DVD Forum approves 51GB HD DVD?
By Ryan Block 
posted September 9th 2007 3:37PM
posted September 9th 2007 3:37PM
We haven't yet seen any official confirmation of the news, but it's been reported that the 51GB triple-layer single-sided HD DVD Toshiba first announced at CES has been approved by the DVD Forum. (The last we heard about this, the new format had been submitted for approval.) Of course, this might mean consumers will need new players to read 51GB HD DVDs, which could potentially damage the format more than help it; the last thing either HD DVD or Blu-ray need right now is to fork hardware compatibility with their own embattled formats, so we'll hope what we've heard about 2nd and 3rd gen HD DVD players being able to read 51GB discs via firmware upgrade is true. Also up to bat: the "twin" dual-layer DVD / HD DVD combo-disc was also approved, with one 5GB DVD layer and two 17GB HD DVD layers. We'll let you know when the DVD forum officially confirms (or denies) the news.[Thanks, Ken]
Read - News of the new approvals
Read- AVS Forum thread
People here aren't understanding why the HD-DVD camp is making this announcement and it is even funnier people are trying to say 30 gigs is enough. What exactly are you people basing this on.
The true issue is about bitrate. To push more you would need a bigger size, what everyone is close to thinking is that this might be enough for HD-DVD. But it might not be for blu ray.
In terms of video and audio
Blu ray bitrate max: 48.0 Mbit/s HD DVD bitrate max: 30.24 Mbit/s
In terms of video alone
Blu ray bitrate max: 40.0 Mbit/s HD DVD bitrate max: 29.4 Mbit/s
Alot of the Blu ray discs are 25 gigs (single layer) because of the masters were made that way. For every film that comes out on both formats do you think there is a separate master?
The majority of fud I constantly see is that from the HD DVD supporters ( not saying the BR camp doesn't have thier fair share). From security and peoples rights , both formats have the same security and BD+ isn't implemented yet. To how much space is actually "needed". To sales and support from DVD forum.
Here is some information for you. The reason Hd dvd is being backed by dvd forum and not blu ray is because blu ray was not submitted to the forum. Yet 8 out of 10 founders of the DVDforum are on the BDA and I'll let you guess how many of the 180 additional companies that support BR are also apart of the 220 members of the forum.
Last and not least. Bragging about the sales of hardware means nothing. It is the sales of the medium that is important. If HD-DVD was still outselling BR I would have invested in an HD-DVD player. But due to support from commpany and fans, this really is starting to look like BR is going to be a winner in the long run.
> But due to support from company and fans [...]
LOL.
Disk format to win need a clear majority. Fans are by definition minority.
I'd say, both HD DVD and BD are toasts - no, not because of downloadable content - but in 2-3 years it would take them to popularize their formats (== bring prices down), another format might kick in.
The formats are made for stupid hardware playback. If prices of embedable computers would continue to fall as they do right now, chances are that next winning format would be: Linux/WinCE firmware + good ol' DVD9 + MPEG4/AVC.
Or even worse: prices of ROM might catch up. At moment it doesn't seem anybody works on it (at least I haven't heard), but any non-mechanical standard for ROM cards might wipe-out disks which require mechanics (and new disk formats require new *expensive* mechanics). "Fragile" stamp of player boxes has its share of disk format price too.
Do you really believe that "another" format is going to come in and kick up a storm? Do you think HD-dvd and Blu ray arrived in the market overnight?
Ok, sidestepping the questions of good 'ol dvd9 , HDTV's and bitrates. What I am curious about are the backers of your new format. Which major movie studios do you think will feel the need to extend themselves to "another" format?
It seems to me like some of these companies involved in this are so headstrong because they want to end the format war as quickly as possible. Hardware concern's aside, I am pretty sure these companies want one format on the shelf whenever people feel the need to change. I didn't even think about buying a DVD player until 3 years after it was released and I would have prolonged that decision if I had another comparable format available to me.
@Staticneuron: While I agree that the bitrate capabilities of Blu-ray is one (of only two, or perhaps now only one) of the advantages that actually matters, if you were to investigate some facts about the bitrate tables of the relevant codecs, you would recognize, as I do, that it is essentially no advantage at all. Video compression codecs all have a sweet spot (per given resolution). For most 1080p24 movies from film, this sweet spot, in Mbps, averages in the lower 20s. 30Mbps will buy you essentially all the overhead you need to handle fluctuations in the activity of the video. The difference between this and higher bitrates, visually, is generally not perceptible. Try some x264 encodes of raw 1080p24 video for yourself (or both that and VC-1, which I have had demonstrated to me). You will see.
Now, what the extra bandwidth IS good for - and probably specifically what the designers of the technology were aiming at - is partially satiating the extravagant needs of MPEG2 at 1080p24. In fact, unfortunately, MPEG2's bitrate sweet spot at this resolution/framerate is in the lower 50s Mbps. This goes far in explaining why every Blu-ray MPEG2 title looks "soft" and why the name "Blu-ray" has often been written as "Blur-ray". MPEG2 softens details when it doesn't have enough bandwidth, resulting in nothing less than a drop in resolution, aka blurriness. I can only think of one MPEG2 movie whose bitrate demands were abnormally low (Crank) and that was due to the unique nature of its source material. For the rest, blur.
If I were to name a specific reason why Blu-ray deserves to lose the war, it would be the aggressive, parasitic and continuing proliferation of MPEG2-encoded movies - a problem HD-DVD has never endured. If one is not very careful, being a Blu-ray customer is like flipping a coin. Will I buy a sharp, truly 1080p movie today?
While you are quite right about the earlier Blu rays being Mpeg-2 you would be quite surprised at how many BR's are now either AVC or VC-1
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=760714
Here is a list to Blu ray titles their formats and their bitrates.
here it comes down to a point of opinion for now. Is it better to have VC-1 at a low bitrate or does AVC at a slightly higher bitrate look better. The titles for HD-DVD have to be VC-1 because of the constraints on the bitrate while I will gladly take the fence on which one is better given what I have seen from all three encodes on Blu ray.
The problem is all of the codecs have quality releases.
I'll stand by what I said about the proliferation of MPEG2 movies in the Blu-ray library. Those who choose to limit themselves to Blu-ray can at least be thankful that the unavoidable and embarrassing fact of VC-1 / AVC superiority has forced the near abandonment of MPEG2 movies at this stage. Still, some studios persist. Tabs can be kept here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=766588
Keep in mind that with only a single exception (I think you know the one), all preexisting MPEG2 movies can be assumed to be permanently doomed as such, stigmatizing the library as a whole.
I personally do not care which codec they use as long as it looks good but after going through my library of some of my best looking Blu ray titles, I will disagree with your assesment of the quality of MPEG-2 releases.
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/reviews_video.html
The ratings here do so as well. From enemy of the state, kingdom of heaven, Ice age: the meltdown to imports such as ghost in the shell 2: innocence. I have yet to see imperfections that are the cause of the actual "codec" instead of the master. But to each, his own. I just care about the final result.
As I have already stipulated, the imperfections inherent in a bitrate-starved MPEG2 encode manifest initially as reductions in detail. What this means, to put it a more simple way, is that those MPEG2 movies look in-fact 1080p generally only when there's little going on. Once the activity becomes more demanding (waves on an ocean, underwater, heavy grain, etc.), the detail plummets. This is not necessarily easy to identify, for anyone who is used primarily to watching DVDs. After all, DVDs look "fine", do they not? MPEG2 drops the resolution (effectively). It's important to understand what that means.
The best way to identify what I'm talking about, if one is unable to recognize the phenomenon when watching an MPEG2 Blu-ray disc, is to perform some test encodes. The second best way is to find some A/B comparisons from tests others have performed. If you still aren't convinced, take a look at this:
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/thefifthelement_bd-vs-bdremastered/01.html
The image looks fine, right? Try bringing your mouse over it. There should be an incontrovertibly noticeable difference. Some subtle color correction can be attributed to a deficiency of the original source, but it cannot be convincingly argued that all of that extra detail, missing from the MPEG2 encode, was simply not there on the original film. That's just not the way 35mm works. No indeed, MPEG2 was starved, and the result was not macroblocking or mosquito noise but the first step in artifacts, detail reduction.
Final analysis: Near cessation of MPEG2 encodes, good. Persistent existence of MPEG2 encodes (50% of library), bad. Judgmental indifference to MPEG2's shortcomings: irrelevant.
I have seen that comparison. It is done by a user on AVS. It was part of a debate about the master of fifth element.
But just as you mentioned "bitrate" starved. Go back the previous avsforum list and look at the size of the original fifth element and the remaster. Then look at their bitrates.
To furthur drive home the point I was trying to make, go back to any of the films I mentioned and even look at crank's bitrate.
The clarity issues that you mention have everything to do with bitrate. And quite frankly It seems as if BR movies can handle MPEG-2 at a high bitrate and push quality. If you can find a better comparison then fine but right now you pointing to quality differences of MPEG-2 @ 17Mbps and AVC @ 27 Mbps proves my entire arguement about bitrate.
And 27 Mbps for video alone pretty much nears the 30 mbps threshold of HD DVD that is why they are forced into using VC-1 instead of any other codec.
So you are saying, what, that AVC and MPEG2 provide identical results, or near enough not to matter, at similar bitrates? I'm sorry, Chief, but before today I hadn't heard that argument from even the most thoroughly biased Blu-ray fanatic. My tests indicated a roughly 2.5x difference in bandwidth requirements at 1080p using one i-frame every 12 frames. Meaning a 24Mbps x264 encode was only matched by MPEG2 at corresponding bitrates of around 60Mbps.
If you want a better comparison, do the tests yourself. If you want to try to convince _me_ of something, give _me_ some closeups of A/B AVC/MPEG2 shots which seem to counter what I've been saying. Meanwhile, I've satisfied my own curiosity as to why the three Blu-ray movies I purchased earlier this year all looked scarcely better than their corresponding DVDs iterations.
That is not exactly what I am saying. AVC is more effecient without a doubt. Can produce better quality at lower bit rates but as far as 1080p HD goes. You will be hard pressed to notice the difference. AVC is definatly the future for streaming over the internet or even watching on HDTV but as far as formats go I will refer you back to the site you gave comparisons on
http://www.mbmg.de/hd-discs/
The mpeg-2 movies that are slightly higher are actually comparible. The prestige, MI:3, Aeon Flux and quite a few others look almost identical in these screens and I can tell you from comparing formats myself that MI:3, which is only a 1.50 Mbps difference doesn't show that much of a difference.
hell"
"So, how do the Blu-ray and HD DVD stack up? Perhaps it is the mega-bitrate afforded both transfers -- and I know I might get taken to task by some in the HD DVD camp for even suggesting such a thing -- but this is one comparison that makes a pretty good case for MPEG-2. It seems clear that, with enough bits behind it, the codec isn't ready to be put out to pasture just yet (VC-1 was developed and optimized with low bitrate applications in mind, so is less space-hungry). Compression artifacts, posterization and macroblocking are just not a problem on either version. Black, color reproduction and overall detail are consistently impressive regardless of codec, and of all the dual-format releases I've yet seen, 'M:I III' is probably the best proof that Blu-ray is clearly able to deliver absolutely first-rate video quality when at its best."
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/missionimpossibleiii.html
Even the reviewer here had to point this out. And yes I even compared during the action scenes. The truth is, I ( blu ray supporter) and my freinds (hd-dvd supporters) could not tell the difference between some of these transfers even with different codecs. Sure there are some films that have obvious blocking issues but I seriously feels it comes down to bitrate.
Put down the math and the computerized tests. See if you can get your hands on both formats and use your eyes. Without pausing, zooming in and just using the same TV. (I have done comparisons on both samsung and Sony 1080p Tvs) Can you honestly say that you see the difference.
Because I haven't that argument from even the most thoroughly biased HD-DVD fanatic
Great investment opportunity in Costa Rica: costa rica beach, costa rica beach condos,Jaco Beach Apartment. Visit us for more info at:
http://www.jaco-bay.com/
why 51? why not 53.339392994980239849890948309423984902384092384093284093839?
Haha... while I love a good argument, sometimes I love comments like this!
I really like the idea of a DVD/HDDVD combo disc
LoL bloooray going same way as the ps3\betamax,about time sony got its arse kicked imo
There is no doubt that existing players will not be able to read the full capacity of these discs.
To focus on the 3rd layer requires a different pickup assembly, a firmware upgrade is not going to help.
The best I could envisage, is that existing players can access the 2 layers, and new player access the 3rd layer. It's possible (but not confirmed), that if discs were authored sensibly, then the extras could be put on the 3rd layer, meaning the main movie could still be readable by current players.
Either way, it makes BD Profile 1.1 compatibility issues insignificant!
HD-DVDs can already read up to three layers. It is in their spec I believe.
Industry insiders at AVS have already posted that:
a) Guaranteed compatibility with all G2 & G3 players and still waiting on the final announcement regarding G1 players
b) Manufacturing is simply adding an additional layer. No extra equipment required and all facilities are already capable of making the new disc.
c) There is already a title to be released on the new TL51 format and should be announced in 30 days. Whether this is simply a 30GB/DVD twin is yet unknown.
d) Format existed for a few years and was already taken into consideration when finalizing the HD-DVD spec by DVD Forum thats why existing players should be able to play it without problem.
It looks like this is a reality and was yet another weapon in the HD-DVD camps arsenal.
Time for the BD folks to go grab a Toshiba A2 with 8 free movies and Transformers for under $300 and accept defeat.
HD DVD is, and always will be the Ugly HD sister, it's lower bandwidth and smaller discspace is preventing Blu-Ray releases really showing what they are capable of.
As soon as HD DVD dies it's inevitable death, authoring studios can wind up the bitrate to fill those 50GB Blu-Ray discs.
As for 51GB HD DVD, pie-in-the-sky. It's looking like all existing HD DVD players won't play the new 51GB format, with G1/G2 players phsically not being capable, and G3 players needing a firmware update.
As a Blu-Ray owner this is fantastic news, Today Toshiba finally killed the HD DVD format, by revising the spec and p1ssing off 300,000 exisiting HD DVD owners with obsolete equipment.
Hmmm, the post above you
Indeed.
@Brian: This calibre of desperation only engenders sympathy, my friend. And you have it.
@Brian
The only thing lacking bitrate is you. Blu-ray's bitrate means nothing, it actually has to use it due to the fact that it was imcomplete spec pushed out the door too soon. The MPEG encoding they had to use on all of the early releases and still some today is where the bitrate is getting used. User the better and more optimized codecs, its gains have no real advantage.
Besides, if HD-DVD was the ugly sister, why is it that the reviews have more HD-DVD releases taking the PQ crown? It has been proven that with the codec used, the higher bitrate of Blu-ray does mean anything. From what I have seen in fact, the higher bitrate is only used by Sony, BDA and fanboys to spread the FUD.
HD-DVD is going no where, if you want to enjoy movies in HD... just face that fact that you have to go format neutral like so many others.
As for the claims of the 51GB disc not working, there has been no real proof if it does or doesn't. To boldly say that it doesn't means that you either have been sucked in to the BR FUD machine or that you are a fanboy. Currently, there is more information pointing to that it will work with current G1, G2 and G3 players with simply only a firmware update. However, I don't think anyone should hold their breathe either way until it is tested and the results offically come out.
As far as Toshiba killing HD-DVD, where have I heard that from before...? Oh wait, hasn't Sony and the BDA FUD machine been saying that since before it even came out? That HD-DVD is dead, bla bla bla, which I find funny since Paramount and Dreamworks jumped ship. Yeah... HD-DVD is dead...
Don't be stupid to think that the 51GB disc would be released if the current players don't support it. However, if you want to talk about screwing over the customer... look no further than Blu-ray. Profile 1.1 and 2.0? Oh, you mean features that Blu-ray should have had implemented out of the door, the very same features that HD-DVD had working from day one. Features that early adopters with profile 1.0 will not be able to use. Now I ask... who is the one pissing off customers and with obsolete hardware?
Asterra,
Your knowledge on this subject is impressive. Idle curiosity here, but is this your job or mere hobby for you?
Re: zargon
And, what makes you so sure that Blu-Ray 2.0 and such cannot be watched on PS3 with firmware updates? Even PC Blu-Ray drives can get firmware updates. Stand alone players would be a little more difficult, but they also can be updated by repair centers. Using the claim that Blu-Ray isn't in its final spec yet is immaterial since by the time there is wide-adoption of EITHER format, Blu-ray will be finalized and everyone will have the same access to the same content.
i cant wait til disks are obsolete. i mean, who wants to risk breaking/scratching some stupid disk?
SSD will eventually beat out all of them, especially with IBM's new advancements =D
but that would be kind of cool if HD DvD can make this compatable
@DickHardknocks
Yeah, major companies are ditching HD-DVD like the plauge... like Paramount and Dreamworks?
I can't think of any major companies that has left HD-DVD. In fact, HD-DVD is the one getting the companies coming to it. LG and Samsung switch from their Blu-ray stance to dual format players, we also have Onkyo/Integra releasing a HD-DVD player, along with a few Chinese companies now.
The Blockbuster claim is minor and has been spin pretty bad by the BR camp. They are testing the HDM market in select stores and at the time though that BR would rent better. They have since said that they feel the market for HDM rentals is now equal. However, I haven't heard any mention of them beefing up their HDM across the nation other than the initial 250 stores, which is a mere fraction of what they could do.
I can already stream (no waiting) DVD quality movies from the internet on a 1mbit connection... im sure with connection >8meg you could stream a HD-DVD/BRD movie too.
Discs? Where we're going we don't need discs! Screw both formats
:P
Oh Please!
Please stop using AVS as a reference, the whole world knows AVS is the whore of HD DVD camp.
I am sick of reading the BS spewing out of their mouths at their forum, I am sick of all their misinformation.
Example, the ones that are saying 51GB is fantastic were the ones saying that 30GB is enough for HD DVD.
I already own a format that uses a 50GB Disks, it's called Bluray and you can get them NOW!
They have lost all credibility.
That's a pretty tall comment. AVS Forum happens to remain the defacto center for enthusiast discussion of all cutting-edge home theater equipment. It attracts the cream of the enthusiast crop. They have Blu-ray forums and those forums are plenty active. If they're usually only about 60% as active as their HD-DVD counterpart forums, it is 100% the fault of Blu-ray's shortcomings.
@Asterra - That's a pretty tall comment. AVS Forum happens to remain the defacto center for enthusiast discussion of all cutting-edge home theater equipment.
Good one. If you would just take of your rose coloured glasses, maybe you would see that is not the case, I will say it again, AVS has lost all it's credibility, especially since Amir and all his microsoft prodigies have infected the site and spew their usual microsoft BS.
Oh Please!
Please stop using AVS as a reference, the whole world knows AVS is the whore of HD DVD camp.
I am sick of reading the BS spewing out of their mouths at their forum, I am sick of all their misinformation.
Example, the ones that are saying 51GB is fantastic were the ones saying that 30GB is enough for HD DVD.
I already own a format that uses a 50GB Disks, it's called Bluray and you can get them NOW!
They have lost all credibility.
HD DVD can do twin format, Blu-ray can't. Now HD DVD has China. More good news for HD DVD camp.
http://www.n4g.com/industrynews/News-66305.aspx
This is old news re-submitted, I knew about this 3 years ago from a Chinese Colleague in the manufacturing Industry, They didn't want to pay royalties. He also told me they were finding hard to get Studios to sign on.
Does anyone know what happened to Write Once Flash? Last I heard from that tech was that it was made possible few months back, but nothing since. I think once write only flash memory becomes mainstream (say 64GB for about $20 bucks), its just a matter of time before both blue ray and hd-dvd die off. Of course, this probably wont happen within 3 years, but nevertheless, its something to think about.
silverfrog,
The PS3 is the only Blu-ray player that possibly can be updated, but no one is sure yet. Profile 1.0 players do not have the hardware to handle the extra features, ethernet plus on board hardware to handle BDJ and whatever else is suppose to be added.
With the Blu-ray profile 1.1 deadline in October and with as many CE pushing players out before the dealine with profile 1.0. There are going to be a lot of early adopters that BR has left out in the cold with this incomplete spec.
I don't care how you and your Blu-ray zealots try to spin it, Blu-ray was pushed out the door in a hurry incomplete while HD-DVD was a final product from day one. Due to this incomplete product, BR is screwing over their customer base by changing standards mid-way through the game. On top of that, it is just not once they are doing it, but twice. Tell me why as a company that you would screw over the people that are the reason you even got off the ground in the first place? That just doesn't make sense or seem like a good business move to me personally, how about you. I just chaulk it up to par for the course with Sony though, so I guess it doesn't surprise me all too much.
finally, blu-ray and sony fanboys can stfu about size making blu-ray soooo amazing even though most blu-ray discs are the 25gb version. if you don't agree, blu-raystats.com: 60.14% of blu-ray movies are 25gb.
hd-dvd ftw!
Zargon, please stop with the mis-information. I understand your opinion is that the company shouldn't have released Blu-Ray before the spec was finalized. And my point is that almost every player known can be updated to the latest/greatest version by updating of firmware. You doubt this? Only PS3 can use firmware? Ha! Check this out, and next time do your homework. FYI, firmware is everywhere from cell phones to video games.
http://www.blu-ray.com/software/software.php
re: Teej
Hey there genius, movies aren't the only medium that benefits from larger disc capacity. Video games, movies, PC software, archival purposes, DV-camera, and music. Insinuating that 50 GB is too much is naive and makes you look like a fanboy, trying desperately to defend something. Now, if I could just figure out what exactly you are defending.
Great investment opportunity in Costa Rica: costa rica beach, costa rica beach condos,Jaco Beach Apartment. Visit us for more info at:
http://www.jaco-bay.com/
Its a shame that Blu-Ray didn't launch with its full spec and feature set in place, instead with BD profiles 1.1 and 1.2 needing extra hardware, not JUST a simple firmware upgrade we have a format war where SD DVD remains the top seller.
Unless you have a Blu-Ray/HD DVD player, amp, and a 70inch+ 1080P display with HDMI 1.3a (or future version)sockets you arn't going to get the full benefit of any High Definition format.