
Thread beginning with comment 294341
Member since:

I don't think it has to do with which format is better technologically but more like who has the most to lose. There is a lot of rumors going around saying that Warner Bros accepted some money from the Blu-ray group to go all blu-ray. Just like those rumors last year about some movie studios going all hd dvds because some hd-dvd group were paying them to do so. I don't think anybody cares about which is a better format but more like they just want one format and will be willing to be bribed to help that cause.

Porn industry won't help like they did with Betamax and VHS because back then, there wasn't Internet like now. All the good porn are on the Internet nowaday, why would you buy high quality HD porn that cost 30 bucks when you can just get unlimited hd streams or downloads for 30 bucks a month.

Reply Score: 6

JPowers Member since:

I don't think it's the deep pocket reason. Blu-Ray is mostly Sony, Apple, Sun, & Dolby. HD-DVD is Toshiba & Microsoft.

My personal reason for not liking HD-DVD is the specification. Toshiba menu control language and Microsoft Media file for audio and video.

Blu-Ray uses Java for the menu control language; Dolby's AAC audio format. Video is supplied by ITU-T Video Coding Expert's Group (VCEG) & ISO/IEC Moving Pictures Experts Group (MPEG). Thus the audio comes from an expert in audio and the video comes from two groups of experts who worked to gather.

I don't consider Microsoft an expert in video or audio. From having to deal with their software for all these years, I hardly consider them software experts. I haven't looked into Toshiba's control language, so I can't tell if it's better or worse then Java.

To support HD-DVD you need to license Toshiba's control language engine and also Microsoft's media CODACs. Blu-Ray is licensed by the standards bodies and is thus a little more accessible to implementers.

Microsoft created HD-DVD because the group developing the 2nd generation DVD refused to accept Microsoft's Media files as part of the standard. I;m not sure if this was done because the Media Files were poorly designed of if licensing demands came into play.

Reply Parent Score: 12

Alex Forster Member since:

I don't know how accurate the rest of your very charged statements are, but WM9 is quantifiably one of if not the best codecs in terms of quality:size.

Edited 2008-01-05 06:10

Reply Parent Score: 6

ba1l Member since:

I think you have your facts backwards.

For both BluRay and HD-DVD, there are three supported video codecs. MPEG-2, MPEG-4 AVC, and Microsoft's VC-1.

Most earlier BluRay titles used MPEG-2, but newer BluRay titles and virtually all HD-DVD titles use VC-1.

In terms of audio, both formats support AC-3, DTS and LPCM, the same as DVDs. HD-DVD requires support for several more advanced audio codecs, including two high-quality lossess variants, while those same formats are optional on BluRay. Even so, both disc formats support the same audio codecs.

Also, there was no "group developing the 2nd generation DVD". There were two separate efforts, one by Sony and one by Toshiba. The DVD Forum, who maintain the original DVD spec, also maintain the HD-DVD spec, so HD-DVD is actually the "official" successor to DVDs. BluRay exists because Sony and several associated companies weren't happy with the DVD Forum's control of the DVD format, and wanted to control the replacement themselves.

The interactivity stuff on HD-DVDs was developed by Microsoft, not Toshiba.

Reply Parent Score: 12

kaiwai Member since:

You realise that WMV9, aka VC1 isn't controlled by Microsoft; its an SMPTE specification - WMV9 happens to be an implementation of the VC1 specification:

Side issue; BluRay's specification includes VC-1 support (aka WMV9).

Edited 2008-01-05 08:09

Reply Parent Score: 2