HD DVD

[polkablues]

there's probably a good deal of truth in what polka said about the porn industry being the deciding factor.

It's one of the major reasons VHS won out over Betamax.  Sony took a stand on principle and said that they would not release porn on Betamax, which was a propietary Sony technology that they controlled production of, much like they do with UMD discs today.  And since the potential market for home adult video was massive and untapped, VHS rode the wave to victory.

No way Sony's planning on making the same mistake twice.

That said, I'm sure there's going to be plenty of porn released on both formats, but if the major companies are choosing one side over the other, that's going to make the difference in the long run.

[JG]

can someone explain to me what betamax was? 

[polkablues]

can someone explain to me what betamax was? 

Videotape format.  Much like VHS, but actually somewhat better quality.  Came out at the same time as and competed with VHS.  Lost.

[modage]

they were also much smaller than vhs.

[squints]

and much sexier than vhs

[Recce]

What are they gonna try to fill it all in with?

The main benefit is its HD-ness.  That requires more space.  DVD-videos are all very compressed, which isn't as obvious on regular TVs.  They'd look fine on an HDTV, I'm sure, but it still wouldn't be in HD.  They can master it in HD, but they still have to compress it to DVD.  This is my understanding of it anyway.

Uncompressed video could easily take up all that space.  It'd actually still have to be compressed, but just not as much, and at a higher resolution.  I think normal DVDs are at something like 525 line resolution, and HDTV is capable of 1080, I think.  So there's that.

Yeah, but they will still have a hell of a lot more room then they did on standard dual layer DVDs. And the "HD" that they will be putting on these HD-DVDs are not even close to true uncompressed HD. That's something like 2gb/minute or more. As for the porn industry being the deciding factor, I'm not so sure it will be the case this time around. Porn films generally don't have the budget to shoot on film or HD. Most of these things are still shot on mini-dv, so I don't think a conversion to HD would look very good, or be very cost effective. If anything, I think the porn industry will keep regular DVDs around longer until HD cameras become more available at consumer levels and they make the switch.

As for HD-DVDs or blu-ray looking fine on regular TVs, I'm sure they do, but I don't know if its really worth having it. I'm not too sure how these new HD players work, but I'm assuming they have an HD out and Video out. To play them on a regular TV, they'd have to be downconverted back to regular TV format through the Video out where you wouldn't really be able to see a huge difference. Your HD would then be playing at your 525 lines anyway. It'll be a slow climb for HD-DVDs. I remember ten years ago when DVDs just started being released in video stores (They had 1/4 of a shelf dedicated to DVDs). It was slow because people didn't want to buy DVD players. Now they're being asked to buy HD players and HD TVs.

What I'm really excited about is the prospect of blu-ray burners and having 30gb of data storage on a single disk (wipe off drool).

[socketlevel]

What are they gonna try to fill it all in with?

The main benefit is its HD-ness.  That requires more space.  DVD-videos are all very compressed, which isn't as obvious on regular TVs.  They'd look fine on an HDTV, I'm sure, but it still wouldn't be in HD.  They can master it in HD, but they still have to compress it to DVD.  This is my understanding of it anyway.

Uncompressed video could easily take up all that space.  It'd actually still have to be compressed, but just not as much, and at a higher resolution.  I think normal DVDs are at something like 525 line resolution, and HDTV is capable of 1080, I think.  So there's that.

Or they could fit that 4-disc Lord of the Rings thing onto one disc.  Or well as a whole season of a TV show.  Actually that'd be pretty cool.

normal dvds are 700 lines.  still almost 400 below the HD TV capability.
On a regular TV only 525 lines are seen.

-sl-

[socketlevel]

can someone explain to me what betamax was? 

Videotape format.  Much like VHS, but actually somewhat better quality.  Came out at the same time as and competed with VHS.  Lost.

one of the major reasons why Beta lost was because the video tape only held at maximum of 1.5 hours.  Any movie over 1 1/2 hours would have to be on two tapes.  whereas VHS was different and generally anything over 2.5 hours (SP mode) would have to be split onto another tape.  considering that most films are around the 2 hour mark this made VHS the obvious choice.

Sony (created betamax) at that time wasn't licensing the product out as much as JVC (created VHS).   Much like Nintendo's downfall Sony soon lost the race to JVC for these two reasons.

Beta is actually still around.  Television Broadcast quality material is on Beta SP technology, that has been around since the early days of betamax.  A lot of film festivals only accept Beta SP as the choice video for submissions.

-sl-

[Ravi]

Beta is actually still around.  Television Broadcast quality material is on Beta SP technology, that has been around since the early days of betamax.  A lot of film festivals only accept Beta SP as the choice video for submissions.

Is Beta SP the same as the Beta in the Beta vs. VHS war?  Beta SP looks pretty good projected on a big screen.

[MacGuffin]

Is Beta SP the same as the Beta in the Beta vs. VHS war?  Beta SP looks pretty good projected on a big screen.

No Beta SP is a 3/4 inch tape. Beta and VHS tapes are both 1/2 inch.

[socketlevel]

Beta is actually still around.  Television Broadcast quality material is on Beta SP technology, that has been around since the early days of betamax.  A lot of film festivals only accept Beta SP as the choice video for submissions.

Is Beta SP the same as the Beta in the Beta vs. VHS war?  Beta SP looks pretty good projected on a big screen.

it's the same in the sense that it's the same technology just the quality and standards differ.  much more capacity on the SP.  both were developed at the same time, but like how mac pointed out, much more room on the SP tape for definition

-sl-

[MacGuffin]

Warner noted that many of the titles that they have planned for release on DVD in 2006 will be released day-and-date on HD-DVD format as well. Warner execs were also careful to stress that while some of their HD titles will enjoy a brief period of exclusivity on HD-DVD, given that the format is launching first, every title that's released on HD-DVD will also be released on Blu-ray Disc when that format finally launches later this year. While some extras will be exclusive only to the HD formats, Warner is going to be careful to make sure that all of the extras available on regular DVD will also be included on HD... so you can replace your regular DVDs with either HD-DVD or Blu-ray if you so choose. Look for the first Warner HD-DVD titles in late March, with another wave of catalog titles in early April. Note that Warner's catalog titles on HD-DVD are going to be priced at a very wallet-friendly SRP of $29.98 (though new films may cost more).

[w/o horse]

Tomorrow is the day.

As for myself, I'm a realist.  DVDs are on their way out.  Bound to happen, you realize.  The question is:  what is the criteria for movies worth keeping around on DVD.  Seems to me that all Criterions should be kept, box sets, and oddities.  As for the run of the mill, the popular, the common, they're gone.  I'm selling them.  I'm going to attempt to sell off at least one hundred and use the money for an HD DVD player.  Media cannibalism.

[analogzombie]

I don't see any reason to 'toss' all my dvds in favor of HD or Blu-Ray. Especially if the movie is more than 10 years old. Just how much better can a movie from the 60's, 70's, or 50's look?? Especially if you're talking about a movie that has just been restored. The HD and blu-ray discs will no doubt be struck from the same restored prints that the current dvds were. The resolution, and picture quality of a film is ultimately tied to the condition and quality of the original materials after all. Things like Lord of the RIngs, King Kong and newer films shot on HD will no doubt be my main purchases as the format gets going. I'll replace some dvds as new restorations are done on recent films, but c'mon... just how high a resolution can you get out of a 60 year old film, and when does all the boosting and computer processing destroy the original artistic integrity of the work?

[ono]

There is no reason to toss old DVDs, aside from better picture quality, but it seems as if you're missing the point.  Films are an analog medium.  DVDs are digital.  Films are more exact an interpretation of what actually took place, and DVDs are an approximation.  For HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, you're getting a more precise approximation which results in better picture and sound.

So, to answer your question about how high a resolution you can get from a 60 year old film?  Precisely the same resolution you can get from a film shot just yesterday.  This is because of the nature of film as an analog medium, chemicals acting in different degrees as a result of sensitivity to light levels, versus the approximation DVDs give us with dots -- pixels -- each a different color.  Since HD-DVD and Blu-Ray have more pixels, they're able to produce a better picture.

I hope that clears things up.  Else, I'll have to try to explain in further detail the difference between analog and digital, and I'm sure someone else could probably do it better than me.