good news, hope movies will be released on these soon..and that the price isn't higher
23.11.2007 01:43 #1
Not good news for sony :)
23.11.2007 05:09 #2
Originally posted by mattkind: Not good news for sony :)Not good news for HD either 51gigs of extra Bull people don't want to see.Not news at all.
23.11.2007 06:00 #3
Quote:good news, hope movies will be released on these soon..and that the price isn't higher
Most likely the prices will go up, even higher than blu-ray. Because HD-DVD cost more per GB than blu-ray, I read this off somewhere, but not very sure if its true.
Maybe hughjars will come and verify this. But i haven't seen him/her in a while.
23.11.2007 08:00 #4
Doesnt the more layers added the more itll cost? and @rainofire i read sumwhere as well about HD-DVD costing more per GB than Blu-ray. Hows that work? :S
23.11.2007 08:50 #5
This is great news for HD DVD.
There is nothing left in the pi*sing contest for the Blu-ray fanclub to claim over HD DVD
(all we need to hear now is whether they kept the 1.5x spin speed that was in the original 45gb TL spec and if they have then HD DVD will also have the highest theoretical raw bitrate too......not that it's needed with modern codecs but it is nice to trump every single supposed Blu-ray 'plus' point).
Note that Disney actively voted for the 51gb TL HD DVD discs at this meeting.
The usual behaviour for members of the Blu-ray Disc Association who are also members of the DVD Forum (which is all of the BDA members, they are all members of the DVD Forum if IIRC) is to abstain on votes concerning HD DVD matters
(that is after they got publicly shamed for abusing their position as voting members of the DVD Forum by trying to block HD DVD development - the final straw was when there were attempts to delay/block/stop the Chinese version of HD DVD = CH-DVD).
It should also be noted that the Blu-ray 50gb Dual layer disc is not actually 50gb in size at all.
They never exceed 47gb on it cos if they do the failure rates go through the roof.
51gb HD DVD is not just merely 1gb larger in practise it will be a handy 4gbs bigger ( = 1 x DVD5 roughly).
Naturally with HD DVD being based on the more established and reliable technology there is no reason (or at least much less reason) to doubt it's size claims.
As for costs?
Well HD DVD is heavily based on existing DVD technology and in large part uses existing DVD production methods.
Triple layering is not in itself especially difficult or expensive (just because it wasn't used for SD DVD doesn't make it particularly 'hard').
I'm all ears to hear how Blu-ray is cheaper per gb than HD DVD.
It is true that combo movie discs are slightly more expensive than Blu-ray only movie discs but it looks like the combo (flipper) discs will be dropped soon.
The other triple layer disc that was also quietly approved during this meeting is the one to watch
(the 'Total version of HD DVD = 2 layers of HD DVD and 1 layer of SD DVD on the one side).
'Total' ought to grow to be big, cheap and very popular.
But I must admit that frankly I don't believe it (that Blu-ray is cheaper per gb).
Maybe while they are still subsidising it (as we know has been the case).
But if it's true on some blank media right now it will only be a slight difference & it won't be that way for long once the desktop replacement drives appear in numbers.
The costs will fall through the floor (as happened with SD DVD) because these things can be churned out so cheaply and do not require new production facilities (unlike Blu-ray).
.....and at a stage where all early adopters are being charged a hefty premium (just as DVD9 is/was always sold at a premium) I'd say that comparing blank media costs right now (when they are far from being widespread in the mass-market) is pretty meaningless anyways.
Besides if you really want cheap storage then buy more HDD space, it's the cheapest and most reliable storage out there.
23.11.2007 09:33 #6
Quote:Quote:Most likely the prices will go up, even higher than blu-ray. Because HD-DVD cost more per GB than blu-ray, I read this off somewhere, but not very sure if its true.
It's the opposite, actually. HD-DVD's can be manufactured on existing DVD lines, with some retrofitting. BR discs can, at the moment, only be manufactured at 2 plants that are setup and licensed for it. That SEVERELY limits options/flexibility/competition.
Vivid Entertainment claims it's 3 to 4 times more expensive to manufacture a BR disc. This is probably more like 2 to 3 times, but still much more than HD-DVD.
23.11.2007 12:01 #7
If past peformance is anything to go by then HD DVD will probably get the lion's share of the market eventually. I mean, how many people with VCRs still use Betamax? How many UMD movies are being sold now?
I'm not saying that anybody's products are superior or indeed inferior, merely that past products have obviously been mis-marketed.
I think that the next few months will be exciting as the competition hots up. Until then, I'm steering clear of the HD disk market (as tempting as it looks), because I don't want the gamble of a piece of kit that'll be obsolete long before its time.
23.11.2007 15:56 #8
Trust mr hughjars, the blu-ray fanboys will find something.
O crap whats that rumbling sound, O god here they come now. LOL
Peace all
23.11.2007 16:10 #9
Isn't more layers kind of a bad thing though?
23.11.2007 16:15 #10
Originally posted by hughjars: This is great news for HD DVD.
There is nothing left in the pi*sing contest for the Blu-ray fanclub to claim over HD DVD
(all we need to hear now is whether they kept the 1.5x spin speed that was in the original 45gb TL spec and if they have then HD DVD will also have the highest theoretical raw bitrate too......not that it's needed with modern codecs but it is nice to trump every single supposed Blu-ray 'plus' point).
Note that Disney actively voted for the 51gb TL HD DVD discs at this meeting.
The usual behaviour for members of the Blu-ray Disc Association who are also members of the DVD Forum (which is all of the BDA members, they are all members of the DVD Forum if IIRC) is to abstain on votes concerning HD DVD matters
(that is after they got publicly shamed for abusing their position as voting members of the DVD Forum by trying to block HD DVD development - the final straw was when there were attempts to delay/block/stop the Chinese version of HD DVD = CH-DVD).
It should also be noted that the Blu-ray 50gb Dual layer disc is not actually 50gb in size at all.
They never exceed 47gb on it cos if they do the failure rates go through the roof.
51gb HD DVD is not just merely 1gb larger in practise it will be a handy 4gbs bigger ( = 1 x DVD5 roughly).
Naturally with HD DVD being based on the more established and reliable technology there is no reason (or at least much less reason) to doubt it's size claims.
As for costs?
Well HD DVD is heavily based on existing DVD technology and in large part uses existing DVD production methods.
Triple layering is not in itself especially difficult or expensive (just because it wasn't used for SD DVD doesn't make it particularly 'hard').
I'm all ears to hear how Blu-ray is cheaper per gb than HD DVD.
It is true that combo movie discs are slightly more expensive than Blu-ray only movie discs but it looks like the combo (flipper) discs will be dropped soon.
The other triple layer disc that was also quietly approved during this meeting is the one to watch
(the 'Total version of HD DVD = 2 layers of HD DVD and 1 layer of SD DVD on the one side).
'Total' ought to grow to be big, cheap and very popular.
But I must admit that frankly I don't believe it (that Blu-ray is cheaper per gb).
Maybe while they are still subsidising it (as we know has been the case).
But if it's true on some blank media right now it will only be a slight difference & it won't be that way for long once the desktop replacement drives appear in numbers.
The costs will fall through the floor (as happened with SD DVD) because these things can be churned out so cheaply and do not require new production facilities (unlike Blu-ray).
.....and at a stage where all early adopters are being charged a hefty premium (just as DVD9 is/was always sold at a premium) I'd say that comparing blank media costs right now (when they are far from being widespread in the mass-market) is pretty meaningless anyways.
Besides if you really want cheap storage then buy more HDD space, it's the cheapest and most reliable storage out there.Line me up some info brother
Cost per disc:
format size of disc:
Data rate of the new format:
Its a good step forward all they need is to make sure the players are out can use them and ...get all prices closer to DVD prices...or lower.......preferably 15 a new film on disc....
23.11.2007 16:22 #11
More specifically, isn't it the more layers the more lag time and higher possibility of an unstable disc? Not only that but, I never understood why anyone would need to put a movie on a disc so large, BD or HD. The movie itself cannot possibly take up that much space and if you argue it is for extra features like countless audio tracks featuring random commentary I'm going to laugh. The only worthwhile extra features in my opinion are deleted scenes and extended cuts.
Now if you say it is for video games, I'll be more likely to believe you, but really, most games put everything on the PC and the disc is only really needed for copy protection reasons, so that is also kind of a weaker point.
Someone enlighten me please.
23.11.2007 18:30 #12
@sciascia:
video files are huge. They are still compressed in a lossy manner even on BD and HD-DVD.
23.11.2007 19:02 #13
Originally posted by maitland: @sciascia:
video files are huge. They are still compressed in a lossy manner even on BD and HD-DVD.BD is uncompress data.
23.11.2007 19:25 #14
BD is what?
oh and some movies, like transformers, which are pretty long need alot of space because the video itself takes up most of the room, and the audio tracks aren't at their best
23.11.2007 19:55 #15
Originally posted by sk8flawzz: BD is what?
oh and some movies, like transformers, which are pretty long need alot of space because the video itself takes up most of the room, and the audio tracks aren't at their best
he meant BR, BD is he protection thing it uses.
24.11.2007 00:41 #16
Quote:Originally posted by maitland: @sciascia:
video files are huge. They are still compressed in a lossy manner even on BD and HD-DVD.BD is uncompress data.no offense, but you are joking, right?
24.11.2007 00:44 #17
Quote:Quote:Originally posted by maitland: @sciascia:
video files are huge. They are still compressed in a lossy manner even on BD and HD-DVD.BD is uncompress data.no offense, but you are joking, right?The only uncompressed data I know of is audio,even when BR came out it used Mpeg for compression.
of coarse like HDVD they use the best codecs they can find now.
24.11.2007 00:51 #18
Any chances of a triple layer Blu-ray?
24.11.2007 01:06 #19
Originally posted by KGunner: Any chances of a triple layer Blu-ray?not yet to many defects in the possess and the price would be 40+ a 100GB disc.
24.11.2007 01:20 #20
Could an uncompressed video stream even take up 50 GB? That idea just seems ridiculous to me.
24.11.2007 01:35 #21
Originally posted by sciascia: Could an uncompressed video stream even take up 50 GB? That idea just seems ridiculous to me.resize a picture to 1920x1080 and save it as bmp. you will see it takes 5,93MBytes. Multiply 5,93 x 24 for 1 second(24 frames per second) and then multiply to 3600 for an hour(60 minutes x 60 seconds).
5.93 x 24 x 3600 = 512352 Mbytes or roughly 500GB for an hour of uncompressed 1080p video.
it seems you need an holographic medium...
24.11.2007 01:55 #22
Quote:Originally posted by sciascia: Could an uncompressed video stream even take up 50 GB? That idea just seems ridiculous to me.resize a picture to 1920x1080 and save it as bmp. you will see it takes 5,93MBytes. Multiply 5,93 x 24 for 1 second(24 frames per second) and then multiply to 3600 for an hour(60 minutes x 60 seconds).
5.93 x 24 x 3600 = 512352 Mbytes or roughly 500GB for an hour of uncompressed 1080p video.
it seems you need an holographic medium...and I was going to save it be 40-100GB :P
24.11.2007 02:05 #23
I wonder how VHS (kinda like(HDDVD) would have faired if you can only of recorded on Beta (Kinda like Blu-Ray).
Things quite possibly could of been different then.
But then again how many years were we just happy to see mavies on DVD with no rewinding..kinda makes you think back.
24.11.2007 03:58 #24
Originally posted by alphabit: I wonder how VHS (kinda like(HDDVD) would have faired if you can only of recorded on Beta (Kinda like Blu-Ray).
Things quite possibly could of been different then.
But then again how many years were we just happy to see mavies on DVD with no rewinding..kinda makes you think back.Only trouble with DVD is the god damn forced menus and ads and crap,at least with VHS it got to the movie after acouple of minutes but these OTT ads and menus are ridiculous.
I wish they would fully standardize a 3-5 minute preview o crap then play right into the movie (you stick it in if nothing happens for 20 seconds it loads the previews then the movie,or jsut the movie would be nice but we know the bastards up top wouldn't go for it.)
this would help deal with kids and old people who cant work the stupid menu layouts.
24.11.2007 04:02 #25
Originally posted by zippyDSM: Line me up some info brother
Cost per disc:
format size of disc:
Data rate of the new format - OK, these are the results of a pretty quick scan around.
US $ prices are approximate equivalent.
The data rates are all x1 for HD DVD so far and x2 for Blu-ray.
I'm finding blank 25gb x2 speed recordable Blu-ray media here in the UK around the £7-£14 level ($14 - $28.50) each.
HD DVD 15gb media @ x1 speed runs from £5 ($10)
http://www.wholesale-media.com/acatalog/HD_and_Bluray.html
I've seen 50gb DL Blu-ray discs @ £16 ($32)
http://www.aprmedia.co.uk/product.php?pid=3521&r=googlebase
I've seen 30gb DL HD DVD discs @ £11.46 ($23)
http://www.ketta.com/catalog/verbatim-dv...les-p-2088.html
You do the math.....but right now I think you'll find there's not a lot in it ( = the early adopter premium I was talking about).
Originally posted by alphabit: I wonder how VHS (kinda like(HDDVD) would have faired if you can only of recorded on Beta (Kinda like Blu-Ray).
Things quite possibly could of been different then. - The problem with this analogy is that back in the day video tape was the only recording format for the home user.
That is not how it is now.
In fact anyone seriously in need of huge recording sizes should look elsewhere than disc media.
Recording to HDD is (by far) the cheapest option right now and it offers reliability & greater size and in a proper caddy it is just as portable as any disc.
.....and right now Blu-ray burners cost an arm & a leg.
24.11.2007 09:03 #26
contrary to what many believe, HDD is not a reliable means of storage, especially not for long term storage.
HDD in the shelf wears faster than a quality recordable DVD media, it should work in order to last more, but even if it has the best of treatments there is a relatively high possibility to crash after some years. add to this the large size which means many loses if one fails...
24.11.2007 11:33 #27
Originally posted by sciascia: More specifically, isn't it the more layers the more lag time and higher possibility of an unstable disc? - To a point yes there is truth in this.
But HD DVD was designed from the very start to be able to have 3 layers (that was the old 45gb TL disc which was demo'd right when the format first appeared. In fact it turns out 17gb per layer & 51gb TL is easier to do that the older arrangements.)
Originally posted by sciascia: Not only that but, I never understood why anyone would need to put a movie on a disc so large, BD or HD. - The files are so much larger than SD DVD, that's why.
Blu-ray also needs the extra size to cope with the sheer size MPEG2 movies take up in high def and it has to have a high raw bitrate transfer speed to enable that old codec to even begin to compete with the more modern codecs which do not require that sort of sheer size or bit-rate speed.
Originally posted by KGunner: Any chances of a triple layer Blu-ray? - Well they had trouble enough with 2 layers.
It's true that they are currently researching 4 layers (to get to 100gb) right now but there is absolutely zero chance of this hitting the stores for at least 2yrs - if ever.
The problem the very big optical disc sizes (like 100gb or 200gb) have is that they will almost certainly never be used by the movie or TV industry and so will never benefit from the economies fo mass-production to drive prices down.
In short people like multi-disc sets (they think they are getting something 'special' over a single disc release with them) and there is no serious 'need' for the entertainment industry to go any higher.
Day-dreams of UHD (1440p) are just that, no-one is even broadcasting in 1080p right now & take up is patchy to say the least right now, never-mind confusing the potential customers even further with talk of newer formats (which would need new hardware etc etc).
It ain't going to happen, not for a very long time.
(in the UK PAL has lasted well over 40years from being first shown in 1963 - and it's still with us today.
Even if you say the pace of technology has doubled - which I'd say is not so easy to prove true when it comes this kind of thing which requires such wholescale mass take-up - that would still leave us with 720p/1080i TV for 20 years)
Originally posted by moufoglou: contrary to what many believe, HDD is not a reliable means of storage - Well that depends on what your terms for 'reliable' are.
The whole truth is that optical discs are not a completely reliable means of storage either.
24.11.2007 11:50 #28
Thanks for the input guys, I had no idea video streams could take so much space.
@Hugh: Didn't Blu-Ray try a tripple and quad layer disc, and it had bad issues with stability of the disc? I thought they could make them but they had the beach glass effect, where at any point in time it could become unstable and just stop working.
Also in Japan, they've already had HD TV type broadcasting for almost 20 years, no?
24.11.2007 12:15 #29
So all this HD crap has some compression? Can't wait in 10 years for the terabyte holgram discs, then we can have "Real Super High Altitute True Definition" garbage.
I guess once it goes uncompressed there is nothing else to do with video. whew...
24.11.2007 12:34 #30
Originally posted by moufoglou: contrary to what many believe, HDD is not a reliable means of storage - Well that depends on what your terms for 'reliable' are.
The whole truth is that optical discs are not a completely reliable means of storage either.many see HDD as an alternative to Blu-ray/HD-DVD due to lower cost per GB, i wanted to point out that indexing HDD's in the shelf much like we do know with CDs/DVDs is not that a good idea.
True, optical media is not that reliable also, but at least you know that a quality CD/DVD will last for some years if treated properly, you can't be that sure for a HDD. On the other hand, Blu-ray and HD-DVD are not that mature technology, so we still don't know long they last.
24.11.2007 12:34 #31
Originally posted by sciascia: Didn't Blu-Ray try a tripple and quad layer disc, and it had bad issues with stability of the disc? I thought they could make them but they had the beach glass effect, where at any point in time it could become unstable and just stop working. - My understanding is that as the layers increase you can get distortions and increasing error rates to the point where the checks for data corruption render the discs useless for real-time movie playback.
I do know that they have tried bonding 2 x 50gb DL Blu-ray discs together to make the 100gb disc (kind of like a flipper but not if you see what I mean) but cannot get that right.
There are said to be more promising discs on the horizon (in the lab = a long way away from a thoroughly tested & ready for mass-production disc).....the recent Hitachi springs to mind - they even implied they might (note 'might' does not mean 'will easily') work on some existing Blu-ray hardware.....but then I gather these require a completely new type of Blu-ray production than even the current lot.
.....and at all times it has to be remembered that the few Blu-ray replicators are not just going to invest in new production plant on a maybe.
It's too open to question with what they have right now.
Originally posted by sciascia: Also in Japan, they've already had HD TV type broadcasting for almost 20 years, no? - True, they have experimented with HD TV since 1969, although Wiki says it wasn't commercialised until the 1990's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television
I think Japan may be looked upon as something of a unique case tho.
Their experience certainly doesn't look too typical compared to other countrys national/state broadcasters.
But nevertheless in the wider global morkets Europe, Australia & the US have all kept single 'systems' pretty much unchanged & long-lived for some time now.
24.11.2007 12:36 #32
Originally posted by c1c: So all this HD crap has some compression? Can't wait in 10 years for the terabyte holgram discs, then we can have "Real Super High Altitute True Definition" garbage.
I guess once it goes uncompressed there is nothing else to do with video. whew...you think...capitalism doesn't work this way, there are people among us who devote their life to the art/science of getting people's hard earned money... uncompressed video won't come early, first video will get a bit depth boost from 24 bit (8bits per color) to 32, 48 or whatever they think will persuade more customers, along with an uneeded for most* boost in resolution and maybe something that gives a 3D impression -not new- or even really 3D, so we can see at last under the skirt...
*uneeded for most: only VERY large screens and projectors will benefit from something bigger than 1080p. Actually it is difficult to see any difference between 720p and 1080p up to 50" displays.
By the way, terradisc and such 'futuristic' things already exist, it's the lack of demand that hasn't brought them to the mass adoption.
Holographic storage(for enterprise): http://www.inphase-technologies.com/
Cheap terradisc: http://www.mempile.com/
you can be safe now that you will have where to spent your money in more than 10 years, Happy Consuming everyone!
24.11.2007 13:11 #33
moufoglou
that and the media industry saw it could not lower the TB discs enough to market it consumer friendly thus they went with HDVD and BR.
24.11.2007 14:06 #34
Thought I'd chime in on the subject. I've read an awful lot on Blu-ray and HD-DVD. The more I read, the more I'm convinced that a wait and see approach is the road I'm taking. When we have information that's more definitive than the familiar chest beating I've read by both camps, it won't be hard to tell which is best for our personal use. Just an opinion!
25.11.2007 21:37 #35
fifty gigs is a lot of storage i hope it has scratch proof material soo we do not loose are important work or the movies we purchase.
20.12.2007 04:34 #36
