Source:
VideoBusiness
good news, hope movies will be released on these soon..and that the price isn't higher
Originally posted by mattkind:Not good news for HD either 51gigs of extra Bull people don't want to see.Not news at all.
Not good news for sony :)
Quote:
good news, hope movies will be released on these soon..and that the price isn't higher
Doesnt the more layers added the more itll cost? and @rainofire i read sumwhere as well about HD-DVD costing more per GB than Blu-ray. Hows that work? :S
This is great news for HD DVD.
There is nothing left in the pi*sing contest for the Blu-ray fanclub to claim over HD DVD
(all we need to hear now is whether they kept the 1.5x spin speed that was in the original 45gb TL spec and if they have then HD DVD will also have the highest theoretical raw bitrate too......not that it's needed with modern codecs but it is nice to trump every single supposed Blu-ray 'plus' point).
Note that Disney actively voted for the 51gb TL HD DVD discs at this meeting.
The usual behaviour for members of the Blu-ray Disc Association who are also members of the DVD Forum (which is all of the BDA members, they are all members of the DVD Forum if IIRC) is to abstain on votes concerning HD DVD matters
(that is after they got publicly shamed for abusing their position as voting members of the DVD Forum by trying to block HD DVD development - the final straw was when there were attempts to delay/block/stop the Chinese version of HD DVD = CH-DVD).
It should also be noted that the Blu-ray 50gb Dual layer disc is not actually 50gb in size at all.
They never exceed 47gb on it cos if they do the failure rates go through the roof.
51gb HD DVD is not just merely 1gb larger in practise it will be a handy 4gbs bigger ( = 1 x DVD5 roughly).
Naturally with HD DVD being based on the more established and reliable technology there is no reason (or at least much less reason) to doubt it's size claims.
As for costs?
Well HD DVD is heavily based on existing DVD technology and in large part uses existing DVD production methods.
Triple layering is not in itself especially difficult or expensive (just because it wasn't used for SD DVD doesn't make it particularly 'hard').
I'm all ears to hear how Blu-ray is cheaper per gb than HD DVD.
It is true that combo movie discs are slightly more expensive than Blu-ray only movie discs but it looks like the combo (flipper) discs will be dropped soon.
The other triple layer disc that was also quietly approved during this meeting is the one to watch
(the 'Total version of HD DVD = 2 layers of HD DVD and 1 layer of SD DVD on the one side).
'Total' ought to grow to be big, cheap and very popular.
But I must admit that frankly I don't believe it (that Blu-ray is cheaper per gb).
Maybe while they are still subsidising it (as we know has been the case).
But if it's true on some blank media right now it will only be a slight difference & it won't be that way for long once the desktop replacement drives appear in numbers.
The costs will fall through the floor (as happened with SD DVD) because these things can be churned out so cheaply and do not require new production facilities (unlike Blu-ray).
.....and at a stage where all early adopters are being charged a hefty premium (just as DVD9 is/was always sold at a premium) I'd say that comparing blank media costs right now (when they are far from being widespread in the mass-market) is pretty meaningless anyways.
Besides if you really want cheap storage then buy more HDD space, it's the cheapest and most reliable storage out there.
Quote:Quote:
Most likely the prices will go up, even higher than blu-ray. Because HD-DVD cost more per GB than blu-ray, I read this off somewhere, but not very sure if its true.
It's the opposite, actually. HD-DVD's can be manufactured on existing DVD lines, with some retrofitting. BR discs can, at the moment, only be manufactured at 2 plants that are setup and licensed for it. That SEVERELY limits options/flexibility/competition.
Vivid Entertainment claims it's 3 to 4 times more expensive to manufacture a BR disc. This is probably more like 2 to 3 times, but still much more than HD-DVD.
If past peformance is anything to go by then HD DVD will probably get the lion's share of the market eventually. I mean, how many people with VCRs still use Betamax? How many UMD movies are being sold now?
I'm not saying that anybody's products are superior or indeed inferior, merely that past products have obviously been mis-marketed.
I think that the next few months will be exciting as the competition hots up. Until then, I'm steering clear of the HD disk market (as tempting as it looks), because I don't want the gamble of a piece of kit that'll be obsolete long before its time.
Trust mr hughjars, the blu-ray fanboys will find something.
O crap whats that rumbling sound, O god here they come now. LOL
Peace all
Isn't more layers kind of a bad thing though?
Originally posted by hughjars:Line me up some info brother
This is great news for HD DVD.
There is nothing left in the pi*sing contest for the Blu-ray fanclub to claim over HD DVD
(all we need to hear now is whether they kept the 1.5x spin speed that was in the original 45gb TL spec and if they have then HD DVD will also have the highest theoretical raw bitrate too......not that it's needed with modern codecs but it is nice to trump every single supposed Blu-ray 'plus' point).
Note that Disney actively voted for the 51gb TL HD DVD discs at this meeting.
The usual behaviour for members of the Blu-ray Disc Association who are also members of the DVD Forum (which is all of the BDA members, they are all members of the DVD Forum if IIRC) is to abstain on votes concerning HD DVD matters
(that is after they got publicly shamed for abusing their position as voting members of the DVD Forum by trying to block HD DVD development - the final straw was when there were attempts to delay/block/stop the Chinese version of HD DVD = CH-DVD).
It should also be noted that the Blu-ray 50gb Dual layer disc is not actually 50gb in size at all.
They never exceed 47gb on it cos if they do the failure rates go through the roof.
51gb HD DVD is not just merely 1gb larger in practise it will be a handy 4gbs bigger ( = 1 x DVD5 roughly).
Naturally with HD DVD being based on the more established and reliable technology there is no reason (or at least much less reason) to doubt it's size claims.
As for costs?
Well HD DVD is heavily based on existing DVD technology and in large part uses existing DVD production methods.
Triple layering is not in itself especially difficult or expensive (just because it wasn't used for SD DVD doesn't make it particularly 'hard').
I'm all ears to hear how Blu-ray is cheaper per gb than HD DVD.
It is true that combo movie discs are slightly more expensive than Blu-ray only movie discs but it looks like the combo (flipper) discs will be dropped soon.
The other triple layer disc that was also quietly approved during this meeting is the one to watch
(the 'Total version of HD DVD = 2 layers of HD DVD and 1 layer of SD DVD on the one side).
'Total' ought to grow to be big, cheap and very popular.
But I must admit that frankly I don't believe it (that Blu-ray is cheaper per gb).
Maybe while they are still subsidising it (as we know has been the case).
But if it's true on some blank media right now it will only be a slight difference & it won't be that way for long once the desktop replacement drives appear in numbers.
The costs will fall through the floor (as happened with SD DVD) because these things can be churned out so cheaply and do not require new production facilities (unlike Blu-ray).
.....and at a stage where all early adopters are being charged a hefty premium (just as DVD9 is/was always sold at a premium) I'd say that comparing blank media costs right now (when they are far from being widespread in the mass-market) is pretty meaningless anyways.
Besides if you really want cheap storage then buy more HDD space, it's the cheapest and most reliable storage out there.
More specifically, isn't it the more layers the more lag time and higher possibility of an unstable disc? Not only that but, I never understood why anyone would need to put a movie on a disc so large, BD or HD. The movie itself cannot possibly take up that much space and if you argue it is for extra features like countless audio tracks featuring random commentary I'm going to laugh. The only worthwhile extra features in my opinion are deleted scenes and extended cuts.
Now if you say it is for video games, I'll be more likely to believe you, but really, most games put everything on the PC and the disc is only really needed for copy protection reasons, so that is also kind of a weaker point.
Someone enlighten me please.
@sciascia:
video files are huge. They are still compressed in a lossy manner even on BD and HD-DVD.
Originally posted by maitland:BD is uncompress data.
@sciascia:
video files are huge. They are still compressed in a lossy manner even on BD and HD-DVD.
BD is what?
oh and some movies, like transformers, which are pretty long need alot of space because the video itself takes up most of the room, and the audio tracks aren't at their best
Originally posted by sk8flawzz:
BD is what?
oh and some movies, like transformers, which are pretty long need alot of space because the video itself takes up most of the room, and the audio tracks aren't at their best
Quote:no offense, but you are joking, right?Originally posted by maitland:BD is uncompress data.
@sciascia:
video files are huge. They are still compressed in a lossy manner even on BD and HD-DVD.
Quote:The only uncompressed data I know of is audio,even when BR came out it used Mpeg for compression.Quote:no offense, but you are joking, right?Originally posted by maitland:BD is uncompress data.
@sciascia:
video files are huge. They are still compressed in a lossy manner even on BD and HD-DVD.
Originally posted by KGunner:not yet to many defects in the possess and the price would be 40+ a 100GB disc.
Any chances of a triple layer Blu-ray?
Could an uncompressed video stream even take up 50 GB? That idea just seems ridiculous to me.
Originally posted by sciascia:resize a picture to 1920x1080 and save it as bmp. you will see it takes 5,93MBytes. Multiply 5,93 x 24 for 1 second(24 frames per second) and then multiply to 3600 for an hour(60 minutes x 60 seconds).
Could an uncompressed video stream even take up 50 GB? That idea just seems ridiculous to me.
Quote:and I was going to save it be 40-100GB :POriginally posted by sciascia:resize a picture to 1920x1080 and save it as bmp. you will see it takes 5,93MBytes. Multiply 5,93 x 24 for 1 second(24 frames per second) and then multiply to 3600 for an hour(60 minutes x 60 seconds).
Could an uncompressed video stream even take up 50 GB? That idea just seems ridiculous to me.
5.93 x 24 x 3600 = 512352 Mbytes or roughly 500GB for an hour of uncompressed 1080p video.
it seems you need an holographic medium...
I wonder how VHS (kinda like(HDDVD) would have faired if you can only of recorded on Beta (Kinda like Blu-Ray).
Things quite possibly could of been different then.
But then again how many years were we just happy to see mavies on DVD with no rewinding..kinda makes you think back.
Originally posted by alphabit:Only trouble with DVD is the god damn forced menus and ads and crap,at least with VHS it got to the movie after acouple of minutes but these OTT ads and menus are ridiculous.
I wonder how VHS (kinda like(HDDVD) would have faired if you can only of recorded on Beta (Kinda like Blu-Ray).
Things quite possibly could of been different then.
But then again how many years were we just happy to see mavies on DVD with no rewinding..kinda makes you think back.
Originally posted by zippyDSM:- OK, these are the results of a pretty quick scan around.
Line me up some info brother
Cost per disc:
format size of disc:
Data rate of the new format
Originally posted by alphabit:- The problem with this analogy is that back in the day video tape was the only recording format for the home user.
I wonder how VHS (kinda like(HDDVD) would have faired if you can only of recorded on Beta (Kinda like Blu-Ray).
Things quite possibly could of been different then.
contrary to what many believe, HDD is not a reliable means of storage, especially not for long term storage.
HDD in the shelf wears faster than a quality recordable DVD media, it should work in order to last more, but even if it has the best of treatments there is a relatively high possibility to crash after some years. add to this the large size which means many loses if one fails...
Originally posted by sciascia:- To a point yes there is truth in this.
More specifically, isn't it the more layers the more lag time and higher possibility of an unstable disc?
Originally posted by sciascia:- The files are so much larger than SD DVD, that's why.
Not only that but, I never understood why anyone would need to put a movie on a disc so large, BD or HD.
Originally posted by KGunner:- Well they had trouble enough with 2 layers.
Any chances of a triple layer Blu-ray?
Originally posted by moufoglou:- Well that depends on what your terms for 'reliable' are.
contrary to what many believe, HDD is not a reliable means of storage
Thanks for the input guys, I had no idea video streams could take so much space.
@Hugh: Didn't Blu-Ray try a tripple and quad layer disc, and it had bad issues with stability of the disc? I thought they could make them but they had the beach glass effect, where at any point in time it could become unstable and just stop working.
Also in Japan, they've already had HD TV type broadcasting for almost 20 years, no?
So all this HD crap has some compression? Can't wait in 10 years for the terabyte holgram discs, then we can have "Real Super High Altitute True Definition" garbage.
I guess once it goes uncompressed there is nothing else to do with video. whew...
Originally posted by moufoglou:- Well that depends on what your terms for 'reliable' are.
contrary to what many believe, HDD is not a reliable means of storage
Originally posted by sciascia:- My understanding is that as the layers increase you can get distortions and increasing error rates to the point where the checks for data corruption render the discs useless for real-time movie playback.
Didn't Blu-Ray try a tripple and quad layer disc, and it had bad issues with stability of the disc? I thought they could make them but they had the beach glass effect, where at any point in time it could become unstable and just stop working.
Originally posted by sciascia:- True, they have experimented with HD TV since 1969, although Wiki says it wasn't commercialised until the 1990's.
Also in Japan, they've already had HD TV type broadcasting for almost 20 years, no?
Originally posted by c1c:you think...capitalism doesn't work this way, there are people among us who devote their life to the art/science of getting people's hard earned money... uncompressed video won't come early, first video will get a bit depth boost from 24 bit (8bits per color) to 32, 48 or whatever they think will persuade more customers, along with an uneeded for most* boost in resolution and maybe something that gives a 3D impression -not new- or even really 3D, so we can see at last under the skirt...
So all this HD crap has some compression? Can't wait in 10 years for the terabyte holgram discs, then we can have "Real Super High Altitute True Definition" garbage.
I guess once it goes uncompressed there is nothing else to do with video. whew...
moufoglou
that and the media industry saw it could not lower the TB discs enough to market it consumer friendly thus they went with HDVD and BR.
Thought I'd chime in on the subject. I've read an awful lot on Blu-ray and HD-DVD. The more I read, the more I'm convinced that a wait and see approach is the road I'm taking. When we have information that's more definitive than the familiar chest beating I've read by both camps, it won't be hard to tell which is best for our personal use. Just an opinion!
fifty gigs is a lot of storage i hope it has scratch proof material soo we do not loose are important work or the movies we purchase.