http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6336382.html

some intesting INTERPRETATIONS of that article (by me)

1) HD-DVD potential to produce 3x more DVDs a day than BR
2) Multiple layer BR discs - focus on proving bonus material in HD - which may be the 'swing vote' to get people into the format
3) However, no idea of when #2 will ever happen
4) BR discs will definitely cost more than HD-DVD

Are people reading this article the same way? I am not sure I buy into the logic on #2. Sure, it would be nice to see all supplemental material in HD on one disc, but that won't be a 'swing vote' for me. if HD-DVD needs to have 2 discs (one for movie and one for supplements), then - while that is not preferable for me - if that is the ONLY reason to choose between the two formats then it will not be a deciding factor for me, at least. Didn't sound that encouraging for BR- imho.

Perhaps because it is now clear that BR > HDDVD $ that BR has to justify this - and high def supplemental material on 1 disc might be one way of doing that?

I am feeling less and less certain on how things are heading. Initially, I thought BR was a no-brainer. Then I thought HD-DVD was a no brainer. Now not sure. Perhaps HD-DVD takes off initially (though slowly) and then BR might eventually (even slower) win the marketplace? Do people really care that much for having all supplements in high def on one disc?

Are people really excited about the java feature potential of BR? I can just see it now - Star Wars version 17 re-imagined with Jar-Jar Blinks popping up at the bottom of the screen saying "meesa going doa commentary! yousa ready?" grrr

Maybe both will survive or both will fail. Who knows?

Anyway, I found the article intersesting and thought I would share it.

True. However, how many copies of an HD DVD title do you need to produce for a market consisting of less than 25,000 players? HD DVD has more capacity now than it needs. BD has as much as it needs now; they'll need to ramp up by the Fall, when more players are available and PS3 titles begin to roll out.

It's not only having more extra material, it's also the 'enhanced interactivity', doing lots of things between the bonus and the feature a la "Follow the White Rabbit". That requires having the extras and the feature in the same disc.

You can find the answer in the article itself:



There are two opposite forces at work here. The studios want single discs, but the public values multidisc packages. I've even seen special editions DVDs that take two single-layer discs.

Hey, HD DVD makes that possible too. For example, among the examples of new features Universal is considering, they mentioned (for The Fast and the Furious 3) "allowing a user to connect to the Internet and trick out a car and then insert that car back into the film so the movie would include their creation."

So nobody is free from silliness.

Why should we be interested in the production issues of British Rail?
Blu-ray Disc (BD) is another matter.

It's been known for a long time that BD ROM will be more expensive than HD DVD ROM initially, though it seems from early price points that the difference won't be passed on to the consumer. In much the same way VHS is more expensive to manufacture than DVD yet has pretty much always been cheaper at point of sale. It just means BD studios will get a few pence less profit per disc than the HD DVD studios, though the costs will probably equalise in time.

Supplemental material on the same disc is a key selling point of both formats - at least as stated by a number of the studios. There has been plenty of time and effort put into developing these new interactive layers (iHD and BD-J) which are supposed to allow far more advanced features directly related to the movie itself. If the extras were shovelled onto a 2nd disc it would negate the whole point of this investment, and would leave improeved AV as the only improvement over DVD. Not sure many of the studios are confident that better PQ and AQ will be enough on its own to persuade the man in the street to rebuy his movie collection, or even to upgrade at all. A quick look at the way current DVDs are marketed suggests studios consider supplementary material crucial to sales, so what they need is something supplementary on top of the things DVD can already handle.

Hmm.. I have NO VESTED interest in who wins! I just want the war to end!!

All this information/misinformation is driving me crazy!

I find it interesting that the studios are saying that improved PQ and audio isn't enough. Am I alone in thinking this IS what it is all about? Maybe it's just me - I am actually getting tired of all this supplemental material that in my opinion is beginning to look more and more like fluff just to be able to justify a Special Edition. if I never hear another commentary again in my life, that will be fine! I'd much rather watch 3 good movies than 1 good movie and 3+ hours of bonus material that does not materially help me appreciate the movie more. And I want to see and hear this movie in the best transfer possible.

Sounds like I am in the minority?

btw - check out this review of HD-DVD full metal jacket http://www.dvdverdict.com/reviews/fu...ackethddvd.php "The video quality is sad and the audio quality is improved, but not too substantially. If I spent money on a new HD-DVD player, I wouldn't buy this disc."

So just because a movie is released in high def (HD-DVD or I suspect BR) doesn't necessarily mean we will get a jaw-dropping transfer. Technically speaking, a well authorized SD DVD could be superior to a poorly mastered high def DVD. If studios aren't going to ensure that the new technology (either one!) is fully exploited for PQ, then I really think they are losing sight of what's important. Isn't it more important to get a better transfer than high def supplements?

But then again, maybe it's just me.

Point #2 is irrelevant, as most studio's will use the psychological factor that consumers think there's more value in multi-disc sets.

There were many releases that could have been released on 1 disc but was spread across 2 just so they can slap that "2 disc SE" on the cover. This won't change with HD discs.

I'm still of the opinion that releasing supplemental material in HD is overkill anyways... most people don't watch them.

You have at least a little company -- I feel exactly the same way.

I think in these early days, it makes sense for the emphasis to be on differentiating HD DVD from DVD, be it through dramatically improved video/audio quality or through creative (or at least better looking) extras. I'm not suggesting at all that a movie like Full Metal Jacket shouldn't be released, but an unremarkable looking, featureless disc seems like an unusual choice as an early release.

And indeed it isn't. DVD-A and SACD proved that.

I still can't believe that trailers are 1) left off of discs or 2) there but in 4x3 widescreen.

I would say that's somewhat of a faulty comparison just inasmuch as I think your average consumer is more likely to be interested in improved video quality than improved audio quality. Although really, I don't think your average consumer cares enough about improved video quality to eagerly dive into HD DVD or Blu-ray either.

When you get your ass kicked by awful sounding compressed MP3s you have a pretty clear sign that high fidelity isn't nearly as important as convenience. I still think HD video will be a lot more successful though since most will want to watch movies on HDTVs in their living room and the convenience for portable players is not much of an issue with video.

The problem, it seems to me, is with the choice of supplementary material, not with the decision to include something in the first place. Trailers, deleted scenes, and some commentaries can be worthwhile. But most making-offs and special effects break-downs are identical across DVDs. Effectively all they are is movie making 101, which gets a little tedious after a while. What would interest me would be more focused on the themes and ideas behind the movie: for example Jaws should really have had a documentary on sharks, and Armageddon could have had a piece on the MIR space station. Hopefully this sort of thing will become more common in time, or even something along the lines as Criterion are working out - the Felini doc on 8 1/2 was excellent.

I think it's good that Warner is at least releasing a variety of titles and from different eras (Blazing Saddles, Full Metal Jacket to newer titles). They have at least a few titles that would appeal to anyone. The same cannot be said about the Sony Blu-ray titles announced.

I don't disagree. I'm happy to have Full Metal Jacket in my hands, and I'd much rather watch that than a lot of the dreck that's out for HD DVD right now. It's just that there's nothing about the movie or the disc that makes me really, really enthusiastic about the format. Not everything needs to have that kind of "wow!" factor, but HD DVD could probably stand to have more of it. I'd rather watch a good movie with an unimpressive presentation and no extras than a terrible but gorgeous looking special edition, but we don't have to just be limited to those two choices.

Ignoring the pointless stuff and getting back to the discussion again: does anyone actually believe the BD ROM production won't get ironed out quick time? All of the major CE manufacaturers minus Toshiba are backing this horse, and Matsushita were the key players behind the improvements in DVD production. Seems pretty much a dead cert to me.

Obviously it wasn't figured out yet. What makes you think it will now? It's been delay after delay.

That's what I think. Most people have a crappy audio playback path. Think portable players with earbuds. Not exactly a hi-resolution speaker/playback system.

On the other hand, the playback for HD discs will be HDTVs so they will have a hi-resolution playback path for video. Also, I think, people tend to be able to distinguish video differences easier than audio differences.

I don't necessarily think it will. I've been hearing about how hard it would be to manufacture a BD disc outside the lab in real world conditions for a very long time. Every criticism of the BD format I've read has turned out to be true.

From Inside Microsoft's decision to back HD DVD 9/28/05:

I'm not sure what the article is supposed to demonstrate. BD50 has been demonstrated to work and the spec is closed, the issue is with replication not finalising the structure. It has also been added to the BD spec that all players must support BD ROM dual layer playback. As to the replication difficulties, this is so remeniscent of DVD it's not even funny. Remember Sony wanted to push for a technology which was actually an extention of CD since the replicators could do that easily and DVD was proving so difficult to get right. The decision to go with DVD seems to have turned out quite well so far, IMO.

Really? where does it say the players are actually working at this point?

It's ironic since BR players won't play CD's right?

Purged a lot of the bickering from this thread.

The Samsung BD-P1000 lists "BD/DVD/CD Playback".

Cool. I was wrong.

Nice one.

For $1,000, it certainly should play cds I guess.

With BR, I assume nothing.