statement within your question is complete nonsense, it's false so no-one can really answer the question.

[Nismobeach]

HD-FVD FTW!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYqNLUsSkDw

[remember]

To Shina-ra:
Thats why I'm so frustrated, my post was erased.

Its on the HD DVD website. http://www.thelookandsoundofperfect....FRdYTAodRAZh4Q

In the middle of the tech specs chart. On the line where it says "Recording time" Over 8 hours.

Its very confusing, when at the top of that spec sheet, they write, disc resolution 1080p, and then recording time, over 8 hours.

I just bought a Blu-ray burner and I still have to learn a lot of things about which video card to get and how to install and use it, but this question has been on my mind for a while and I saw this thread while I was looking for info to install my burner.

So, my statement is not non sense. Someone else in this thread, (theknub) said its because of the compression used and in addition, it was not a statement, it was a question.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by ClaytonMG

I think you mean Total HD, right? The dumbest idea from Warner?

Yeah, doh! That's it.

This must be a double sided disc. Note, it also means Warner has invented Blu-ray/DVD combo discs too, because the HD DVD side could be DVD instead. So, this may even survive HD DVD.

The funniest thing would be a single sided HD DVD/DVD combo (one layer each) on one sided, and single-layer BD on the other. The worst of all worlds!

ugh

[jubaiweaponx]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

It's still nonsense as nobody ever quotes maximum capacity as what a double-sided disk can hold and obviously a double sided Blu-ray would hold more - 100GB.

Spread the facts!

yeah ,nothing but common sense here shin,guess the hddvd zealots lack that