Explain Blu-Ray and HD

wwwebber · 13 Aug 2007 at 14:42

Warbie said:
Because, for me, it has a far greater selection of exclusive titles, triple that of my Blu-ray collection.

I enjoy both formats, but HDDVD has been home to more quality and appears to continue in that way in the near future. Most Bu-rays I watch are the tat found at Blockbuster.

I think that we need to point out that this is "in your opinion" rather than industry wide recognition.

Johnnytoxic · 13 Aug 2007 at 14:46

Warbie said:
Because, for me, it has a far greater selection of exclusive titles, triple that of my Blu-ray collection.

I enjoy both formats, but HDDVD has been home to more quality and appears to continue in that way in the near future. Most Bu-rays I watch are the tat found at Blockbuster.

Your not going to find anything hd-dvd at blockbuster lol

Shamikebab · 13 Aug 2007 at 14:47

johnnyfive said:
Your not going to find anything hd-dvd at blockbuster lol

where did he say that? and previous poster, he did state it was in his opinion.

Nanoman · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:00

Blu-ray outsells HD-DVD 2-1, HD-DVD holds 15Gib per side, Blu-ray holds 25Gib!

But more importantly, HD-DVD cases are **** brown! So who do you thinks gonna win??

james.miller · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:28

<F0rb> said:
Now for a serious post.

I don't actually understand why ANYBODY would consider HD-DVD at all, unless you are completely loaded. It is a dieing format, most studios have realised that. There are more reasons then the amount of movies aswell.

- Blu-ray players/writersare easy to come across for the PC, along with BD-R. No such thing is happening or HD-DVD.
- No matter what, most people with a PS3 buy blu-ray, or more crucially, if they did choose to go hi-def it would be blu-ray.
- Blu-ray is a superior format, more storage, better sound, more resistant to scratches, etc.
- And of course they have most studios solely supporting them.

The sooner people just buy blu-ray, the quicker it will be over.

utter rubbish. people who are serious about the formats buy both for the reasons outlined above.

Nanoman said:
Blu-ray outsells HD-DVD 2-1, HD-DVD holds 15Gib per side, Blu-ray holds 25Gib!

wrong, thats per LAYER. 30gb a side and 50gb a side for hd-dvd and bluray resectively. space alone isnt a point worth making when we are talking about movies.

But more importantly, HD-DVD cases are **** brown! So who do you thinks gonna win??

they are closer to purple then they are brown.

Warbie · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:38

Nanoman said:
But more importantly, HD-DVD cases are **** brown! So who do you thinks gonna win??

They're red actually. The 300 box looks way cooler on HDDVD

Also, sales figures mean sod all when it comes down to quality. I can watch the Big Lebowski in HD, Children of Men, Batman Begins, Casino, Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, The Thing, The Dear Hunter, Casino. Pan's Labyrinth is on the way, Deliverance, Scarface, Carlito's Way, The Aviator, The Blues Brothers, Conan the Barbarian, Battlstar Galactica season 1, Heroes season 1, the complete Bourne Trilogy, The Last Starfighter (yes i'm a geek - have original cinema quad poster too

) it goes on and on and on.

Is it really hard to understand a movie fan wanting these in hd?

I could make a similar list for Blu-ray - there's a fair few i'm dying for - but it'd be quite small.

davetherave2 · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:39

personally for me it is hd-dvd.

one feature that I think that the studios have overlooked is the HD-DVD/DVD Combo disks.

With these disks it would be easy for new dvd's to have the HD version one side and then the DVD version the other so that if someone brought the disk not having a HD player they could still enjoy the movie in SD. When they eventually get a HD player then they can enjoy the movie in HD and saves them having to buy the movie again.

An example of this is the 300 it has the HD movie one side including extras in HD (first time I have seen that) and the standard DVD version the other side.

Although I prefer HD-DVD it doesn't mean I am opposed to the idea of Blu-Ray I just can't justify the £400 to play one or two movies that aren't on HD-DVD.

But to be honest i'm just happy we have a steady flow of HD movies now coming out. Although I still have a reletively small HD collection it is starting to replace some of my favourite films such as The Matrix Ultimate collection, 300,Shaun of the Dead, V for Vendetta and many more.

Plus with the the December release of Blade Runner I can't wait to add this to my collection.

but to answer the OP if you have a PS3 then go blu-ray. There are some high street shops doing a deal where you can pick up the 360 hd-dvd drive + 4 movies for £165 if memory serves but you should be happy with either to be honest.

As for good comparison websites check out avforums.com or avsforum.com they have a wealth of info as well as some screenshots comparing the same movies on both format.

Bonjour · 13 Aug 2007 at 15:51

johnnyfive said:
Your not going to find anything hd-dvd at blockbuster lol

"andy" · 13 Aug 2007 at 16:06

ya rly

ic1male · 13 Aug 2007 at 16:10

davetherave2 said:
When they eventually get a HD player then they can enjoy the movie in HD and saves them having to buy the movie again.

Hmmm - now what movie studio in the world doesn't want people to buy the same movies again and again? I can't think of any!

Nanoman · 13 Aug 2007 at 16:20

james.miller said:
space alone isnt a point worth making when we are talking about movies.

Why? More space for higher res film and uncompressed audio??

Born_2_Kill_83 · 13 Aug 2007 at 16:21

davetherave2 said:
personally for me it is hd-dvd.

one feature that I think that the studios have overlooked is the HD-DVD/DVD Combo disks.

With these disks it would be easy for new dvd's to have the HD version one side and then the DVD version the other so that if someone brought the disk not having a HD player they could still enjoy the movie in SD. When they eventually get a HD player then they can enjoy the movie in HD and saves them having to buy the movie again.

An example of this is the 300 it has the HD movie one side including extras in HD (first time I have seen that) and the standard DVD version the other side.

Although I prefer HD-DVD it doesn't mean I am opposed to the idea of Blu-Ray I just can't justify the £400 to play one or two movies that aren't on HD-DVD.

But to be honest i'm just happy we have a steady flow of HD movies now coming out. Although I still have a reletively small HD collection it is starting to replace some of my favourite films such as The Matrix Ultimate collection, 300,Shaun of the Dead, V for Vendetta and many more.

Plus with the the December release of Blade Runner I can't wait to add this to my collection.

but to answer the OP if you have a PS3 then go blu-ray. There are some high street shops doing a deal where you can pick up the 360 hd-dvd drive + 4 movies for £165 if memory serves but you should be happy with either to be honest.

As for good comparison websites check out avforums.com or avsforum.com they have a wealth of info as well as some screenshots comparing the same movies on both format.

dave the brave isnt your msn messanger name the same ?

Warbie · 13 Aug 2007 at 16:24

As long as there's enough space for the movie in question - which is the case with both formats - who really cares?

Both Blu-ray and HDDVD look fanstastic - it's really not worth quibbling over the technical differences. The only issue i'm concerend about is which movies are apearing which format.

V4NT0M · 13 Aug 2007 at 16:26

Nanoman said:
Why? More space for higher res film and uncompressed audio??

They both use the same codecs and both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies have similar sizes iirc... Unless they have uncompressed audio on the blu-ray, speaking of which; 99.99% of people would not be able to tell the difference between uncompressed and HD-DVD, mainly because 99.99% of people's home cinema systems aren't THAT good.

Johnnytoxic · 13 Aug 2007 at 16:31

the real epic films can really limit hd-dvd though. IIRC King Kong had superb picture quality but could not fit a lossless audio track on there. That is unacceptable for a new HD format.

Higher bitrates can also be achieved with blu-ray for those video freaks. Blu-ray will win this one.

james.miller · 13 Aug 2007 at 16:33

Nanoman said:
Why? More space for higher res film and uncompressed audio??

virtually all films fit on hd-dvd's just fine

king-kong was 25gb. with that 5gb or so left over, it always puzzled me why they didnt put a trueHD track on rather than dd+. king kong in my eye's is just an example of a studio being a bit lazy with a release. i very much doubt the video had to be as large in filesize as it was, and they could have easily fit a lossless audio track on there with some tweaking. but like WB do with blurays by not including any lossless tracks (which is ridiculous on bluray) they (Universal) just got lazy imo.

oh, and all films are 1080p on the disk anyway.

davetherave2 · 13 Aug 2007 at 17:14

ic1male said:
Hmmm - now what movie studio in the world doesn't want people to buy the same movies again and again? I can't think of any!

Maybe but if the studios and the player manufacturers want the wider public to adopt HD in the UK they will have to do some better advertising than they currently are. Surely now that HD ready tv's are outselling traditional SD tv's we are getting to a point where they should be doing some form of proactive advertising. Maybe not on the scale of when dvd first came out but more than they currently are.

Loowi_ashley said:
dave the brave isnt your msn messanger name the same ?

nope.

rp2000 · 13 Aug 2007 at 19:08

james.miller said:
virtually all films fit on hd-dvd's just fine king-kong was 25gb. with that 5gb or so left over, it always puzzled me why they didnt put a trueHD track on rather than dd+. king kong in my eye's is just an example of a studio being a bit lazy with a release. i very much doubt the video had to be as large in filesize as it was, and they could have easily fit a lossless audio track on there with some tweaking. but like WB do with blurays by not including any lossless tracks (which is ridiculous on bluray) they (Universal) just got lazy imo.

oh, and all films are 1080p on the disk anyway.

I believe the 2 Pirates of the Caribbean films are circa 40GB. Ignoring the fact that Disney are Blu-ray only, thee is no way you could fit that on HD-DVD (not one that would work in most players) without dropping the video and/or audio bitrates. (the extras are on a second disc so disc one is just the movie).

Just one example, but shows some studios are already making use of the extra space Blu-ray offers.

rp2000

james.miller · 13 Aug 2007 at 19:27

yeah they made good use of the space on the pirates films

one thing to think about: http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/theprestige_bd-vs-hd/03.html

comparisons of the prestige on bluray (20gb avc) and hd-dvd (vc-1 16gb) there's bugger all in it, except for a 4gb difference in file size. both the priates films are encoded with avc by the way

we were solders: http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/weweresoldiers_bd-vs-hd/02.html (31gb/23gb)

this is a more extreme example. the vc-1 encoded hd-dvd is definitely softer throughout and the bd version definitely looks better. i dont know how much of that is down to 'noise' though, it can be hard to gauge that from a screenshot

fitting a film on hd-dvd is quite doable but bluray's extra space can and is starrting to be put to good use

pirates 1 has at least 4 different audio tracks as i recall, and there is also a 1080p trail of world's end on the disc as well

rp2000 · 13 Aug 2007 at 20:11

Just for the record, to date there have been 267 HD-DVD vs 277 Blu-ray released (not much in it).

Also last week 300 became the fastest selling HD film selling 250,000 copies in 1 week. Some places report that that is comprised of 2:1 ratio in favour of the Blu-ray fomat.

From any thing I have read to date whenever a film is released on both formats the Blu-ray sells more copies.

rp2000