~Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD~

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Bluray is the better tech but hd-dvd will be cheaper.

Plus, honestly, I think the name has a LOT to do with it.

I think HD DVD will win because:

a) Cheaper
b) The name "DVD" is familiar, as is "HD" so the consumer will not need as much of an introduction to the new technology as with Blue-ray (I know it seems subtle, but I bet this will be a concern)
c) Backwards compatible for sure!
d) Players and movies will be out first, and will be cheaper

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

I would think that those receivers would just pass along the HDCP though; that is, that they would still require that your display be HDCP-capable if the input is HDCP. (Edit: I can't tell from your post if you already know this, but DVI can be crippled with HDCP as well, not just HDMI.)

Disclaimer: I have no experience with HT receivers of any kind and it's entirely possible that I don't know what I'm talking about

I don't know much either, but I thought that HDMI was already HDCP compliant. DVI was the one you had to worry about.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: SynthDude2001

I would think that those receivers would just pass along the HDCP though; that is, that they would still require that your display be HDCP-capable if the input is HDCP. (Edit: I can't tell from your post if you already know this, but DVI can be crippled with HDCP as well, not just HDMI.)

Disclaimer: I have no experience with HT receivers of any kind and it's entirely possible that I don't know what I'm talking about

I don't know much either, but I thought that HDMI was already HDCP compliant. DVI was the one you had to worry about.

Yeah, that's my understanding too. DVI can be either HDCP compliant or non-compliant (and as we know, in the case of 99.9% of PC monitors the inputs are usually non-compliant). I'm under the impression though, that "legal" devices (like regular receivers) won't strip a digital HDMI/DVI signal of its HDCP (if it has it), so that's why you'd need a grey-market type of thing.

 

[jstack]

I hope HD DVD wins out because I hate Sony's proprietary crap.

 

[Shawn]

I've already read up on it and hope HD-DVD wins. The Blu-ray tech is superior but I hate all this DRM bullsh|t. I hope it fails because of it. Also HD-DVDs can be created using the old DVD assembly lines with just some retooling, meaning they will be cheaper. They have also managed to increase the storage capacity of the HD-DVD disks to 45GBs, lowering the storage space gap.

 

[0roo0roo]

hddvd because its more likely to not be as evil. yes the lesser of two evils, sony is not to be trusted as seen with rootkit and their previous proprietary nonsense. and hddvd is easier to make, if they do start screwing us the asian pirate factories can help out. anyways, first to make a cheap 50 dollar player wins.

 

[Reckoner]

I wonder what rental stores will carry for stock when both are unveiled

 

[brxndxn]

I hate both Sony and Microsoft...

So I'll go with whichever format LiteOn manufactures me a $50 burner for..

 

[pennylane]

I'm in the wait and see camp. I'm a student. By the time I get a job, one of the formats will have won (or both will be niches) and I'll have the money to get what I want.

 

[konakona]

perhaps its not the best analogy, but you could argue rambust was better tech at its time. but at the initial offering price? HELL NO. I had really hoped they would fail and glad they actually did.

 

[Whitecloak]

where's the WGAF option?

 

[RobertR1]

The cheapest technology that gives me true 720p or 1080i DVD playback gets my money. I am a consumer first, enthusiast second.

 

[biostud]

I stand next to the debate and point fingers as both formats fail.

 

[walkur]

Since I will be buying a PS3 i'm biased towards blueray.

hopefully by the time blueray is nice and cheap HD content will be more commonplace here in the Netherlands (non excistent atm).

 

[smack Down]

Whoes ever copyright protection is broken first.

 

[AMDZen]

HD-DVD.

a) Because Sony is the epitome of evil and everything they do, they do for furthering their own agenda and owning the rights on every propriatary format in the world.

b) Because the DRM scheme on BR is much more invasive and unfriendly to the consumer.

c) Because the cost of BR over HD is immense, and it will be a lot longer before BR is affordable. The manufacturers will make consumers pay for longer.

It shocks me to see that a tech board would rather see more expensive media, and more DRM in a format all for a bit more space. 15-20 GB on a disc is plenty and more then good enough for 2-3 hrs worth of HD content.

 

[Aquila76]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
HD-DVD.

a) Because Sony is the epitome of evil and everything they do, they do for furthering their own agenda and owning the rights on every propriatary format in the world.

b) Because the DRM scheme on BR is much more invasive and unfriendly to the consumer.

c) Because the cost of BR over HD is immense, and it will be a lot longer before BR is affordable. The manufacturers will make consumers pay for longer.

It shocks me to see that a tech board would rather see more expensive media, and more DRM in a format all for a bit more space. 15-20 GB on a disc is plenty and more then good enough for 2-3 hrs worth of HD content.

I agree completely with all your points. I honestly hope that they can reach some compromise, but I doubt that's gonna happen. Sony and their constant 'rape the consumer of any possible freedom to use their purchased content/media' proprietary format bullsh1t can suck it. Almost no one uses their prior formats, hopefully this trend continues.

 

[konakona]

I thought either format is a mere stopgap till HVD hits the market; I doubt having few more gigs storage is all that big of a deal either.

 

[Aquila76]

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble

The difference between Blu-ray and HD DVD is the size of the aperture used on the optical pick-up head inside drives and players. Blu-ray uses a 0.85 aperture whereas HD DVDs only use a 0.65 aperture. Finally compare that to current DVDs? 0.6 aperture. The reason these are different is because of the surface layer of the actual discs. Their thickness limits the effectiveness of the laser due to optical effects.

Can someone reword that to something I might be able to understand?

Blu-ray uses a narrower laser than HD-DVD because Blu-ray's data layers are closer to the bottom of the disc. The thicker the plastic between the bottom of the disc and the data layer, the easier for the laser to get 'warped' and misread the data.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
HD-DVD.

a) Because Sony is the epitome of evil and everything they do, they do for furthering their own agenda and owning the rights on every propriatary format in the world.

There are nearly 20 companies on the Blu-ray board of directors. All of which have/had a hand in designing the spec. This is not Sony versus the world.Link

b) Because the DRM scheme on BR is much more invasive and unfriendly to the consumer.

Both Blu-ray and HD-DVD use AACS as their core security. Blu-ray has BD+ on top of AACS as additional security. Care to explain how BD+ works (with links too, if possible) and how it's more draconian than just AACS alone?

c) Because the cost of BR over HD is immense, and it will be a lot longer before BR is affordable. The manufacturers will make consumers pay for longer.

Are you talking about manufacturing costs, re-tooling costs, blank media, players, what? Be more specific. There are already prices announced for BD media. Have any HD-DVD manufacturers announced prices for blank discs yet? No?

It shocks me to see that a tech board would rather see more expensive media, and more DRM in a format all for a bit more space. 15-20 GB on a disc is plenty and more then good enough for 2-3 hrs worth of HD content.

You're right, this is a tech board, which is why many of us hope the format with the higher capacity wins!

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Aquila76
I agree completely with all your points. I honestly hope that they can reach some compromise, but I doubt that's gonna happen. Sony and their constant 'rape the consumer of any possible freedom to use their purchased content/media' proprietary format bullsh1t can suck it. Almost no one uses their prior formats, hopefully this trend continues.

Both formats support Mandatory Managed Copy as defined in AACS. If you think you will be able to freely burn and distribute discs using either format, I think you are in for a reality check.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: Aquila76
I agree completely with all your points. I honestly hope that they can reach some compromise, but I doubt that's gonna happen. Sony and their constant 'rape the consumer of any possible freedom to use their purchased content/media' proprietary format bullsh1t can suck it. Almost no one uses their prior formats, hopefully this trend continues.

Both formats support Mandatory Managed Copy as defined in AACS. If you think you will be able to freely burn and distribute discs using either format, I think you are in for a reality check.

the reality check is it will just take a bit of time for someone to crack it

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Aquila76

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble

The difference between Blu-ray and HD DVD is the size of the aperture used on the optical pick-up head inside drives and players. Blu-ray uses a 0.85 aperture whereas HD DVDs only use a 0.65 aperture. Finally compare that to current DVDs? 0.6 aperture. The reason these are different is because of the surface layer of the actual discs. Their thickness limits the effectiveness of the laser due to optical effects.

Can someone reword that to something I might be able to understand?

Blu-ray uses a narrower laser than HD-DVD because Blu-ray's data layers are closer to the bottom of the disc. The thicker the plastic between the bottom of the disc and the data layer, the easier for the laser to get 'warped' and misread the data.

Doesnt that also make them more relatively scratch-prone? Or so I was told at another place, maybe its all speculations at this point. With over 15gb, I would be more concerned about durability than a bit more storage if that really is the case though.

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Both Blu-ray and HD-DVD use AACS as their core security. Blu-ray has BD+ on top of AACS as additional security. Care to explain how BD+ works (with links too, if possible) and how it's more draconian than just AACS alone?

Blu-ray's copy protection scheme prevents it from playing on any display which isn't DRM compatible. This includes older HD tvs and pretty much all monitors at present time.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: Shawn

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Both Blu-ray and HD-DVD use AACS as their core security. Blu-ray has BD+ on top of AACS as additional security. Care to explain how BD+ works (with links too, if possible) and how it's more draconian than just AACS alone?

Blu-ray's copy protection scheme prevents it from playing on any display which isn't DRM compatible. This includes older HD tvs and pretty much all monitors at present time.

That is completely false!

The rules in AACS dictate that if your monitor doesn't support HDCP, the signal is automatically down-scaled to a maximum of 960x540. Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray have this exact same limitation. They both abide to the AACS rules for this functionality (known as ICT - image contraint token).

1. Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray work exactly the same.
2. You will be able to view movies on your older television using these dics, but if it doesn't support HDCP it will appear automatically in a lower resolution. This "lower resolution" is still higher than DVD.
3. Did I mention that HD-DVD and Blu-ray both have the same DRM, as far as the ICT is concerned?

I'm not saying I like this limitation. I know several folks with older HDTV's with only component inputs that don't support HDCP. But fair is fair, if you bitch at Blu-ray for DRM, then I suggest you do the same to HD-DVD.