OSNews

While on paper blu-ray was a bit better, in reality the two formats were equal for the casual viewer. As a person who needs region-free media because I want to live in two continents during my lifetime, HD-DVD provided me with region-free disks by default, and that's the only thing I will miss from the standard. I own both a Blu-Ray and an HD-DVD player btw, I am not a fanatic for one or the other format, they were pretty equal in entertaining me with top quality.

For me it's too up in the air right now, plus BluRay is too expensive. I don't even have a HDTV.

No, I'll wait until my SDTV fails in a few years then upgrade. By then hopefully this is resolved.

The stupid thing about this is that they're missing out on sales due to stubbornness, on both sides.. "Is it BluRay is it HD-DVD? Sheesh, I hope I don't waste my money on the wrong format..."

Edited 2008-01-05 07:26

Eugenia, that is not true.

Most BD titles are region free, I have a couple from amazon.com (I live in Greece) and a friend of mine has more than 20 from amazon.com which are region free. To be honest I don't remember a BD title that is region locked!

http://blu-raystats.com/

Second column from the end. Click on "region free" to sort.

Most BDs are region-free. All HD DVDs are.

I'm willing to concede that HD DVD is less evil in a couple different ways (no region encoding, AACS not mandatory), but on an LCD TV at least, there's just no comparison in quality. HD DVDs look awful. So do Blu-Rays that use VC-1, so I hope the end of HD DVD means a lot fewer BD titles with lowest common denominator picture and sound (VC-1 + Dolby Digital = yuck.)

This is the same issue I have. I wanted to HD-DVD to win purely for this reason. I have about 70 DVDs in the region for Africa. When I lived in the US I never bought a DVD precidely because I knew I was leaving. The other night I bought Goodwill Hunting. I got home to find that I needed a DVD player that ignores regions to play it because it was set for another reason. The DVD was in the "Collectors" section and more expensive than normal so I probably should have realised it was imported. But it bugs the hell out of me.

Not as big discs and the only reason it was even considering was massive $ from Microsoft just so Sonys format would fail / PS3 using blu-ray wouldn't be an argument against the 360?

Cheaper to produce is something that is only true while DVD's are still being produced "en masse". Once the (slightly more costly) transition to BR has been made, it will not be any more costly than DVD or HD-DVD.

What's wrong with HD-DVD is it doesn't have as many DRM layers as blu-ray...
so the later is supposed to be more pirate-proof...
It's a real shame, every sane person knows DRM only impair regular users.

"What's wrong with HD-DVD"


one word..... Microsoft!

But Sony's gamble on PS3 has been nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. Compare the units sold, the fact that they once held a 70% dominance, and now XBox 360/Nintendo Wii have taken over. Interesting how there was once a view by some that Nintendo would exit the market place and Microsoft would eventually give up on XBox.

I go down the road and I certainly don't see people gravitating around PS3's at the local Harvey Norman or Noel Leemings; XBox 360 and Wii are now king.

As for BluRay vs. HD-DVD; in the end its not going to matter; very few people I see are jumping into it; the big retailers are pushing, but most are quite happy with DVD for now; heck, its only been recently that I bought a DVD recorder.

Don't assume because a large number of geeks and techno boffins here have the latest technology, it represents the rest of society. Those of us who frequent this place are lucky to represent 5-10% of the marketplace.

For almost everyone else, until there is a real killer application where by there are tangible benefits over and above traditional DVD, its not going to matter. I mean, I'm still using an old CRT 29inch television - the move to BluRay or HD-DVD would yield me nothing in the way of benefits.

You are missing the point. While PS3's sales have not been good as a game console, they have been VERY good as an HD player! Both BD and HDDVD have sold so bad, that the "low" sales of the PS3 are so "high" compared to its competitors that were enough to give BD an edge by year's end.

Frankly I see it as a little unfair to add the PS3 sales into the count without knowing the number of people who made the purchase for the BD capabilities.

I'd suspect that the vast majority, if not a very sizeable chunk, are due to the games, not the format of the disc.

Aslong as the people who bought the PS3 for games happen to buy some movies aswell it doesn't matter for the people who sell movies ..

Frankly I see it as a little unfair to add the PS3 sales into the count without knowing the number of people who made the purchase for the BD capabilities.

Half-agree. While that's true, the fact that the BD drives are in the hands of consumers means that it's reasonable to include them in the count, even if people aren't using them for that purpose. My feeling is that most people are using them strictly for games. But that could change over time.

"Frankly I see it as a little unfair to add the PS3 sales into the count without knowing the number of people who made the purchase for the BD capabilities.

I'd suspect that the vast majority, if not a very sizeable chunk, are due to the games, not the format of the disc."



So! more players in the market... mean.... more opportunity for BR discs to be played! it does not matter that i may have purchased my PS3 to play games. when i see spider man 3 BR at target.... for $25.99.... next to the DVD.... i may just chose the BR disk. its simple!

BR is going to win this.... OR both platforms may survive. HD-DVD however will not get the whole bag!

And if XBox 360 had an HD-DVD player included by default we'd be debating something else.

The question will be when HD-DVD games come out for XBox 360, and the HD-DVD drives are pushed - what number of XBox 360 owners will upgrade their machines to the new drive? even if only 80% of users upgrade their drives to HD-DVD, it will simply crush BluRay in one swoop.

That is the issue; once you have the installed base, and the necessary games and movies, then its going to be a heck of alot easier to get someone to spend US$179 on upgrading their XBox drive than telling that same person to purchase a PS3 which in New Zealand dollars is considerably more expensive than Wii or XBox 360.

I tend to agree with this. I simply do not want a lot of devices cluttering my entertainment space, so if I can pay a relatively small amount to get access to HD movies in small form factor, compared to either a very large PS3 or an entire new BD player in addition to my Xbox 360, then I will go with the add-on device.

Ideally it'd be nice to see Microsoft sell Xbox 360's with HD-DVD drives as standard, but I doubt that'll happen.

Edited 2008-01-05 08:23

And if XBox 360 had an HD-DVD player included by default we'd be debating something else.

The Xbox 360 has a bigger market share today because it came out one year before and at a cheaper price. That's thanks to using a standard DVD player.

So if the Xbox 360 had an HD-DVD player by default we would definitely be discussing something else, like Microsoft failing yet again to beat the PS. But that hasn't happened yet.

360 was supposed to have a HD-DVD-player, I have no idea why Microsoft skiped it, because it become such a big part of the price and they wheren't sure the format would win? It gave them a price advantage vs PS3 anyway which keeped the blu-ray.

"Even if only 80% of the users", yeah right, keep dreaming on, the users will hate Microsoft if they do.

Go shave some sheeps.

The question will be when HD-DVD games come out for XBox 360, and the HD-DVD drives are pushed - what number of XBox 360 owners will upgrade their machines to the new drive? even if only 80% of users upgrade their drives to HD-DVD, it will simply crush BluRay in one swoop.

Correction: "The question is, if HD-DVD games were to come out for the XBox 360..."
(which won't actually happen, so it's pointless arguing about it...)

But Sony's gamble on PS3 has been nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. Compare the units sold, the fact that they once held a 70% dominance

I wonder which is more important to them, the console war, or the HD format war?

I mean, I'm still using an old CRT 29inch television - the move to BluRay or HD-DVD would yield me nothing in the way of benefits.

Amen. I am getting an HD TV .. probably never. Unlike some folks ("I am not a fanatic for one or the other format, they were pretty equal in entertaining me with top quality.") picture quality above a certain point is not a factor for me. I am entertained by good movies and shows and the occasional sporting event. DVD is "good enough." I'll stick with my CRT, and for special occasions the projection screen (7'), at 800x600. I don't see myself splurging to replace that unless it breaks.

The highest definition display in the house is my computer monitor, but the studios are determined that I won't be able to play HD movies on the OS of my choice, so that avenue is out as well.

Selfishly, I am hoping the format war continues indefinitely, hampering adoption and making sure the continued prevalence of plain old DVDs for me

It's really amazing. I first heard of Bluray (then HD-DVD sometime later) back in college, and that was years and years ago. This transition has been a lot slower than I could have imagined.

Edited 2008-01-05 08:59

I wonder which is more important to them, the console war, or the HD format war?

I think that BOTH are important to Sony; however, they stand to gain a lot more from the HD format war, since the market is much wider for players and content than consoles.

DVD is "good enough." I'll stick with my CRT, and for special occasions the projection screen (7'), at 800x600. I don't see myself splurging to replace that unless it breaks.

When you go to a HD TV with a high resolution, you almost have to make the jump to HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, because the compression artifacts really suck with plain DVD -- even with new upscaling DVD players.

Selfishly, I am hoping the format war continues indefinitely, hampering adoption and making sure the continued prevalence of plain old DVDs for me

The basic issue here is that TV manufacturers are moving increasingly to selling nothing but HD sets. Over time, when you buy your next TV set, you probably won't have much choice than go HD. My guess is that DVD is "good enough" for most consumers on their current non-HD sets but, as soon as they see that "good enough" means "sucks really bad" on HD TVs, that will change -- and the migration will begin in earnest. But it could take YEARS.

>>I wonder which is more important to them, the console war, or the HD format war?

I think that BOTH are important to Sony; however, they stand to gain a lot more from the HD format war, since the market is much wider for players and content than consoles.

Eh, I'd have to disagree. I'd imagine they make a lot more money on their consoles and games than they ever will simply by licensing Blu--ray technology. Mind you, Blu-ray isn't Sony-only technology; it really can't and shouldn't be compared to the likes of Betamax and MiniDisc. It was jointly developed by the Blu-ray Disc Association, which includes Matsushita, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, Samsung, and Sony--basically everyone except for Toshiba and NEC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hd_dvd

It's not like losing the format war would be the end of the world for Sony, not even close, they'd just sell their studios' films on HD-DVD, make HD-DVD players, and that'd be the end of it. Hell, they'd even get the added benefit of PlayStation games being much harder to copy!

Losing the console war, on the other hand.... I doubt they'd take that nearly so lightly.

Edited 2008-01-06 15:46 UTC

That one incredibly bitter and inane post sums up the past two years absolutely perfectly.

Thank you! LOL!

Xbox 360 sales since Nov 2005 are just over 17 million units sold. 6 million in the US. 8.1 million units of Halo sold.

PS 3 sales since Nov 2006 are approaching 6 million. Definitely third, but in the Oct - Nov 2007 sales in the US are up 285% due in part to price cuts and Wii production failures.

Wii sales since Nov 2006 are 13.17 million units with 11.86 million units sold of Wii Sports.

PS2 Sales World Wide: 120 million

Observation: NO ONE IS THE WINNER FOR THE LATEST CONSOLES.

It's just begun.

Microsoft has SHIPPED around 17 million 360s - just under 15 million have been SOLD worldwide.

Sony has SOLD 9 million PS3s worldwide. Shipment numbers won't be out until march for Sony.

The PS3 has SHIPPED 129-130 million consoles worldwide. Sony has SOLD some 127-128 million consoles worldwide.

There is no winner because we are FIVE YEARS AWAY FROM THE END OF THE CURRENT CONSOLE CYCLE.

Grow up guy, spouting inane fanboy numbers for console sales has never worked in previous gens and it isn't going to accomplish anything this gen.

I am supporting the PS3 and that it hasn't lost. Either you can't grasp that or you responded to the wrong post.

360 have NOT taken over, last stats I saw a couple of months ago PS3 and 360 sales have been very much the same month by month on each consoles life. 360 was released earlier however so in total units it had sold more.

Part of the high price are probably due to the bluray yes, but on the other side they can have much bigger games, and I guess Sony had hoped it would have been over sooner.

360 are not "king", some people buy 360s, early 360 life had less sales than early xbox life, I don't know how it looks now, but noone would say that xbox was a total success, thought piracy helped with units sold.

Ah, yes, perhaps a console failure. It could be nothing less, even if they sold a billion units, when they are selling below cost!

DVD's will disappear in time, though the upcoming format shift suffers from chicken-egg syndrome all over the place: Requiring HD TV's, HD players, HD titles, and to be any better than DVD, 7.1 stereo's. Oh, and really, HD TV from the sat/cable providers on some large scale as well. So, yes, for now .. and for a while.. 10%.

In time though, it will hit critical mass and DVD will become legacy. Just as, on a 13" CRT TV, the benefits of DVD are minor over VHS (no re-winding, or skippable ads...), blu-ray will still 'work' on 29" CRT's. Those of us with 42" plasma sets will get to appreciate the higher quality picture.

The whole situation is simular to IPV6.

Well said. Sony made a mistake trumpeting BlueRay using the PS3. Coming from a gamers perspective here, most people in my camp cares about the format, they care about the games. I've heard a number of people suggest that most PS3 owners don't eve know their console can play BlueRay movies. It wouldn't surprise me.

I don't think it's the deep pocket reason. Blu-Ray is mostly Sony, Apple, Sun, & Dolby. HD-DVD is Toshiba & Microsoft.

My personal reason for not liking HD-DVD is the specification. Toshiba menu control language and Microsoft Media file for audio and video.

Blu-Ray uses Java for the menu control language; Dolby's AAC audio format. Video is supplied by ITU-T Video Coding Expert's Group (VCEG) & ISO/IEC Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG). Thus the audio comes from an expert in audio and the video comes from two groups of experts who worked to gather.

I don't consider Microsoft an expert in video or audio. From having to deal with their software for all these years, I hardly consider them software experts. I haven't looked into Toshiba's control language, so I can't tell if it's better or worse then Java.

To support HD-DVD you need to license Toshiba's control language engine and also Microsoft's media CODACs. Blu-Ray is licensed by the standards bodies and is thus a little more accessible to implementers.

Microsoft created HD-DVD because the group developing the 2nd generation DVD refused to accept Microsoft's Media files as part of the standard. I;m not sure if this was done because the Media Files were poorly designed of if licensing demands came into play.

I don't know how accurate the rest of your very charged statements are, but WM9 is quantifiably one of if not the best codecs in terms of quality:size.

Edited 2008-01-05 06:10

but WM9 is quantifiably one of if not the best codecs in terms of quality:size.

and h.264 (=MPEG-4 AVC) is quantifiably one of the codecs that's significantly better than VC1 (=WMV9) in terms of quality:size.

The whole discussion is pointless though because both BD and HDDVD support h.264 and VC1. Use whatever you want.

Edited 2008-01-05 13:54

I agree Alex. Having worked quite a bit with WM9 content for compressing videos, I would have to say, it is probably the easiest way to get quality HD content. That's not to say H.264 isn't good (it is also great, actually), but I just find it a lot easier to get content to WM9 via Microsoft's freely-available tools.

I think you have your facts backwards.

For both BluRay and HD-DVD, there are three supported video codecs. MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC, and Microsoft's VC-1.

Most earlier BluRay titles used MPEG-2, but newer BluRay titles and virtually all HD-DVD titles use VC-1.

In terms of audio, both formats support AC-3, DTS and LPCM, the same as DVDs. HD-DVD requires support for several more advanced audio codecs, including two high-quality lossess variants, while those same formats are optional on BluRay. Even so, both disc formats support the same audio codecs.

Also, there was no "group developing the 2nd generation DVD". There were two separate efforts, one by Sony and one by Toshiba. The DVD Forum, who maintain the original DVD spec, also maintain the HD-DVD spec, so HD-DVD is actually the "official" successor to DVDs. BluRay exists because Sony and several associated companies weren't happy with the DVD Forum's control of the DVD format, and wanted to control the replacement themselves.

The interactivity stuff on HD-DVDs was developed by Microsoft, not Toshiba.

Well said. The two formats are almost identical, with Blu-Ray only having some edges in storage etc, while HD-DVD is region-free. But as I said, overall for the casual viewer, the two formats are pretty much identical. There's no "better and worse", neither Microsoft is "bad at codecs". This was simply a strategic war, not a technology one.

Ive got a ps3, which is completely region free (x360 isnt), Looking at some of the films I have:

1. Casino Royale Blu Ray, On the back says all regions aka region free (a,b,c are different regions)
2. Resident Evil Apocalypse all regions (aka region free)
3. Click (Adam Sandler) region B only.

So I guess, Blu ray as a media/medium is region free. The region lock in is probably to do with the distributor.

check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

.. Just found out hd-dvd capable of 17x3 layers == 51 Gigs. Although currently 34G, I guess (dual layer)

BD == 25x2 no triple layer disks talked about so max 50 Gigs but on two layers. Is a third layer possible? that would make storage 75G per disk, which is huge really.

"This was simply a strategic war, not a technology one"

very true! so.... personally, i am happy to see MS loose yet another battle!

BluRay exists because Sony and several associated companies

If by "several associated companies", you mean everyone except Toshiba and NEC, then you are correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association

P.S. Sony and everyone else on the Blu-Ray Disc Association are also members of the DVD Forum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Forum

Looks like you ought to do a little fact-checking yourself....

Edited 2008-01-06 15:56 UTC

You realise that WMV9, aka VC1 isn't controlled by Microsoft; its an SMPTE specification - WMV9 happens to be an implementation of the VC1 specification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMPTE

Side issue; BluRay's specification includes VC-1 support (aka WMV9).

Edited 2008-01-05 08:09

To be more specific, VC-1 is a standard largely built by Microsoft based on their original WMV3/WM9 codec (Which existed before VC-1).

Microsoft later pushed out Windows Media Video 9 "Advanced Profile" which fully conforms to the said SMPTE VC-1 standard.

Many people don't know that Microsoft's original WM video codec was based on a broken implementation of MPEG4 ASP. The multiplexer for .asf files was then hacked and gave rise to DivX v3.xx and the popularity of MPEG-4 in the AVI file container we see today on peer to peer networks.

What's interesting is that when quad-speed CD drives hit (and thus, single & double speed CD drives started to become affordable), hard drives were small: compared to a 40mb hard drive, a 650mb CD seemed impossibly large. Check out the MPC spec;

"The MPC 1 Specification defines the following minimum standard requirements: a 386SX or 486 CPU; 2 MB RAM; 30 MB hard disk; VGA video display; 8-bit digital audio subsystem; CD-ROM drive"

For an equivalent estimation of "future needs", and assuming say a 250gb drive as 'standard', the disc would have to hold 5TB. For their time, CD's were great and DVD's have been pretty good, we're just hitting 'diminishing returns' on optical media.

Exactly. Optical media is slow and vulnerable to damage. It also has a very high rate of imperfect copies.

It will not matter in the end (apparently it doesn't matter now). If you go back in time to the beginning of ebay, and were asked to choose which is the better name for instant recognition (and according to your post, better acceptance) - auction.com or ebay.com - which would you choose?

All that matters is the product they produce, and the marketing they provide to educate people what that product is all about.

Blu-Ray is an imaginative "sci-fi" name (although dumbed down without the 'e') compared to meaningless 'HD-DVD'.

Clorox, Pop-Tarts, Weed-Eater... BluRay could one day hold the same level of meaning, as far as "being" its product. I'm not saying it will, just that it could.

It might not be that easy:

BD+ was developed by Cryptography Research Inc. and is based on their concept of Self-Protecting Digital Content.[53] BD+ is effectively a small virtual machine embedded in authorized players. It allows content providers to include executable programs on Blu-ray Discs. Such programs can:[51]

* examine the host environment, to see if the player has been tampered with. Every licensed playback device manufacturer must provide the BD+ licensing authority with memory footprints that identify their devices.

* verify that the player's keys have not been changed.
* execute native code, possibly to patch an otherwise insecure system.
* transform the audio and video output. Parts of the content will not be viewable without letting the BD+-program unscramble it.

Movie producers apparently wants this region nonsense and BD+ gives them a way to enforce it (since the player has to be authorized and not tampered with). And working around copy protection systems like BD+ is not leagal in parts of the world (like in the USA).

So what you are saying is Blu-ray discs can contain executable code that runs inside a virtual machine on a compromised device to try and determine whether the said device is compromised...

Ever heard of the saying "Closing the barn door after the horses have fled"?

Working around cryptography may be illegal, but implementing an "engineer" menu or some such thing activated via an arbitrary sequence of buttons on a remote control, and having a debug option to disable the virtual machine wouldn't have any legal issues, would it?

Possibly not legal issues, but it may very well have contract issues. I have no idea what kind of contract you have to sign to be allowed to make bluray players, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had language forbidding that sort of thing.

If you piss of the bluray consortium enough they can not only prevent you from making any new players, but they can also revoke your crypto key and make sure discs released after a certain date don't work on any of your old players. All of which would be kind of bad for your business.

BD+ was developed by Cryptography Research Inc. and is based on their concept of Self-Protecting Digital Content.[53] BD+ is effectively a small virtual machine embedded in authorized players. It allows content providers to include executable programs on Blu-ray Discs. Such programs can:[51]

It doesn't matter. The ingenuity and market incentive for pirates is too great. It will be cracked.

I can only speak for the UK, but region free DVD players are available in all major electronic stores.

Xaero_Vincent wrote:
-"But as a data storage format BluRay is superior with greater storage capacity."

well, iirc HDDVD initially had 15gb/30gb for single/dual layer, with BluRay having 25gb/50gb for single/dual and definately being superior storage-wise.

last I read though, HDDVD now have 17gb/32gb for single/dual layer and a three layer 51gb disc aswell (although when I read about it the three layer had not been confirmed to function on (then) existing hardware).

when it comes to watching HD content, like you said I also gather that the difference is close-to none, and being region-free makes HDDVD the more consumer-friendly format in my opinion, not surprising then that the majority of the movie industry's big players are opting for BluRay

I already heard talks of an 8-layer BluRay disc, capable of storing 200 GB.

Its all relative and non-standard.

People arent going to put up with constantly changing specs. Nobody will want to be forced to buy new players or drives each month just to support BluRay or HD-DVD layer +1 discs.

Edited 2008-01-05 08:53