Login:
Password:

Blu-ray/HD DVD Combo Discs Delayed

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

June 28, 2007, 3:45 PM

Warner Home Video's answer to the rift in the high-definition DVD industry will not arrive in the second half of this year as planned, instead reaching the market in 2008. 10-20 movies will be initially offered using the "Total HD" technology, which includes both HD DVD and Blu-ray on a single disc.

Total HD made its official debut at CES 2007, with the promise of sandwiching two data layers atop one another -- not one format on one side and another on the flip side -- with each layer capable of being read by its respective player.

As previously reported by BetaNews' Scott Fulton, the key is enabling the transmissivity of the lower layers in the sandwich, by reducing the reflectivity of those above them. Warner's inventors claimed to have discovered that high reflectivity was not entirely necessary for even existing players to read the signals from thinner, underlying layers - transmissivity could theoretically be reduced from 100% to as low as 12%, and still be effective.

Most importantly, a Total HD disc would not need a hybrid player such as the one LG unveiled at CES, and may solve the problem of media retailers having to divide their high-def shelves into separate segments. But, up to this point, neither the HD DVD nor Blu-ray camps have supported the possible compromise.

Warner says that it sees demand for standard-definition DVDs, as well as growing demand for HD DVD and Blu-ray. Instead of crowding the market with multiple versions of the same movies (the studio is already combining widescreen and fullscreen DVDs), Total HD would mean one movie disc for both high-definition formats and, in turn, reduce the required expensive retail shelf space in the process.

The studio says it's not in a rush to bring Total HD to the market, and will do so only when the technology is ready. The company was originally working on a three layer disc that would have enabled up to 22 format combinations.

A triple-layer disc is something Toshiba is also testing in order to offer capacity of 51GB. But the fact that each layer is limited to 17 GB, rather than the 25 GB per layer that's possible with dual-layer blue-laser discs, may be an indication that a three-layer format such as the one Warner Bros. patented last year may not have been feasible with older or existing blue-laser players after all.

Add a Comment (45 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By Red_Vader

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 3:46 PM

Ok I realize that this is probably going to wind up as troll fodder but I think it needs to be said:
GIVE ME ANALOG OR GIVE ME DEATH

Score: 0

By carlitox

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 7:08 PM

look hijo de puta, deja de joder por tansiquiera una vez en tu pinche vida semejante pendejo, se ve que no has tenido d!ck from sony lately have you?

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 12:43 PM

At some point do you ever plan to admit that competition has been a good thing for the consumer. You like blu good for you. For Gods sake stop with your hate already.

Players would still be a grand if not more if there ws no competition.

At this time I can honestly say that I could see both formats fail. The majority of people could care less about HD even more about the thought of buying stuff over again on a new format. This very well could turn into just an enthusist market. Ever thought of that? Just because HD is better does not mean that either of these formats will win the public over.

In reality SDVD is more than enough for most of the poeple in the world.

Score: 0

By Alex Stevens

edited Jun 29, 2007 - 10:43 AM

Why do you care so much? Don't you have a life? "My favorite video format is better than your favorite video format, na na na". Ok, so you're a giant nerd, do you have to be an annoying douche also?

Score: 0

By DaveBG

posted Jun 30, 2007 - 1:28 PM

Because i like to irritate hd-dud loosers.

Score: 0

By DaveGB

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 4:32 PM

His post seems to have hit a raw nerve.. LOL...

In Summary, Blu-Ray releases 83,000 to 17,000 titles, HD-DVD releases 37,000 to 7,000

That's pretty poor show from HD-DVD. They may be selling more dedicated hardware, at present, but that means squat, as the media is not selling...

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 6:20 PM

We just had a period of supposedly 'big' BD releases (POTC, NATM, Apocalypto etc).
We also just saw 5 & 7 disc freebie offers with new HD DVD players & despite all that the sales ratio on Nielson stayed at 60:40.

Considering those 3.5million PS3/BD players out there I'd say that's not looking great for BD at all.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 6:30 PM

Negating the truth won't turn HD-DVD in a success. People don't want to get ripped off by Toshiba,Microsoft and the DVD-Forum with their lame small HD-DVD 30GB format.
The Sony Blu-Ray 50GB discs are the best bet for any customer that doesn't want to get ripped off.

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

edited Jun 30, 2007 - 7:33 PM

51gb triple layer HD DVD discs are currently under-going certification at the DVD Forum (they were formally submitted several weeks ago).

I'm looking forward to hearing you change your tune about how the customer is better served with 51gb discs instead of the smaller 50gb discs, shill.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 8:12 PM

That has nothing to do with being ripped off. I would trust MS long before I would trust SOny.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Jun 30, 2007 - 4:19 AM

Yeah, sure.. in fact Microsoft doesn't put rootkits,spyware and such on customers systems, right ? So the whole WGA,WPA thing spying on customers.. the whole XP and Vista activation thing, the way they oblige you to re-activate if you change the hardware you paid for are not ripping off tactics, they are playing nice and sweet, they love you, uh ?

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

posted Jun 30, 2007 - 11:06 AM

Spin away but those supposed 'examples' are nothing like the same as a secret & illegal root kit.

......and what kind of unhinged f*ckwit moron talks about a CE corporation (any corporation) in terms of 'love' or 'hate'?

You need help.

Score: 0

By DaveGB

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 5:04 AM

Who in their right would pay MORE for a HD DVD / Blu-Ray combo disk, that's limited to 25GB/15GB not the full 30GB/50GB capacities...

TotalHD is sure to fail..

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

posted Jun 28, 2007 - 10:41 PM

It would be cool to have these and a combo player. You could easily see which format is superior.

Score: 0

By DaveBG

edited Jun 29, 2007 - 1:54 AM

Death to TotalHD and combos!

But you are right it could help people see that Blu-ray have better PQ and SQ:

"What a difference a year makes - Blu-ray now most consistent PQ"
http://www.avsforum.com/.../forumdisplay.php?f=114

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 5:11 AM

It would be nice if you could show some real proof that Blu-Ray has better sound quality than HD-DVD. So far you haven't shown any proof probably because you know it's not true and you are just trolling.

Score: 0

By DaveGB

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 10:25 AM

Because common sense dictates, that 2 systems, that both support the same codecs, but one has maximum of 30GB of storage and a maximum bitrate of 31Mbit/sec and the which has 50GB of storage and 55Mbit/sec maximum bandwidth.

Who do you believe? a few rabid early adopter HD DVD owners, or hard specification facts?

Score: 0

By Latz !

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 10:53 AM

You're such a fanboy sheep. Let me help you:

Given the fixed limitations of other elements in the video system like film size, 1080p scans, and 24 frame per second film exposure rates, one cannot simply continue to increase bit rates and gain ever-increasing picture quality. Eventually you get to the point where the limits of the source and the displays are reached, and further increases in bit rates become irrelevant. And as far as 1080p/24 video material with the advanced codecs is concerned, if that point has already been reached with a maximum 36.55 Mbps bit rate, then incremental bit rates beyond that will not contribute to perceptible increases in image quality.

http://www.projectorcent...ling_HD-DVD_Blu-ray.htm

Score: 0

By aredo

edited Jun 29, 2007 - 3:12 PM

That site is deadly wrong. Is it paid by DVD-Forum/Toshiba/Microsoft to write such nonsense?
35mm film is way beyond HDTV 1920x1080 resolution.

That site you linked is full of false claims, telling that increasing the bitrate wouldn't increase quality it's just insane, it's a real nonsense. The guys there are actually telling the world that an uncompressed raw video would offer no improvement over a compressed one at 36Mbps bitrate... This is just pure nonsense and shows that they writers there don't have a clue about signals theory and codecs.

Read this article on this site that explains how much resolution a 35mm film really has:

->
http://www.clarkvision.c...s.digital.summary1.html

Apparent Image Quality (AIQ)

While most who have worked with digital camera images agree that because of the "smoothness" of digital images, they can be enlarged more than film images. My testing shows that fine grained film has higher spatial resolution than 8-MPixel digital camera images, but the digital camera images have several times higher signal-to-noise. People infer image quality as a function of both spatial resolution and signal-to-noise. While this is a subjective concept, I've started some experiments to test this "Apparent Image Quality," or AIQ. My initial results (example references below) are showing to first order that there is an approximate equal trade for signal-to-noise ratio versus spatial resolution. Thus, if you had a digital camera that produced 8 megapixels and twice the signal to noise as fine grained film, the apparent digital camera megapixels could be doubled when comparing to film. So that 8-megapixel image may have the "apparent image quality" of 16 megapixels if compared to the lower signal-to-noise film. Since my tests show the spatial resolution of fine grained 35mm film like Fuji Velvia is around 16 MPixels digital equivalent, then that 8-MPixel digital camera probably produces similar "apparent image quality" to 35mm fine-grained film.
-----

Score: 0

By khetos

posted Jun 30, 2007 - 10:17 AM

Can you read?? like wtf, your saying sometihngs wrong.. and to read this site.. look what the site says...

Digital is Better than Film!
No It's Not! Film is BETTER than Digital!
No, You're wrong! No, you're wrong!

Guess what? Flat statements like this are both wrong, and both right!
Why? There is no one single correct answer. Thus, depending on what you want to do, one tool may be better than another.

meaning, ... ... can you guess? it means there are preferecnes.. if somone chooses something you dont like, its not your life, meaning if somone wants to eat nothing but grass, all the power to them.. i dont care, it does not effect me, and i will eat what i like.. nuff said.

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 4:10 PM

Yeah of course, anyone who says anything contrary to your beliefs has to be paid off (by the HD DVD side).

The fact is that at 2k 1080p HD DVD is capable of showing transperency with the master using VC-1 at bitrates well below the HD DVD maximum.

Here is an interesting site that compares the scan quality of various resolutions - if you really want to get into this one.

It's actually for comparing digital cameras to film frame detail, but it's very interesting, and suggests 4000dpi is commonly used, while 8000dpi is approaching the diffraction limit (ie where no more detail is possible to capture - only noise).

That said, he states he is using Velvia film, which is a film with one of the lowest amounts of grain possible, so the figures he gives are definately upper limits.

In other words, 2000dpi would probably be more than sufficient for normal film and scanning at lower resolutions, such as 720p or 1080p.

Even if another even larger HD format arrives, there wouldn't really be any point transferring 35mm movies to anything larger than 1080p.

They would have to start filming on 70mm (imax) to go any higher.
Even at 1080p you'll see lots of grain and resolution breaking up with 35mm.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 4:17 PM

Of course, none of you can read very well. My original post referred to AUDIO quality. Not picture quality.

Score: 0

By khetos

posted Jun 30, 2007 - 10:38 AM

yah i noticed that, and either way it depends on your total equipment, your out put, input and calbing devices..

i have fibre optic cables for sound, and a very good reciver, boss sound system, and it sounds great.

Score: 0

By smarterthanyou

posted Jul 1, 2007 - 1:08 AM

Do you mean you use a Bose sound system when you mentioned boss? I hope you're not one of the suckers who bought one of the Bose cube speaker systems. Yamaha's newer receivers are much better than any of Bose's preamps in their Lifestyle systems. Yamaha's parametric equalizer can now measure sound frequencies down to 31.5KHz in their midrange receivers (think big tower speakers with built in subwoofers) and the higher end Yamaha receivers go a step further and will perform room correction on a standalone subwoofer as well. Since Bose's cube speakers can only reproduce audio frequencies above 230hz there isn't much you can do in the way of room correction with a graphic or parametric equalizer.

By the way, if you want great sound, the only way to get it is with digital audio over HDMI 1.1 or later. You can't beat multi channel audio encoded at 96KHz PCM or better which fiber optical and RCA coaxial cables can't support.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 1, 2007 - 7:45 PM

Denon new line will rock the socks off anything that Yamaha has out there. I have one on preorder and use B&W and M&K speakers I suppose there is something wrong with these. Oh and I presently have a Denon receiver. Denon is going to be 1.3a by the way. My sub is a massive SVS and it rocks the house. Nothing wrong here.

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 6:21 PM

It's been a given since the start of this that HD DVD is invariable the superior when it comes to audio quality.

Even when a studio releases the same movie on both formats it's without fail the HD DVD version that comes with the superior audio (as we see time after time with the Warner releases).

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 6:28 PM

Your blind fanatism toward HD-DVD just shows that you have no clue what you are talking about, really. If the audio it's in PCM format and uncompressed its quality is the same regardless of the media it's put on, then about AC3/DTS encoding schemes.. since it's the same studio releasing the tracks on two different media formats (BD and HD-DVD), unless they would make one of the two defective on purpose, if the audio has to be put on the discs at the same bitrate, there is no way to get any difference, they would just mux in the same audio streams.. period.
Otherwise they could surely put many more higher bitrate audio tracks on Blu-Ray 50GB than on any HD-DVD 30GB out there. It's just like with the video streams.. more available media space = higher quality.

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

posted Jun 30, 2007 - 11:11 AM

"blind fanaticism"

LMFAO.

It's called knowing the facts of the matter, shill.

If you actually knew the subject at least half as well as you pretend to you might even have a clue......or is it just that you prefer to lie about it?

When Warner release the same movie on both formats it's (so far) invariably the case that the HD DVD version appears with the superior audio track(s).

I bet they don't tell you that on your BD fansites or down at the Sony fanclub.

Score: 0

By aredo

posted Jun 30, 2007 - 2:53 PM

Yeah, sure.. because Warner mines itself to the point to make a Blu-Ray release defective compared to the HD-DVD one on purpose, uh ?

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

edited Jul 1, 2007 - 2:13 PM

Look if you don't know what you're talking about then just admit it and quit making a fool of yourself.

Warner dual format releases to date show a distinct tendancy for the HD DVD version to appear with the superior audio of the 2.

If you don't know about this then I suggest you quit supping up the BS your BD fanzine sites are feeding you.

The facts are there for anyone interested to see.

Carry on with your delusion if you like, you clearly don't know what you're talking about, shill.

BTW it also applies to the Paramount dual format releases too, even you BD fanzine sites admit it......

"Paramount continues its uneven approach to the two high-def formats, granting the Blu-ray edition a standard Dolby Digital 5.1 mix at 640kbps, and the HD DVD edition a Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 surround track at 1.5 Mbps."

http://bluray.highdefdig...om/comingtoamerica.html

......but feel free to expose your own ill-informed ignorance/bare-faced lying if you like, shill.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jul 1, 2007 - 9:03 PM

I guess he can't think of any to say to that since there is nothing.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 10:07 AM

It's because there isn't any.

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Jun 28, 2007 - 5:38 PM

"Warner's inventors claimed to have discovered that high reflectivity was not entirely necessary for even existing players to read the signals from thinner, underlying layers - transmissivity could theoretically be reduced from 100% to as low as 12%, and still be effective."

This is a worrying paragraph.

"transmissivity"
Not a word.

"high reflectivity was not entirely necessary"
Not entirely? So it is a bit?

"and still be effective"
Effective doesn't mean good. Effective means mostly works.

Score: 0

By RobertM

posted Jun 28, 2007 - 7:32 PM

"Transmissivity" is a word. (Look it up in a dictionary, or even just Google it--you'll get hundreds of thousands of results.) And "effective" means that it is successful at accomplishing the task at hand, so I don't really see a problem there.

However, I will agree that the "not entirely necessary" thing still leaves a bit to wonder about. :)

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 3:12 PM

I did look it up in a dictionary (yes, I looked in the right place). Perhaps it's an American word then. Or I have a crap dictionary.

Fair enough, I'll let you have the effective one. Though to me it means less effective than it was.

The last one still stands.

Score: 0

By lonechicken

posted Jun 28, 2007 - 4:39 PM

"...originally working on a thee layer disc"

That should probably read "...three layer..." unless they were working on some kind of disc that could be read by medieval players. LOL

Score: 0

By DaveGB

posted Jun 28, 2007 - 4:22 PM

So if you want 51GB HD DVD players, your current HD DVD player is obsolete. Lets hope Toshiba or the DVD Forum don't feel the need to upgrade HD DVD to tripple layer..

The TotalHD disc is a con anyway, as it's limited to 25GB/15GB for Blu-Ray / HD DVD

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Jun 28, 2007 - 4:40 PM

I would think if anything a firmware update would fix any potential read issues. That is if it would even need it.

Score: 0

By DaveGB

posted Jun 28, 2007 - 6:20 PM

A triple-layer disc is something Toshiba is also testing in order to offer capacity of 51GB. But the fact that each layer is limited to 17 GB, rather than the 25 GB per layer that's possible with dual-layer blue-laser discs, may be an indication that a three-layer format such as the one Warner Bros. patented last year may not have been feasible with older or existing blue-laser players after all.

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

edited Jun 29, 2007 - 1:25 PM

Guess away Dave.

Once again you're making claims you don't know the facts to.

You do not know about whether the 51gb discs will work in gen 1 machines.

I can tell you this tho, the 51gb TL disc is not being 'tested' anymore and it was formally submitted to the DVD Forum for approval some weeks ago.

You don't do that unless you're pretty sure you can meet their demands (it's why the dual format LG player can't carry the HD DVD logo, cos it couldn't perform all the functions necessary to be genuine and approved 'HD DVD').

I can also point you to spec sheets which show the original gen 1 HD DVD drives (NEC HR1100A) which do specifically mention triple layers (the old 45gb TL disc), bit rate transfer @ 36.55mbps and read rates @ X 2.
http://www.cloetens.be/custom/home/hd_dvd.pdf

The most likely reason the Total HD disc has been quietly dropped is that it turns out to be cheaper to just make seperate HD DVD discs and BD discs.

TBH I think dual format discs are a daft idea, if you're going dual format it's far better to dual format the player IMO.

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 2:03 PM

re-read the last paragraph then tell him hes guessing again. hes not making any claims... he copied it from the article.

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

edited Jun 29, 2007 - 4:04 PM

I hadn't realised he'd just cut n pasted from the main article.

As for guessing I was actually referring to his earlier comment....

"So if you want 51GB HD DVD players, your current HD DVD player is obsolete.
Lets hope Toshiba or the DVD Forum don't feel the need to upgrade HD DVD to tripple layer..
"

He doesn't know this, he is just spouting his usual ill-informed sh*te.

Score: 0

By dlab21

posted Jun 29, 2007 - 4:10 PM

true.

Score: 0

By Hocuspokus

posted Jul 1, 2007 - 12:48 PM

.......and note their total silence/ignorance on the BD side still releasing movies on SL 25gb BD discs.

Score: 0