What's the point of HD-DVD / DVD dual-discs?

Frank@N · 05-09-2006, 04:22 PM

I don't have an A1 player, but I'm following the HD-DVD rollout with interest.

I'm puzzled by the dual-disc strategy (Rumor Has It) and think it may be a mis-step by the HD-DVD community.

Mixing formats is usually a bad idea (apparently the CD/DVD dual-discs were too thick to fit into some CD players).

Can't imagine why anyone would pay a premium for HD-DVD product and then watch the DVD side (maybe for portable DVD players...).

I haven't checked prices yet, so HD-DVD dual-discs may be selling at the same price as regular HD-DVDs.

Still, I think this may end up confusing alot of people at a point where that could stunt the format.

The loss of disc art and squinting at hub text isn't what I hoped next-generation video was going to be about.

Joe Karlosi · 05-09-2006, 04:31 PM

I'm still wondering what's the point of HD-DVD discs ...

(runs....)

Sean Bryan · 05-09-2006, 05:07 PM

Yeah, I think it has the potential to be a pain in the ass.

My understanding is that this isn't likely to be used for any catalogue titles, but will be more likely to be used for new "day and date" releases.

If there was no price difference, that is one thing. But with a price difference, that makes it an issue.

I believe the list price of these "hybrids" is $5 more than normal HD DVDs.

I don't have a big problem with it being available as an option for people who are interested in this and willing to pay more for it. But the "HD DVD only" disc at "HD DVD only prices" should be available as well. Those who don't want it shouldn't be forced to pay for it. That's the real issue that is unacceptable.

If you want to buy a Hi-Def movie but are forced to pay more to also get a standard def version you have no interest in, then that just stinks.

Jesse Skeen · 05-09-2006, 05:36 PM

The POINT of them is so if you haven't upgraded to HD yet, you can buy the disc and watch it on what you have right now, then watch it in HD when you finally do upgrade.

I was going to buy Rumor Has It just since it was the first title to do this, but the price is just too high. At the very least, they should be priced the same as other HD-DVDs since those who already have HD won't care too much about the regular version, and in my case I'm a little hesitant to pay a premium for something I can't use yet. If they priced these closer to regular DVDs, then they'd sell more copies and that in turn would motivate more people to buy an HD player.

My main concern about these is that I've heard the HD side can't have the same number of layers that an HD-only disc would have- I don't know if that's true, does anyone know? If that's the case then I definitely wouldn't have any interest in these.

If there isn't any such compromise and they work properly, this would be a great way to get HD discs into people's homes before they get a player. I thought hybrid SACDs were a good idea too for the same reason, but those didn't really take off.

Frank@N · 05-09-2006, 06:05 PM

I can't see anyone paying $35 for something that they may never fully use.

There's huge uncertainty regarding the format wars and many people are on the fence about what format they will eventually support.

No matter how bullish I feel about HD-DVD, there's no way I'd shell out that kind of money on a hunch.

And if I did decide to go with HD-DVD later, dual-discs would be virtually useless at that point anyway (in addition to driving up prices).

**HTF Ads**

Chad R · 05-09-2006, 07:28 PM

I'm the only one in my family with a HDTV. We frequently go over to other's houses to watch movies (they have kids, we don't, so it's better to watch things over there so the kids have their rooms and toys to entertain themselves). If i were to have HD-DVD, I would want to get all my movies that way, but that would preclude us from taking the same disc over there to do that. The hybrid discs would better enable this.

Ed St. Clair · 05-09-2006, 10:41 PM

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=233674
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...d.php?t=229256
Links to two threads on the subject from this forum.

Rachael B · 05-09-2006, 11:36 PM

I bought a copy only because there's so few titles out and I actually want to see it. I hope it plays...it's scatched and smudged on arrival, on the side facing up in the case, the HD side. I think this is a bad idea. I hate double sided discs and I don't want DVD anymore!

Rob_HD · 05-10-2006, 01:13 PM

I think it's a very good idea - It could be a big factor in the rapid adoption/conversion of SD DVD owners to Hi Def formats.

However, it's dependent on two things - Price, and Title.

Last I checked Amazon, this was selling for about $28, which is $7 ot $8 more than the HD DVD-only version of the disc. This is going to be annoying for the HD DVD owners, and will also place the disc out of consideration for the SD DVD owners you are trying to attract to the format.

So the price needs to be (near as dammit) the same as the HD DVD release would be.

Title- picking such a mediocre film, and a chick-flick (no offense Rachel!) at that, to pitch as your first try in a tech-led, male-dominated (as in techy early adopters) market, was probably not the best move.

I hope they try again with this advice in mind, as Ithink it is a very important aspect.

Yes, they should also ensure that releases are dual layer so that the movies are the same quality.

Sean Bryan · 05-10-2006, 03:24 PM

Quote:

My main concern about these is that I've heard the HD side can't have the same number of layers that an HD-only disc would have- I don't know if that's true, does anyone know?

There are two options for hybrids, as far as I understand:

A single sided version that has one HD layer at 15gb and one DVD layer at 4.5gb

A two sided version that has dual layer HD at 30gb on one side and dual layer DVD 9gb on the other.

I'm not sure if there are options for other variations, but I believe these are the two main "flavors" of hybrids. I think the intention is to use the two sided dual layer on each side option for releases of theatrical films.

As I said, I can see why some people may be interested in this. But I still see much more people who would not be interested in this and actually be turned off by it if it costs even a few dollars more. When buying something one wants, being forced to pay extra for something that is not needed/wanted is very off-putting to most.

What if all regular DVDs put the widescreen on one side and the pan-and-scan version on the other and charged you $5 more than widescreen only titles? I think lots of people would be really pissed at this. If it didn't cost any more, then there certainly would be people who didn't like it because of the general dislike of two-sided discs, but it wouldn't be that big of a deal. The option that most seem to prefer (and what is most often used now in reality) is separate widescreen and pan-and-scan releases. Of course, the issue with HD DVD hybrids isn't exactly the same thing, but it feels kind close.

HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc are NEW FORMATS. PERIOD. Sure it is great that the players are backwards compatable with DVD. That is definitely a good thing. But I just don't see a good reason to try to tether the new format to the old on the disc (especially when you are being charged extra money for the "pleasure").

I could see people who are really into the getting the best possible A/V quality and who are excited to start growing their HD collections feeling like they are being ripped off by being forced to pay several dollars more for a standard def side they don't want.

I could see people who are interested in Hi-Def but nervous about the two competing formats holding back and staying with DVD and not wanting to commit to spending more money for a "DVD with HD DVD" since they may not feel certain that HD DVD is what they'll eventually be getting.

It seems that this idea would be geared towards these people. However, if they know enough to understand that there are two competing formats and that one may win and the other may lose (as opposed to the possibility of long term co-existence of both), then why pay more money for this hybrid when the HD version may not be what they'll want when they do decide to go Hi-Def? They can pay less for the DVD, or rent the DVD and do what we aren't supposed to discuss on this forum.

It would seem odd that this idea is geared towards people who want HD but aren't buying it now only because of cost. Because if cost is the major issue keeping them from getting in now then why assume a more expensive disc than either DVD or HD DVD to be appealing?

I think the amount of people who are CERTAIN that HD DVD will be the format for them in the future, but don't plan on getting it any time soon, and who are happy to pay more now for their hybrid DVD (as opposed to renting the DVD and hoping for a less expensive HD DVD to be available when they actually do want to buy it) is not likely to be large.

I also can see people being interested in this for the reason of "portability to other rooms in the house or friends' houses where there are only standard DVD players". But come on, really. Is that good enough reason to make EVERYONE who wants to buy the movie pay more for it? As I said above, it IS a new format. It's not mearly a special feature of DVD. And really, the best reason to be getting it now is for the superior A/V quality that you are really, really obsessive about. Not to be able watch a standard def version at a friend's house. That's what cheap DVD rentals are for.

Nils Luehrmann · 05-10-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote: