I would say that writing off either format at this stage would be a mistake.

I think you'll very quickly see Blu-ray move towards AVC and VC-1, the latter of which is the HD DVD standard (although both formats support the same codecs).

Blu-ray would allow for a higher bitrate, but the $64,000 question is: how much benefit is there in that additional space? Having more breathing room is never a bad thing, but it could be that the 20 gig difference in space between dual-layered Blu-ray and HD DVD discs turns out to be insignificant strictly as far as movies are concerned.

I believe there will be very, very few cases where a movie can't comfortably fit on one HD DVD disc without any compression or authoring woes. The difference will really be found in extras, and in the short term, it'd be cheaper to use 2 HD DVD discs (one for the movie and another for any high-definition extras) than it would be to produce 1 dual-layer Blu-ray disc.

Sure. HD DVD has some neat menu options in place already (for instance, you can bring up a menu that overlays on top of the still-playing movie), and a handful of discs have what's called an "In Movie Experience", which is sort of like a commentary with picture-in-picture-style windows with behind the scenes footage, interviews, etc. that appear over the movie.

As far as future interactivity goes, I've read that there could be downloadable commentary tracks, new subtitle streams, etc. When this will start happening, I have no idea. I'm also not sure how "powerful" HD DVD's interactive layer is compared with Blu-ray's. Buena Vista has talked about having a live, networked 'videoconference'-style tea party with Disney characters on Blu-ray, but I don't know if something like that would be feasible with HD DVD.

It'd have to. The PS3 is using Blu-ray as the media of choice for its games. No one's using HD DVD as a media for games in the console world, and I wouldn't expect to see HD DVD games on the PC for an extremely long time, if ever.

I agree. I think this lackluster launch was purely to avoid another delay, although I would personally have preferred to see Blu-ray wait however many additional months and really roar out of the gate.

I'd say HD DVD is taking better advantage of what the format has to offer than Blu-ray, but I wouldn't say that it's reached its limitations.

A lot of the early HD DVD encodes were done last year, and there wasn't any attempt to be particularly efficient. As long as they fit on the disc, that was all that really mattered. The encoding tools are a lot more mature now, and compressionists can achieve comparable quality at a significantly lower bitrate. The majority of HD DVD extras are still encoded in MPEG-2 and gobble up a lot more space than they really need to as well.

The combo discs we've seen so far indicate that a 90-100 minute movie (with little-to-moderate action) can fit pretty comfortably on a single layer disc, and some of the VC-1 folks at Microsoft are claiming (how accurately, I have no idea) that even a considerably longer-than-average movie like Return of the King with lossless audio could fit on one dual-layer disc.

I absolutely agree. Neither camp has reached a point yet where there is any reason to even consider throwing in the towel. And if ever does reach such a point, it won't happen for a long time.

I obviously don't have any hard data to back this up, but I just have a sort of a gut feeling that it will be quite a while, possibly years, before replicating a BD-50 will be as cheap as replicating the combination of a dual layer HD DVD for a feature-length film plus a second, single layer HD DVD for extras.

Well, to be honest, we don't know how well that will work for Blu-ray, either. Just how "live" will it be, anyway?

Getting the EE of Return of the King to fit on a single disc would definitely be a feather in HD DVD's cap, and would silence many of the format's more vocal critics. Whether it really can be done, who knows? But as you say, just from the evidence we've already seen, it should be possible to comfortably fit at least a 3 1/2 hour movie onto one disc (sans extras), and that is a pretty significant accomplishment.

Thank you, Adam, for being so conversational and non-confrontational. It's refreshing after the initial knee-jerk responses I got.

I will reference this slightly dated article for an example of what I was talking about, for those that demanded citation:


The common HD-DVD defense for this is "Those are the old disks that didn't think as much about squeezing movies down to size!" But this goes back to my initial question, about whether or not Blu-Ray will have an advantage when it comes to lesser-compressed videos, meaning, hold your breath: Better quality.

As for "4 hours of VC-1 being FINE" for anyone, I'd like to ask Peter Jackson, Oliver Stone, Stanley Kubrick, and Martin Scorsese what they think about that. But, perhaps some people are right, and 1.5-hour romantic comedies ARE all we really want to see in HD.

As for putting extras on a second disk, this raises production cost, which raises consumer cost, and--most importantly--raises manufacturing costs. This is one of the many reasons many production studios, etc are still on Blu-Ray's ship, regardless of their shameful initial offering.

Again, I'm trying not to be a Blu-Ray fanboy here, I want to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of each format, buth when challenged with the assertions of HD-fanboys, it does seem like I'm stacking up Blu-Ray defenses. In reality, I'm just trying to help us all understand the two formats so we can make an intelligent decision.

Thank you again Adam for your comments... I apologize that I can't elaborate on them right now, I'm late for work, but will be back this evening!

cheers.

[QUOTE=MadCasey]I'm wondering how many people here have actually pegged Blu-Ray as already TKO'd...
QUOTE]

Not me....i think HD-DVD had an uphill battle and it has made it to the top of the hill now....That said, its still VERY unclear which one will win. PS3 could change it all or be a huge failure for Sony. We wont know until next year sometime really.

This fall, if HD-DVD has alot of day/date releases like MI3, Superman Returns, Poseidon and so on, while BD does not, it could be a huge step for HD-DVD.

Well, yesterday I bought the Sanyo BD player and 3 movies - Terminator, T2 and 5th Element. Using component out set to 1080i I found the picture an absolute delight, even the much-maligned Fifth Element. I plan to get the Toshiba/RCA very soon. I hate the idea of a format war, and I'm equally mad at both parties, but I want movies in HD.

How exactly were any of the "first" responses you got "knee-jerk?"

No problem.

Any answer anyone here would give is purely speculatory, and don't take this as an expert opinion, but I'd say: probably not. In the absolute worst case scenario (at least from anyone other than the budget studios), I'd expect that the HD DVD will be split across multiple discs rather than overcompressed to fit.

You'll have a hard time getting a response from Kubrick. Although really, Kubrick is kind of a strange example since Barry Lyndon and Spartacus are the only films of his to top 3 hours, and even then just barely.

Scorsese's Goodfellas is already on HD DVD and, for my money, it looks pretty good. Its shortcomings owe more to the photography and this transfer in particular than anything related to compression.

Don't fret about file sizes, length, or bitrates. Focus on what you can see. Just because a very long movie fits on one disc doesn't mean it looks bad, nor does it necessarily mean it'd look better with more breathing room.

The article you've read is from someone making assumptions based on guesswork and stale information. The people I'm referring to who have said that the extended version of Return of the King can fit comfortably on one disc with lossless audio are actually involved in video compression. I don't know that I can absolutely take them at their word, but they're a more reliable source than anyone else I can turn to at present.

In the very long-term, perhaps, but right now, the yields are so poor for Blu-ray that (again, if you believe what you read) they're literally throwing away around 2 botched discs for every single successfully manufactured disc that makes it through the production lines. This is just for single-layer Blu-ray discs too -- there isn't a line that can reliably produce dual-layer discs yet, and Blu-ray's technical advantages are practically non-existent until this happens. With as many problems as they're having making single layer discs, I wouldn't expect dual-layer discs to follow in large numbers anytime soon.

HD DVD's yields are around 90-95%, and the costs all around for producing HD DVDs are less. It really would be cheaper to make a two-disc HD DVD set (with the movie on one disc and HD extras on another) than it would be to put it all on one Blu-ray disc. For the time being, at least, that would also be the only technically possible way to do it. I'm not sure how prevalent high-definition extras will be or how frequently there'll be enough of them to warrant a second disc, though.

First, let me clarify for you that I am not what you referred to as an "HD-fanboy" (by which I assume you really meant HD DVD fanboy). I am an HD fanboy, meaning that I want high definition presentations of movies that look great, sound great, and are available on players and media that don't carry an exorbitant price tag.

If you don't want knee-jerk reactions, try coming across a bit less condescending and BD-fanboyish.

That article is not only dated, but pretty clearly biased. The use of the phrase "barely squeezing" implies that the compressionist had to work extra hard, just to make those movies fit onto a dual layer disc. That is simply not true. The fact that those movies do fill up their discs doesn't in any way imply that they could not have been further compressed without any loss in image quality, it only means that there was no reason to compress them further, since they already fit.

Don't hold your breath. BD will undoubtedly achieve image quality that is on a par with what HD DVD has today, but it is very unlikely that it will exceed it. Especially as long as they persist in using a less-efficient codec.

Here is a perfect example of condescension. You twist others' comments around to make them appear foolish, and then drop names of people with whom you are undoutedly not acquainted (especially the deceased Stanley Kubrick), all in a vain attempt to add weight to your opinion.

If an image that is transparent to the original transfer can be achieved for a four hour film using VC-1, are you really making the claim that any of those (still-living) directors would refuse it?

Which only proves that you didn't read what I (or Adam) wrote above, namely that for the forseeable future, BD-50s will be by far the more expensive production option, even over using two HD DVDs.

And here is another example of condescension. Do you really believe you are so far beyond the rest of us that you need to educate us? That, my friend, is the attitude of a rabid BD-fanboy.


When the BD camp gets their act together, and produces affordable players with decent freatures, and discs that rival the current crop of HD DVDs in quality, I'll be first in line to buy into it. But today is not that day. For now, I'm enjoying the amazing quality of HD DVD, and have no regrets about it.

We'd have to get Miss Cleo to ask Kubrick for us...

But we're already getting a lot more than 1.5 hour romantic comedies from HD-DVD. Most of the movies released so far are over 2 hours long, aren't they? And some are fairly action packed, too, like Riddick which is regarded as a reference disc by many.

I'm not sure this will be an issue. Studios LOVE 2-disc editions and it has nothing to do with cost. They've been charging $5-$10+ more for the 2-disc SD-DVD versions. Why would they stop that trend?

I believe that most studios bought into the Blu-ray marketing hype that Sony had been putting out (just like most of us did at one time, too). They backed BR because it was obviously superior. But now reality is slapping them in the face. I think we're going to see studios going neutral.

To borrow a quote from Blitz6Speed:

I think the best BR can hope for is to equal HD-DVDs PQ and I'm not sure that'll be good enough when their slogan is "Beyond High Definition".

I will say what has been said here many times. This format war will not be decided by any of the first generation hardware. Blu-ray is not down and out by any means. My problem is just the fact few in the media or doing hardware reviews are being honest about what is really going on with both formats.

Blu-ray was crowned champ before the war started and now it seems many are treating Blu-ray with kid gloves so they won't be proven wrong.

Blu-ray's big advantage is not in those 50Gb discs, its in the superior studio and hardware manufacturer support and that is something HD DVD will have a very difficult time in overcoming. That said I refuse to jump on board with Blu-ray when they continue to build the foundation of the format on lies.

Bring me a decent combo player in a few years and I will consider the Blu-ray discs, but I'm giving all the support I can to the format that made the best effort at delivering what they promised. HD DVD may not win the war in the long run, but they have earned my support.

BTW, for the record having to switch discs on a long movie like Return of the King is perfectly exceptable to me. I would not choose BD over HD DVD based on this. That 50GB disc size is meaningless outside of the PC storage realm.

Robo- great post. Every post this guy has made has been done in a tone where he knows better than everyone. Look at his first words posted here:

Give us a break.

Many of us here have been discussing HD for a few years now. We don't need to be "rejuvinated" especially by someone who says their mind isn't made up but shows their tue colors with their comments.

Where did you get a Sanyo BD player?

Hi Casey. I want to address something you've brought up in your posts: the idea that less compression gives you a better picture. This idea seems like it should logically make sense. The less you squeeze a film, the closer it is to the original source. If this were film we were talking about, I'd agree. 70mm looks better than 35mm, which looks better than 16mm, no question about it.

But this isn't film. This is digital video. And the trend in digital video has actually been towards MORE compression. As time goes on, codecs come out that offer more compression with BETTER image quality. The codec used by HD-DVD, VC-1, is far more advanced and efficient than MPEG 2, which BD uses. So, even if 50GB dual layer discs came out on BD, and they still used MPEG 2, you still would have a higher chance of seeing artifacts. It's not the solely the amount of compression, but how the encoder actually compresses the data that matters. MPEG 2 is an old codec and it shows. Now, should BD start using VC-1 or another similarly advanced codec, then you would start to see comparable images. Not better, but comparable. The advantage BD would have at this point would be more space for special features in their dual-layer discs. We then get into the argument that Adam brought up: Is it cheaper to make a 2-disc HD-DVD set or one dual layer BD?

I'm not trying to attack you, I just wanted to point out a fallacy in your argument.

I looked at the Best Buy website, and found a couple of BBs in the area that had them - the first one had two left.

I think his question isn't where you got a BD player, but specifically where you got a BD player made by Sanyo, since Samsung is currently the only company with a BD player available for purchase.

To be fair this is the exact arguement Sony is pushing on people and probably why so many people are picking up on it. Their format is better because with 50GB discs they can encode MPEG2 at higher bitrates than HD DVD. They simply argue bitrate and try and skim over the fact that HD DVD doesn't need the same bitrate because of VC1.

Jesus, I'm glad I didn't mention Victor Fleming in my list of directors. I was just listing directors who either A) Tend to film lengthy, data-rich films (which also happen to be the most desirable for me to find in HD.) or, B) Have perfectionist tendencies with their source material and its reproduction. Everyone pretend I said "I'd like to ask Walt Disney what he thought of that..." in reference to Michael Eisner's toupee.

As for "rejuvenating" the discussion, I only meant that from what I had seen it had degenerated into a "put this 'fanboy' on ignore forever because we don't agree with him" flamewar--but little did I know that that appears to be the entire purpose of this thread now.

I was very clear that I lean Blu-Ray, and that HD-DVD, though neat, hadn't matched the reasons I supported Blu-Ray initially simply by putting high-resolution movies on DVDs. What I was hoping for was to hear what I suspected to be an HD-DVD inclined audience on this thread has to say about the format. Turns out it was this: Stanley Kubrick is dead.

I was also clear that I came to learn as much as possible from people whom (some of which) I perceived to be more knowledgable than I am about these things. This has of course has happened, but for others it was easier to call me condescending and therefore invalid as a human consciousness.


Now, on to the beef:

I do know the differences between MPEG-2, which Sony has a large stake in and thought they could get away with, and MPEG-4 or VC-1. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought that even in these more 'efficient' codecs, a less compressed file would result in better image quality.

As for Microsoft employees who are touting their compression codecs as being "the best thing ever ever ever" being more reliable than an independent (albeit detached) reviewer, I'm going to have to see a little more evidence of that before I swallow it.

This has been the overlying point that I was trying to drive at. Whether or not the production/consumer costs are higher in the beginning stages, tons of manufacturing and production companies are Blu-Ray supporters, and are already prepared to take the long haul and make BD production a reality, after which it will be on-par with the older DVD manufacturing processes...

Regarding price, Toshiba is already marketing their HD-DVD players at a higher price (see the HD-XA1) and Sony will be manufacturing theirs at a lower price (See the Playstation 3). How companies go about marketing their products--be it at an artificially high price or an artificially low price--has never seemed like a good way to judge quality or value to me. I mean, if we all had undying faith in marketing ploys, we'd still be big Blu-Ray fans.

...although really, these are the sorts of movies that are the least problematic to compress. (And you may be happy to hear that Branaugh's Hamlet is in the early stages of production.) Quick motion and rapidly changing imagery are what cause the real headaches.

Could result in better image quality would be more accurate. Until we have the same movie on multiple formats with bitrates that fill each disc (which is unlikely to ever happen), we'll never really know. I suspect that the difference would be negligible and perhaps even non-existent in the overwhelming majority of cases.

That's being awfully dismissive. There was quite a bit more substantial discussion than that.

Right, but bear in mind that you're comparing the people who work on these HD DVDs to someone who's speculating based on file sizes of something encoded with preliminary tools last year (as well as discs teeming with inefficiently encoded MPEG-2 supplements). I don't take what Microsoft employees say as gospel, but they know what they're talking about more than the writer quoted earlier. There's at least one compressionist on the AVS Forum who has made similar remarks and is not affiliated with Microsoft. Search for posts by "CJPlay" at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/ if you're interested in reading more.

Trust me, King Kong and Lord of the Rings have plenty of motion and rapidly changing imagery, and let's not sell Any Given Sunday short, either. (bad example of a good movie, I know, lol).

I agree, and regret that a reply to half of the people here is constructed completely differently than a reply to the other half should be.

Do you mean that the discs she was reviewing were created last year or that the article itself was written last year? Just to be clear the article was written on June 20th of this year.

Forget what Microsoft says, I'd say the proof is in the pudding.

Try comparing HD-DVD to Blu-ray and see for yourself. The big difference between the two is MPEG-2 vs. VC-1. Not only does Blu-ray have worse PQ (by all accounts), but they also leave off most (sometimes ALL) of the extras that were on the SD-DVD version. If that isn't proof that VC-1 is a better codec, I don't know what is.

Now, as for equating less compressed to better, I'd just give this analogy. Take file compression for example. You can apply many different algorithms to compress a computer file. Some will give you less compression than others. Some algorithms even let you specify the compression factor where if you pick a higher compression factor you sacrifice speed for higher compression ratios. Now in all cases you get the exact same original file back, but some of those codecs compress to 20% of original size and some up to 95%. I realize there is a difference from this to AV codecs, but you get the idea.

I'm aware, although I wouldn't characterize most of the films by most of the filmmakers you mentioned in that way.

The filesizes of some of the discs she's reviewing were encoded last year. For instance, The Last Samurai fills almost every bit of available space on the HD DVD, but it wouldn't if it were being encoded today (and likely wouldn't look any worse for it either). It's misleading to look at very early VC-1 encodes with comparatively rudimentary tools that are on discs heavy with space-hogging MPEG-2 extras and try to predict the future with them.

I agree, the proof is definitely in the pudding. We could stand around all day and argue about MPEG 2 vs. VC-1, pulling out charts and reeling off statistics, etc. But in the end, when you actually play two discs side by side, HD-DVD has far better picture at this juncture.

I think all you guys who are trying to get the point across that HD-DVD is providing excellent pq to anyone who likes/prefers BD is fighting a losing battle.

Where are you going with this?? The A1 can easily be purchased for under $450. Neither the standalone Sony BD player or PS3 can be purchased for that cheap (not to mention they arent even released).

Most likely true.