Rumour: Largest HD-DVD studio, Universal, going neutral

[CPA]

Originally posted by: mugs
HD-DVD is pretty much screwed if that's true.

Could someone educate me on the key differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray? My understanding is:
- Blu-Ray has about double the capacity of HD-DVD
- HD-DVD is less of a departure from DVD from a manufacturing standpoint, so manufacturing cost is less initially
- They both use the same 3 codecs, so all other things being equal, they should look the same (I understand that Blu-Ray movies initially looked worse than HD-DVD, because they were all encoded in MPEG 2, but that has changed now?)
- Blu-Ray has data closer to the surface that is more sensitive to scratches, but TDK developed Durabis which prevents scratches pretty well
- Different menu systems

Did I miss anything? If not, what reason is there to choose HD-DVD over Blu-Ray other than disliking Sony? (which is a valid reason considering their recent high-profile copy protection blunders, i.e. the rootkit and the DVDs that wouldn't play)

No, it's not. The main driver will be the hardware and once Walmart starts selling the low-priced HD-DVD units mentioned a few weeks ago, it will be a blow to Blu-Ray.

 

[natto fire]

Originally posted by: jman19
Who care which format wins, unless you are one of the suckers that has committed to the format that will lose 😉

I second that. I am staying out of this war until the dust has settled. At least with the whole Divx, DVD thing it was pretty clear which format was going to take off from the start. This is more like the BETA, VHS war, with no clear winner in sight yet.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: mugs

image quality, in theory, should be better on BD. But some studios are releasing the BD counterparts of a movie on the 25gb discs, with the HD-DVD receiving the dual-layer treatment at 30gb. This is unfair to the BD format since they could do much more. But due to neutrality, studios are trying to not present one format as a stronger format than the other. It would be viewed by consumers are purposely marring a format by making one look better. In practice it looks as if they are doing that very thing to BD, but in all honesty, 25/30gb is not as much of a split as 50gb/30gb, which means not as much room to change IQ. And actually, movies across the formats share similar bitrates because of that. Except in the case of some movies that take advantage of the dual-layer BD, which tend to use MPEG2 and thus doesn't really provide a chance for the format to shine with higher bitrate AVC or VC-1 encodings.

Do you seriously think that's true? 😕

And for a 2 hour movie, are you really going to see a difference in image quality between 30 GB and 50 GB? You reach a point where increasing the bitrate gives you only a marginal improvement at best, if it's even noticeable at all. I thought the main benefit of the additional space was more room for special features?

People don't hate Sony because they want someone to hate, people hate Sony because Sony gives them reasons to. The rootkit alone is enough to make many people not want to buy a company's products.

well why wouldn't I think its true. It's a perfectly viable belief, and the format consortiums would likely through a fit over that.

I don't know how much IQ would improve, I was just throwing out possible uses the studio would consider. You are also right about the extra content. I also would rather the extra space be used to make the extra content HD, instead of the SD most extra content is at the moment.

and I already said that people hate Sony because of a few blunders. But people continue to buy products from companies all the time, even after a company has a few blunders.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: mugs
HD-DVD is pretty much screwed if that's true.

Could someone educate me on the key differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray? My understanding is:
- Blu-Ray has about double the capacity of HD-DVD
- HD-DVD is less of a departure from DVD from a manufacturing standpoint, so manufacturing cost is less initially
- They both use the same 3 codecs, so all other things being equal, they should look the same (I understand that Blu-Ray movies initially looked worse than HD-DVD, because they were all encoded in MPEG 2, but that has changed now?)
- Blu-Ray has data closer to the surface that is more sensitive to scratches, but TDK developed Durabis which prevents scratches pretty well
- Different menu systems

Did I miss anything? If not, what reason is there to choose HD-DVD over Blu-Ray other than disliking Sony? (which is a valid reason considering their recent high-profile copy protection blunders, i.e. the rootkit and the DVDs that wouldn't play)

No, it's not.

What question is this answering?

The main driver will be the hardware and once Walmart starts selling the low-priced HD-DVD units mentioned a few weeks ago, it will be a blow to Blu-Ray.

I'm not asking which will win and why, I'm asking why so many people prefer HD-DVD when everything seems to indicate that Blu-Ray is a better format.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: mugs
HD-DVD is pretty much screwed if that's true.

Could someone educate me on the key differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray? My understanding is:
- Blu-Ray has about double the capacity of HD-DVD
- HD-DVD is less of a departure from DVD from a manufacturing standpoint, so manufacturing cost is less initially
- They both use the same 3 codecs, so all other things being equal, they should look the same (I understand that Blu-Ray movies initially looked worse than HD-DVD, because they were all encoded in MPEG 2, but that has changed now?)
- Blu-Ray has data closer to the surface that is more sensitive to scratches, but TDK developed Durabis which prevents scratches pretty well
- Different menu systems

Did I miss anything? If not, what reason is there to choose HD-DVD over Blu-Ray other than disliking Sony? (which is a valid reason considering their recent high-profile copy protection blunders, i.e. the rootkit and the DVDs that wouldn't play)

No, it's not. The main driver will be the hardware and once Walmart starts selling the low-priced HD-DVD units mentioned a few weeks ago, it will be a blow to Blu-Ray.

do recall that the article also claimed end of 2007, early 2008... the same time Sony said they want to have a (sub)$300 player out in the market. Don't expect anything just yet.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mugs
I'm not asking which will win and why, I'm asking why so many people prefer HD-DVD when everything seems to indicate that Blu-Ray is a better format.

Main reasons:
* HD-DVD players are cheaper and the media most likely will be too.
* Storage will be basically the same. There isn't any real argument on either side.
* Sony has really made us angry.

So, if you have the choice between two basically equal things, one of which is cheaper and the other is sponsored mostly by a company you dislike, which do you choose?

 

[BigJ]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: mugs
HD-DVD is pretty much screwed if that's true.

Could someone educate me on the key differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray? My understanding is:
- Blu-Ray has about double the capacity of HD-DVD
- HD-DVD is less of a departure from DVD from a manufacturing standpoint, so manufacturing cost is less initially
- They both use the same 3 codecs, so all other things being equal, they should look the same (I understand that Blu-Ray movies initially looked worse than HD-DVD, because they were all encoded in MPEG 2, but that has changed now?)
- Blu-Ray has data closer to the surface that is more sensitive to scratches, but TDK developed Durabis which prevents scratches pretty well
- Different menu systems

Did I miss anything? If not, what reason is there to choose HD-DVD over Blu-Ray other than disliking Sony? (which is a valid reason considering their recent high-profile copy protection blunders, i.e. the rootkit and the DVDs that wouldn't play)

No, it's not. The main driver will be the hardware and once Walmart starts selling the low-priced HD-DVD units mentioned a few weeks ago, it will be a blow to Blu-Ray.

And China is going to be cranking out cheap BR players soon too. By the end of June, the US is going to have $300 BR computer drives from Pioneer. I'd think that stand-alone players are going to follow suit shortly.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: destrekor
in theory, and in practice, a movie that takes full advantage of BD will provide higher bitrates than HD-DVD, which in turn means a higher IQ. However, some people may not be able to discern a difference.

That last sentence is the big reason why I don't see a big deal in the difference between 30GB and 50GB. I'd put my money on the higher bitrates being a waste of space and nothing more than marketing fluff. My reason? We don't use CBR anymore. Audio and Video are nowadays released in VBR encodings that allow for higher bitrates in scenes that require it (scenes with a lot of motion or a lot of smaller/detailed objects) and lower bitrates for scenes that don't need anything big. It's kind of like why the Tsukihime anime was so small when encoded in VBR. The anime used a lot of still frames, which the difference during a 5s period that may occur a bunch of times is practically nil. A VBR encode of this anime was around 130MB if I remember correctly and it looked better than the 175MB CBR encode.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: mugs
I'm not asking which will win and why, I'm asking why so many people prefer HD-DVD when everything seems to indicate that Blu-Ray is a better format.

From what you listed I don't really see how you are concluding that Blu-Ray is clearly superior, aside from the ability to stuff in more special features. From a consumer standpoint, if they look the same then what's the difference?

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: michaels

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: michaels
Ouch

And I can't believe people get so worked up and mad over this whole hddvd and bluray thing, it is sorta sad.

people get worked up and mad because they have claimed allegiance to a single format and likely have already purchased a player and some movies. I have a PS3, so naturally I want BD to win out, plus I have 14 BD movies (one a NIN concert disk), so I honestly have quite a bit invested in the medium.

So what? They are pieces of electronics, not a way of life.

expensive pieces of electronics.
how would you like to know you bought something, and turn around half a year later to discover it is completely useless, except for that fancy blue LED?

I don't find people should concern themselves with others being concerned about a format, if they do not have anything invested in said formats. Also why those who do not own electronics and movies of either format will not see a reason to care and stand there confused as to why others do. Some people will care because it actually affects them.
If I didn't have either format, I wouldn't care. I would be slightly annoyed if HD-DVD won out considering I have always favored BD, but it wouldn't cause me worry or grow concerned.

Why would you choose a highly expensive platform when one that costs a LOT less will do essentially the same thing?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: mugs

image quality, in theory, should be better on BD. But some studios are releasing the BD counterparts of a movie on the 25gb discs, with the HD-DVD receiving the dual-layer treatment at 30gb. This is unfair to the BD format since they could do much more. But due to neutrality, studios are trying to not present one format as a stronger format than the other. It would be viewed by consumers are purposely marring a format by making one look better. In practice it looks as if they are doing that very thing to BD, but in all honesty, 25/30gb is not as much of a split as 50gb/30gb, which means not as much room to change IQ. And actually, movies across the formats share similar bitrates because of that. Except in the case of some movies that take advantage of the dual-layer BD, which tend to use MPEG2 and thus doesn't really provide a chance for the format to shine with higher bitrate AVC or VC-1 encodings.

Do you seriously think that's true? 😕

And for a 2 hour movie, are you really going to see a difference in image quality between 30 GB and 50 GB? You reach a point where increasing the bitrate gives you only a marginal improvement at best, if it's even noticeable at all. I thought the main benefit of the additional space was more room for special features?

People don't hate Sony because they want someone to hate, people hate Sony because Sony gives them reasons to. The rootkit alone is enough to make many people not want to buy a company's products.

well why wouldn't I think its true. It's a perfectly viable belief, and the format consortiums would likely through a fit over that.

I don't know how much IQ would improve, I was just throwing out possible uses the studio would consider. You are also right about the extra content. I also would rather the extra space be used to make the extra content HD, instead of the SD most extra content is at the moment.

and I already said that people hate Sony because of a few blunders. But people continue to buy products from companies all the time, even after a company has a few blunders.

Viable? Perhaps. But I think it's absurd to think that a company would sabotage their own product out of "fairness." Especially the companies that only release Blu-Ray movies. Unless you have some concrete information that leads you to believe that, I'd not say it in the future because it makes you look like a silly fanboy with a persecution complex. 😉 I think a better explanation would be that they're making 25 GB discs because 25 GB is all they need to fit a movie, so for all intents and purposes the image quality should be the same. Yeah the extra 20 GB is a benefit (of Blu-Ray over HD-DVD), but if they need more space they can always use multiple discs. Manufacturing cost for the discs is miniscule compared to the price of the product.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: mugs
HD-DVD is pretty much screwed if that's true.

Could someone educate me on the key differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray? My understanding is:
- Blu-Ray has about double the capacity of HD-DVD
- HD-DVD is less of a departure from DVD from a manufacturing standpoint, so manufacturing cost is less initially
- They both use the same 3 codecs, so all other things being equal, they should look the same (I understand that Blu-Ray movies initially looked worse than HD-DVD, because they were all encoded in MPEG 2, but that has changed now?)
- Blu-Ray has data closer to the surface that is more sensitive to scratches, but TDK developed Durabis which prevents scratches pretty well
- Different menu systems

Did I miss anything? If not, what reason is there to choose HD-DVD over Blu-Ray other than disliking Sony? (which is a valid reason considering their recent high-profile copy protection blunders, i.e. the rootkit and the DVDs that wouldn't play)

No, it's not. The main driver will be the hardware and once Walmart starts selling the low-priced HD-DVD units mentioned a few weeks ago, it will be a blow to Blu-Ray.

do recall that the article also claimed end of 2007, early 2008... the same time Sony said they want to have a (sub)$300 player out in the market. Don't expect anything just yet.

The difference is WalMart!

C'mon people, no matter who carries the BluRay hardware, HD-DVD is going to get the exclusive boost of the WalMart shopper. And since BestBuy and CC will probably carry both, Blu-Ray will be hurt there as well.

 

[akubi]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: mugs
HD-DVD is pretty much screwed if that's true.

Could someone educate me on the key differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray? My understanding is:
- Blu-Ray has about double the capacity of HD-DVD
- HD-DVD is less of a departure from DVD from a manufacturing standpoint, so manufacturing cost is less initially
- They both use the same 3 codecs, so all other things being equal, they should look the same (I understand that Blu-Ray movies initially looked worse than HD-DVD, because they were all encoded in MPEG 2, but that has changed now?)
- Blu-Ray has data closer to the surface that is more sensitive to scratches, but TDK developed Durabis which prevents scratches pretty well
- Different menu systems

Did I miss anything? If not, what reason is there to choose HD-DVD over Blu-Ray other than disliking Sony? (which is a valid reason considering their recent high-profile copy protection blunders, i.e. the rootkit and the DVDs that wouldn't play)

No, it's not. The main driver will be the hardware and once Walmart starts selling the low-priced HD-DVD units mentioned a few weeks ago, it will be a blow to Blu-Ray.

do recall that the article also claimed end of 2007, early 2008... the same time Sony said they want to have a (sub)$300 player out in the market. Don't expect anything just yet.

The difference is WalMart!

C'mon people, no matter who carries the BluRay hardware, HD-DVD is going to get the exclusive boost of the WalMart shopper. And since BestBuy and CC will probably carry both, Blu-Ray will be hurt there as well.

http://www.physorg.com/news96888339.html

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: Aikouka

Originally posted by: destrekor
in theory, and in practice, a movie that takes full advantage of BD will provide higher bitrates than HD-DVD, which in turn means a higher IQ. However, some people may not be able to discern a difference.

That last sentence is the big reason why I don't see a big deal in the difference between 30GB and 50GB. I'd put my money on the higher bitrates being a waste of space and nothing more than marketing fluff. My reason? We don't use CBR anymore. Audio and Video are nowadays released in VBR encodings that allow for higher bitrates in scenes that require it (scenes with a lot of motion or a lot of smaller/detailed objects) and lower bitrates for scenes that don't need anything big. It's kind of like why the Tsukihime anime was so small when encoded in VBR. The anime used a lot of still frames, which the difference during a 5s period that may occur a bunch of times is practically nil. A VBR encode of this anime was around 130MB if I remember correctly and it looked better than the 175MB CBR encode.

I'd venture a guess and say the studios aren't even practicing that right now, and once a format is decided will likely look past the idea of only bitrate and will look to content. Hopefully HD extra content, and not SD like a lot is.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: mugs
I'm not asking which will win and why, I'm asking why so many people prefer HD-DVD when everything seems to indicate that Blu-Ray is a better format.

From what you listed I don't really see how you are concluding that Blu-Ray is clearly superior, aside from the ability to stuff in more special features. From a consumer standpoint, if they look the same then what's the difference?

Really I was trying to figure out why people prefer HD-DVD when the only real substantive difference is disc space, which is in Blu-Ray's favor. Yeah it's not a significant factor (at least for movies - as a data storage format the difference is much more important), but on the other hand I didn't see any real reason to prefer HD-DVD.

I hadn't considered price, and I didn't know there was a large difference in the prices. Although for someone like me who is not an early adopter and is content to sit back and wait for one to succeed and one to fail, I don't see that as being a huge factor. Both will drop to the same, low price level before 90% of consumers ever buy one.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: akubi

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: mugs
HD-DVD is pretty much screwed if that's true.

Could someone educate me on the key differences between HD-DVD and Blu-ray? My understanding is:
- Blu-Ray has about double the capacity of HD-DVD
- HD-DVD is less of a departure from DVD from a manufacturing standpoint, so manufacturing cost is less initially
- They both use the same 3 codecs, so all other things being equal, they should look the same (I understand that Blu-Ray movies initially looked worse than HD-DVD, because they were all encoded in MPEG 2, but that has changed now?)
- Blu-Ray has data closer to the surface that is more sensitive to scratches, but TDK developed Durabis which prevents scratches pretty well
- Different menu systems

Did I miss anything? If not, what reason is there to choose HD-DVD over Blu-Ray other than disliking Sony? (which is a valid reason considering their recent high-profile copy protection blunders, i.e. the rootkit and the DVDs that wouldn't play)

No, it's not. The main driver will be the hardware and once Walmart starts selling the low-priced HD-DVD units mentioned a few weeks ago, it will be a blow to Blu-Ray.

do recall that the article also claimed end of 2007, early 2008... the same time Sony said they want to have a (sub)$300 player out in the market. Don't expect anything just yet.

The difference is WalMart!

C'mon people, no matter who carries the BluRay hardware, HD-DVD is going to get the exclusive boost of the WalMart shopper. And since BestBuy and CC will probably carry both, Blu-Ray will be hurt there as well.

http://www.physorg.com/news96888339.html

even if true and Walmart is denying it, has Walmart ever stated, or did that press release state, they are exclusively selling HD-DVD? I don't ever remember that being fact. I'd say Walmart will sell both formats. And if both formats arrive around the holidays with a $300 lplayer, competition will be insane.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: mugs
I'm not asking which will win and why, I'm asking why so many people prefer HD-DVD when everything seems to indicate that Blu-Ray is a better format.

From what you listed I don't really see how you are concluding that Blu-Ray is clearly superior, aside from the ability to stuff in more special features. From a consumer standpoint, if they look the same then what's the difference?

Really I was trying to figure out why people prefer HD-DVD when the only real substantive difference is disc space, which is in Blu-Ray's favor. Yeah it's not a significant factor (at least for movies - as a data storage format the difference is much more important), but on the other hand I didn't see any real reason to prefer HD-DVD.

I hadn't considered price, and I didn't know there was a large difference in the prices. Although for someone like me who is not an early adopter and is content to sit back and wait for one to succeed and one to fail, I don't see that as being a huge factor. Both will drop to the same, low price level before 90% of consumers ever buy one.

Personally, I wanted a 360, and the HD-DVD add-on was just a nice bonus to go with my snazzy new TV. Despite that fact, I'd consider myself neutral. I'd like to eventually get a PS3 to watch Blu-Ray as well, but by that time who knows what will happen? Maybe both formats will be around forever like DVD+/-R, or maybe something else will emerge...

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: mugs

image quality, in theory, should be better on BD. But some studios are releasing the BD counterparts of a movie on the 25gb discs, with the HD-DVD receiving the dual-layer treatment at 30gb. This is unfair to the BD format since they could do much more. But due to neutrality, studios are trying to not present one format as a stronger format than the other. It would be viewed by consumers are purposely marring a format by making one look better. In practice it looks as if they are doing that very thing to BD, but in all honesty, 25/30gb is not as much of a split as 50gb/30gb, which means not as much room to change IQ. And actually, movies across the formats share similar bitrates because of that. Except in the case of some movies that take advantage of the dual-layer BD, which tend to use MPEG2 and thus doesn't really provide a chance for the format to shine with higher bitrate AVC or VC-1 encodings.

Do you seriously think that's true? 😕

And for a 2 hour movie, are you really going to see a difference in image quality between 30 GB and 50 GB? You reach a point where increasing the bitrate gives you only a marginal improvement at best, if it's even noticeable at all. I thought the main benefit of the additional space was more room for special features?

People don't hate Sony because they want someone to hate, people hate Sony because Sony gives them reasons to. The rootkit alone is enough to make many people not want to buy a company's products.

well why wouldn't I think its true. It's a perfectly viable belief, and the format consortiums would likely through a fit over that.

I don't know how much IQ would improve, I was just throwing out possible uses the studio would consider. You are also right about the extra content. I also would rather the extra space be used to make the extra content HD, instead of the SD most extra content is at the moment.

and I already said that people hate Sony because of a few blunders. But people continue to buy products from companies all the time, even after a company has a few blunders.

Viable? Perhaps. But I think it's absurd to think that a company would sabotage their own product out of "fairness." Especially the companies that only release Blu-Ray movies. Unless you have some concrete information that leads you to believe that, I'd not say it in the future because it makes you look like a silly fanboy with a persecution complex. 😉 I think a better explanation would be that they're making 25 GB discs because 25 GB is all they need to fit a movie, so for all intents and purposes the image quality should be the same. Yeah the extra 20 GB is a benefit (of Blu-Ray over HD-DVD), but if they need more space they can always use multiple discs. Manufacturing cost for the discs is miniscule compared to the price of the product.

Not sure what you are trying to point to, but I never stated they are sabotaging exclusive products. And I wouldn't necessarily consider releasing a 25gb BD movie and 30gb HD-DVD movie as sabotage to BD. But alas you are right, I have no proof in that matter.
But I do know companies exclusive to BD are now taking advantage of every drop the format has to offer. Again, look to Disney and their upcoming Pirates' releases: 50gb BD for movie, 25gb BD for extra content.
now that is kind of the extreme, but MI3 shipped that way too (not sure if it was a 50gb movie disc or not).
<---- avid follower of all news at highdefdigest.com and read some forum posts at AVS, but I find that is not as reliable.

Originally posted by: Chryso
Why would you choose a highly expensive platform when one that costs a LOT less will do essentially the same thing?

me personally? I didn't, I chose a PS3 which settles my gaming needs and video needs. 🙂
best option out there in that regard. As far as same thing, the software available for BD is also a pull, since quite a few studios, now including Disney, are exclusive to BD. Sure, the two formats can do the same thing. But can HD-DVD play the upcoming Pirates movies? ALso countless others that I just don't care to list. There are more factors than hardware cost alone. Part is the personal gamble as to which format will survive, so if you choose BD, even though the players currently are more expensive (Toshiba is selling their HD-DVD players at a loss, at least I believe they are still since their very first player was sold at a loss, much like consoles. Toshiba can afford to do that. Sony can only do that for one machine, the PS3, any more would financially hurt the company substantially), your personal assessment says it is the safer purchase.

 

[Aikouka]

Originally posted by: destrekor
Hopefully HD extra content, and not SD like a lot is.

Yeah, that's another disappointing area... it's like last night while I was watching House in HD... commercials look like ass, because they're only transmitted in SD, but House sure looked good being received in 720p.

EDIT:

Originally posted by: destrekor
Not sure what you are trying to point to, but I never stated they are sabotaging exclusive products. And I wouldn't necessarily consider releasing a 25gb BD movie and 30gb HD-DVD movie as sabotage to BD. But alas you are right, I have no proof in that matter.
But I do know companies exclusive to BD are now taking advantage of every drop the format has to offer. Again, look to Disney and their upcoming Pirates' releases: 50gb BD for movie, 25gb BD for extra content.
now that is kind of the extreme, but MI3 shipped that way too (not sure if it was a 50gb movie disc or not).
<---- avid follower of all news at highdefdigest.com and read some forum posts at AVS, but I find that is not as reliable.

I also do not think there's any sabotaging going on. It's this simple production cost fact... why would Studio X wish to spend more money on developing more bonus content for Blu-Ray or re-encoding the movie for Blu-Ray. There's no need! Also, you can say in this case, HD-DVD is being shafted, because the movie companies need to adhere to Blu-Ray's lower capacity (at 1 BR layer vs 2 HD layers), so HD-DVD is possibly losing 5GB of its storage because that wouldn't fit on the Blu-ray disc. The cost reasoning may be even more evident when you look at companies not producing certain movies because of the lack of BD-J. It might require some extra coding to get it to work on Blu-Ray, but the sources are still the same.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mugs
Really I was trying to figure out why people prefer HD-DVD when the only real substantive difference is disc space, which is in Blu-Ray's favor. Yeah it's not a significant factor (at least for movies - as a data storage format the difference is much more important), but on the other hand I didn't see any real reason to prefer HD-DVD.

I hadn't considered price, and I didn't know there was a large difference in the prices. Although for someone like me who is not an early adopter and is content to sit back and wait for one to succeed and one to fail, I don't see that as being a huge factor. Both will drop to the same, low price level before 90% of consumers ever buy one.

HD-DVD sizes:
Single layer, single side: 15 GB
Single layer, dual side: 30 GB
Dual layer, single side: 30 GB
Dual layer, dual side: 60 GB
Triple layer, single side: 45 GB
Is triple layer, dual side possible?
More layers: more space

Blu-Ray sizes:
Single layer: 25 GB
Dual layer: 50 GB
Are there any others on the horizon?

I just don't see any significant space difference to give either format a win. Yet, you keep giving the size win to Blu-Ray. Why is that? And really, how many consumers don't consider price? Why do you think one device with a difficult to make component will drop to the same price as a devices with simple components?

 

[akubi]

Originally posted by: mugs

Really I was trying to figure out why people prefer HD-DVD when the only real substantive difference is disc space, which is in Blu-Ray's favor.

the actively vocal xbox360 fanboys who dominate the forums and blogs may have something to do with your impression. in reality i don't think the average consumer fervently advocates one or the other.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: R Nilla

Originally posted by: mugs
I'm not asking which will win and why, I'm asking why so many people prefer HD-DVD when everything seems to indicate that Blu-Ray is a better format.

From what you listed I don't really see how you are concluding that Blu-Ray is clearly superior, aside from the ability to stuff in more special features. From a consumer standpoint, if they look the same then what's the difference?

Really I was trying to figure out why people prefer HD-DVD when the only real substantive difference is disc space, which is in Blu-Ray's favor. Yeah it's not a significant factor (at least for movies - as a data storage format the difference is much more important), but on the other hand I didn't see any real reason to prefer HD-DVD.

I hadn't considered price, and I didn't know there was a large difference in the prices. Although for someone like me who is not an early adopter and is content to sit back and wait for one to succeed and one to fail, I don't see that as being a huge factor. Both will drop to the same, low price level before 90% of consumers ever buy one.

Personally, I wanted a 360, and the HD-DVD add-on was just a nice bonus to go with my snazzy new TV. Despite that fact, I'd consider myself neutral. I'd like to eventually get a PS3 to watch Blu-Ray as well, but by that time who knows what will happen? Maybe both formats will be around forever like DVD+/-R, or maybe something else will emerge...

Yeah, that's a really good reason. And same for the PS3. I will most likely buy a 360 before I buy a PS3, so I guess it's in my best interest for HD-DVD to come out ahead.

 

[akubi]

Originally posted by: dullard

I just don't see any significant space difference to give either format a win. Yet, you keep giving the win to Blu-Ray. Why is that? And really, how many consumers don't consider price?

studio support and exclusive content, duh? the topic of this thread?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: akubi
studio support and exclusive content, duh? the topic of this thread?

I believe all studios will eventually support the winner (or both if there is never a winner). The number of exclusive studios are dropping quickly. Even Sony will support HD-DVD if HD-DVD wins. I could be wrong though.

And dual format players completely negate your argument.

 

[FP]

Does Sony still refuse to allow porn to be made on Blu-ray?

Much like the Betamax/VHS shakedown I think porn will be a big influence.