HDDVD vs. BluRay

[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 led 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 ed.

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 led movies, and only one layer for Bluray.

Which is baloney, since BluRay movies have been coming out in dual layer discs since 2006 (same year both BluRay and HD-DVD were introduced).

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

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

[Wild Cobra]

Which is baloney, since BluRay movies have been coming out in dual layer discs since 2006 (same year both BluRay and HD-DVD were introduced).

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

With that out of the way, what was your source for your previous re ed 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 re ed statement?

[Wild Cobra]

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

So what was your source for that previous re ed 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 les 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 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 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 re ed 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 re ed 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:

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.

Still waiting for the source of this re ed 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 les 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 re ed 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 re 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.

run lola run
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.