BR vs HD DVD Showdown

[ra1024]

I'm still astounded that with BR having superior disc capacity and bitrate than any of the enthusiasts would be so in favor of HD DVD. I don't understand how a true enthusiast would favor equipment with lesser capabilities. It seems their only counter to this is to argue that HD DVD's bitrate and capacity are "enough" for HD content and the additional capacity BR has doesn't show any noticable difference.

It seems that this would be easy to confirm or dispute with a simple encoding challenge of a difficult or detailed scene. I've seen hints of this sort of challenge but I've never heard of it actually taking place. Is there any reason this sort of challenge hasn't been done?

It would be great to settle this once and for all and either acknowledge that HD DVD is acceptable or determine that it is not "transparent to the master". My gut feeling is that Amir/MS would decline to participate but if that happenned, at least BR could always use that as evidence they know their format is inferior. Whether they participate and lose or refuse to participate, the end result would be the same. Does anyone know if this has happenned and if not, why it hasn't?

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Good idea.

I too am surprised when people say it is good enough. I am even surprised when they base major purchase decisions on how the movies look "right now". The overwhelming majority of movies that any of us will buy on the next format are still yet to be made or encoded. The "potential" quality of blu-ray, for the exact reasons you named, is far higher. The current quality is close to a push but the upside belongs 100% to blu-ray. The same is true of PS3 games versus 360 games. How can you commit to a format for the next decade based only on what exists right now?

People are stupid and shortsighted.

[kjack]

I would think that wanting to kill off either format before it has reached it's full potential would go against the grain of a true enthusiast. Can't do an apples to apples comparison to make a good decision otherwise.

[JTK]

I can give you all a perfect example of what it looks like when someone literally believes word for word the FUD and misinformation out there.

It goes something like this (and yes, these comments were directed at me personally):

This conversation today on another forum was in regards to the firesales that Toshiba has been having through Amazon and the rest of it:


Me:
Doesn't the super low costs of the Toshiba players combined with 5-7 or so HD-DVD disc giveaways look like a firesale to you?

It certainly does to me and, yes, I'd say the same thing if I saw it happening on the BD side.

Yes, the prices look great. Yes, the spike on Amazon sales and what not looks great, but to me? That looks like a firsale to me all the way.

There's no way Toshiba can keep burnin' it like that long term. They have shareholders to answer to like anyone else.

Him:

Sorry but I do think I'm being objective here.

As a consumer, I care about Toshiba's shareholders....for what reason? For $237 I can get high-def DVD and at the least a solid upconverting player. That's only a few pennies over what Oppo is charging for an upconverting player that doesn't play ANY HD at all. What risk is there as a consumer?

And they're not going to be keeping the retail that low: the promo is for a specified amount of time, that Amazon price was good for about 24 hours, and the rebate moves to the other machines next week (the XA2, which people love, and the A20, which I have and can highly recommend).

Secondly, I am curious why you keep using the term "firesale." We know there are more -- a LOT more -- standalone HD-DVD players in the marketplace than Blu Ray machines. We know neither format is really making great inroads, and we also know manufacturing costs ACROSS THE BOARD are lower -- a lot lower -- for HD-DVD players and discs.

Whatever margin Toshiba is losing on these still isn't near what Sony is losing on the PS3. I'd bet it's not even comparable. It's the same reason why there are persistent rumors of cheap Chinese HD-DVD players -- the costs are substantially less for HD-DVD so it is realistic. Why anyone thinks those players (when/if they materialize) are going to be Blu Ray machines is laughable when we know the inherent expense of the format.
It's going to be a long while before we see "cheap Blu Ray players". The PS3 might drop $100 but even then you are still talking about a $500 unit.

It's about costs. Blu Ray can't do a promo like this, but the inherently more inexpensive costs of HD-DVD make it possible.

Along those lines: you do still really, honestly feel that Blu Ray is a superior format? And for what reason? If you want to tell me it's only because Panasonic and Samsung and Sony are making their machines, I think the XA2, A2 and A20 pretty much show how reliable these products are.

Again, I don't understand why it is better for anyone other than Sony fanboys and PS3 owners as to how Blu Ray "winning" is going to benefit anyone (other than those camps) when there is a product in the marketplace that is just as good in terms of performance and it DOESN'T COST AS MUCH to produce or buy.

It's simple logic to me. But if you feel Blu Ray discs look or sound or have more content than HD-DVD discs in general, then I just cannot agree.

He's being a tool

Me: On the other hand, you can look at what Disney has done thus far...that's how ya do it right! Smile Their discs have just been fantastic all the way around!

Him:

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The PIRATES discs are indeed fantastic, but how many of their titles had dropped special features in comparison with their SD counterparts? Looks like things are changing now, but it was not that way with most of the discs they brought out up until a few weeks ago.

and

In terms of discs, I haven't seen any inherent advantage to Blu Ray over HD-DVD. Have you?

Me:
Exclusive content.

Him:

So technically, visually and otherwise, you at least concede that there is no difference in terms of picture quality and sound between these formats?

If that's the case, again, why support the format that costs X3 as much to the consumer to purchase?

If it's only because of studio support, that can easily change once companies see if there's been a bump in player support and movement. I remember a time when Fox and Disney had no intentions of releasing DVDs but rather DIVX discs. Once they saw where consumers were heading they changed their tune. Who's to say that's not going to change here also?

On and on and on...

This guy is kind of a friend of mine so I'm trying to be very polite and restrained, but honestly, if I respond to this crap the way I want to it's probably not going to be very civil. I'm just sick and tired of this stuff.

This is someone who's never early adopted anything before so he thinks he's hit the big time now and he believes all of the FUD on AVS since it supports his decision to buy into HD-DVD. You all know the drill.

[ra1024]

Originally Posted by kjack

I would think that wanting to kill off either format before it has reached it's full potential would go against the grain of a true enthusiast. Can't do an apples to apples comparison to make a good decision otherwise.

Since both formats are essentially the same in terms of what video/audio files they can contain, the real potential boils down to capacity. I'm not aware of anything video or audio wise that can be put on HD DVD and not BR. The only place I would see your argument applying to is interactive content where they are truly different.

Anyways I didn't want this to be a rant thread so much as a discussion of the feasibility of ending the debate about HD DVD's specs being adequate. If the HD DVD side argued "yes, your format can deliver better PQ but ours has better interactivity", I would have more respect for their views. It would then be about whether PQ or interactivity was more important. As it is now, they say their format has both.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by kjack

I would think that wanting to kill off either format before it has reached it's full potential would go against the grain of a true enthusiast. Can't do an apples to apples comparison to make a good decision otherwise.

Agreed. I know people (and retailers) absolutely despise the format war. But, I am sure Blu-ray is better (and being pushed to become even better still) by it.

But, the flip side is that the battle causes shelf space issues for discs at B&M retailers, and keeps many consumers on the sidelines (a problem for studios).

Gary

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by ra1024

Anyways I didn't want this to be a rant thread so much as a discussion of the feasibility of ending the debate about HD DVD's specs being adequate. If the HD DVD side argued "yes, your format can deliver better PQ but ours has better interactivity", I would have more respect for their views. It would then be about whether PQ or interactivity was more important. As it is now, they say their format has both.

I believe their base argument is that Blu-ray hasn't shown the capability to deliver a significantly better PQ enough to justify the difference in price.

But, I'm not sure why they then conclude that it can NEVER do so. AND that the capacity will never be used for things that might intrigued them. AND that lossless audio on most releases isn't desirable.

Gary

[jubaiweaponx]

you say tomato I say to mato ,lol

[ra1024]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

I believe their base argument is that Blu-ray hasn't shown the capability to deliver a significantly better PQ enough to justify the difference in price.

I was thinking more about this recently after reading an account of some things said on the HT cruise.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=2948

I don't know if this account is accurate but it wouldn't surprise me based on what I've seen on AVS. It sounds like Joe Kane as well as Amir have been attempting to convince people that HD DVD actually has better PQ. I guess that's why I'd like to see some clear proof one way or the other.

[Chad Varnadore]

There's no point in arguing the benefits of BD over HD DVD to someone who can't qualify a comparison past he said, she said. They're justifying. That's the problem with HD DVDs undercutting their price so early on. They've convinced people to early adopt that couldn't afford to. They got caught up in the heat, just like so many of us, which compared to DVD, HD DVD is a tremendous upgrade and for a period of about 5 months last year it was the shit. Now it's little more than a more buggy, gimmicky wannabe to Sony's product. It's limitations are showing. And Sony hasn't even begun to show what they can do with advanced java. But HD DVD already can't keep up. They could do better if they actually tried - meaning 30gb discs devoted to the film and putting the extras on a chaser. But, that means not being able to pretend that they're more advanced at the moment just because they more quickly were able to implement lesser standards of interactivity than what java will be able to do when in time. It would also mean more expense for Universal and Warner who aren't backing HD as a lasting medium. It's cheaper for them in what they perceive to be a dying market for packaged media.

Anyone that supports HD DVD is hurting themself in the long run, doing a small part, but a part nonetheless in ensuring that both formats remain niche and bigger titles like Star Wars never see the light of day in packaged high def, which I'm sure is fine with Lucas. Why would he want to risk making high fidelity copies of his properties available for anyone to duplicate and make money off of his love, hard work and millions in expense, all for a measly 30 bucks. He doesn't. But will, if the money is right, or they finally develop copy protection that actually works.

HD DVD fanatics are fooling themselves if they think they're going to get any more studio support if they hold out long enough. The difference between BD exclusives and HD exclusives is that BD exclusive studios actually believe in the future of packaged media, which is why they backed the BETTER technology, not the cheapest one. And they know that the only future packaged media has is if one format wins. Supporting both, will only help to ensure that doesn't happen. So, if you see Disney or Fox go neutral, you can bet that means they no longer see high def packaged media surviving either and are going neutral for appearances alone. Universal going neutral would mean something else entirely though. But, some people can't see beyond their own investments. HD DVD hasn't a hope of winning a war. It really never did. And I don't think that was its goal, which is why the DVD forum couldn't justify the expense of developing 45GB discs, so forth and so on. HD DVD is Toshiba's effort to make sure BD doesn't take away their DVD revenue and Microsofts way to keep BD from building momentum fast enough to stall VOD. HD DVD backers don't believe in their own format, as evidenced by public statements made by executives from Warner, Universal, and Microsoft, stating that VOD was the future. What's more telling than that?

[Chad Varnadore]

Originally Posted by ra1024

I was thinking more about this recently after reading an account of some things said on the HT cruise.

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...postcount=2948

I don't know if this account is accurate but it wouldn't surprise me based on what I've seen on AVS. It sounds like Joe Kane as well as Amir have been attempting to convince people that HD DVD actually has better PQ. I guess that's why I'd like to see some clear proof one way or the other.

Kane himself touted the merits of BD's capability to encode at higher bitrates. HD DVD could do better than they are, if they weren't trying to do so much with extras. But their recipe is the same as it's always been on DVD - balance presentation quality with extras, because most people won't or can't tell a difference between good and great, but see the number of extras as added value, even though they'll maybe watch the extras once, if that, and watch the film's over and over again. How many people here ever upgraded their DVD for a new 2-disc set that had essentially the same presentation, but more extras? I imagine all of us have at some point.

Were more BD studios seem focused on prioritizing the movie itself, a stance they can afford to do with 50GBs of space. Where Warner's philosophy seems to be to remove grain to make their video presentations look better and easier to compress on a low quality format like DVD, Sony is upping the bitrates to levels that can actually accomodate higher amounts of naturally occuring random noise. And for that reason, Sony's BDs have ascribed a degree of depth and detail that I simply have not seen from anything on HD DVD. But, uneducated consumers used to lossy mediums like DVD, that aren't as grainy, see a little grain and think something's wrong. Which is probably why some people, including some reviewers that don't know any better, often criticize BD and some of your better HD DVDs for being too grainy.

I've only watched the first episode of the season so far, but you should see Rescue Me on BD. It's a farcry from the disappointment that Smallville was on HD DVD, which showed severe signs of bit starvation, was soft in low light sequences where grain is typically more prominent, and the audio didn't even sound good by DVD standards much less compared to lossless. Rescue me uses high bitrate AVC and PCM and it looks and sounds worlds better.

Don't misunderstand, there are some BD exclusives that could learn a thing or two from Sony and Disney as well. With a few exceptions, neither Lions Gate nor Fox are taking BD to the level that Sony and Disney have in feature presentation. And Warner's discs are significantly choked by their HD DVD restraints. Paramount has done a tremendous job with some of their two disc sets especially, but are really dropping the ball in the audio department.

My only concern is that as java evolves, more BD studios may try to do more with HD quality extras and advanced interactivity that may necessitate compromise even on a 50GB disc. Though, Sony and Disney can gain some room by going with TrueHD instead of PCM. And Disney's Pirates films inspires hope that multi-disc sets will still be used with bigger titles at least.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

I would like to make the profound assertion that Chad in fact seems to know his shit. OK, enough said.

So Chad, as someone professionally invovled in the industry, does it also surprise you (as it does me as stated in my post above), that so many people make a large investment on current performance when the future in next-gen formats, game consoles included, clearly has so much room to grow? Do you have to project forward when thinking about these things?

[Chad Varnadore]

Future growth is a viable argument for the BD and the PS3. Both have that potential, but it's up to the studios and developers to implement. If neither sees mass adoption, we'll probably never know just what they were capable of. It seems some game developers are more interested in making a buck than really taking gaming to the next level. The PS3 at least gives them more possibility if they want to advance their art. Though, right now, for some, in what I'm told is a very competitive market, going the extra mile isn't an attractive proposition, just like it's not for Warner and Universal at the current market penetration and the belief by those studios that it won't ever grow to DVD levels.

Sony didn't design BD overnight. They didn't tweak an existing technology to try to do more than it was designed to. They asked studios what they wanted and built a format with the goal of satisfying the demands of an evolving market for the next ten years. HD DVD was designed solely to compete with BD in the hear and now, which is why it's already tapped out.

It's obviously an inferior technology in more ways than disc capacity. To reference Smallville again. It took the online vendor where I bought Smallville three tries to get me a copy that had all of the discs intact. There was one, in the first three shipments that was always loose and arrived all scratched up, despite being very well packaged by the vendor. Sony sent Rescue Me in a flimsy oversized UPS bubble wrap envelope along with a couple other BDs, as per the norm for studios. Yet still none of the discs were lose. But, it wouldn't have mattered even if they were, as BDs don't scratch easily. I've had a number of BDs shipped from studios arrive loose in a busted case due to the packaging and handling. But none have been scratched. Not a single one. Like DVD, HD DVD scratches even when you clean it with a 100" cotton cloth. The rental market should love BD!

As evidenced in their past statements, all BD exclusives backed the format because of what it offers long term. And by the time the market is ready for a high definition medium, it'll be there, if given the chance. But what HD DVD is doing today, is the best it likely ever will even if it were to survive.

[PeterTHX]

Chad, once again you hit the nail on the head.

As long as people support HD DVD in ANY form (neutrality? the USA was neutral for the first 3 years of WWII) that it prolongs the format war into becoming something like DVD-Audio and SACD...a war where no one wins. Toshiba's more than happy to lob nukes at BD without regard to the retail environmental damage they're doing.

PS: Yet still none of the discs were lose
This is the first time I've seen it misspelled the other way. Usually people put loose for lose, not the other way around.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Future growth is a viable argument for the BD and the PS3. Both have that potential, but it's up to the studios and developers to implement. If neither sees mass adoption, we'll probably never know just what they were capable of. It seems some game developers are more interested in making a buck than really taking gaming to the next level.

Agree. I am thinking about the amazing evolutions that games took on the PS2 platform. Graphics and performance really came light years. PS3 has even more room to grow. however as you mentioned we'll have to see the adoption. I have faith that it will come in time and game developers, while driven mainly by profits, still have more pride in thjeir work than the average corporate beast. I believe that pushing the envelope does matter to quite a few of these folks.

[Sir Terrence]

Chad, excellent observations and comments. I work for Disney, and you have outlined exactly why Disney supports blu-ray like it does.

Nothing like a clear, concise thought process expressed so well.

[ussrelativity]

Awesome points. Blu-Ray is such a solid choice. If I were to choose a Blu-Ray player though, I would pick one that has all of the audio codecs supported. I see a lot of players out there, and before I would choose one, I would make sure it can play everything at it's highest level of content.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

Future growth is a viable argument for the BD and the PS3. Both have that potential, but it's up to the studios and developers to implement. If neither sees mass adoption, we'll probably never know just what they were capable of. It seems some game developers are more interested in making a buck than really taking gaming to the next level. The PS3 at least gives them more possibility if they want to advance their art. Though, right now, for some, in what I'm told is a very competitive market, going the extra mile isn't an attractive proposition, just like it's not for Warner and Universal at the current market penetration and the belief by those studios that it won't ever grow to DVD levels.

Sony didn't design BD overnight. They didn't tweak an existing technology to try to do more than it was designed to. They asked studios what they wanted and built a format with the goal of satisfying the demands of an evolving market for the next ten years. HD DVD was designed solely to compete with BD in the hear and now, which is why it's already tapped out.

It's obviously an inferior technology in more ways than disc capacity. To reference Smallville again. It took the online vendor where I bought Smallville three tries to get me a copy that had all of the discs intact. There was one, in the first three shipments that was always loose and arrived all scratched up, despite being very well packaged by the vendor. Sony sent Rescue Me in a flimsy oversized UPS bubble wrap envelope along with a couple other BDs, as per the norm for studios. Yet still none of the discs were lose. But, it wouldn't have mattered even if they were, as BDs don't scratch easily. I've had a number of BDs shipped from studios arrive loose in a busted case due to the packaging and handling. But none have been scratched. Not a single one. Like DVD, HD DVD scratches even when you clean it with a 100" cotton cloth. The rental market should love BD!

As evidenced in their past statements, all BD exclusives backed the format because of what it offers long term. And by the time the market is ready for a high definition medium, it'll be there, if given the chance. But what HD DVD is doing today, is the best it likely ever will even if it were to survive.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Chad Varnadore

As evidenced in their past statements, all BD exclusives backed the format because of what it offers long term. And by the time the market is ready for a high definition medium, it'll be there, if given the chance. But what HD DVD is doing today, is the best it likely ever will even if it were to survive.

I wonder how many HD DVD people wish it was merely as good as it was? The "hit and miss" of Universal catalog titles has turned into a lot of miss lately. All of these are 3/3.5 PQ according to even the VC-1 worshipping sites:

Alpha Dog
The 40 Year-Old Virgin
Smokey and the Bandit
Midnight Run
The Frighteners
Lost in Translation

Are HD DVD folk so busy boiling their discs to get them to play that they've failed to notice a fairly major REDUCTION in overall quality coming from MS-NBC Universal?

When a 24 year old comedy (Paramount's Trading Places) is getting a better PQ rating than of many Universal releases, isn't anyone wondering what the heck is going on?

Where is this improvement in VC-1 encoding we are being told has occured? Shouldn't the RESULTS back this up?

Gary

[Chad Varnadore]

That's why Universal can release such a high volume of titles. They're likely not looking at the masters and trying to be selective like Sony is. I can understand not being able to justify the expense of a new master at current sales numbers. But putting out titles anyway, that need to be brought up to date, is unappreciative and disrespectful of their fanbase, if not the properties themselves. And it's even more disappointing when you consider that for the next several years at least, most studios will be more focused on bringing new titles to the format rather than revisiting ones that have already been released. They won't want to tie up production for what will likely be limited sales compared to something that hasn't been released yet, until market penetration is stronger.

Not updating the masters isn't unique to Universal though. It's the high definition equivalent of non-anamorphic widescreen. And will probably be somewhat common for years to come. Fox seemed to be following the same recipe with a number of their BDs early this year - concentrating on volume of support more than quality, which made their product a lot more hit and miss than what Sony and Disney are doing. They also seemed to be content with doing the bare minimum with their video encodes (18-20mbs MPEG2 and 14-18mbs AVC are the bare minimum, IMO). But, with any luck, they've learned from it like Sony learned from their early titles, and will do better when they rejoin the game.

Fox has been one of the most consistent studios supporting DVD for years in terms of quality. And I would expect their business model to transition to BD as well. But you have to give studios a learning curve, which I'm sure many current releases are intended to be. I don't know if Universal just doesn't care about improving the consistency of their product, are under pressure to subsidize HD DVDs lack of studio support, or just don't realize think most have noticed or haven't even noticed themselves, due to their majority audiences apparent inability to tell the difference or looking the other way, content that they at least have something exclusive to keep hope alive, postponing the day when they've finally got to tell the wife that they bet on the wrong horse.