HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray Spot Check: There's still no good option

46 Comments

View All Comments

• samuraijake - Sunday, January 27, 2008 - link

  I'm a little late coming to this party, but still found the discussion interesting. This thread has yielded a lot of support for both (or neither) of the formats. Some of the more interesting rationales that I noticed:
  
  - Blu-ray will win out because "HD-DVD" is a mouthful and Blu-ray is a more memorable name.
  
  - Blu-ray will win out because even though it is more expensive now, it will be cheaper in the future.
  
  - "Let's use reason to determine the winner. One choice: Blu-ray" [paraphrased]
  
  - Sony is evil so HD-DVD should win.
  
  - Microsoft is evil so Blu-ray should win.
  
  - Blu-ray will win because it is technologically superior to HD-DVD
  
  - HD-DVD will win because it is technologically superior to Blu-ray
  
  As anyone with even a moderate ability to evaluate things objectively will acknowledge, any topic that is so hotly debated as this one (HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray) probably has justifiably good reasons for both options. Blu-ray is higher capacity. HD-DVD is capable of backwards compatibility. Blu-ray supports higher a higher bit rate. HD-DVD is less costly to manufacture at this point. The reasons go on.
  
  Most of the individuals who post in discussions such as these are well versed in the pros and cons of the competing options. Well, maybe 'most' is a bit generous. ;) But regardless, we have the luxury of understanding video bit rates as compared to audio and video quality, data density as it relates to long term medium reliability, the strengths (and weaknesses) of the copy protection mechanisms implemented in both formats. We know the benefits and pitfalls of a changing format profile as well as a static one. We can weigh the value of a format's strengths on the scale of our own interests. For example, will we be ripping this content? Will a format support the bit rate necessary for feeding our 8.1 channel surround sound system with lossless audio streams? Will additional features via Internet connectivity during playback further enhance our experience?
  
  We ask questions such as these in order to determine which format will better serve our interests and then ally ourselves with whichever product or solution we believe most effectively satisfies our (and other's perceived) needs. But this approach is more limited in its application than we may be willing to admit.
  
  Early adopters use this reasoning to determine which is the 'better' product. (And we are still early adopters. Though the HD market has certainly grown by leaps and bounds, the library of movies and available players is but a sliver of the device and content cornucopia that is standard definition DVD.) But as adoption and interest in this blossoming technology become more and more widespread, the mode of reasoning also begins to shift. Our friends, who perhaps have HDTVs but no HD disc player, visit our homes and marvel at the image quality of our HD playback. Being a little educated about things technological themselves, they acquiesce to our recommendations and purchase similar hardware to ours. Their friends visit them, perhaps less well versed in all things tech, and marvel at our friends amazing video playback. This 'third-generation' of prospective buyers is perhaps less interested in bit rates and capacities and longevity and more concerned about the almighty dollar. They long for HD optical media playback, but to them cost is a limiting factor.
  
  The cycle continues and for as much as we (the pioneers and early adopters) educate ourselves on the pros and cons, the simple truth is that widespread adoption (or at least interest in adoption) will create a potential customer pool composed primarily of individuals who do not understand the complexities of video codes, sampling, profiles, constrained paths, and the rest of the intricate web that comprises the current HD video market.
  
  We as purveyors of a progressive digital lifestyle (early adopters, geeks, what have you) tend to prioritize our spending to accommodate our feelings about the various components of our digital life. I believe plasma is better for me than LCD, so I financially finagled until I could afford the plasma TV after which I had pined. But again, as the pool of potential HD optical media consumers expands, it will invariably draw in those who do not prioritize their spending to accommodate a long-wished-for and long-deliberated digital lifestyle purchase. To put it simply, these consumers are more interested in having an HD movie on their bookshelf (to put in their player, of course) rather than having the ability to circumvent copy protection in order to archive or location-shift our purchased movies. They want an HD movie rather than an optical medium with 50GB of storage capacity with a guaranteed shelf-life of 50 years for mission critical backup.
  
  The end game is cost (or perhaps perceived cost). These individuals are concerned with the service that this new technology (format) provides, not the quality of the technology itself. We all know that 1s and 0s are the same regardless of the media upon which they might reside. It is the quality of the delivery of those ones and zeros that we the techies are debating. What the unknowing masses will debate is not the quality of the technology, because they are unconcerned or unaware of the differences in digital delivery systems; what they will debate is the cost of said technology. For to them the content is the goal. Less expensive content means that more content can be had for the same initial outlay.
  
  To further cloud the landscape of modern HD media, I fear that there is yet another perspective at work in the midst of the decision and policy makers. While we as lovers of technology debate its quality, and lovers of content (and not concurrently lovers of tech) debate its cost, there are other bodies which debate each format's profitability. For these entities, the quality of a technology is a secondary factor in the forging of allegiances (however close of a secondary factor it may be or how touted a technology's superiority, it is still secondary). Even the quality of the content being delivered is a second-level consideration, ever trumped by the allure of even mildly increased margins.
  
  It is these three qualifications that a 'winning' format must satisfy. A technology of quality [or at least acceptable] design and implementation, one that provides content at reasonable and even inviting cost, and one that is poised to profit the content providers as they meet [legitimate] consumer demand (not a perceived, imposed, or artificially inflated one). And as we've seen exemplified in the ferocity of debate, un-abashedness of promotion, and the rising level of adoption, that may very well be a quite difficult role to fulfill.
  
  So how can we apply this understanding to recent rumblings in the high definition optical media world? It would appear that the selection of a next-generation media standard is being left to those who would profit (via content and licensing) from the standardization of their proffered technology. Though debates rage in cyberspace concerning which technology holds more merit for technology's sake, our voices are not acted upon. Though HD adoption is progressing at an encouraging pace and the cost of entry into HD is continually falling, the overwhelming majority of thus far untapped consumers has yet been unable to cast its vote on the issue. Thus sales figures and projections and the actual, physical, in-the-brick-and-mortar-store purchases are based on the whims of we who embrace this technology purely because it is technology; and we will certainly never come to a unanimous (or even majority) agreement, for we are all so very similar in our disparity.
  
  And thus, those who would profit from the delivery of our coveted, pristine, digital content are fighting hard to ensure the victory of the most profitable (in relation to their own bottom lines) format. This is not in we, the consumers' best interests, but this is indeed the manner in which this ordeal is being decided. What hope can we garner from such a seemingly dismal future should our technology be decided those who would have us pay for it? It seems that people have a history of refusing to suffer under the burden of a 'bad' or 'wrong' technology. For example, digital rights management (DRM) was implemented not for the consumer, but for the provider. It is a bad technology, one to which people are slowly beginning to awake. Now we find ourselves in the midst of a music industry which is fast repealing (some of) its DRM constraints. Laser discs did not take hold. Accuracy-crippled GPS navigation quickly was replaced. Severely inefficient gasoline engines (outdated technology) are under attack. ISP-level web content filtering has roused a cry of "Foul!" from the technorati. Biometric security systems for personal computers abound while threats of online identity theft seemingly compound; yet countless passwords are still the user's birth date or last name.
  
  Anand is correct. This "format war"--as we are so fond of labeling this technological and commercial clash of interests--is being fought for the industry, not the consumers for which the industry exists. But people will not embrace a technology (or a means to content; i.e. format) which they do not want, no matter how hard a technology (or content) provider tries to convince them that they must or should. If one format does "win out" over the other without the people's say, and if it is one that does not serve the people, I have a feeling that before too much is endured, the people's voice--either in a voice of protest or in an abstinence of adoption--will be heard.
  
  That said, I'm going to go watch a DRM-free HD video streamed over a network using open source software on a plasma television via an HD-DVD equipped Microsoft Xbox 360 over a non-HDCP compliant interface and simultaneously display the content on any of several other TVs and other video devices throughout the house.

• pomaikai - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

  People migrated from VHS to DVD because of the convenience of not having to rewind tapes, going straight to scenes, improved picture quality, smaller media, etc. The list goes on. What does hi def dvd have to offer other than a better picture? Nothing!!! BD cant even go online until profile 2.0. I dont care about picture in picture. My TV has picture in picture and I have never used it. The new features that are in hi-def are all marketing. Things that sound cool, but really have no use to most people.
  
  The problem with online distribution is portability. To be able to play everything that you can download you currently need a PC connected to every TV and very few people can afford a HTPC on every tv in there home. Because of DRM you cant just convert your movie into mobile format or just reduce the size to fit more movies on a laptop while full resolution is on home pc. Nothing is compatible with anything because of DRM. Because of DRM and the amount of codecs it is to hard for a single media player to be able to play movies from netflix, unbox, etc. Portable media players will need to be constantly updated to keep up with all the new codecs.
  
  Successful online distribution will succeed after the death of DRM and HDCP. Who wants to purchase a 1080p movie online or on a Hi-Def DVD to find out the quality is reduced because something somewhere does not meet the standards of the drm scheme. Could be a video card, cables, or anything. Or have the company go under and not be able to get a new license for a movie on your hard drive.
  
  Streaming is the future. I rip all my DVDs and convert them to stream to my 360. I would buy both BD and HD-DVD if I was able to rip and stream it, but it is still not easy to do. I have no desire to search through my 200 disc collection to find out the movie is not in the right case, in my wifes car, or my son got ahold of it and scratched it all up. Once a DVD is ripped it is easy to create a mobile copy, a high-def 720p upconverted copy and a SD copy for a laptop with limited space.

• pomaikai - Tuesday, January 8, 2008 - link

  People migrated from VHS to DVD because of the convenience of not having to rewind tapes, going straight to scenes, improved picture quality, smaller media, etc. The list goes on. What does hi def dvd have to offer other than a better picture? Nothing!!! BD cant even go online until profile 2.0. I dont care about picture in picture. My TV has picture in picture and I have never used it. The new features that are in hi-def are all marketing. Things that sound cool, but really have no use to most people.
  
  The problem with online distribution is portability. To be able to play everything that you can download you currently need a PC connected to every TV and very few people can afford a HTPC on every tv in there home. Because of DRM you cant just convert your movie into mobile format or just reduce the size to fit more movies on a laptop while full resolution is on home pc. Nothing is compatible with anything because of DRM. Because of DRM and the amount of codecs it is to hard for a single media player to be able to play movies from netflix, unbox, etc. Portable media players will need to be constantly updated to keep up with all the new codecs.
  
  Successful online distribution will succeed after the death of DRM and HDCP. Who wants to purchase a 1080p movie online or on a Hi-Def DVD to find out the quality is reduced because something somewhere does not meet the standards of the drm scheme. Could be a video card, cables, or anything. Or have the company go under and not be able to get a new license for a movie on your hard drive.
  
  Streaming is the future. I rip all my DVDs and convert them to stream to my 360. I would buy both BD and HD-DVD if I was able to rip and stream it, but it is still not easy to do. I have no desire to search through my 200 disc collection to find out the movie is not in the right case, in my wifes car, or my son got ahold of it and scratched it all up. Once a DVD is ripped it is easy to create a mobile copy, a high-def 720p upconverted copy and a SD copy for a laptop with limited space.

• Frallan - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

  and thereafter watch the ripped version from my computer on my 40" Sony in Full HD ....
  
  No way i will give up a free way of getting all the content I want in one format to replace it with 2 expensive. And this comes from someone who thinks that ppl with IP should get payed (and i do pay for all my games [after trying tho]).
  
  Hopefully there will be one way of doing things soon so I can ease down on the pirating (btw Im swedish so no laws broken in my country)..

• Tin Hat - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

  Okay I understand from your comments there is a format war going on and yes, the preferences for each format are arguable. Also there are expensive players & recorders out there. Seems to me theres a lot of you ranting about the obvious in terms of simple economics and product life cycles:
  
  New products = high prices
  New Ideas = competitors
  
  Now Im not trying to be smart but I had to mention this before my next comments seemed appropriate. It seems to me that the only opinions worth noting are the ones with good predictions. So let me start the ball rolling by saying what I do know and what I think comes next:
  
  1) After initial slow start Blu-ray is now out selling HD-DVD 3:1
  2) You can buy dual format Blu-ray burner and HD player now for £200
  
  Why pick Blu-ray over HD-DVD?
  
  Well, I dont know if its just me, but the name, irrespective of how much you like Sony, is actually rather cool. Consequently you tend to remember (or prefer) the name when buying movies. I always found HD-DVD to be quite boring to be honest, sounding like any other hardware product out there and not standing out from the crowd. The sales figures seem to suggest the public might agree with my thoughts.
  
  Also, as long as LG & Samsung continue to make cheap dual format drives Im happy. Format wars won't bother me at all. Costs of recordable disks are shockingly high but then again it’s the product life cycle again so expect prices to drop significantly by Q1 2009.
  
  Regarding movies, Im stuck here! Common sense tells me the industry will move more towards Blu-ray due to my earlier comments about public preferences. Money talks and some movie studios will defect done the line. Watch this space...
  

• EODetroit - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

  Obviously some blue-ray supporter is spamming the comments using different names. We can tell its the same guy because he triple posts everything he writes.
  
  Anyways... I'm supporting HD DVD with my wallet.
  
  Battlestar Galactica FTW.
  
  $129 HD DVD drive for the 360 FTW (black friday deal)
  
  Everquest, Everquest 2, Star Wars Galaxies, Vanguard... All of them For The LOSE once Sony put its name on them.
  
  I know they're totally seperate divisions of Sony but I will never buy anything the Sony Corporation in any way profits from. Fortunately I only had to play EQ1 before I figured that out. I laugh as I play WoW at everyone who wasted money on the other MMOs after not learning from EQ1.
  
  It may not work the same for Blu Ray vs HD DVD as it did with everything else vs WoW... but nevertheless I'll never buy anything Sony profits from. They lost me as a customer... For Life. I said that 3 years ago and I still mean it.
  

• Tin Hat - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

  Okay I understand from your comments there is a format war going on and yes, the preferences for each format are arguable. Also there are expensive players & recorders out there. Seems to me theres a lot of you ranting about the obvious in terms of simple economics and product life cycles:
  
  New products equals high prices
  New Ideas equals competitors
  
  Now Im not trying to be smart but I had to mention this before my next comments seemed appropriate. It seems to me that the only opinions worth noting are the ones with good predictions. So let me start the ball rolling by saying what I do know and what I think comes next:
  
  1) After initial slow start Blu-ray is now out selling HD-DVD 3:1
  2) You can buy dual format Blu-ray burner and HD player now for £200
  
  Why pick Blu-ray over HD-DVD?
  
  Well, I dont know if its just me, but the name, irrespective of how much you like Sony, is actually rather cool. Consequently you tend to remember [or prefer] the name when buying movies. I always found HD-DVD to be quite boring to be honest, sounding like any other hardware product out there and not standing out from the crowd. The sales figures seem to suggest the public might agree with my thoughts.
  
  Also, as long as LG & Samsung continue to make cheap dual format drives Im happy. Format wars won't bother me at all. Costs of recordable disks are shockingly high but then again it’s the product life cycle again so expect prices to drop significantly by Q1 2009.
  
  Regarding movies, Im stuck here! Common sense tells me the industry will move more towards Blu-ray due to my earlier comments about public preferences. Money talks and some movie studios will defect done the line. Watch this space...
  

• Tin Hat - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

  I understand from your comments there is a format war going on and yes, the preferences for each format are arguable. Also there are expensive players & recorders out there. Seems to me theres a lot of you ranting about the obvious in terms of simple economics and product life cycles:
  
  New products = high prices
  New Ideas = competitors
  
  Now Im not trying to be smart but I had to mention this before my next comments seemed appropriate. It seems to me that the only opinions worth noting are the ones with good predictions. So let me start the ball rolling by saying what I do know and what I think comes next:
  
  1) After initial slow start Blu-ray is now out selling HD-DVD 3:1
  2) You can buy dual format Blu-ray burner and HD player now for £200
  
  Why pick Blu-ray over HD-DVD?
  
  Well, I dont know if its just me, but the name, irrespective of how much you like Sony, is actually rather cool. Consequently you tend to remember [or prefer] the name when buying movies. I always found HD-DVD to be quite boring to be honest, sounding like any other hardware product out there and not standing out from the crowd. The sales figures seem to suggest the public might agree with my thoughts.
  
  Also, as long as LG & Samsung continue to make cheap dual format drives Im happy. Format wars won't bother me at all. Costs of recordable disks are shockingly high but then again it’s the product life cycle again so expect prices to drop significantly by Q1 2009.
  
  Regarding movies, Im stuck here! Common sense tells me the industry will move more towards Blu-ray due to my earlier comments about public preferences. Money talks and some movie studios will defect done the line. Watch this space...
  

• Tin Hat - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

  I understand from your comments there's a format war and yes the preferences for each format are arguable. Also there are expensive players & recorders out there. Seems to me there's alot of you ranting about the obvious in terms of simple economics and product life cycles:
  
  New products = high prices
  New Ideas = competitors
  
  Now I'm not trying to be smart but I had to mention this before my next comments seemed appropriate. It seems to me that the only opinions worth noting are the ones with good predictions. So let me start the ball rolling by saying what I do know and what I think comes next:
  
  1) After initial slow start Blu-ray is now out selling HD-DVD 3:1
  2) you can buy dual format Blu-ray burner and HD player now for £200
  
  Why pick Blu-ray over HD-DVD? Well, I don't know if its just me but the name irrespective of how much you like Sony is rather cool. So consequently you tend to remember [or prefer] the name when buying. I always found HD-DVD to be a mouthful & boring to be honest and the sales figures seem to suggest the public agree with me.
  
  Also, as long as LG & Samsung continue to make cheap dual format drives I'm happy. Format wars won't bother me at all. Cost of recordable disks is shockingly high but then again its product life cycle again so expect to drop significantly by Q1 2009.
  
  Regarding movies, I'm stuck here! Common sense tells me the industry will end up with Blu-ray as well due to my earlier comments about public preference trends. Money talks and some movie studios will defect done the line. Watch this space...

• bandstand124 - Monday, January 7, 2008 - link

  There are only about 900 films available on on HD optical media so the idea of using lists of your favorite films is utterly ridiculous at this point, it is always going to be a tiny sub set of the list of films you want to watch.
  
  Why not use a more tried and tested method I.E. list each formats advantages and disadvantages in the market place, work out which one is going to win and then buy that one.
  
  There is only one conclusion. Blu Ray.
  
  You say the best option is to buy neither. Unfortunately, I like watching films on a big f**king TV in stunning high definition with fantastic sound so I cam up with another option more clever than yours.
  
  Watch the films you can in Blu Ray, upscale the ones you can't or wait for them to be released on Blu Ray.
  
  Ta da!
  
  It's that simple. I have no problems recommending to anybody that HD DVD is a waste of cash and Blu Ray is it for HD films.