USA Today compares HD DVD and Blu-Ray

Gabe D · 08-23-2006, 01:25 PM

I'm surprised I haven't seen anybody post anything about a feature from yesterday's "USA Today": Video disc war: No clear winner, yet.

No real news here, but it is important--if only because so many people will read it. They grade each format: HD DVD gets a B+ and Blu-Ray gets a B-.

(Sorry if this is already posted somewhere, but I couldn't find it.)

Lew Crippen · 08-23-2006, 03:00 PM

The article also states that Blu-Ray disks have more storage than HD-DVD disks without mentioning that this promise has yet to be realized.

Brian-W · 08-23-2006, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lew Crippen

The article also states that Blu-Ray disks have more storage than HD-DVD disks without mentioning that this promise has yet to be realized.

Depends on how you look at it. From a -ROM perspective, true, not yet. From a recordable perspective, very much true, and has been for almost two years now (albeit in Japan for 98% of that time)

Lew Crippen · 08-23-2006, 04:15 PM

Brian, the article was completely about the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD formats and the players. The Xbox 360 add-on and the Playstation 3 were listed as ‘to be released this year’. The article never mentioned recordable HD media, so I think that it safe to assume (especially given the general nature of the target audience) that only pre-recorded media was under consideration.

Shawn Perron · 08-23-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Brian, the article was completely about the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD formats and the players. The Xbox 360 add-on and the Playstation 3 were listed as ‘to be released this year’. The article never mentioned recordable HD media, so I think that it safe to assume (especially given the general nature of the target audience) that only pre-recorded media was under consideration.

Well, since it's already widely available in a consumer recordable format, it's more then safe to assume that commercial dual layer reproduction is a given. It's a matter of when, not if.

**HTF Ads**

Lew Crippen · 08-24-2006, 10:09 AM

Guys, I’m only pointing out an error in the article. I’m not making a statement as to when or if 50GB BD will appear on the market.

The article mentioned that the two game platforms would each have (a different) HD format in the future. Clearly the article could also have been written to note that BD would have more storage in the future.

For the record, I have no horse in this race and will buy players in both formats (I’m a second generation adopter), if there is not a player on the market that handles both formats.

I find it interesting that in merely pointing out a minor error in an article not intended for an HD sophisticated audience, posters are coming to Blu-Ray’s defense.

Just to be clear, I did not write that there will not be 50GB BD in the future. I have reread my posts and I did not imply that there will not be 50GB disks in the future. In fact I believe that the manufacturing problems will be sorted out and that 50GB will be widely available, though perhaps not as quickly as the BD marketing arm claimed.

Steve Tannehill · 08-24-2006, 10:12 AM

It is a fairly poorly written article, but then again it's USA Today. They note things like BD gets Spy Game this week...well HD DVD did too!

- Steve

Jerome Grate · 08-24-2006, 10:37 AM

Nothing new there, but I did noticed a tough of bias towards BD, but that's just me.

Shawn Perron · 08-24-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

I find it interesting that in merely pointing out a minor error in an article not intended for an HD sophisticated audience, posters are coming to Blu-Ray’s defense.

If it's not intended for an "HD sophisticated audience" then pointing out that dual layer BD discs aren't currently available wouldn't make much sense. I'm not so much defending Blu-Ray as nitpicking your nitpick.

Lew Crippen · 08-24-2006, 10:51 AM

What the article said was that BD had more storage than HD-DVD. Something that will probably be true tomorrow, but is inaccurate today. No mention of dual-layer or the difference in storage quantity.

For me, it was just an indication of sloppy writing—nothing major.

Bob Black · 08-24-2006, 11:26 AM

Lew,

You are completely correct in your analysis of the article. BD absolutely DOES NOT have higher capacity as currently constituted for movie playback, and the facts stated in USA Today are very misleading. They do give the edge in performance to HD-DVD, but to imply that BD has higher capacity is a complete misconception. It would have been accurate to point out that BD holds potential for 50GB ROM discs, but that these have not materialized, nor are they announced. It might have benefitted potential buyers to also remark about the use of MPEG2 vs. VC-1. If the average Joe reads an article stating that HD-DVD is superior, currently has higher capacity & better codecs, has nearly double the titles available, and is half the price of the competition, then it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to deduce the better format.

And don't start about potential, -- both formats had several years to get their sh*t together and only one came prepared.