45GB HD-DVD discs? Fact or Fiction? (1 Viewer)

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.

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.

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

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).

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

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!!! ;-)

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.

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.

It may be used for other applications like computer recording.

I don't know, David. Paul's comments are giving me something to think about. The extra long versions of the Lord of the Rings movies are such rare exceptions to movie runtimes that I doubt they're a good basis for choosing technical specs. Really, how many people would base their view of a format on how it handles 3 movies out of tens of thousands? Movies such as Ben-Hur and LOA don't count, because we all know they have "natural" intermissions that were an intended part of the theatrical presentation. I simply don't get a sense that people wouldn't be satisfied with a format that needs NO side changes for 99.999% of movies (which makes it so different from what we had with laserdisc that the two situations aren't at all comparable).

As for simultaneous video streams in 1080p....is there really a demand for such a thing? Is it really a basis for choosing technical specs for a format? How many people would care about paying extra (or even the same) for such a feature, compared to "ordinary" special features (that could very well also be in 1080p) that fill up an ENTIRE second 30 gb disc?

I think people would desire extra space for making the audio/video better (I know I would), but if it isn't needed for that...

Due to rights issues and expense, studios have virtually stopped putting music-only tracks on SD DVD; I can't imagine they'd resuscitate the process for HD DVD or BD. Note that none of the many LOTR releases thus far include such a track (though I dearly wish they would). Did the complete soundtrack set of CDs that was rumored ever come out?

What happens when studios begin producing bonus features in high definition?

What if Peter Jackson wants you to be able to access the King Kong production diary for the specific scene you're viewing, via a Follow-the-White-Rabbit-style icon?

We'll be looking at two-disc releases inside of two years. So what, you'll say. Well, one of the selling points of these new formats is the seamless experience, being able to access everything without even quitting the movie. You can't do that if the other content is on another disc.

My question is, is it a selling point that people care about? In other words, would it sell?

Exactly.

Think outside the box people. Those crappy cam-corder 480i bonus features will become a thing of the past. Imagine full 1080p extras. That's the future.

What I’m hearing you say, David, is that the primary push for simultaneous video streaming (and hence 50gb) is coming from Disney marketing. Interesting. I know you’re very interested in Disney animation.

I don't mean to imply that only Disney is interested. It's just that Disney has been one of the studios pushing the envelop with SE material on DVD and they'll likely do so with HD media. But many other studios (and directors) would LOVE to use features like this. I'm sure that Peter Jackson has some great ideas in store with video-streaming of similtaneous content allowing users to "toggle" between a small PIP window of an alternate scene or special effects or to click and have the images swap with the full 1080P bonus stream with the theatrical image in the PIP window.

The reason I bring up Disney is because:

1. there are many DVD examples that would trascribe to HD beautifully using real multi-video stream (Bambi had to use a whole 2nd layer for the video-commentary... on HD it could sit side-by-side allowing the user to toggle back/forth if desired).

2. they have done the most reasearch about what the consumer wants. And the average consumer *loves* bonus material. HD media could give you everything without compromise... high quality AV for the feature and plenty of great bonus items all in one.

You are correct however that Disney is the strongest studio push right now for 50 gig replication.

Mark,

the music-only tracks had to be sacrificed from the SE LOTR sets due to lack of bit-space on the DVD (otherwise, it would have impacted the PQ of the feature film).

They really wanted to put those music-only tracks on there and only removed them from the SE sets reluctantly.

HD media with 45-50 gigs could make those bit-space constraints moot... you could have it *all*.

I want it all. Don't the rest of you?

Of course we all know that you (and many of us) want all of the high-end specs possible.

Still, I suggest that you (and those of us who as anal as you as to specs) represent about 0.1% of the total market. I think that Robert has a valid point as to the demand (as a percentage basis) for the goodies those extra GB can provide.

But I’ll concede in advance that if Disney (and others) believe that such a market exists, it is likely, but not certain that it does. I suspect that if much of what Disney envisions can be provided on 30GB,

All things being equal, it is an easy case for the higher specs, but all things are not equal at present (the buy-in cost of one format as opposed to the other, for example). If (and a very big if) their remains a cost differential, will the extra amount of storage really make a difference to the mass market? For sure it did in the Beta/VHS debate, but that may not be applicable in this case.

Lew,

You've got it reversed. 99% of the market wants the special features Disney is going to provide. Only 1% of us care about image and sound quality the way that we do.

Either way, those bonus features are going to show up. The more space we have means the less likely our image and sound quality will be compromised to accomodate them.


Not according to Disney. 50 gigs is a requirement for them. That's why you don't see them entering the (25 gig) BD market just yet.