10 Reasons Why High Def DVD Formats (HD-DVD and BluRay) Have Already Failed

Here's an interesting editorial on the whole HD-DVD/BluRay issue:

http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/10reasonsHDDVDsfailed.php

 

He makes good but flawed points.

I offer another point-of-view...

Video games and their consoles. There has been at least 3 (or more) competing video game formats since 1985 yet the video games industry is still thriving. That industry actually enjoyes the idea of more than one format. Why? Wouldn't only having one video game platform have all the same advatages for "thier" consumers as one music or movie format? Why is the idea of having one video game platform that has all the great video games and has all the cool multi-meida features and the best state of the art graphics so rediculous?

Why do console gamers across the world regard thier console manufacture with respect and the other(s) with discust? Noone is mad at the videogame industry for having more than one format.

Just a thought,
Ced

 

We can probably shoot down all his 10 reasons one by one but the point that really surprised me was number 3:

This is like saying that a standard definition TV is just as good as a high def TV or that a 480i/p DVD is just as good as a 1080i/p HD-DVD/BD. Granted you need the proper equipment to tell the difference but really...

There has never been a bigger quantum leap in home entertainment than the change from SD to HD. It's the biggest thing since we went from black & white to color or from mono to stereo. Together with this comes the transition from standard def to high def programming either from broadcast or in disc form. This is where high-def disc formats come in.

Here he forgets the main reason for the development of high-def DVD formats: BETTER PICTURE QUALITY! It's not technology or more storage that will draw consumers. It's being able to watch movies as close to the original theatrical experience as possible.

 

Wait a minute. Not a leap in technology!?!?!? Unless I'm mistaken the Blue light used for Bluray has not been used before and red was the only one used for CDs, DVDs, etc or was it the other way around. Then also they removed the plastic coating on one of those right??? It's harder to do than it sounds. All sorts of problems probably popped up. And also he assumes that HD-media provided online will win out. But he neglects one important thing. The percentage of the whole world that have broadband is very small. Even in developed countries. So.......they'll download a TV show in HD with dialup. Maybe someone here can do the math and see how long that takes if continuosly downloaded. I'm thinking a few weeks maybe. That Clint DeBoer guy seems very ignorant of all the points. Seems like he just wrote that article with doing lots of research.

 

I know I don't know as much as most here but I think his #5 "Playstation3 Cannot Save the World"

Is extremely flawed.Sony has the best selling game machine in history.PS2 sold over 100 million units and that doesn't even count the original playstation which was also hugely successful.If we see a 3 peat that's over a 100 million homes with a bluray drive just due to ps3 sales alone.

Wrong! First of all 3do was anything but legendary.It didn't sell jack didly.Second when's the last time anyone heard of any of these consoles being marketed as "set top boxes" I spend lots of time on the console forums and never heard it.

In reality these are always about games first and other features later.they have pushed the multi-media the last 5 years but so what! They haven't "struggled to find there way into living rooms" either which he states.In fact name something besides a video/music player that has more sales than game consoles.

Lets see here 250 million americans and 40 million have a game machine and when you consider that more than 1 person lives in the average house.That's about a lttle under 1 per house.Yeah that's really struggling to get in the living room.Lol

 

You missed the point on the leaps and bounds on technology reason. The person was stating that DVDs and CDs offered something great to consumers... The ability to skip tracks instantly, not rewinding after each song/movie, etc... In terms of this, what do the new formats offer?

The ability for Sony to spy on you and determine exactly what you are watching when and on which box/room???

As for picture quality, I have yet to be amazed by the new formats. I would like to see a comparison between Blue Ray and Superbit to see what the difference is. Also, will something like Gone with the Wind, Spartacus, Harvey, Roman Holiday, etc... benefit from the new formats??

Another thing on picture quality, is that you are seeing DVD at about 50% quality. If people wanted picture quality, then Superbit would have been successful, but it wasn't (also, don't forget the first format to go HD was Laserdisc). It seems like people want more special features and extra language tracks. Basically picture quality is a marketing gimmick. You will see a small increase in quality but that is just to trick people into buying new hardware and replacing their movie collections.

I hope both formats fail... They have potential, but they went at it wrong and if they succeed, it will not be to the benefit of the consumer.

 

Search for info on iHD and BD-Java. These are the two technologies that take interactivitu to the next level. Skipping tracks and scene selection are abilites inhereint to digital formats. True interactivity is only achievable with more proccessing power which is something Super-bit DVD and Laserdisc both lacked!

Ced

 

So are you saying that high definition content is just a fad and a gimmick and that we should all go back to standard def because there's no significant difference between the two?

 

@diabolos,

I will check out those subjects.

@eatsushi,

Picture quality is not the same as resolution. High Definition is just resolution of 720i/p and 1080i/p. If I make a High Def movie and compress the hell out of it, it will look worse than a DVD. If I compress it more, it will look worse than a VHS.

With increasing the resolution, you must also increase the bitrate. What the new formats are doing is increasing the bitrate just enough for a small increase in video quality over the already greatly compressed DVDs. This can be seen in the small details like faces, clothes, etc... However, how would a 704x408 resolution video at 15mbps compare to a 1920x1080 video at the same bitrate? DVDs are compressed on average at 55:1. That is very high compression!!!

I will not buy the new format has better picture quality argument until I see a high bitrate DVD vs. the new format. There was a huge, and I mean HUGE difference in fifth element from Superbit DVD and normal DVD. Colors were different, backgrounds were much clearer, etc... If they begin making the Blue Ray and HD DVD movies in high video bitrates (20mbps and higher), then the quality will be good enough for the resolution.

Also, I don't care what codec they use, compression hurts video. If they use mpeg4, then they will start adding more language tracks and more extra features and larger menus, etc... so that is pretty much evens out with an mpeg-2 with little to no extras.

 

"Serenity" on HD-DVD has 24mbps as reported here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=692782

Added:

I just got back from comparing the Superbit DVD of "The Fifth Element" played on a Sony progressive scan player and the HBO-HD version recorded on my Comcast DVR. Granted I didn't play through the whole movie, I must say I prefer the HBO-HD version by a wide margin. On my set-up I get the best PQ from HD-DVD followed by broadcast HD and lagging behind in third by a significant margin would be Superbit DVD's. Tomorrow I'll try the Superbit version of "Men in Black" compared to the HBO-HD version which I just found out is still intact in my DVR. I read somewhere that HBO outputs its HD movies at 15 mbps.

 

VC-1 is better than MPEG-2. Period. Please don't make-up situations that don't exists. VC-1 at 15 mbps will kill MPEG-2 at 15 mbps. MEPG-2 doesn't start to overcome its issues untill about 24 mbps. But VC-1 is just as good at 12 mbps! The reason HD-DVD movies look so good is because they are encoded between 13-15 mbps using VC-1. Most HD-DVD titles are artifact free with the worst offenders only being guilty of minor pixel break-up. Admittedly you have to be a serious video-phile to catch it since it doesn't happen often.

Compare that with a typical DVD. Now the super-bit format I like, except for the releases being limited. Some people have said that the super-bit verson of "The Fifth Element" looks better than the Blu-ray version. But I can't confim that.

Why should they add more SP features onto the disc itself? As for HD-DVD, SP features are why ethernet ports are mandatory on all units! They don't plan on sacraficing quality for special features like DVD had too. If something doesn't fit, put it on the net and let people stream it.

Ced

 

A man with a cool point of view that I totally agree with...
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=691318&page=1&pp=30

Ced

 

Great link Ced. I also read on AVS Forums that the BD version of Fifth Element was a crappy MPEG 2 transfer. The point is when HD is done properly it far surpasses anything thet DVD and Superbit can offer.

dblbogey7: Do your comparison results have anythinng to do with the way SXRD's handle 480i/p signals? I heard they can be very picky with standard def.

 

I was able to do a side by side comparison for PQ of the following:

Sources:
1080i HBO-HD (Comcast DVR)
1080i Upconverted Superbit DVD (Toshiba HD-A1)
480p Superbit DVD (Sony Progressive scan player)

Movies:
"Men in Black"
"The Fifth Element"

Display: 60" Sony SXRD KDS-R60XBR1

I asked my girlfriend (who's quite tech-savvy) to be an impartial "blind" secondary subject - she did not know which input was running at any time.

We agreed on picture quality results 100%. HBO-HD was the winner hands down with practically no macroblocking or decooding artifacts, brilliant colors, excellent detail and excellent clarity. The upconverted picture improves a lot over progressive scan but still can't hold a candle to real 1080i material.

We're off on a 4-hour drive to my parents today and I'm bringing my DVR and Toshiba to do a similar comparison on my dad's "Ruby" projector - a Sony 1080p VPL-VW100 SXRD (the lucky bastard!) on a 100" screen.

 

Well everyone knows that, right? Upconversion is only a way of adding data to the screen from the source matirial. It doesn't add resolution! No matter how good the standard def matirial is (720x480i/p) the HD source (1920x1080i/p) should still blow it out of the water. I'd be more intrested in a comparison between HD-DVD and HBO-HD.

The ruby eh, that should be a sweet treat...

Have a safe trip!
Ced

 

Thanks Ced! My girlfriend is taking forever to get ready so I'm still here. LOL!

Anyway I'll look out for an HD-DVD release that's also showing on HBO-HD and do the comparison. Any suggestions? Without using the same movie as a frame of reference I would say that HD-DVD gave a slighlty better picture in my display compared to broadcast HD.

Yep - my dad really got himself one heck of a projector. I'm not complaining though since I get some hand me downs once in a while. When he upgraded to Mark Levinsons and Revels he gave me his old Rotels and B&W's. I just love the guy!

 

LMAO @ the tittle of this thread dvd is crap now. its 2006 its time for high def. baby.

 

@dblbogey7:
I'd like to hear about your experience with "RUBY." That is one damn fine PJ! Your dad's a lucky man.

 

dblbogey7- Some guys have all the luck~

 

Got back last night from my dad's - still in awe over his Ruby PJ. The advantages in PQ of HD-DVD over upconverted DVD is magnified. He agrees that the Toshiba HD-A1 produces the best PQ from any source he has seen so far - better even than broadcast HD movies. He's not really a big sci-fi fan but I think I've converted him after seeing Serenity and Riddick on HD-DVD. What amazed me too was how good the HD-DVD transfer of Blazing Saddles looked considering Mel Brooks made the film in the 70's. If HD-DVD can do this to old movies then my dad would definitely be happy.

He was also impressed with the Toshiba's upconverting abilities. We tried a few regular and superbit titles and he was blown away. He's even thinking of getting one himself just for this feature.

He's definitely convinced of the merits of the new format but what he would like to see in the future is sonething that Ced touched on in one of his threads. At present there is no player (HDDVD or BD) that outputs a "pure unadulterated" 1080P signal. Both the Toshiba and the Sammy (and the new RCA for that matter) read the 1080P24 data from the discs and use the Broadcomm chip to produce a 1080i signal. The Sammy then uses an internal deinterlacer to produce 1080p while the HD-DVD players output 1080i and let the displays do the deinterlacing/scaling to 1080p. What he would like to see is a player that reads the 1080P24 data and passes out this signal unprocessed to the display. The Ruby is already able to accept 1080p thru HDMI.

BTW - we also used the analog audio outs on the Toshiba. The soundtracks on the HDDVD discs definitely showed improvement over plain DD on his equipment.