Petition for HD-DVD

[muchumba]

For anyone interested, there's a petition for HD-DVD at http://www.petitiononline.com/SAVEHDD/petition.html

Thank you for participating in the forums, but this topic (including a link to the same HD-DVD Petition in the OP) is already in progress here.

-Schadenfroh

 

[JackBurton]

It won't do any good. I'm tired of trying to sell HD-DVD. It's not my product and I don't get a cent from sales. Toshiba needs to get up off their ass and do their own marketing.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: muchumba
For anyone interested, there's a petition for HD-DVD at http://www.petitiononline.com/SAVEHDD/petition.html

Heh. Some of those signatures are amusing.

BluRay is the Devil.....I am serious.

Ê

Howard Stringer: $500,000,000 BABY

Banking on PS3 is a hufe mistake

how much do I suck? blew my savings last month on HD-DVDs

Paramount Pictures: Later suckers!

Ken Graffeo: Would people please stop posting under my name, it is highly illegal as you are falsely representing me! Please show some respect and decorum on here!

Oscar Mayer: My bologna has a first name... It's... Ummm...???

 

[jpeyton]

Online petitions always work.

 

[TheVrolok]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Toshiba needs to get up off their ass and do their own marketing.

That's the truth. They just got straight up out marketed by BRD. I can barely count the number of times I've ever seen HD-DVD advertised (maybe they were assuming "DVD" would cut it?) while I can't get away from Blu-ray adds (maybe because they always seem to be sponsoring NFL games (Sony that is)).

 

[Oyeve]

Why fight it? BR is the better format anyway. Much more capacity.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Why fight it? BR is the better format anyway. Much more capacity.

Neither is a "better" format from a picture/sound quality perspective.. They're identical.

I would say HD-DVD is a "better" overall format for consumers however, since the discs have no region coding on them unlike Blu-Ray.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Microsoft and Toshiba need to spend more money.

 

[MotionMan]

Where did my prior post (and at least one post by Schadenfroh) go?

MotionMan

 

[Schadenfroh]

MotionMan, YHPM

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
Microsoft and Toshiba need to spend more money.

like i said before, Microsoft doesn't care about HD-DVD much, evident by their push of digital distribution.

last online petition i signed is for Netflix to bring back their 'release this week' link. that one has more chance of succeeding

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Pepsei

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
Microsoft and Toshiba need to spend more money.

like i said before, Microsoft doesn't care about HD-DVD much, evident by their push of digital distribution.

last online petition i signed is for Netflix to bring back their 'release this week' link. that one has more chance of succeeding

I think further evidence of this has been how they've had it slip 2-3 times that they'd support whichever format wins, only to issue a correction shortly after (probably at the behest of Toshiba). Also, there's the HD-DVD drive for the 360.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Why fight it? BR is the better format anyway. Much more capacity.

BR = 50GB
HD-DVD = 51GB

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
I would say HD-DVD is a "better" overall format for consumers however, since the discs have no region coding on them unlike Blu-Ray.

That depends. If you like any of New Line's new releases, they refused to release HD DVD titles day and date with DVD/Blu-Ray titles because of the lack of region coding.

Of course, that's moot now since Pan's Labyrinth was the last HD DVD release for New Line.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Why fight it? BR is the better format anyway. Much more capacity.

BR = 50GB
HD-DVD = 51GB

Comparing disc technology that was on store shelves (BD-50) with one that is a tech demo (TL-51) isn't exactly fair.

If you want to compare tech demos, there were triple and quadruple layer Blu-Ray discs hitting 100GB.

 

[Captante]

Quad-layer Bluray disks are capable of holding up to 200gb's & to the best of my knowlege 45gb's is the maximum for HD-DVD, however that argument is about as logical when it comes to movies as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin since 45gb's is more then enough for that application well into the forseeable future.

The only meaningful advantage BD has over HD-DVD is vastly better marketing/industry support ... of course as it stands now this was the difference between success & failure.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Captante
Quad-layer Bluray disks are capable of holding up to 200gb's & to the best of my knowlege

Blu-Ray is 25GB per layer; DailyTech covered 100GB quad-layer Blu-Ray discs back in October.

If double-sided discs are a possibility, I can see where you came up with the 200GB figure.

Hitachi says the 100GB discs are compatible with existing Blu-Ray drives with upgradeable firmware.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Captante
Quad-layer Bluray disks are capable of holding up to 200gb's & to the best of my knowlege

Blu-Ray is 25GB per layer; DailyTech covered 100GB quad-layer Blu-Ray discs back in October.

If double-sided discs are a possibility, I can see where you came up with the 200GB figure.

Hitachi says the 100GB discs are compatible with existing Blu-Ray drives with upgradeable firmware.

I could swear I read somthing about single-sided BD's with 4 readable layers & 200gb's capacity ... too tired to dig for the reference right now though.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Furthermore TDK announced in August 2006 that they have created a working experimental Blu-ray Disc capable of holding 200 GB of data on a single side, using six 33 GB data layers.

Also behind closed doors at CES 2007, Ritek has revealed that they had successfully developed a High Definition optical disc process that extends the disc capacity of both competing formats to 10 layers. That increases the capacity of the discs to 250 GB for Blu-ray compared to 170 GB (HD DVD now permits 17GB per layer[citation needed]) for HD DVD using the same process. However, they noted that the major obstacle is that current reader and writer technology does not support the additional layers.

Ripped from Wikipedia.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Why fight it? BR is the better format anyway. Much more capacity.

BR = 50GB
HD-DVD = 51GB

Comparing disc technology that was on store shelves (BD-50) with one that is a tech demo (TL-51) isn't exactly fair.

If you want to compare tech demos, there were triple and quadruple layer Blu-Ray discs hitting 100GB.

Yeah, no. We're not talking about "tech demos", prototypes, or theoretical limits, we're talking about approved specs. So yeah, officially, HD-DVD has the higher capacity.

 

[galperi1]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Why fight it? BR is the better format anyway. Much more capacity.

BR = 50GB
HD-DVD = 51GB

Comparing disc technology that was on store shelves (BD-50) with one that is a tech demo (TL-51) isn't exactly fair.

If you want to compare tech demos, there were triple and quadruple layer Blu-Ray discs hitting 100GB.

Yeah, no. We're not talking about "tech demos", prototypes, or theoretical limits, we're talking about approved specs. So yeah, officially, HD-DVD has the higher capacity.

ya... no....show me 1 HD-DVD release on TL51. Actually... show me 1 TL51 that has been proven to work in existing HD-DVD Players. Oh wait... you can't

The TL51 is vaporware until it shows up on retail shelves so the comparison is invalid. As of Jan 13, 2008, you can go to the store and buy BD-50 Blu-rays. The same cannot be said about the TL51.

 

[Slick5150]

Originally posted by: galperi1

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Why fight it? BR is the better format anyway. Much more capacity.

BR = 50GB
HD-DVD = 51GB

Comparing disc technology that was on store shelves (BD-50) with one that is a tech demo (TL-51) isn't exactly fair.

If you want to compare tech demos, there were triple and quadruple layer Blu-Ray discs hitting 100GB.

Yeah, no. We're not talking about "tech demos", prototypes, or theoretical limits, we're talking about approved specs. So yeah, officially, HD-DVD has the higher capacity.

ya... no....show me 1 HD-DVD release on TL51. Actually... show me 1 TL51 that has been proven to work in existing HD-DVD Players. Oh wait... you can't

The TL51 is vaporware until it shows up on retail shelves so the comparison is invalid. As of Jan 13, 2008, you can go to the store and buy BD-50 Blu-rays. The same cannot be said about the TL51.

You don't see them because no studio feels the need for the additional space, which makes the point moot about Blu-Ray's size "advantage". They generally just use up the extra space with an "uncompressed" audio track, which is pointless considering Dolby HD is lossless anyways, so you're getting no advantage from a quality perspective.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Slick5150
You don't see them because no studio feels the need for the additional space, which makes the point moot about Blu-Ray's size "advantage". They generally just use up the extra space with an "uncompressed" audio track, which is pointless considering Dolby HD is lossless anyways, so you're getting no advantage from a quality perspective.

Explain Alexander Revisited.

WB, being dual-format at the time, used the lowest common denominator for the release. The feature was split onto two 30GB HD DVD discs, and two 25GB Blu-Ray discs.

WB could have easily fit the whole 214 minute movie onto a single 50GB Blu-Ray disc, thus offering a significant advantage (not having to change discs halfway through the movie) for Blu-Ray owners.

With New Line Blu-Ray exclusive, at least LOTR won't suffer the same fate.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: galperi1

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: Oyeve
Why fight it? BR is the better format anyway. Much more capacity.

BR = 50GB
HD-DVD = 51GB

Comparing disc technology that was on store shelves (BD-50) with one that is a tech demo (TL-51) isn't exactly fair.

If you want to compare tech demos, there were triple and quadruple layer Blu-Ray discs hitting 100GB.

Yeah, no. We're not talking about "tech demos", prototypes, or theoretical limits, we're talking about approved specs. So yeah, officially, HD-DVD has the higher capacity.

ya... no....show me 1 HD-DVD release on TL51. Actually... show me 1 TL51 that has been proven to work in existing HD-DVD Players. Oh wait... you can't

The TL51 is vaporware until it shows up on retail shelves so the comparison is invalid. As of Jan 13, 2008, you can go to the store and buy BD-50 Blu-rays. The same cannot be said about the TL51.

You don't see them because no studio feels the need for the additional space, which makes the point moot about Blu-Ray's size "advantage". They generally just use up the extra space with an "uncompressed" audio track, which is pointless considering Dolby HD is lossless anyways, so you're getting no advantage from a quality perspective.

Exactly. Why would a studio use a 51GB disc to put a <30GB movie on it? Don't give me this BS "vaporware." If it is "vaporware" it couldn't be approved, and it HAS. Blu-Ray supporters are just pissed they lost the "high capacity" bullet item in their argument against HD-DVD.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Blu-Ray supporters are just pissed they lost the "high capacity" bullet item in their argument against HD-DVD.

Saying Blu-Ray has lost anything against HD DVD is laughable at this juncture.