Blockbuster Picks a Side in the HD Format Wars

[Natrix]

Blu-ray is a superior format over HD, due to blu-ray being able to hold a substantial amount of info on its disc. Which in the long run mean more potential for the format, more content that can be added to the movies. High technology is alway a tad more expensive when it first comes out. I rather pay 30$ for a blu-ray, if it means im getting superior quality over DVD, even HD

If the capacity is so much greater, why have 2 disk Special Editions when the second disk bonus materials are all in SD? Why not fit that all on one disk and charge less?

 

[sonolimy]

Increased capacity does not guarantee quality. I would take a great transfer on a 30 GB HD DVD over a crappy transfer on a 50 GB Blu-ray any day of the week. People are getting space confused with quality. The same transfer can be put on both formats and look identical, as we have repeatedly seen with Paramount and Warner titles released on both formats. It's not the space--it's how you use it.

By the way, quantity with a digital space such as a high definition formatted disk, does lead to quality. due to the fact that you can compress the info with much more detail, which leads to more gigs being need for storage. Ive seen the cross difference between HD-DVD and Blu-ray, and the comparison was noticeable. Blu-ray hands down was the better format that had a ****load of room and better picture definition.

 

[sonolimy]

If the capacity is so much greater, why have 2 disk Special Editions when the second disk bonus materials are all in SD? Why not fit that all on one disk and charge less?

Blu-ray isnt the only ones that do that. HD-DVD and SD-DVD have done that. maybe its a programming thing. the same amount of content would cost you the same even if it was on one disk. If you find it to be ore expensive than maybe its the store you are getting it from. Try shopping at a more reasonable franchise

 

[EVILFACE]

If the capacity is so much greater, why have 2 disk Special Editions when the second disk bonus materials are all in SD? Why not fit that all on one disk and charge less?

Perception.

People think they are getting a better deal with 2 disks instead of everything put on 1.

 

[darth dypshyt]

Sounds to me like someone has shares in Sony..

Not that there's anything wrong with that..happens all the time.

 

[Fubeca]

Not sure where you found that info but that was a very incomplete story.

Here is the real story.

...

I also felt your story was misleading. I noticed that you chose to use a semicolon when you should have infact used a comma...



But I am glad. Yeah Bluray is more price but soooo much worth the extra money!!! Blu-Ray!!!!!!!!

 

[Natrix]

Blu-ray isnt the only ones that do that. HD-DVD and SD-DVD have done that. maybe its a programming thing. the same amount of content would cost you the same even if it was on one disk. If you find it to be ore expensive than maybe its the store you are getting it from. Try shopping at a more reasonable franchise

Right, but your point is about how great the increased capacity of Blu Ray disk is over those other formats. Now your saying that it isn't?? So it is not any better than HD DVD?

I don't really care about the costs but one disk should be cheaper than two no matter how you cut it.

 

[Natrix]

Perception.

People think they are getting a better deal with 2 disks instead of everything put on 1.

I know about perception of value but I wanted sonolimy to defend his statement about the increased capacity of the disks.

 

[sonolimy]

Right, but your point is about how great the increased capacity of Blu Ray disk is over those other formats. Now your saying that it isn't??

I don't really care about the costs but one disk should be cheaper than two no matter how you cut it.

I didnt say that at all, I said, I dont know why they do that. maybe its to lead people into a false sense. make them think that they are getting an awesome deal. Blu-Ray definitely has the storage compacity to hold a lot of info as does HD-DVD, but Blu-ray has much more which gives it a signifiget advantage over the compitition

 

[sonolimy]

I know about perception of value but I wanted sonolimy to defend his statement about the increased capacity of the disks.

What do I need to defend myself about? About how Bu-ray hold more storage space? Or how the quality is way better than other formats.??? Its personal choice and also the specs speak for themselves. And also the massive increase of sales of BD-DVD over HD-DVD.

 

[Natrix]

I own both formats and I don't think one is that much better than the other. I think both are awesome but they also still have a few glitches and bad transfers to work out. Ultimately it comes down to the codecs used for the audio and video and how the space that is on the disk is utilized.

 

[hairlesswookiee]

What do I need to defend myself about? About how Bu-ray hold more storage space? Or how the quality is way better than other formats.??? Its personal choice and also the specs speak for themselves. And also the massive increase of sales of BD-DVD over HD-DVD.

storage wise yes bluray is better, quality wise its not. both output the same.

 

[sonolimy]

storage wise yes bluray is better, quality wise its not. both output the same.

Product Details:
# Blu-ray, also known as Blu-ray Disc (BD), is the name of a next-generation optical disc format jointly developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA). The format was developed to enable recording, rewriting and playback of high-definition video (HD), as well as storing large amounts of data.
# The format offers more than five times the storage capacity of traditional DVDs and can hold up to 25GB on a single-layer disc and 50GB on a dual-layer disc. This extra capacity combined with the use of advanced video and audio codecs will offer consumers an unprecedented HD experience.
# While current optical disc technologies such as DVD, DVD±R, DVD±RW, and DVD-RAM rely on a red laser to read and write data, the new format uses a blue-violet laser instead, hence the name Blu-ray. Despite the different type of lasers used, Blu-ray products can easily be made backwards compatible with CDs and DVDs through the use of a BD/DVD/CD compatible optical pickup unit. The benefit of using a blue-violet laser (405nm) is that it has a shorter wavelength than a red laser (650nm), which makes it possible to focus the laser spot with even greater precision. This allows data to be packed more tightly and stored in less space, so it's possible to fit more data on the disc even though it's the same size as a CD/DVD. This together with the change of numerical aperture to 0.85 is what enables Blu-ray Discs to hold 25GB/50GB.

This is why it is better Quality. By the way, the output is not the same

 

[Natrix]

This is why it is better Quality. By the way, the output is not the same

No one is arguing the storage capacity. The thing you are getting caught up on is the whole storage space = better quality consistantly, which isn't always true. More storage space is great and in theory should allow for better quality but only if it is used properly. Have you seen The Fifth Element ot House Of Flying Daggers on Blu Ray? More space on a disk didn't help those ones out.

 

[mfoga]

Product Details:
# Blu-ray, also known as Blu-ray Disc (BD), is the name of a next-generation optical disc format jointly developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA). The format was developed to enable recording, rewriting and playback of high-definition video (HD), as well as storing large amounts of data.
# The format offers more than five times the storage capacity of traditional DVDs and can hold up to 25GB on a single-layer disc and 50GB on a dual-layer disc. This extra capacity combined with the use of advanced video and audio codecs will offer consumers an unprecedented HD experience.
# While current optical disc technologies such as DVD, DVD±R, DVD±RW, and DVD-RAM rely on a red laser to read and write data, the new format uses a blue-violet laser instead, hence the name Blu-ray. Despite the different type of lasers used, Blu-ray products can easily be made backwards compatible with CDs and DVDs through the use of a BD/DVD/CD compatible optical pickup unit. The benefit of using a blue-violet laser (405nm) is that it has a shorter wavelength than a red laser (650nm), which makes it possible to focus the laser spot with even greater precision. This allows data to be packed more tightly and stored in less space, so it's possible to fit more data on the disc even though it's the same size as a CD/DVD. This together with the change of numerical aperture to 0.85 is what enables Blu-ray Discs to hold 25GB/50GB.

This is why it is better Quality. By the way, the output is not the same

At what point in that whole thing is quality addressed? What when they said it was better with nothing to back it up? Guess what 1080p is 1080p no matter what the source.

 

[Seth Gecko]

Who really gives a **** about the whole dealio?














oh wait...

 

[vespagirl]

No one is arguing the storage capacity. The thing you are getting caught up on is the whole storage space = better quality consistantly, which isn't always true. More storage space is great and in theory should allow for better quality but only if it is used properly. Have you seen The Fifth Element ot House Of Flying Daggers on Blu Ray? More space on a disk didn't help those ones out.

I personally don't think that's a good example for comparison. The Fifth Element is a 10-year-old movie shot in standard definition. I don't think either format can help out an older movie. No recent movie has been released on both formats to do a side-by-side comparison, but when 300 comes out in July, that will change. Don't blame the format, blame the formatter. I doubt Sony has control over who the movie studio selects as the actual manufacterer and compression company of the Blu Ray disc. They only offer the format, that's it.

 

[vespagirl]

At what point in that whole thing is quality addressed? What when they said it was better with nothing to back it up? Guess what 1080p is 1080p no matter what the source.

I don't think that's entirely true. I think either format is only going to look as good as the thecnical quality of the original movie. Obviously something shot and released within the past few years will look much better and do either format more justice than something older. Do you think a re-release of Gone With The Wind on 1080p is going to look like an entirely new movie? I highly doubt it.

 

[mfoga]

I don't think that's entirely true. I think either format is only going to look as good as the thecnical quality of the original movie. Obviously something shot and released within the past few years will look much better and do either format more justice than something older. Do you think a re-release of Gone With The Wind on 1080p is going to look like an entirely new movie? I highly doubt it.

You missed my point there I think. 1080p HD-DVD and 1080p Blu-Ray would be the same for the same movie. The source of the 1080p will not make it better ot worse.

 

[tomandshell]

I'm feeling long-winded again!



Most everybody knows how awful early Blu-ray titles like Daggers and Fifth Element looked. (The latter was so bad that they are already re-releasing it.) But they weren't 50 GB discs, so it's not the fairest comparison.

What I can say without hesitation is that the 30 GB HD DVDs of King Kong and the Matrix series didn't just look better than such 50 GB Blu-ray discs as Click and Talladega Nights, they looked MUCH better.

And while comparing comedies to action flicks is obviously tricky, what I'm saying is that the full capacity of those 50GB films didn't help them one bit. I see no difference between the 25GB version of Talladega Nights that came free with my PS3 and the 50GB special edition that I got from Amazon. Technically, you would expect the 50GB copy to look twice as good because of the additional breathing room--and it just doesn't.

Some of the best looking Blu-ray discs on the market are 25GB--Corpse Bride, Planet Earth: The Complete Series, Open Season, etc. Some of the worst looking discs are 50GB--The Sentinel, Talladega Nights.

What matters is not the space, but how it is used. If a Blu-ray MPEG-2 encoded file takes up more space, then you are going to need a bigger disc to hold it--but that doesn't mean that the encode on the bigger disc is going to look better than the VC-1 on HD DVD. Sometimes one of the benefits of a technically superior codec is the more compact file size. In music terms, WAV files are bigger and require more room on your iPod--does that make them better than MP3 or AAC files that could fit the same amount of music in a smaller amount of space?

Ten pounds of marshmallows and ten pounds of iron both weigh the same, but one takes up a lot less space than the other.

Paramount tends to use the space-hungry MPEG-2 encode on their Blu-rays and VC-1 on their HD DVDs. Dual format releases like World Trade Center, Flags of Our Fathers, M:I:III and Happy Feet (Warner) are virtually identical visually yet differ in the amount of disc space occupied.