DVD Forum approves 51GB triple-layer HD DVD spec
By Nilay Patel 
posted Nov 15th 2007 9:11PM
posted Nov 15th 2007 9:11PM
Toshiba's been demoing a triple-layer hybrid HD DVD / DVD system for a couple years now, but it's been all unofficial until today, when the DVD Forum steering committee voted to approve the spec as part of the official HD DVD standard. The third 15GB layer bumps the total capacity of HD DVD up to 51GB, matching Blu-ray's 50GB disks. Of course, we wouldn't expect to see a flood of content on the new disks anytime soon, what with all those shiny new double-layer players getting sold right now, but it's interesting to see HD DVD step up in the one area Blu-ray was clearly superior. The stalemate continues!
My CPU is a neural net processor, a learning computer.
The average Blue Ray disc uses 25 -> 30 gigs, so who cares that it held 50 gigs...
I can almost guarantee the HD DVDs are going to use this full 51 gig capacity as well.
I meant to say "not going to use"; my B XD
Well, for me at least, the advantage of Blu-ray's higher capacity and higher spec in general is that ideally, this format will be widely adopted, once/if one format ever wins.
So, just like you can burn 8.7 gig discs with your dual layer DVD burner, you would be able to burn 50 gig discs with you Blu-ray burner. Now this is already possible, but the price will continually drop in the coming years.
A stalemate this is not. A stalemate occurs when one player is not in check, but cannot legally move anywhere. The correct chess metaphor here is draw, probably one caused by the fifty move rule. I realize "stalemate" sounds more sophisticated than simply "draw," but it should not be used here, since usually one player has a major advantage in a stalemate, which is definitely not the case in this HD game.
I'd use 51GB of DATA on a HDDVD disc, gotta back up my porn somehow...
Gotta love the idiots only thinking about how much space a single movie takes up on a single BD/HDDVD disc. We backup our own stuff on them too...
Besides, isn't ~50GB like, the end of the line for HDDVD whilst Bluray will eventually go all the way to ~200GB, if not at least ~100GB...
The only reason most are just using 25-30GB is because those are made by companies that support both formats. They are just using one encode for both the Blu-Ray disc, and the HD-DVD disc, instead of using two seperate ones, like they should! They are not fully using the Blu-Ray potential, and this hurts the Blu-Ray supporters as they are paying for HD-DVD's mistakes.
I see this 51GB HD-DVD disc as a good thing, even though I am a BD supporter, because now the companies have NO excuse for not using the full space and specs for both, as they are now both the same size.
@Scotty Luther
The majority BD discs are not even using the same codec so they are hardly "using one encode" as you say. It's more like Blu Ray is paying for it's own mistakes.
Most Blu-ray exclusive content comes close to 50GB, movies that are encoded for both formats are around 30GBs due to HD-DVD size limitations.
Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean used 75 GBs (one full 50GB disk and a 25GB disk for extra content they couldn't fit on the 50GB disk).
Forget movies. We're talking pr0n here. I mean data backup.
Yes, it rocks as a backup storage...
I can backup my whole p0rn collection in just a few discs!.... err, i mean, the data of my projects...
I love how they still haven't figured that putting makeup on in HD (movies and TV alike) looks atrocious.
The porn industry fails.
Rule #34 on HD war now.
Sadly, I would have to delete some things to get it on that one disk.
It sounds great for data backup, but HD DVD burners are hardly even available currently. On top of that, multi-layer burning is a difficult thing to do (kind of the same reason why it took so long to get dual-layer DVD-/+Rs). So who knows how long it'll be before we even see triple-layer HD DVD-R drives, probably years.
I'm not so much concerned over data size, but the ability of the drives to actually read through 2 layers of media consistently and without problems. Nothing would be worse than writing a whole bunch of backup data only to find out the third layer becomes completely unreadable due to some 'problem' with the media later in its life. Even reading through one layer can be questionable, but I trust it more than I trust a laser to properly read through two layers of media. Of course, Blu-Ray will also add a third layer (like it needs it) and move it's size to 75GB with 3 layers (but still the 3 layer issue persists). Although, I'd be surprised if Toshiba can create a player that properly reads through 3 layers to get to the fourth. So, I wouldn't expect any quad layer media any time soon.
Bent Cardan : very cool.
Get Bent
And now Toshiba can boast of having 1 GB more capacity than Blu-ray. As far as i see it, this is gonna end with the release of dual-format players coz people will be pissed off if they are made to buy the same movie again in another format.
As a friend of mine says, he won't buy a high-def movie until he can buy a $30 dual-format player at Walmart!
lol il laugh at your buddy while i watch my high definition movies
Unlike you, I prefer to spend my money on more productive things
Like video games....
@ finnith
Make more money. Video game consoles help by lowering the price of entry into the Hi-Def movie arena.
Don't let the format war keep you from enjoying the beauty that is High Definition.
bout time HD-DVD stepped up their game; i wanna see some blood in Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD fight!
Induce mindless fanboy blathering 3...2...1...go.
APPLE ROX, M$ SUCKS!
oh whoops, wrong thread. danget, I did that again!
Just like the TL45, the new TL51 spec is nothing but vaporware until they actually come out with a product that is compatible for current players.
lol, Penguin Warload totally owned you pre-post.
This does not address the bit rate differences. To many it is all about performance - but then again I still have my Beta HiFi :)
I don't think this will even work on current players, so I doubt this will have much of an effect on the format war (aside from bragging rights). Anyways, we already know the Blu-Ray camp has had a 100GB Blu-Ray disk in development (uncertainty over whether that'll work on current players too), so I doubt HD DVD will be able to brag about having more storage for long.
it will work on current players.
However, that (what was it?) six layer multi hundred gigabyte disk your referring two would not...
Even if it doesn't work on current players that doesn't mean they won't just change the spec and screw everyone like they did with DVD.
I paid $500 for my first Pioneer DVD player... only problem was that it didn't read dual layer discs.
When the dual layer discs started coming out I'd buy movies and then just not be able to watch them. I called Pioneer to ask them what was up after seeing tons of people that owned the same player complaining online.
Their solution? "Send the player back to us (on my dime btw) and we'll put a new drive in it for $200 that'll be able to read the new dual layered discs."
NOT joking.
Ya thats a way to compete, three layers of toshiba = 2 layers from sony... times 10, 30 layers toshiba is the same thing as 20 layers from sony (hypothetically). Why didn't this morons at Toshiba make a better system and Disks in the first place, instead of adding layers (which means triple the price by the way)..
I hate to question the mighty wisdom of Engadget, but shouldn't it read '17 GB' layers and not '15 GB' layers? Unless 15 x 3 is 51.
Yes. It is 17GB/layer.
Because of backwards compatibility with DVDs and CDs. HD DVD was designed so that they could use the same laser to read all 3 disc types. At the same time they can use preexisting DVD manufacturing plants to manufacture HD DVDs because the two are very similar.
Blu-ray on the other hand is not backwards compatible. Blu-ray players have to have 2 lasers. One to read CDs and DVDs and another to read BDs. This is a result of blu-rays vastly different focal point. Using this focal point means the lens has to be glass instead of plastic (like CD, DVD, and HD DVD) because even the tiniest imperfection will result in disc read errors.
Also, using this focal point requires the data layer to be very close to the edge of the disc, requiring them to coat every disc with a scratch proof coating because the discs are more fragile (a small scratch will rip off the data layer). This increases the costs of making each disc.
In addition, BDs cannot be make in preexisting DVD plants because the process is too different so new manufacturing plants have to be built specifically for BD production.
Sounds like Toshiba has the better product to me. Blu-ray may look better on paper, but HD DVD is better in practice. It is much cheaper to produce with little to no difference in quality.
Um not to be a fanboy or supporter of any format but that article linked is from September 11, 2007. This same article was brought on www.eproductwars.com today and the AVS Forums. Please at least read the article before writing up a summary.
ALL HD-DVD fanboys can go crazy now. As for Blu-ray fanboys, they can brag about other features. [And the heated war continues...]
http://www.dvdforum.org/40scmtg-resolution.htm
Here's what you should link to.
Damn that HDDVD guys still with hope thats means that the BR its more powerfull that ever :).
Im just waiting to see the BR-QL(Quad Layer) strike back LOL!
Although yourself up for a Star Wars quip I am not going to gratify you with one.
errr, "you set yourself up for" ...more coffee! STAT!
This is meaningless. All Blu-Ray players can take advantage of 50GB Blu-Ray discs. How many HD-DVD players can take advantage of 51GB HD-DVD discs? I'll tell you how many: zero.
Does it really count as "bragging rights" if you've just created a spec that's incompatible with all of your players?
Where has it been stated that this is incompatible with current players? I know I saw where they have said they don't know yet, but that in order to make the distinction, a firmware update would definitely have to happen (which the players are capable of, most have Ethernet, the rest can update with a DVD loaded with the update).
BD 1.1... not all players have an ethernet port. Not all older players will even be capable of the update.
If you think current HD DVD players can't play 51GB discs, then you're wrong and mis-informed.
At the very LEAST all the third gen players will be able to cope with these discs and from what I can tell, it's VERY likely second gen players will be fine too.
Indeed. Anyone wonder why Toshiba are deadly silent on the subject? Surely if all that was required was a firmware update, don't you think they will be shouting from the rooftops?
The sad fact is, nothing on the market today will play these 51GB discs, and the only reason they are around, is to make HD DVD look like it still has a chance.
re: ahhhhhhhhhhhhh
Show me a player that cannot do firmware updates. Even the ones that do not have ethernet can be updated either with discs, or as a factory upgrade by shipping the unit in or bringing it to a service center.
Oh, and furthering that, what happens when manufacturers start making triple-layer players and the movie studios start making triple-layer discs? Yeah, that's gonna be great for all those consumers that have already bought dual layer players. The HD-DVD camp is obviously *so* much more consumer friendly than BD... right?
What if it's not for movies?
Anyone know if there is file size limit is on these discs? Could one write a 50GB encrypted container file to store sensitive data? I assume this would require UDF support on the recorder and OS.
I don't get it. The article says "The third 15GB layer..."
But currently a dual-layer HD-DVD is 30 GB, so wouldn't that make a 3 layer 45 GB if indeed the third layer was 15 GB too?
This makes me wonder... will the current HD-DVD players be able to play this new 3 layer disc? With its 15 GB - 21 GB ~ish new layer?
Let's see,
Blu-ray: Higher maximum bitrate
HD DVD: No region coding, no BD+ DRM
I'll take HD DVD.
they squeezed a few more gigs out of each later. It should work on present and first generation HD-DVD players. It states in the A1 manual which is a first generator player that it accepts 3 layer HD-DVDs. Firmware is all it needs. Also all HD-DVD players are 2x which is 72mbps but are set to 1x by firmware which limits the speed the drive can read at to 36mbps. So spec wise it should out perform blu-ray if they enable both triple layer and 2x speed via firmware.
damn spelling errors /shakefist
I have players for both formats. And two little words make HD-DVD a winner for me: Region Free!
Really, I don't get how Blu-Ray fans *want* BD+, extra layers of DRM and region code lock-in. Plus, HD-DVD delivers on Profile 2.0 features right now!
But really -- how can you not love a format that's REGION FREE?
the problem is not us, it's the studios! THEY want region coding. i'm german and i LOVE hd-dvd for being codefree, but watching movies in original versions is pretty common over here in germany.
and some studios are already holding back the hd-dvd-realease FOR MONTHS while releasing the bluray several months in advance...just because of region coding.
sucks...
"and some studios are already holding back the hd-dvd-realease FOR MONTHS while releasing the bluray several months in advance..."
By "some studios" you of course mean *ONE* studio, right?
too bad hd-dvd requires 3 layers to do the same job BD's do in 2. Ahhh, the inferiority. Enjoy compressed audio and your limited studio support =)
Wow. Do you even know what compression even is? Moron.
i think this whole format war is interesting, i mean who remembers the DVD + - war? they ended up with drives that do both.
The war between dvd+ and dvd- was caused by a few differences but bluray and hd-dvd are really different.
if anyone hasnt noticed, if space is ever an issue Blu can go triple too and go for 75gbs...
As blu-ray fanboys say, "it doesn't mean anything until it's approved!"
...or 100GB, or even 200GB on 8 layers. It's all theoretically possible.
::Grabs popcorn::
I'm counting the minutes until the Blu-ray group comes out and touts the 75GB triple layer Blu-ray disc!!!
"I'm counting the minutes until the Blu-ray group comes out and touts the 75GB triple layer Blu-ray disc!!!"
With the way the BD is going... that would be profile 2.1 after you shelled out $700 for profile 1.0, $700 for profile 1.1 and $700 for profile 2.0 and they will be offered for the low price of $700.
$2800 anyone?
For $399 you can get a fully upgradeable BD player that also plays games, surfs the net, rips cds, steams media, plays network media, and does lots of other stuff. I dont Know where you got this $700 minimum price tag from, but if i had to guess id say it came from the same place you keep your head.
vishus, your $399 drive does burn dics. Please pay attention to mlody's post before you start bashing.
Of course I meant *doesn't burn discs*
@Daren
Many problems here.. First of all, you are stating as fact that ALL existing players will be able to read this three layer disc. I don't know the actual answer to this, but I *HIGHLY* doubt you do either since it hasn't been revealed publicly. And even if they eventually say that it "should" be compatible with a firmware update, we all know how that will go...
"six layer multi hundred gigabyte disk your referring ..."
I'm glad you are so capable at basic arithmetic. I believe 100GB / 25GB per layer would equal 4 layers total, NOT SIX.. and where did he refer to a "multi hundred gigabyte disk"??
Did you actually read his post? Or are you just stupid?
"matching Blu-ray's 50GB"??
I think topping would be a better word.
51 GB is great....but i rather wait for the 200 gb BD !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great news for HD-DVD. Not sure if this included a boost to bandwidth as was rumored.
Anyone notice the implication that the current dual layer players won't be able to play the tripple layer discs??
I like how they managed to squeeze that extra 1GB in there, 'cause if I'm looking to buy a blank 50GB disc, an extra 1GB is going to convince to buy the other format /sarcasm off
Actually, while most HD DVD players will play 51gb discs, there is no chance we'll ever see a 51gb HD DVD-R or RW. Just not possible domestically from what I can tell.
Sarcasm aside, I'd love to see the price of a tripple layer HD-DVD burner. All the prior posters who dreamed of stashing their porn collections on these tripple layer disks are much better off buying an enclsure and several hard drives.
If you ask me, the increased capacity does nothing for us consumers. It's inaccessable to us for personal storage and unused for most movies.
I couldn't give two craps about Hi Def movies, but, the data storage capabilities has me interested. I have to admit, though, while I'd love to back up my entire movie and/or porn collection onto a single disc, I'd be worried about potential data loss. When a CD gets damaged, you don't lose much data. DVDs get damaged, it's still easy to recover. Lose 50+GB, and you're SOL>
I have both as well and i prefer HD DVD. For starters they look the same and i have a 1080p projector 92' across so if anyone is going to see the difference i can (and there is none) you can throw silly specs at me all day and at the end of it they will still look the same when i go home and pop in spiderman 3 or transformers. They sound the same as well dispite fanboys saying if something is layerd more it will sound worse.
There should be something like the coke pepsi challenge where people look at the same movie on two different formats but with all the same equipment except the players. and judge which is which
HD DVD is cheaper and if blue ray wins the prices will be higher longer because they still need to build the infrastructure to produce them. That and the reigon free thing makes hd dvd the more logical option.
So we have a much smaller pits than regular DVD and now 3 layers, you best buy some velvet gloves too, to handle them.
And I wonder how long you can store these things even when extremely careful, we all heard about DVD-R's not lasting more than 2 years often :/
@Jensen
"The majority BD discs are not even using the same codec so they are hardly "using one encode" as you say. It's more like Blu Ray is paying for it's own mistakes."
Your are full of fail. All neutral titles have used the same encode for over a year now.This leaves the Blu-ray with the dumbed down HD-DVD compatible encode. Thanks for playing.
Man, that visible bit-rate meter was such a bad idea.
Dude, a couple of years ago they used to do exactly what you wish they would now: give different encodes for BD and HD DVD versions of the same movie, taking up more space on the BD with a higher bitrate. And the *only* difference between doing this and using the same encode for both was that it cost more. There is a point after which quality plateaus, and it stops making a difference how much more bandwith is being eaten eating up second by second. What matters more is which codec is being used, and what matters more than that is how skillfully it's being applied (it's not an automatic process). It's highly unlikely you'd notice any improvement if every 30 GB Blu-ray you have used up the remaining empty space.
Navstar:
"I have players for both formats. And two little words make HD-DVD a winner for me: Region Free!
Really, I don't get how Blu-Ray fans *want* BD+, extra layers of DRM and region code lock-in. Plus, HD-DVD delivers on Profile 2.0 features right now!
But really -- how can you not love a format that's REGION FREE?"
You are full of fail. Blu-ray is also region free.
You beat me to it HD-DUD Killer, almost all of the BR films I've got where they are also available on HD-DVD use exactly the same encode for both. This is a shame for BR users as its capable of using more. That said, when the encode is as good as it is on some films anyway, is there really any benefit from a higher bitrate encode anyway?
It would be better to fill the extra space with more extras etc..
Also, as you say, although BR has region coding in the spec, hardly anyone enables it. This is why I've just been able to import a copy of Ratatouille from the US before its even ended its run at the Cinema here in the UK. A lot of the BR films I have are imports, thanks to the value of the $, it makes it so cheap to import :)
One area that will benefit from higher capacity BR discs will be the Playstation 3, that is one format that will make use of the increased space. There are some games at the moment which use around 25GB (Uncharted: Drake's Fortune) and whilst its still off the 50GB, in time I'm sure they'll find ways to fill it up.
Blu-ray is most assuredly not region free, although its regions allow a little more geographical leeway than DVDs do. As with DVD, region coding is an option, but it's not like nobody is exercising it.
Also, no response about the DRM?
Actually, scrub what I said about Ratatouille, its one of the few region encoded discs! Grr @ Disney Pixar, Grr @ Ebayer who said it was region free.
Actually Paramount, when they made BDs, used separate encodes, most of the time. But some of the time they used MPEG-2 for BD and VC-1 for HD DVD, so they didn't take advantage of the extra space, since they used the less efficient codec on BD...producing very similar results. There was at least one title though on which they used VC-1 for HD DVD and very high bitrate AVC for BD. One title was Flags of Our Fathers. Some perceived the BD to be slightly sharper (whether that was prefereable was disputed), though both discs were given excellent marks.
A lot of y'all are talking about data back up for whatever reason, but I don't really see the point in it so far. The burners are expensive, the disks are expensive, and slow. Plus they are not rewritable. I'd prefer to by 2x1TB HDD and go from there.
Easier to just erase the drive if I need to hide something.