HD-DVD Looks Better Than BluRay
I was in Circuit City the other day and they had a beautiful Sony SXRD television set up playing some BluRay content. I thought I was going to be blown away. I wasn't. The disc playing was a demo disc featuring snippets of lots of movies. Each one was somewhat washed out. The edges weren't crisp. It just wasn't that great a picture.
Now, we have the first head-to-head reviews of HD-DVD and BluRay. Three titles are now available for both formats. The results are in. The winner: HD-DVD. HD-DVD had better quality video, better audio, and better interactivity.
Part of this comes from the BluRay camp's choice to use MPEG2 as its format of choice. Each of the formats has three required video codecs: VC1 (standardized Windows Media Video 9), H.264 (also known as MPEG4 AVC), and MPEG2. H.264 appears to be too complex for anything to decode well at this time and neither are using it. The HD-DVD camp is going with VC1 and the BluRay camp with MPEG2. VC1 is a much better codec than MPEG2. It was invented many years after the aging MPEG2 standard. It can store the same data in roughly half of the space. This means that HD-DVD can store a better picture in less space. Also, despite the promises that BluRay would be the higher-capacity format, it presently is not. BluRay is shipping 25-GB single layer discs whereas HD-DVD movies are shipping on double-layer 30-GB discs. Between the codec and the capacity, HD-DVD has space for content that is twice as good or twice as much content that is equal.
Comments
Anonymous
August 01, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 01, 2006
Lauren,
The problem is that once you ship BluRay players with MPEG2, you cannot break compatibility in future. And even firmware updates wouldn't give you H.264, since the older hardware will not have the oomph to run them. Using MPEG2 was a short sighted decision.
The only place where Bluray will look better will be as a data storage medium in PCs, or in game consoles where MPEG2 wouldn't matter.Anonymous
August 01, 2006
Good points. VC-1 is required to be on every BluRay player so you are "pay[ing] Microsoft a license" in either case. You are correct that the situation I describe is temporary. In fact, BluRay movies could be shipped in VC1 today. This temporary situation, however, may have some lasting impact. Consumers only get one first kiss with any technology. Think about how Java is still considered slow even though it hasn't really been for years. Right now, HD-DVD is looking better and that may be affecting the long-term opinion.
From the interview with Amir (see the HD-DVD podcast post), I gather that HD-DVD has at least these long-term advantages:
1) All HD-DVD players have persistent storage.
2) All HD-DVD players have a network connection.
3) All HD-DVD players have TrueHD audio codecs.
4) HD-DVD supports dual-stream decoding.
The first 3 are optional on BluRay players and so cannot really be taken advantage of by authors. The 4th is, I believe, not available on BluRay and can allow for some interesting effects. How important these will turn out to be in the long-term, I don't know.Anonymous
August 01, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 01, 2006
"It can store the same data in roughly half of the space. "
No, it can't. If VC1 can get away with half the bit-rate it is because it can throw away 50% more data whilst still achieving the same results.
Video compression is lossy.
[)amienAnonymous
August 02, 2006
Don't hold your breath on the prospect of a combo player. Licensing agreements surrounding the technologies explicitly prohibit creating a device that plays both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.
<a href=http://news.com.com/A+DVD+combo+Dont+hold+your+breath/2100-1041_3-6024875.html>CNet article</a>Anonymous
August 02, 2006
The comment has been removedAnonymous
August 09, 2006
After reading these notes I really think we are just seeing the early adopter issues played out. Reading a winner or loser here from the tea leaves is risky business.
First of all, whether HD-DVD or BluRay has currently the best video quality probably won't answer the longer term issue of market viability.
Future versions of both players will have H.264 functioning - it is a non vendor specific, open source compression technology. We work with both VC-1 and 264, and currently provide HD content in both. H.264 does require some healthy computing performance, but it looks good, and it is highly scalable. Expect the issue to be solved shortly - upgradeable firmware for new imaging chips capable of all the above formats. This will not be a telling issue in 12 months.
Major studios are split on the formats currently, but I'd have to give the long term success odds to BluRay here. We all know the story of Beta vs. VHS and how the war was won. However in this case, BluRay looks like the technical long term winner, regardless of backward compatiability. The potential of greater storage volume combined with the likes of Sony, Panasonic and Philips will force the long term direction toward Blu-Ray.Anonymous
September 18, 2006
Toshiba has replaced its original HD DVD player, the troubled HD-A1. The HD-A1 has been hailed as having...Anonymous
October 29, 2007
PingBack from http://www.northbynorthwestern.com/2007/10/4879/next-gen-discs-hd-dvd-or-blu-ray/Anonymous
May 29, 2009
PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=steve-rowe-s-blog-hd-dvd-looks-better-than-blurayAnonymous
June 07, 2009
PingBack from http://greenteafatburner.info/story.php?id=785Anonymous
June 08, 2009
PingBack from http://cellulitecreamsite.info/story.php?id=2131Anonymous
June 18, 2009
PingBack from http://thebasketballhoop.info/story.php?id=2796