HD DVD...who still has/uses it?

[cmdrdredd]

I'm still annoyed it was it was the movie industry, and not the consumer, that determined "Blu Ray" won.

How so? If you go back to when both formats were available blu-Ray outsold HD dvd by 2 to 1. That says it had more consumer support to me.

The only problem was that many titles were on one or the other and not both. So you didn't get to choose based on format. Still I am pleased with blu-Ray today and don't think it was a bad thing it took off in the end.

 

[TestKing123]

How so? If you go back to when both formats were available blu-Ray outsold HD dvd by 2 to 1. That says it had more consumer support to me.

The only problem was that many titles were on one or the other and not both. So you didn't get to choose based on format. Still I am pleased with blu-Ray today and don't think it was a bad thing it took off in the end.

Blu Ray only outsold HD-DVD by large margins when movie studios began dropping HD-DVD. Sales between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray were dead even up to Christmas 2007. It was money between format backers and the movie studios that decided the format winner, not the consumer.

http://www.denofgeek.com/dvd-bluray...58/hd-dvd-the-format-that-nearly-beat-blu-ray

For all intents and purposes, the "winner" didn't mean much. Blu Ray went on to disappointing sales until it literally collapsed in 2014. Streaming media never allowed Blu Ray to reach DVD like sales, especially since media codecs nearly matched Hlu Ray quality at 1080p for the average consumer.

UHD 4k Blu Ray media may result in a temporary insurgence of sales, but it's only a matter of time before 4k streaming media catches up. The movie industry even went so far to bar 4k streaming from PC's from Netflix/Amazon, but how long will that last when 4k becomes much more affordable?

The cases above show it is not the consumer that determines what succeeds anymore (like it did with Betamax vs VHS). The movie industry and their backers is what determines this now.

 

[cmdrdredd]

This says otherwise. In November 2007 Blu-Ray had 71% of the sales. http://www.geek.com/news/blu-ray-dominates-hd-dvd-with-71-of-disc-sales-570450/

The Nielsen VideoScan sales for the week ending 11/4 show BluRay with a 71% to 29% lead in sales over HD DVD. Year to date figures show Blu-ray at 64% to HD DVDs 36%, and since their inception, BluRay has a 61% to 39% lead

Funny you seem to think streaming will do anything significant when just this year even more data caps went into place than previously. Comcast and others won't allow it and that's because they are all but handed a monopoly in many markets. Disks will always be around and always offer better quality. There are many people who do appreciate the quality difference and many more who want to have a library of disks and don't want to be tied to a digital pass that allows you to watch something. You only have to look at what Steam has done in the past where some games people owned were removed from their accounts without warning. The same could happen at any time with digital movies which is a big reason why I'm leery of it. I doubt I'm alone there. Unlike games, I'm much more likely to rewatch an old movie title than play through a 30hour game.

 

[lupi]

still have a player and about a dozen movies, just haven't figured out what to do with them yet.

 

[TestKing123]

This says otherwise. In November 2007 Blu-Ray had 71% of the sales. http://www.geek.com/news/blu-ray-dominates-hd-dvd-with-71-of-disc-sales-570450/

The article I quoted you included worldwide sales. This is a US/Canada statistic you posted.

NDP had Blu Ray 51% marketshare just prior to the Warner Bros decision to drop HD-DVD (which had 48% worldwide marketshare).

Funny you seem to think streaming will do anything significant when just this year even more data caps went into place than previously. Comcast and others won't allow it and that's because they are all but handed a monopoly in many markets. Disks will always be around and always offer better quality. There are many people who do appreciate the quality difference and many more who want to have a library of disks and don't want to be tied to a digital pass that allows you to watch something. You only have to look at what Steam has done in the past where some games people owned were removed from their accounts without warning. The same could happen at any time with digital movies which is a big reason why I'm leery of it. I doubt I'm alone there. Unlike games, I'm much more likely to rewatch an old movie title than play through a 30hour game.

This is one big strawman post that I don't care for.

Comcast got cap limits on you? Tough. I don't, and neither does this address my points.

Digital sales have crushed Blu Ray sales, so much that physical discs are pretty much a niche. People like you who want a physical library are in the minority. Even extras once exclusive to Blu-Rays are available under many digital sales. Quality wise, the difference between disc and streaming at 1080p is neglible. You only need to look at Amazon's and Netflix's highest bit rate to see there isn't much of a difference to warrant the easie of digital distribution vs physical media.

With 4k, this will tilt in favor back to discs, but history has a tendecy to repeat iself and this is no different.

 

[destrekor]

This says otherwise. In November 2007 Blu-Ray had 71% of the sales. http://www.geek.com/news/blu-ray-dominates-hd-dvd-with-71-of-disc-sales-570450/

The article I quoted you included worldwide sales. This is a US/Canada statistic you posted.

NDP had Blu Ray 51% marketshare just prior to the Warner Bros decision to drop HD-DVD (which had 48% worldwide marketshare).



This is one big strawman post that I don't care for.

Comcast got cap limits on you? Tough. I don't, and neither does this address my points.

Digital sales have crushed Blu Ray sales, so much that physical discs are pretty much a niche. People like you who want a physical library are in the minority. Even extras once exclusive to Blu-Rays are available under many digital sales. Quality wise, the difference between disc and streaming at 1080p is neglible. You only need to look at Amazon's and Netflix's highest bit rate to see there isn't much of a difference to warrant the easie of digital distribution vs physical media.

With 4k, this will tilt in favor back to discs, but history has a tendecy to repeat iself and this is no different.

If you're arguing that Blu-ray has no place in the current market, you couldn't be more wrong.

If you are arguing that the average individual simply doesn't care about what can be offered by Blu-ray, then yes, you are often right. These are the people who don't have decent surround sound systems, if at all, and just want quick access without messing with physical disc rentals. And in some cases, I too use Netflix and Amazon to watch movies, but only ones that I don't care much to truly experience the full details.

You won't have lossless sound codecs streaming for a long time I suspect. You're lucky to get DVD quality audio on streams, it's hardly ever that good.

And yes, it can be difficult for an untrained eye to appreciate the difference between Blu-ray and Netflix's highest bitrate, but it can be done for anyone who cares. The best stream I've ever come across is Vudu HDX, and they add some tricks to help make it look better too. But as a starting point it's a much higher bitrate.

Both formats (disc and streams) will have staying power because they have specific market segments carved out. Which is fine by me - options for everyone and I enjoy both options myself.

 

[cmdrdredd]

The article I quoted you included worldwide sales. This is a US/Canada statistic you posted.

NDP had Blu Ray 51% marketshare just prior to the Warner Bros decision to drop HD-DVD (which had 48% worldwide marketshare).



This is one big strawman post that I don't care for.

Comcast got cap limits on you? Tough. I don't, and neither does this address my points.

Digital sales have crushed Blu Ray sales, so much that physical discs are pretty much a niche. People like you who want a physical library are in the minority. Even extras once exclusive to Blu-Rays are available under many digital sales. Quality wise, the difference between disc and streaming at 1080p is neglible. You only need to look at Amazon's and Netflix's highest bit rate to see there isn't much of a difference to warrant the easie of digital distribution vs physical media.

With 4k, this will tilt in favor back to discs, but history has a tendecy to repeat iself and this is no different.

The fact that you don't have a cap in place doesn't matter to people who do. I have to pay extra to remove my cap and you think I'm happy about that? Your arguments are flawed in that you think that your personal usage case is the same as everyone else's. It isn't and that's why your argument falls flat.

Disks will continue to exist as long as they offer a quality difference. That's a fact. Until you get all the lossless audio, 1:1 video quality and the special features it's a non starter for many. You can call it niche but the industry seems to want to spend a large amount of money capturing that niche market don't they? They aren't going to abandon a market where they are still making money and in 2015 they made over a billion dollars combined from physical disk sales of Blu-Ray.

As deskructor pointed out the markets have different consumer groups. Some people want the quality, the ability to establish a library, and the ability to share their collection amongst friends and family. Then there's 3D...some people like 3D and buy a 3D version if available. You do not have that option on digital at all. Some people don't care and are more casual about the movies they watch. Maybe they prefer quantity over quality so they subscribe to streaming services and watch their fill. Maybe they don't have room to collect disks. Whatever the case may be they made the decision. I am pointing out that the ISPs don't want them streaming stuff off netflix and amazon. They want them subscribing to cable and renting boxes and using their VoD services instead. The internet is eating into their cable TV business and they don't like that. Caps is one way to fight the consumer in this case, forcing people to pay more if they want to stream everything. Comcast actually told me it would be cheaper to subscribe to cable TV, phone service, and internet than it was to ditch the TV and phone and go all streaming and pay for the unlimited data even when I own my modem. That's how badly they want people tethered to their XFinity TV boxes.

Don't take me for someone who dislikes streaming, I do most of my media that way. Some movies deserve a better quality and since I have the receiver and setup to do it, I want the lossless audio. The UHD Movies with HDR I've watched via streaming so far are amazing and beat 1080p Blu-Ray video quality, but they are still compressed more than the disks will be and will always be missing the audio element which to me is just as important. Even if they offered ATMOS on Amazon and Netflix it would be compressed and not a truly lossless track.

 

[TestKing123]

Just because you don't have a cap in place doesn't matter to people who do. I have to pay extra to remove my cap and you think I'm happy about that? Your arguments are flawed in that you think that your personal usage case is the same as everyone else's. It isn't and that's why your argument falls flat.

Disks will continue to exist as long as they offer a quality difference. That's a fact. Until you get all the lossless audio, 1:1 video quality and the special features it's a non starter for many. You can call it niche but the industry seems to want to spend a large amount of money capturing that niche market don't they? They aren't going to abandon a market where they are still making money and in 2015 they made over a billion dollars combined from physical disk sales of Blu-Ray.

Any discussion about bandwidth caps is another (entirely different) discussion altogether. I don't agree with bandwith caps, and if my cable provider ever decides to implement such a feature is the day I go shopping for another cable provider. Of course I realize many people don't have an option to shop around, but that's another discussion for another thread.

Lossless audio is irrelevant for the vast majority of people. Digital streaming typically offers 5.1/7.1 that is decent enough for most people's home theater systems. I've purchased Blu Rays and yes there is a difference, but not enough of a difference where people will buy discs in droves. If they're like me, they will only buy discs for their absolute favorite movies and TV shows. Everything else, including the garbage that comes out routinely from Hollywood, is left to streaming. This is not like the days of DVD's where people went out to buy even the "so so" movies. With digital streaming practically on par with Blu Rays, the incentive to buy movies on physical media is much, much less.

This is why digital sales have crushed Blu Ray sales. They're still making money in 2015 but that money has plummeted year after year (while digital downloads/streaming are increasing dramatically year after year) and there is no sign of unbuckling that trend. Other than 4k UHD discs of course, until like I said 4k streaming catches up just as it did with 1080p.

 

[cmdrdredd]

There you go again, using your usage as the benchmark for everyone else.

When I stream UHD+HDR from Amazon it uses 35Mbps of my bandwidth. The latest Blu-Ray releases have up to 24Mbps just in the audio stream. There's a huge difference in the quality of the disk. To some people that matters. Like I said before, there are always going to be people who want that quality. Both will exist side by side.

 

[destrekor]

Any discussion about bandwidth caps is another (entirely different) discussion altogether. I don't agree with bandwith caps, and if my cable provider ever decides to implement such a feature is the day I go shopping for another cable provider. Of course I realize many people don't have an option to shop around, but that's another discussion for another thread.

Lossless audio is irrelevant for the vast majority of people. Digital streaming typically offers 5.1/7.1 that is decent enough for most people's home theater systems. I've purchased Blu Rays and yes there is a difference, but not enough of a difference where people will buy discs in droves. If they're like me, they will only buy discs for their absolute favorite movies and TV shows. Everything else, including the garbage that comes out routinely from Hollywood, is left to streaming. This is not like the days of DVD's where people went out to buy even the "so so" movies. With digital streaming practically on par with Blu Rays, the incentive to buy movies on physical media is much, much less.

This is why digital sales have crushed Blu Ray sales. They're still making money in 2015 but that money has plummeted year after year (while digital downloads/streaming are increasing dramatically year after year) and there is no sign of unbuckling that trend. Other than 4k UHD discs of course, until like I said 4k streaming catches up just as it did with 1080p.

Thing is, this is the same comparison as MP3 vs CD and even hi-res audio options.

The majority of consumers are perfectly fine with the MP3s offered by the various digital services. Many are now even streaming music, paying forever to receive music they don't own. CD sales are lower than ever. Not that it matters much, because CD and MP3 still share the same terrible masters with no dynamic range (see: loudness wars).

Vinyl still exists. Niche? Absolutely. But many still prefer it and many albums are still pressed to vinyl. And someone in the chain still cares because the vinyl albums have terrific dynamic range compared to the CD of the same actual release. Thankfully studios are now more likely to offer digital versions of THOSE masters, though sadly they are only usually in 24bit/96kHz FLAC or some similar format (which hardly matter - they sound better because of the better master, not the unnecessarily high resolution - but that's for another discussion).

Point being: options are great, and the content producers realize they must continue to serve up these options, and even ensure they produce content fit for the higher quality media. Yeah many movies may suck, but they can still get a flawless picture quality and one of the best soundtrack mixes ever conceived. That happens a lot, and for many movie types, it can make a difference for those who care.

Just like many don't care to have anything but the highly-compressed (dynamic range, not bit rate) CD and MP3 offerings, some do care and buy the vinyl or hi-res offerings online. That market is actually surging, so obviously there are people out there who care about quality.

Blu-ray and UHD Blu-ray will continue to exist for a long time.

Even if they offered ATMOS on Amazon and Netflix it would be compressed and not a truly lossless track.

Well, I don't think it will be possible to offer Atmos as a lossy track. The Atmos audio track has Dolby TruehD in the wrapper, so to speak. It serves up the TrueHD content when an Atmos-compatible receiver is not present. Atmos itself relies upon the TrueHD track, but there are additional content layers.

 

[cmdrdredd]

.

Well, I don't think it will be possible to offer Atmos as a lossy track. The Atmos audio track has Dolby TruehD in the wrapper, so to speak. It serves up the TrueHD content when an Atmos-compatible receiver is not present. Atmos itself relies upon the TrueHD track, but there are additional content layers.

I mean the actual stream you get may not be the full bandwidth because of server constraints etc. Some people report Amazon jumping between UHD and HD when the connection is not perfect. Audio doing something similar would be worse to me.

 

[destrekor]

I mean the actual stream you get may not be the full bandwidth because of server constraints etc. Some people report Amazon jumping between UHD and HD when the connection is not perfect. Audio doing something similar would be worse to me.

Yeah, I get that, but I don't see Atmos being offered up through streaming for a long time to come, I reckon. Just the same as nobody offers any other lossless codec. There wouldn't be a significant difference between Atmos and TrueHD 7.1... but to add a lossless codec, you'll have to add in an average of 5-9Mbps for the audio stream. The common codecs offer a max of around 20Mbps but most movies are going to have an average of around 5mbps IIRC. Some of course will be less.

Now that I think about the different bitrates already on offer, I guess we could begin to see lossless within a couple years. I imagine it should be relatively easy to drop the stream from the lossless codec to the much much smaller lossy 5.1 stream.

 

[Worthington]

I still have my Toshiba HD-XA2. I use it to play my regular SD DVDs as well as my HD-DVDs as I like the scaler in it.

 

[Mercennarius]

still have a player and about a dozen movies, just haven't figured out what to do with them yet.

What player and movies?

 

[Mercennarius]

I still have my Toshiba HD-XA2. I use it to play my regular SD DVDs as well as my HD-DVDs as I like the scaler in it.

The XA2 is the best player i've ever owned. Little big, little slow at booting up, but incredible quality and picture.

 

[Aikouka]

I still have my Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive and a few discs. Although, I've been replacing all of my DVDs and HD-DVDs with Blu-rays if possible.

Back in the early days of the format war, I definitely had a strong leaning toward HD-DVD. The problem is that early Blu-rays tended to use MPEG2 where the majority of HD-DVDs used h.264 or VC-1. Although, I do definitely like the anti-scratch layer on Blu-rays, and I've definitely taken it for granted whenever I hear a dish sloshing around in the sealed box. 😛

 

[rancherlee]

I still have my Toshiba HD-XA2. I use it to play my regular SD DVDs as well as my HD-DVDs as I like the scaler in it.

As do I, The Toshiba HD-DVD players have a great scaler in it, its the reason I still have HD-DVDs. DVDs look look better on that player on my 107" projector screen than any other player I've tried.\

Also, the Death of HD-DVD was pretty much caused by Microsoft IMO, The Xbox 360 was originally going to come with a native HD-DVD drive but the drives were not going to be ready in time for the aggressive launch schedule. Would have been interesting to see how the hd-dvd vs Bluray would have worked out had the 360 come with the HD-DVD drive.

 

[Mercennarius]

As do I, The Toshiba HD-DVD players have a great scaler in it, its the reason I still have HD-DVDs. DVDs look look better on that player on my 107" projector screen than any other player I've tried.\

Other than the slow start up time and clunky menu operation, the XA2 is one of the best players i've ever used.

Also, the Death of HD-DVD was pretty much caused by Microsoft IMO, The Xbox 360 was originally going to come with a native HD-DVD drive but the drives were not going to be ready in time for the aggressive launch schedule. Would have been interesting to see how the hd-dvd vs Bluray would have worked out had the 360 come with the HD-DVD drive.

Agreed. Blu Rays biggest advantage early on was that it came packed in every PS3.

 

[SearchMaster]

I got one with about 30 movies for like $125 when HD-DVD was being closed out. My son has it in his room and I see him watching Billy Madison or the like from time to time.

 

[Arachnotronic]

For some odd reason i've started collecting HD DVDs since their dirt cheap on eBay. They still offer crisp 1080P video and HD audio and can be played through PCs, Xbox 360 add on, or stand alone players. I personally have the Toshiba XA2 stand alone player, and an LG GGW-H20L (HD DVD/Blu Ray writer) for my PC. Anyone else still rocking (or collecting) HD DVD hardware/software?

My dad recently bought an HD-DVD player and is thrilled at all of the great movies he can buy for basically peanuts because the standard is dead.