HDDVD vs. BluRay

[sickdsm]

I'd like to buy a hidef DVD player of some sort but i can't decide which way to go. I've seen the PS3's for $249 (40GB spiderman 3) but i'm not really interested in the gaming aspect. My PS2 is fine and i never get a chance to play anyway. Wal-mart has a Toshiba HDDVD for $199 with 10 movies but five you have to pick out in the store and they had shit. I missed out on there black friday $99 HDDVD players.


Which one will win out?

[Fillmoe]

could be hd dvd because of all the sales on hd dvd players this xmas season...

[Wild Cobra]

I'd like to buy a hidef DVD player of some sort but i can't decide which way to go. I've seen the PS3's for $249 (40GB spiderman 3) but i'm not really interested in the gaming aspect. My PS2 is fine and i never get a chance to play anyway. Wal-mart has a Toshiba HDDVD for $199 with 10 movies but five you have to pick out in the store and they had shit. I missed out on there black friday $99 HDDVD players.


Which one will win out?
I believe Blu-Ray will win.

Beta vs. VHS again? Not quite. Both have the same signal quality. Beta was higher quality than VHS. The primary reason I see Blu-Ray as winning is it stores more play time. It also has faster data rates.

VHS always had more record time than Bata. I think that was the key. Same with Blu-Ray.

[exstatic]

A Sony official went on record as saying it's a stalemate. The HD-DVD players are SO much cheaper that it may be that that tips the balance.

Incidentally, it wasn't purely the tape duration that drove Beta into the trash. I was watching a show called 70s tech, and they said that the porn industry settled on VHS, and video stores didn't want to stock different formats in the front and back rooms, so they went along. :lol

[sickdsm]

But does it/will it matter in terms of disc availabilty? Wal mart had crap for HDDVD but alot of BluRay.

[leemajors]

all i know is we got a beta before my family moved to germany in 82, and we came back in 84 and everything was in VHS! we had to get a VCR, but i think my mom still has the last unicorn on beta, as well as alien. Beta is still an active format in the movie industry though, some of the stuff they show at the alamo drafthouses in Austin is still on Beta.

[Slomo]

A Sony official went on record as saying it's a stalemate. The HD-DVD players are SO much cheaper that it may be that that tips the balance.

Incidentally, it wasn't purely the tape duration that drove Beta into the trash. I was watching a show called 70s tech, and they said that the porn industry settled on VHS, and video stores didn't want to stock different formats in the front and back rooms, so they went along. :lol:lol

Yeah, I've heard that story too.


Beta is still an active format in the movie industry though, some of the stuff they show at the alamo drafthouses in Austin is still on Beta.It's a different beta, although it is partially derived from the betamax consumer format.


As for the original question: Buy a dual HD DVD / Bluray player, I believe both Samsung and LG are offering such models. :D

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

HD DVD all the way :tu

One, I hate Sony.

On a more objective level, price point always wins out, and HD DVD matches the quality of BR for a much lower cost.

Players are cheaper, disks are about the same price, and the studios make more money on every HD DVD they sell than BR.

[Extra Stout]

Blu-ray eventually is going to run into a brick wall because the discs are just too difficult to make.

[Extra Stout]

This battle is probably moot in 10 years. By then, if you want a movie, you won't purchase optical media. You'll have a DVR-like device with a 100-TB hard drive that downloads movies from the Internet.

[sickdsm]

Probably, and by the time it matters i won't worry about buying another player or whatever.


It just made me mad that they had like ten crappy movies for me to pick five out of.

[Wild Cobra]

and the studios make more money on every HD DVD they sell than BR.
I believe the cost difference is about $.04 per disk, but when millions are made...

[Wild Cobra]

Blu-ray eventually is going to run into a brick wall because the discs are just too difficult to make.
What? Where did that come from? They are the same basic technology, but using different spacing in the layers. The layers are close to the laser, and the laser aperture for the beam is different allowing the Blu-Ray to read smaller pits, even though the laser wavelengths are the same between the two formats. 100GB (four layer) Blu-Ray can already be found, but not for consumer use yet, and 200GB six layer formats are in development. It takes a costly three layer HDDVD to compare to a dual layer Blu-Ray in storage.

Another advantage is that even though a Blu-Ray disk is about 4 cents more to make than HDDVD, that is for the same number of layers. Nearly all HDDVD movies are on dual layer disks, but currently 52% of the movies for Blu-Ray are on single layer disks making the same movie cheaper in Blu-Ray to make. That storage difference will have an impact on manufacturing costs, favoring Blu-Ray.

[THE SIXTH MAN]

Blu-ray eventually is going to run into a brick wall because the discs are just too difficult to make.
I've read about that some where too. And I also heard that the blu ray disk is hard to maintain because it scratches very easily?

[Extra Stout]

What? Where did that come from? They are the same basic technology, but using different spacing in the layers. The layers are close to the laser, and the laser aperture for the beam is different allowing the Blu-Ray to read smaller pits, even though the laser wavelengths are the same between the two formats. 100GB (four layer) Blu-Ray can already be found, but not for consumer use yet, and 200GB six layer formats are in development. It takes a costly three layer HDDVD to compare to a dual layer Blu-Ray in storage.

Another advantage is that even though a Blu-Ray disk is about 4 cents more to make than HDDVD, that is for the same number of layers. Nearly all HDDVD movies are on dual layer disks, but currently 52% of the movies for Blu-Ray are on single layer disks making the same movie cheaper in Blu-Ray to make. That storage difference will have an impact on manufacturing costs, favoring Blu-Ray.
Blu-ray has an extremely thin protective layer that is very difficult to mold properly. The reject rate is very high. There is a limited supply of plastic available that is even capable of making Blu-ray. Significant investment into a mature and declining market like optical media is unlikely.

[Extra Stout]

Just to give a heads-up, I must stay kind of vague on the subject because it is directly related to my job, and if I go into too much detail I start revealing propietary information.

OTOH, understand that I pretty much know what the hell I'm talking about.

[BonnerDynasty]

Drm.

I know which one I'm rooting for.

[Cry Havoc]

OTOH, understand that I pretty much know what the hell I'm talking about.

I've found this is the case with almost all the information you post. Not sucking up, just saying I'll trust your take on the subject

I vote HD-DVD just because I hate proprietary systems. It does NOT favor the consumer. At. All. If Blu-Ray wins, Sony can completely control the digital movie mediascape for the next 5 to 10 years. I don't like that idea, as they have already displayed that they are extremely power hungry and mostly incompetent.

[Slomo]

I've found this is the case with almost all the information you post. Not sucking up, just saying I'll trust your take on the subject

I vote HD-DVD just because I hate proprietary systems. It does NOT favor the consumer. At. All. If Blu-Ray wins, Sony can completely control the digital movie mediascape for the next 5 to 10 years. I don't like that idea, as they have already displayed that they are extremely power hungry and mostly incompetent.Gimme a break! it's not like HDDVD is an open source format. Whoever wins will make a fortune of which you'll see nothing. My view is since I'll have to live with it, can I please at least get the better format?! I don't know about you but I still haven't forgotten the shitty picture of VHS and how impossible it was to get rid of it.

More to the point:

Blu-ray Disc was started by Hitachi, LG, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, and Thomson in February 19, 2002

HD DVD is defined by the DVD forum which was founded by: Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Pioneer Electronic Corporation, Royal Philips Electronics N.V., Sony Corporation, Thomson, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation,Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (JVC)

Yeah, loads of charitable names and friendly companies who never enforced their licences before! What a wondeful choice!!! :rolleyes:rolleyes:rolleyes

[Slomo]

Just to give a heads-up, I must stay kind of vague on the subject because it is directly related to my job, and if I go into too much detail I start revealing propietary information.

OTOH, understand that I pretty much know what the hell I'm talking about.I call BS.


EDIT: I quoted the wrong message :oops. Sorry ES I have no way of knowing what you're doing for a living so it would be impossible for me to call BS on that post. I wanted to do it on another post of yours, but now I don't feel like anymore :lol.

Sorry, no harm intended.

[exstatic]

This battle is probably moot in 10 years. By then, if you want a movie, you won't purchase optical media. You'll have a DVR-like device with a 100-TB hard drive that downloads movies from the Internet.
TiVo already does this with regular definition movie and television content in partnership with Amazon. Now that they have two HD models, I think HD downloads to TiVo are only a matter of time.

[AlamoSpursFan]

What I want to know is why the hell Robocop on BluRay is $35 at Best Buy when most of the other flicks are $24 and $29.

Yeah, I bought it, but WTF?

[Duff McCartney]

A Sony official went on record as saying it's a stalemate. The HD-DVD players are SO much cheaper that it may be that that tips the balance.

Incidentally, it wasn't purely the tape duration that drove Beta into the trash. I was watching a show called 70s tech, and they said that the porn industry settled on VHS, and video stores didn't want to stock different formats in the front and back rooms, so they went along. :lol

I read that same article...it was saying that porn might be what tips the scales on the HD vs Blu-ray battle the way it did for VHS vs Beta. It's rather interesting...I personally think the cheaper priced players are what's gonna do Blu-Ray in.

[Duff McCartney]

The primary reason I see Blu-Ray as winning is it stores more play time. It also has faster data rates.

Your average Joe Pukepail going to Walmart doesn't know or give a crap about faster data rates.

[Cry Havoc]

Gimme a break! it's not like HDDVD is an open source format. Whoever wins will make a fortune of which you'll see nothing. My view is since I'll have to live with it, can I please at least get the better format?! I don't know about you but I still haven't forgotten the shitty picture of VHS and how impossible it was to get rid of it.

More to the point:

Blu-ray Disc was started by Hitachi, LG, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, and Thomson in February 19, 2002

HD DVD is defined by the DVD forum which was founded by: Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Pioneer Electronic Corporation, Royal Philips Electronics N.V., Sony Corporation, Thomson, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation,Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (JVC)

Yeah, loads of charitable names and friendly companies who never enforced their licences before! What a wondeful choice!!! :rolleyes:rolleyes:rolleyes


Uh. Note the price of Blu-Ray players. Note who owns all the rights to Blu-Ray. Note the massive entertainment corporation that has a massive recent history of lying and making incredibly false claims. I'm staying the hell away from Sony.

I've seen HD-DVD and Blu-ray. There isn't a noticeable difference, if any difference exists at all. While you talk about larger capacities, I prefer a medium that doesn't force me to shell out twice as much to buy the player.

[Medvedenko]

I'm waiting....but I'm probably going to buy HDDVD...as I'm a Xbox fan. But still, Bluray players are nice, but their too expensive for my tastes at the moment. Maybe a duel format player is the way to go.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Gimme a break! it's not like HDDVD is an open source format. Whoever wins will make a fortune of which you'll see nothing. My view is since I'll have to live with it, can I please at least get the better format?! I don't know about you but I still haven't forgotten the shitty picture of VHS and how impossible it was to get rid of it.

More to the point:

Blu-ray Disc was started by Hitachi, LG, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, and Thomson in February 19, 2002

HD DVD is defined by the DVD forum which was founded by: Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Pioneer Electronic Corporation, Royal Philips Electronics N.V., Sony Corporation, Thomson, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation,Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (JVC)

Yeah, loads of charitable names and friendly companies who never enforced their licences before! What a wondeful choice!!! :rolleyes:rolleyes:rolleyes

It's not really about HD DVD being nice to the consumer and Sony not, you're talking about the lesser of two evils.

Still, Sony's DRM sucks, and honestly I'm tired of them trying to force proprietary format after proprietary format on everyone (which only benefits them).

HD DVD gives me everything BR can as far as pic quality and audio for a fraction of the price. And I'm supposed to buy BR for twice the cost out of the goodness of my heart as a donation to Sony? Fuck that.

About the only area BR really has HD DVD is on data archiving disks, but honestly, for the cost of a couple of BR discs (let's not even get into the fact the burners out are 2x write speed :lol ), I could have over a terabyte of hard drive backups at my disposal. Which makes more sense?

This whole thing comes down to greed, and frankly I'd rather not let it be Sony's that wins (particularly because I don't think the premium in price over HD DVD gives me any real benefit).

A buddy of mine and I have done HD DVD and BR side by side (most notably on 300 and Planet Earth), and you can't tell any difference. I guess if you bust out the lame ass bit rate meter on the Sony hardware to see that you're watching a higher 'quality' image, but honestly - if you need a bit rate meter to tell you what you are looking at is better (when your eyes can discern no difference), it isn't worth the premium in price that Sony wants you to believe.

And that's the bottom line.

[jaffies]

Just wanted to be in before the 'bump' post in the distant future to say that there is NO WAY that HD-DVD wins the war.


They might be around in the coming years, but will never nevernever be the outright winner.

[THE SIXTH MAN]

Your average Joe Pukepail going to Walmart doesn't know or give a crap about faster data rates.
:lol True true. And they're going to go for the cheaper option as well.

[Slomo]

It's not really about HD DVD being nice to the consumer and Sony not, you're talking about the lesser of two evils.

Still, Sony's DRM sucks, and honestly I'm tired of them trying to force proprietary format after proprietary format on everyone (which only benefits them).

HD DVD gives me everything BR can as far as pic quality and audio for a fraction of the price. And I'm supposed to buy BR for twice the cost out of the goodness of my heart as a donation to Sony? Fuck that.

About the only area BR really has HD DVD is on data archiving disks, but honestly, for the cost of a couple of BR discs (let's not even get into the fact the burners out are 2x write speed :lol ), I could have over a terabyte of hard drive backups at my disposal. Which makes more sense?

This whole thing comes down to greed, and frankly I'd rather not let it be Sony's that wins (particularly because I don't think the premium in price over HD DVD gives me any real benefit).

A buddy of mine and I have done HD DVD and BR side by side (most notably on 300 and Planet Earth), and you can't tell any difference. I guess if you bust out the lame ass bit rate meter on the Sony hardware to see that you're watching a higher 'quality' image, but honestly - if you need a bit rate meter to tell you what you are looking at is better (when your eyes can discern no difference), it isn't worth the premium in price that Sony wants you to believe.

And that's the bottom line.AHF your hatred of all things SONY is well known and frankly I couldn't care less. Everybody has the right to like/hate anything as long as you don't present your opinions as facts I don't have a problem with it - and for the record you don't. You've always been quite frank about it.

My post was a response to a few posts where opinions were stated as facts.

I have had the doubious privilege to work with products from all the companies on my list. My relations with any of them were always as either a partner or user of their technology on a professioanl level - this is to say that we are often placed in the position of early adopters of new stuff. I have been doing this for more than 30 years now and I couldn't tell you which one of those is my favourite.

In my book the differences in how much they protect their proprietary stuff is depending on one factor alone: How much they can get away with.

I can tell you stories of nightmarish situation while building systems build on Sony tech (we even got sued once), but I have similar stories while working with panasonic, thomson or JVC. Of course I have had also a lot of success while selling sony stuff (and pana, and JVC...).

Based on all that I have stopped judging companies by their reputation as it is often wrong (in either direction). I now limit myself to talking about technology since it is the only thing you can evaluate objectively (well to a certain degree at least).

As for alternatives to BR/HD DVD they are a few but as long as the copyright holders do not forfeit those, you (and I) will not like the solutions.

Oh and one final thing, what you say in your example is very true but archiving is not a good application for BR (heck we're not even sure about the shelf life of CDs that are supposed to be a mature technology). The champion of archiving is still tape for a combination of reasons among them price, capacitiy and footprint.

[Wild Cobra]

I've read about that some where too. And I also heard that the blu ray disk is hard to maintain because it scratches very easily?
That's actually the part as to why they cost a few cents more to make. The surface gets treated to make it more scratch resistant. This protection I would think would make them more durable than not only HDDVD, byt regular DVD's as well.

[Ginobilly]

Who knows but it looks like bluray will win they have more studio support and more players out there.

560,000 HD DVD players compared to 370,000 bluray players but they're about 2.4 million PS3's in the US which are also bluray players. Also Panasonic and Sony are offering a free bluray player when you buy one of their 40+ HDTV's at best buy circuit city.

[Wild Cobra]

Just to give a heads-up, I must stay kind of vague on the subject because it is directly related to my job, and if I go into too much detail I start revealing proprietary information.

OTOH, understand that I pretty much know what the hell I'm talking about.
Give me a break. The differences are not significant enough to be as you imply, and the plastics are not that exotic.

I've dealt with proprietary information as well. In fact, in 1996, I was directly involved in doing the first CMP process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical-mechanical_planarization) on 300mm oxide wafers. Before that, I was entrusted with two of the very first bare silicon 300 mm wafers cut, worth over $10,000 each to tune the CMP process.

CMP is primarily used to reduce the step height so the optics can focus into a one hundred nanometer range across the wafer. Optics of DVD's really don't pose as much of a problem as you imply. I've dealt with having to deal with environments requireing far tighter specs than violet lasers used for the high def technologies. I'm not trying to say that my field directly correlates, but that I do understand the sciences involved.

You must be listening to company hype.

[jaffies]

The "war" just took a SHARP TURN towards being over!

USA Today: Warner Bros. goes Blu-ray exclusive (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-01-04-warner-brothers-blu-ray_N.htm)

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN0432340820080104)

TimeWarner.com (http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1700383,00.html)

[Viva Las Espuelas]

The "war" just took a SHARP TURN towards being over!

USA Today: Warner Bros. goes Blu-ray exclusive (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/2008-01-04-warner-brothers-blu-ray_N.htm)

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN0432340820080104)

TimeWarner.com (http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1700383,00.html)yeah that's pretty big. i thought the possible beginning of the end of the war was when blockbuster decided on blu-ray.

[Sportcamper]

Time Warner has supported both formats…This is a great move by Warner’s as they are trying to end this format war…

[Extra Stout]

Give me a break. The differences are not significant enough to be as you imply, and the plastics are not that exotic.

I've dealt with proprietary information as well. In fact, in 1996, I was directly involved in doing the first CMP process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical-mechanical_planarization) on 300mm oxide wafers. Before that, I was entrusted with two of the very first bare silicon 300 mm wafers cut, worth over $10,000 each to tune the CMP process.

CMP is primarily used to reduce the step height so the optics can focus into a one hundred nanometer range across the wafer. Optics of DVD's really don't pose as much of a problem as you imply. I've dealt with having to deal with environments requireing far tighter specs than violet lasers used for the high def technologies. I'm not trying to say that my field directly correlates, but that I do understand the sciences involved.

You must be listening to company hype.
The technology is not the problem. Yes, it would be possible at the right price to make the materials. The issue is that there is essentially no profit margin in making polycarbonate for DVD's, so suppliers are not eager to outlay that much money to support it. Sony is working on some specialty materials for the application.

[Medvedenko]

I heard that Microsoft will be releasing a new Xbox sku that will be have the HDDVD drive built in....I wonder if this news will impact them...if they could they should just release the player that plays both and say fuck it.

[T Park]

There is a player that plays both.

Its made by LG.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Disappointing news. Props to Sony for buying Warner's exclusivity. Bad news for the consumer, though.

[jaffies]

Disappointing news. Props to Sony for buying Warner's exclusivity. Bad news for the consumer, though.


How is this bad for customers?
and who cares that Warner got paid? It's not like Toshiba wasn't bidding.

[Phenomanul]

No mention of Disney yet on this thread?

They've been exclusively Blu-Ray in this stalemate. Universal is the only major studio that's exclusively HD-DVD out of the Big Nine (Universal, Paramount, Warner Bros, Columbia, MGM, Disney, FOX, DreamWorks, New Line Cinema).

Also, no mention of the in-movie menu options on Blu-Ray which don't exist for HD-DVD. As in... I can watch the movie and change the options while the movie is still playing... no skipped beat.

Samsung's In-Motion technology (If you haven't seen movies played on these TV's you haven't witnessed the brilliance of 1080p movies) works way better with Blu-Ray movies than it does with HD-DVDs.

I have both... but personally I want BR to win out... that way the prices start coming down.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

How is this bad for customers?
and who cares that Warner got paid? It's not like Toshiba wasn't bidding.

How is it bad for consumers? You think paying twice the cost for players as HD DVD and on average $8 or so more for a BR movie than an HD DVD is good for the consumers?

I never said Toshiba wasn't bidding, just giving props to Sony for coming in with a ridiculous offer that Toshiba wouldn't match. $500 million to Warner to go BR, and another $200 mil to Fox to stay BR exclusive (when Warner and Fox were talking about both moving to HD DVD exclusivity).

You could get an HD DVD player for $200 and get 10 free movies with it, so as a consumer you got the hook up. Now you get to pay double that for any decent player, not to mention there's not even a BR profile (at least until profile 2.0 gets done) that matches all the interactivity that HD DVD has.

But like I said, it's all moot now. $700 million from Sony decided the format war. Great day for the consumer...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I have both... but personally I want BR to win out... that way the prices start coming down.

I don't think you understand how Sony works, and given what it took for them to win this war, prices won't be coming down for a while.

[Phenomanul]

I don't think you understand how Sony works, and given what it took for them to win this war, prices won't be coming down for a while.


Perhaps, but I do understand the concept of supply and demand... The manufacturing roadblocks that Extra Stout alluded to earlier would disappear once the 'war' was swayed in favor of Blu-Ray Disc production.

Believe it or not the Chemicals Market (which I follow closely due to its ties with the PetroChemical Market) has a big stake in the outcome of this stalemate. The reason the production of the 'protective coating' that is employed on Blu-Ray discs has limited volume is because no one wants to invest in the construction of a manufacturing facility that would increase the throughput while the future of the finished product (Blu-Ray discs) still hangs in an air of uncertainty. If the outcome of 'format war' was known, they would then begin to lower the manufacturing costs for their production because more manufacturers would join the fray.

This has less to do with SONY or their corporate consumer philosophies than it does with the limitations imposed by the tight manufacturing market surrounding Blu-Ray Disc production. That is why HD-DVDs are cheaper to produce, because they are essentially using the same manufacturing facilities that produced regular DVDs. Conversely, that is why Blu-Rays are currently more expensive; again it has nothing to do with SONY wanting to rip the consumer off (anymore than the next guy)...

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Perhaps, but I do understand the concept of supply and demand... The manufacturing roadblocks that Extra Stout alluded to earlier would disappear once the 'war' was swayed in favor of Blu-Ray Disc production.

Believe it or not the Chemicals Market (which I follow closely due to its ties with the PetroChemical Market) has a big stake in the outcome of this stalemate. The reason the production of the 'protective coating' that is employed on Blu-Ray discs has limited volume is because no one wants to invest in the construction of a manufacturing facility that would increase the throughput while the future of the finished product (Blu-Ray discs) still hangs in an air of uncertainty. If the outcome of 'format war' was known, they would then begin to lower the manufacturing costs for their production because more manufacturers would join the fray.

This has less to do with SONY or their corporate consumer philosophies than it does with the limitations imposed by the tight manufacturing market surrounding Blu-Ray Disc production. That is why HD-DVDs are cheaper to produce, because they are essentially using the same manufacturing facilities that produced regular DVDs. Conversely, that is why Blu-Rays are currently more expensive; again it has nothing to do with SONY wanting to rip the consumer off (anymore than the next guy)...

Yes, and said facilities for manufacturing do not currently exist. Which means they will have to be built, which I think it's safe to say won't exactly be cheap. The last piece I read said it cost Sony something like $100 million to build the BR disc production plant that is currently manufacturing discs for them.

Do you honestly believe the costs for those facilities will not be passed on to the consumer for the foreseeable future?

[Phenomanul]

Yes, and said facilities for manufacturing do not currently exist. Which means they will have to be built, which I think it's safe to say won't exactly be cheap. The last piece I read said it cost Sony something like $100 million to build the BR disc production plant that is currently manufacturing discs for them.

Do you honestly believe the costs for those facilities will not be passed on to the consumer for the foreseeable future?


Yes, but it will rapidly be dwarfed by the number of other manufacturers who will want in (and in doing so those costs will ultimately be spread out). The outcome of this 'format war' will dictate whether or not Blu-Ray discs become viable products. Right now the consumer is paying more for that product than they would once it becomes the 'standard format'.

Manufacturing history backs up my claim (as this was the case with fiber-optic cable, tungsten filament lightbulbs, computer chips, etc...)

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Yes, but it will rapidly be dwarfed by the number of other manufacturers who will want in (and in doing so those costs will ultimately be spread out). The outcome of this 'format war' will dictate whether or not Blu-Ray discs become viable products. Right now the consumer is paying more for that product than they would once it becomes the 'standard format'.

Manufacturing history backs up my claim (as this was the case with fiber-optic cable, tungsten filament lightbulbs, computer chips, etc...)

All those things mentioned were mass adoption products on a global scale.

HD media is still a niche market (basically about 2% of the market compared to 98% of the market for regular DVDs).

Sony had been subsidizing the BR disc production costs for all studios producing BR content. I don't see them continuing to do that now with the format war essentially over, and like I said - someone's going to be paying the cost of all those production lines - and you can bet it won't be the studios. It will be passed on to the consumer.

So go ahead with all the virtual high fives, and be prepared to be raped by Sony and co. for years to come (remember they kept selling their UMD discs at $30 a pop for the PSP until recently). Sony's still got to recoup about 7 billion in R&D costs on BR, and that's not even getting into the payoffs for Disney, Fox, Lionsgate, and Warner. In short, pass the vaseline.

Edit: by the way, on the news yesterday, Sony has bumped the price back up on its standalone players - the BDP-S300 back up to 399.99 from 299.99 everywhere today. Yep, prices *obviously* will go down with this announcement :rolleyes

[maxpower]

No competition = consumer wins.
:rolleyes

[Burn531]

No mention of Disney yet on this thread?

They've been exclusively Blu-Ray in this stalemate. Universal is the only major studio that's exclusively HD-DVD out of the Big Nine (Universal, Paramount, Warner Bros, Columbia, MGM, Disney, FOX, DreamWorks, New Line Cinema).



I thought Paramount is HD DVD exclusive? Didn't Toshiba pay them $150 mill back in the summer?

[Phenomanul]

All those things mentioned were mass adoption products on a global scale.

HD media is still a niche market (basically about 2% of the market compared to 98% of the market for regular DVDs).

Sony had been subsidizing the BR disc production costs for all studios producing BR content. I don't see them continuing to do that now with the format war essentially over, and like I said - someone's going to be paying the cost of all those production lines - and you can bet it won't be the studios. It will be passed on to the consumer.

So go ahead with all the virtual high fives, and be prepared to be raped by Sony and co. for years to come (remember they kept selling their UMD discs at $30 a pop for the PSP until recently). Sony's still got to recoup about 7 billion in R&D costs on BR, and that's not even getting into the payoffs for Disney, Fox, Lionsgate, and Warner. In short, pass the vaseline.

Edit: by the way, on the news yesterday, Sony has bumped the price back up on its standalone players - the BDP-S300 back up to 399.99 from 299.99 everywhere today. Yep, prices *obviously* will go down with this announcement :rolleyes


Niche market or not, the HD-DVD facilities are the same ones that were previously making regular DVDs.

Until those other facilities are constructed for Blu-Ray production, we will continue to see high disc prices. Those manufacturing facilities, in turn, will not be constructed until the 'format war' outcome is known. Simple really.

SONY only has a stake in the technology; because they helped develop it and invested lots of money into perfecting it. They have a minimum vested stake in the manufacture of the discs themselves. Those subsidies you mention are a necessary cost for them to 'win' said war.

Bottom line is that you continue to falsely assert that Blu-Rays are more expensive because SONY is trying to rape the customer and ignoring the fact that the costs are related to the disc's high manufacturing cost. A fact that will change once Blu-Ray becomes the standard format for High-Definition storage.

True, the Blu-Ray players themselves are expensive; but once the 'war' is over more manufacturers will begin to produce Blu-Ray players bringing those costs down as well.

[exstatic]

True, the Blu-Ray players themselves are expensive; but once the 'war' is over more manufacturers will begin to produce Blu-Ray players bringing those costs down as well.
Since it's Sony's proprietary technology and they'll be licensing it to said manufacturers at THEIR price point, I doubt very much that the costs will go down.

[MannyIsGod]

When was teh last Sony proprietry item to sell cheaply ?

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Since it's Sony's proprietary technology and they'll be licensing it to said manufacturers at THEIR price point, I doubt very much that the costs will go down.

Come on ex, listen to Phenomenal. Now that they've won the format war, Sony is going to become a charitable organization to all consumers ;)



When was teh last Sony proprietry item to sell cheaply ?

Don't confuse the Sony fanboy with facts Manny, that's not nice. :nope

[Phenomanul]

Since it's Sony's proprietary technology and they'll be licensing it to said manufacturers at THEIR price point, I doubt very much that the costs will go down.



Come on ex, listen to Phenomenal. Now that they've won the format war, Sony is going to become a charitable organization to all consumers ;)


The technology was developed in conjunction with Panasonic, Pioneer among other tech companies. In fact, those companies already manufacture Blu-Ray players with more models looming on the horizon. They don't owe any more to SONY than they have already paid. They are co-developers of the technology.

While it is true that all companies have to be profitable to stay in business. AHF is right... they are not charitable companies (SONY in particular). AHF, however, continues to be wrong in asserting that HD-DVD technology is superior to Blu-Ray simply because he dislikes SONY's corporate tactics. That argument is devoid of any technological assessment.

And yes, I too can play the sarcasm game. I guess AHF is oblivious to the fact that another giant, a company by the name of Microsoft, is one of the chief proponents backing up the HD-DVD camp... I seem to have missed the press release announcing their conversion from a business to charitable organization (especially given the fact that they too have high stakes in the outcome of the 'format war'... wasn't it Microsoft that helped subsidize the payment that made Universal Studios go strictly HD-DVD?)...

Besides, I've already explained that the reason for the price difference between Blu-Ray discs and HD-DVDs is attributed to their respective manufacturing costs. But it is his perogative to be obtuse. So be it.



Don't confuse the Sony fanboy with facts Manny, that's not nice. :nope

Hey... I just happen to like Disney. Is there a problem with that? :drunk

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Goodie, technological assessment as to which is better. Stupid me, all along I thought it was about what looked better on my TV.

Enjoy your $34.95 BR discs.

I never said Microsoft was a charity, I just said that Sony has shown in the past that they want to push proprietary formats onto the consumer that they are the primary patent and license holder for, and it never turns out good for the consumer.

There are reports out that they paid Warner Bros. $500 million to go BR, and Fox another $200 million to stay BR exclusive. Yep, I'm sure prices will be coming down any day now on BR, Sony won't be looking to make back that three quarters of a billion dollars or anything...

[Medvedenko]

I love all of the sony BR fanboys crying foul when Microsoft paid companies to go HD exclusive...now they pull out the check books...interesting. I know Sony makes good product, hell I have had their product over the years but when it comes to their proprietary products they usually failed (See mini disk)...so we'll see, so far I haven't taken the plunge on HD or BR.....

[Wild Cobra]

I just have to say this. If I recall, the manufacturing cost difference id only about a penny per disk.

Wow... that's really going to make a difference...

[Burn531]

It's not confirmed but Paramount might go Blu-ray exclusive also.

Here's the link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc409afa-bd75-11dc-b7e6-0000779fd2ac,dwp_uuid=e8477cc4-c820-11db-b0dc-000b5df10621.html

[maxpower]

I just have to say this. If I recall, the manufacturing cost difference id only about a penny per disk.

Wow... that's really going to make a difference...

If that is true(which i highly doubt) it just adds to the outrage at the price differences between HD-DVD and br.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

dailytech.com btw


blu ray going for the knockout soon.

Just wait til' they hand the bottle of vaseline over to the consumers.

[Mark in Austin]

you think you're getting vaseline? only for an additional fee.

fucking sony.


(this post typed on a vaio notebook. sigh.)

[Wild Cobra]

I will stand by my conviction that Blu-Ray will win. Primarily because it is cheaper.

I know, I know.. Per disk with the same number of layers, Blu-Ray costs more. However, when half or more of the Blu-Ray titles are on one layer disks and nearly all the HD-DVD must be two layer disks... Blu-Ray is by far cheaper to mass produce!

There are other reasons, but that is the primary one

[Wild Cobra]

Who's predictions came true, who's didn't?

[ElNono]

tbh, cost had noting to do with it. Studios backing up the format did.

[Wild Cobra]

tbh, cost had noting to do with it. Studios backing up the format did.
Bla bla bla...

Sorry, it's the technical realities. Same as it was with Beta vs. VHS.

Again, it is cheaper to make movies that fit single layer than requiring double layer. It is true that HD-DVD was cheaper at a per layer cost, but no standard length movie fit on a single layer like they do with Bluray.

25 GB/layer vs. 15 GB/layer.

That was the decider.

[ElNono]

Bla bla bla...
Sorry, it's the technical realities. Same as it was with Beta vs. VHS.


Nothing like Beta vs VHS, actually. Don't get defensive though, I didn't say you botched your prediction or anything. Just that cost, if anything, was against BluRay.
What you forget is that originally the BluRay discs needed a full size caddy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1829241.stm) which was pretty expensive and made it incompatible with the current crop of DVD production.

What made the difference is that Sony owned a movie studio and Toshiba didn't. Sony was much more entrenched in Hollywood and knew how to get the other studios lined up. Sony also bundled the drive with the PS3, as opposed to Microsoft, which sold it as a separate device.

From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_definition_optical_disc_format_war):

Deciding factors

The format war's resolution in favor of Blu-ray was primarily decided by two factors: shifting business alliances, including decisions by major film studios and retail distributors,[38] and Sony's decision to include a Blu-ray player in the PlayStation 3 video game console.


Basically, when Warner jumped ship from HD-DVD to BluRay, that was the end of that. Notice that at that point HD-DVD was cheaper than BluRay.

[Wild Cobra]

Nothing like Beta vs VHS, actually. Don't get defensive though, I didn't say you botched your prediction or anything. Just that cost, if anything, was against BluRay.
What you forget is that originally the BluRay discs needed a full size caddy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1829241.stm) which was pretty expensive and made it incompatible with the current crop of DVD production.

What made the difference is that Sony owned a movie studio and Toshiba didn't. Sony was much more entrenched in Hollywood and knew how to get the other studios lined up. Sony also bundled the drive with the PS3, as opposed to Microsoft, which sold it as a separate device.

From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_definition_optical_disc_format_war):

Deciding factors

The format war's resolution in favor of Blu-ray was primarily decided by two factors: shifting business alliances, including decisions by major film studios and retail distributors,[38] and Sony's decision to include a Blu-ray player in the PlayStation 3 video game console.


Basically, when Warner jumped ship from HD-DVD to BluRay, that was the end of that. Notice that at that point HD-DVD was cheaper than BluRay.
OK, I stand corrected. I forgot that it's true if the internet says so.

[ElNono]

OK, I stand corrected. I forgot that it's true if the internet says so.

What's your source for the retarded shit you posted?

[ElNono]

I haven't checked any facts yet, but maybe someone here is interested in doing so.

[Wild Cobra]

What's your source for the retarded shit you posted?
What...

That you always believe what wiki says?

[ElNono]

That you always believe what wiki says?

What's the source for the retarded shit you posted?. Answer the question.

[ElNono]

I know, I know.. Per disk with the same number of layers, Blu-Ray costs more. However, when half or more of the Blu-Ray titles are on one layer disks and nearly all the HD-DVD must be two layer disks... Blu-Ray is by far cheaper to mass produce!

There are other reasons, but that is the primary one

Source for this

[Wild Cobra]

You know, wiki is edited by people who often use their own opinions. The source article doesn't state the root causes. However when you dig into the technical data, bluRay wins hands down.

Think 3D would be possible on HD-DVD? Hell no. HD-DVD was not able to handle all existing formats as it was then. You can be assured 3D was already in planning and development.

Read the source material wiki references. That link is gone, but here is the article:

NEWS / BLU-RAY PLAYERS
Toshiba Quits HD DVD Business (http://tech2.in.com/news/dvd-players/toshiba-quits-hd-dvd-business/29181/0)

All the players decision to back BluRay you can bet was because of technical specifications.

[ElNono]

All the players decision to back BluRay you can bet was because of technical specifications.

Do you read what you link?

"The trend became decisive I think this year," he said. "When Warner made its decision, it was basically over."

And you said the reason was cost, not technical... nice goal post move.

What was the source for the retarded shit you posted earlier?

[ElNono]

:lol this is too easy

[Wild Cobra]

Notice that at that point HD-DVD was cheaper than BluRay.
Live in the past often?

HD-DVD was simply an upgrade of current technology, making it immediately cheaper. BluRay is new technology, making the first million or so more expensive, until the new capital equipment is paid for.

These facts were all part of this, or the other format war thread material.

Don't forget the bandwidth difference.

[ElNono]

I know, I know.. Per disk with the same number of layers, Blu-Ray costs more. However, when half or more of the Blu-Ray titles are on one layer disks and nearly all the HD-DVD must be two layer disks... Blu-Ray is by far cheaper to mass produce!

There are other reasons, but that is the primary one


tbh, cost had noting to do with it. Studios backing up the format did.


All the players decision to back BluRay you can bet was because of technical specifications.

:rollin

[ElNono]

HD-DVD was simply an upgrade of current technology, making it immediately cheaper. BluRay is new technology, making the first million or so more expensive, until the new capital equipment is paid for.


I will stand by my conviction that Blu-Ray will win. Primarily because it is cheaper.

I know, I know.. Per disk with the same number of layers, Blu-Ray costs more. However, when half or more of the Blu-Ray titles are on one layer disks and nearly all the HD-DVD must be two layer disks... Blu-Ray is by far cheaper to mass produce!

There are other reasons, but that is the primary one

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[ElNono]

And no, HD-DVD was still cheaper when Warner switched. :lol

[ElNono]

What's the source for the retarded shit you posted?. Answer the question.

[Wild Cobra]

Do you read what you link?

"The trend became decisive I think this year," he said. "When Warner made its decision, it was basically over."

And you said the reason was cost, not technical... nice goal post move.

What was the source for the retarded shit you posted earlier?
Yes, and there was more material than just that link.

Again, the major players were backing the better technology. Just because that article doesn't spell it out, doesn't mean they didn't see the speed and storage capacity difference.

[ElNono]

Again, the major players were backing the better technology. Just because that article doesn't spell it out, doesn't mean they didn't see the speed and storage capacity difference.

I thought you said the primary reason is that it was cheaper.

Wait, I'm sure you said that. :lol

What was your source?

[Wild Cobra]

I thought you said the primary reason is that it was cheaper.

Wait, I'm sure you said that. :lol

What was your source?
Cheaper per GB is one reason. Data speed is the other.

Bluray won because of technical merit.

[ElNono]

Cheaper per GB.

lol no, you said, and I quote:


Blu-Ray is by far cheaper to mass produce!

lol moving goalposts

BTW, what was your source for that retarded statement?

[ElNono]

lol editing posts and going all defensive... :lmao

[ElNono]

But I called it, today:


We don't have to wait that long, tbh. You'll never admit to being wrong and will nitpick at anything to contest you ever were. Too predictable, IMO.

:lmao

[Trainwreck2100]

Nothing like Beta vs VHS, actually. Don't get defensive though, I didn't say you botched your prediction or anything. Just that cost, if anything, was against BluRay.
What you forget is that originally the BluRay discs needed a full size caddy (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1829241.stm) which was pretty expensive and made it incompatible with the current crop of DVD production.

What made the difference is that Sony owned a movie studio and Toshiba didn't. Sony was much more entrenched in Hollywood and knew how to get the other studios lined up. Sony also bundled the drive with the PS3, as opposed to Microsoft, which sold it as a separate device.

From wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_definition_optical_disc_format_war):

Deciding factors

The format war's resolution in favor of Blu-ray was primarily decided by two factors: shifting business alliances, including decisions by major film studios and retail distributors,[38] and Sony's decision to include a Blu-ray player in the PlayStation 3 video game console.


Basically, when Warner jumped ship from HD-DVD to BluRay, that was the end of that. Notice that at that point HD-DVD was cheaper than BluRay.

The deciding factor was porn everyone knows this

[Wild Cobra]

lol no, you said, and I quote:



lol moving goalposts

BTW, what was your source for that retarded statement?
My God.

BluRay is cheaper when you look at one layer BluRay vs. 2 layer HD-DVD.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[ElNono]

My God.

Was that the source for that retarded statement?

Why are you still trying to move the goalposts? :lmao

[ChuckD]

Sony paid Warner $500M to switch, idiot. It had nothing to do with technical specs, and everything to do with Benjamins.

the truth (http://gizmodo.com/344680/the-real-reason-warner-went-blu+ray)

[Wild Cobra]

Was that the source for that retarded statement?

Why are you still trying to move the goalposts? :lmao
I pointed out that in the early origins of this debate. Not changing the goalpost.

[Wild Cobra]

Sony paid Warner $500M to switch, idiot. It had nothing to do with technical specs, and everything to do with Benjamins.

the truth (http://gizmodo.com/344680/the-real-reason-warner-went-blu+ray)
Even that article wasn't able to confirm the money aspect.

[ElNono]

I pointed out that in the early origins of this debate. Not changing the goalpost.

So you were wrong when you wrote this then:


I know, I know.. Per disk with the same number of layers, Blu-Ray costs more. However, when half or more of the Blu-Ray titles are on one layer disks and nearly all the HD-DVD must be two layer disks... Blu-Ray is by far cheaper to mass produce!

There are other reasons, but that is the primary one

Or you're moving the goalposts. Take a pick.

[ElNono]

Still waiting for your source on that retarded statement, BTW

[CuckingFunt]

So, then, I take it Cobra's no longer than trying to hide the fact he's troll?

[ChuckD]

Even that article wasn't able to confirm the money aspect.

Gizmodo is probably in the top 2-3 technical blogs. If they said it, it happened.

You're a little naive. You like to think that capitalism is like some pure religious economy, when in fact dirty shit like this happens all the time. The best product does not always win. In fact, Sony's loss in the 1980's video tape wars is frequently directly linked to these payments to studios. Beta was a smaller cassette with a better resolution, but they lost the battle. They were afraid it was going to happen again.

It's funny, but the ultimate winner will be 'no disc' video streaming. You think Sony wouldn't like a Mulligan on those half billion dollars in payments to set up their own streaming system? :lol

[DMX7]

Quality of streaming still sucks compared to Blu-ray. And if ISPs decide to start charging by the GB as some have considered, then Netflix is fucked.

[ElNono]

Gizmodo is probably in the top 2-3 technical blogs. If they said it, it happened.

You're a little naive. You like to think that capitalism is like some pure religious economy, when in fact dirty shit like this happens all the time. The best product does not always win. In fact, Sony's loss in the 1980's video tape wars is frequently directly linked to these payments to studios. Beta was a smaller cassette with a better resolution, but they lost the battle. They were afraid it was going to happen again.

It's funny, but the ultimate winner will be 'no disc' video streaming. You think Sony wouldn't like a Mulligan on those half billion dollars in payments to set up their own streaming system? :lol

Oh, he knows. He just don't want to say he was wrong. :lol

[Wild Cobra]

So, then, I take it Cobra's no longer than trying to hide the fact he's troll?
Well, if at times, taking enjoyment in ruffling feathers means being a troll, then I guess at times I fit in that category... at times.

Don't we all?

[Wild Cobra]

So you were wrong when you wrote this then:



Or you're moving the goalposts. Take a pick.
What do you mean?

Long ago, I pointed out Bluray was cheeaper because it takes 2 layers for most HD-DVD titled movies, and only one layer for Bluray.

What are you getting at?

One layer HD-DVD is cheaper than one layer Bluray. The number of required layers makes the difference in manufacturing costs once the capital equipment is in place.

[Wild Cobra]

Quality of streaming still sucks compared to Blu-ray. And if ISPs decide to start charging by the GB as some have considered, then Netflix is fucked.
I agree, but my Netflix connection is pretty close to bluray at times.

[ElNono]

Long ago, I pointed out Bluray was cheeaper because it takes 2 layers for most HD-DVD titled movies, and only one layer for Bluray.

Which is baloney, since BluRay movies have been coming out in dual layer discs since 2006 (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/171/click.html) (same year both BluRay and HD-DVD were introduced).

You don't know much about this, do you? :lol

With that out of the way, what was your source for your previous retarded comment?

[Wild Cobra]

Which is baloney, since BluRay movies have been coming out in dual layer discs since 2006 (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/171/click.html) (same year both BluRay and HD-DVD were introduced).

You don't know much about this, do you? :lol

With that out of the way, what was your source for your previous retarded comment?
And that much in bonus features would probably take a triple layer HD-DVD. A single layer Bluray is only 5 GB less than a double layer HD-DVD.

[ElNono]

And that much in bonus features would probably take a triple layer HD-DVD. A single layer Bluray is only 5 GB less than a double layer HD-DVD.

Not really. It would be more compressed, that's all.

So what was your source for that previous retarded statement?

[Wild Cobra]

Not really. It would be more compressed, that's all.

So what was your source for that previous retarded statement?
Source for what statement?

More compression means greater loss.

[ElNono]

Source for what statement?


I will stand by my conviction that Blu-Ray will win. Primarily because it is cheaper.

I know, I know.. Per disk with the same number of layers, Blu-Ray costs more. However, when half or more of the Blu-Ray titles are on one layer disks and nearly all the HD-DVD must be two layer disks... Blu-Ray is by far cheaper to mass produce!

There are other reasons, but that is the primary one


More compression means greater loss.

That's ok. Cable Co compresses the shit much more. Plus it's irrelevant to what we're discussing, that is, that you were wrong in saying BluRay was cheaper.

[Wild Cobra]

That's ok. Cable Co compresses the shit much more. Plus it's irrelevant to what we're discussing, that is, that you were wrong in saying BluRay was cheaper.
Bluray is cheaper per gigabyte. You get more bang for your buck. It's also faster data transfer.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?

[ElNono]

Bluray is cheaper per gigabyte. You get more bang for your buck. It's also faster data transfer.

But that was not your contention. I know you want to move the goalposts now, but I'm not going to let you.


Why is that so hard to comprehend?

I'm asking you for the source of that retarded statement you made earlier. Why is that question so hard to answer?

[Wild Cobra]

But that was not your contention. I know you want to move the goalposts now, but I'm not going to let you.



I'm asking you for the source of that retarded statement you made earlier. Why is that question so hard to answer?
Asshole. It was my contention. Maybe I didn't at first explain it in the revival of the thread, but I have elaborated since.

Stay stuck in the past if you want, but i move on.

My first post on the topic, 10/10/07, from the other thread (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79216):

Now I haven't really checked out either, but my understanding is that the blueray goes to 25GB/50GB vs. the HD DVD 15GB/30GB. Standard DVDs are 4.7GB/8.5. Modern high definition video is as much as 12 times the NTSC resolution. This means to get the same recording time on a media, you need 102GB of storage. To me, that means that the HD DVD is capable of a maximum of 1 HR 10 Min at the same compression, and Blue Ray 1 HR and 57 Min. Now if standard DVD records both interlaced fields, then double those numbers to 2 HR 20 min for HD DVD and 3 HR 54 min for Blue Ray... Blue Ray almost the same time available as NTSC of DVD!
10/13/07:

I simply belive Blu-Ray will end up winning because it has about 67% more record time available (dual layer 50GB vs. 30GB) for the same quality, and can stream 50% faster too (54 MB/Sec vs. 36 MB/Sec).
2/16/08:

It is said that HD-DVD disks are cheaper. Sure they are. A single layer HD-DVD is cheaper than a Blu-Ray DVD by I think $0.04 per disk. Same with the double layer formats. However... That's not the whole story...

About half the Blu-Ray releases are on single layer formats. Nearly all the HD-DVD releases are on double sided format. This is because the Blu-Ray holds enough extra data. When this occurs, Blu-Ray is cheaper! Store like Wal-Mart, Circuit City, etc. have a higher profit margin on the movie sales, which is where the real profit is at. In my house, for every DVD player I have, I have maybe 100 disks between movies and TV series box sets.
2/16/08:

Double layer HD-DVD disks are 30GB, more costly than the sinle layer 25GB Blu-Ray!

I didn't look too deep, but here's what I found. H.264 at 1080P requires 20 Mbit/sec, 25 Mbit/sec, 60 Mbit/sec, or 80 Mbit/sec for low quality to very high quality compression. I also found two rates for VC-1, at 20 Mbit/sec and 45 Mbit/sec for low to high.

Blu-Ray has a standard data rate of 54 Mbit/sec, whereas DH-DVD only has a 36 Mbit/sec standard data rate. At what qualities of compression for 1080P can Blu-Ray play vs. HD-DVD?

Blu-Ray is the clear winner here in my eyes, besides just cost per GB.

[ElNono]

Asshole. It was my contention. Maybe I didn't at first explain it in the revival of the thread, but I have elaborated since.

'elaborated' = changing goalposts after your 'prediction' was wrong. :lol

Still waiting for the source of this retarded statement:


I will stand by my conviction that Blu-Ray will win. Primarily because it is cheaper.

I know, I know.. Per disk with the same number of layers, Blu-Ray costs more. However, when half or more of the Blu-Ray titles are on one layer disks and nearly all the HD-DVD must be two layer disks... Blu-Ray is by far cheaper to mass produce!

There are other reasons, but that is the primary one

Are you going to answer?

[Wild Cobra]

Still waiting for the source of this retarded statement:



Are you going to answer?
You want me to source something I found 3+ years ago?

Why didn't you ask me then?

I don't know about you, but I have better things to do.

[ElNono]

You want me to source something I found 3+ years ago?

I'd like to know who was the retard that came up with that stupid contention, and that you repeated.


Why didn't you ask me then?

I don't know about you, but I have better things to do.

:lol run lola run
:lol wrong bout dem BluRays

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono...

I didn't consider this at the time, but I'll bet those faster data standards I mentioned before are for the 3D movies we can now buy on BluRay. Bet they wouldn't be possible with HD-DVD data rates, and probably why alliances were changed.