1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Blu ray vs DVD (which is better?)

Discussion in 'HD DVD discussion' started by Nameme, Apr 26, 2006.

  1. alafossb

    alafossb Regular member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    50GB is more then plenty for a single game! I am excited to see developers using this space and not cutting down their games. Hah I remember in the past when yuor local computer guy would say that not even in 20 years will you be able to use up 10GB...hah get real! And 100GB and 200GB for recordable files is really nice...that's more then most average laptop hard drives and even some desktops.

    |alafoss|
     
  2. pulsar

    pulsar Active member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,420
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    68
    To say no-one needs huge discs is rather naive! I agree with all that alafossb says, the potential for games, esp with the way that graphics cards, SATA speeds, processor speeds, RAM speeds & RAM quantity are going, we will need huge dics etc. Progress is relentless, the way R&D departments & the money involved it is no surprise.
     
  3. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I think you are wrong. I can easily live without huge discs as can everyone else in the world. No one needs them, they are just a convenience.

    Those large discs are nice for archives. It is cool to load more than 1 game on a disc. For instance, you can archive all the Age of Empires on a DVD or later on, all your FPS on a Blue Ray disc and such. However, you would need to create your own custom installers for the games, break the copy protection on them etc....

    For archiving movies it is even better since that is easier. You can throw tons of hom movies on them and use that and preserve the tapes and such. Also, you can throw a good amount of DVD movies on one disc like the Pink Panther collection or the Peter O'Toole collection, etc...

    I would have still liked to see a DVD resolution at 25mbps though. That would probably rock on 60" or smaller.

    BTW, I finally saw Blue Ray yesterday, and it was next to the HD DVD, and I have to say, Sony might be in a bit of trouble. The pictures are pretty much the same (the Toshiba looked clearer but not by much), but the units are night and day. The Toshiba is built in much higher quality. For instance, it weighs about 25 pounds more, there is more steel on it and the controller is even steel or polished aluminum. The Samsung Controller is a plastic piece of garbage...

    The Samsung player should have been priced at $199 just because it is a piece of crap. I don't care how well it performs now or that it is new technology, it is still garbage. The Toshiba is priced right considering the quality of construction and the new technology is a bonus. I hope that HD DVD wins only so I can buy the Toshiba player. Even if all I use it for is to play DVDs, it is still worth it.
     
  4. rihgt682

    rihgt682 Regular member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,171
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    46
    They will!!!! I'll bet my ipod that they'll win. Unless Blu ray price drop. Then you ever know who's going to win. But as of not HD DVD is doing a awsoume job. Toshiba is one of the best company for making DVD players.
     
  5. Dfeyeant1

    Dfeyeant1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Blu-ray and HD DVD are both highdef, but Blu-ray looks much better. Sure, Sony pumped out the first few titles, but they didn't utilize mpeg4 which I can testify is way better looking and efficient. The only real movie Sony put out was that Daggers flick, the other titles kind of suck in my opinion. Watch when some other BIG titles come out from other companies that actually push the limits with mpeg4 and a filled 25GBs. It makes sense why it will look much better if you think about it. Some here seem kind of like my grandpa in the way that neither of them NEED more; they are fine with the less capable format/technology. My grandpa's so content that he doesn't even NEED a cell phone or the internet. Hell, who NEEDS for the future to even come! I mean horses seemed to work just fine; do we really even have a NEED for cars or airplanes? BD has the most potential, it is the most futuristic, their companies will be using the better compression, and for all the techies it's bigger! -a simple fact, but in a way the most important thing. We all need more space! Can you say backup?
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2006
  6. dblbogey7

    dblbogey7 Guest

    The general consensus among early adopters and reviewers is that BluRay's launch was a disaster.

    Here is a typical review:

    http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_initialreport.htm

    Read here why so many people are returning their Samsung BluRay player:

    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=690621

    Read here why I returned my Samsung BluRay player:

    http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/357160

    Here Ced discusses why round 1 goes to HD-DVD:

    http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/356526

    More negative comments from early BluRay adopters:

    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=696857
    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=695653
    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=696825
    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=691670

    Bottom line: People aren't willing to pay $1000 for a format that "might" get better in the future. Until they get dual layer BD50 working and until they realize that MPEG2 is outdated (among other things) HD-DVD will win the quality war. BluRay may have potentially bigger capacities for storage but HD-DVD has the upper hand at this time for movie playback.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 9, 2006
  7. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I agree with planes, but there is absolutely no need to OWN a car. Everyone thinks cars are more convenient, but they are only faster than a bus and walking (but not always faster than walking). When I would jog to High School which was 6 miles away, I would consistantly get there faster than when going by car by at least 10 minutes. For college, which was 12 to 13 miles away, it was about even only because of the highway, but on days with more than light traffic, I could jog faster by at least 30 minutes. Riding a bike was no comparison.

    Cars have their purpose like traveling outside of cities (i.e. no traffic) for trips longer than 30 miles but under 150 miles. For anything longer, a train is faster and cheaper. For anything over 400 miles a plane is faster and cheaper unless you travel with a group. For anything under 30 miles, a bike or jogging is the best choice.

    Back on subject...

    I thought that DVDs were done inefficiently and I think that Blue Ray inefficient. The newer formats are not enough of an improvement. They are both more of a revision to DVD meaning that they are DVD quality at a higher resolution. What will a Blue Ray movie look like at 12mbps mpeg-2 video?? Probably the same as a DVD at 4200kbps video... I am estimating a 12mbps video VC-1 may compare to a 8400kbps video DVD.

    What this says in theory is that a low bitrate Blue Ray title will look the same as a low quality DVD. A low bitrate HD DVD title will look at least as good as the best DVDs, but slightly/somewhat better than Superbit.

    A high/full bitrate Blue Ray will look better than a Superbit DVD and about equal to a Low bitrate HD DVD. A high/full Bitrate HD DVD will look about as good as broadcast HDTV.

    A medium Bitrate Blue Ray will look about as good as a High Bitrate DVD (criterion colletion, Superbit, very few normal releases) and a tad worse than a low bitrate HD DVD. A medium Bitrate HD DVD will look much better than even the highest bitrate DVDs, but worse than broadcast.

    So then the following conclusion can be made:

    HD DVD is always better than DVD
    HD DVD is always better than Superbit
    HD DVD is most of the time better than Blue Ray
    Blue Ray is most of the time better than DVD
    Blue Ray is sometimes better than Superbit

    This is of course only considering that Blue Ray is using Mpeg-2.

    Now, if Blue Ray were to use VC-1 or H.264, then the following would be true:

    Blue Ray is most of the time better than HD DVD
    Blue Ray is always better than Superbit
    Blue Ray is always better than DVD

    However, the Toshiba Player appears to be of MUCH higher quality than Samsung's.

    If you factor in price:

    DVD is better than Blue Ray (for now)
    HD DVD is better than DVD
     
  8. dblbogey7

    dblbogey7 Guest

    I agree with most of your observations except on my display HD-DVD's look better than broadcast HD (Comcast/Motorola DVR).

     
  9. diabolos

    diabolos Guest

    I feel that is a 1 dimensional observation.

    Like these new A/V formats, (and some old ones; ie first gen DVD, first gen Laser Disc, and VHS) its not all about great picture its about how much the "Home Theater" experience has been (and will be) improved. When I say experience I mean Picture, Audio, and Interactivity.

    People love their cars because of the expereince that technology affords them everyday not simply because they know its a faster way to travel. I hate it when someone on a bike blazes past me via a sidewalk or trail while I'm at a stop light in typical metropolitan rush hour traffic!

    When DVD first came out it had as many or more argument against it as these new formats. Alot of people didn't want DVD becuase it didn't offer any recording capabilty and the (new 720x480) digital transfers on signal layer media sometimes looked worse than VHS and Laser Disc.

    But that is history...
    Ced
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 10, 2006
  10. pulsar

    pulsar Active member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    2,420
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    68
    Buses & trains are only quicker if the service exists in the area! In the UK we had thousands of miles of track removed (local lines mostly, due to underuse, apparently). So cars are the only viable form of transport. Esp where I live, in the Yorkshire dales.
     
  11. JaguarGod

    JaguarGod Active member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,712
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Trains make more sense than cars to me. It is a shame they are taking out all those tracks. They can be so much faster and are much better for the environment. When, I go to high traffic areas, I cannot breathe. It is one of the worst feelings. Also, jogging in the city is tough because the air is so heavy.

    As for Broadcast HDTV, I definately do not mean Comcast/Motorola, because cable HDTV looked like crap to me the last time I saw it. I mean free broadcasts through an antenna. When I first got a Comcast HDTV box I only kept it for 5 minutes. It was a complete dissappointment.

    @Diablos,

    I understand what you are saying about the Home Theater experience, but the whole fact that it is called "High Defenition" automatically markets picture quality. When you see the Demos, they always have a simulated DVD picture split with a HD DVD picture. They are not showing you the extra interactivity.

    With audio, there is tons of room for improvement over DVD. I like VHS audio more than DVD unless if I am watching with multi-speaker surround. However, I am not big on having loud audio. The reason is that over 30db begins to damage your ears and 30db is not much louder than a loud whisper. Also, my ears are rather sensitive since I am used to being in silent rooms (I play classical guitar and I like to hear myself rather than background noise). Even the noise from typing right now is bothering me. I feel that the uncompressed audio from the new formats will be a big plus for me since you do not have to turn the volume way up to hear everything.
     
  12. Dfeyeant1

    Dfeyeant1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Wow there's a lot of negative feedback on BD out there. Sucks, because my livelyhood is reliant on the success of the format. My company is putting out a few good A-list titles soon. Our compression yields by far the best hd pq anyone has seen yet. We will also be putting out an even more expensive player than Samsung in a few months. Samsung really jumped the gun, and I feel they are giving a bad name to the format. Wait till you see the Java capability on future BDs, it's very futuristic and fancy.
     
  13. dblbogey7

    dblbogey7 Guest

    Did you use DVI or HDMI?

    OTA HD looks worse where I'm located - cable and satellite HD look better here. Besides you can't get the premium movie channels OTA. Most comments I've seen on internet forums still favor HD-DVD over broadcast HD:

    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=696717&highlight=broadcast+HD
     
  14. diabolos

    diabolos Guest

    In my area, OTA HDTV is better than cable and satellight simply because the bit-rates are higher for OTA. Soon DirecTV will be switching to MPEG-4 (in my area) in order to fit HD locals into their channel offerings. I'm eager to see what affect that will have on their exsisting HD channels.

    But if you want more channels, cable or satellight are the only way to go. For HD movies it HD-DVD or Blu-ray.

    Ced
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 11, 2006
  15. lilazn7

    lilazn7 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    I just have a few questions..

    With the new blu-ray discs, how they can hold up to 200GB, as stated before, will that not be enough since this "High Definition" data seems to take up a lot more space than DVD. Personally yet sadly, I have yet to see a HD show or movie. Is the quality much better? Is it worth it moving to HD/Bluray? A movie, taking up ~15GB has to have exceptional quality. My main question is, why is everyone using MPEG-2? I know that it's a DVD format, but what about people with a divX/Xvid player? What about Blu-ray's/HD-DVD's holding 15GB DivX/Xvid movies? Won't that be better quality?


    EDIT: What will really suck is that with DVD, there was just that. No competition at all, so you didn't need anything else except a DVD Player/Burner and DVD Discs. What is really bad about this is that if you prefer HD-DVD Movies (err.. from the companies who own them) or Blu-Ray movies (Disney, sony etc..) but what happens if you like both? I'm not sure if i'm completely accurate on this point but would you have to buy both a HD-DVD and a Blu-Ray player to play the movies you want? Is there such thing as a combo player which can play both?
    Any light on this subject would be greatly appreciated.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2006
  16. dblbogey7

    dblbogey7 Guest

    OTA HD reception has always been a problem at my location even with good equipment. If DirecTV switches to MPEG4 in this area then maybe I'll switch too. I'd hate to give up firewire recording from my Motorola box though.

    @lilazn7:
    Those are really good questions and I'll try to answer a few as best I can - maybe Ced can fill in the gaps and make corrections.

    Current BluRay releases are single layer 25 Gig discs. Manufactuing the dual layer 50 Gig discs has proven to be problematic but should come in time. Future 200 GB discs would be used mainly for data storage.

    This depends on your display. A good sized HD display 42" or over should show an improvement over upconverted DVD's. I have a 60" 1080p and the picture quality of HD-DVD is absolutely stunning. I have read comments in other forums where the difference is less noticable on smaller displays.

    BluRay uses MPEG2 while most HD-DVD's use VC-1. (I think HDDVD releases from HDNet are MPEG2.) VC-1 is a newer more efficient codec than MPEG2 which results in a higher quality picture using less space. I'm not an expert on DivX and XVid but I think these codecs are not really suited for HD. Ced - correct me on this or maybe add more info pls.

    It's two formats competing against each other. There are a few companies working on a combo solution - LG and Ricoh in particular - but no definite date yet. I already have the Toshiba HD-DVD player but since I do want to see for myself I did get the Samsung BluRay player too. Due to PQ issues I decided to return the Samsung but I plan to audition the upcoming Sony or Pioneer.

    If you want to get your feet wet in the new formats I recommend HD-DVD. The Toshiba HDDVD player costs half as much as the BluRay from Samsung but the picture quality of the initial HD-DVD discs far surpasses that of BluRay. This is an almost unanimous consensus among enthusiasts and early adopters.
     
  17. lilazn7

    lilazn7 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Thanks for the reply.

    Concerning your answer regarding the VC-1 codec, I've heard some good things about the H264 codec. Is it any good? Is HD-DVD really worth paying all that money to get the player and discs?
     
  18. Dfeyeant1

    Dfeyeant1 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    20
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    The H.264 is the best compression out there in terms of pq that will fit on a Blu-ray disc. This compression is more efficient than HD DVD's VC1 and it is being made to utilize the entire 25GB BD vs. HD DVD's 15GB. Hold out for BD with this compression, you will finally see HD at its best. HD with the same mpeg2 compression has exactly 4 times better PQ, in terms of resolution, than a DVD; now imagine that "4 times" with a better codec while utilizing 25% more space with a higher bitrate. Soon you wont have to imagine, even the lameo Samsung player will display this supreme clarity. TV large or small the difference is noticeable. The Sony titles look closer to DVDs than to the H.264 compressed titles.
     
  19. eatsushi

    eatsushi Regular member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    572
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    26
    @Dfeyeant1:

    Good to hear that at least one BluRay company is in the process of authoring in h.264/MPEG4. Your releases should look much better than the current MPEG2 crop that's out there. Is it possible for you to divulge the name of your studio?

    @lilazn7:

    We're in the same boat. I see movies and future releases that I'd like that are in different camps and I'm just resigned to the fact that I'm just gonna have to get both players for my HD fix.
     
  20. diabolos

    diabolos Guest

    DivX has a codec desgind for HD content but it is not on par with VC-1 or H.264 in PQ although files sized and encoding time are both amazing.

    Look at this link posted by eatsushi in this thread for more info...
    http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/352796

    Where is your proof? H.264 (AVC) is supported by the HD-DVD camp aswell, so if it is better than VC-1 it won't be a problem. I doubt that AVC is better than VC-1 since VC-1 is being tested in the market place and is getting real feedback from customers and retailers that Micro$oft engineers can use to improve their codec.

    Anyway, Blu-ray's problem isn't that the MPEG-2 codec is less-effeicient it is that the movie transfers look horrible, the Samsung player has poorly implamented de-interlacing chips, and the price for the player is twice as high and produce the same quality or worse.

    With that said I would like to see a high action HD movie encoded with AVC and VC-1 for good comparison between codecs.

    Ced
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 12, 2006

Share This Page