@GW

AmigaOS, like MacOS, like Linux are significantly different frome each other. However the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movie formats aren't, the major differences are Blu-Ray can store more content, offers a higher bitrate with identical codecs and is more scratch resistant.

IMO the preference of AmigaOS could better be compared with your preference for your favourite movie gerne, favourite book series, etc. There are niche markets for people with specific needs and preferences.

Now if we would have a random consumer watch the same movie on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movie (with the player covered under sheets), the consumer probably wouldn't know which one is which. Do you understand my point of view?

What is there to like better about HD-DVD, the name, the logo? Well maybe the content, if you like Universal library better than those from the Blu-Ray-only camp. Hence, why IMO having a format war like this wasn't such a good idea.

With regard to region locking, studios are free to choose the options that suits them best.

"paidgeek who's a sony insider said that catalogue releases are to be region free (not sure if fox/disney are signed up for this bit but warner, paramount and sony seem to be), and new releases which will for the first year be region coded, will be region free after 12 months. So if there's a title released in the US, at worst we should 'eventually' be able to buy it for uk blu-ray players once the year is over (assuming of course that the bluray title has since been pressed after the year, and not pre-1 year old stock!). This should be good news for importers of movies, as it should fix the 'title x is released in US and not in UK' problem). So any title released on blu-ray regardless of studio should be region free 12 months after the initial release. paidgeek has said in a previous post, that region free titles will say ABC on the back. Hopefully dvd sellers eg dvdpacific will state the current region coding of blu-ray releases so that we can tell if its ok to import to the uk any particular title."

Last edited by MikeB on 03-Feb-2007 at 01:09 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 03-Feb-2007 at 01:08 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

What is there to like better about HD-DVD, the name, the logo?...Now if we would have a random consumer watch the same movie on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movie (with the player covered under sheets), the consumer probably wouldn't know which one is which.

Here are a few reason why HD-DVD is more likeable.

As you note the consumer rarely can tell a difference, the assumption is that the movie on each is encoded in the same way with the same compression. Early, and still for some, Blu-Ray used Mpeg2 instead of VC-1. People and reviewers noted that HD-DVD appeared more improved over DVD then Blu-Ray. VC-1 movies are on both formats and are very comparable.

HD-DVD is more likeable to the consumer because play prices are often lower $400-$500 range vs $1K. Media price is another. Before Christmas Blu-Ray were often $10 more at the local Best Buy. Did Blu-Ray lower their pricing? Blu-ray puts the layout and delivery of special features completely up to the content provider, HD DVD has tools and functionality that spreads over every movie and every player including Internet possibilties.

HD-DVD is more likeable to the media replicators becuase the structure is similar to the DVD minor modification of existing equipment can be done keeping the manufacturing price lower. Blu-Ray they can't modify existing machine so the investment is higher.

The studioes like a lower manufacturing cost. Also the licensing is less expensive for HD-DVD. Making that $40 HD-DVD more profitable per unit sold then the $40 Blu-Ray.

So there are a few reason for the consumer and manufactures to like Blu-Ray better and yes they are more then a logo.

@Tigger

You made a comment that the iPod killed SACD and DVD-Audio. This is a bit like saying that the Chevy Cobalt outsells and Chevy Corvette. Both are valid claims but both to a degree are disingenious comparisions.

The iPod sacrifices sound fidelity for portability. The iTunes store provides for a lower fidelity sound with a lossy compressed format for eaily portable audio. DVD-Audio sacrifices portability for sound quality. DVD-Audio provides a high 24bit depth rate with up to 192kHz sampling in lossless compression or even uncompressed to the in home multichannel sound system.

So yes both of these are audio, as both Chevy's are cars, but the areas of the market where both play are different.

@Trezzer

Quote:

UMD

..died because of two things: a) Sony didn't add a TV out to the PSP (thus its the only device and a small screen to watch) and b) Its easy to rip a DVD and store it on a Mem Stick.

BluRay is completely different. I changed my Netflix priorities to "BluRay first". Simply because I don't want to watch anything else on the 42" any more. And that won't change (except I would need a DVD to rip for the PSP for a trip or so).
I also doubt that I will all of a sudden stop watching movies on the PS3 just because the games will come out (quiet the opposite, I'd consider buying a second PS3 - hopefully after the pricedrop).

_________________
AmigaOne XE G3/933/VIA/FM801/R200 (fixed),
G3SE/600/Voodoo3/Sil680/RTL8139/SBLive! (noiseless!)
µA1-MK2/G3/933/R200/CMI8738
XE/G4 (broken 7450/800)

@Jorge

Quote:

And that won't change (except I would need a DVD to rip for the PSP for a trip or so).

There are plans for PSP movie downloads, but the following I think is interesting:

"Sony told Bloomberg today that they plan to start including portable files on Blu-ray disc to let users copy movies to laptops and other portable electronics.

Sony Pictures Entertainment will include portable files on Blu-Ray DVDs that can be transferred without a download, David Bishop, head of Sony's home entertainment unit, said in an interview this week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Sony may add the feature this year, Bishop said. "It's not currently part of anything on our current release schedule, but we'll probably roll it out sometime this year," Bishop said on Jan. 8"

Supporting the PSP with Blu-Ray, seems to be in line with Sony's overalll PS3/PSP strategy. (content sharing / streaming / downloading through the PS3 as host, via internet / connection).


@BrianK

Quote:

The studioes like a lower manufacturing cost. Also the licensing is less expensive for HD-DVD. Making that $40 HD-DVD more profitable per unit sold then the $40 Blu-Ray.

The production costs for Blu-Ray discs are coming down, prices of either format range from $19.95 - $27.95 at Amazon.com. If it was a decisive factor a majority of the studios wouldn't be behind Blu-Ray from the beginning.

We know Blu-Ray is here to stay, this due to the production of many millions of PS3 game discs.

Last edited by MikeB on 03-Feb-2007 at 04:33 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 03-Feb-2007 at 04:24 PM.

@GW

Quote:

I have seen Xbox 360s for as low as 3000 SEK ($430) in Sweden.

That's pretty cheap. Here the cheapest premium pack I've seen is 2599 DKK while the cheapest core pack has been 1899 DKK. ($454 and $332 respectively).

@MikeB

Quote:

You don't have to buy Blu-Ray movies for the PS3

I know. That's why I don't want to pay for the drive.

No need to rehash your viewpoints on Blu-Ray and you know what I think of it vs dvd for gaming already. The only really good thing about them in my book is the resistance to scratches, but since I take good care of my discs it's a non-issue to me. But sure, it's a good thing in general.

Quote:

Due to Winodws' dominant market share some of the best games and software is available for this platform.

On the other hand there's only so much time and considering what a b!tch it is to fight DRM schemes on PCs these days, having wildly varying hardware configurations and having to fight with drivers etc. it's just not worth it to me. Yeah, a finely tuned rig with a decent controller is a nice gaming machine. But I already have more games than I have time to play. My time is too precious for using Windows on a day to day basis (and Windows fanboys: spare yourselves the exercise. It's a choice - not a belief).

@MikeB

Quote:

Actually I would have preferred Microsoft to not introduce the HD-DVD drive. This way consumers would benefit as it would already be clear that if any format wins this format war it would be Blu-Ray.

Yeah, one can't help but wonder whether that's the intent at the end of the day. Would they be better off if both fail? They have a movie store with no physical media roaring and ready to go.

By supporting HD-DVD it's a stick in Sony's wheel where much more is potentially at stake. Whether it will snap or the bike will fall... we'll see.

I can't see how adding Bluray to the PS3 is a disadvantage. It hasn't added much to the cost of the PS3 so you are in effect getting it for free. yes, really - while the drive may be expensive they would of added a higher capacity disc system for games anyway - reusing Bluray tech will have saved money. Adding the capability to play the movies as well as games will have cost next to nothing (it's mostly a software layer) so why not include it?

Anyway, as above noted, no one is forcing you to buy Bluray movies.

--

As for differences between Bluray and HDDVD there are several:

Bluray has higher license fees and the discs are different, HDDVD discs are very similar to DVDs so can use the same manufacturing equipment, Bluray discs are physically different so need new gear.

The software stacks are also different, HDDVD uses a Microsoft stack. Bluray is based on a variant of the Java / MHP standard used in set top boxes.

Both drives have higher tolerances so they cost more to make (including the blue laser diode of course, yields of these are said to be improving all the time).

The codecs are the same except Bluray supports a higher bitrate for H.264 - this was added late because VC9 and H.264 were found to be too close quality wise.

Most of these differences will be unnoticeable to endusers, a few might notice the quality difference if / when high bitrate titles ship but you'll probably need a *huge* TV to see any difference.

Of course there is also a difference in capacity, single layer Bluray discs are 25GB Vs 15GB for HDDVD.

Last edited by minator on 03-Feb-2007 at 04:40 PM.

_________________
Whyzzat?

@Jorge

You're right about the reasons for the UMD failure, but it doesn't really change anything about the argument I put forth.

Quote:

BluRay is completely different. I changed my Netflix priorities to "BluRay first". Simply because I don't want to watch anything else on the 42" any more. And that won't change (except I would need a DVD to rip for the PSP for a trip or so).

Well of course. I'd do the same - especially if the price is the same.

I've been considering getting one of the really good upscalers instead of either hi-def format. I know this sounds far out, but on the really good scalers the video can literally look better than regular hi-def material. If you're sceptical about this I can't blame you. I wish I could show you side by side material, but for some reasons these comparisons are not shown outside industry conventions, so the only tidbits you can find are small shots of what the various filters do. I have friends who attend these, though, so I'm trying to keep up with it as much as I can.

The 360 is a mediocre dvd player, but even that looks pretty great when scaled to 720p or 1080p - having the filters work their magic would be ... nice.

The scaler could easily cost as much as a stand-alone player, though, but on the plus side it can work its magic on any kind of input.

Last edited by Trezzer on 03-Feb-2007 at 04:40 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

AmigaOS, like MacOS, like Linux are significantly different frome each other.

No, they are not. They are all OSer for computers. Their sole task is to enable the running of applications on computers. The same type of applications are available on all platforms. In some cases the exact same program is available on several platforms.

Quote:

However the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movie formats aren't, the major differences are Blu-Ray can store more content, offers a higher bitrate with identical codecs and is more scratch resistant.

Bluray and HD DVD store movies. Computers with AmigaOS or Windows run applications. No real difference IMO.

The 64 bit version of Windows Vista supports more memory than AmigaOS. Windows Vista has better driver and application support than AmigaOS. Since Vista is a version of WindowsNT it also supports memory protection.

Quote:

IMO the preference of AmigaOS could better be compared with your preference for your favourite movie gerne, favourite book series, etc. There are niche markets for people with specific needs and preferences.

There is no specific need for AmigaOS any more. I do not know of a single application where you actually need an Amiga today. Everything that can be done on an Amiga can also be done on a Vista or XP computer. Only better.

Quote:

Now if we would have a random consumer watch the same movie on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD movie (with the player covered under sheets), the consumer probably wouldn't know which one is which. Do you understand my point of view?

I do.

It is not like you are trying to access your Internet bank via a browser on AmigaOS. There would obviously be a difference between AmigaOS and WindowsXP doing that kind of task.

Quote:

What is there to like better about HD-DVD, the name, the logo? Well maybe the content, if you like Universal library better than those from the Blu-Ray-only camp. Hence, why IMO having a format war like this wasn't such a good idea.

I do recall the last time we had a format war. Fox and Disney supported DivX. Some other companies supported DVD.

I would argue that it was really good that Fox and Disney didn't win the format war that time and I think I would be really good if they would loose the format war this time too.

Quote:

With regard to region locking, studios are free to choose the options that suits them best. "paidgeek who's a sony insider said that catalogue releases are to be region free..

Interesting, but still not good enough. I do not want any kind of regional codes on my movies.

I find it a bit strange that a Amiga user can argue for the dominant platform (i.e. blu-ray) with arguments that easily can be used for Windows Vista and against a smaller OS like AmigaOS.

---

I am pretty sure that Blu-ray will win the format war because it has more software support. Although I would prefer if HD DVD won instead.

I am waiting for my brother to buy a PS3 so I can try it. I am convinced that PS3 will be succesful in Europe but it is too early to tell if it will outsell Xbox 360.

Last edited by GW on 03-Feb-2007 at 05:34 PM.

@Trezzer

Quote:

he only really good thing about them in my book is the resistance to scratches, but since I take good care of my discs it's a non-issue to me.

We may have children someday or buy second hand discs.

Quote:

By supporting HD-DVD it's a stick in Sony's wheel where much more is potentially at stake.

But the 'stick' isn't big enough to prevent the Blu-Ray partners to move forward, at least they seem to be accelerating.

Last edited by MikeB on 03-Feb-2007 at 06:04 PM.

@GW

Quote:

No real difference IMO.

IMO there are, for instance MacOS and AmigaOS do things much differently as compared to the way Windows operates. Many prefer MacOS as their working enironment, many others prefer or only know the way Windows operates, many people posting at this website prefer the way AmigaOS handles software, for instance due to screen dragging, instant power off approach, quick multitasking, user customizations, etc.

Of course, I agree you are right that for most consumers the available software library is the decisive factor. Yet using the same application on AmigaOS as on Windows does differ a lot in terms of user experience. With regard to operating systems you are constantly aware of the operating system's abilities and limitations, with regard to watching movies on consumer movie players for the most part this is not the case.

There are still larger and smaller niche markets for specific needs (Linux / UNIX workstations, servers, etc) and preferences (MacOS, AmigaOS, etc).

Last edited by MikeB on 03-Feb-2007 at 06:03 PM.

@minator

Quote:

Of course there is also a difference in capacity, single layer Bluray discs are 25GB Vs 15GB for HDDVD.

This single difference is the most important.No HDDVD for me, thanks!

_________________
No PowerPC, No Fun
Make Amiga Great Again

@Fransexy

Quote:

Fransexy wrote: @minator Quote: Of course there is also a difference in capacity, single layer Bluray discs are 25GB Vs 15GB for HDDVD. This single difference is the most important.No HDDVD for me, thanks!

The only way this truly matters to a consumer is if you're burning the media yourself. There are double layers of each so if you need 25GB the studio can use the doubler layer HD-DVD for 30GB. Likely the studio isn't going to charge the consumer anymore for a single layer Blu-Ray or double layer HD-DVD. At CES a tripler layer holding 51GB was announced.

I'm sure some people are going to proclaim that we need this huger space for all the content. But really do we? 25GB in SD is ~11 hours, in HD is~5 hours of playback. I don't know about the rest of you but a 5 hour movie at home w/ a drink means I'm going to the bathroom. Having to swap to a 2nd disc can easily be done when I go to the loo. Besides does Peter Jackson really need to make 10 hour long movies?

So if it matters you appear to have much larger pockets then many of us. DVD-R burner is about $35 and the 4.7GB media at $.25 ... compared to Blu Ray Burners are about $700 and the 25GB media at $17. At this time it makes little financial sense for someone to burn to Blu-Ray the large size is great and all but the DVD costs of 1/3 per GB makes DVDs attractive. Also consider that every friend out there likely has at least a DVD player and many with DVD players in their computer. Right now the DVD is the way to go if your goal is to fit the widest audience.

Ahh say the pundits but they want larger media for system backups. It's already out there for $700 you could buy a 750GB NAS and now you have faster backups and recovery along with a device you can take with you. Another options is 6 320GB JBODs for over 1.5TB of potential storage. There are other price/performace effective options for systems then Blu-Ray.

Last edited by BrianK on 03-Feb-2007 at 07:14 PM.

@BrianK

200 GB Blu-Ray prototypes are being worked on by TDK:

http://img.hexus.net/v2/internationalevents/ces_2007/T/Tuesday/IMG_3660-big.jpg

750 GB harddrive for the PS3, available in Japan:

http://akiba.ascii24.com/akiba/news/2007/01/20/images/images832280.jpg

Last edited by MikeB on 03-Feb-2007 at 07:42 PM.

Quote:

both to a degree are disingenious comparisions. The iPod sacrifices sound fidelity for portability. The iTunes store provides for a lower fidelity sound with a lossy compressed format for eaily portable audio. DVD-Audio sacrifices portability for sound quality. DVD-Audio provides a high 24bit depth rate with up to 192kHz sampling in lossless compression or even uncompressed to the in home multichannel sound system.

I dont think its digenious at all. iTunes and it competition are going to kill the CD eventually too I think. I'm sorry, I dont think I have ever seen either of the super Audio formats at a major store, and they've been around for awhile. Lets be honest here, we've already seen poorer audio formats beat better ones because its more portable. CDs beat out Vinyl and DAT, both of which are better quality.. MP3 is now beating out CDs (again a drop in quality). I listen to MP3s much more then I listen to actual CD tracks, how about you? A complete turnaround to something better then DAT to become the dominant format isnt likely in my opinion.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

Quote:

I'm sure some people are going to proclaim that we need this huger space for all the content. But really do we? 25GB in SD is ~11 hours, in HD is~5 hours of playback. I don't know about the rest of you but a 5 hour movie at home w/ a drink means I'm going to the bathroom. Having to swap to a 2nd disc can easily be done when I go to the loo. Besides does Peter Jackson really need to make 10 hour long movies?

First of all, your numbers are pretty far off in the real world. Many of the 2.5 hour movies on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are already going dual layer, so obviously you arent getting 5 hours of HD movie on a single layer. Uncompressed SD video (D1) is 75 GB per hour, Uncompressed or slightly compressed HD is obviously more then that. I can always use more space for backup. On a Blu-Ray disk I can put 2 hours of DV (or HDV) video directly off my camera (the file is just over 24 GB). On a HD-DVD, I can put 1 Hour and 21 minutes. So basically you'll end up using 2 HD-DVD disks for every one Blu_Ray, again making Blu_Ray a better choice.
-Tig

_________________
We played the first thing that came to our heads, it just happened to be the best song in the world.

The winner out of Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD?

.

.

.

Will be good old-fashioned DVD's. I can't see either of the new formats ever taking over from the original DVD's. That will be done by downloadable movies...

Skunkfish

_________________
Currently planning to upgrade my Amstrad CPC

@MikeB
Interesting info on 200GB prototype. RiTek has already shown 10 layer HD-DVDs. However, no blue laser exists yet which could play such a beast.

For the 750GB drive I'm sure the PS3 is limited to what's on the market. Hitachi recently annouced a 1TB drive and Seagate announed they'd ship one too later this year.

@Tigger

Quote:

I'm sorry, I dont think I have ever seen either of the super Audio formats at a major store, and they've been around for awhile

Best Buy carries them. Also, both have Dual layer formats now with SACD+CD or DVD-A+CD so often they are mixed in. So yes major retailers do carry them. Another symptom might be your music selection. I believe of the DVD-A shipping titles about 50% are classical and 25% jazz. Today in pop music most the recordings with SACD or DVD-A are the hybrid so perhaps you didn't notice them. Making a high fidelity Pussycat Dolls for you likely won't make them any better.


Quote:

CDs beat out Vinyl and DAT, both of which are better quality..

I don't ever recall seeing a home DAT setup ever. If they exist then cool. The only DAT I've touched is in studioes.

Vinyl vs CD is always a good discussion. Part of the quality issues in vinyl are the variabilities. Often the mixing is different between the 2 recordings so that plays a role. Early CDs were quickly remastered and resulted in poorer sound. Vinyl is impacted by wow and flutter. In lower end record players ball bearing noise is transfered to the playback. Dust and dirt insert distortions where there should be none. Needles wear a record reducing quality each time it's played. If the stylus is not compliant enough high frequency grooves are poorly tracked. The warm sound of records that various people cite as the reason vinyl is superior is actually harmonic distortion. I have a record player w/ my Mom's original Doors albums. I have an early Doors CD and I have the recent remasters. Out of the 3 the recent remasters win hands down for listening quality.

I've always wondered why CD makers didn't insert harmonic distortion as a 'warmth' button option on players. That would have been good humor.

Quote:

First of all, your numbers are pretty far off in the real world. Many of the 2.5 hour movies on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are already going dual layer, so obviously you arent getting 5 hours of HD movie on a single layer

The numbers used come from Blu-Ray themselves. If it's not true then consumers have a false advertising issue with Blu-Ray. I'd bet that on a dual layer disc is used and one strips the duplication in audio streams and all the extras would the movie fit on that single layer.

One of the first dual layer Blu-Ray's was Adam Sandler's Click. Though it appears part of the problem is it was recorded digitally with high def cameras and not on film. Supposedly the amount of info to do this is larger and thus the reason dual layer was used. Perhaps the problem therefore is Blu-Ray citing film to HD transfers and not true HD digital recordings?

Quote:

. I can always use more space for backup. On a Blu-Ray disk I can put 2 hours of DV (or HDV) video directly off my camera (the file is just over 24 GB). On a HD-DVD, I can put 1 Hour and 21 minutes

You could use a 3 layer 51GB HD-DVD and put all 2 hours on it. Yes argue Blu-Ray does it in 2 layers. Does it truly matter how many layers are there as long as the space requirement is met and the solution is cost competitive? Likely not.