Posted by Doug Jacobs on 01/25/07 01:40

In alt.games.video.sony-playstation2 The Man With No Name <antispam@spam.com> wrote:

> "TheGame" <n0n0n0n0n0@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1169513478.706792.26010@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> > No question? Well let me ask you, how is BR "superior?

> My understanding is; BR has superior potential, at least; 50mb/s data
> transfer (HDDVD is 30 and DVD is 10)

Ok, so this might be nice for PCs...but movies?

> Higher storage capacity (which I, personally, don't much care about. Either
> version can easily accomodate a 150 minute movie; much longer and there's
> bound to be an intermission, so who cares if I have to change disks?)

Both formats have announced capacities approaching 100GB through the use
of multiple layers.

As you point out, this too is mostly a moot point for video playback. I
doubt we'll see studios doing things like putting an entire TV season on a
single Blu-Ray disc just because Blu-Ray may have a larger capacity.

> Problem is; Blu-Ray currently seems to use an inferior encoding to HDDVD
> (that can change, though)

Isn't Warner Bros. using the other encoding (I don't remember their
names...) resulting in their blu-ray transfers looking as good as their
hd-dvd ones? And this just brings up my other question - if you put the
exact same bits on both discs, wouldn't the resulting picture and sound be
identical? After all, both players would be using the same codec, and
putting those same bits onto the same interface (HDMI) to be played on the
same equipment. So really, doesn't this whole brouhaha just boil down to
a few stubborn executives bickering over who gets more money?

> The data transfer is the thing that has me a leaning a little more towards
> Blu-Ray.
> Most of the highest-quality DVDs (the ones with the sharpest picture, etc.)
> tend to be the ones with a data-transfer close to maximum (8 or 9 mb/s) and
> from what I've read, the main advantage of High Definition is not so much
> the higher resolution (just look at the background in most DVDs; skies are
> textures and things, they barely use the resolution they do have; because
> they're limited by data/second,) but the higher amount of data used to store
> the image.

Data transfer is only part of the overall "picture" though. (sorry,
couldn't resist the pun ;) If you used the better encoding method, it also
provides better compression, doesn't it? And isn't the decompression of the
data done by the player itself? Then the difference between the data
transfer rates won't matter as much since you're reading "more" data, just
compressed.


From an end user's point of view, this whole 'war' is just a repeat of the
equally stupid DVD-R/+R issue. Two different, incompatible standards that
accomplish exactly the same goal. Why make the consumer choose? It's
just going to cause confusion and slower adoption of the
format/technology. Don't these idiots understand that one of the reasons
DVD was so successful so fast was that there was only ONE format? You
didn't have to worry about whether your DVD player was Type A or Type B,
or which discs you could play. You bought a DVD player, it played DVDs.
ALL DVDs.

--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98

[Back to original message]