 |
||||
|
|
Blu-ray vs. HD DVD6736 Votes
Issue:Microsoft, Sony and dozens of other large corporations have spent years NOT agreeing on a standard format for the next generation DVD. The result: two separate and incompatible formats are being offered to consumers. Eventually, like Betamax and VHS before them, one will win and one will lose. As of now, which one will win and which one will lose is uncertain. What is certain is that consumers will lose. Why? Some consumers will buy the losing format and end up with obsolete equipment. Many more consumers will buy nothing until after there is a clear winner - and prices will remain high until a mass market is developed.Belief:It is our belief that we the consumers can determine the winner in this format war. How will we do this? By having YOU vote for the format you prefer to win (Click here or on "Comparison between Blu-ray and HD DVD" link in the "Learn More" section to the left to see a comparison between the two formats). Then we all agree to buy the format that wins the vote. OK, it's as much a social experiment as a consumer stand. But our goal is clear - push the losing format to drop out. Let's take control! WHY DID YOU VOTE AS YOU DID? Share your thoughts in the forum below.Loading People... |
|||
|
||||
Sorry Joe C but slysoft have made all bluray BD+ all ready out there crack even hitman. And for copie is piracy this is the disclaimer of ERAGON french version. I just look at the disclaimer from ERAGON bluray, in the french version of disclaimer say" interdit Tout reproduction sauf pour l'usage strictement privé du copiste " That meen that you can do a copie off it if it's for your self. So it make it perfectly legal to do so in CANADA at lease.
come on man lets go with HD
Hannah Montana Goes 3-D with 'Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour'Tech specs reveal Disney's plans to present a first-ever 3-D Viewing Mode on the disc, along with a 2-D version as well, both in 1080p video. Audio boasts uncompressed PCM 7.1 Surround audio. I really want to know if you need a tv that is 3d capable or they going to put out those 3d blu ray players
Here is an interesting read from Reuters. The concern doesn't appear to be with how fast blu-ray adoption is (10%) now, but on how many TVs are high def capable. Bluray has crossed the 10 million mark, which is around 10% of the 113.9 million households in the US.
http://www.reuters.com/ar ticle/technolog...
I thought Blu-ray already won. Thats what it said in the Fort Worth Texas Star Telegram anyways. Please up date this survey.
??? i tought that blu-ray already destroyed hd dvd!!
Page 3.already bluray alone is 6% against DVD
http://www.nxtbook.com/nx tbooks/questex/...
x-box360 PS3 Nintendo Wii All three thrive in our market. HD DVD BLU-RAY one has to die! I don't understand that at all. people are buying blu-ray even though they would rather have HD-DVD.
@ Joe C.
-
I offered side by side reviews of dual format releases back one page from a format neutral website. Enjoy!
You only showed a limited view. Please check out this debate between Dobyblue and others on picture & sound quality. These are some stats from not just Highdef digest, but 4 other independent review sites of over 2000 reviews in total and he gives the stats not just by review sites but by studio as well. These stats were as of the mid 4th quarter 2007, and since then have climbed in blu-rays favor even more because of advances in compression engineering.
http://www.shootfortheedi t.com/forum/sho...
It shows both audio and video review ratings of both bluray and hddvd. It is an interesting but educational debate. Follow it for several pages or at least until this page where you start to see why blu-ray video is better overall because of using more AVC encodes which use higher bit rate spiking and less compression overall. Although VC-1 is doing much better lately since they started lowering the compression and increasing the overal throughput to get better picture quality. lower compression means more disc space used & higher throughput needed of course, which bluray can do this because of their initial specs on dics space and bit rate throughput.
http://www.shootfortheedi t.com/forum/sho...
You really would find it interesting to converse with a compression engineer or even someone like Dobyblue over at www.blu-ray.com sometime. These guys are very knowledgeable and people can learn much more from them than our little debates on here. They are the real pros, that dispelled the FUD from AMIR and RDJAM over at AVS forums. But if nothing else just go to the insiders forum and talk to some of these compression engineers who have worked on both hddvd and bluray encodes, but also if you want to learn stats on this stuff, talk with Dobyblue or countless others. They have more links and stats than you can imagine, and if you check out their sources and stats for yourself you will see that they are true to form.
You appear to miss the point of being a videophile. It's not and never has been about bit rates, encodes, ethernet ports, special features, onboard video memory or any other spec. It's about the full experience of watching the movie, from what you see onscreen, to what you hear, to your ability to interact with the movie itself. Do you seriously tv shop with a bunch of spec sheets in hand or do you actually go and view the sets in person? That being said, up until Toshiba pulled the plug. HD DVD offered the full experience. I'm not knocking Blu Ray's video or audio capabilities, however it's shortcomings did take away from the overall experience. Interactivity is very much a part of the next gen experience. Blu Ray understands this, thus profile 2.0. Until that day arrives, Blu Ray has historically only offered 2/3rds of the next gen experience.
-
Warner used identical encodes on their dual format releases, Paramount did not. Still, the video quality was identical on both formats from both studios. That being said, Paramount optimized their encodes for maximm bit rates on Blu Ray specifically using AVC encodes. Did it offer a significant improvement over their VC-1 HD DVD counterparts? No. Did it offer a marginal improvement? Again, no. It offered no improvement. The 6 additional mbps of video bitrate Blu Ray (40 vs 34) is capable of has shown again and again zero improvement in video quality of dual format releases. Yes, I'm well aware of the theory that the higher the bitrate that better the theoretical video quality. Well, that sounds great on paper, but has yet to proven in side by side comparisions. Therefore I did not feel it necessary to post every Dual Format release. A small sampling from a neutral site is fair enough to illustrate my point - when rated side by side the HD DVD versions of dual format releases were consistently rated higher in the overall experience.
-
To be fair, I have not yet checked out shootfortheedit.com yet. I do plan too when I have some real free time. It sounds very interesting. On the flip side however, I'm dubious of any information that comes from the Blu Ray forums. Not to discredit the people specifically that frequent that site, they are probably a few there that are quite knowledgable, however if you could illustrate your points from websites/forums that aren't obviously biased it would certaintly add to the discussion.
I can understand your argument, but since I and so many other bluray adopters have not really experienced/gotten used to the other 1/3 of the experience, it doesn't mean a whole lot to us. and with new adopters to come, they wont have had that full experience to care as much either, so 'for now' it is just mainly limited to the hddvd supporters that will care this much, and that I can understand. and not to take away from the extra experience, as many of us dont know what we're missing to some extent, and I can see how it would for non-videophiles (mass consumers), be a very appealing part of the whole high def experience to have the extras as you mentioned above. if you check out surveys on bluray sites the vast majority dont care for the interactivity part or PiP. they actually (myself included) would rather not have it at all or put it on a separate disc, because it cuts into the potential bandwidth of the video and audio streams (especially on movies that have "multiple lossless audio streams" like LOTR, etc., then throw in PiP on top of that, and internet connectivity bandwidth, It all adds up and chews into the potential bandwidth of the movie itself). If all we had was video and audio, then they can lower compression more on video which spikes bit rates, but with no extras, there is more room for this, and thus a better picture quality overall, especially with darker scenes which can chew up the most disc space/bit rate throughput, because for dark scenes to look awesome with great shadow detail and clarity, it takes a ton of bandwidth and space. If you look at two movies of equal length/time, and one is a darker movie (ie. Sweeney Tood), the darker one will take way more disc space, or else it won't look so good.
Having said all that, I do think as time goes on and more bluray early adopters start making use of the 2.0 stuff, they will come to enjoy the full experience as you and others do, but just not if its at the expense of the video quality encode.
-
I disagree on the Paramount/video encodes. If the compression engineer doesn't know how to get the best out of AVC or even VC-1, the way the engineers who do the Disney encodes do, then they are not going to turn out as good. Paramount were far more used to VC-1 and had better engineers for those type encodes at the time. If done properly, whether VC-1 or AVC, the 'Best' engineers can make video look better if they have more bandwidth to work with.
But Bluray has shown improvement in video, and is proving itself when you look at the stats. Paramount comes in 2nd, but Disney beats them by more than a marginal amount on average with their lower compressed/higher bit rate AVC encodes. When it comes to Paramount or Warner that have both formats released, most bluray supporters ask the question "now that Warner/Para have gone back to blue, When can we see better video encodes". thats one of the most common questions, because when bluray videophiles watch the best AVC encodes from one studio and then see another studio such as Paramount or the VC-1 from Warner, not look nearly as good, they expect those studios to pull up their socks, get better compression engineers, and make use of the higher bit rates and disc space to give the better video experience, that the top AVC compression engineers have already set the bar quite high on. The talk with Warner is that they are going to continue using VC-1, but are working with better compression engineers for future releases to make the video encodes much better. Also it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that Spielberg and Lucas and Jackson are going to demand THE best compression engineers work on their releases, like Star Wars, LOTR, etc., and make use of the added bandwidth to do so. And you can bet that even Bay's/Spielberg's Transformers will look better when re-encoded for bluray. at least thats what bluray videophiles are 'expecting', which means they want better than what Paramounts prior 'best' was, becaue they experienced better and know you can get better with the proper encoding. Thats what a true videophile is most concerned with. If we watch POTC2 and then put on Transformers, we notice its not quite as good, and want better for all new releases. The capability is there with bluray from the better initial specs, now its just a matter of studios making use of it and getting better and better encoded movies.
-
Actually Dobyblue, though a big bluray supporter, he does illustrate the points from websites that aren't biased, highdefdigest being one of them. He spent a lot of time compiling data directly from these sites.
I found it to be one of the more interesting debates I've seen. but don't take it from his word, check out his stats from those sites for yourself. or even better, talk with a compression engineer that has worked with both hddvd and bluray titles. the compression engineer insiders on blu-ray.com aren't as biased toward bluray as might think. they just talk about the technical aspects of this stuff. thats why I keep saying "when encoded properly by the best engineers that make use of the extra bandwidth and therefore more disc space, the video can look noticeably better, and thats the limitation that bluray fans didnt like about hddvd" These unbiased compression engineers that work on both hddvd and bluray say this stuff, that they are limited when doing an hddvd encode and can make it look better on bluray from experience. That's a big reason why Michael Bay says bluray looks better on his movies. He saw what the higher bit rate/lower compression AVC encodes looked like on bluray, then saw his Transformers not look quite as good as they could (done by the best hddvd compression engineers), which he is in close contact with and they are telling him the difference in limitations between hddvd and bluray video ability. He sees the full quality version daily directly from the highdef cameras, and bluray comes closest to that to him. That 'additional 6' you are talking about can make all the difference in the world according to top engineers that work with it daily.
-
Definitely check out the shootfortheedit debate asper post below just to see the stats if nothing else, and go to the insiders section of Blu-ray.com (you can rest assure to bypass the BS if you just converse with the compression engineers there, that I can guarantee), but none-the-less, Dobyblue's stats are legit when you check them out.
-
Go straight to 'Insiders Forums' - Cut through the bluray fanboy BS and get to the real truth (thats what I do, as I do admit some of the fanboyism on the main forums gets old quickly)
http://forum.blu-ray.com/ forumdisplay.ph...
-
They are insiders for both AVC forums and Blu-ray.com, so are not biased, and you wont get the fanboy like comments from them. they are straight up with the truth and dont always give the answer that a bluray fan likes to hear.
(2themax)
(drmpeg)
(RBFilms) within a few posts starts talking about new 32-36mbps encodes
-
They have audio experts, BD-J experts that also know HDi, and other very knowledgable insiders like Paidgeek, Penton-Man and Maxpower1987.
-
Bypass the bluray fanboy BS and get to the truth quickly. dont even both with the other forums on the site. the insider forum I've found to be more neutral than even most non-bluray/neutral forums out there. Don't let the fact that this forum is on the blu-ray.com site discourage you.
Just a comment on BD+ Maybe it's the movie studio that want that but i know SONY is a movie studio and this will only be a problem for normal people who just want a copie of what they paid for. Pirate will be able to copie it anyway so what is the reason for that? They are all ready able to do it.
Making copies of discs is called Pirating and is illegal no matter if its your own disc or someone elses.
I don't know anyone or why anyone would want to make a copy of discs they paid for, other than for illegal reasons. For one thing when you pay for it you take care of it better and don't allow it to get scratched, unlike how you might handle a rental. The only ones that really want to make copies are those that rent or borrow a movie and want a copy so they don't have to pay for the movie. I know lots of people who do this, but no one that copies there own titles. that would be a waste of time and effort. if I ever got a scratch on my standard DVD disc, I would just contact the studio or retailer, someone, send back the damaged one and get a new one. I think they would far rather prefer that than having people making illegal copies.
BD+ protects the studios from this, and though SlySoft have cracked a couple of easy/early BD+ titles, they are no where near being able to crack most let alone all the titles, and with BD+ studios have the ability to change it up for each movie and cause Slysoft and other companies to have to re-release their software for every title, and each title is getting more difficult to crack than the few they already have. it would cost Slysoft way too much to crack each new title, and the same title may have more than one changes from the other to make it that much more difficult. Plus the ones that were cracked can't be put back onto a blank BD-R disc and work, it can only be played by special software on your computer.
So ripping songs from CD's to listen to on your MP3 player is pirating? I don't think so. And yes, I do make copies of my movies for backup purposes, and to protect against format obsolescence. Saying something like this is so black and white is naive and ignorant.
The copying discs portion of the above post is not true. You can legally copy discs that you own for private use. You can even purchase software legally for this purpose from reputable stores.
Sony is planning to make bluray copie possible from a PS3 TO PSP. I just want it possible to do the same without SONY Product.
reproduction without the studio approval is prohibited by any mean read the disclaimer on every movie that why i knew blu ray would win i did prefer hd dvd because it still gave some power to the consumer but its over and i moved on i dont have a blu ray player yet but i knew it was too good to last for hd dvd and hd dvd had the capacity to match anything blu ray had for picture and sound quality it all about the encode of the source of the film but i know i will hear different
I just look at the disclaimer from ERAGON bluray, in the french version of disclaimer say" interdit Tout reproduction sauf pour l'usage strictement privé du copiste " That meen that you can do a copie off it if it's for your self. So it make it pefectly legal to do so in CANADA at lease.
http://www.hollywoodrepor ter.com/hr/cont...
Since the death of hddvd Blu-ray has seen quite a boost in sales that indicate there were many people sitting on the fence waiting for a winner, and likely many hddvd supporters that have now adopted bluray.
The word forced comes to mind... though its not bluray doing the forcing, but rather the hole in peoples lives at the loss of HD DVD. Hehe. But true enough, there certainly were many fence sitters throughout the battle (I was one, just fell off right before the decision because HD was so affordable at the time). Only problem is that growth should be significantly faster with only one available HD format, and its not due to price (and for those such as myself, lack of completeness, but this doesn't apply to your average consumer). I don't think bluray will EVER overturn DVD without costing the same as DVD.
Actually if you look at recent surveys and articles even besides the one above, Bluray is growing at a fairly good rate. adoption was never going to be overnight, because studios are making money off DVDs and they don't want to cut off that profit too quickly. all in due time. even HDTVs aren't out there in the market enough yet for full adoption of high def. as the market eventually gets flooded with new high def capable TVs, then so too will bluray grow with that market. watch for 1st quarter of 2009 is what experts are predicting for a faster rise in adoption.
Even if you are a bluray fan, a lot of evolution in bluray came because of HDDVD. The first movies that came out for bluray was encoded in MPEG 2 the same as SDDVD and HDDVD came out with VC1 and look a lot better over Bluray movie, so Bluray add to change. And other thing that bluray add to catch up was special feature like PIP and web enabled feature and that wy they need their 2.0 version firmeware. So it's been couple of years the first BLURAY HDDVD came out and BLURAY have just catch up. Now what would add happened if bluray didn't have HDDVD to copie from it. Maybe we still have mpeg2 bluray and 1.0 firmeware version. So what is funny, they do every thing to make the BLURAY copie protected but they add to copie from HDDVD. I like that. Your right bluray is more TECHNICALLY ADVANCED.
Bluray never copied anything from hddvd, hddvd just got a head start on getting product out to market.
There's no doubt Toshiba pushed bluray to make changes(that were already planned) to their technology faster, which is why bluray put out the extras later, but if you do the research on the history of the two technologies, bluray had their technology & initial design before hddvd. BDA just underestimated how fast Toshiba would have theirs ready for market. BDA took longer to get the improved throughput and disc size/apenture specs completed before it was ready for market. Bluray had plans for pip and interconnectivity from day 1, but had to phase them in because it took so long to finalize the other specs.
As far as the video encoding, I don't know if it was because of hddvd or just compression engineers learning the ropes, but bluray definitely improved on their video encodes since the beginning. Many of the best encodes out there are actually AVC not VC-1, though recently bluray have made even VC-1 look better or closer to AVC by adjusting the compression(lower), as AVC is by nature a lower compression video encode format. This takes up much more space on the discs, and spikes higher bit rate throughput, but looks better in the end. Blu-ray was playing catch up early on, but had surpassed hddvd on video since many months now due to the higher bit rate spiking that results from lower compression, thus more detail and clarity. so your right, bluray was always more technically advanced on many aspects.
I highly disagree with your statement. Bluray did in fact copy significantly from HD DVD, and they were in fact using MPEG 2... until HD DVD came out with VC1. AVC came as a response to HD DVD copies actually looking BETTER than Bluray until bluray canned the MPEG encoding. You wouldn't be seeing VC1 or AVC were it not for HD DVD. As for features, you can claim they were planning on including them, but I can claim that I had an idea after the fact as well... truth be told, you don't know what level of interactivity would have come about without HD DVD and to state otherwise is pure wild speculation. Bluray was only more technilogically advanced because they chose to ignore pricepoints (which is one reason I favor HD DVD, it was the consumer friendly choice) and because they chose to continue to upgrade, forcing out early adopters on the new technology.
All those video encodes (mpeg2, vc1, avc) were part of the inital specs for both bluray and hddvd. just cause one favored a particular type in the beginning doesn't mean bluray copied hddvd. it was the studios that decided what codec they wanted to use for video encoding. the first year was more experimental than anything with a brand new technology, to see what worked, what was a right fit, what the studios liked or disliked. they are still experimenting with video encodes today and for some time to come to get better video picture quality out of these codecs. some studios prefer AVC and others VC-1 on bluray right now.
That makes no sense to argue "Bluray was only more technilogically advanced because they chose to ignore pricepoints"
Sure it makes sense, if you want to sacrifice your early adopters and continue modifying technology to a level of incompatibility with your prior technology while continuing to raise prices then you can of course claim technical superiority. Also, there are movies by Warner where the VC-1 Codec was used by HD DVD and the MPEG2 was used by blu for the same title, thus negating your studio arguement. Its okay, it doesn't take away from bluray that they copied HD DVD... in fact it should make you happier as you got a better product out of it.
Gotcha, I see what you meant now. I don't feel one bit bad for the minority that bought a stand alone early on. Thats what being an early adopter entails. those who bought the PS3 aren't so unfortunate, and for bluray that is the vast majority of early adopters.
True on the movie encodes for older releases, however not for recent titles. early on studios tried it one way, and maybe that encode was strongly suggested by the BDA, who knows, but the studios changed and adapted as they began working more with these various codecs. studios decide what codec they want to use, and what levels of compression is used which means how much disc space is used.
I still don't see bluray copying hddvd. each studio did their own thing. why is AVC so widely used on bluray especially from Disney, where not on hddvd. the best encodes out of all high def titles to date are from Disney using AVC.
What I will say is that hddvd sure hurried along high def to get it out to consumers much sooner than would have been with bluray. thats not such a bad thing.
Certainly not, and I'm glad we agree on a few things, however, the point still stands that VC-1 was pioneered on HD DVD, not bluray.
I don't disagree that hddvd along with Microsoft used the VC-1 encode in the early months, and that blu-ray mostly mpeg2, but since it was built into both technology's specs, when studios started using VC-1 and AVC more on blu-ray, and less mpeg2, I wouldn't say they were copying hddvd. the were just starting to take advantage of what other codecs had to offer, as they searched and learned the ropes on getting the best possible encodes. They still to this day have a little ways to go before they hit the peak of its capabilities, but so far Disney has the record with some of their AVC encodes. This will soon no doubt be broken, possibly by Disney themselves, however I suspect Warner, Universal and Paramount are going to be looking to get certain titles better than even what Disney has to currently offer (ie. LOTR, StarWars, etc.), you can bet Lucas, Spielberg, Jackson, and even Michael Bay on his bluray Transformers encode, won't settle for anything but better than what's out there now. They'll like wait til the compression engineering advancement hits its peak before releasing, and rest assure they and every studio in Hollywood will know who those particular engineers are.