What are all the differences between HD DVD and Blu Ray? Huh?

oblioman · 07-29-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PFC5

But the VCRs back then were used MUCH more for recording/time shifting so capacity mattered more for that than prerecorded movies. That is the disconnect from then and now.

Sure these HD formats can be used to store data on PCs, but that is a different store from HOW people use DVDs now. They ARE for just watching movies and the only real world place where the capacity matters is on computers.

I have stated that if follywood had a brain they would want HD DVD for movies and BD for computers. That would just make it that much harder to pirate movies with them on different formats. Why didn't they think of this?

Disagree. Strongly disagree. Me may be a bit pissed up but capacity does matter - Lookat how many HD DVD's have been released on 15 gig versus 30 gig. 15 gig is dead, maturity has been met. We now be looking at 25 gig SL bd discs vs 30 gig DL discs. Which one is cheaper to replicate? Which one is less problematic? Which format thinks that adding extra's will sell more movies - but has not the forsight to think that "oop's, how can we fit it on a disc???"" A DVD on steroids will not meet consumers demands.

**PFC5** · 07-29-2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daleb

Got sucked in, eh?

Only half way in as I used it DIRECTLY for applying it to the current format war.

I hate it when that happens though.

**PFC5** · 07-29-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oblioman

Disagree. Strongly disagree. Me may be a bit pissed up but capacity does matter - Lookat how many HD DVD's have been released on 15 gig versus 30 gig. 15 gig is dead, maturity has been met. We now be looking at 25 gig SL bd discs vs 30 gig DL discs. Which one is cheaper to replicate? Which one is less problematic? Which format thinks that adding extra's will sell more movies - but has not the forsight to think that "oop's, how can we fit it on a disc???"" A DVD on steroids will not meet consumers demands.

One guy in that link came up with some numbers that he "investigated" for cost comparisons if I remember that correctly. AM I remembering correctly?

Who the hell is that guy anyway? For all I know it could be a Sony employee. Is this the ONLY source for this info, as that was the only one I ever saw.

What are you talking about "problematic"? Do you mean all the added cost of setting up a whole new line for making those BD discs, or the 10 minutes to setup the existing DVD lines to replicate HD DVDs?

electrictroy · 08-08-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeRox

There was another key factor for VHS over Betamax they you are forgetting, and that is that VHS was also the cheaper format for both media and players.

Please show me a citation to back-up that claim. There's no reason to think a VHS player/tape would be cheaper than a Betamax player/tape. They are essentially the same complexity. (And please, don't say something like "Sony was proprietary", because VHS was *also* a proprietary format (owned by JVC), and thus again there's no real difference.)

So please. Show me a citation to back-up
your Opinion that VHS was a cheaper format.

Quote:

Also Betamax wasn't capable of recording full sporting events. Meaning if you taped the game, you'd only get half of it. Something neither HD DVD nor Blu Ray will ever have a problem with.

True.

MikeRox · 08-08-2007, 03:48 PM

Fraid as it's very hard to find stuff from 70s format wars on the internet, an excert from Wikipedia will have to do for now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videotape_format_war

Quote:

Market share

When home VCRs started to become popular in the UK, the main issue was one of availability and price. VHS machines were available through the high street rental chains such as Radio Rentals and DER, while Beta was seen as the more upmarket choice for people who wanted quality and were prepared to pay for it. By 1980, out of an estimated 100,000 homes with VCRs, 70% were rented, and the presence of two competing formats meant that renting was an even more attractive choice, since a small fortune (about £2000 or $2600 in today's prices) could be spent on a system which may become obsolete. By the time Betamax machines became easier to rent, VHS had already claimed 70% of the market.

This is definitely how it panned out in the UK. Betamax was far more expensive than VHS. The similar appears to be happening for HD DVD now vs Blu Ray too. With the cheapest price on a HD DVD player being £204 delivered with 2 HD DVDs, the cheapest Blu Ray player on the market is still the PS3 which can be found for about £375 brand new if you shop around. Blu Ray players start from around £400.

I think for Sony atm with Blu Ray over here, it's a matter of getting HD DVD wiped out before the mass market start to adopt the formats.

electrictroy · 08-08-2007, 05:38 PM

Yeah bad for the UK. So why didn't Betamax succeed in the good'ole USA? Can you find a source saying "Betamax was more expensive, thus Americans didn't buy it."

Actually:

Let me save you some time; you won't find it. The two players, and the individual tapes, were essentially the same price to purchase. VHS won for one reason and one reason only:

- TIME.

Buying a single 8 hour VHS tape for $5..... is cheaper than buying two 4 hour Betamax tapes for $10. VHS had more time per tape, and thus was perceived as a better value.

Stew4HD · 08-08-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electrictroy

Yeah bad for the UK. So why didn't Betamax succeed in the good'ole USA? Can you find a source saying "Betamax was more expensive, thus Americans didn't buy it."

Actually:

Let me save you some time; you won't find it. The two players, and the individual tapes, were essentially the same price to purchase. VHS one for one reason and one reason only:

- TIME.

Buying a single 6 hour VHS tape for $5..... is cheaper than buying two 3 hour Betamax tapes for $5. VHS had more time per tape, and thus was perceived as a better value.

I didn't buy a Betamax player because: 1. it was too expensive 2. The number of videos available were limited compared to VHS.

Are we talking similarities to the current format war? Sony/BD has done better for studio backing but that nasty ole thing called price still lingers.

**PFC5** · 08-08-2007, 05:58 PM

I seem to remember the price for Betamax decks were more money once they started selling the VHS decks in the Northeast. Beta got here first as I recall, and I remember my father thinking he got a bargain for Beta blank tapes at $35.00 per tape in the early days.

BobY · 08-08-2007, 08:10 PM

Nobody is recording their own programs on HD DVD or Blu-Ray players, so the VHS/Beta "recording time" analogy is totally unrelated.

Hi-Def disc buyers are buying movies. They don't care about disc capacity or maximum bit rate, they care whether the movie looks good and sounds good.

Somebody prove to me the *best* Blu-Ray movies out there look notably better than the best HD DVD movies...

(Then again, there are all those 25GB Blu-Ray movies and the MPEG2 Blu-Ray movies to weed through--make sure you don't include any of them in your comparison, even if they look stunning, or you will simply be proving my point.)

MikeRox · 08-09-2007, 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stew4HD

Are we talking similarities to the current format war? Sony/BD has done better for studio backing but that nasty ole thing called price still lingers.

It's highly debatable as to whether BDs content is better though even with the extra studio backing. If Toshiba boxed clever, they'd actually be able to cause a big upset in Q4, I can't help but think they're going to throw the opportunity away though.

Troy, it appears to just be you saying that there was "no" price difference between Betamax and VHS in the US, either way, it wasn't just "perceived" value of time. It was also the practicalities of it. 8 hours on 1 tape is obviously for recording purposes, going to be preferable to 2x 4 hour tapes. Regardless of which are cheaper. This is definitely a factor for Blu Ray/HD DVD, but with PVR/HDD based recording products becoming more common for TV recording, it's certainly far less of an issue than it was 30 years ago.

electrictroy · 08-09-2007, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobY

Nobody is recording their own programs on HD DVD or Blu-Ray players, so the VHS/Beta "recording time" analogy is totally unrelated.

Yeah.

I thought they'd have recordable Bluray and HD-DVD machines by now. My whole argument is based-upon people desiring 50 gig blanks versus 30 gig blanks.

But the recorders never materialized.

Bummer.

**PFC5** · 08-09-2007, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electrictroy

Yeah.

I thought they'd have recordable Bluray and HD-DVD machines by now. My whole argument is based-upon people desiring 50 gig blanks versus 30 gig blanks.

But the recorders never materialized.

Bummer.

They MAY appear down the road, but with BD player ONLY devices costing $500.00 or more, I bet you would be looking at $2,000-3,000.00 for a standalone BD recorder. There would be very little market for that at this point. When prices for either/both formats get to "commodity price" points, we may see this matter, but right now we have more important things to argue about.

Super XP · 08-15-2007, 11:45 AM

HD DVD - 15GB Single Layer, 30GB Dual Layer,(17GB x 3) 51GB Tri-Layer.
Blu-Ray - 25GB Single Layer, 50GB Dual Layer, (25GB x 4) 100GB Quad-Layer.

Looking at the capability of GB's each format can produce, one format having more capacity over another format is a very weak argument indeed.

HD DVD & Blu-Ray are extremely close to each other’s PQ & AQ. The minor differences between the two are so minimal, you would need a magnifying glass to see them.

Super XP · 08-19-2007, 02:05 PM

Here are a few more advantages for HD DVD.

1st Advantage = HD DVD guarantees a feature called "managed copy," which lets a computer user copy a movie to a computer hard drive so it can be beamed around the house.

2nd Advantage = The iHD software offers "greater interactivity," for example, letting a small screen with a movie director be overlaid onto the main video screen.

3rd Advantage = HD DVD manufacturing is easier than for Blu-ray's BD-ROM, and its "hybrid disk" feature will mean an owner of today's DVD player will be able to buy a dual-format disk that can be played in tomorrow's HD DVD player.

etc.

covertjouster · 08-30-2007, 04:23 AM

Im no engineer, just a film fan who enjoys watching films in the best quality against affordability.

As I remember Betamax looked better than VHS, but I bought the VHS machine first because the films and blank media was easier to get hold of. The same thing will decide how the HD DVD and Blu Ray war pans out. Betamax gave less noise, better red reproduction and less dropouts, as I remember.

So sadly, it won't be decided by us, or by the quality, it will be decided by companies who make the players and sell and distribute the films, and call my a cynical old fart, but they won't give a monkeys toss about quality, all they'l care about is wonga (money) and which format maximises this for them.

Once the scales start to tip one way, one of the formats will be abandoned because it makes no financial sense supporting both, in fact if you're a conspiracy theorist it actually makes financial sense to have two competeing formats, because once one wins the rest of us will buy twice and go and buy the other product when loosing products discs start to dry up.

The way it looks at mo, I reckon HD DVD will win, sadly. But to put that in perspective I've just bought the Panny Blu Ray machine. I saw a demo at Sundance of Blu Ray and the red mist came down and I just had to have one.

PS My opinion is worth bugger all, but I also don't think media time is relevant. VHS didn't win over Beta because the tapes were longer, although I could be wrong. And if I am wrong, Blu ray will only win that one when it offers a record facility. Although I do remember an incident when I was showing off a wide-screen version of Blade Runner on my cool new laser-disc player and 16:9 TV with cool Pro Logic amp (many years ago) to a bunch of mates and one walked out, horrified that I had to turn the disc over half way thro the film! 'That's progress is it?', he said as he slammed the door behind him.

The outcome of this war is firmly in the hands of the retailers as Joe Public will believe anything those spotty faced fools in the retailers tell them. Pisser ain't it!

08-08-2007, 05:38 PM	#51
electrictroy Wii 480p looks good to me Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,895	Yeah bad for the UK. So why didn't Betamax succeed in the good'ole USA? Can you find a source saying "Betamax was more expensive, thus Americans didn't buy it." Actually: Let me save you some time; you won't find it. The two players, and the individual tapes, were essentially the same price to purchase. VHS won for one reason and one reason only: - TIME. Buying a single 8 hour VHS tape for $5..... is cheaper than buying two 4 hour Betamax tapes for $10. VHS had more time per tape, and thus was perceived as a better value. __________________ TV Band/whitespace Devices will block my Baltimore/Philly stations. No more channels 2,3,6,10,11,12,13,17,35,45,57,61,65 Last edited by electrictroy; 08-08-2007 at 05:54 PM.

08-08-2007, 05:58 PM	#53
PFC5 Super Moderator Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 28,373	I seem to remember the price for Betamax decks were more money once they started selling the VHS decks in the Northeast. Beta got here first as I recall, and I remember my father thinking he got a bargain for Beta blank tapes at $35.00 per tape in the early days. __________________ Denon AVR-887 Klipsch RP-5 Pwred Towers (mains) (525 watts peak each 12"Subs) All Klipsch RC-25(ctr),(2)SS1(surr),(2)SS1(rearSurr) Toshiba (2)HD-A20,PS3,BD35 For SACD/DVD-A Samsung HD-841 Panny 50pz80u plasma SETTINGS RCA HD50LPW162 50"DLP w/HD2+ SA 3250HD 47" LCD+Yamaha5790+HD-A1(bedroom) Harmony 680 + (2) 670s (amazing remote/support) Game room with Onkyo receiver & B&W Speakers The_Cable_Game Take the high ground and be happier

08-15-2007, 11:45 AM	#58
Super XP Star Trek: The Movie! Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Toronto, ON. Canada Posts: 5,776	HD DVD - 15GB Single Layer, 30GB Dual Layer,(17GB x 3) 51GB Tri-Layer. Blu-Ray - 25GB Single Layer, 50GB Dual Layer, (25GB x 4) 100GB Quad-Layer. Looking at the capability of GB's each format can produce, one format having more capacity over another format is a very weak argument indeed. HD DVD & Blu-Ray are extremely close to each other’s PQ & AQ. The minor differences between the two are so minimal, you would need a magnifying glass to see them. __________________ Toshiba Regza 46" HDTV (46RF350U) LCD 1080p/24p Toshiba HD-A35 / HD-A3 / XD-E500 LG GGC-H20L Super Multi / PC Drive Onkyo TX-SR605 7.1 TrueHD/DTS HD MA Precision Acoustics™ 8Ch. Hi Def Loudspeaker Series DVD's = 200 = 130 = 10 Last edited by Super XP; 08-15-2007 at 12:00 PM.

08-19-2007, 02:05 PM	#59
Super XP Star Trek: The Movie! Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Toronto, ON. Canada Posts: 5,776	Here are a few more advantages for HD DVD. 1st Advantage = HD DVD guarantees a feature called "managed copy," which lets a computer user copy a movie to a computer hard drive so it can be beamed around the house. 2nd Advantage = The iHD software offers "greater interactivity," for example, letting a small screen with a movie director be overlaid onto the main video screen. 3rd Advantage = HD DVD manufacturing is easier than for Blu-ray's BD-ROM, and its "hybrid disk" feature will mean an owner of today's DVD player will be able to buy a dual-format disk that can be played in tomorrow's HD DVD player. etc. __________________ Toshiba Regza 46" HDTV (46RF350U) LCD 1080p/24p Toshiba HD-A35 / HD-A3 / XD-E500 LG GGC-H20L Super Multi / PC Drive Onkyo TX-SR605 7.1 TrueHD/DTS HD MA Precision Acoustics™ 8Ch. Hi Def Loudspeaker Series DVD's = 200 = 130 = 10

08-30-2007, 04:23 AM	#60
covertjouster My plasma is High Def. Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6	BetaMax and Blu Ray Im no engineer, just a film fan who enjoys watching films in the best quality against affordability. As I remember Betamax looked better than VHS, but I bought the VHS machine first because the films and blank media was easier to get hold of. The same thing will decide how the HD DVD and Blu Ray war pans out. Betamax gave less noise, better red reproduction and less dropouts, as I remember. So sadly, it won't be decided by us, or by the quality, it will be decided by companies who make the players and sell and distribute the films, and call my a cynical old fart, but they won't give a monkeys toss about quality, all they'l care about is wonga (money) and which format maximises this for them. Once the scales start to tip one way, one of the formats will be abandoned because it makes no financial sense supporting both, in fact if you're a conspiracy theorist it actually makes financial sense to have two competeing formats, because once one wins the rest of us will buy twice and go and buy the other product when loosing products discs start to dry up. The way it looks at mo, I reckon HD DVD will win, sadly. But to put that in perspective I've just bought the Panny Blu Ray machine. I saw a demo at Sundance of Blu Ray and the red mist came down and I just had to have one. PS My opinion is worth bugger all, but I also don't think media time is relevant. VHS didn't win over Beta because the tapes were longer, although I could be wrong. And if I am wrong, Blu ray will only win that one when it offers a record facility. Although I do remember an incident when I was showing off a wide-screen version of Blade Runner on my cool new laser-disc player and 16:9 TV with cool Pro Logic amp (many years ago) to a bunch of mates and one walked out, horrified that I had to turn the disc over half way thro the film! 'That's progress is it?', he said as he slammed the door behind him. The outcome of this war is firmly in the hands of the retailers as Joe Public will believe anything those spotty faced fools in the retailers tell them. Pisser ain't it!

08-08-2007, 08:10 PM	#54
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	Nobody is recording their own programs on HD DVD or Blu-Ray players, so the VHS/Beta "recording time" analogy is totally unrelated. Hi-Def disc buyers are buying movies. They don't care about disc capacity or maximum bit rate, they care whether the movie looks good and sounds good. Somebody prove to me the best Blu-Ray movies out there look notably better than the best HD DVD movies... (Then again, there are all those 25GB Blu-Ray movies and the MPEG2 Blu-Ray movies to weed through--make sure you don't include any of them in your comparison, even if they look stunning, or you will simply be proving my point.)

Similar Threads to What are all the differences between HD DVD and Blu Ray? Huh?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Beginner's Guide to HDTV	mswoods1	The High Definition Lounge	19	04-28-2008 03:03 PM
Blu ray vs hd dvd blu ray a winner	lcjjm	Blu-Ray Players	56	12-18-2007 06:48 PM
Getting a hd dvd on blu ray	oleviarules	The High Definition Lounge	10	11-27-2007 08:51 PM
Anyone else hearing Blu Ray is worse than HD DVD?	hidefman30	High Definition Media	29	08-20-2007 04:51 PM
HD-DVD to launch on time.	strawberry	Blu-Ray Players	61	03-01-2006 11:12 AM