CE-Oh no he didn't! Part XLII: BDA hints that 51GB HD DVD is a publicity stunt

Not long after we got wind of Sony and Toshiba's latest cat-fight, along comes Frank Simonis, chairman of the Blu-ray Disc Association, to stir the ever-whirling pot even more. In a recent interview with Tech.co.uk, Mr. Simonis was said to have insinuated that "the HD DVD Group's BD-trumping 51GB disc announcement is purely a publicity stunt," and he actually noted that he was "not surprised at all." Additionally, he claimed that the HD DVD camp was "very much in a reactive mood," and added that he had "not heard anything about a production line for the odd format." Oh, and on the topic of whether existing HD DVD players would actually be able to read the newfangled discs should they actually appear, he frankly proclaimed that we "better ask them," as he "questions it very much."

[Thanks, Dave J.]

[Andy @ Sep 14th 2007 4:36PM]

I guess it makes sense. The math does not work out, and so far this "disc" is as credible and existent as the 8 layer Blurays with 200GB. Its a theoretical and practical possibility, but not even close to production.

[Patrick @ Sep 15th 2007 12:18PM]

Andy, so adding an extra layer on a HD-DVD is just as credible as adding 5 on a BD? Sounds like a bit of fanboyism to me. Sounds like the BD group are really sh*tt*ng their pants lately.

[Jesse S @ Sep 14th 2007 5:02PM]

I'd be shitting myself if I had support from nearly every major corporation too.

[TrentD @ Sep 14th 2007 5:22PM]

The math DOES actually work out if 17GB layers are used, which is what the proposed 34 and 51 GB discs do. By changing the pitch a little bit, you can get that kind of capacity. It's currently unknown, but believed that a firmware update could allow current HDDVD owners with early players to watch the 17 GB layer discs.

[E71 @ Sep 14th 2007 5:34PM]

Who cares if 51GB HD-DVD trumps BD... that's as far as HD-DVD goes... end of the line. Whilst BD will go way beyond, all the way to the finish line at 200GB. .|. HD-DVD .|. Toshiba

[Dave @ Sep 14th 2007 5:37PM]

Actually, BD can't even manufacture 50GB discs. Due to manufacturing problems (pooling), which I'll bring up as many times as I have to until people get it, they can't even do a full 50GB. They're pretty much maxed out at 45GB--and most Blu-Ray discs are single layer...which are usually maxed at around 22GB for the same reason. But you think they're going to get to 200GB? Insiders claim yields for dual-layer Blu-Ray are still at only 50%! What do you think their yields would be like if they shot for another layer?

[Temple @ Sep 14th 2007 5:39PM]

Honestly, if it ain't compatible with any of the HD-DVD players currently on the market 51GB HD-DVD is useless. Same as 200GB Blu-ray disks.

Also, I thought that the stance of the HD-DVD group was that the 50GB that current BD offers is pointless?

[Andy @ Sep 14th 2007 5:49PM]

Well, a large portion of current BD movies are 50gb, with higher bitrate sound and video, so more space means less compression.

@Dave - So how do you explain the large number of movies on dual layer discs? Magic?

[Dave @ Sep 14th 2007 6:03PM]

Nope--there's nothing magical about a 50% yield. It's just trial and error--split down the middle. Half of them fail. Half succeed. The yields are 50% for dual-layer according to insiders on avsforum. And, actually, those are Sony's yields. Other manufacturers are, reportedly, having less luck and are getting 10% yields for dual-layer. I'm not trying to add FUD here. Honestly, that's the word from insiders on avsforum. Go there and look for yourself.

[paragraph @ Sep 14th 2007 4:38PM]

why cant we all get along? if every company in the war just banded together to make a rediculously awesome format, everyone would be happy.

FFS in a few years we'll have 100TB Holo-Disks or something like that, so who cares anyway.

[Ally @ Sep 14th 2007 6:37PM]

Yes, and then they wouldnt make as much money.

Are you really that naive?

[ethana2 @ Sep 15th 2007 12:02AM]

We need to come up with an open format and boycott the rest.

That's how progress is made. As of now, my format of choice is copowi + Seagate-Maxtor.

[Paul @ Sep 14th 2007 4:51PM]

The capacity doesn't need to be bigger, since the quality is better with the current capacities, which is actually sort of sad when you think about the fact that Blu-Ray has higher capacities, yet still manages to lack in picture quality.

[william @ Sep 14th 2007 5:03PM]

The video quality is the same and the disk quality is higher including audio quality on blu ray. Only thing that is lacking in Blu Ray is extras and price i know there working on one of the two. Blu Ray I am sure will be around for a long time to come even if it dose not win the video format war it will be the choice format for computer users.

I am just tired of the underhandedness from both camps.

[Jesse S @ Sep 14th 2007 5:04PM]

I guess that by lacking, you mean the same as HD DVD, right? You do know they use the same codecs...The only real difference between the formats is blu-ray's superior tech specs, and the fact that the HD DVD standard requires lossless audio, whereas it's an option for BRD movies.

[Paul @ Sep 14th 2007 5:06PM]

I just wish they'd work together for one format.

Oh, and video quality is not the same. I've seen BD v. HD-DVD, same movie, same LCD TV's, side-by-side and the quality difference was noticeable.

[hemmy @ Sep 14th 2007 5:18PM]

Same movie, eh? Considering neutral studios like Warner often encoded for HDDVD first and used *that very same* resultant encode for the Blu-ray version, I find that interesting. Care to identify the movie?

If you take the top HD movie review sites, you'll find that Blu-ray films on average lead in both PQ and SQ - As of August:

High Def Digest 219HD / 235BD
Home Theater Spot 208HD / 217BD
Home Theater Forum 76HD / 8BD
Upcoming Discs 143HD / 126BD
DVD Talk 256HD/268BD

HighDef HD DVD
PQ - 3.89
SQ - 3.64
HighDef Blu-ray
PQ - 3.97
SQ - 3.83

HTSpot HD DVD
PQ - 3.93
SQ - 3.84
HTSpot Blu-ray
PQ - 4.04
SQ - 4.25

DVDTalk HD DVD
PQ - 3.65
SQ - 3.49
DVDTalk Blu-ray
PQ - 3.68
SQ - 3.71

HTForum HD DVD
PQ - 3.92
SQ - 3.67
HTForum Blu-ray
PQ - 4.30
SQ - 4.07

UpDisc HD DVD
PQ - 4.00
SQ - 3.80
UpDisc Blu-ray
PQ - 4.04
SQ - 4.14

Totals HD DVD
PQ - 3.85
SQ - 3.67
Totals Blu-ray
PQ - 3.94
SQ - 3.96

[Brian @ Sep 14th 2007 5:21PM]

Quote "Oh, and video quality is not the same. I've seen BD v. HD-DVD, same movie, same LCD TV's, side-by-side and the quality difference was noticeable."

The player would have determined the quality and I very much doubt that you have vision which would allow you to notice any difference.

[Alan Strangis @ Sep 14th 2007 5:22PM]

I think that's FUD.

I've tested both formats via Toshiba player and PS3 (Planet Earth HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray) on the same Pioneer Plasma, and I don't buy the picture quality difference. Both looked fantastic, but on CLOSE inspection, VERY VERY minor difference (at different scenes) but none of this would be noticeable at regular viewing distances.

[Paul @ Sep 14th 2007 5:49PM]

Check out the reviews

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/trainingday.html

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/rumorhasit.html

My process was much the same as this reviewers, with the difference being that there were 2 TV's, rather than switching back and forth.

[hemmy @ Sep 14th 2007 6:20PM]

So you're talking about Warner's 1st Blu-ray films encoded with MPEG-2. Back in 2006. Warner caught some flack for this, and they stopped doing it long ago, and not long after these films were out, so you may want to update your outdated stance. They pretty much use *one* encode for *both* HDDVD and Blu-ray now. Most Blu-ray films are now AVC or VC-1 encoded as well. There are studios using AVC codecs whose average bitrates exceed HDDVD's maximum bitrate. The PQ/MPEG-2 argument became worthless and wrong as of 2007.

[andyo @ Sep 14th 2007 4:51PM]

Open letter to any one of HD-DVD or Blu-ray (whichever may listen first).

Die already.

Thank you.

[Jesse S @ Sep 14th 2007 5:08PM]

I agree. Both formats suck.

[andyo @ Dec 24th 2007 3:43AM]

I said only one should die. Damn read the freaking post, it's just a few words. Completely screwed up my neat open letter's purpose.

[peshue @ Sep 14th 2007 4:58PM]

I really wish one of these formats would just die already. I'd like a HD movie player at some point, But I'm not going to buy one till this little war is over.

[Alan Strangis @ Sep 14th 2007 5:24PM]

I say that each camp randomly pick a champion from their pool of executives, and they settle it in an alley with a knife fight, show it on PPV, and then the losing camp gets the proceeds and PROMISES to ditch their format.

[Samsam @ Sep 14th 2007 5:03PM]

I want the VHS camp to come back full force and join in the fray, just to really confuse things.

[Jindo @ Sep 14th 2007 5:09PM]

They can join the fray with HiFi VHS.

[TrentD @ Sep 14th 2007 5:18PM]

DVHS! The real HD format leader!

[Preston @ Sep 14th 2007 5:14PM]

HD-VHS FTW!!!

[TrentD @ Sep 14th 2007 5:19PM]

No seriously, guys... D-VHS was the first pre-recorded HD format. Used MPEG2, up to 1080i...never caught on of course, but maybe it's time for a comeback! :)

[John Laur @ Sep 14th 2007 5:28PM]

Interestingly, HD on VHS tapes does exist and there is even more than one type. Aside from random access it's really pretty decent format. With D-VHS, tapes store between 25 and 50GB based on length (and you can use standard VHS tapes too). The format is for data storage and the codec choice is fairly agnostic. Every D-VHS machine supports MPEG2 and some are adding H.264 support now. With this in theory you can use the same encoded asset to publish your identically encoded film on HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, and D-VHS.

There is also another (obsolete) HD format for VHS called W-VHS that records a 1080i analog signal instead of storing an encoded bitstream.

[Neeko @ Sep 14th 2007 5:09PM]

When will this end? what will it take? Iam hoping that xmas07 is when we finally see either camp pull ahead of the other. i dont like this FANBOYISM STUFF.

Its not like either of them has better PQ.

[mikelarry85 @ Sep 14th 2007 5:14PM]

lol dont you think it funny that the hd dvd new size is 51 gb 1 gig more than the blu ray.im sure they could have made it bigger but just to spite blu ray they went with one gig bigger lol

[Luke @ Sep 14th 2007 5:20PM]

No one even cares who wins anymore. Just let one of them die already. They are hurting all of us normal people out here with this stupid little "war." Not a lot of us non-rich people are going to buy into either (unless we have to...ps3) until we are sure its going to have all the content we want, none of this piecemeal stuff. Lets get one, use it for about 2-3 years and move on.

[Klaas @ Sep 14th 2007 5:20PM]

So will these discs fit in my iPhone????

[Liqwid @ Sep 14th 2007 5:35PM]

If you smash the disc hard enough against the screen, it might. Try it tonight. Give me news on what happens tomorrow.

[Dave @ Sep 14th 2007 6:22PM]

@Andy

"As of September 2007 40% of Blu-ray titles use the 50 GB disc and 60% use the 25 GB disc[52] while almost all HD DVD movies are in the 30 GB dual layer format.[53]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

[Kris S. @ Sep 16th 2007 8:06AM]

Wikipedia

Since when was that a trusted source for information.

[TrentD @ Sep 17th 2007 5:41PM]

Read it and weep, those who are viewing the world through "Blu-colored glasses"...

www.blu-raystats.com
www.hddvdstats.com

[Jeebus @ Sep 17th 2007 1:10PM]

"Wikipedia. Since when was that a trusted source for information."

When, as in the linked article, references are supplied:
http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/releasedates_historical.html

[Andy @ Sep 14th 2007 5:47PM]

You do know there are a ton of movies, majority probably in BD that are dual layer correct? Your info is terribly wrong.

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Sep 14th 2007 5:45PM]

It is a stunt. The current players can't read them and the discs cost more to make. So the value of triple-layer HD-DVD is no higher than that of triple-layer (75GB) BluRay.

Neither matters for movie playback for the foreseeable future.

It's ironic the HD-DVD guys who dump on BluRay for having two standards (1.0 without BD and 2.0 with it) now trumpet a new disc that is incompatible with all current HD-DVD players.

[Dave @ Sep 14th 2007 6:41PM]

How do you know it's incompatible? That's FUD. Compatibility is an unknown. What's interesting is that you would present a statement as fact that you have no knowledge of whatsoever. Doesn't that make you a liar?

[why not the LS2LS7? @ Sep 14th 2007 9:58PM]

It's not FUD. Do apply that word to everything?

As to what I'm saying making me a liar, that would only be true if I didn't believe what I said.

It isn't compatible, and I said so. I may be wrong, but I'm not a liar.

Why don't you wait around and find out if I'm wrong?

[Adrian Williams @ Sep 14th 2007 5:50PM]

Both Formats are declining in sales so fanbois get over yourselves
http://www.dailytech.com/Sony+Inadvertedly+Reveals+Declining+BD+Sales/article8764.htm

[hemmy @ Sep 14th 2007 6:41PM]

That graph you cite is old and its data ends at 05/13/2007. As it turns out it wasn't even close to indicative of a trend (just a slump), as sales picked up for both HDDVD and Blu-ray films. What is consistent (from that period till today) is that Blu-ray titles are still outselling HDDVD titles comfortably at 2:1. Latest Nielsen/Videoscan figures:

Week Ended 9/09:
60/40 BD

Year-to-Date:
66/34 BD

Since Inception:
61/39 BD

1. 300 BD 100
2. 300 HD 70.92
3. Heroes HD 46.32
4. Blades of Glory HD 37.20
5. Casino Royale BD 34.09
6. Planet Earth BD 29.26
7. PotC DMC BD 28.58
8. Wild Hogs 25.68
9. PotC CBP 25.66
10. Planet Earth HD 25.17

[Dave @ Sep 14th 2007 6:43PM]

Nope. Closer to 1.5:1 as of late. Last week it was even less. If it wasn't for the PS3, Blu-Ray would be dead. Luckily for Blu-Ray, Sony, quite wisely, elected to sell people a console for which few decent games exist. Your choices are watch a movie or do some more Folding@Home.

[hemmy @ Sep 14th 2007 7:04PM]

The week before that was 68/32 BD (things improved a bit for HD for the week thanks to Heroes and Blades). No one knows what the numbers are as "of late" till Nielsen puts them out.

As for the PS3 jab, save it for someone who gives a shit.

[Dave @ Sep 14th 2007 8:08PM]

@hemmy

I'd imagine you give a shit since it's the only reason your format has any legs.