IGN Declares Blu-Ray Winner of The Format War

[Bigfoot]

The 360 uses DVDs.

[The Pezman]

But doesn't it display in High Definition? How does that work?

[djpretzel]

But doesn't it display in High Definition? How does that work?

DVD is a medium for storing data. That data CAN be hi-def, low-def, word documents, pr0n, etc.

In the case of DVD movies, which have their own format and file structure (VOB files, etc.), it's standard definition.

In the case of the 360, DVDs hold game content, which may or may not include videos, which may or may not be hi-def.

Blu-ray discs COULD be used to store standard definition content - quite a bit of it. Hell, they could be used to store a shitload of animated GIFs if you wanted. The storage medium is not tied to a resolution, it's just that the extra size facilitates it.

Likewise, I could put HD video content on even a CDR... even a floppy... just not a meaningful amount. Movie players follow one set of specifications designed for movies, game devices - while compatible with those specs when playing back movies - use their own proprietary means of arranging data to suit a game's needs.

DVD, blu-ray and HD-DVD are both physical mediums and sets of specifications for what to put ON those mediums.

[The Pezman]

I understand that... but with Hi Def taking up as much room as it does wouldn't that have made putting it on DVDs more or less infeasible?

[djpretzel]

I understand that... but with Hi Def taking up as much room as it does wouldn't that have made putting it on DVDs more or less infeasible?

Not at all; depends on the compression/codec used. You can fit a feature-length film into around 4GB @ 720P resolution using H264, which fits on a single-sided, single-layer DVD. A dual-layer disc can hold a 1080p film in about 8GB using the same codec. Xvid, Softdec, Bink, whatever... blu-ray's using its massive space to run HD content with far less compression, but it's overkill in many instances.

[Knives]

djp had a really good answer, but I wanna do my "blu-ray for dummies" post anyway:

blu-ray is just a blue laser that scribbles data on a disc. Because the blue laser is thinner, it can fill in much more data on a disc than a red laser can. A violent laser, which would be even thinner, would totally kick blue laser's ass in the amount of data that could be stored on a disc. A completely retarded example would be: blu-ray is the amount of times you can wrap floss around your index finger. The (old?) standard of writing data on a disc (red-ray) would be the amount of times you could wrap a very thick rope around your index finger. That's about it, blu-ray "creates" more space on a disc, and more space means more data that can be put in that space, and being able to put more data means higher resolutions on videos and other stuff.

[Dhsu]

I understand that... but with Hi Def taking up as much room as it does wouldn't that have made putting it on DVDs more or less infeasible?

It's different for games...the way I understand it (which might very well be wrong), polygons can pretty much be displayed at an arbitrary resolution. The things that get affected by the higher definition are the 2D elements like textures and FMVs...they need to be in a higher resolution to avoid appearing pixelated/fuzzy, and do take up considerably more space. You'll notice that FMV-intensive games such as Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey come on several dual-layer DVDs, whereas a game like Mass Effect which uses primarily realtime cutscenes fits on a single disc.

Edit:

violent laser

[djpretzel]

The bottom line is that you can't get your HiDef unless your DVD has 3Ghz of RAM and shoots blue rays, just like you can't download websites using your broadband without at least 5 Internets hooked up to your USB 2.0.

You can try, but... good luck with that.

Also: HDMI

[Dhsu]

So that's why my connection has been so slow...

[Overflow]

djp had a really good answer, but I wanna do my "blu-ray for dummies" post anyway:

blu-ray is just a blue laser that scribbles data on a disc. Because the blue laser is thinner, it can fill in much more data on a disc than a red laser can. A violent laser, which would be even thinner, would totally kick blue laser's ass in the amount of data that could be stored on a disc. A completely retarded example would be: blu-ray is the amount of times you can wrap floss around your index finger. The (old?) standard of writing data on a disc (red-ray) would be the amount of times you could wrap a very thick rope around your index finger. That's about it, blu-ray "creates" more space on a disc, and more space means more data that can be put in that space, and being able to put more data means higher resolutions on videos and other stuff.

You know, that's the best explanation of blu-ray I have ever heard. No, seriously. I'm not joking.

All of the 'official' explanations made no sense, and all my friends described it very strangely.

So, how then is HD-DVD different from blu-ray?

[Atomicfog]

I think you missed his point.

Source #1: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6810011-1.html

(Incidentally Vega was referring to a point they made in #10)

Source #2: http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/

Source #3: http://www.hometheatermag.com/advicefromtheexperts/105tvshoptips/index.html

There are others readily available as well, like this question so frequently being referenced in HDTV Q&A on IGN. The end result is that it's not necessarily so important that the source is 1080p, depending on your screen size and how close you're sitting. Its different, as Vega pointed out, when it comes to computer resolutions, but when it comes to hooking up your 360, PS3, Blu-Ray player, or whatever other HD source that's the rule of thumb.

I only skimmed the articles, but I don't see anything that says anything about there not being "...a discernable difference between 720p and 1080p on displays smaller than 50". Also, sitting closeness is irrelevant, because sitting closer is something you can easily do.

[Knives]

So, how then is HD-DVD different from blu-ray?

There are so many things affecting how much data you can put on a single disc. The size of the disc, how many writable sides it has, single or double layer, the thinness of the laser writing the data, and the method of writing.

The only difference between a HD-DVD and a blu-ray disc is that the data is written with a red laser on an HD-DVD and with a blue laser on a blu-ray disc. Because the blue laser is thinner it gets more data on the same space, that's it. But deciding to use a thinner laser ain't all that impressive, and it certainly isn't the best method currently out there either, if you really wanna write a ton of data on a single disc then look into HVDs.

EDIT: This is incorrect, HD-DVD uses blue lasers as well, I described the difference between DVDs and blu-ray, not HD-DVDs and blu-ray. My bad.

[Overflow]

There are so many things affecting how much data you can put on a single disc. The size of the disc, how many writable sides it has, single or double layers, the thinness of the laser writing the data, and the method of writing.

The only difference between a HD-DVD and a blu-ray disc is that the data is written with a red laser on an HD-DVD and with a blue laser on a blu-ray disc. Because the blue laser is thinner it gets more data on the same space, that's it. But deciding to use a thinner laser ain't all that impressive, and it certainly isn't the best method currently out there either, if you really wanna write a ton of data on a single disc then look into HVDs.

So, basically, Blu-ray was better, but HD-DVD was cheaper because it didn't put as much info on?

Both used the same kind of disks, right? I mean, Blu-ray wasn't using some special kind of physical disk; they used normal dvds?

[Knives]

I don't know if there are any physical differences in the discs, there might be, but then again, there might not be... I honestly haven't looked that deeply into it, I've said all I know.

[Antipode]

I head over here sometimes if I want more details.

[The Pezman]

I do understand the disc reading technology involved. The HVDs have been around forever and they're going to need to do something impressive to maintain my attention. My confusion wound up being over the amount of space HD video (and what kind) takes up.

I wonder, then, whether the 360 might be rereleased with Blu-Ray capability. I'm actually not sure whether Sony's PS3 rivalry with them would prevent such a thing from happening.

[Vivi22]

I wonder, then, whether the 360 might be rereleased with Blu-Ray capability. I'm actually not sure whether Sony's PS3 rivalry with them would prevent such a thing from happening.

I guarantee you'll never see this happen for the sole reason that it would render every 360 sold so far obsolete and incapable of reading games put on Blu-Ray. Which is why <i>if</i> it ever did happen, developers would likely never put a 360 game on Blu-Ray. Which would mean drastically increasing the 360's manufacturing costs solely to add HD movie playback, which I doubt Microsoft would ever want to do having no stake in the Blu-Ray format, or a desire to cut into their profitability.

[Atomicfog]

I do understand the disc reading technology involved. The HVDs have been around forever and they're going to need to do something impressive to maintain my attention. My confusion wound up being over the amount of space HD video (and what kind) takes up.

Umm... Blu-Ray and HD-DVDs are not holographic versatile discs.

Regular DVDs hold about 4.7 gigs, CDs have about 700mb, and Blu-rays can hold from 25 to 50 GBs.

Heres a list of amounts of space HD video takes up for you (though this doesn't include the high compression codecs, MPEG-2, H.264/AVC, and SMPTE VC-1, that Blu-Ray uses):

(http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/UnderstandingHDFormats.aspx)

[Atomicfog]

BTW, for those who aren't impressed with HD, wait until UHD comes out. I had a chance to see this amazing technology at NAB 2007, and it was WOW. Basically, it looks completely real from a few feet away, and if it weren't on a flat surface, it would look completely real.

This is shows how much space that technology takes up... We'll need HDVs.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ultra-high-definition-video?cat=technology

[Knives]

I head over here sometimes if I want more details.

Aww, shit. And I thought I actually knew what I was talking about, I assumed the blue laser was exclusive to blu-ray and HD-DVDs still only used a red laser. Everyone can disregard my previous post, I described the difference between DVDs and blu-ray, not HD-DVDs and blu-ray.

I do understand the disc reading technology involved. The HVDs have been around forever and they're going to need to do something impressive to maintain my attention.

Uhhh, storing 3.9 terabytes on one disc doesn't impress you? 3.9 terabytes: as in 7,986% (this isn't a typo, it really is more than seven thousand percent) more space than a double-layer blu-ray disc (50GB)? HELLO?

This is shows how much space that technology takes up... We'll need HDVs.

http://www.answers.com/topic/ultra-high-definition-video?cat=technology

I don't know what to be more astonished by, a disc that can hold 50TBs, or that said disc can only hold 4 hours of uncompressed UHD footage.

[Bahamut]

Yeah, those holographic discs really make me think the blu-ray/HD-DVD battle wasn't worth it for the consumer - the potential leap is just too low for me to justify eventually losing my cheap option (DVDs). If I'm going to be paying the outrageous full prices for movies, they have to be worthwhile, and blu-ray/HD-DVD hasn't trickled my fancy so far.

[Vivi22]

Yeah, those holographic discs really make me think the blu-ray/HD-DVD battle wasn't worth it for the consumer - the potential leap is just too low for me to justify eventually losing my cheap option (DVDs). If I'm going to be paying the outrageous full prices for movies, they have to be worthwhile, and blu-ray/HD-DVD hasn't trickled my fancy so far.

Except for the fact that Ultra HD is nowhere near being ready for commercial use, let alone being affordable should it ever be ready in the near future, those holographic discs also have far more storage than is even necessary for current HD movies, and it's my understanding that the costs involved in HVD drives and discs are too high to be commercially viable any time soon. The market needed a relatively inexpensive substitute that suits the task of storing HD content now, rather than something suited for storing UHD content later, and HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both did that better than HVD.

Also, I don't get the price argument for movies. Yeah, some HD movies cost more right now, but most are a few dollars more expensive than their DVD brethren the odd time they're more expensive at all in my experience. And besides, as consumer adoption, and therefore, sales grow, prices will come down.

[Bahamut]

Except for the fact that Ultra HD is nowhere near being ready for commercial use, let alone being affordable should it ever be ready in the near future, those holographic discs also have far more storage than is even necessary for current HD movies, and it's my understanding that the costs involved in HVD drives and discs are too high to be commercially viable any time soon. The market needed a relatively inexpensive substitute that suits the task of storing HD content now, rather than something suited for storing UHD content later, and HD-DVD and Blu-Ray both did that better than HVD.

Also, I don't get the price argument for movies. Yeah, some HD movies cost more right now, but most are a few dollars more expensive than their DVD brethren the odd time they're more expensive at all in my experience. And besides, as consumer adoption, and therefore, sales grow, prices will come down.

If you look for sales, you can often find DVDs less than $10, sometimes at $5...that's quite a saving that adds up.

[Bigfoot]

Wow, so there's 176 companies behind Blu-Ray. So just because HD-DVD is dead, doesn't mean it's easy street for Sony.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aSqWqCkwB48s&refer=home

[Vivi22]

If you look for sales, you can often find DVDs less than $10, sometimes at $5...that's quite a saving that adds up.

You won't find any new DVD's for that price. Like I said, as the market grows the prices will come down, and there will be lower prices on older Blu-Ray titles compared to newer ones. I just have a problem with people bitching about the prices like the price of a new Blu-Ray movie is ridiculously higher than that of a new DVD, or that prices are going to stay the way they are forever and you'll never see Blu-Ray movies at discounted prices. Besides that, by the time most people who look to spend no more than $5-10 on movies buy an HD player, odds are the price structure will be more in line with what it is for DVD's.