The CNET Lounge forum

General discussion


by 2143436756292931057199946 / November 29, 2006 9:03 PM PST

It's too early to tell which format will win the war, but I was curious on which side you were on? HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?

Also, is there a website that keeps consumers posted on the latest news between the two formats?

Post a reply
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: MATCH-OFF: HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: MATCH-OFF: HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
My choice: neither
by rtemp / November 30, 2006 2:05 AM PST

I honestly don't care about the hi-def DVD's at all. They only give you benefits if you have an HDTV (I don't know anybody that has one) and they are just too expensive.

I'm sticking to regular DVD's for as long as possible.


Collapse -
*but I like the HDTV*
by 2143436756292931057199946 / November 30, 2006 2:23 AM PST
In reply to: My choice: neither


*slowly raises hand*

*softly says* I have a HDTV and I care.

But on a FYI note, America will switch over to pure HD content in the year 2008, this action was to take place in 2006 but was delayed. Europe is already a step-ahead of the great American government and has issued no more analog signals over the air and is pure HD.

So I would consider upgrading before becoming obsolete. And you can get a great 30" Samsung Slim-Fit TV for about $700. Just food for thought.

But I respect your stand, just thought I add a little insight.

Collapse -
All HDTV by 2008?
by navsimpson / November 30, 2006 3:03 AM PST
In reply to: *but I like the HDTV*

I not sure that's accurate - that would mean 80% of people in the US would have to buy a new TV in the next 2 years. I'm pretty sure you're talking about the transition to analogue to digital dude. I don't think that a date has been set in any country for a total transition to HDTV.

And defensortis: I'm pretty sure the HD-DVD drive for the 360 does now output at 1080p after the recent firmware update - it's just that very very few TV sets can accept 1080p via component or VGA. Besides, as CNET have said, 1080p is really hard to distinguish from 1080i, so you should be good to go.

Does anyone know if one format is visually superior to the other? I know the first batch of films favoured HD-DVD, but Blu-Ray was then using MPEG2 compression. What's the verdict now that both are using MPEG4 (or VC1?).

Collapse -
Broadcasted in HD
by kellenjb / November 30, 2006 3:13 AM PST
In reply to: All HDTV by 2008?

I learned about the transition 4 years ago so I might have my facts wrong.

But my understand is that originally by 2006 all broadcasters had to be broadcasting in HD. This means that all of the signals coming into your cable company would be HD. This doesn't mean that the cable company can't go and convert the signal.

Collapse -
HD 2006
by 2143436756292931057199946 / November 30, 2006 9:30 PM PST
In reply to: Broadcasted in HD

At least I'm not crazy, because as I mentioned earlier... I heard by 2006 High Defintion was going to be mandatory. But maybe it was meant for analog to ditial conversion as the other dude mentioned in this discussion.

Collapse -
no you are not crazy
by kellenjb / November 30, 2006 9:54 PM PST
In reply to: HD 2006

No, I am pretty sure you are right. All content should be HD. Although I am not sure of the exact requirement here. For example, right not my cable company doesn't offer all of the HD programing offered to them.

For example, ABC has HD programming, but my cable company isn't paying for it. So I am not sure if it is just a requirement that HD programing is offered, but not required. The cable companies still could still only buy the standard programs.

However, after trying to see if I could find anything about this I found a page that talks about the conversion. It says the year is 2009 and that it is to digital like the other guy had said. But the article is not written very well as they seem to use HD and digital interchangeably. The call digital to be in the 16x9 format. They also mention 720p which is a HD format.

Collapse -
HD Channels not are not Full HD
by 2143436756292931057199946 / November 30, 2006 10:12 PM PST
In reply to: no you are not crazy

Thanks for the backup! Happy

My cable provider doesn't provide full HD programming either such as NBC, FOX, and ABC. Only some of the episodes are HD and it appears some are not full 1080i. (Hhhmmm...)

I mean... I thought the HD channels were full-blown HD content, but it doesn't turn out to be that way. (Waa..waa... *the sound effect of a horn playing to a loser in a game show*)

But I can't remember if I mentioned it earlier.. but Europe (Germany for sure) is pure digital or HD. It was BIG there while I was living in Germany when the conversion occured.

Collapse -
by rtemp / November 30, 2006 6:59 AM PST
In reply to: *but I like the HDTV*

I'm a college student. I don't think I need to say any more on why I'm not even thinking about upgrading.


Collapse -
Digital from Analog
by Romasteve / January 25, 2007 11:58 PM PST
In reply to: *but I like the HDTV*

Hi all

Here in Italy the transition is underway. Digital TV over normal TV channels is happening. For example. The TV from France now is ONLY on digital, also SAT tv, but no longer on analog.

Stephen in Rome

Collapse -
Trying to reach Romasteve
by Rbcsoup / February 6, 2007 11:43 PM PST
In reply to: Digital from Analog

Hey Romasteve. Trying to reach you about Ellen Cohen and The Shadows. Please email me via

Collapse -
You do not need to have HDTV, only digital
by Sith840 / January 26, 2007 12:59 AM PST
In reply to: *but I like the HDTV*

The rules which were pushed back to 2009 will require a converter box only. The signals will all be digital, but the rules are such that the signals have to be downgradable to 480i (standard TV). There will be lots of boxes you can attach between your old non-HDTV and the new signal, so it will still work. Of course, an HDTV or HDTV-ready TV will give you a much nicer image, as more and more shows and the like will be recorded in higher resolution (at least 720p, like DVDs).
That said, as far as the format wars, the two are too similar to say one is better than the other in image quality. BR has much higher capacity (hours of a movie or GBs of data you can store), but at a higher cost for the discs and the lasers. So, it will not win due to one being better than the other, but rather the marketing war. Sony has had some advantage as they are also a movie studio and have gotten most of the other content providers on their side. But, it seems too soon to be sure how it will go. The real losers are us consumers, as any one who takes the plunge risks having obsolete equipment (unless you buy the dual-format devices).

Collapse -
by batavier / December 1, 2006 3:56 AM PST
In reply to: My choice: neither

I don't think that any of this answers the poster's question.

As far as the benefits of 1080p are concerned. Somewhere I read a post by someone who already owns a "mainstream" HDTV. He walked into a big box store, and was drawn to the picture on a demo set across the store. It was showing a different move that all the other sets. Upon inquiring as to what he was looking at, was told that this was a BlueRay video (on a BlueRay DVD) connected on a 1080p set. According to the poster, everything else looked absolutely inferior (I think he used a different expression....)

I'm not sure about BlueRay vs HD DVD, but a the rate technology is moving, I would expect not just HDTV, but 1080p broadcasts, software AND hardware to be the norm by 2008. I expect that once people see what's possible, the will demand it, and competition in the market place will follow, including price drops to civilian levels. That is, unless government intervenes on the side of the nay-sayers and whiners.

As far as as the changeover is concerned, according to the FCC website, there will be conversion boxes available (possibly for free if you get your progamming via antenna.)

Collapse -
by kellenjb / December 1, 2006 4:50 AM PST
In reply to: OTS

So standard DVD is inferior to Blu-Ray, anyone could have told you that. The question was, which do you think will win blu-ray or HD-DVD.

So you didn't answer any questions either.

Collapse -
I answered the question
by rtemp / December 1, 2006 5:38 PM PST
In reply to: OTS

Question (in my own words): In the war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, what side are you on?
Answer: Not HD-DVD, not Blu-Ray


Collapse -
If I had to choose
by kellenjb / November 30, 2006 2:16 AM PST

I would go with HD-DVD, purely because of the fact that people who know nothing about technology hear the HD part and know that is what they need for their HDTV. Blu-Ray doesn't make you think of HDTVs.

Also does anyone know if there are movies that are only offered in one format? I haven't looked into this at all but it seems like all of the commercials I have seen for new movies out on DVD have been offered in both formats.

Collapse -
3 Formats
by 2143436756292931057199946 / November 30, 2006 2:26 AM PST
In reply to: If I had to choose

I've lately seen the DVD offered in all 3 formats: Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, and regular DVD.

I agree that the uninformed will choose HD-DVD because of the HD in the title. However, Blu-Ray is backed by strong-wealthy-known companies and is pushing great advertisement.

I'm still torn. I have a XBOX 360 so I'm tempted to get the HD-DVD player add-on, though it doesn't output 1080p... but I wouldn't want to invest an a soon-to-be obsolete device or the possibility of XBOX integrating the HD-DVD in a new XBOX with HDMI output.

Collapse -
PS3 wins it for Blu-Ray
by edcard17 / November 30, 2006 2:53 AM PST

When it is all said and done and Sony has flodded the market with PS3's, that will be the clincher for Blu-Ray to dominate.

Collapse -
maybe not
by kellenjb / November 30, 2006 3:19 AM PST

Just because Sony floods the market with the PS3 doesn't mean it will win.

I have no numbers backing me up here, but I would guess there are more people who own either another console or don't have a game console combine then those who own PS3s. You also have to take into consideration that Sony is struggling to get many PS3s out on the market.

Also there are going to be many out there who buy a PS3 but will buy a separate DVD player. I have an Xbox and a DVD player on the same TV because I don't like the X-box DVD controls.

Collapse -
(NT) *hums Star Trek battle song*
by csliva11 / November 30, 2006 3:02 AM PST
Collapse -
by rtemp / November 30, 2006 7:00 AM PST
Collapse -
hummmms Darth Vadar?s theme
by vidyman / November 30, 2006 10:58 PM PST

much kewler

Collapse -
by Nicholas Buenk / November 30, 2006 10:09 PM PST

Both formats will have much the same video quality, having ample capacity for HD video.
However, blu-ray has more capacity technological it's superior especially for use on computers as a data storage device. On a single layer, blu-ray will hold 25GB, HD-DVD 15GB. You can add more layers to gain more capacity, an experimental 6 layer 200GB blu-ray disk has been developed.
I think the capacity of blu-ray may make it a win for the pc market which many influence the film industry...

Collapse -
On the other hand...
by Nicholas Buenk / November 30, 2006 10:11 PM PST
In reply to: Pfft

HD-DVD is apparently easier to produce. Apparently it's easier to retool a DVD factory into producing HD-DVD, well so I hear....

Collapse -
I side with the black hats
by abe-tolentino / December 1, 2006 12:00 AM PST

But only because the DRM schemes for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are looking like they could screw consumers. HARD.

I don't know enough about the specifics of the DRM schemes each format uses, but they are tied to hardware (HDMI) compatibility. If a piece of hardware is hacked to defeat the copy protection, the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray manufacturers can essentially prevent the hacked hardware from playing the disk.

Sorry, but if I pay several hundred or thousand dollars for my A/V or computer equipment to play either of these formats, I don't want to be left in the dark, having to buy new equipment when someone hacks a piece of hardware that the studios then decide will be banned.

As usual, the DRM was designed as a knee-jerk reaction to paranoid copyright protection that assumes all consumers are thieves. I'm getting sick and tired of being treated like a criminal. So I hope that all the best and brightest black hats figure out ways to hack HD-DVD and Blu-Ray copy protection so that the movie studios will have to either re-think their approach to copy protection, or they end up with tons of class-action suits for disabling millions of dollars of hardware because they implemented draconian DRM schemes without considering how innocent consumers will be affected.

I don't condone the willful violation of copyright protection, but I do support efforts that will force the development of a system that benefits producers and consumers alike.

Collapse -
What about c) Downloads
by CordovaCaddes / December 1, 2006 5:09 AM PST

I understand why you are comparing the two formats, but I think the most likely scenario is that each will get a small base of people who like that one (a large portion of that will most likely be the Xbox 360 HD-DVD camp and the PS3 camp), but the majority of people will hold off long enough that digital downloads will eventually take hold and beat both of them. Another HUGE competitor for this race is the ridiculously low price of DVD players that upconvert standard discs. This makes the difference even smaller and makes that $500-$1000 that much harder to part with. And unless one (or both) get some momentum behind them, they won't be able to make the quantities that would allow prices to come down.

I recently heard a RUMOR (no flames please) that Microsoft choose HD-DVD over Blu-ray in order to make HD-DVD more competitive in order to keep the market from adopting either before digital downloads can take off. Obviously the Xbox 360 download service either adds to or generates this conspiracy theory. Even if it was not their intent, it looks like they are heading in that direction now regardless of which is the cause and which is the effect.

Long term digital download has the advantage that a) you don't have to wait for the disc to arrive or to go get it and b) you can upgrade resolution or bit-rate without having to have a new generation of machines. In 10 years the media center will be mainstream, even if it has another name, and regardless if people think of it as a computer (remember the Tivo is essentially a Linux box, but nobody thinks of it as a computer). This future box may in fact accept a DVD in the front or possibly an HD-DVD or Blu-ray disc, but it will not be the only (and my guess is not the primary) means of content.

Collapse -
Digital Downloads vs. Blu-Ray / HD-DVD
by 2143436756292931057199946 / December 1, 2006 6:08 AM PST

I forsee the digital download taking off (slowly) but definitely. A good competitor to the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

I know... if iTunes or online service offered HD movies... I would go that route rather than disc. I like having everything on one source b/c I too believe the PC will be the mainstream in the living room. Because the PS3 and XBOX 360 and Apple (iTunes + iTV).

Collapse -
Bit Torrent
by Nicholas Buenk / December 1, 2006 10:19 AM PST

Bit Torrent getting into the business of legally selling movies is very interesting. As the bandwidth concern will be a major factor for HD downloadable videos.

Collapse -
Pfft, upconverting.
by Nicholas Buenk / December 1, 2006 10:21 AM PST

You're simply not going to get anything comparable to 1080p video from upconverting. It's like comparing a 200mhz to 300mhz Pentium 2 and the showing off a core 2 duo 2.66ghz. Wink

Collapse -
Can you really see the difference?
by CordovaCaddes / December 4, 2006 7:27 AM PST
In reply to: Pfft, upconverting.

I would say it's like comparing a Ferrari with a Porshe. Both have plenty of power and style, so you only buy the Ferrari to be able to show it off. I'll take a Boxter any day!

Collapse -
by Nicholas Buenk / December 4, 2006 4:48 PM PST

That doesn't make sense, there is a lot more detail in 1080p and simply up-converting is not a magic trick it'll make it look better but it doesn't add resolution. 1080p is still a whole generation ahead of any DVD derived video. You can not make up for a 1.5 million difference in pixel count no matter what tricks you pull. This is just ridiculous.

Popular Forums
Computer Help 49,613 discussions
Computer Newbies 10,349 discussions
Laptops 19,436 discussions
Security 30,426 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 20,308 discussions
Windows 10 360 discussions
Phones 15,802 discussions
Windows 7 7,351 discussions
Networking & Wireless 14,641 discussions


Free trip to the Grand Prix

Don't miss your chance to win a trip to the Formula 1 Grand Prix in Monaco for you and a plus-one.