Talk:Comparison of high-definition optical disc formats

Comparison of SNR is missing

SNR is dramatically lower for HD DVD-R than for BD-R. I doubt whether HD DVD is future proof because of the low SNR. Andries (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like rubbish to me. Given that they use the same codecs, how could SNR be lower? --Harumphy (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert, but the SNR was measured in a test published by c't computer magazine. Codec seems a higher level aspect of the format than SNR which is closely related to error checks and is just above the physical level of the format. I do not think that distinguishing levels is usual for optical discs, but I do not know how else to explain it. Andries (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about, do you? You're just spouting jargon without the foggiest idea of what any of it means.--Harumphy (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)\

Again, I am not an expert, but I am not just spouting jargon without a clue. Andries (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think there's something that merits inclusion in the article, you will need to cite a source.--Harumphy (talk) 20:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I know the source you are referring to, to be short they were testing prerelease hd dvd-r hardware. I don't think it would be fair to base criticism on hardware that was never released. --Ray andrew (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Never released? That is not what I had understood. Why do you think so? I can translate more from Dutch if you are interested. Andries (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the hardware they tested was never released. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The test result was published in the Dutch magazine ending 2007. The hardware, [the sd-l902a HD DVD-R http://laptoping.com/toshiba-sd-l902a-hd-dvd-drive.html was released on 2 OCt. 2006], so this seems very unlikely a never released version. Nothing in the test suggests your assertion. Why do you think so? Andries (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am thinking of a different article by c't then the one I remember was not late 2007 but mid or early '07 and I whought it was reviewing a 5.25" internal (ie, not laptop) drive, but then again I could be wrong. I also note that your link about the drive was an announcement that "Sample shipments of the new Toshiba SD-L902A drive are scheduled to start by the end of 2007". I don't think it ever got into the wild, but I could be wrong. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Signal-to-Noise Ratio is lower, that is not a flaw of the format. That's a flaw of the data decoder inside the hardware, and likely specific to just ONE manufacturer with a poor design, not all hd dvd manufacturers. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

true to a great extent, but I think the sd-l902a was the only HD DVD-R available in Germany and the Netherlands, at least that is was what the magazine suggestted. The magazine also suggested that the low Snr was due to the physical structure of the HD DVD R. Andries (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the author knows naught about the HD DVD structure. It's a computer disc. Nothing more. The real information is contained in the data, and data doesn't care if it's stored on HD, Bluray, CD, or some exotic piece of record vinyl (CED perhaps). Data is data. The type of computer disc you are using to store that data has no effect whatsoever on the data's content or its SNR. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your concern that may be based on the same mistake as User:Harumphy made. Of course there is noise. If there is no noise then why do all Compact disc and its many derivatives (incl. blu ray and DVD) have error code correction? Andries (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not noise. The issue is "SNR is dramatically lower for HD DVD-R than for BD-R" a true statement or not? Since the noise is in the *data* and not the disc, the format used is non-relevant. ----- Additionally, SNR and error correction are totally different concepts. SNR is how loud the music/voice/whatever is above the noise floor. Error correction is about catching single bit errors (most of which are inperceptible) and removing them. ----- So I repeat: "It's a computer disc. Nothing more. Data doesn't care if it's stored on HD, Bluray, CD, or some exotic piece of record vinyl (CED perhaps). Data is data." ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The article stated that burnt HD DVD R have a higher lower SNR than BD R. On the bit level. Not on the data level or audio level. You are making the same mistake as User:Harumphy i.e. confusing lower levels with higher levels. Andries (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

FFS stop wasting our time with pseudo-technical drivel and just cite the damn source.--Harumphy (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

English translation from Gieselmann, Hartmut Op een laag pitje inc't magazine December 2007 Dutch version pages 74-76 (Original German: Auf kleiner Flamme: Prüfstand c't nr. 20 2007, page 118): "The error value PI Sum 4 had on that moment crossed the limit of 1000, four times as high as allowed. The single layerr HD DVD-R yielded 559 errors wich is double the allowed limit.
With these values the burning results of first HD DVDs are quite a lot worse than of the first blu rays or DVDS. Though we could read the discs in the SD-L902A, but the external drives XBox 360 did not recognize them." Dutch original: "De foutwaarde PI Sum 4 had op dat moment al de grenswaarde van 1000 overschreden, vier keer zo hoog als toegestaan. Bij de single layer HD-DVD-R kwam deze met 559 fouten op het dubbele van de toegestane grenswaarde.

Daarmee pakken de eerste brandresultaten van de HD DVD een stuk slechter uit dan van de eerste dvd- of Blu-ray-branders. We konden de discs in de SD-L902A weliswaar lezen, maar de externe HD DVD drives van de Xbox 360 herkende ze niet."

Andries (talk) 11:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If there was ever anything in this, it has been lost in the translation. It seems to be a review of a particular HD DVD burner, and not something that's intrinsic to the format. It mentions errors, but not SNR. There's nothing at all relevant to this article--Harumphy (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

All I see is a discussion about bit errors, and how *this* particular HD DVD burner has a very high error rate. I see no mention of Signal-to-Noise Ratio, nor do I see the relevance to HD DVD beyond this one tested unit. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

May be bit error is a better word. The magazine used the term partial response signal-to-noise ratio (PRSNR). The magazine put the blame on the general physical structure of the HD DVD i.e. lower Numerical aperture of the lens and bigger distance to the information layer. Staying close the DVD physical structure came at a price. Andries (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

erm... see disc depth above (168.28.44.159 (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC))

What disc depth? Where? ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Opps: #disc_depth... I can't get the link to work. It is number 8 in table of contents.(QUINTIX (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

The magazine put the blame on the physical structure. since this whole talk page is so messy, I'll just copy the whole thing down here:

Thanks but I still don't see the relevance of a plastic CD protecting its pits from dust? We were discussing HD DVD-R's Signal-to-Noise Ratio, not dust. ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Noise is defined as changes in the signal that are not part of the data. In this case, distortions cause by dust could qualify as noise, and would explain why blu-ray is more "vunerable". (168.28.44.33 (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

Yes but noise disappears once you turn the signal into a 1 or a 0. You might get bit errors, but that's not the same as noise (or SNR). In fact SNR has no relevance to digital data; the signal is either read correctly, or incorrectly. There's no noise introduced in the process. ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, clearly I misread this post (now that I actually read it :-)... which accuses (burnt) HDDVD discs of having a ***worse*** SNR; but I will stand by my hypothesis that despite Andries's claim, bluray is probably ***more*** vulnerable to distortion of the data itself ***because*** it is closer to the surface, and this report of a particular burner having a bad SNR is probably an isolated incident. I read one hilarious post that stated that if it weren't for the hard coat, bluray discs could probably be destroyed simply by breathing on em'. (24.98.235.224 (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC))

I will first translate a lot more from the source at HD DVD-R before I edit in here, though I am not sure if I ever will edit in here. The reason for more tranlsations is that there are too many misunderstandings. Now it seems impossible for the editors here to make an informed decision. Andries (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Disc Depth

"The plastic disc, with a thickness of 1.2 mm, would protect the information. Lenses could be used to focus on the pits without the dust particles becoming visible. The same happens with dust on the lens of a photographic camera or scratches on a window; if there are not too many of them, they fade just enough so as not to appear on the photograph." [1]

In this article, disc depth seems only to be discussed in terms of durability (resistance to the inevitable dust/scratches/fingerprints and protection of the data layer), not focal length (said inevitable damage being out of focus).

(Let me qualify the word "inevitable" by stating that I handle discs very carefully. I try to avoid touching the bottom surface of the disc, I keep my discs in their case or sleeve or other environ with minimal dust, and clean as needed. I am amazed at how infrequently I have to clean discs considering their tight spec and how much they can take before they become unreadable.) (168.28.44.159 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)) (24.98.235.224 (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

2007: Standalone HD DVD and Blu-ray Players are EQUAL in sales

According to NPD, which excluded sales of PS3 or Xbox 360 units, the standalone sales of HD DVd and Blu-ray players are essentially tied. 49% HD DVD and 49% Bluray.

Revenue was 37% for HD DVD and 58% for Blu ray standalone players, due to higher profit margins on BD machines. Link: http://formatwarcentral.com/index.php/2008/01/23/npd-confirms-huge-blu-ray-share-jump/

"Perhaps the most interesting news was the total numbers for 2007. While we have been lead to believe that HD DVD has had higher standalone sales all year, the NPD totals show the unit sales were the same for both formats, each with 49% of the unit share, however Blu-ray Disc players had 58% of the revenue compared to HD DVD with only 37%. The remaining 2% unit sales were the combo players, with 5% of the revenue for 2007." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaveng (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Total Marketshare

There's a lot in the article about HD DVD vs Blu-Ray and how they stack up vs each other, but what about total home video marketshare? Can anyone find a source for that? I've had no luck so far. Ace of Sevens (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This article says that hardware sales of all formats (BD, HD, and dual) is less than 10% of SD. The numbers are hard to fathom though as NPD doesn't count the Xbox drive (which is a dedicated drive) nor does it count the PS3 (which might be used for BD playback) nor does it include Amazon, which sells a lot of HD DVD hardware. Also note that since late last year, several BD companies have been giving away free BD players with the purchase of a TV, and they count as "sales" (since they go through the register) so it's not really a true indicator of what "the market" is. Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That and its hardware and not software :). A while back some absolute numbers were given for HDM software sales, I am sure you could find some absolute numbers for DVD's to compare. --Ray andrew (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

HMM just published a story saying that HD media hit $260m last year, whereas all of DVD is over $24b. So software is a bit over 10% according to those numbers (http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/questex/hom020308/index.php?startpage=14) Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's actually a bit over 1%. Ace of Sevens (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And if we consider that HDM is more expensive then DVD we see that actual unit sales are even less then 1%. --Ray andrew (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, that's an embarrassing mistake; thanks for pointing it out. Good thing they don't let me write code :-). Makes sense though since the DVD hardware business is pretty much saturated whereas there is no real "saturation point" for software. Peter Torr (MSFT) (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Recomend a new section for Retailer Support for the regions - US, UK, Japan, Australia

UK News: Woolworth's drops HD DVD on March 1st (Woolworth's operates 820 retail stores in the UK).

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/01/28/woolworths-demoting-hd-dvd-players-to-online-sales-only/

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=897

"After analyzing Christmastime sales data, UK retailer Woolworth's has decided to drop their in-store support for HD DVD, and will be featuring Blu-ray players and discs only beginning in March. Blu-ray titles held a sales advantage of 10-to-1 over its rival at Woolworth's 820 retail locations, and as the largest retailer of high definition discs in the UK, they are taking a stand against the format war."

Denzelio (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That delves into the question of relevance and bloat. --Ray andrew (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Seems relevant enough. Barte (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Relevant. Make sure you use the official press release: http://www.woolworthsmediacentre.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=33

--w_tanoto (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I remember some Target info in the article, as well. But don't see it now. Barte (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the section using the press release (per W Tanoto above). Barte (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Chart Usability

At the risk of stepping into a fire (I have no opinion either way on Blu-Ray or HD-DVD -- someone just sent me a link to the image -- but I noticed the huge and heated discussions on this page), I want to point out that the pie chart could have one major change to make it much more usable. Grouping all the reds and the blues together would make it easier to see the overall shares of both formats. As it stands now, the formats are intermixed and the chart has no numbers, so it's somewhat difficult to eyeball that basic fact. 96.232.213.203 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, HDs together from 12:00, then other, then Blu; all still with the largest first. -- Jeandré, 2008-02-04t14:56z

Bonus features - omissions from DVD releases to HD

I'm not sure if it would fit in this article or not, but is there a particular reason why both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD editions of films previously released to standard DVD often omit special features? I was quite disappointed to discover that the Blu-Ray edition of Resident Evil: Apocalypse omitted the gag reel included on the DVD release (as well as I think a couple of other features but I haven't been able to do a side-by-side comparison). In fact, when the first BR and HD-DVD discs came out, one of the criticisms was how they tended to be vanilla while the DVD had all the goodies. Is there a technological flaw preventing the two new formats from containing all the bonus features seen on DVD releases, or is there an issue with licensing. And if so, does one format have the edge over the other in that regard? 23skidoo (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only technology-related issue that could be keeping bonus features included in SD DVD releases from appearing on HD formats could be storage size. There are several occurrences of 480p video bonus features placed on high definition media. It is more likely that studios are holding back features they intend to include on a later release of the same title. Such practice is common by many studios' DVD releases, usually referred to as double dipping. 70.119.37.244 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Asia Support

Since CH DVD is out in China, and both HD DVD and Blu Ray players are being sold in Asia, should we add a section about studios that support either formats in Asia? --Elven6 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

30p Issue

Does Blu-ray disc support 30p? I never knew that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.12.11 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No it does not technically support 30p, it must be encoded as 60i. But its of little relevance as its use is mostly limited to concerts. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Point is - Blu-ray does not support native 30p, so why are we showing it in the table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.134.12.11 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because someone wanted to spread a little misinformation no doubt, I have corrected it. --Ray andrew (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! And one more thing, in the DVD-video article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-video) in the "Frame rate and other requirements section" it reads: "On PAL DVDs all MPEG video must be 25 frames per second. On NTSC DVDs MPEG-2 video can be either 23.976 frames per second or 29.97 frames per second, (the former accomplished via 3:2 pulldown) while MPEG-1 video can only be 29.97 frames per second. Interlacing is only supported for MPEG-2 video, due to MPEG-1 constraints." Does not that mean DVD supports native 25p/30p and 50i/60i? But in this comparison article it shows only 50i/60i for DVD. I am confused...

Frame Rate RfC

There is a {{dubious}} notice in the technical details comparison table, next to the frame rate for DVD, which is currently shown as "50/60i". This template has a link to a section called "Frame Rate RfC". Neither such a section nor any other discussion about frame rates seems to to exist, either here or in the archives. What's going on? Brian Jason Drake 09:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It was referring to an old rfc about dvd supporting 24p, its back on the old templates talk page somewhere. I'll post a link later. --Ray andrew (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If one can argue that Blu-ray converts a 1080i/60 signal to a 1080p/30 signal, then one can say DVD does the same converting 480i/60 to 480p/24. So the question becomes: Is that line in the table meant to convey the output of the players, or the method of storage on the disc? I would say the latter. ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be listed as interlace 50/60i. The video stored on the disc is not a progressive sequence, it is an interlaced sequence of progressively-encoded frames, utilizing MPEG-2's TOP_FIELD_FIRST and REPEAT_FIRST_FIELD flags to regenerate the 3:2 pulldown for interlaced display. (See MPEG-2#DVD) It's a subtle difference but the distinction is that MPEG-2 MP@ML allows only interlaced sequences to contain these flags. More info at MPEG-2 FAQ by Chad Fogg -- Wbundrick (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Back when the table was a separate template page, I added 24p/30p for DVD and added a footnote for both DVD and HD-DVD that they store those (24p/30p) as 59.94i using pulldown flags (complete with references). After Ray andrew reverted the edit, I added the RfC and the dubious tag and created a section on the talk page to discuss the change (and more sources and citations for my edit). It didn't get much attention beyond another anon backing me up, so I added my change back to the table. Ray andrew reverted it again (still ignoring the talk page), I reverted it, and he reverted it again, after which I got tired of it (and not wanting to break the three-revert rule) and decided to just forget about it. The RfC remained, but the talk page is gone now that the template for the table is deleted. 82.130.27.40 (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it and 82.130.27.40 was right, Wbundrick and others have (understandably, it took me a while and I had to go to the raw specs to find out what was actually happening) misunderstood what is being stored. In MPEG-2 you store two things, the video itself, in whatever the native field system you have available (eg, if you have the original film, you scan it at 24 (or 23.blahblah... let's stick to 24 and 30, you guys can divide by 1.001 in your heads!)fps, storing each frame individually in the stream. You also store commands, "REPEAT_FIRST_FIELD", that describe how to convert that information into an interlaced picture at the intended output field rate. In 90% of NTSC DVDs, the video is stored at 24fps, and RFF commands are used to tell compliant MPEG-2 decoders how to convert this into a 60ifps TV signal. This is why most DVD players are able to generate a sharp signal for TVs supporting 60p for most DVDs, yet oddly manage to end up with staircasing artifacts for specific DVDs, generally those where the content originated from TV, even if the TV shows were originally recorded on film.

I've modified the table and added a footnote to explain this. I hope that satisfies everyone, --66.149.58.8 (talk) 13:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Currys

i saw someone added that they are dropping HD DVD. I tried to do some quick research and all I found was this Blu Ray or HD DVD? Half of our customers will be disappointed whichever way it goes says Dixons.co.uk. Any source stating they are dropping HD DVD players? Otherwise it should be removed. PaleAqua (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed it. The citation given was an unattributed rumor, not an announcement. Barte (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rumours??

I have seen some unconfirmed rumours being added. I am not sure the truth in gamerthoughts or whatever the name is, and it's a blog. It's not reported on blu-ray.com, hidefdigest.com, or engadgethd.com. I am considering removing it. The table with the list of studios, IMO, should stay. --w_tanoto (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's like weeding. I removed them. Barte (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Warner is back!

Alright so DVD town had a interview with Warner Bros, about wheater or not they will still produce old titles on HD DVD (reprinting them), Warner then said it will produce titles on HD DVD for as long as their is demand! [2]--Elven6 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Read carefully. It's SUPPLY, not RELEASE. They said however, they will release HD DVD on isolated circumstance (such as BBC distribution by Warner Home Video), but outside that, it will be BD and DVD only. I am modifying your edit from release to supply.

Release: new disc produced Supply: disc already produced, just need to supply it to retailer.--w_tanoto (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

They state new HD DVD's may be created, this could also included newer titles aswell. --Elven6 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at the title of the article, "Will Warner Bros. re-stock old HD DVDs?" Keyword: "RESTOCK". Please calm down.Pisomojado (talk) 06:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed sentence in the article, which, besides being not up to encyclopedic standards of grammar, mis-characterizes the reference, particularly the bottom paragraph of the DVD Town report. This is an asterisk, not a policy change. Barte (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes the article is about restocking, but Warner mentions creating HD DVD's aswell if consumers demand it, key word created! Their not clear on wheater they will create new titles or just the old ones. Give it some time though, more info will become available.

I agree that it's not clear, and therefore does not belong in our encyclopedia. Case closed.Pisomojado (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

From credible source: Toshiba to drop HD DVD

should we add this?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ib77125d96b22e86027d0bfb0c25aa58d http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?sec_id=2&&article_ID=12100

normally I don't believe rumours, but these rumours are somewhat different, and published by credible sources.--w_tanoto (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's still in the unsubstantiated rumor stage and would read as such: i.e. On February 15th, the 'Hollywood Reporter cited unnamed sources claiming that Toshiba would "pull the plug" on the HD DVD format. Toshiba replied that no decision has been made. We don't need to be first here with the news. Better to be on the trailing-end, wait for more certainty and get it right.Barte (talk) 02:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The story was picked up by Reuters too, and is now all over the place, but it's still just an unsubstantiated rumor.Pisomojado (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Alot of storys get picked up all over the place that turn out to be false, remember the the 360 ultimate, the psp phone, the universal switch at the end of 07, etc --Elven6 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080216/media_nm/toshiba_hd_dvd_exit_dc Another place reporting. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Walmart ending HD DVD support

http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/02/15/wal-mart-to-officially-discontinue-hd-dvd-sales-by-june/ by june, no HD DVD in walmart. It begins now and ended by june--w_tanoto (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

History

Just making folks aware that there's an High definition optical disc format war article now, so feel free to help out there. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 08:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Digital Playground turned blu (confirmed)

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/news/html/breaking_article.cfm?sec_id=2&&article_ID=12112 not sure where to add this since the porn section is gone.--w_tanoto (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Format war (just about)over

The rumors are beyond pervasive. Toshiba is pulling the plug. There are unnamed sources everywhere and Toshiba itself isn't responding. But until Toshiba makes it official, it's not "official". So please, if you want to talk about the pending doom of HD DVD, cite soume souces--Reuters, PC World....there's plenty to choose from. But don't just "officially" take it upon yourself to declare the war over. Thanks. Barte (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed plenty of sources: check out Talk:HD DVD where most of the discussion on this seems to be ongoing (as well as edits to the article itself of course). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Toshiba already made it official, get with the times. JayKeaton (talk) 08:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They have now announced that they're discontinuing the manufacture of HD DVD players and recorders. Here's the press release: [3] --Harumphy (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With the press release, this "format war" is now officially history and should be referred to in the past tense. I'm thinking the intro should also have the beginnings of a summary, drawing together some of the threads from lower down. Perhaps starting with the Warner defection, which was indeed the tipping point and ending with Wal-Mart. At least that's my take. I'm sure there will be a few obituaries out there. Barte (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Studio Support Picture

Due to recent events the studio support picture needs to be re-colored or removed.

For instance Universal switches to Blu ray, so no-longer the red color for Universal.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=1007

Denzelio (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

make sure you add the legend for neutral--w_tanoto (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that afterwards. Lemme fix it. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Universal going Blu-ray exclusive - CNET News says Universal is "dropping HD DVD". I'm not sure. Remstar (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't want to jump the gun and assume something that may or may not be true. If you have a link for CNET, or another reliable source, let me know. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we know for sure if Universal are going blue or if they are going purple? I know it is obvious that eventually all will be blue, but in the mean time we can't say that Universal is Blu Ray exclusive if they are still going to be supporting HD DVD for it's last few months. They will all end up blue (well, I guess some of the smaller and independents might not, or might not be able to afford to) so when that happens we wont even need the pie chart anymore. But like I said, until that happens the chart will still need to reflect the studios support for HD DVD, even if the HD DVD support is just going to be for it's dying days. JayKeaton (talk) 02:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read from a lot of source. They are misinformed. But from Associated Press, it said that Universal is merely going neutral, with unknown plan of when to abandon HD DVD. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJ2J4ewpoO84kvycz8E7IiqmbKGQD8UTL0SO1 .--w_tanoto (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Paramount just went Blu-ray. Link to Reuters: [4] Please update the studio support pie graph. Here is the link to CNET about Universal aswell [5]. Thanks. Remstar (talk) 06:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the image, Locke - I am looking at the Universal/Paramount release schedule details as soon as they appear. (Can't wait to get Apollo 13 on Blu-ray!) Remstar (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge Articles

please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:High_definition_optical_disc_format_war#Merge_Articles --w_tanoto (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Retail prices table is misleading

First I checked all the references in it, they are either dont exist or show completely differnt prices. I this it's a bad idea to refer a daily changing retailer pages form an encyclopedia anyway. I suggest to remove this table, as it is basically cannot be proven by any of the links, and hence is a lie. Andru nl (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Studio Support Picture - Round 2

Now that Paramount has said they will again release on Blu-ray, Paramount will now need to be turned purple in the 'Studio Support Picture.

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2118265320080221

Denzelio (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

FInally. If only I know how to turn it purple. According to somebody, the official announcement would be today (not sure if he's credible) :) --w_tanoto (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Studio Support Picture - Round 3

It appears the last HD DVD exclusive company Weinstein has become Blu-ray exclusive, and so Weinstein needs to be turned blue in the Studio Support picture. Although they have not yet stated they are Blu-ray exclusive it is already clear they will not bring out any more HD DVD.

Through the first several months of last year, Genius was releasing titles in HD DVD, but has stalled since then.

“Whether its Blu-ray or HD DVD…that was solved today that HD DVD backed out,” said Genius CEO Trevor Drinkwater during the company’s presentation at the Roth Capital Partners event. “Blu-ray is the last format in, and that has cleared the way for the industry to get aggressive around next generation DVD.”

A spokesman for Genius said there weren’t immediate plans for the company to specify its high-definition strategy. Drinkwater likewise did not detail upcoming Genius high-def releases during his speech.

http://www.videobusiness.com/index.asp?layout=blog&blog_id=830000483&blog_post_id=570022257

The Weinstein Company holds 70% stake of Genius Products, which releases all of The Weinstein Company's movies on DVD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weinstein_Company

Denzelio (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated image. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats pretty thin on facts, hardly up to wikipedia's standards. --Ray andrew (talk) 04:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

Is the pie chart still correct? I thought Universal was 100% blu-ray now? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We have no sources which say they're Blu-ray exclusive. Further, American Gangster just came out last week from them on HD DVD, and they still have an upcoming title for April or March I believe. Nothing beyond that, but no firm word that they've ceased HD DVD production (again, that I'm aware of). If you have something saying they've stopped HD DVD work entirely, let me know and I'll fix the image. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Err... ...if we keep updating the image, wouldn't the logical result be the whole thing being blue, thus defeating the purpose of a pie chart in the first place? Kelvinc (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Eventually all studios will be Blu-ray exclusive and no chart will be needed, in the mean time the chart illustrates which format the remaining non exclusive studios are supporting and is updated regularly as news comes in.Denzelio (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary comparison?

For the non-technical, perhaps the introduction could list the most significant advantages and disadvantages of each format? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:HighDefShare6.svg

I don't want to start either an edit war or controversy so I'm asking here before I make any changes. This image HighDefShare6.svg before Toshiba indicated the HD War had ended had Paramount and Universal as purely HD. Now obviously these companies are now adopting BluRay as a distribution format as they want to distribute to their customers in the best available format (Here shows they made the decision after the end of the format war). Where I'm going with this is.... Shouldn't the graph provide an indication of how the market was split prior to the announcement Toshiba made with a comment stating this was how the market was split before the format war ended? Chappy^T_C 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The chart is headed toward solid blue. What's interesting now a "snapshot" of how it looked at the pivotal juncture. Which, in retrospect, is when Warner shifted back to Blu-ray. Barte (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the chart best represents what the studios are currently doing at present, so to the article best represents what is "currently" going on there is already a large paragraph within the Studio Support section about the past which already seems out of place and doesn't quite fit within the section - "These alliances have shifted over time. Prior to October 2005 and before the release of either format," I think another page or section should be created for how things were before the collapse of HD DVD. Yes the chart will be all Blue and disappear once all studios are exclusive but to have only the picture of how things were can be misleading to new readers to the article who would think there are still HD exclusive studios. So either 2 pictures [past & present], separate page or separate section outlining the studios previous stances.Denzelio (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming from the format war talk, and at least 3 editors (myself) included have expressed concerns about the loss of the previous image because it was effective in demonstrating the extent of the format war. The current image, while accurate, ultimately will not convey any meaningful information since everything will be Blu-Ray in the next 12 months. Can we keep an image showing the format war at its height - either Christmas 2006 or whenever there was the greatest rift amongst studios? Madcoverboy (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, maybe a series of the images showing how it looks at different times during the "war", starting with a chart where it's all white (no studios doing HD) going down to what will eventually be all blue (probably be all blue in about 8 or 12 months time?). That way the article will show the history of the "war" better. JayKeaton (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

studio support table

the table is getting rather messy. i cleaned that up, such as removing personal point of view comments "may soon drop suppport". See WP:NPOV. It is understood that universal studio's plan is in flux, but that does not meansa personal point of view should be stated. Besides, it has already been stated in the article itself that universal is undecided of what to do with HD DVD.--w_tanoto (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate source

The source for Image:HighDefSales.svg is not accurate, the information in the source does not reflect the information provided on the image. JayKeaton (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Be a little more specific, what exactly are you taking issue with? —Locke Cole • t • c 21:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Source (it is source number 83 if you cannot find the image yourself) for image Image:HighDefSales.svg (it is the fourth image down, not including the image of the arrows on the merge selection). [[6]] that is the source I am talking about. When looking at the article, use the "find" function of your web browser and type in "United States. Week of" and it will jump straight down to it. Click on the little number "83" and that will jump you down to the list of citations at the bottom of the page. Ok, now you do not click on the number 83 again, and do not click on the little arrow. Click on the text next to it. That will open the source for you. This might be the hard part, you are looking for a chart in that link that looks much like Image:HighDefSales.svg. Except you may notice (concentrate now) that the dates given and the numbers on the chart on the source page do not match the numbers on Image:HighDefSales.svg or the dates given in the caption. The source is incorrect, it does not match the information on the article, which means the information on the article is improperly sourced. JayKeaton (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparison/Format War articles--make non-overlapping?

Per the merge discussion, it has been suggested that this article be restricted to the technical comparisons (the material mostly at the top), while Format War would cover....the history and aftermath of the format war, which I think it now largely does. This would be a big change, involving some serious deleting at this end. I'm willing to apply an eraser, but only if there is no objection. Barte (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

per my earlier post, I gave my Support --w_tanoto (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Support: Per my comments in the merge discussion. Though I also think that other high definition optical disc formats should be considered to be added to the article based on their merits. Moving to the more generic comparison of high definition formats, and including notable tape formats and "HD" download/streaming formats may also be useful. PaleAqua (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that focusing this article strictly on the technical comparisons, rather than a now-historical format war--would help that cause. Though your suggestion of broadening the title here to cover non-optical HD media is perhaps a next step. Barte (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, trim first, and then look at broadening the scope. PaleAqua (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I oppose generalizing this article in to a comparison of disc formats vs. download services (since such a comparison is really impossible without being original research). I do think it'd be a good idea to add in some of the other formats (HD VMD, etc) that have emerged as potential rivals. BTW, this does look a lot better when its trimmed down. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 16:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What's your thought about, as a sort of postscript, adding a bit about download services in the Format War article (which is where I should probably be asking this--but just to get a sense.) There seems to be a consensus among notable observers that, with HD DVD's demise, downloads and DVDs will be Blu-ray's competition.Barte (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There should be enough third party information (admittedly of varying quality and notability) available to talk about some of the download services without requiring the editors to do their own research. For example: iLounge: Apple TV 2.0 vs. Blu-Ray, DVD & HD Cable: The Comparison. I'm not sure how much of Blu-Ray vs the download services belong in the format war article, aside from as a postscript. I think it's really a separate format war and more an extension of the CD vs download/streaming music services battle. PaleAqua (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as HDM (HD DVD vs. Blu-ray Disc) was a niche, downloading is even more so. One of the requirements of inclusion on Wikipedia is notability, and IMHO, download services aren't notable enough to warrant their inclusion in a comparison article (or rather, that such a comparison article even exist). If a downloading service should reach an installed base or a usage level that makes it notable and worthy of consideration, then yes, we can go from there. But I don't see that just yet, and would rather settle this article down around other high def optical media (which should be simpler to deal with than trying to force a comparison between a downloading service and an optical media format). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This makes sense to me (adding a bit about it to the format war article). DVD is obviously BDs big challenge now, but download services may (and I stress that point, may) be an issue if HDM isn't adopted quickly enough. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Was thinking just of a sentence or two. A coda to the article, not a new thread. With one or more mainstream sources, i.e. the NYT.Barte (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the {{merge}} tag to the {{otheruses4}} tag at the top of both articles. If no one objects, I'll start nibbling away at some of the redundant/outdated material here. Barte (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No objection--w_tanoto (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Harumphy for making a final, big delete. There may be some sawdust to sweep, but the place looks remodeled. Barte (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

CBHD

Given CBHD is an active format, and HD DVD isn't, wouldn't it make sense to include it in this table? I'd do it myself but the details of CBHD seem to be difficult to obtain right now. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

CBHD and changes. Here are some of the CBHD specs, and I'll also note some minor changes for other tabs as well, I took a look at the list table, but this is laid out differently than some of the tables I've dealt with before and don't want to screw this up.

Mandatory Video: Chinese AVS
Optional Video: same as HD-DVD
Mandatory Audio: DKAA audio system
Optional Audio: same as HD-DVD
Both Secondary Video and Audio are optional
No interactivity (as of yet)
Internet support is mandatory
Framerates are same as HD-DVD
DRM is proprietary mandatory support on players but not discs
No region codes, Does this help 66? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostinlodos (talk • contribs) 13:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe DKAA is the name of the encryption system, not the audio system, which is the AVS codec DRA. Interactivity is provided via the CTEC system. While I have references for some of the above (I added much of it to CBHD myself) things like the Internet support, optionality of DRM, framerates, etc, are things I can't find external references for (thus making them unverifiable.) What we need are authoritative sites with this kind of information in it. --66.149.58.8 (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph

The second paragraph doesn't seem to be very well written, nor make a great deal of sense (especially the first sentence "AVCHD could be one of the reasons for Blu-ray Disc format to win"). Unfortunately I am not knowledgeable on this topic, but I will at least have a go at improving it from a purely English language point of view. StarDelta (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of high definition optical disc formats. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014221902/http://hddvdstats.com/index.php to http://www.hddvdstats.com/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)