[bobBone]

I keep seeing things pop-up here and there that HD-DVD 45GB discs "aren’t far from putting their 45GB (3-layer) discs into production."

Does anyone have anything (other than more unsubstantiated rumor) that this is true?

bob

[Jesse Blacklow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobBone

I keep seeing things pop-up here and there that HD-DVD 45GB discs "aren’t far from putting their 45GB (3-layer) discs into production."

Does anyone have anything (other than more unsubstantiated rumor) that this is true?

bob

What is known is that there are no official, tested specifications for triple-layer HD DVD, nor are there any production lines currently capable of making them. It isn't even known (outside of rumors) if current players would be able to play them.

[DaViD Boulet]

the 45 gig HD DVD disc (3 layer) was never included in the official HD DVD spec, so it can't come to market for movies unless Toshiba revises the whole spec (not likely to happen).

It was an unlikely disc anyway... cost a lot to make and was tricky... it was mostly to tought against Sony's 50gig disc at a trade show. Though if Blu-ray can't get 50 gig dual-layer together by Christmas I'll be first in line begging Toshiba to re-write their spec even if it means rendering first-gen players unable to read future HD DVD media.

[bobBone]

That's what I am wondering. Why do we keep seeing all of these HD-DVD TL 45gb reports if there isn't even a definded specification to allow it?

bob

[Pete T C]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

the 45 gig HD DVD disc (3 layer) was never included in the official HD DVD spec, so it can't come to market for movies unless Toshiba revises the whole spec (not likely to happen).

It was an unlikely disc anyway... cost a lot to make and was tricky... it was mostly to tought against Sony's 50gig disc at a trade show. Though if Blu-ray can't get 50 gig dual-layer together by Christmas I'll be first in line begging Toshiba to re-write their spec even if it means rendering first-gen players unable to read future HD DVD media.

And why exactly is that David? HD-DVD currently gives pristine, artifact-free 1080p video quality for movies while cramming the extras of typical 2-disc DVD sets onto a single dual-layer disc. 30GB is more than enough for the VC-1 codec; heck, even the single layer 15GB hybrid discs look great.

What is so bad about not having to double dip for a good transfer? If it is flawless to start with, that is a good thing. Already it is clear Blu-Ray buyers will have to double dip on most of the launch titles (and probably most of the titles for this fall). I don't see that as a benefit, I see it as a disadvantage.

Remember, in the end the most important thing is that you are seeing a movie in all of its highdef glory. And right now, the only format that delivers that quality is HD-DVD. Despite what looks spiffy on paper, in practice HD-DVD delivers the goods and Blu-Ray does not. For double the price, Blu-Ray looks worse than HD-DVD. Can it look on par with HD-DVD? Maybe, in time; but since it is so much more expensive (currently both players and dual layer discs), that is a losing proposition. Can it look better than HD-DVD? Doubtful, HD-DVD already sports incredible eye-popping quality with no artifacts. What basically has happened is that Toshiba/Microsoft have proved Sony's PR about needing a 50gb disc was just that - PR; I can see how Blu-Ray fans would then want to continue to extend that point into the format war if only because of cognitive dissonance, but aside from that I really don't see any need for >30gb (unless you are stuck with the less efficient mpeg2).

[Robert Crawford]

Do we always have to go the route of rah, rah for either format? I want both formats to make any improvements necessary that will allow me to experience and enjoy as much as possible my favorite movies in high definition home theater.





Crawdaddy

[Ed St. Clair]

I don't believe anyone, unfortunately, posting on this forum at this time could with any certain, tell us about the future of 45 HD DVD discs or 50 BD discs.

If you want guesses, I'll guess that if uni's don't appear & Blu 50's do, Tosh will scramble in '07 to go triple layer.
That's my guess & now I'll run away from it!!! ;-)

[Paul_Scott]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Crawford

Do we always have to go the route of rah, rah for either format? I want both formats to make any improvements necessary that will allow me to experience and enjoy as much as possible my favorite movies in high definition home theater.

I have to agree with the general implications of Pete's post.
David seems to be implying that something is lacking in only having access to 30gb and if and when an extra 15 gb could be achieved that might be *good enough* as a substitute for the other formats yet to be realized promotional goal.

what is lacking? why are people fixated on 50gb of space?
what is that going to bring to the party that you can't get now on 30gbs?
apart from synchronous content like audio commentaries or IME's, anything else is non essential to a primary disc and could easily be ported over to a second added value disc.

this fixation on all the potential joy that 50 gb is going to represent seems to me to be leading people astray from what is not only possible here and now but also highly satisfying.

and this is not format rah rah, because the exact same thing applies to a 45 gb HD DVD disc.
Its just not neccessary to provide what I assume most if not the majority of us want- pristine audio video presentations in as high a resolution as is possible today.

[Robert Crawford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul_Scott

I have to agree with the general implications of Pete's post.
David seems to be implying that something is lacking in only having access to 30gb and if and when an extra 15 gb could be achieved that would be *good enough* as a substitute for the other formats yet to be realized promotional goal.

what is lacking? why are people fixated on 50gb of space?
what is that going to bring to the party that you can't get now on 30gbs?
apart from synchronous content like audio commentaries or IME's, anything else is non essential to a primary disc and could easily be ported over to a second added value disc.

this fixation on all the potential joy that 50 gb is going to represent seems to me to be leading people astray from what is not only possible here and now but also highly satisfying.

and this is not format rah rah, becasue the exact same thing applies to a 45 gb HD DVD disc.
Its just not neccessary to provide what I assume most if not the majority of us want- pristine audio video presntations in as high a resolution as is possible today.

It's format rah, rah to me as we get fans of one format or the other making their opinion known while somebody from the other side decides to dispel that opinion with facts that the other format is superior. It's really quite boring reading the same back and forth in different threads not only here, but on the other forums.

[DaViD Boulet]

Quote:

what is lacking? why are people fixated on 50gb of space?
what is that going to bring to the party that you can't get now on 30gbs?

Paul,

There is something lacking with 30-gig discs. How are you going to fit a 4-hour LOTR movie with Lossless Dolby THD audio and lossless Dolby THD music-only tracks onto that disc? Or what about providing dual-video streams so the viewer can toggle between the feature film and a work-in-progress or special-effects (or alternate scene) all in full 1080P?

That's where 45 or 50 gigs would come in handy. For film that are longer, or where additional features are desired that need to be streamed with the film (like music-only tracks).

Do we need to really debate this? I'm not bashing any format here. I'm just stating the obvious... that there will be times when space beyond 30 gigs is helpful (think of the Ben-Hur special edition you could do with 45 or 50 gigs).

Quote:

That's what I am wondering. Why do we keep seeing all of these HD-DVD TL 45gb reports if there isn't even a definded specification to allow it?

It may be used for other applications like computer recording.