High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource

Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
Rules HDTV Forum Gallery LINK TO US! RSS - High Def Forum AddThis Feed Button AddThis Social Bookmark Button Groups

High Definition Media A place to discuss BD and UHD Content from physical and digital media

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

Reply
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-25-2007, 04:59 AM   #16  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PFC5 View Post
Well as you are a BD fan, it is nice to hear this. So tell me WHY should we pay twice the money for a BD player over a HD DVD player?
I can't think of any reason. But in the l-o-n-g term, I prefer bluray because it holds more information, which not only saves on material costs, but also saves space on my shelf. (Same reason I store stuff on 1 DVD, instead of 7 CDs.)
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 06:28 AM   #17  
SD HURTS MY EYES
 
Stew4HD's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Tejas Baby
Posts: 9,989
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
I can't think of any reason. But in the l-o-n-g term, I prefer bluray because it holds more information, which not only saves on material costs, but also saves space on my shelf. (Same reason I store stuff on 1 DVD, instead of 7 CDs.)
Of course it is your preference and opinion, one you've held since the first post I saw from you, but your reasoning didn't hold water then and still doesn't. But, you ddin't listen then and won't now. You are not going to see uncompressed video on any BD disc (or HD DVD).. sorry to tell you this, don't bee too upset, but it's a fact you'll have to accept it.
Stew4HD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 08:15 AM   #18  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
Of course it is your preference and opinion, one you've held since the first post I saw from you, but your reasoning didn't hold water then and still doesn't.
My reasoning is based on Historical Fact:

VHS held more data, and therefore it won the war. VHS was a better value, and it's reasonable to think history might repeat itself. That's my "holding water" argument.

Quote:
But, you ddin't listen then and won't now. You are not going to see uncompressed video....
Where'd that come from??? I was not talking about uncompressed video. I was discussing my preference for larger discs (example: DVDs) over using small discs (CDs) to save money & space.
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 08:27 AM   #19  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post
My reasoning is based on Historical Fact:

VHS held more data, and therefore it won the war. VHS was a better value, and it's reasonable to think history might repeat itself. That's my "holding water" argument.
VHS had a longer recording time initially than Beta - which at release did not reach 2 hours - but a few years later Beta did accomplish this.

The reason why VHS won was because of the wide licensing of the format to many CEM's. So it was the world against Sony. Beta was the superior format in terms of PQ and AQ. That is why Sony corrected this mistake with BRD and did not go it alone.


Quote:
Where'd that come from??? I was not talking about uncompressed video. I was discussing my preference for larger discs (example: DVDs) over using small discs (CDs) to save money & space.
If you are making a choice on what your shelves can handle and that maybe BRD will use less disc in these box sets - it will never be a case of 3 BRD's and 5 HD DVD's. Right now BRD is trying to save money - less discs mean less expense. The neutral companies usually keep the prices the same between the formats.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 08:28 AM   #20  
Say whaaaaaat?
Thread Starter
 
mswoods1's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,372
Default

Hey electrictroy thanks for the input on a way to shorten my paragraph, and that basically does explain most of it... but I'm hoping to be a little more thorough in the explanation so people could not only know what the differences are, but understand them too.

I found another difference too when doing some research: maximum bitrates. 54 mbps for Blu Ray to 36.5 mbps for HD DVD, though this hasn't translated to much of a difference in video quality yet. However, I read somewhere that this may affect the quality of audio, anyone know if this is correct? Apparently Blu Ray might be able to eventually offer a higher quality of audio with a 14 mbps capacity on BR while HD DVD is more limited in that way. Is this correct?

Though I'm not sure many people have or will be getting the equipment to truly take advantage of the high quality audios being released on the HD formats anytime soon anyway.

Last edited by mswoods1; 07-25-2007 at 08:30 AM..
mswoods1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 09:05 AM   #21  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

I don't think there's any real difference. At the end of the day, it's like the difference between a Macintosh 3.5" floppy and a Windows 3.5" floppy. Sure they use different formats, but they both carry the same information (my Word document), and they use the same medium (magnetic).

Bluray and HD-DVD are computer discs. They hold computer data. They use lasers to read pits in a mirrored surface. The only real difference is the wavelength of the laser, which allows Bluray to hold 25 gig/layer vs. HD's 15 gig/layer (and Bluray's more compact data also allows faster bitrates). But otherwise, they are just discs carrying digital data & in almost all cases carry the *exact same* file.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post
VHS had a longer recording time initially than Beta - which at release did not reach 2 hours - but a few years later Beta did accomplish this.
Actually when VHS debuted (or very shortly after), it already had 4 hour capability thanks to special Mitsubishi/RCA modification of the standard. And not too long after, JVC was marketing a 6 hour VCR (EP), so Betamax was *always* behind the curve.

1976: 1 hour Betamax vs. 2 hour VHS
1977: 2 hour Betamax vs. 4 hour RCA/matsushita VHS
~1980: 3/5.5 hour Betamax vs. 6/9 hour VHS

At every step, VHS appeared to be the better bargain, because it offered more time. That is the basis of my viewpoint to favor Bluray as the standard capable of holding more minutes. (If someone came out with a 500 gig Holodisc, then that would be my preferred standard.)

Quote:
The reason why VHS won was because of the wide licensing of the format to many CEM's. So it was the world against Sony.
This is yet another "common wisdom" viewpoint that is entirely false. Betamax was marketed by a *consortium*, same as Bluray or DVD, that consisted of:
- Sony
- Sanyo
- Toshiba
- Pioneer
- Aiwa
- NEC
- Wega
- Zenith
- Sony even invited JVC to join!

Sony's goal was to recreate the same unity that had existed with the Umatic standard. Sony had shared Umatic with everybody and wanted to share Betamax with everybody. But that didn't happen. There was a split with approximately half the manufacturers on one side (VHS), and half on the other side (Betamax). It wasn't the world vs. Sony<--- That's false.

It was the many vs. the many.



And finally quality:
Betamax-I == 250 lines (not supported on all vcrs)
Betamax-II == 240 lines == VHS-SP
VHS-SP with HQ == 250 lines

So the net result is that if you bought Star Wars on Betamax-II, and Star Wars on VHS-SP, and compared them, they would both have identical resolution (240 lines). ----- And if you played the VHS Star Wars on an HQ machine, it would actually have higher resolution (250 lines).



At the end of the day, there's no "realworld" quality difference between the two formats. "Betamax is better" is one of those myths that everyone believes, but has no basis in fact. It doesn't hold-up when you start reviewing the numbers.

Last edited by electrictroy; 07-25-2007 at 09:25 AM..
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2007, 12:14 PM   #22  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
daleb's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 7,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by electrictroy View Post


And finally quality:
Betamax-I == 250 lines (not supported on all vcrs)
Betamax-II == 240 lines == VHS-SP
VHS-SP with HQ == 250 lines

So the net result is that if you bought Star Wars on Betamax-II, and Star Wars on VHS-SP, and compared them, they would both have identical resolution (240 lines). ----- And if you played the VHS Star Wars on an HQ machine, it would actually have higher resolution (250 lines).

At the end of the day, there's no "realworld" quality difference between the two formats. "Betamax is better" is one of those myths that everyone believes, but has no basis in fact. It doesn't hold-up when you start reviewing the numbers.
It actuality it is not a myth, but you are right that in application the theory makes no real-world difference.
Two big advantages of Beta were a bigger drum and higher head writing speed along with wider recording tracks (and sharper recording angle). Even chroma and luminance had higher BW specs.

HQ did not even make the scene until some 10 years after VHS introduction. This boosted a 220+ line performance to as high as 250.
There was a Super Beta also, but even the production cost for Beta were higher than VHS. Another stumbling block.
But shaving production costs in other areas severely limited any real advantages Beta might have had over VHS even before the public cried for more recording time.
Once the differences were whittled down to virtually nothing, recording time alone became the big selling point. And for much of the public, the longest times were acceptable with even lower tape performance.
daleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 02:57 AM   #23  
Don't touch the remote!
 
The_Omega_Man's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Encino,CA
Posts: 3,489
Default

This makes me wonder just how this format war will read after 30 years.
The_Omega_Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 03:01 AM   #24  
Former Super Moderator - RIP
 
PFC5's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2005
Location: Mass
Posts: 38,290
Default

I am telling you. They will be teaching the lessons learned in High School and College business classes in 5 -10 years.
PFC5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 04:59 AM   #25  
Every day is Friday
 
oblioman's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hooooterville
Posts: 9,279
Default

Blu Ray discs also use a different thickness of surface layer compared to the HD DVD (0.6mm on HD DVD's compared to 0.1mm on Blu Rays.) And this thinner surface on Blu Ray discs makes Blu Ray discs more expensive to manufacture. And because of the thinner surface, Blu Ray discs do not share the same thickness of surface layer as the regular DVD's. And machines that make regular DVD's must be specially modified in order to reproduce Blu Ray discs, and this modification is a pricey process. Thus, Blu Ray discs cost more to manufacture, but hold more data than an HD DVD disc. (A single-layer HD DVD disc can hold up to 15 GigaBytes (GB), while a single-layer Blu Ray disc can hold up to 25 GB. And a dual-layed HD DVD disc can hold up to 30 GB, while a dual-layer Blu Ray disc can hold up to 50 GB.)

While the above is all true - it is actually cheaper for studios to replicate a 90 minute movie on a SL BD than a DL HD DVD. Since a vast majority of movies will not fit on a SL HD DVD, the studios must opt for the more expensive DL HD DVD. Hence, it is cheaper for studios to replicate on BD.




oblioman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 05:22 AM   #26  
Muscle Cars Forever!
 
Lee Stewart's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 47,383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oblioman View Post
Blu Ray discs also use a different thickness of surface layer compared to the HD DVD (0.6mm on HD DVD's compared to 0.1mm on Blu Rays.) And this thinner surface on Blu Ray discs makes Blu Ray discs more expensive to manufacture. And because of the thinner surface, Blu Ray discs do not share the same thickness of surface layer as the regular DVD's. And machines that make regular DVD's must be specially modified in order to reproduce Blu Ray discs, and this modification is a pricey process. Thus, Blu Ray discs cost more to manufacture, but hold more data than an HD DVD disc. (A single-layer HD DVD disc can hold up to 15 GigaBytes (GB), while a single-layer Blu Ray disc can hold up to 25 GB. And a dual-layed HD DVD disc can hold up to 30 GB, while a dual-layer Blu Ray disc can hold up to 50 GB.)

While the above is all true - it is actually cheaper for studios to replicate a 90 minute movie on a SL BD than a DL HD DVD. Since a vast majority of movies will not fit on a SL HD DVD, the studios must opt for the more expensive DL HD DVD. Hence, it is cheaper for studios to replicate on BD.




But HD DVD is using the SL 15 for 90 minute movies - see STREETS OF FIRE.
Lee Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 06:40 AM   #27  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Someone raised a good point. Is a single-layer Bluray disc cheaper to manufacture than a dual-layer HD-DVD? That may be another reason for studios to prefer Blurays?



In 20 years we'll probably hear people say things like, "HD-DVD spun the disc faster," or "HD-DVD had a larger laser drum, therefore it had better picture quality," even though both format almost-always use the same identical file (to save the studio money), and therefore no difference would exist in the picture. ----- The average person seems willing to believe myth, even if said myth doesn't make logical sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by daleb View Post
It actuality it is not a myth, but you are right that in application the theory makes no real-world difference.

Two big advantages of Beta were a bigger drum and higher head writing speed along with wider recording tracks (and sharper recording angle). Even chroma and luminance had higher BW specs.
The higher write speed or larger drum have NO relevance to engineering specs. Take ED Betamax. It offers twice as much resolution (500 vs 240 lines). Does that mean it has a drum that is 2x larger and spins 2x faster than Regular Betamax?

Of course not.

What matter to engineers is BANDWIDTH:
- VHS/Betamax (2 hour mode used for movie releases) == 3 megahertz
- Chroma = ~620 vs. ~680 megahertz.

So VHS/Betamax are virtually identical in luminance between both standards, and almost identical in chrominance (25 vs 27 lines). Those are the specifications that matter (bandwidths), not irrelevancies like the size of a drum. (8mm has a teeny-tiny drum... does that make it inferior to VHS or Betamax??? Of course not.)




Sorry for the "strong" words, but I get frustrated with people who believe Urban Legends. A rational being should rely on the facts, not superstition.

Last edited by electrictroy; 07-26-2007 at 07:04 AM..
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 11:18 AM   #28  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
daleb's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 7,654
Default

The higher write speed or larger drum have NO relevance to engineering specs.

???

Beta had their specs, VHS had theirs. Yes, they both met the same requirements using different methods.

Does that mean it has a drum that is 2x larger and spins 2x faster than Regular Betamax?

In fact the speed is the same (VHS and Beta) for different size drums, and that can matter. Larger drum for the same head speed meant higher writing speed (5.832meters/sec compared to 4.86m/s for vhs)

(8mm has a teeny-tiny drum... does that make it inferior to VHS or Betamax??? Of course not.)

8mm head speed is up to 2X Beta/VHS. That's hardly irrelevant. There are other factors like tape-wrap and recording angle ( big one for 8mm), etc. that matters a lot when you have a "teeny-tiny drum", and certainly were necessary to make 8mm feasible.

What matter to engineers is BANDWIDTH:

Beta's Luminance modulated a carrier to a peak of 4.8MHz with deviation of 1.3MHz.
VHS has its peak at 4.4MHz with a deviation of 1.0MHz.

Other differences like faster editing because the wrap was already made (only had to pushed to the drum) in Beta, no wrapping involved.

Sorry for the "strong" words, but I get frustrated with people who believe Urban Legends. A rational being should rely on the facts, not superstition.

Again, these ARE factual differences, these are not myths. In real world terms, I agree, they were to be deemed not significant against longer recording times.
daleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 12:34 PM   #29  
Wii 480p looks good to me
 

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,083
Default

Your message is extremely difficult to read. Please use proper quoting tags. Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daleb View Post
Quote:
The higher write speed or larger drum have NO relevance to engineering specs. ....... Does that mean ED Betamax has a drum that is 2x larger and spins 2x faster than Regular Betamax?
In fact the speed is the same (VHS and Beta) for different size drums, and that can matter.
You didn't answer my question. Did ED Betamax, since it has double the resolution (500 vs 240 lines), have a drum that was 2X larger?

(The answer of course is no, because how large a drum might be does NOT have anything to do with the frequency bandwidth recorded. Frequency is controlled by electronics, not physical size of a device.)


Quote:
Quote:
(8mm has a teeny-tiny drum... does that make it inferior to VHS or Betamax??? Of course not.)
8mm head speed is up to 2X Beta/VHS. That's hardly irrelevant.
Please provide a source. I'd like some independent verifcation.

Based upon my engineering knowledge, I think it's ridiculous. 8mm would write at the same "60 stripes per second" speed as VHS or Betamax. ------ Furthermore, the frequency of a signal is controlled by it's voltage..... not its head speed.


Quote:
Quote:
What matter to engineers is BANDWIDTH:
Beta's Luminance modulated a carrier to a peak of 4.8MHz with deviation of 1.3MHz.
VHS has its peak at 4.4MHz with a deviation of 1.0MHz.
Beta-I you mean. I was comparing the two hour modes used in Hollywood movie releases, and Beta-II had specs identical to VHS (4.4Mhz peak).



Quote:
Other differences like faster editing because the wrap was already made (only had to pushed to the drum) in Beta, no wrapping involved.
You are 100% correct on this one, but.....

I doubt the average Joe Football or Sally Soapfan cared about that. They cared about the MINUTES a tape could hold, and VHS held the most, hence it sold the most.


Quote:
Again, these ARE factual differences, these are not myths.
Accept some of the facts are irrelevant. Telling me Betamax had a larger drum is somewhat akin to saying, "Because your car has 17 inch wheels it's better than a car with 15 inch wheels." The size of the wheels of my car doesn't affect my daily commute..... neither does the size of a drum affect the bandwidth of a signal.

It's non-relevant. What matters are these specs:
- luminance bandwidth (affects picture detail)
- chrominance bandwidth (affects color)
- deviation bandwidth (affects contrast)

If you buy a Star Wars video on Betamax-II and compared it to the same video on VHS-SP, you'd find they are virtually identical:
- same luminance bandwidth (240 lines)
- almost the same chroma (27 vs. 25 lines)
- same deviation bandwidth (same)


I suppose if you think +2 extra color lines == a huge difference, you'll say Betamax is better but I do not. As we say in engineering, "For all practical purposes, they are identical."

And in the "real world":
Certainly NOT going to make consumers go,
"Wow betamax looks soooo much better."
Not gonna happen.
electrictroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2007, 02:16 PM   #30  
High Definition is the definition of life.
 
daleb's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 7,654
Default

I think it will be much easier to read without having to parse away and chop out quotes with side comments mixed in with relevant technical info.

Bandwidth & Frequency Response

There are differences in bandwidth. And I never said they were the product of drum size.

But tape speed is certainly a factor in frequency response and results can certainly be influenced by drum size vs. head speed as well as the design of the head itself. (Vs. linear recording where only tape speed and head gap/alignment were critical).
There are obvious considerations that have to be considered in all these variables to render satisfactory tape performance (including the tape itself, or course).
.
ED-Beta

I NEVER said ED-Beta had a larger drum or higher head speed. Those are YOUR words.
I was only pointing out the relative 'difference' between a given head speed vs. drum size as I discuss above, which does matter.

(Different overall drive wheel diameter does affect overall gearing of the car relative to engine speed. )

BTW key element to ED-Beta was the video frequency response of 10 mhz vs. about 5 mhz for the former Beta formats.

8mm:
I only mentioned speed as one difference.
Other differences (speaking only to writing to the tape) was the angle and video head design. Naturally, there are differences in the circuit design. That only follows.

http://www.birds-eye.net/definition/...o_system.shtml


Why are you throwing in all this crap about people claiming Beta is 'so much better' ?
I am only pointing out differences, not attributing any subjective value to them.
As a fellow engineer I agree with you (again) 'for all practical purposes', with respect to results in the real world, Beta and VHS are virtually the same.

Last edited by daleb; 07-26-2007 at 02:46 PM..
daleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Go Back   High Def Forum - Your High Definition Community & High Definition Resource >
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


to What are all the differences between HD DVD and Blu Ray? Huh?
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Article on HD DVD vs. Blu-ray numbskully Blu-Ray and Ultra HD Blu-Ray Players 11 09-10-2009 11:11 AM
Current HD DVD Supporters.. Don't give up! Stew4HD High Definition Media 168 02-07-2008 02:28 PM
Why HD-DVD beats Blu-ray Bleedgreen71 High Definition Media 22 11-28-2007 01:29 AM
Spielberg-directed movie on HD-DVD Oct. 9, how come nobody's mentioned this? HiramAbiff High Definition Media 19 08-26-2007 10:18 PM
What's with the love for HD-DVD? Why? electrictroy High Definition Media 562 05-08-2007 09:35 PM
Survey's are out! HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, Who Came Out On Top?? eHDMI Blu-Ray and Ultra HD Blu-Ray Players 6 07-27-2006 05:31 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:08 AM.



Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2018, MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands