M:I-3 DVD to Debut in Three Formats

[Slimy]

"Mission: Impossible III" will set a milestone when it is released to video on October 30, becoming the first movie to be available on DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray simultaneously. The high-def versions will offer 1080p resolution and 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus surround sound.

The HD DVD release will also include an "enhanced commentary" by director J.J. Abrams and Tom Cruise that shows the pair talking in the corner as the movie plays. This capability is possible through HD DVD's iHD feature, which is not included in Blu-ray. Analysts say that more studios will follow with similar three format launches -- at least until one high-definition format prevails.

Source

[I am Reid]

So what was with all this talk about blu-ray "well its better becuase its supported by more companies", i have a hunch that the reason most people liked blu-ray was becuase they thought the name sounded cool.

[theyarecomingforyou]

So what was with all this talk about blu-ray "well its better becuase its supported by more companies", i have a hunch that the reason most people liked blu-ray was becuase they thought the name sounded cool.

Whilst the name is cool (really?), in a sort of ambiguous way, the main reason people favoured Blu-Ray was because of the disc capacity - it means that more content can be included, or the same amount at a higher resolution. Other than that everything goes in HD-DVD's favour. Still, I'd much rather have a larger capacity, not least because if Blu-Ray becomes popular then recordable drives and media will come right down in price; not that it will matter when multi-TB holographic disks come out in several years.

I wasn't very impressed with DVD's when they first came out because they were only 7 times the capacity of CD's, whereas the jump from floppy disk to CD was massive. This generation is even worse... 9GB dual-layer DVD to single-layer HD-DVD is less than twice the size. This generation was rushed. I'm still holding out for Blu-Ray to win as I like the prospect of 200GB discs... even if they fail they should reach 100GB, so it means less disc changing for television series.

[nekrosoft13]

cool, another movie that will show that HD-DVD is better ;)

keep them comming

[ludeboy12]

cool, another movie that will show that HD-DVD is better ;)

keep them comming

hell ya i was thinking the same damn thing...

[John Veteran]

I wasn't very impressed with DVD's when they first came out because they were only 7 times the capacity of CD's, whereas the jump from floppy disk to CD was massive. This generation is even worse... 9GB dual-layer DVD to single-layer HD-DVD is less than twice the size. This generation was rushed. I'm still holding out for Blu-Ray to win as I like the prospect of 200GB discs... even if they fail they should reach 100GB, so it means less disc changing for television series.

I seriously doubt either format will increase in capacity. When CDs came out, did they ever increase in capacity? Not really. CD-Rs will let you store 700 MB instead of 650, but that isn't always reliable as the extra data is spread on the outer edge of the disk.

If you're going to add multiple layers to a disk to increase capacity, sooner or later you'll hit a barrier where it's not cost effective to add another layer when you could buy another disk. Either that or throughput will suffer due to multiple layers. Two layers may not pose a problem, but three or four layers might.

Just wait and see, disk capacity will not increase :sleep:

[theyarecomingforyou]

I seriously doubt either format will increase in capacity. When CDs came out, did they ever increase in capacity? Not really. CD-Rs will let you store 700 MB instead of 650, but that isn't always reliable as the extra data is spread on the outer edge of the disk.

CDs weren't designed as a multi-layer technology, unlike DVDs or HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. If you're going to make a point you should at least have some knowledge about the subject. However, I was disappointed that DVDs only went up to two layers, despite talks that they'd be upto four within no time.

If you're going to add multiple layers to a disk to increase capacity, sooner or later you'll hit a barrier where it's not cost effective to add another layer when you could buy another disk. Either that or throughput will suffer due to multiple layers. Two layers may not pose a problem, but three or four layers might.

Firstly, the cost might not be cheaper than multiple discs but it's a damn sight more practical for the user and certainly something that they prefer over dozens of discs - it could certainly give the format an advantage. Secondly, Blu-Ray has already been tested at 100GB and the 200GB prototype is still being designed (though with some issues), so your arguement holds no weight... with such fierce competition it will surely be something that Sony will wish to push in order to gain an advantage.

I hope that HD-DVD increases in capacity as well. As I have said, I have no interest in Blu-Ray other than for the format's size.

[ludeboy12]

i wouldnt trust sonys "supposed" 100 or 200gb discs. they havent even been able to get the dual layer 50s out yet.

[theyarecomingforyou]

i wouldnt trust sonys "supposed" 100 or 200gb discs. they havent even been able to get the dual layer 50s out yet.

Indeed. I don't trust them but I am hopeful that it's a possibility, particularly with HD-DVD breathing down their neck.

[Bhav]

Whilst the name is cool (really?), in a sort of ambiguous way, the main reason people favoured Blu-Ray was because of the disc capacity - it means that more content can be included, or the same amount at a higher resolution. Other than that everything goes in HD-DVD's favour. Still, I'd much rather have a larger capacity, not least because if Blu-Ray becomes popular then recordable drives and media will come right down in price; not that it will matter when multi-TB holographic disks come out in several years.

I wasn't very impressed with DVD's when they first came out because they were only 7 times the capacity of CD's, whereas the jump from floppy disk to CD was massive. This generation is even worse... 9GB dual-layer DVD to single-layer HD-DVD is less than twice the size. This generation was rushed. I'm still holding out for Blu-Ray to win as I like the prospect of 200GB discs... even if they fail they should reach 100GB, so it means less disc changing for television series.

QFT

Every movie studio, except Universal, supports either Blu-ray exclusively, or both Blu-ray and HD-DVD.

In comparison, there aren't very many movie studios that support HD-DVD (especially exclusively).

The future prospects for Blu-ray are good.

This is nothing like betamax where Sony was the sole supporter.

[Matrix XII]

cool, another movie that will show that HD-DVD is better ;)

keep them comming

[though]

So what was with all this talk about blu-ray "well its better becuase its supported by more companies", i have a hunch that the reason most people liked blu-ray was becuase they thought the name sounded cool.

don't forget that blu-ray can do 1080P.

[Pc_Madness]

The future prospects for Blu-ray are good.

You remind me of that Iraqi minister guy and all his "the US has not invaded" crap..

[I am Reid]

don't forget that blu-ray can do 1080P.

Dont forget that HD DVD can do 1080P

[Proforma]

Whilst the name is cool (really?), in a sort of ambiguous way, the main reason people favoured Blu-Ray was because of the disc capacity - it means that more content can be included, or the same amount at a higher resolution. Other than that everything goes in HD-DVD's favour. Still, I'd much rather have a larger capacity, not least because if Blu-Ray becomes popular then recordable drives and media will come right down in price; not that it will matter when multi-TB holographic disks come out in several years.

I wasn't very impressed with DVD's when they first came out because they were only 7 times the capacity of CD's, whereas the jump from floppy disk to CD was massive. This generation is even worse... 9GB dual-layer DVD to single-layer HD-DVD is less than twice the size. This generation was rushed. I'm still holding out for Blu-Ray to win as I like the prospect of 200GB discs... even if they fail they should reach 100GB, so it means less disc changing for television series.

Well size does not matter for movies as the Blu-ray movies are being shown using MPEG 2 which is the same as DVD anyway. So you are giving a worse picture and taking up all that extra space.

So for movies Blu-ray is a bad thing and you are only comparing 15 to 25 and remember, that with mpeg 2 using a HD bitrate it is going to take that space away. So blu-ray movies you actually lose, not gain. You lose picture quality and space and to add on top of that you have to pay a lot more.

Not a good thing at all.

don't forget that blu-ray can do 1080P.

So can HD-DVD. Just the first players out are not doing 1080p, but both formats support 1080P.

Whoops

[MrA]

don't forget that blu-ray can do 1080P.

So can HD-DVD. Also, both formats can do MPEG-2, H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) and VC-1. So video wise, neither format has the advantage. But it's quite perplexing that Sony/Warner/et al. have decided to release the first-gen Blu-ray movies in MPEG-2. Especially Warner since they release their HD-DVD titles using VC-1. Why? No-one knows.

[Proforma]

So can HD-DVD. Also, both formats can do MPEG-2, H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) and VC-1. So video wise, neither format has the advantage. But it's quite perplexing that Sony/Warner/et al. have decided to release the first-gen Blu-ray movies in MPEG-2. Especially Warner since they release their HD-DVD titles using VC-1. Why? No-one knows.

Sony has made their decision to push ONLY MPEG-2 on Blu-ray and as I had said that many other studios would follow and I was right.

So, as long as studio's push their movies as MPEG-2 on blu-ray and as long as that format is more expensive, then I am not for that format and I think it will be a problem for it.

Why would you want to take a chance on getting HD content in MPEG-2 on blu-ray, when you can get a much better picture in HD using VC-1 content and a cheaper player/media as well.

All content that is HD is being shipped using the VC-1 codec on HD-DVD.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Well size does not matter for movies as the Blu-ray movies are being shown using MPEG 2 which is the same as DVD anyway. So you are giving a worse picture and taking up all that extra space.

So for movies Blu-ray is a bad thing and you are only comparing 15 to 25 and remember, that with mpeg 2 using a HD bitrate it is going to take that space away. So blu-ray movies you actually lose, not gain. You lose picture quality and space and to add on top of that you have to pay a lot more.

Size does matter. And whilst single layer might be 15 versus 25 dual-layer will be standard and that will be 30 versus 50, with the gap expanding the more layers that are added. However, as you rightly point out, that makes no difference if they continue using MPEG2 and producing these half baked releases - why, I have no idea, but it is quite ridiculous and it is only hurting Sony to continue down this route. Unless they sort out these outrageous problems soon this is going to be a very one sided format war. :wacko:

[hulibecker]

Does everyone think this HD DVD v Blue Ray battle will actually result in a single format winner?

To be honest I dont think we will have a single winner, I think both formats will have a large enough following, with them each having their own plus's (and minus's!) that both formats could probably survive. Why does it have to be a single format solution!

Just my personal opion. Does anyone else agree, or am i alone on this one! LOL

I will prob be initially a blue ray follower pretty much because will be gettin PS3, but if I end up gettin 360 too, then having both as an option would appeal!

Cant wait for MI: III to come out, I'll hopefully get it on Blue ray if its available over here by then :)

[Michael_C]

Well size does not matter for movies as the Blu-ray movies are being shown using MPEG 2 which is the same as DVD anyway. So you are giving a worse picture and taking up all that extra space.

So for movies Blu-ray is a bad thing and you are only comparing 15 to 25 and remember, that with mpeg 2 using a HD bitrate it is going to take that space away. So blu-ray movies you actually lose, not gain. You lose picture quality and space and to add on top of that you have to pay a lot more.

Not a good thing at all.

The same codecs are in both standards so that is up to the movie studios AFAIK.