Triple Layer HD DVD on the way

V

Vertigo Acid

2(-log[H+])4u
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
12,410
The DVD Forum has approved version 2.0 of the HD-DVD specification. 3 layers of 17gb for a total capacity of 51gb. It's unclear whether this is per-side or per disc, but either way, it is a serious advancement over the current dual-layer, 15gb/layer HD-DVD. There is also speculation that these will playback in current first-generation HD-DVD players, since the smaller pit size actually improves readability.

The new 51GB HD DVD ROM disc has a three-layer structure with each layer storing 17GB of data, which is an advancement in capacity over current ROM discs, which hold 15GB of data in each layer of a single-sided disc. Continued improvement in disc mastering technology has achieved further minimization in the recording pit, supporting a further boost in capacity to 17GB in single layer and a full 51GB on a single-sided triple-layer disc. Toshiba has confirmed the disc structure and its successful operation earlier this year.
Click to expand...
 
Why would I want to go to this new technolgy when the old still doesn't do what the industry claims. When cd's first came out we were told that they would last a life time. Move a few years ahead and independent study's prove other wise, that one has to copy their old cd's or dvd's probably after five years for sure. I will not buy and intrust my important work on these mega dvd's. Can you imagine the material that would be lost if the dvd failed for what ever reason.
My question to the industry is. " How long will these dvd's last" Other then waiting for independent studies to come out refuting what you claimed many years ago."
 
I bought my first music CD 19 years ago, it still plays like it did the day I bought it. I burned my first CD-R 10 years ago, it's still readable as well. Have I had some CDs and some CD-Rs degrade over time, yes, nothing it perfect. That's why for really critical, archival data, you make multiple copies, preferably onto different media types. If you expect anything to be perfect you will always be disappointed.
 
Uncle said:
Why would I want to go to this new technolgy when the old still doesn't do what the industry claims. When cd's first came out we were told that they would last a life time. Move a few years ahead and independent study's prove other wise, that one has to copy their old cd's or dvd's probably after five years for sure. I will not buy and intrust my important work on these mega dvd's. Can you imagine the material that would be lost if the dvd failed for what ever reason.
My question to the industry is. " How long will these dvd's last" Other then waiting for independent studies to come out refuting what you claimed many years ago."
Click to expand...

Yes they were wrong, but for serioius back ups, cd/dvd has never been a reliable option.\


If the disks are good quality, and kept in proper conditions, they can last for a dam long time, i still have some disks (cdr) form 8 years ago burned on my Ricoh 4x burner that work fine.

When they first came out with cd's and claimed they lasted for ever my first thought was "BS - have they been sitting on Cd's for the last 30's years testing them... how can they know how long they will last"
 
I'm waiting for HD DVD fans to find the first movie that requires 50.5 GB of storage. :p
 
What the hell are you guys talking about CD's and DVD's for? :confused:


Anyhow...

Good news for the HD DVD guys, and this might persuade some of the remaining studios stuck on BR to switch over to HD DVD just like Paramount and Dreamworks did. The manufacturing and licensing costs are much cheaper for them. The new 51GB TL spec is also supposed to run at 1.5x spin speeds giving HD DVD the larger capacity and higher bitrate overall. With the improvement of pit readability on the new HD DVD 17GB/layer disks, BR needs to either improve their 50GB readability or improve the players. There are many players that can't read past ~45GB mark on some BR disks, mainly due to manufacturing flaws in either the laser or disk itself.
 
Why would all the movie studios flock to HDVD just for catching up to Blu Ray. 51GB is not that much better than 50GB imho.
 
while i think HD-DVD is winning the race for the next movie media, i can't refute the Bluray's storage capacities (from a purely storage standpoint)... triple layer has always been one of those "if we can get it" or... "it eventually supports" type of deals...

its good to see they've actually GOT it now...

maybe this will "put the nails in the coffin" so to speak...

i do know either of these formats gets me closer to being able to give my clients a better alternative to archaic tapes
 
Moofasa~ said:
I'm waiting for HD DVD fans to find the first movie that requires 50.5 GB of storage. :p
Click to expand...

Even at an encoding bitrate of 25Mbps that's still enough room for a 4.5 hour movie. Even HD-DVD in it's current two-layer 30GB format can easily handle movies of 3 hours or more. Disk space was only a marginal issue for only the longest movies, this change simply makes it a non-issue for all movies.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Why would all the movie studios flock to HDVD just for catching up to Blu Ray. 51GB is not that much better than 50GB imho.
Click to expand...

Because all the studios care about (other than content protection which helps protect their profits) is how much money they can save from production costs. If HD-DVD offers essentially the same capabilities as Blu-Ray for a lower cost, you'll see more studios rethinking the "BD-only" philosophy.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Think of Tv series?

instead of 6 DVD's - 1 HD............. less materials, less packaging = saves money
Click to expand...

Not likely.

The discs are dirt cheap, the more discs they use, the more they can jack up the prices.

All the tv sets will be high rez, and include as many useless extras as possible to maximize the number of discs.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Think of Tv series?

instead of 6 DVD's - 1 HD............. less materials, less packaging = saves money
Click to expand...

Even at an encoding bitrate of 25Mbps that's still enough room for a 4.5 hour movie. Even HD-DVD in it's current two-layer 30GB format can easily handle movies of 3 hours or more. Disk space was only a marginal issue for only the longest movies, this change simply makes it a non-issue for all movies.
Click to expand...

Kidding kids, kidding. Don't you get it, Blu-ray only has 50 GB, so a movie that needs 50.5 GB couldn't fit on a Blu-ray disc but could on a HD DVD disc (giving HD DVD fans a "win" over Blu-ray). The joke is not as funny when I have to explain the punch line. :(
 
Nemesis999 said:
Not likely.

The discs are dirt cheap, the more discs they use, the more they can jack up the prices.

All the tv sets will be high rez, and include as many useless extras as possible to maximize the number of discs.
Click to expand...

Which would only mean more reason for them to use HD-DVDs now with the triple layer format from a studio standpoint when you think about it. Higher definition makes the consumer happy. Higher margin makes the studio happy.
 
If two competing technologies offer the same features, but one is cheaper, which one do you think is going to win? 51GB 1.5x bandwidth is great for HD DVD because it removes the only advantage Bluray had. The PS3 is a flop, hardware prices remain high, and the whole Java / BD+ / Profiles crap makes Bluray more complicated than it needed to be.

The need for >30GB was largely because Bluray intended to use MPEG-2 which takes more space. But even after the advanced codecs were adopted on both sides, Bluray fans still bandied about certain scenarios where Bluray's technically superior specs would be an advantage... like Lord of the Rings Extended Edition with lossless audio tracks in 15 different languages.

More realistically, though, Transformers came out on HD DVD without a lossless soundtrack because there wasn't enough space for lossless after all the "extras" garbage was added. Now, an additional 16-17GB of space wouldn't have necessarily meant a lossless track for either format... if Paramount's priority isn't the main feature, then it's possible they would have used the space to include even more garbage, and again ran out of space.
 
rabident said:
More realistically, though, Transformers came out on HD DVD without a lossless soundtrack because there wasn't enough space for lossless after all the "extras" garbage was added. Now, an additional 16-17GB of space wouldn't have necessarily meant a lossless track for either format... if Paramount's priority isn't the main feature, then it's possible they would have used the space to include even more garbage, and again ran out of space.
Click to expand...


That right there was one of the big complaints with Transformers. The non-lossless soundtrack (although it still sounds great!). With the extra storage now, that argument over Blu-Ray will become moot, as will the storage capacity. Now, the war continues. HD-DVD has MANY advantages over Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray isn't a bad format, but HD-DVD is lower cost to produce and to buy the player, similar image quality (1080p is available on most units), similar storage space (now), etc...

Without becoming a flame war, thread, this is only my opinion. No arguments required. Because it can go on for days. Doesn't mean I'm right and you are wrong, or the other way around. It's just my opinion. :) Take it or leave it.

BTW: I'm running a HD-A2 Toshiba player. So, I may be a bit biased, although if Blu-Ray was $100, I would have bought that instead. It's all about the price vs. performance, etc.
 
This is great news... I own an HD player (the Xbox360 addon) and I do support HD over BluRay... mainly becuase in my opinion Sony is a greedy faceless corporation that doesn't give a crap about the consumers.

Ive never owned a playstation just because its never appealed to me. I consider the PS3 a failure when you look at the 360 and Wii. Finally getting (a little) more capasity then BluRay more speed and a cheaper cost. I'd love to see BluRay pack its bags and go home.
 
Cool, a reason to ditch sony now. The only reason I was into blu ray was for the capacity.

But I do wonder if these and even dual layers, will end up as "useful" as a dual layer dvd blank in terms of availability and cost.
 
MV75 said:
Cool, a reason to ditch sony now. The only reason I was into blu ray was for the capacity.

But I do wonder if these and even dual layers, will end up as "useful" as a dual layer dvd blank in terms of availability and cost.
Click to expand...
The HD DVD disks are around the same cost to produce as DVD's for the manufacturing companies. Current manufacturing facilities that produce DVD's can be retro-fitted with simple upgrades to their existing machines for pressing HD DVD disks.

As far as burners go on the consumer end, I've heard from numerous sources that they are waiting for the 51GB disk to go into production. They want their burners to burn 51GB TL disks as well so they are on par or above Blu-ray. Either way, it is only a viable last resort backup storage solution for the consumer market. Corporate markets use tape and hard drive backup solutions because it is cheaper, easier, faster, more mainstream, and more reliable.

There was a really good movie on Youtube about how they manufacture HD DVD and Blu-ray disks.. but they took it down due to 'copyright infringement'. :rolleyes: It was really informative and pretty cool to watch. I've never seen it for sale anywhere and never on any TV show.
 
I'll be interested when they have triple layer burners under $200, triple layer readers under $100, and triple layer recordable media under $5. Until then, I'm taking the backseat in this HD war and sticking with downloading rips.
 
Ur_Mom said:
That right there was one of the big complaints with Transformers. The non-lossless soundtrack (although it still sounds great!).
Click to expand...

One major thing to consider is that 99% of consumers have no clue what lossless audio is and could not tell the difference in a "blind" listening test. John Q. Public owns whatever the nice floor worker at the mega store told him to buy and has never run a proper set-up/calibration for his home theater system. This reneders a lot of the discussion about lossless audio and high bit rates mute. The studios and format camps realize this too. So much of this format war is just a bunch of marketing bullet points that goes over the average consumer's head.

I just hope the format war ends soon so I can start buying movies again...
 
MH Knights said:
...This reneders a lot of the discussion about lossless audio and high bit rates mute.
Click to expand...

You make a very valid point, and I agree with you 100%, so this isn't meant to detract from your comment. However....it's "moot", not "mute".

"Moot" means obsolete, irrelevant, something that doesn't apply anymore.

For example: "Most consumers cannot tell the difference between lossy and lossless audio, therefore arguing their technical merits is a moot point."

"Mute" means silent, without sound.

For example: "I cannot hear this awesome lossless audio becuase the volume is set to mute"
 
Moofasa~ said:
I'm waiting for HD DVD fans to find the first movie that requires 50.5 GB of storage. :p
Click to expand...

Quite a few shows that could use it. The Sci-Fi channel special of Dune. Ten Commandment. television episodes on a single HDDVD instead of box sets. All three Lord of the Ring chapters. I'm sure you get the picture ;)

The shorter shows can just be put on smaller HDDVD disks
 
JethroXP said:
You make a very valid point, and I agree with you 100%, so this isn't meant to detract from your comment. However....it's "moot", not "mute".

"Moot" means obsolete, irrelevant, something that doesn't apply anymore.

For example: "Most consumers cannot tell the difference between lossy and lossless audio, therefore arguing their technical merits is a moot point."

"Mute" means silent, without sound.

For example: "I cannot hear this awesome lossless audio becuase the volume is set to mute"
Click to expand...

but if you look at it another way, using the word "mute" in place of "moot" made for a good pun. lol
 
Quad layer Blu-Ray disks have been demonstrated, that's 100gb, I wonder how far off those are and if they can be introduced soon enough to beat HD-DVD again.
 
ryanstev said:
Quad layer Blu-Ray disks have been demonstrated, that's 100gb, I wonder how far off those are and if they can be introduced soon enough to beat HD-DVD again.
Click to expand...
With some of the Blu-ray dual layer 50GB disks having troubles in current players, it would take them quite a while to even work out the current issues with those.. let alone develop a 100GB disk for the consumer market. It is pretty pointless for movie playback anyhow, since an efficient codec such as VC-1 or AVC with lossess audio can fit an entire movie plus extras on a 50GB disk. If there is a need for 100GB of data, they'll just throw in two disks and save themselves the cost of R&D, manufacturing, and error rates.
 
gah, no edit button. But not only that, a 100GB disk wouldn't work in current players due to the need for a "profile" update or even a lens replacement.
 
More relevant info to this topic incase anyone is interested..

It looks like Disney might be jumping on board with HD DVD now. :eek:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multim...ney_Votes_for_51GB_HD_DVD_Media_Approval.html

19th Nov 2007

Walt Disney Home Entertainment, a major Hollywood studio and one of the strongest backers of Blu-ray disc format, voted for approval of a preliminary specification of 51GB triple-layer HD DVD media, just like all the backers of HD DVD and unlike some other backers of Blu-ray Association within the DVD Forum, who typically abstain in HD DVD-related votes.



At the Steering Committee meeting in September Walt Disney Home Entertainment voted for triple layer twin-format HD DVD as well as triple layer HD DVD 51GB revision 1.9 preliminary media standards, according to the notes from the event available at the DVD Forum. During the meeting, twelve steering members of the DVD Forum out of twenty approved the former and eleven members approved the latter.

In both cases Walt Disney voted for the new HD DVD standards, whereas Samsung Electronics, which supports both Blu-ray and HD DVD with its Blu-ray disc (BD) and unified Blu-ray/HD DVD players, decided to abstain in voting for the 51GB HD DVD, just like some other members of the Blu-ray Association, who always withdraw from HD DVD votes, namely Hitachi, JVC, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, Sharp and Sony.

Just last week the DVD Forum approved revision 2.0 of triple-layer HD DVD 51GB media, but the detailed results of the vote were not available at press time.

The fact that Walt Disney Home Entertainment, which official stance has always been strong Blu-ray support, may be an indicator that even members of the Blu-ray Association are potentially interested in the forthcoming versions of the HD DVD standard, which has been competing against BD for nearly two years in a war that is unlikely to end soon and which is even called a “stalemate” by Sony’s chief executive.

Blu-ray and HD DVD formats compete for replacing the DVD standard. HD DVD discs can store up to 15GB on a single layer and up to 30GB on two layers. Its competitor, Blu-ray, can store up to 27GB per single layer and up to 50GB on two layers, but Blu-ray discs are more expensive to produce.
The HD DVD is pushed aggressively by Toshiba, NEC, Intel and Microsoft, as well as being standardized at the DVD Forum, which represents over 230 consumer electronics, information technology, and content companies worldwide.
Blu-ray is backed by Sony and Panasonic, which are among the world’s largest makers of electronics. Among Hollywood studios HD DVD is supported by New Line Cinema, Paramount Pictures, Universal Pictures and Warner Bros. Studios, whereas Sony Pictures, Walt Disney, Warner Bros. and Twentieth Century Fox endorse Blu-ray.
Click to expand...
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Why would all the movie studios flock to HDVD just for catching up to Blu Ray. 51GB is not that much better than 50GB imho.
Click to expand...

Because HD is more durable and cheaper to produce than BR. BR read surface is less durable because the read layer is closer to the surface.The smart man goes with HD.
 
w1retap said:
If there is a need for 100GB of data, they'll just throw in two disks and save themselves the cost of R&D, manufacturing, and error rates.
Click to expand...

Yea, and then you will also get dumbass companies, like the people who made the complete Apocalypse Now dossier, who will put half of each movie on each disk so you have to change disks to watch either the original AN or the Redux version. Man, that really pissed me off when I found that out. What was their logic behind that bone headed decision?
 
I don't know.. if companies are dumb enough to do that, who knows. With 50GB of disk space and an efficient codec like AVC or VC-1, you can fit a 4 hour movie with lossless audio on it.
 
collegeboy69us said:
This is great news... I own an HD player (the Xbox360 addon) and I do support HD over BluRay... mainly becuase in my opinion Sony is a greedy faceless corporation that doesn't give a crap about the consumers.
Click to expand...

It's not SONY. It is the Blu-Ray Disc Association which is comprised of 18 companies. Man what a tired old argument.

Also anyone else see the irony in saying the own the HD-DVD add-on for the 360 yet won't support Blu-Ray because Sony is a greedy faceless corporation who doesn't care about the consumer?
 
While I do see your point, and agree somewhat... The techies out there, home theater owners, people that demand the best, are the ones that John Q. Public go to when they want buying advice. So, that .5% of us that know what's going on actually influence another 3-4%. So, while it may not be a lot, it's still worthwhile.

And with reviews of movies and the technology pointing out such things, and the public reading the reviews before purchasing a $500 player (or $200), those things are going to jump out at them. Sure, they couldn't tell the difference if they were played back to back between the sound quality, and they probably wouldn't care. But, if you say it and it's out there for them to read: it can help make their choice.

You see it in consumer products all the time. Word of mouth... Fashion: green is the new pink (or whatever). The consumer flocks to the green. Is green technically superior? No.

But, when has superiority reigned? Marketing does it's job very well. Some people can sell a ketchup popcycle to a KKK member... or something like that. :) It doesn't matter how it performs, it matters how people SAY it performs.

Do you want lossless audio? Depends on your HT setup. Most people don't have the equipment to know the difference. But, when the marketing people say that lossless audio is better, they don't say why and what you need to hear a difference, or that there is even a huge difference. But, audiophiles know their shit, and I have a huge obsession with image quality and audio quality (although I am getting older, so my eyes are going downhill [getting Lasik next year!], and my ears aren't exactly perfect anymore), but I still want the best from my equipment.



MH Knights said:
One major thing to consider is that 99% of consumers have no clue what lossless audio is and could not tell the difference in a "blind" listening test. John Q. Public owns whatever the nice floor worker at the mega store told him to buy and has never run a proper set-up/calibration for his home theater system. This reneders a lot of the discussion about lossless audio and high bit rates mute. The studios and format camps realize this too. So much of this format war is just a bunch of marketing bullet points that goes over the average consumer's head.

I just hope the format war ends soon so I can start buying movies again...
Click to expand...
 
Troz said:
It's not SONY. It is the Blu-Ray Disc Association which is comprised of 18 companies. Man what a tired old argument.

Also anyone else see the irony in saying the own the HD-DVD add-on for the 360 yet won't support Blu-Ray because Sony is a greedy faceless corporation who doesn't care about the consumer?
Click to expand...

Sony is a major backer for Blu-Ray. And Microsoft & Toshiba are the major backers for HD-DVD.

I support HD-DVD as I see it will prevail. But, that is because most people will go for what is cheaper. A $99 Hd-DVD was too good to pass up. Yes, I hope that HD-DVD wins. But, on the other hand, if a Blu-Ray player was sitting there for $99, I'd have taken the blue pill. I just want my movies on HD format on my HD TV. :)
 
Ur_Mom said:
While I do see your point, and agree somewhat... The techies out there, home theater owners, people that demand the best, are the ones that John Q. Public go to when they want buying advice. So, that .5% of us that know what's going on actually influence another 3-4%. So, while it may not be a lot, it's still worthwhile.
Click to expand...
I think that's valid point, but I think the numbers are actually higher because the influence goes beyond the people the HT enthusiasts directly effect. I've had 20 people ask my opinion since they know I spend a lot time on it. Then when one of them commits to a player, he's got 20 other clueless friends that see it and want one too.

Look at Divx... the techies on the Internet killed that format before it even made it to the mainstream. Over the long haul, enthusiasts make less impact, but for fledging formats, I think their early support is critical for all the reasons you mentioned.

As far as not hearing the differences, I'm not so sure. I'm by no means an audiophile. I think most amps sound and I don't notice much, if any, improvement in $5000 speakers vs $2000 speakers. I have a $1500 receiver and $1800 speakers. The difference between compressed Dolby Digital and uncompressed was clearly noticeable to both my wife and I. It's a much greater difference than an upgraded amp or better speakers. Two good examples are Lady in the Water on HD-DVD or The Guardian on Bluray.

I don't know why people down play lossless audio. It's not as drastic a difference as HD vs SD, but it's a noticeable difference for an average HT setup. I've seen some setups where they put the rear speakers on top of the front speakers because the wife won't let them run wires. Those people probably won't hear a difference, but I'd like to think that's not the demographic the HD formats are catering to, at least not right now. Both formats need all the help they can get to differentiate themselves from DVD (and there's plenty of people that say DVD and HDTV look the same). The HD formats should strive to offer better performance in all areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top