|
Blu ray vs DVD (which is better?)
|
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
11. June 2006 @ 19:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
I remember mudearies he mas rambling on how The Ps3 would make PCs obeselete. Like whole business, governments, and private consumers would give up the PC for Sonys new experiment. Luckily his been suspended and people can have a intelligent conservation now on these boards.
"Cable thief is a victimless crime."
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Member
|
11. June 2006 @ 22:40 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
hd dvd = 15gb per layer.
blu-ray = 25gb per layer.
blu-ray the most support...
blu-ray wins. nuff said
Why would blu-ray be more supported? 30 Gb HD-DVD d/l is way more than enough for ANY movie or any GAME for that matter. Why would developers choose to develope a game or movie on Blu-Ray, when HD-DVD can hold it all and is cheaper? No logic.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 11. June 2006 @ 22:41
|
|
leonbasin
Newbie
|
11. June 2006 @ 23:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
actually your sort of wrong blu ray discs can hold 25 gig per layer and there is a prototype 8 layer version so 8 multiplied by 25 is a 200 gig blu ray disc i dont think hddvd can keep up with that
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
12. June 2006 @ 07:03 |
Link to this message
|
Blue-ray doesn't have more support! Anyone saying that doesn't know the facts.
Heres the lists:
excerpts from the HD-DVD and Blu-ray faq page@ http://www.bitburners.com/High_Definition_DVD_FAQ/
4.3 Who is behind HD DVD?
The major companies backing HD DVD are:
* Canon Inc.
* Digital Theater Systems
* Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
* Kenwood Corporation
* Mitsubishi Kagaku Media Co., Ltd.
* NEC Corporation
* Onkyo Corporation
* Paramount Home Entertainment
* Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.
* Teac Corporation
* Toshiba Corporation
* Universal Pictures
* Warner Home Video Inc.
3.3 Who is behind Blu-ray?
Blu-ray is backed by the following list of companies:
* Apple Computer, Inc.
* Dell Inc.
* Hewlett Packard Company
* Hitachi, Ltd.
* LG Electronics Inc.
* Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.
* Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
* Pioneer Corporation
* Royal Philips Electronics
* Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
* Sharp Corporation
* Sony Corporation
* TDK Corporation
* Thomson Multimedia
* Twentieth Century Fox
* Walt Disney Pictures
Now lets analys them...
As far a Blu-ray support "Sony (formerly Columbia/Tri-Star, and also the new owner of MGM), Fox and Disney are the main studio backers."
Everyone knows that Disney is planning to support both formats to make customers happy even though it sees Blu-ray as the winner in the format race, so that leaves Blu-ray with Fox as the only exclusive backer that isn't some how owned by Sony.
As far as HD-DVD the only exclusive backer it has is Universal.
-----------
Disc capacity FOR MOVIES...
Both formats have more than enough space for HD-DVD movies and special features especially when using codecs better than MPEG-2 (eg VC-1).
Another thing I have been seeing is that people are starting to equate the capacity of Xbox 360 discs to HD-DVD discs. That is just wrong since the 360 still uses red-lazer tech with 8.5GB DVD-9 discs.
HD-DVD has 15GB per layer and is capable of going up to 3 layers deep in its lifetime (thats 45GB)
Blu-ray Has 25GB perlayer and is capable of going up to 8 layers deep in its lifetime (that 200GB)
The key word is lifetime! 30GB is an incredible amount of space for just one movie and its special features. 50GB is overkill.
Ced
|
Member
|
12. June 2006 @ 08:44 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
200 gig blu ray disc i dont think hddvd can keep up with that
Why in the world would they need a 200 gig disc. That must be expensive as HELL. NO developer would ever think about that for a long time or the developer would be broke. Right now, and for some years to come, HD-DVD's seem like they are the way to go. Way cheaper, faster to develope, and can hold everything that will be on a regular Blu-ray disc. Blu-ray is a petty attempt by Sony to reach into another piece of the economy and you know what, seems like it's going to cost them this time so good for them.
|
Member
|
13. June 2006 @ 21:32 |
Link to this message
|
Wow, i'm really good at killing threads. If i got paid for it i wouldn't even worry about buying a HD-DVD or Blu-ray player because i'd buy out the companies.
|
|
Dfeyeant1
Newbie
|
14. June 2006 @ 11:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
The BD format is the result of a great effort to keep things affordable. I agree with your corporate slugs ideology, but I think that their awareness of what consumers will consider paying should keep costs reasonable.
BD OWNS!!11!
|
Member
|
14. June 2006 @ 16:12 |
Link to this message
|
Yes but will that mean they'll let themselves lose money on the Ps3 AND what ever they come out with for Blu-ray?
|
Senior Member
|
21. June 2006 @ 17:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
Another which is better thread....snor.The difference between both formats is so little that I really don't know which is better.And when I'm watching a movie i don't think I'll care or notice any difference.
|
Member
|
21. June 2006 @ 19:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
HD-DVD is capable of 1080p output anyways, so why not go with the cheaper format? You are not going to use 50 GB for a movie or video anytime soon. 30 GB D/l is good enough.
The answer to life, the universe, and everything is...42
|
Member
|
5. July 2006 @ 23:46 |
Link to this message
|
JaguarGod is right though...if ANY thing will replace the DVD as mainstream format that majoirty studios will use, it will be the HD-DVD. Especially since that law/announcement was made that in 7 years or soemthing, all US TV stations are required to have switched over to HD (some enforcement to future technology). Nevertheless Blu-ray is going to be helpful. I don't see it being mainsream anytime soon whatsoever, but for us gamers and those in the industry, this is a good step forward that sony has brought upon us. This breaks that bar and line of game developer's games being too big or to heavy duty for a mere DVD to handle. Now they have vast amount of space to work with and throw things on. It'll be quite interesting to see it all bleed in once HD and Blu-ray are more out in the open for people to use and experiance... only true thing im worried about is the prices of Blu-ray content that is not gaming based entertainment, and the prices of Blu-ray burners/readers.
|
Member
|
5. July 2006 @ 23:59 |
Link to this message
|
Sully you have a good point, but there is plenty of logic in Blu-ray. A lot of the games and content we experience is shuttered down, edited, and compressed because of the limitations and capacities of DVDs. Sure HDDVD is going to do as much as Blu-ray or only a slight less for just a bit, but only for a bit. Why switch to one format that?s more then double the less as good as the other when you can go a head and jump a grade, jump a step, and instead of blowing double the money, go ahead and evolve to Blu-ray to have features, abilities, and capacity that will last you and developers for years to come. And believe me there are developers and companies that will use blu-rays potential and take advantage of the power. No longer will we have to worry about games delaying to take stuff or chop down stuff, or movies removing extra features or never even adding any. Now content, especially, games have a huge field to go into and lay things down on. Imagine if The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion was not being released until another year and was going to get to use the power of blu ray for ps3...their limitations would be almost endless and would be so much more improved.
|alafoss|
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
6. July 2006 @ 03:58 |
Link to this message
|
Everyone knows that the Blu-ray is limited two layers (50 GB) right? The promised 100 GB and 200 GB capacities are only for the recordable Blu-ray formats (BD-R/RE).
HD-DVDs 45GB 3 layer disc is rumored to be only for recordable media aswell.
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. July 2006 @ 03:59
|
Member
|
6. July 2006 @ 20:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, how much room does 1080p take compared to 1080i?
The answer to life, the universe, and everything is...42
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
7. July 2006 @ 05:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Half the space at the same frame rate and bit-rate.
But why? Both formats encode to 1080p24 for their source matirial which takes up less space than a 1080i60 encoding rate.
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. July 2006 @ 05:50
|
Member
|
7. July 2006 @ 12:28 |
Link to this message
|
|
50GB is more then plenty for a single game! I am excited to see developers using this space and not cutting down their games. Hah I remember in the past when yuor local computer guy would say that not even in 20 years will you be able to use up 10GB...hah get real! And 100GB and 200GB for recordable files is really nice...that's more then most average laptop hard drives and even some desktops.
|alafoss|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. July 2006 @ 12:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
To say no-one needs huge discs is rather naive! I agree with all that alafossb says, the potential for games, esp with the way that graphics cards, SATA speeds, processor speeds, RAM speeds & RAM quantity are going, we will need huge dics etc. Progress is relentless, the way R&D departments & the money involved it is no surprise.
Gif by Phantom69
 |
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
8. July 2006 @ 09:44 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
To say no-one needs huge discs is rather naive!
I think you are wrong. I can easily live without huge discs as can everyone else in the world. No one needs them, they are just a convenience.
Those large discs are nice for archives. It is cool to load more than 1 game on a disc. For instance, you can archive all the Age of Empires on a DVD or later on, all your fps on a Blue Ray disc and such. However, you would need to create your own custom installers for the games, break the copy protection on them etc....
For archiving movies it is even better since that is easier. You can throw tons of hom movies on them and use that and preserve the tapes and such. Also, you can throw a good amount of DVD movies on one disc like the Pink Panther collection or the Peter O'Toole collection, etc...
I would have still liked to see a DVD resolution at 25mbps though. That would probably rock on 60" or smaller.
BTW, I finally saw Blue Ray yesterday, and it was next to the HD DVD, and I have to say, Sony might be in a bit of trouble. The pictures are pretty much the same (the Toshiba looked clearer but not by much), but the units are night and day. The Toshiba is built in much higher quality. For instance, it weighs about 25 pounds more, there is more steel on it and the controller is even steel or polished aluminum. The Samsung Controller is a plastic piece of garbage...
The Samsung player should have been priced at $199 just because it is a piece of crap. I don't care how well it performs now or that it is new technology, it is still garbage. The Toshiba is priced right considering the quality of construction and the new technology is a bonus. I hope that HD DVD wins only so I can buy the Toshiba player. Even if all I use it for is to play DVDs, it is still worth it.
|
Senior Member
|
8. July 2006 @ 10:18 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I hope that HD DVD
They will!!!! I'll bet my ipod that they'll win. Unless Blu ray price drop. Then you ever know who's going to win. But as of not HD DVD is doing a awsoume job. Toshiba is one of the best company for making DVD players.
|
|
Dfeyeant1
Newbie
|
9. July 2006 @ 10:49 |
Link to this message
|
Blu-ray and HD DVD are both highdef, but Blu-ray looks much better. Sure, Sony pumped out the first few titles, but they didn't utilize mpeg4 which I can testify is way better looking and efficient. The only real movie Sony put out was that Daggers flick, the other titles kind of suck in my opinion. Watch when some other BIG titles come out from other companies that actually push the limits with mpeg4 and a filled 25GBs. It makes sense why it will look much better if you think about it. Some here seem kind of like my grandpa in the way that neither of them NEED more; they are fine with the less capable format/technology. My grandpa's so content that he doesn't even NEED a cell phone or the internet. Hell, who NEEDS for the future to even come! I mean horses seemed to work just fine; do we really even have a NEED for cars or airplanes? BD has the most potential, it is the most futuristic, their companies will be using the better compression, and for all the techies it's bigger! -a simple fact, but in a way the most important thing. We all need more space! Can you say backup?
BD OWNS!!11!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. July 2006 @ 11:00
|
|
dblbogey7
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
9. July 2006 @ 11:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. July 2006 @ 11:41
|
|
JaguarGod
Senior Member
|
10. July 2006 @ 17:36 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
do we really even have a NEED for cars
I agree with planes, but there is absolutely no need to OWN a car. Everyone thinks cars are more convenient, but they are only faster than a bus and walking (but not always faster than walking). When I would jog to High School which was 6 miles away, I would consistantly get there faster than when going by car by at least 10 minutes. For college, which was 12 to 13 miles away, it was about even only because of the highway, but on days with more than light traffic, I could jog faster by at least 30 minutes. Riding a bike was no comparison.
Cars have their purpose like traveling outside of cities (i.e. no traffic) for trips longer than 30 miles but under 150 miles. For anything longer, a train is faster and cheaper. For anything over 400 miles a plane is faster and cheaper unless you travel with a group. For anything under 30 miles, a bike or jogging is the best choice.
Back on subject...
I thought that DVDs were done inefficiently and I think that Blue Ray inefficient. The newer formats are not enough of an improvement. They are both more of a revision to DVD meaning that they are DVD quality at a higher resolution. What will a Blue Ray movie look like at 12mbps MPEG-2 video?? Probably the same as a DVD at 4200kbps video... I am estimating a 12mbps video VC-1 may compare to a 8400kbps video DVD.
What this says in theory is that a low bitrate Blue Ray title will look the same as a low quality DVD. A low bitrate HD DVD title will look at least as good as the best DVDs, but slightly/somewhat better than Superbit.
A high/full bitrate Blue Ray will look better than a Superbit DVD and about equal to a Low bitrate HD DVD. A high/full bitrate HD DVD will look about as good as broadcast HDTV.
A medium bitrate Blue Ray will look about as good as a High bitrate DVD (criterion colletion, Superbit, very few normal releases) and a tad worse than a low bitrate HD DVD. A medium bitrate HD DVD will look much better than even the highest bitrate DVDs, but worse than broadcast.
So then the following conclusion can be made:
HD DVD is always better than DVD
HD DVD is always better than Superbit
HD DVD is most of the time better than Blue Ray
Blue Ray is most of the time better than DVD
Blue Ray is sometimes better than Superbit
This is of course only considering that Blue Ray is using MPEG-2.
Now, if Blue Ray were to use VC-1 or H.264, then the following would be true:
Blue Ray is most of the time better than HD DVD
Blue Ray is always better than Superbit
Blue Ray is always better than DVD
However, the Toshiba Player appears to be of MUCH higher quality than Samsung's.
If you factor in price:
DVD is better than Blue Ray (for now)
HD DVD is better than DVD
|
|
dblbogey7
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
10. July 2006 @ 18:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree with most of your observations except on my display HD-DVD's look better than broadcast HD (Comcast/Motorola DVR).
|
|
diabolos
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
10. July 2006 @ 20:04 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Everyone thinks cars are more convenient
I feel that is a 1 dimensional observation.
Like these new A/V formats, (and some old ones; ie first gen DVD, first gen Laser Disc, and VHS) its not all about great picture its about how much the "Home Theater" experience has been (and will be) improved. When I say experience I mean Picture, Audio, and Interactivity.
People love their cars because of the expereince that technology affords them everyday not simply because they know its a faster way to travel. I hate it when someone on a bike blazes past me via a sidewalk or trail while I'm at a stop light in typical metropolitan rush hour traffic!
When DVD first came out it had as many or more argument against it as these new formats. Alot of people didn't want DVD becuase it didn't offer any recording capabilty and the (new 720x480) digital transfers on signal layer media sometimes looked worse than VHS and Laser Disc.
But that is history...
Ced
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 10. July 2006 @ 20:05
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
10. July 2006 @ 22:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
Buses & trains are only quicker if the service exists in the area! In the UK we had thousands of miles of track removed (local lines mostly, due to underuse, apparently). So cars are the only viable form of transport. Esp where I live, in the Yorkshire dales.
Gif by Phantom69
|
