Comments on: New high-definition DVDs to use old video technology?

Blu-ray, HD DVD boast better pictures, but studios could leave out an advanced element of the formats, spelling disappointment for Microsoft, Apple.

[tbox]

Does anyone care about owning media?

The whole HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray thing just erks me. All it is going to do is make fewer people buy the machines and media, making it even more expensive.

If it were possible to keep digital forms of movies on a TiVo or XBox, who would want to have the 5-1/4 inch plastic sitting around? Really, does anyone want a DVD, or just the movie on the DVD?

t.

[megazone]

The media doesn't matter

The media itself doesn't matter - except in that it impacts the content. If the media has restrictions that influence the content, then it definitely matters.

However, as for storing everything digitally vs owning media... For now, I'd rather own the media, at least for video. I've started buying most of my music from iTunes, but even that makes me nervous. I own maybe 800 CDs, and in all the years of owning CDs I've only had 1 or 2 get damaged beyond repair. If a CD dies, I'm out just that CD. However, if a hard drive dies I'm out everything on that drive. Unless I have a backup - but with 45GB of music, keeping backups is a pain. (I do.)

For video, especially HD video, the economics aren't in favor of digital storage. I own over 1,000 DVDs, and still have hundreds of VHS and some LDs, and I'd need terrabytes of capacity to store all of that digitally. And double that, because with that much data I'd want a RAID system. (I'm looking at building a RAID array media server now, just for iTunes and my TiVoToGo files.)

Eventually I'm sure drive capacities will be high enough, and the price per capacity low enough, to make it a viable solution. But by then we may all have fat data pipes and we'll be watching everything 'on demand' with no local copies, aside from maybe a 'small' cache.

For now I'll stick to DVD, and I plan on going to Blu-ray for HD content. Probably starting with the PS3, since it will likely be the cheapest BD system to start, and I want one anyway. :-)

[speleofool]

How small is "small?"

Bc Saxman posted: "To the extent that a codec impacts quality, the effect is very small and these new codecs are renown for not having problems in that regard."

That may be true, but forgive me for my lack of faith. For years we've been told about how MP3 is "near-CD quality" compression for audio, yet to a trained audiophile ear there is a clear difference. I will never play MP3s on my home stereo.

The major selling point for HDTV vs. SDTV is the improved video resolution, so why cut more corners to compress the data further, even if the difference is "small?" I can understand doing so for a portable media player where storage is at a premium, but not for a disc-based format for home use where I want the absolute best picture and sound I can afford.

I realize there's a lot more to video quality than the CODEC used to compress the data, but I find it tough to accept any more tradeoffs of image quality for storage space unless there's some very compelling reason to do so. I bet most people would be surprised to hear that VHS has more video bandwidth than DVD, but DVD has a great many other features that make the "small" difference in image quality acceptable. :)

Cheers!
Speleo.

[Earl Benser]

VHS vs DVD

Depending on your definition, VHS may well have 'more video
bandwidth; than DVD. But your vision has to be pretty bad before
you would think that VHS comes anywhere close to DVD for video
quality.

I would suspect that your 'bandwidth' claim is not an appropriate
comparison.

I have to agree with Earl

Your comparing VHS (Analog) to DVD (digital) in which digital only use's a fraction of any bandwidth to produce a very good quality picture or image as compared to analog.... but I would have to think a little differently if the comparison was made to Digital VHS over DVD, I remember hearing about Digital VHS or D-VHS a few years back but never saw much or heard much more about it, although at the price point it was stated at back then (over $1000) I had figured it wouldnt take off any time too soon since dvd players had become cheaper and DVD recorder's were becoming more available, anyways here are a few links on D-VHS just for something to read on for those interested -

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41045,00.html?tw=wn_story_related

http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?productId=PRD4603000

http://timefordvd.com/tutorial/D-VHSOverview.shtml

[Priaptor]

Has anyone seen Blu-Ray

I think this whole thing is absurd, however, initially being firmly in the Blu-Ray camp, I have just witnessed the newly release Samsung Blu-Ray playing back 7 titles on a new 1080p Samsung TV. The picture is about as bad as it gets. HD-DVD on a 42" 1080i Sony playing next to it blew it away. It's in the codec. Sony does it again! Take a superior product and finds a way to screw it up. I just canceled my order for Pioneer's new 1080p TV and "Elite" Blu-Ray player. Catch this; the reps are saying that "don't worry" because by Christmas Blu-Ray will be releasing their VCI codec. Oh then I can replace all my crappy Blu-Ray movies that I bought with MPEG-2. Plus this is probably BS as Sony has committed to MPEG-2. All anyone has to do is look side by side at HD-DVD (at 1080i although the discs are recorded at 1080P) versus Blu-Ray and see which is superior. Bye bye BetaMax, I mean Blu-Ray.