Which is More Consumer Friendly: HD DVD or Blu-ray?

[mssturgeon]

Hi all,

We just published this today ... thought you might be interested:
Which is More Consumer Friendly: HD DVD or Blu-ray?

From the excerpt:
This article is not written in an attempt to convince anyone who has already made an investment one way or the other, for that is an almost impossible feat. It was written for those that are still "on the fence", as they say. It is for those who are either undecided, or are waiting to see which one will come out ahead (or which will be first to waive the white flag).

Enjoy,

- Shane Sturgeon

 

[teamerickson]

I did enjoy that.

 

[toto]

I didn't notice anything about AVCHD playback. Will they both play AVCHD burned to a standard (low cost disk)? Isn't there a need for the extra storage capabiloities of Blu Ray?
Is there a game system that plays HDVD and HD games as well at under $400? Are the 1080p output HDVD players under $400?

 

[dfergie]

Good article... I too enjoyed...

 

[gadgtfreek]

I might have enjoyed it more if it was a little less biased. This belongs in the HDDVD forum at AVS. You dont happen to know Amir do you?

Just love how the "not so true" comments are all one way . Oh, thats right, no HDDVD fanboys ever claim anything thats untrue

 

[mssturgeon]

I didn't notice anything about AVCHD playback. Will they both play AVCHD burned to a standard (low cost disk)? Isn't there a need for the extra storage capabiloities of Blu Ray?

I am not intimately aware of the AVCHD details. I know it uses MPEG-4, which is supported by both Blu-ray and HD DVD players, but if memory serves, you cannot play it back directly in any current HD DVD player. You would have to re-burn it in HD DVD format.

Is there a game system that plays HDVD and HD games as well at under $400? Are the 1080p output HDVD players under $400?

The only one that comes close would be the Xbox 360 ... you'd have to buy a console and the HD DVD add-on, and the total would be more like $450.

- Shane

 

[diogen]

...We just published this today ... thought you might be interested.

Very short and to the point.

Not to be nitpicking, but:

Standard DVD is limited to about 11Mbit/s (Megabits per second) while cable, satellite and
broadcast (over-the-air) can be delivered at up to 19Mbit/s (although 12-13Mbit/s is more common).

I don't think the bolded part is right.
This probably was derived from fitting a 100min movie on a DL DVD.
I believe the restriction on MPEG-2 bitrate on regular DVD is in the same ballpark as SD sat/cable/OTA...

some of the features that are guaranteed to be on all HD DVD players, but might not be on all Blu-ray players:
...
- Support of Dolby TrueHD...

I think only 2ch is mandatory by the standard, although all (?) players do support multichannel...

Diogen.

 

[mssturgeon]

I think only 2ch is mandatory by the standard, although all (?) players do support multichannel

Correct.

Regarding DVD bit-rate, I found several sources all in the 10-11 range. I can dig them up for you if you are interested.

Thanks,

- Shane

 

[bestivo]

It's missing something very important imho. Which movies you can watch on HDDVD and which only on BD, not only current movies but also what's coming up.

Also I think it should talk a little about 1080i vs 1080p and how much HDDVD players which support 1080p cost. Many of the readers will probably be limited to 1080i on their tv sets, but not all

It's ok article just biased towards hddvd

 

[diogen]

I can dig them up for you if you are interested.

Sorry, you are right.
I think it is 9800kbps, I thought it is 19800kbps...

But then I have another question:
The sentence comparing DVD and sat/cable/OTA bitrates leads to the conclusion that DVD is inferior.
Whereas, when we talk about SD (what DVD is all about), satellite bitrates are around 2-5Mbps and 12-13Mbps applies only to hidef streams (if one is lucky).

Diogen.

 

[mssturgeon]

Good point. I should have further clarified that I was talking about high def bitrates.

- Shane

 

[rockymtnhigh]

While I am a "future brick" owner (as HD DVD was once characterized in the war-zone), and this may not be completely objective, I think a strong case is made for HD DVD in this article. Good job.

 

[VinceT3]

missed my favorite hd-dvd feature.. can burn a high def video to dvd (mind you, you're not going to get 2 hours on a disc but still) and play back on an hd-dvd player.. that's worth extra points there..

 

[allargon]

It's missing something very important imho. Which movies you can watch on HDDVD and which only on BD, not only current movies but also what's coming up.

Also I think it should talk a little about 1080i vs 1080p and how much HDDVD players which support 1080p cost. Many of the readers will probably be limited to 1080i on their tv sets, but not all

It's ok article just biased towards hddvd

Welcome to SatGuys. People focusing on 1080i/1080p really need a reality check. 1080p24 is only necessary for the like 0.0001% of HD displays that support a refresh rate that is a multiple of 24Hz *AND* properly do a full 2:2, 3:3, 4:4, 5:5 cadence of the input. (Hint: NONE of them are LCD's, only a few are EXPENSIVE Pioneer plasmas, most are really expensive front projectors.)

Any decent 1080p set will deinterlace 1080i without issues. There should be no visual difference between 1080i60 and 1080p60. I keep telling people w/ 1080p sets to stick to the 1080i players unless they are sure that they have one of the more expensive displays that can benefit, or they need extra feautres like multichannel analog audio out.

Why are so many Blu-ray supporters afraid of the $99 A2? Hell, I would buy a Blu-Ray player for that price--even that $500 1.0 Sony that doesn't decode TrueHD internally or deinterlace 1080i properly.

 

[mike123abc]

The article is quite obviously an attempt to push HD-DVD. There is no way it could be considered nutral.

1. If Toshiba was not giving away the players other manufacturers might consider making the players. With HD-DVD you will only have the choice of Toshiba for quite a while.

2. All the copy protection on BD... Well it is up to the studios to pick exactly how much copy protection they want. They can just put out completely unprotected discs if they wanted to do so.

3. Higher bit rate. Well you can debate back and forth for the consumer if lossless audio makes a difference. But for the studios it means fewer skews as they can put more language tracks on a disc.

4. Interactivity from the start... Well as being one of the owners of the A1 I can tell you that yes the features seem to work, but the A1 player has a hard time with a lot of them. The processing power seems overloaded. I just got the Star Trek HD-DVD collection. It has a ton of interactive features. I have been using them with the A1. It is very slow and causes dropped frames and studdering in the output. Well there are probably only a few of us A1 people...

5. Better price... Well the players are cheaper with HD-DVD, but I have been buying a lot of BDs at 1/2 price. My A1 cost more than my PS3. But, even now if you buy and get the sales, you can probably still make up the difference in price. The 20 BDs I bought on sale is already $200.

6. The number of titles released is about the same. Yes, but HD-DVD started earlier. If you consider BD 1 year, HD-DVD 18 Months 1/3 more time to release titles for HD-DVD. HD-DVD should have 33% more titles. Plus who has titles people want to buy? BD has been selling about 2x the number of titles HD-DVD has been selling all year.

Not to say that all things are rosey on the BD side, I just wanted to point out that the article glosses over many things. I as mentioned own both formats, and I will probably get an universal player when they are resonably priced. Face it both sides are still early adopter stages that need work.

 

[mssturgeon]

The article is quite obviously an attempt to push HD-DVD. There is no way it could be considered nutral.

Where in my article did I claim it was neutral?

With HD-DVD you will only have the choice of Toshiba for quite a while.

... and Onkyo and Venturer. Also don't forget that LG and Samsung are both now supporting HD DVD, if you want a combo player. But a good point if you're brand-loyal to one of the manufacturers in the Blu-ray camp, or have something against Toshiba products.

... it is up to the studios to pick exactly how much copy protection they want. They can just put out completely unprotected discs if they wanted to do so.

HD DVD studios can, but AACS is a mandatory scheme for Blu-ray.

... you can debate back and forth for the consumer if lossless audio makes a difference. But for the studios it means fewer skews as they can put more language tracks on a disc.

If this was an article on which was best for the studios, I would have included that

Thanks for the reply,

- Shane Sturgeon

 

[diogen]

...but HD-DVD started earlier. If you consider BD 1 year, HD-DVD 18 Months...

I think in the US HD was launched some 2 months before BD, not 6 months.

...1/3 more time to release titles for HD-DVD. HD-DVD should have 33% more titles.

This would be the case only if all studios were neutral...

Diogen.

 

[mike123abc]

Where in my article did I claim it was neutral?


... and Onkyo and Venturer. Also don't forget that LG and Samsung are both now supporting HD DVD, if you want a combo player. But a good point if you're brand-loyal to one of the manufacturers in the Blu-ray camp, or have something against Toshiba products.

You are right, I reread the first 2 paragraphs. I was thinking it was a neutral article since it listed the similarities first.

I though Onkyo pulled out of making a rebadged toshiba. Venturer probably can compete with Toshiba on the low end if they are going the made in China route. The only reason I see LG and Samsung in the HDDVD market is because they can mark up the boxes to make a profit by doing BD.

Like I said my Toshiba box works, but leaves a lot to be desired in speed (maybe the new ones have more processing power), in the remote design, in speed of loading, etc. Essentially HD-DVD is being relegated to Toshiba or cheap Chinese players. Maybe that is what the market wants. It would be nice to have some real choices though.

 

[ONUOsFan]

Like I said my Toshiba box works, but leaves a lot to be desired in speed (maybe the new ones have more processing power), in the remote design, in speed of loading, etc.

My A2 has most of the same problems, but once it's up and running (and if you use a different remote), it's all good...

 

[mike123abc]

My A2 has most of the same problems, but once it's up and running (and if you use a different remote), it's all good...

I guess the point is that HDTV magazine has decided to support a format that has only one mainstream brand Toshiba and cheap no name chinese players. This is the biggest weakness of HD-DVD. Studio support is a numbers game, but hardware possiblities is a different one.

What company is going to compete with Toshiba when there is 0 margin? One can argue back and forth about the pluses and minuses of various BD players, including if they have features that the Toshiba has. But, at least you have choices to argue about.

If HD-DVD wins the war is Toshiba going to raise prices? Toshiba is turning into HD-DVD's biggest problem.