The Blu-ray DVD group said on Tuesday it still planned to roll out a high-definition disc format in spring 2006, though members of the consortium led by Sony Corp. said they would unveil specific launch plans at the Consumer Electronics Show in January.
"We're sticking with the spring time frame," said Andy Parsons, a spokesman for Blu-ray, at a demonstration of the new high-capacity DVD format.
Blu-Ray is vying with a competing format known as HD DVD, championed by a group led by Toshiba Corp.
Read more... (Reuters)
What will the capacity be on both formats and will these new disks be scratch resistant (or at least better than current disks)?
Hd-dvd has 15 gb hdtv quality storage capacity and 4.7gb regular dvd storage(its a dual layer disk with an hd-dvd layer and a regular dvd layer) which means it works on both hd-dvd player and regular dvd players.
blu-ray has a 25 gb storage capacity and sony plans to release dual layer blu-ray disks, which means 50 gb capacity total(but no compatibility with regulat dvd players).
No idea about scratch resistance.
Another important point:
An advantage for Blu-ray resulting from the NA/Wavelength combination. Since this combination also affects the data density, Blu-ray requires a much lower rotation speed of the disc to reach the specified transfer rate of 36Mbps.A constant rotation speed of 10.000 RPM, which is the current upper limit for optical drives, will result in 12x BD(Blu-ray disk) but only 9x HD-DVD. This means that a HD-DVD must rotate faster to reach the same transfer rates
Also i think its fair to point out that the hd-dvd will be relatively cheaper than the blu-ray.
So with these storage limits and transfer rates i think it wouldnt be wise to buy a new data storage drive next year. Wait till 2007, by then both drives should have been properly tested and the two holographic versatile disk (HVD) drives which should release during the 2nd/3rd quarter of 2006 will have endured some testing as well.
blu-ray has a 25 gb storage capacity and sony plans to release dual layer blu-ray disks, which means 50 gb capacity total(but no compatibility with regulat dvd players).
No idea about scratch resistance.
Another important point:
An advantage for Blu-ray resulting from the NA/Wavelength combination. Since this combination also affects the data density, Blu-ray requires a much lower rotation speed of the disc to reach the specified transfer rate of 36Mbps.A constant rotation speed of 10.000 RPM, which is the current upper limit for optical drives, will result in 12x BD(Blu-ray disk) but only 9x HD-DVD. This means that a HD-DVD must rotate faster to reach the same transfer rates
Also i think its fair to point out that the hd-dvd will be relatively cheaper than the blu-ray.
So with these storage limits and transfer rates i think it wouldnt be wise to buy a new data storage drive next year. Wait till 2007, by then both drives should have been properly tested and the two holographic versatile disk (HVD) drives which should release during the 2nd/3rd quarter of 2006 will have endured some testing as well.
Blu-ray was origionally so fragile it needed a cartridge, but TDK invented a super-scratch-resistant coating, so now Blu-ray requires a pair of pliers and a fair bit of effort to damage. Presumably, HD-DVD will also get this coating, if TDK produces HD-DVD discs as well.
IMO, the cost of the media plays such an insignificant role compared to the price of whatever is on it, its mostly irrelevant. And history has shown that the price of the drive generally doesn't affect the adoption speed. Whats more important is the media available for the drive. And the media available for the drive depends on who is willing to put money behind it.
With both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray supporting MPEG4 AVC/H.264, most movies wont exceed 4GB in ultra-hi-rez 7.1 etc. So capacity is pretty damned irrelevant to the big companies too.
So basically, the factors involved in the choice between Blu-ray and HD-DVD are not price and capacity, they are how much Microsoft will own and whether Sony is able to fill its DRM grief quota.
IMO, the cost of the media plays such an insignificant role compared to the price of whatever is on it, its mostly irrelevant. And history has shown that the price of the drive generally doesn't affect the adoption speed. Whats more important is the media available for the drive. And the media available for the drive depends on who is willing to put money behind it.
With both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray supporting MPEG4 AVC/H.264, most movies wont exceed 4GB in ultra-hi-rez 7.1 etc. So capacity is pretty damned irrelevant to the big companies too.
So basically, the factors involved in the choice between Blu-ray and HD-DVD are not price and capacity, they are how much Microsoft will own and whether Sony is able to fill its DRM grief quota.
When I first read about H.264 I almost wanted to wack my head on the desk because of the stupidity of the idea. I mean these companies spend so much effort developing compression codecs, when there are already privately-developed codecs on the market that offer even better compression (like DivX for commercial use, or if they could adopt it, XviD would be the best option). XviD compression still exceeds the efficiency and quality of H.264. I don't understand why they don't use it for the new HD movies. With it you could fit an HD movie and its bonus features on to one REGULAR DVD disc.
Dude, get your facts straight, there are currently only 3 major codecs in use:
MPEG 2: DVD and SVCDs use this, DivX used to encode to this. Comes in .VOB and .MPEG files
MPEG 4 ASP or H.263: DivX5.1 and XviD use this, aside from the 'DivX Players', this format has very little use in the movie business. H. 263 is subtly different, but basically the same.
MPEG 4 AVC aka H.264: PSP and apple currently use this. The major encoders out there are: x264(which beats XviD in virtually all tests), Nero Recode(which is roughly on par with x264), and the apple H.264 codec, which I havn't heard much about, but know still beats XviD.
DivX and XviD are just brands and encoding mechanisms, you can interchange them because they are both just forms of MPEG4 ASP
Also, H.264 _extends_ MPEG4 ASP. There is no way H.264 can be worse than MPEG4 ASP because an MPEG4 ASP stream can be read as though it were a H.264 stream with some of the features unused. The quality difference between the two is pretty damn big.
Unfortunately RealPlayer codecs aren't that major, which is a shame because they're pretty good at lower bitrates. Oh well.
MPEG 2: DVD and SVCDs use this, DivX used to encode to this. Comes in .VOB and .MPEG files
MPEG 4 ASP or H.263: DivX5.1 and XviD use this, aside from the 'DivX Players', this format has very little use in the movie business. H. 263 is subtly different, but basically the same.
MPEG 4 AVC aka H.264: PSP and apple currently use this. The major encoders out there are: x264(which beats XviD in virtually all tests), Nero Recode(which is roughly on par with x264), and the apple H.264 codec, which I havn't heard much about, but know still beats XviD.
DivX and XviD are just brands and encoding mechanisms, you can interchange them because they are both just forms of MPEG4 ASP
Also, H.264 _extends_ MPEG4 ASP. There is no way H.264 can be worse than MPEG4 ASP because an MPEG4 ASP stream can be read as though it were a H.264 stream with some of the features unused. The quality difference between the two is pretty damn big.
Unfortunately RealPlayer codecs aren't that major, which is a shame because they're pretty good at lower bitrates. Oh well.
I'm just saying that the DivX and XviD codecs have already been developed, tested, and put to commercial use (notice how most DVD players on sale today brag about "DivX and XviD support"). And, after reading about H.264, I've come to the conclusion that XviD beats it. XviD can reduce a movie to 1/5 of its size without any quality loss. H.264, so far, can only do about 1/2 the size without any quality loss.
The only advantage I can see that H.264 has is the backing and creation of a large and well-known company (MPEG). It's like the Linux vs. Windows debate. The superior product loses in the end due to the fact that its inferior opponent owns like 95% of the market. It sucks, but it's life.
The only advantage I can see that H.264 has is the backing and creation of a large and well-known company (MPEG). It's like the Linux vs. Windows debate. The superior product loses in the end due to the fact that its inferior opponent owns like 95% of the market. It sucks, but it's life.
As someone who works in the Film and TV industry I groan and bash my head against the wall when I hear about a new compression codec.
Compression means throwing away picture information and therefore worse quality. Yes I know they've got better over the years but I don't know if any of you out there have seen how much better movies, tv and the like look on the master tapes or straight of hard disk at uncompressed quality but I think you'd be gob-smacked at the difference.
A "real" innovation would be a medium that would support uncompressed quality. The storage technology is moving at such a rate now that this is entirely possible in the near future. The announcement from Maxell about the 300Gb disk is a prime example. That could mean 4 hours of uncompressed SD-TV (PAL I-frame codecs) which would easily out class alot of the HDV and HD-TV formats. Especially if one has shot the original material on a high quality format. (The non-I frame nature of these HDTV codecs create a massive drop in "actual" definition due to micro-blocking and blocking that seriously undermine the increased pixel count)
Out here in Televison-Land we work very hard to bring the audience the best images only to see our work destroyed in a mess of spatial and temporal image artifacts. Some are now saying "Why bother?"...
Compression means throwing away picture information and therefore worse quality. Yes I know they've got better over the years but I don't know if any of you out there have seen how much better movies, tv and the like look on the master tapes or straight of hard disk at uncompressed quality but I think you'd be gob-smacked at the difference.
A "real" innovation would be a medium that would support uncompressed quality. The storage technology is moving at such a rate now that this is entirely possible in the near future. The announcement from Maxell about the 300Gb disk is a prime example. That could mean 4 hours of uncompressed SD-TV (PAL I-frame codecs) which would easily out class alot of the HDV and HD-TV formats. Especially if one has shot the original material on a high quality format. (The non-I frame nature of these HDTV codecs create a massive drop in "actual" definition due to micro-blocking and blocking that seriously undermine the increased pixel count)
Out here in Televison-Land we work very hard to bring the audience the best images only to see our work destroyed in a mess of spatial and temporal image artifacts. Some are now saying "Why bother?"...
Blu-Ray already has discs that have a DVD layer, and can be read on a standard DVD-Player, making it backwards compatible.
At least try to look this kind of thing up before you make false claims and present them as fact!
At least try to look this kind of thing up before you make false claims and present them as fact!
[B] 
1Click DVD to Divx xVid Avi is an easy to use DVD to Divx, DVD to xVid, DVD to Avi converter, rip DVD to Divx, DVD to xVid, DVd to Avi and burn it to CD.
1Click DVD to Divx xVid Avi is an ideal method to dup dvd or make backup DVD copy. You can rip entire DVD or just part of it by time or by frame or by chapter.
Everything start at "1 Click". Powerful wizard will help you to complete conversion setting in several steps.
http://www.yaodownload.com/video-design/dv..._dvdrippers.htm
1Click DVD to Divx xVid Avi is an easy to use DVD to Divx, DVD to xVid, DVD to Avi converter, rip DVD to Divx, DVD to xVid, DVd to Avi and burn it to CD.
1Click DVD to Divx xVid Avi is an ideal method to dup dvd or make backup DVD copy. You can rip entire DVD or just part of it by time or by frame or by chapter.
Everything start at "1 Click". Powerful wizard will help you to complete conversion setting in several steps.
http://www.yaodownload.com/video-design/dv..._dvdrippers.htm