Recently I stopped into a prominent consumer electronics retailer in town to see how they were promoting the new HD disc technologies, HD-DVD and Blu-ray. Just inside the front door was a riveting demonstration of Samsung's new BD-P1000 Blu-ray player. It was connected to an impressive Pioneer Elite 50" 1080p plasma display. The video material that was playing was a loop from a Blu-ray demonstration disc that had been shot live with a high resolution 1080p video camera -- not a transfer from film. If you ever see a product demo of this type you will be blown away by the spectacular image quality. The plain ole TV at home certainly never looked this good.

When I asked if they had a similar demo of HD-DVD, the salesman took me on a long walk to the back of the store. There on a small shelf was Toshiba's HD-A1 HD-DVD player. It was driving a 27" low resolution widescreen monitor. An HD-DVD movie was playing, and on this monitor it looked like pretty good DVD, but nothing special. That's because the monitor was incapable of displaying the full resolution of the HD-DVD format.

If this retailer's objective was to make Blu-ray look as good as possible and HD-DVD as bad as possible, they could not have done a better job. Any typical consumer walking into this store and seeing these demos would naturally assume, quite erroneously, that Blu-ray was a higher resolution format than HD-DVD.

We have visited over a dozen retail stores in the past month, including big chain stores like Best Buy, Fry's Electronics, Ultimate Electronics, Sears, and Tweeter. And with rare exceptions, the story is similar from store to store. Blu-ray is being featured as the premium solution, and HD-DVD is being downplayed as the cheaper and lower performance alternative. In some stores there is an active demo of Blu-ray, whereas there is none of HD-DVD. In others we found Blu-ray being demo'd on large native 1080p video displays, while HD-DVD was being shown on smaller 720p or lower resolution monitors. One store had Blu-ray on a beautiful 46" 1080p LCD flat panel monitor, and HD-DVD in a separate room on a 1080p DLP rear projection TV with ambient light problems. In only two of the stores we visited did we find both technologies being shown on similar 1080p video displays.

In addition to the favorable Blu-ray staging being done on retail floors, most of the sales reps we encountered were armed with a set of talking points. When we asked about the differences between Blu-ray and HD-DVD we got four stock answers:


1. Blu-ray is higher resolution 1080p, whereas HD-DVD is only 1080i.
2. Blu-ray has more storage capacity, so they can put more video on the disc.

3. Blu-ray is faster, so it can deliver a better picture.

4. Blu-ray has more Hollywood studio support, so you'll see more HD movies in Blu-ray than with HD-DVD.

That's a pretty compelling list of reasons to buy Blu-ray. It is hard to believe anyone would end up buying HD-DVD after a pitch like that. But let's take a look at each of these issues more closely.

1080i vs. 1080p

On our tour, one sales rep said pointedly, "The whole world is going 1080p; why would you lock yourself into something that was only 1080i?" It is tough for the typical consumer to argue with that since it makes perfect sense. As one of our readers said in a recent email, "Give me 1080p, 1080p !!! Nothing less will do."

Absolutely. We agree wholeheartedly. The newly emerging, cutting-edge video displays, both projectors and flat panels, are 1080p, or to put it more precisely, they have a physical pixel matrix of 1920x1080, and they are progressively scanned displays. To get the very best performance from these 1080p displays you need a 1080p source.

Contrary to popular misconceptions, HD-DVD and Blu-ray are both 1080p sources. As far as movies are concerned, both disc formats are scanned and encoded in 1080p from the original film. So why the confusion? It comes from the fact that the first HD-DVD player, the Toshiba HD-A1, outputs 1080i, while the first Blu-ray player, the Samsung BD-P1000, outputs both 1080i and 1080p. That sounds like a big deal, but in reality this is more of a marketing/perception problem for the Toshiba player than a technical limitation.

Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray have all of the progressively scanned 1080-lines per frame of information on the disc, and this information is not lost or compromised in 1080i transmission. The transmission interface is simply a matter of the order in which the scanlines are read and transmitted to the video display. If they are transmitted in 1080p, they are sent sequentially. If they are transmitted in 1080i, they are sent in two fields, with one containing the odd numbered lines and another the even numbered lines. These two fields are then reassembled into sequential frames by the video processor in the TV or projector. Either way you end up with the full 1080p frame being used to create the picture, so there is no difference in the end result.

What is not obvious to the consumer is that the Samsung player first converts the 1080p/24 information on the disc to 1080i/60. Once it is in that format, it can output it in either 1080i/60 if that is what the projector or TV takes, or it can convert it to 1080p/60 for output. The Toshiba HD-DVD player converts the 1080p/24 information on the disc to 1080i/60 and simply outputs it in this format. It is then converted to 1080p/60 in the video display. With either player, the signal passes through an interlaced state on its way from the disc to the screen.

Therefore, the 1080p output as implemented on the Samsung BD-P1000 is of no real value to the consumer in terms of enhanced picture quality. It is, however, of tremendous promotional value to Samsung and the Blu-ray group. The extra cost to add 1080p output onto the Samsung BD-P1000 pays handsome returns, because it inspires retail sales reps to say to their customers, "The reason you pay extra for Blu-ray is that it is 1080p, while HD-DVD is only 1080i" Or, as another rep told me last week, "The story is simple: Blu-ray is double the cost and double the resolution."

(By the way, I've never had any indication that comments like these are made with an intent to deceive customers. For the most part, the technologies are just new and there is simply a lot of genuine confusion. The better retailers will no doubt address these issues as time goes on.)

Now, an important side note is warranted. We are talking about the common form of 1080p in the NTSC world, which is 1080p/60. But another way to output the information is to simply transfer the data on the disc in its native 1080p/24 format without doing any conversion to 1080i/60 or 1080p/60. Contrary to what you might expect, 1080p/24 transmission actually can have some incremental benefit over 1080p/60. However, in order to take advantage of 1080p/24 output on the players, we will also need projectors and TVs that can recognize 1080p/24 signals and convert them to 48 or 72 Hz. The vast majority of HD compatible TVs and projectors that have been installed and are being sold today do not have 1080p/24 capability. However, they are beginning to appear in anticipation that Blu-ray and HD-DVD players will be able to output that particular signal format.

The advantage to 1080p/24 transmission is that it can eliminate artifacts associated with the 2:3 pulldown conversion that is common in the NTSC 60 Hz world. The disadvantage is that it adds cost to both the HD disc players and the video display products. Moreover, the vast majority of consumers are not bothered by, or even conscious of the artifacts that it is intended to eliminate anyway. For the most part, 2:3 pulldown conversion is invisible to the viewer except in certain types of scenes, and even then they would not be noticed at a normal viewing distance on most 40" to 50" televisions.

Nevertheless, for videophiles using larger screen systems, 1080p/24 transmission and processing will eliminate 2:3 pulldown artifacts that they can certainly be aware of and bothered by. So as TVs and projectors come onto the market that are able to accept a 1080p/24 signal, both HD-DVD and Blu-ray players will show up that are able to deliver it. In fact, the next wave of higher priced Blu-ray players to hit the market this fall should have 1080p/24 output as an option. A good percentage of the higher end videophile market will be motivated by 1080p/24 transmission, so HD-DVD will need to follow suit in a timely fashion.

Do Blu-ray discs have more storage capacity, and is it relevant?

The present myth is that Blu-ray discs hold 50 GB of data, and HD-DVDs hold 30 GB. The truth is that storage capacity on both formats is evolving. The issues are how many layers can be encoded on a single surface, and whether one or two sides of the disc can be brought into practical use.

Blu-ray stores more information in a single layer than does HD-DVD, the difference being 25 GB for Blu-ray vs. 15 GB on HD-DVD. However, at the moment, Blu-ray can only produce single-layer discs. So the total storage capacity on all Blu-ray discs that have been brought to market thus far is 25 GB. Meanwhile, from the outset HD-DVD has been delivering dual-layer discs that hold a total of 30 GB on a single side of the disc. In addition, HD-DVD can presently encode dual-layer information on both sides of the disc, for a total of 60 GB per disc. Dual-sided encoding has been used so far in HD-DVD "combo" discs to put the HD version of a movie on one side, and the standard def version on the other. But both sides of the disc can be encoded in HD if the space is needed. So as of this writing, HD-DVD is capable of delivering 60 GB of storage on a two-sided disc compared to Blu-ray's 25 GB single-side, single-layer limit.

This of course is not the end of the story. The Blu-ray folks claim that they will begin to deliver dual-layer 50 GB Blu-ray discs by the end of the year. This may or may not happen. One cannot be faulted for some skepticism, since Blu-ray was supposed to be delivering dual-layer discs long before now. But if they do, then at the end of the year Blu-ray will have 50 GB of storage on a single-sided disc, and HD-DVD will have 60 GB on a dual-sided disc, with 30 GB on each side.

Beyond this, there are the futures being touted by both groups. The HD-DVD group has already developed but not yet released a triple-layer encoding capability that disc replicators have certified as good to go for mass production. This would boost HD-DVD capacity to 45 GB per side, for a total of 90 GB per disc. Not to be outdone, Blu-ray claims that it will one day deliver four-layer encoding capability for a total of 100 GB on a single side, and possibly even an eight-layer disc with 200 GB.

The question for the consumer is: Why should I care? How much storage is required to deliver an HD 1080p movie? Those who are enthused by the potential 50 GB limit of Blu-ray over the actual 30 GB capacity of HD-DVD are arguing that 30 GB is not sufficient to encode full length films in 1080p, and have space left over for all the special features that consumers enjoy.

If 30 GB of storage per side of the disc represented a practical limitation on quality, run time, or special features, we would be concerned too. But with the newer and much more efficient video codecs VC-1 and MPEG-4, as well as the advanced HD audio codecs, there is really no problem here. What we need is enough storage to hold a full length movie in 1080p/24 resolution, and to deliver it to the screen without noticeable compression artifacts. Once that is achieved, we could double or quadruple the storage space available with no perceptible change in quality, because storage is no longer a limiting factor.

Practically speaking, what the home theater market needs is a disc that can deliver superb high definition video at run times longer than most people would want to sit in a chair without moving. In our experience, that is usually about three hours. The large majority of films ever made do not run anywhere near that long. But there are some that can run up to four hours. One of them is Lawrence of Arabia which I screened a while back with some friends. That movie comes on two DVDs. When it came time to switch discs, everyone leapt from their chairs, grateful for the intermission break. In reality, people rarely want to sit for four hours straight.

Currently Blu-ray is using the inefficient MPEG-2 video codec, which compared to the advanced codecs takes up a lot of storage space. Blu-ray is also using uncompressed PCM audio on many of its discs. The audio quality is superb, but uncompressed PCM chews up a lot of storage as well. Despite these inefficiencies Blu-ray is still delivering 1080p movies that run over two hours on 25 GB discs.

HD-DVD is currently shipping 30GB/side discs. But more importantly they are providing authoring tools for VC-1 and MPEG-4, and the HD audio codecs Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby TrueHD, and DTS-HD. With the incremental storage space and much better technical efficiency, one can achieve run times of four hours or more on a single-sided HD-DVD. In addition, since HD-DVDs can be encoded on both sides of the disc, studios can put a movie on one side and an extensive collection of HD special features on the other if the extra space was needed.

Is Blu-ray faster, and is it relevant?

On our retail tour, several of the sales reps we met said that Blu-ray has a higher bit rate, and the ability to read and transfer data more rapidly makes it a better solution for high quality video. They are correct that maximum bit rates on Blu-ray are higher than HD-DVD. The maximum bit rate on HD-DVD is 36.55 million bits per second, whereas it is 54 Mbps on Blu-ray. To people reading the spec sheets that sounds like a big technical advantage for Blu-ray. And in theory, the more data you can move and process in a given period of time, the better the picture and sound will be.

However, this is true only to a point. Given the fixed limitations of other elements in the video system like film size, 1080p scans, and 24 frame per second film exposure rates, one cannot simply continue to increase bit rates and gain ever-increasing picture quality. Eventually you get to the point where the limits of the source and the displays are reached, and further increases in bit rates become irrelevant. And as far as 1080p/24 video material with the advanced codecs is concerned, if that point has already been reached with a maximum 36.55 Mbps bit rate, then incremental bit rates beyond that will not contribute to perceptible increases in image quality.

So how fast is fast enough? Transfer rates on standard DVD average about 5 Mbps and max out at 9 Mbps. Standard HDTV broadcast is at 19.4 Mbps. Clearly in the range of performance defined by DVD and HDTV as encoded in MPEG-2, more data and higher bit rates produce better images. Today's HDTV broadcasts on high resolution video displays look extremely good, and certainly they are head and shoulders above DVD.

Now, HD-DVD's maximum bit rate of 36.55 Mbps is about double that of broadcast HDTV. That by itself is enough to enable it to deliver spectacular picture and sound, the likes of which we have not yet experienced. But on top of HD-DVD's virtual doubling of HDTV's bit rate, there is the huge kicker in performance that is derived from the advanced codecs: HD-DVDs being made today are in VC-1 and MPEG-4, whereas HDTV is in MPEG-2, so with HD-DVD a lot less data needs to be read and transferred in order to deliver a magnificent HD picture. HD-DVD can run circles around HDTV even when loping along at bit rates far below those of HDTV's 19.4 Mbps.

Therefore, as with the storage issue, HD-DVD's maximum bit rate of 36.55 Mbps is not likely to be a limiting factor in the quality of the home theater experience, at least as far as 1080p/24 film transfers are concerned. Many other factors have as much or more influence in setting the limits of picture quality including the physical limitation of film size, the condition and restoration of the film, the 24 frame-per-second exposure rate, the 1080-line scan format, the precision of the advanced codecs, and the non-transparency of today's 1080-line digital video displays. These limitations are equally inherent in both HD-DVD and Blu-ray. It is for these reasons that we maintain that once HD-DVD and Blu-ray are delivering their maximum potential (and neither one is there yet), the consumer will notice no difference between the two in terms of image and sound quality.

Yet, rather than debating the merits of the technical specifications to determine whether Blu-ray or HD-DVD is the better value, we'd be a lot better off if consumers could simply be allowed to see these two technologies side by side on identical 1080p flat panel monitors with comparable source material. This is ultimately where many retailers are failing the public. They have the opportunity to help consumers get a real feel for the differences, or lack thereof, between HD-DVD and Blu-ray. But instead, many of them are staging skewed demos to upsell the customer to the higher priced product.

They cannot be blamed for this. After all, the retailer's primary objective is to maximize profit and revenue per square foot, not educate the public. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that consumers are not able to see the merits of these two impressive technologies in demos that show them both side by side on an equal footing.

But on second thought, even that might not make a difference. In one remarkable retail store we found both HD-DVD and Blu-ray being demo'd on equivalent 1080p flat panel monitors. The Blu-ray demo was playing a movie and the HD-DVD was running a loop from the DVD Forum demonstration disc that had been taken with a 1080p video camera. As anyone would guess, the HD-DVD picture was smoking the Blu-ray due to the higher quality source. I asked the sales rep, "Correct me if I am wrong, but the picture on this HD-DVD actually looks better than the Blu-ray, wouldn't you agree?" He said, "No it isn't. It can't be, because it is only 1080i. The other one is 1080p." In the strange world of video marketing, specs trump the picture before your eyes.

Blu-ray has more studio support

The last pitch that we heard frequently on our retail tour is that we should buy Blu-ray because Blu-ray is supported by all of the major studios except one. While this is certainly true, the statement is intended to give the impression that there won't be much to watch if you buy into HD-DVD, and that is false.

It is true that only one major studio has refused to support Blu-ray. But that one is Universal Studios, a company with an extensive film library that includes popular titles like King Kong, Gladiator, U-571, A Beautiful Mind, Jurrasic Park, Jaws, E.T., Schindler's List, Scarface, The Bourne Identity, Back to the Future, The Mummy, American Pie, The Fast and the Furious, Seabiscuit, Love Actually, Munich, Apollo 13, Scent of a Woman, Casino, Field of Dreams, Bridget Jones' Diary, and hundreds of others. As things stand now, these and all Universal titles will be released exclusively in HD-DVD.

Now, there are several major studios that currently plan to release their titles exclusively in Blu-ray, including Sony Pictures, MGM, 20th Century Fox, and Lions Gate. Movies from these studios include the Rocky films, the James Bond films, the Star Wars films, Charlie's Angels, The Patriot, The Mask of Zorro, The DaVinci Code, Spiderman, Legends of the Fall, Sleepless in Seattle, Black Hawk Down, Men in Black, A Few Good Men, Basic Instinct, Jerry Maguire, The Terminator, The Fifth Element, Dirty Dancing, Reservoir Dogs, Moulin Rouge, Minority Report, Fight Club, Never Been Kissed, Edward Scissorhands, Patton, Rocky Horror Picture Show, and of course many hundreds more.

However, in addition to the movies that are exclusively in one format or the other, there are many that will be released in both formats. That is because HD-DVD and Blu-ray both have the support of the studio giants Paramount and Warner Bros, as well as the strategically important HBO Films and, notably, New Line Cinema, a studio widely recognized as a leader in the delivery of high quality DVD transfers.

Titles from these studios that we can expect to be released in both HD-DVD and Blu-ray include the Batman films, the Matrix films, the Star Trek films, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the Austin Powers films, the Band of Brothers mini-series, the Mission: Impossible series, Indiana Jones, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Beverly Hills Cop, Forrest Gump, Ocean's Eleven, The NeverEnding Story, Goodfellas, Caddyshack, 48 Hours, the Lethal Weapon films, Driving Miss Daisy, Officer and a Gentleman, Terms of Endearment, Ferris Bueller's Day off, Trading Places, Wedding Crashers, Dumb and Dumber, Rush Hour, Se7en, and many hundreds of others.

The bottom line is that the consumer need not be worried about having enough to see in HD-DVD. At the moment, there are more HD-DVD titles than Blu-ray either available or about to become available. Therefore, when someone tells you that you need to buy the more expensive Blu-ray player because all of the major Hollywood studios support it except one, be on your guard. You are being told the truth, but it is not the whole truth.

So--what is the consumer to do?

This format war is not about image quality or the best technology. It is a struggle for money, power, and market share among the Hollywood studios and major consumer electronics firms. We as consumers have been dealt a hand, and it is up to us to play it to our advantage.

We have several options. First, we can do nothing and sit on the sidelines. That is certainly a reasonable choice for a lot of people who are not that motivated to get into the viewing of films in high definition. It will be years before most of the titles just mentioned above actually appear in either HD-DVD or Blu-ray. And not only that, the price of the HD-DVD and Blu-ray players will come down significantly as time goes on. Today's $1000 Blu-ray player is likely to cost $200 three years from now. So what is the rush?

Of course, the early adopters and videophiles are not going to sit by and miss out on the grand experience of HD video and HD audio now that it is available. For these folks, there are three choices?buy HD-DVD, buy Blu-ray, or for those with unlimited funds, buy both.

For those who want to get the maximum bang for the buck, one practical strategy may be this: buy HD-DVD today, and plan to buy Blu-ray in another year or two when the prices have collapsed and more titles are on the market. By doing so you will end up spending less for both technologies than you would by spending $1000 just for Blu-ray today. At this writing, Amazon is selling the Toshiba HD-A1 HD-DVD player for $450, with free shipping included (click here for current price). That is a manageable investment for most home theater enthusiasts. It lets you step into the world of HD today with a minimum outlay of cash, with an open option to pick up Blu-ray when it becomes a better value proposition.

There are several benefits to this approach. First, there are more HD-DVDs to choose from at the moment. Second, you can play all of your standard DVDs in upscaled 1080i format with digital output. If your current player does not have these features, regular DVDs are likely to look better than they do on the player you currently have.

Another advantage is that the HD-DVDs that have been released so far are generally superior to the current crop of Blu-ray discs due to the use of VC-1 and MPEG-4. In addition, all of the HD-DVDs have high definition audio tracks on them. Many of the Blu-ray discs have uncompressed PCM, which certainly delivers excellent audio quality. But about a third of them have no advanced audio capability. For example, Warner Bros.' HD-DVD release of Training Day is in VC-1, and it includes Dolby Digital-Plus and Dolby TrueHD, whereas its Blu-ray edition of Training Day is in MPEG-2 and has only standard Dolby Digital. Early adopters and videophiles will prefer the HD-DVD as the collectible edition of this movie.

On the other hand, if you have more money available and want to upgrade your projector or TV to a unit that can recognize a 1080p/24 signal, then you might want to choose one of the new Blu-ray players to be released this fall from Pioneer, Panasonic, or Sony (make sure to verify the final specs upon release). The advantage is that you'll be the first on your block to have a full 1080p/24 system in operation. The downsides are (a) you will pay a lot more than your neighbor with the HD-DVD rig, (b) many of the current Blu-ray discs being released are not quite what they should be in terms of video and/or audio quality, and (C) you are betting that Blu-ray will get its fundamental problems worked out in a timely fashion. However, if and when we begin to see 50GB dual-layer Blu-ray discs in production, many of the current quality issues stemming from the use of MPEG-2 with a 25GB limit should be mitigated.

Overall, we would like to see both HD-DVD and Blu-ray survive and thrive. There is plenty of room for both of them in the marketplace, and there is no reason for either one to monopolize it. Currently HD-DVD has its act together and is delivering tremendous value at prices most consumers can easily afford. It is a shame that retailers are not more motivated to show HD-DVD to the public in its best light. But if Blu-ray gets high performance players with 1080p/24 output to market before HD-DVD does, and if it gets its quality problems resolved, then it will be offering a real value proposition to videophiles that would justify its existence as well.

The major studios have always been happy to release their movies on DVD in both Widescreen and Full Screen editions to accomodate the consumer's TV and viewing preference. There is no reason that all studios, once the two formats are firmly established, could not ultimately follow the lead of Warner, Paramount, and New Line Cinema by releasing their films in both HD-DVD and Blu-ray for the same consumer-friendly reasons.

Ultimately, a vigorous competition between the formats will hasten the collapse of HD player prices, and bring consumers closer to the day when both technologies are available at nominal cost. Keep in mind the rapid collapse of pricing in progressive scan DVD players over the last five years. Today's $150 DVD player will outperform players that cost $1000 five years ago. We can expect to see the same price erosion in the HD player market going forward. Once HD-DVD and Blu-ray players are widely available for $200, it won't matter which technologies the studios decide to support. The consumer will have won the war.

string, pls fix the link

either way, its gonna be expensive

The Retailing of HD-DVD and Blu-ray

This serves as a very good read for those on the fence on which format to go for, and how to approach the next-gen format war with caution. This also serves as a good readup article for both the Xbox 360 camp and the PS3 camp, since there have been clamorings on which high-definition format they should go for, the HD-DVD on the Xbox 360 or the Blu-ray on the PS3.

All credit, hardwork and detailed explanation goes to Evan Powell of ProjectorCentral.

Currently Blu-ray is using the inefficient MPEG-2 video codec, which compared to the advanced codecs takes up a lot of storage space. Blu-ray is also using uncompressed PCM audio on many of its discs. The audio quality is superb, but uncompressed PCM chews up a lot of storage as well. Despite these inefficiencies Blu-ray is still delivering 1080p movies that run over two hours on 25 GB discs.

But on second thought, even that might not make a difference. In one remarkable retail store we found both HD-DVD and Blu-ray being demo'd on equivalent 1080p flat panel monitors. The Blu-ray demo was playing a movie and the HD-DVD was running a loop from the DVD Forum demonstration disc that had been taken with a 1080p video camera. As anyone would guess, the HD-DVD picture was smoking the Blu-ray due to the higher quality source. I asked the sales rep, "Correct me if I am wrong, but the picture on this HD-DVD actually looks better than the Blu-ray, wouldn't you agree?" He said, "No it isn't. It can't be, because it is only 1080i. The other one is 1080p." In the strange world of video marketing, specs trump the picture before your eyes.

Blu-ray has more studio support

so hd-dvd won't have problem with 15GB storage since they using vc-1 and dolby digital. and i don't think sony would use vc-1 unless the existence of BD depends on it, coz they would have to pay to MS.

Well see how easily DVD Player's got cheap with brandless product's & can even decode DTS. I can only say, the more cheaper it get's the less fussier we are. So I assume Someone's alredy on the job of cloning both HD-DVD & BD-Player ROM"s. LoL

Hmm..why go for next-gen storage systems when DVD dual layer, dual sided is more than enough? Come to think of it, I never seen a dual layer dial sided DVD being used a lot.. Dual sided dual layer can go up to 19GB if I'm not mistaken.

Sigh, I wish there's only 1 format, like the DVD. No need to choose either HDDVD or BluRay.

If you have personally experience it then u'll know why String is going crazy collecting BD/HD-DVDs. I have experienced it myself but only with BD right now. Imagine playing a super-farking-clear movie with Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound in ur own room

Hmm..why go for next-gen storage systems when DVD dual layer, dual sided is more than enough? Come to think of it, I never seen a dual layer dial sided DVD being used a lot.. Dual sided dual layer can go up to 19GB if I'm not mistaken.

Sigh, I wish there's only 1 format, like the DVD. No need to choose either HDDVD or BluRay.

Now, an important side note is warranted. We are talking about the common form of 1080p in the NTSC world, which is 1080p/60. But another way to output the information is to simply transfer the data on the disc in its native 1080p/24 format without doing any conversion to 1080i/60 or 1080p/60. Contrary to what you might expect, 1080p/24 transmission actually can have some incremental benefit over 1080p/60. However, in order to take advantage of 1080p/24 output on the players, we will also need projectors and TVs that can recognize 1080p/24 signals and convert them to 48 or 72 Hz. The vast majority of HD compatible TVs and projectors that have been installed and are being sold today do not have 1080p/24 capability. However, they are beginning to appear in anticipation that Blu-ray and HD-DVD players will be able to output that particular signal format.

The advantage to 1080p/24 transmission is that it can eliminate artifacts associated with the 2:3 pulldown conversion that is common in the NTSC 60 Hz world. The disadvantage is that it adds cost to both the HD disc players and the video display products. Moreover, the vast majority of consumers are not bothered by, or even conscious of the artifacts that it is intended to eliminate anyway. For the most part, 2:3 pulldown conversion is invisible to the viewer except in certain types of scenes, and even then they would not be noticed at a normal viewing distance on most 40" to 50" televisions.

Nevertheless, for videophiles using larger screen systems, 1080p/24 transmission and processing will eliminate 2:3 pulldown artifacts that they can certainly be aware of and bothered by. So as TVs and projectors come onto the market that are able to accept a 1080p/24 signal, both HD-DVD and Blu-ray players will show up that are able to deliver it. In fact, the next wave of higher priced Blu-ray players to hit the market this fall should have 1080p/24 output as an option. A good percentage of the higher end videophile market will be motivated by 1080p/24 transmission, so HD-DVD will need to follow suit in a timely fashion.

This might be off topic, but I hope someone here can englighten me.

I know Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS are too different audio format in DVD.

Almost all the original DVD that you can find in Speedy (either local released or imported ) or www.buy.com, all the new released titles only have DD 5.1 .
There are only few that special edition titles that have DTS.

And almost all the pirated DVD in malaysia that has both DD 5.1 and DTS.

My question is, who encodes the DTS into these pirated DVDs?
The original studio or the pirated industry?
if the formal one, why I can't find any original title that has DTS version?
if the latter, how they get the audio track that the original version not even exist? And is the DTS in these DVDs really a true DTS?

I know DD5.1 and DTS are not much different.
But it bugging me that my original DVDs only have DD5.1 and those pirated DVDs out there have both.

Anyone experience an adult movie in High Definition...must be jaw dropping..kick ass..experience i guess...to good to be true....sorry..of the topic a bit....

The pirate copies tat u get is Region 1 copies with full goodies, where as the Speedy ones are Region 3, minus all the goodies.

The DTS differs not much from DD5.1. Perhaps the most significant difference between them is the CENTER channel normalization practised by DD but no DTS. So when u have really soft dialogues movies, switching to DTS will help. The dynamic range also differs, but not much as impactful.

Where does the DTS version come from then?

The winner would be the first company to put out a region-free dual-format player

(Dun let them fool you. BD and HD-DVD are still region-protected).

But for a movie buff, this is definitely worth it IMO. And if you don't have an XBOX 360 yet, get one.

Blu-ray has more studio support
this is indeed true.

so hd-dvd won't have problem with 15GB storage since they using vc-1 and dolby digital. and i don't think sony would use vc-1 unless the existence of BD depends on it, coz they would have to pay to MS.

If you have personally experience it then u'll know why String is going crazy collecting BD/HD-DVDs. I have experienced it myself but only with BD right now. Imagine playing a super-farking-clear movie with Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound in ur own room

Hmm..why go for next-gen storage systems when DVD dual layer, dual sided is more than enough? Come to think of it, I never seen a dual layer dial sided DVD being used a lot.. Dual sided dual layer can go up to 19GB if I'm not mistaken.

Sigh, I wish there's only 1 format, like the DVD. No need to choose either HDDVD or BluRay.

Those pasar malam's DVD's DTS tracks are fake one
Jack sparrow just re-encode it from the existing DD5.1 track, some even is from 2.0 track
So it's not the real DTS you're hearing, it's just re-encoded DD5.1 with higher volume.

Some ori DVDs has real DTS, especially those special edition or the so called DTS edition. 
Most of the hollywood studio's movie DVD are release in DD5.1 only, only a selected fews are encoded with DTS.  Even my LOTR:EE trilogy also are in DD5.1 only.  Anyway, DTS DVDs are easily found in playasia or yesasia

I haven't seen the price of BR movies yet, but so far what I seen is the price of HD-DVD movies are the same with normal DVD movies.  So it's still quite affordable.  Wonder when Georgie will release a HD version of Starwars: Complete Saga. Woot!!

Hey Necromancer, so which did you choose ?

Will probably choose the Toshiba HD-DVD one. Tunggu budget kuar, then order.

Well see how easily DVD Player's got cheap with brandless product's & can even decode DTS. I can only say, the more cheaper it get's the less fussier we are. So I assume Someone's alredy on the job of cloning both HD-DVD & BD-Player ROM"s. LoL

Just drop by any hypermart like Carrefour, Tesco or Giant, you can see all sort of chapalang brand DVD players with 5.1 output (consist of 6 outputs) selling for only RM100++ only.
My cheap Philips DVD player also got it

Err..decode DTS and DD5.1? I think most DVD player's only SUPPORT DTS and DD5.1 by passing the signal via optical/coaxial out to your receiver to decode. heck, i don't think even my SONY DVD player can decode it.

If you can find a DVD player that has 6 to 8 analog out, then *MAYBE* it can decode the DTS and DD5.1 and send it out.

Correct me if i'm wrong.
As for the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, is there even original disc in these format available here?

Anyway, it don't matter to me...can't afford a 1080p Full Definition screen anyway...

But i think SONY got chance to win this war...already 0.5 million PS3 in homes, if they can sell about 5 million ps3, then the war might as well be over. But i've got a good feeling SONY will lose the video game war, eventhough they *MIGHT* win the format war.

WII is outselling PS3 3 to 1 in US.....Go WII!!!

Yes, there are local distibutors for HD DVDs and BDs. The local shops don't stock them though so you need to order through them. You don't need a 1080p display to enjoy HD DVD or BD, you can clearly see the difference compared to normal DVD even on 720p displays.

Sony will win the war because they will sell XXX number of PS3? What talking you? First and foremost they are a gaming console and at the moment only a small percentage of PS3 owners buy BD movies so the number of PS3 sold shouldn't be use as an indication of how successful BD will be. What really counts is the number of medias that are being sold. Then again, there's quite a number of people on the AV forums buying the PS3 for the BD player

hey dudes,

ive been reading a lot about HDDVD and Bluray recently. Trying to figure out which one to opt for in the near future. I was planning to start with Bluray but ive read online that the PS3 has problems downscaling Bluray movies to 720p. This is just one of the sources: http://www.techimo.com/newsapp/i17529.html ]. Direct from the link:

 
Instead of scaling output for 720p displays, Ars Technica reports the PlayStation 3 will automatically downscale Blu-ray movies encoded at 1080i or 1080p to a rather disappointing 480p for displays lacking 1080 support.

Alas, if you don't have a set that does 1080i or 1080p, you're going to be forced into 480p which is far less impressive. PS3's lack of a scaler bites it again. 720p output is not available on the titles we tested

Of course that news is a month old. But does anyone here have that problem? Or has it been fixed with firmware updates. I searched but i couldnt find anything about it. Anyone can confirm this ?

Yeah, PS3 owners might not be running to the shops to buy Blu-Ray, but if there's millions of them out there before HD-DVD, movie studios will definitely be favoring the Blu-Ray platform. You can't ignore millions of potential buyers who already have the hardware ready.

Threadstarter: Sorry for being slightly, off topic, but it's not totally off topic.  Firstly, i don't believe in God and secondly, i hate cats. So, no love lost. Cheers.

I heard that from the game persepctive but not the movies. If it does do that, then those who bought their TVs with mainly 720p support will be screwed. Those who got their HDTVs recently will definitely have 1080i support, and those who used LCD TVs and PC monitors are definitely safe since 1080i are supported.
Keep up with the times, please. If you do hang out at home theatre related forums, there are more HD-DVD enthusiasts than Bluray, even though you have close to a million PS3s sold which would work as a potential Bluray player. PS3 was purchased first and foremost as a gaming console, and the thoughts of having it as a Bluray player is secondary at best.

Yes, it's totally off-topic, we are discussing HD-DVDs and Bluray, not DVDs. We are not talking anything close about Wii selling 3 times over PS3, those are fodders for console war zealots, and i dont want this thread to get any messier.

Going back to topic, there are already clamoring for more space from the HD-DVD camp, in anticipation of the LOTR Extended Edition movies. New Line is known for keeping the highest video quality with feature-packed release for the LOTR releases, but with only 30Gb storage capacity on the current HD-DVD disc, they may even have to split the movie disc and feature discs as how DVD release for these titles are treated. Meaning, no U-Control or In-Movie-Experience together with the movie, since the features and extras are separated onto another disc. If they do plan to combine the Extended movie and features together, video and audio bitrate will suffer, and we wont be seeing any inclusion of DTS HD Master Audio, or Dolby TrueHD lossless feed, and the video bitrate will suffer. Any video bitrate below 10Mbps, will not be a true indicator of what HD, that would be more towards a Superbit DVD release. As the day approaches towards the LOTR HD-DVD release, we shall know what compromises (if any) has been done to fit a 3hr++ movie onto 30Gb HD-DVD disc. Space is defitinely the problem here, and Blu-ray has that advantage with their already released BD50 50Gb Blu-ray titles, and studios in the Blu-ray camp are already starting to embrace the VC-1 video codec(as opposed to MPEG2 codec) to save more space for BR-J and Blu-Wizard( the U-Control and In-Movie-Experience version for Bluray)  features in their presentation.

Sony will win the war because they will sell XXX number of PS3? What talking you? First and foremost they are a gaming console and at the moment only a small percentage of PS3 owners buy BD movies so the number of PS3 sold shouldn't be use as an indication of how successful BD will be. What really counts is the number of medias that are being sold. Then again, there's quite a number of people on the AV forums buying the PS3 for the BD player

keep in mind that HD DVD titles sold at Amazon still beating BD titles sales even after the sale of more than 1mil PS3 

Yeah, PS3 owners might not be running to the shops to buy Blu-Ray, but if there's millions of them out there before HD-DVD, movie studios will definitely be favoring the Blu-Ray platform. You can't ignore millions of potential buyers who already have the hardware ready.

Threadstarter: Sorry for being slightly, off topic, but it's not totally off topic.  Firstly, i don't believe in God and secondly, i hate cats. So, no love lost. Cheers.

Thanks again for the lesson, and the condescending tone that comes free with it, G5sim.

The reason why i posted the LOTR dilemma was the policy New Line took with producing these titles. They spare no expense, and therefore went all out with including all the extras and infusing all the audio/video nicecities onto these titles. So taking that as the cue, you would think New Line would use higher video bitrate from the present bitrates encoded into current HD-DVD titles, which hovers around 11-16MBps. Increasing video bitrates means taking chunks away from total storage memory available, which is already precious commodity not readily available on a 30Gb HD-DVD compared to Bluray's 50Gb. I agree Bluray could be more prudent with adding lossy codecs to save space further , compared to the lossless PCMs, but if you have heard how the lossless audio sounds on a well-equipped HT setup, you will agree where that huge space went to, it went to an amazing audio experience. There arent any real-world Dolby TrueHD or DTS HD Master Audio hardware decoders in commercially available AV receivers in the market at the moment, so coding it to that format only provides the advantage of saving space with compromises in audio quality, while waiting for real-world hardware decoders to come into the picture.

That's the issue i was raising, and not siding on any camp. New Line has shown more interest in the HD-DVD camp than Bluray, although they have not taking serious side on any particular camp. This provides ample opportunity for both camps to present their best way to fit the entire LOTR Extended titles into the best possible configuration that both sides have to offer. That is why i brought the issue up. I dont give a rat's arse which camp wins, i have both of em in my setup, and im impressed with both of em.

more than 1 mil ps3s?

aik..

Again, i dont give a fcuk which camp wins. The LOTR scenario gives the best possible case of why space is important. I dont want either format to die. To side with either one, is like championing your fanboyism on one format over the other. Id rather gave the best from both camps. Portraying your fanboyish allegiance in public is like forgetting to zip up your fly with your penis hanging out for all to see.

some has suggested that Peter Jackson has power on the releases of his titles. And as he is now 'kawan baik" Bill gates .. you imagine lah ...  .. so it must has more to do with Jackson than New Line.

and as for the PCM versus TrueHD/DTS-HD MAster. All are lossless tracks. TrueHD/DTS-HD Master are the newer and more eficient codes. Some even argue that PCM is not a true 'lossless'. I am wondering why a 'new' format like BD would want to use ancient and less eficient codecs such as PCM and MPEG2. Everything about BD is new, more superior. So why apply something from the Melinda Gordon' store  .

one more thing .. Blu-ray drive has reached LOWYAT. Compuzone is selling the Panasonic BD bare drive at RM2999. .. and people are getting the PC supported HD DVD add on for RM730 from Japan! When the BD camp people manage to get the price down to RM1,000, the HD DVD drives would be selling at RM219. Another reason for MS to throw its support to HD DVD.

Your LOTR scenario is far from the common case. Optimize for the common case, that has been the rule which has driven the industry forward. When you overengineer, what you get is... the PS3. It's late, overpriced, and not really revolutionary after all (fanboys may beg to differ).

A single format would be good for everyone. No need to worry about whether their equipment will be able to read this or that, or buy two different setups just to play their movies. Reduces manufacturing costs since there will be more volume. There is nothing wrong with saying one is better than the other based on its merits, provided you have something to back it up with.

In this case, i think it's quite clear which format would be the best for the consumer, especially one without too deep a pocket. Not picking a side is like forgetting to zip your fly with nothing to show for it even.

There is nothing wrong with picking side, as long as one recognizes the merits of the other options available. What's sad is the overzealous attempts of the fanboyish few to glorify and idolize every little supposed advantages, while nitpicking the minute flaws and blowing it out of proportion.

Picking a side overzealously and prematurely  is like furiously zipping up your fly when you realise your penis is hanging outside its cage, and prematurely zipping your member into the zipper track. Yeouch!

Dont like the PS3? Hey its a free country , spew all you want. But gimme PS3 ANYTIME over that stagnating cesspool you call PC gaming.

Check, your move.

i have a tiny d*** and even tinier balls, so the chances of me zipping my penis or balls would not be that huge 

i state what is best for consumers. PS3 is late and overpriced, less software. What does that translate for consumers. The BD PC drive is $2999 while the HD DVD "PC drive" is $730. Both are doing the same thing. Both display the maximum 1080p. Both do lossless tracks. Again, why would consumers pay double for a product when they are doing the same thing!

Why? LOTR of course! It is after all THE single most important factor in any purchase. The attraction of the ring is too strong. One rootkit to rule them all.

A cynic is a person searching for an honest man, with a stolen lantern.- Edgar A. Shoaff

A cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. - Oscar Wilde

LOTR is one OF the most important release to watch out for, due to its unique nature, of length and content. Couple that with the studio that bar no expense on quality when it comes to these titles, that's why it is important. We can all be cynics, but it doesnt earn anyone any longer e-penises. 

And oh, i dont think you need to deal with rootkits on consumer players, those are specially made for you "PC people" . Consoles FTW anyone?

Simply put like this lah, those who love to speculate like aunties coming back from wet market after buying fish and vegetables, stay and the sideline and spectate. Those who wanna experience what already available, consider all your options. Nobody said being early adopters going to be cheap. There are those willing to take the plunge early, and there are those who b****es and moans and speculates while they wait for their "justification" price level. It's either you play it boringly safe, or live life on the edge. Nothing wrong with both of them.

i have a tiny d*** and even tinier balls, so the chances of me zipping my penis or balls would not be that huge 

i state what is best for consumers. PS3 is late and overpriced, less software. What does that translate for consumers. The BD PC drive is $2999 while the HD DVD "PC drive" is $730. Both are doing the same thing. Both display the maximum 1080p. Both do lossless tracks. Again, why would consumers pay double for a product when they are doing the same thing!

LOTR is one OF the most important release to watch out for, due to its unique nature, of length and content. Couple that with the studio that bar no expense on quality when it comes to these titles, that's why it is important. We can all be cynics, but it doesnt earn anyone any longer e-penises. 

And oh, i dont think you need to deal with rootkits on consumer players, those are specially made for you "PC people" . Consoles FTW anyone?

Simply put like this lah, those who love to speculate like aunties coming back from wet market after buying fish and vegetables, stay and the sideline and spectate. Those who wanna experience what already available, consider all your options. Nobody said being early adopters going to be cheap. There are those willing to take the plunge early, and there are those who b****es and moans and speculates while they wait for their "justification" price level. It's either you play it boringly safe, or live life on the edge. Nothing wrong with both of them.

the ps3 is overpriced?
how cheap do you want it to be?

$600 and comes with a blu ray player, how can that be overpriced ?