Blu-ray versus HD DVD

[F9zDark]

Yeah, no kidding. Seems alot like Blu-ray. I guess thats fitting.

And how is Blu-Ray stupid? Its a better format, period!

The people en mass are stupid quip refers to how people, while in large groups, become very uneducated and make poor choices. This will be the reason Blu-Ray might lose later.

Personally I'd rather shell out 800 bucks and get what I know is the best of the best than 200 bucks and get some mediocre $#@!.

[ketchup]

And how is Blu-Ray stupid? Its a better format, period!

In your EXPERT opinion? Expertise gained from where? The internet? What authority are you on this matter? Throwing your opinion about doesn't make you right, (or necessarily wrong either).

The people en mass are stupid quip refers to how people, while in large groups, become very uneducated and make poor choices. This will be the reason Blu-Ray might lose later.

Including yourself maybe? How do you lose your education by the way? Kinda hard to do. Make poor choices, sure.

Personally I'd rather shell out 800 bucks and get what I know is the best of the best than 200 bucks and get some mediocre $#@!.

IYO, of course it's your money.

Do I smell burning?

[Cloudhunter]

I personally think BR is better. The increased data capacity just sends it ahead of the rest.

Of course, we also have to look at it in terms of 360 vs. PS3.

PS3 includes playing functions built in, whereas you need to buy an adapter for the 360.

Cloudy

[F9zDark]

In your EXPERT opinion? Expertise gained from where? The internet? What authority are you on this matter? Throwing your opinion about doesn't make you right, (or necessarily wrong either).

The data capacity alone of Blu-Ray makes it a better format.

Including yourself maybe? How do you lose your education by the way? Kinda hard to do. Make poor choices, sure.

I haven't lost my education, but as history and society will tell you, on numerous, numerous accounts, humans in groups are far more unintelligent than the individual. Hell look at mainstream religion for proof of this fact!

Lets look at computers for instance. Back in the late 80s early 90s you could buy a computer that had at most 512kb HDD. Now we can buy computers with 1tb HDD. Why is that? Because:

-Human beings and computer applications are becoming increasingly space hungry.
-Computers haven't really had to deal with 'format wars' per se; just pure advancement for the better of everyone.

Blu-Ray supports more data per disc than HD-DVD, which will make it an immediate winner within computer circles. Blu-Ray is necessary for the betterment of optical media...

[Shadowblind]

I personally think BR is better. The increased data capacity just sends it ahead of the rest.

Of course, we also have to look at it in terms of 360 vs. PS3.

PS3 includes playing functions built in, whereas you need to buy an adapter for the 360.

Cloudy

Do we need better storage capacity? As far as I can tell(or care, for that matter.), even DVDs hold all they need to.

So far I;ve heard no gimmicks, no bribes or anything to make HD-DVD win. I don't support Blu-Ray because they fight dirty, not because Sony made it.

PS3 includes playing functions built in, whereas you need to buy an adapter for the 360.

Hence, $600.

Cloudy

Sorry, lol, I've just always wondered why people do that

[F9zDark]

Do we need better storage capacity? As far as I can tell(or care, for that matter.), even DVDs hold all they need to.

So far I;ve heard no gimmicks, no bribes or anything to make HD-DVD win. I don't support Blu-Ray because they fight dirty, not because Sony made it.

DVDs hold all they need to; NOW. The same argument was used when CDs first hit the PC scene. Floppy disks held everything anyone ever needed; look how that turned out...

And how does Blu-Ray fight dirty? Entertain me.

In fact, this is a ludicrous claim. Microsoft, the major supporter of HD-DVD hasn't ever played it fair. The whole Netscape VS IE back in the mid 90s is a perfect example of this.

So by your own reckoning I suppose you wouldn't support HD-DVD either, had you the foggiest idea of how Micro$#@! conducts business.

[ketchup]

Originally posted byF9zDark
The data capacity alone of Blu-Ray makes it a better format.

Well IF Sony optimise it.
At the moment the dual layer isn't perfected so they are limited to 25Gb.... "At the moment." The compression technique is less compact than that used in HD DVD so the Blue Ray discs need more space to hold the same amount of data.......BUT, that could change if, (possible big IF) Sony license the VC-1 codec from, yes you guessed it, Microsoft, (of course, if Microsoft will be willing to license its' VC-1 codec to Sony in the first place).

So, not so straight forward as Blue Ray holds more BITS than HD DVD therefore it's better is it?

Plus Blue Ray is a thinner disc - easier to break possibly? It also has an expensive coating and how will this cope with scratches? Maybe better than normal but when scratched how easy is it to attempt a repair?

So I would say that Blue-Ray has the potential to be the best format, but isn't yet.

Blu-Ray supports more data per disc than HD-DVD, which will make it an immediate winner within computer circles. Blu-Ray is necessary for the betterment of optical media...

Not the case at the moment as just explained.

10 layer optical discs have been in development for a while now and won't be to long in coming to the market as working prototypes exist already. So I guess that neither Blue Ray or HD DVD will be used for computer storage for too long, only for movies. So Blue Ray for the betterment of optical storage? Maybe not so advanced after all. Also how about the optical light cube with 3D data storage? Will make Blue Ray look like a floppy disc in comparison.

By the way I'll explain now that I AM NOT AN EXPERT, but I also don't claim to KNOW as a fact the situation as some people do. The waters are far to muddy for that in corporate business where big money rides on success or failure. I won't be a mouth piece for these companies either while they battle it out.

posted byF9zDark in response to Shadowblind.
So by your own reckoning I suppose you wouldn't support HD-DVD either, had you the foggiest idea of how Micro$#@! conducts business.

I agree with you in that both camps fight dirty and with such high stakes involved I'm not surprised. But your comment almost suggests that Microsoft virtually owns HD DVD which it certainly doesn't. It may back that format but won't be affected too much if Blue Ray becomes dominant either.

You are obviously very enthusiastic about PS3 and please continue to be so. I like it too. But calm down with the soapbox bit. Do you have shares in Sony or something?

[irongiant]

Well IF Sony optimise it.
At the moment the dual layer isn't perfected so they are limited to 25Gb.... "At the moment." The compression technique is less compact than that used in HD DVD so the Blue Ray discs need more space to hold the same amount of data.......BUT, that could change if, (possible big IF) Sony license the VC-1 codec from, yes you guessed it, Microsoft, (of course, if Microsoft will be willing to license its' VC-1 codec to Sony in the first place).

Pirates of The Caribbean 2 is the best looking High Definition movie released on either format. Go read the reviews, in fact here's a bit of the review from thedigitalbits:

"I going to say this right now up front: Disney's Dead Man's Chest on Blu-ray delivers the best looking 1080p video I've seen yet on any HD format. Nearly the entire 50GB of Disc One is devoted to the film data alone, giving the AVC compression plenty of room to breathe. The clarity and detail visible in the imagery here is sublime, with not a hint of artifacting or other unwanted defects. The colors are rich and accurate, with contrast that reveals deep and detailed shadows as well as bright-lit scenes. The audio quality is also outstanding in both standard Dolby Digital 5.1, as well as Uncompressed 48 kHz/24-bit PCM 5.1 surround. From the soft creaking of wooden-hulled ships rolling in the ocean tides to the rumbling screech of the Kraken tearing those same ships in half, the audio here is a sonic delight. Dead Man's Chest is easily THE demo disc to best show off what Blu-ray is capable of. Who says you don't need 50GB?"

[ketchup]

Thanks for that Irongiant but what does that say really?

50Gb for the movie alone! Not quite there are extras on disc 1 too. Also uncompressed English audio file, (huge data eater - better though? you could argue that) as well as compressed versions. Again the disc uses AVC coding, (or basically MPEG4). This is not as compact as VC-1. Would a HD DVD need so much space for the same feature set and quality? Probably not. Would it need more than One HD DVD's worth of storage? Possibly, I don't know.

Sony was trying to make a statement with that movie as to how great BlueRay is. It's obviously working on some people.

Basically what I'm trying to say is just because BlueRay is included in my PS3 hardware I am not suddenly going to be blinded into saying it's superior to HDDVD when it may not be. I suggest that it is better but I won't promote this view as fact. When that happens you get the effect that F9zDark was talking about earlier in this thread when groups start to lose their individual ability to think and as a whole make dumb choices.

I will play devils advocate to any fanboy, just for my own pleasure!

[F9zDark]

To give you some insight, I have been rooting for Blu-Ray since I first got wind of it. (which if I recall, the first news blurb I read on the invention of Blu-Ray was in '04).

I don't see why the two camps couldn't just join each other and make one format. Format wars only hurt the consumer in the end. (Imagine all those poor souls who bought into Betamax and later could not buy any more movies for it)

Considering that save a few technical differences both formats are almost identical...