Blu-ray Lawsuit vs Samsung

[Johnd]

It's not a spec. It's just capacity. It will not effect picture quality that I know of, but it does have more bandwidth available to it. What is HD DVD going to do when they get a long movie that requires just 5 more minutes to fit it on a disc? Blu Ray has the capacity to hold this extra amount without having to put out a 2nd disc due to it's lack of capacity.

Well, it is a spec. It is their standard. That makes it their spec. And I understand on paper capacity and bandwidth is necessary to allow the storage and transfer of information.

My comment is that you claimed in the previous post that the compelling reason for you to purchase BD over HD is the 66% storage differential. And that diiferential is meaningless in the forums I frequent with guys that have 120" screens passing a 1080p/24Hz signal. It just seems misleading to those "not in the know" to proclaim that storage capacity is a compelling reason to elect BD over HD. If that is your reason, so be it. It currently holds no benefit at the highest possible signal on very large screens...so what's the point? That's all I'm saying frostbyte. In the real world, there is no appreciable benefit to that capacity. Not that I've read. It seems akin to the 90 year old Granny buying a 20 terrabyte computer for future use and adaptability.

 

[dobyblue]

The biggest reason is that HD DVD's hamartia has not yet come to light.
With three major studios releasing on the format, there were some excellent transfers on HD DVD. But Microsoft's own Amir Majidimehr commented that it takes Microsoft to get the most out of VC-1 at low bitrates.

Now ask yourself this question, what would happen were ALL studios to release on HD DVD with a release schedule rivalling that of DVD? That's when the bandwidth argument would rear its ugly head and show you why it was an important factor.

That 60%+ more bandwidth allows for the video encoder to work more efficiently. It can tackle hard-to-encode scenes with much less passes thanks to the ability to peak at 40 Mbps for movies at 2h30 minutes and up.

Has this mattered to date? No, but would you be satisfied with the current release schedule moving forwards? Very likely not.

 

[Johnd]

The biggest reason is that HD DVD's hamartia has not yet come to light.
With three major studios releasing on the format, there were some excellent transfers on HD DVD. But Microsoft's own Amir Majidimehr commented that it takes Microsoft to get the most out of VC-1 at low bitrates.

Now ask yourself this question, what would happen were ALL studios to release on HD DVD with a release schedule rivalling that of DVD? That's when the bandwidth argument would rear its ugly head and show you why it was an important factor.

That 60%+ more bandwidth allows for the video encoder to work more efficiently. It can tackle hard-to-encode scenes with much less passes thanks to the ability to peak at 40 Mbps for movies at 2h30 minutes and up.

Has this mattered to date? No, but would you be satisfied with the current release schedule moving forwards? Very likely not.

Well, doby, we really can't be buying for the future in this day and age, can we? You're not really suggesting that, are you? How many people here have been bitten by purchasing the latest and greatest, only to find it eventually didn't have one feature they now need?

I'm not going to fall into that trap. If I ever buy a BD player, it will be because it offers some thing(s) my HD does not (that I want), at an affordable price. As it has stood since inception, and as it currently stands, the 66% capacity difference is meaningless in the real world, and should not be a compelling reason to purchase BD. Imho. This was touted last year when they increased their capacity. It has shown no appreciable pq whatsoever in the real world. That's all I'm saying doby. It is part of the BD hype.

 

[frostbyte]

So when they put out Titanic...or any other longer movie and that person that spent $100,000 on a great theater and you are watching it in your great HD format and suddenly they have to flip or put in a new disc because it can't fit it all on one disc. That person won't be preterbed about capacity? If you offer me 2 hard drives that both do the same thing, I will want the larger capacity one. If they look the same, and sound the same, then why not want more potential from the format. We are at the very beginning of it and HD DVD discs are almost completely maxed out on capacity for a movie. No room for growth other than adding more layers potentially which might require new players. If I have a computer burner for which ever format, which would you choose? You can put 66% more MP3's or video's or family photos or ...uncompressed audio on a disc. Which would you choose? It's not just about the guy that has a 1080P projector on a 120" screen and can't see the difference. That will likely be the same for now. CD's suddenly went from 650 MB to 700 I think it was. Which sells now? Only 700's. Will the guy with the projector notice the difference? Obviously not. They are very similar, but one is notably superior in some areas and possibly identical in others. One is cheaper and got the most features sooner due to adapting old equipment to do the same job. That's it's great benefit to High Def.

 

[dobyblue]

Well, doby, we really can't be buying for the future in this day and age, can we? You're not really suggesting that, are you? How many people here have been bitten by purchasing the latest and greatest, only to find it eventually didn't have one feature they now need?

I'm not going to fall into that trap. If I ever buy a BD player, it will be because it offers some thing(s) my HD does not (that I want), at an affordable price. As it has stood since inception, and as it currently stands, the 66% capacity difference is meaningless in the real world, and should not be a compelling reason to purchase BD. Imho. This was touted last year when they increased their capacity. It has shown no appreciable pq whatsoever in the real world. That's all I'm saying doby. It is part of the BD hype.

I don't think you've understood what I've written.

I'm not talking about capacity, I'm talking about bandwidth and how it very much matters in the real world when one format needs to ramp up to mass market adoption levels in terms of titles released on a weekly basis.

As for appreciable difference in PQ, when you average out over 1,000 reveiws for HD DVD and over 1,000 reviews for Blu-ray from 5 major review sites, it is surprising at all that the PQ and SQ for all 5 sites averages higher on Blu-ray? Is it surprising that the three studios taking advantage of the higher bandwidth all average the highest for PQ and SQ?

HDD 279HD/303BD, HTS 251HD/270BD, HTF 104HD/107BD, UD 150HD/133BD, Talk 306HD/322BD
10.31.07

[B]HD DVD	 PQ 	 SQ 	 TOTAL [/B]		[B]Blu-ray	 PQ 	 SQ 	 TOTAL [/B]
HighDef	 3.88 	 3.61 	 3.74 		HighDef	 3.94 	 3.81 	 3.87 
HTSpot	 3.96 	 3.88 	 3.92 		HTSpot	 4.09 	 4.28 	 4.18 
DVDTalk	 3.63 	 3.50 	 3.56 		DVDTalk	 3.69 	 3.74 	 3.71 
HTForum	 3.89 	 3.68 	 3.78 		HTForum	 4.25 	 4.04 	 4.14 
UpDisc	 3.98 	 3.80 	 3.89 		UpDisc	 4.03 	 4.12 	 4.07 
[B]Totals	 3.84 	 3.67 	 3.76 [/B]		[B]Totals	 3.94	 3.96 	 3.95 [/B]

HDD 279HD/303BD, HTS 251HD/270BD, HTF 104HD/107BD, UD 150HD/133BD, Talk 306HD/322BD
10.31.07

[b]PQ	SQ	Total	Studio[/b]
 4.18 	 4.36 	4.27	[B]Buena Vista[/B]
 3.99 	 4.16 	4.08	[B]Sony[/B]
 3.81 	 4.08 	3.95	[B]Fox[/B]
 4.01 	 3.84 	3.93	[B]Paramount[/B]
 3.96 	 3.66 	3.81	 [B]Warner[/B]
 3.63 	 3.80 	3.72	[B]Lions Gate[/B]
 3.80 	 3.63 	3.71	[B]Weinstein[/B]
 3.71 	 3.63 	3.67	[B]Universal[/B]

HDD = High Def Digest
HTS = Home Theater Spot
HTF = Home Theater Forum
UD = Upcoming Discs
Talk = DVD Talk

All scored reviews from each site as of 10.31.07 are included in these figures.

 

[Johnd]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone can get data and statistics from anywhere.

Did you know that Chris Deering at Hometheaterhifi gave the A35 the HD Player of the year award?

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/best-of-awards/secrets-best-of-2007-product-awards.html

Did you know that the XA2 was the only HD player to pass all the tests, and thus allowing it to be listed as a Benchmark player?

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_4/toshiba-hdxa2-dvd-player-10-2007-part-1.html

and the results:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?function=search&articles=133#ToshibaHD-XA2 (Component

That data is irrefutable. Chris Deering is known for running equipment through the mill. The Benchmark title is not to be taken lightly.

But at the end of the day, this is all fluff. Smoke and mirrors. They are to be used as guidelines in an educated purchase. It makes no sense to purchase a benchmark player if one is to watch it on a 13" b&w crt.

You "don't think I've understood?" It's really not that deep. And so I stand by (again) what I wrote: there is no real world (noticeable) pq benefit of BD over HD because of capacity or bandwidth. None. Not at this forum and the other forums I frequent. And these are from fanatic members passing 1080p/24Hz onto 120" screens.

 

[dobyblue]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone can get data and statistics from anywhere.

Did you know that Chris Deering at Hometheaterhifi gave the A35 the HD Player of the year award?

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/features/best-of-awards/secrets-best-of-2007-product-awards.html

Did you know that the XA2 was the only HD player to pass all the tests, and thus allowing it to be listed as a Benchmark player?

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_14_4/toshiba-hdxa2-dvd-player-10-2007-part-1.html

and the results:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/cgi-bin/shootout.cgi?function=search&articles=133#ToshibaHD-XA2 (Component

That data is irrefutable. Chris Deering is known for running equipment through the mill. The Benchmark title is not to be taken lightly.

But at the end of the day, this is all fluff. Smoke and mirrors. They are to be used as guidelines in an educated purchase. It makes no sense to purchase a benchmark player if one is to watch it on a 13" b&w crt.

You "don't think I've understood?" It's really not that deep. And so I stand by (again) what I wrote: there is no real world (noticeable) pq benefit of BD over HD because of capacity or bandwidth. None. Not at this forum and the other forums I frequent. And these are from fanatic members passing 1080p/24Hz onto 120" screens.

It was the only "HD DVD" player to pass all the tests.
Kris mentions nothing about the Blu-ray players and I'm very familiar with who he is because he frequently posts at blu-ray.com

YOu cannot get data and statistics from ANYWHERE to show that HD DVD on average has equal or better pq and sq than Blu-ray, but I've shown FIVE different sites that the data shows Blu-ray averages better pq and sq.

This was not the case when I first started tracking the numbers, when most releases were MPEG-2 and BD25.

 

[frostbyte]

Don't you get it. JohnD knows all and cannot see truth. ^_^ Opinion is 95% of what we like. His mamma told him HD DVD looked just the same as Blu Ray so he agrees. He just forgot to mention that she's nearly blind and can't see either. Just kidding around so don't take it personal.

That was a very thoughtful and researched list of comparisons that should hold more merit coming from multiple sources. I personally can't tell the difference, but I don't have a way to do side by side or anything like that. I just know I love the PQ and SQ of both so much more than DVD and I want a single format and Blu Ray has more capacity and IMO a superior product will emerge with time. Like a Hybrid Vehicle vs a Fuel Cell. Hybrid may be here now and better than what we have, but once Fuel Cell is fully developed you won't even want a Hybrid.

 

[Wayde Robson]

Sorry, can't respond much now. I know I get a bit zealous when I'm on a role, i can't help myself.

I completely realize it's all business though, Toshiba and Sony are ultimately in it for the money. Honestly, I don't 'hate' Sony. It's just a business. I respect the Ken Kutagari, creator of the PS, he's like a hero to me.

Well, visiting relatives for the weekend, love the read and I'm glad we're able to discuss the HD format war without it getting nasty. I'm checking out the forum on a PDA.

Cya - have a good weekend.

 

[stratman]

Wayde I'm just waiting for Toshiba to come out with a $100.00 Blu-ray player before I jump into the fray.

 

[Johnd]

It was the only "HD DVD" player to pass all the tests.

Well, you're wrong again. It failed the "Sync Subtitle to Frames" and was borderline on layer changes. The other Hd DVD player to make the benchmark list was the XA1.

Kris mentions nothing about the Blu-ray players and I'm very familiar with who he is because he frequently posts at blu-ray.com

Precisely.

YOu cannot get data and statistics from ANYWHERE to show that HD DVD on average has equal or better pq and sq than Blu-ray, but I've shown FIVE different sites that the data shows Blu-ray averages better pq and sq.

This is why what you post is useless, and communicating with you is less so. I really don't care about data from five different sources on pq and sq differences between HD and BD. The fact is, with a quality player and display, they are indistinquishable, albeit each with their own nuances.

 

[dobyblue]

This is why what you post is useless, and communicating with you is less so. I really don't care about data from five different sources on pq and sq differences between HD and BD. The fact is, with a quality player and display, they are indistinquishable, albeit each with their own nuances.

It's a lot of fun to watch you contradict yourself.

The people at those sites are using quality players and quality displays and those averages are from those people.

For example, Chad Varnadore at Home Theater Spot.

• Sony VPL-VW60 1080p/24 SXRD projector
• 92" Vutec Silverstar 16:9 aspect, fixed-panel screen with DIY 4-way duvetyne curtains/masking
• Panasonic DMP-BD30 Blu-ray player (24p video and bitstream audio via HDMI)
• Sony Playstation 3 secondary BD player (video and audio via HDMI)
• Toshiba HD-XA2 HD DVD player (video and audio via HDMI)
• Denon AVR-3808ci (onboard amps used for surround back channels with 6.1 and 7.1 audio tracks only)
• Outlaw Audio model 7500 (5-channel amp)
• Atlantic Tech. 370 THX speakers (monopole L-C-R mains and dipole side surrounds)
• Atlantic Tech. 350 THX speakers (dipole back surrounds for EX/ES, 6.1 and 7.1 playback)
• dual SVS PB2+ subs
• all held together by Bettercables HDMI, Best Deal audio interconnects and Canare 4S11 Star Quad speaker cable
• room has been acoustically treated/corrected with a combination of OC 703 rigid fiberglass absorption, light diffusion, bass trapping, and the aid of Audyssey EQ

Peter Bracke at High Def Digest:

- Sony KDS-R70XBR2 70" LCoS 1080P HDTV [via HDMI]
- Sony PlayStation 3 60Gb Blu-ray Player [via HDMI]
- Samsung BD-P1400 [via HDMI v1.3]
- Toshiba HD-XA2* [via HDMI]
- Microsoft X-Box 360 HD DVD Add-on [for comparison purposes only]
- Onkyo TX-SR905 7.1-Channel A/V Receiver
- M&K S-150THX Left, Center, and Right Speakers
- M&K SS-150 Left, Right Surround Speakers
- M&K S-100B Back Left, Back Right Surround Speakers
- M&K MX-200 Subwoofer
- JVC HM-DH30000U D-VHS with D-Theater HD VCR
- Dish Network HD-942 High-Definition DVR
- BetterCables Interconnects

Thanks for proving yourself incorrect and saving me the trouble.

 

[Johnd]

It's a lot of fun to watch you contradict yourself.

The people at those sites are using quality players and quality displays and those averages are from those people.

For example, Chad Varnadore at Home Theater Spot.



Peter Bracke at High Def Digest:


Thanks for proving yourself incorrect and saving me the trouble.

You are a child, aren't you? No wonder. We were discussing Benchmark players via Kris Deering, who "you know very well" and call by his first name. The fact that BD players were used in some systems is of no relevance to the original propostion. Contracdict? You can't argue logically, or civilly, so you keep bringing in tangential "stuff." Your own post states that Kris Deering makes no mention of BD players (in those benchmark test). Sheesh. Go pop a couple pimples.

 

[dobyblue]

I don't see where doby said or implied that Dolby True is decoded in the player and then sent via analog.

Are you really this ignorant or do you just refuse to admit when you're wrong?

TrueHD can only pass through HDMI or iLink.

You cannot pass "Dolby TrueHD" through analog. You can only pass analog through analog. Your player decodes TrueHD to PCM, then converts to analog and sends out through analog.

No HD player passes DD+ and TrueHD undecoded through analog.
Several HD DVD and Blu-ray disc players pass TrueHD through analog after decoding and going through DAC's.
The Pioneer 94 and 95, the Samsung BD-P1200, BD-P1400, the Panasonic DMP-BD10, the Sony BDP-S1 and BDP-S500, the Sharp BD-H20U, they all decode TrueHD and pass out losslessly through analog.

 

[dobyblue]

You are a child, aren't you?
Sheesh. Go pop a couple pimples.

Look up the word hypocrite.
PS - I'm 34.

 

[Johnd]

Sorry, can't respond much now. I know I get a bit zealous when I'm on a role, i can't help myself.

Well, visiting relatives for the weekend, love the read and I'm glad we're able to discuss the HD format war without it getting nasty. I'm checking out the forum on a PDA.

Cya - have a good weekend.

A likely story Wayde. Start the fire, and leave me here all alone to keep fanning it. Sheeesh.

Enjoy your weekend completely devoid of BD fanboys...I kind of like that idea.

 

[mouettus]

Wow, never thought of having fanboys whining over this forum. I thought they were all at highdefdigest or avsforum.

To be honest I'm getting sick of John's posts. He's more onto HD-DVD than Toshiba itself. I'm skipping all of his posts. Yeah you got an HD-DVD player and you like it. Then what? Treating another member as "child". Should be e-slapped somehow by an admin.

After 3 pages, I went like: hey... what's the subject of the thread anyways? I thinks it's dobyblue -vs- Johnd? The winner against Kimbo Slice. Place your bets.

 

[Buckeye_Nut]

If I ever buy a BD player, it will be because it offers some thing(s) my HD does not

I've got some things for ya....


........how about the ability to watch the vast majority of all fresh new day/date movie releases in high definition

At least Universal and Paramount tosses HD-owners the rare bone every once in a blue moon.

 

[frostbyte]

This site is very much filled with HD fanboys. I have been from the beginning a BD fanboy. Before HD was even around so I for one am glad it's all over but the fanboy whining. ^_^ There will be some soar people around this site for a while....except those that just want it over and the few BD fans.

 

[Wayde Robson]

This site is very much filled with HD fanboys. I have been from the beginning a BD fanboy.

Editorial on Audioholics has focused on the failure of the HD formats due to the war.

The article was quoted in Maclean's magazine (Canada's national news magazine).

I can't disguise my preference for HD DVD but only because of it was first out of the gate in a complete form. And I felt Sony jumped in late because... well, it has that kind of power.

It's just business! I am not a 'fan' of a format anymore than I am a fan of a corporation or a building.

I now own a Blu-ray player I am very happy with, the Panasonic DMP-BD30. This one works unlike the many Samsung BD players I've had the displeasure of owning for under a month.

Until I see Sony or Toshiba cheering me on as I pay my bills and start up my car to drive in to work in the morning - I remain objective, impartial and unemotional about the whole thing.

But to be honest - I've enjoyed writing the format war stories and I'll miss getting worked up over Sony