You missed my point. Movies in 1080p are going to fit on DVDs just as easily as they will on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray. So like I said, if storage is not an issue, stay with DVD. If it is, then go with Blu-Ray. HD-DVD is in the middle helping no one.

Huh?

From HD-DVD Promo Site:

http://www.hddvdprg.com/hddvd/hddvd_2.html

So, if a 2-hour HD movie could fit on one disc, you could put the bonus material on a second disc and sell it as a 2-disc set. Which they are already doing today anyway. DVD is plenty of space for HD movies.

Sorry...but the 2 hour movies *I* have in HD eat up about 15gigs. if they could fit onto a regular dvd, would we be having this discussion?

You would still need a HD DVD player to play those discs though. So that is not an arguement against HD DVD. I'm sure most HD DVD and Blu Ray releases will not use the maximum capacity of the discs. That is why disc size is a non issue for the home theater crowd.

If they could just start releasing movies in 1080p for our current hardware they would, but it doesn't work that way.

No, you wouldn't need an HD-DVD player. You would only need a DVD player that supported MPEG-4 and VC-1. No fancy blue lasers needed. I know my $60 Cyberhome DVD player supports MPEG-4. So it would probably cost $100 max for a new DVD player which supported both codecs.

And according the Microsoft, their VC-1 encodes may be less than 8GB when all is said and done. They could very easily and cheaply release 1080p content on DVD, if they really wanted to.

They may be able to encode it but would it be at the bitrates needed for HD?

Microsoft has claimed sub-10Mbps for displaying 1080p movies - some hinting that 8Mbps will be the magic number (its all over at AVS Forum, but this info is a few months old now). Remember, its not the bitrate that defines HD, is the pixel count. MPEG-4 and VC-1 thrive on low bitrates to display the same image.

Um, yeah, because they are uncompressed MPEG-2. Unless you encode your movies in MPEG-4, this is a non sequitur.

I think this points out quite well that disc space is not an issue. Any way you slice it, that isn't good for BR. That's great for BR in the computer world, but otherwise you are talking about a home theater component that doesn't show a movie any better than HD DVD, but still costs considerably more.

Sony has a better chance of winning this than they did with Betamax because of the PS3 and computer drives, but I don't know that it will be enough. If I had to upgrade to a BR burner for my computer at $1,000 or a HD DVD drive for $500 and they weren't for watching movies, I wouldn't upgrade to either....I'd be using an external HD or my dvd burner.

And HD-DVD doesn't show a movie better than DVD (via MPEG-4 or VC-1), but still costs considerably more. If Blu-Ray is in a bad place, HD-DVD has got it worse.

How do you figure?

Of course that's all ignoring movies over 2 hours, tv shows etc. One of the benefits of the space on HD-DVD (and blu ray) is being able to get things like LOTR EEs on one disc with uncompressed audio, TV seasons on a disc or two etc. That's a definite plus over plain DVD.

I don't think the added space of blu ray is enough to make much a difference over HD-DVD here though, so again it's mainly just as computer storage drives that it will help, not in the home theater area.

[David Duchovny in Zoolander]Are you serious?[/David]

A movie can be encoded at 1080p (also known as HD) with MP4 or VC-1 and still fit on a standard dual layer DVD. Its the exact same file, just a different storage medium. You would get the exact same picture and the exact same audio.

Much appreciated. :) I await your progress reports with anticipation!

:lol: I didn't read the posts before yours... I like the Zoolander reference.

How could it not be helping noone? DVD is too small for quality HD content - especially for lengthier material. Blu-Ray has more space, but is also twice the price. HD-DVD is a nice medium, enough storage for a quality and half the price (or better). The average consumer who wants to watch high definition movies will ignore the $1,000 player and pick up the $500 one (provided the software is in place).

I have to admit...i'm starting to be swayed. EEEEEEEEEEEEEK!

I don't know why you would think HD-DVD would be in a worse place in that scenario, it is still cheaper than BR, so that is where I would expect J6P to gravitate.

The problem with the MPEG-4 or VC-1 argument is that no one is doing it, so it is a moot point.

The point about being able to put a whole tv series on one disc as opposed to two discs has merit, but I think it doesn't take into account the J6P mentality. J6P doesn't care if he ends up with more discs, and may even prefer it.

Warner announced last year that they were using VC-1. Dunno if that's changed.

We're all sort of ignoring the fact that "2-Disc Special Edition" has a nice ring to it to consumers, and I'm sure the studios are not dumb to that fact. How will they justify having two versions of a movie now that all extras are available on the same disc as the film? I bet we still see 2-disc sets.

Wanna wow everyone? Add in a bare-bones SD-DVD version of films with the HD version. I guess HD is doing this in a way with the flipper discs.

The player is cheaper. The media is not. Which one do you plan on buying more of? I've spent thousands on DVDs, but only hundreds on players.

Any studio which is producing media for HD-DVD has to use MP4 or VC-1. MPEG-2 movies simply won't fit with any extras. So that is Universal, Warner, and Paramount all using MP4 and VC-1.

Is BR media really going to be cheaper than HD-DVD media?

Right now on Amazon I see these HD-DVD prices Phantom of the Opera (19.99), The Last Samurai (21.99) and Million Dollar Baby (21.99).

Is BR going to be cheaper than those?

DVD Empire has these Blu-Ray titles for preorder: Crash (27.27), Lord of War (27.27), The Punisher (19.45), Saw (19.45), Terminator 2 (19.45). DVD Empire doesn't have prices for HD-DVDs posted yet.

I'm not seeing the huge savings here.

I'll be suprised if HD-DVD lets their media be more expensive since that was one of their selling points over BR all this time (i.e. "it's like DVD and will be much cheaper to produce...")

I don't think you are going to claim that the BR media will be cheaper, are you? Everything I see says it will be the same or more. If you claim that the BR will be cheaper because it uses a single disc for all the material that will take 2 HD-DVD discs, you have a point, but just like a 2 dvd set is roughly $5 more than the single disc version (street price), I don't think HD-DVD will allow itself to come out as more expensive. If they did, that would certainly favor BR.



Sorry. My point was that no one is using them to come out with HD movies for current dvds. Or at least not enough that it will catch on. Because of that, I think it is a moot point. The battle is still between BR and HD-DVD, and not some other party.

Heck, I have T2 in HD on a regular DVD. It's been out for a few years. It just never took off. This battle will not include DVD, other than for people trying to decide if either new format is worth the upgrade.

That's correct. The comment about VC-1 in this thread was in reference to joshd2012's hypothetical argument about using VC-1 on a standard DVD.

cost = cost to the company
price = what the consumer pays

The cost of the media has nothing to do with the price of the product. It costs less to make an HD-DVD than a BD, right now. That could change if BD catches on. This has been one of the key selling points of HD-DVD. (selling to companies, studios, not consumers) But this is such a small portion of the overall cost of selling YOU a movie, it just plain doesn't matter. They might charge $5 more for the "collector's edition" of a movie with 2 discs like Narnia, but the added physical product cost (2nd DVD, different case) is something like a nickel. The real cost behind this would be the added extras and time put into them. And some gouging to make sure some people buy the 1 disc version.