Coming Soon (?): Triple Layer HD DVD and New Combo Discs. But Who Cares?

[Jeremy Charette]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/09/dvd-forum-approves-51gb-hd-dvd/' target='_blank'>http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/09/dvd-forum-approves-51gb-hd-dvd/</a><br /><br /></div><i>"We haven't yet seen any official confirmation of the news, but it's been reported that the 51GB triple-layer single-sided HD DVD Toshiba first announced at CES has been approved by the DVD Forum. (The last we heard about this, the new format had been submitted for approval.) Of course, this might mean consumers will need new players to read 51GB HD DVDs, which could potentially damage the format more than help it; the last thing either HD DVD or Blu-ray need right now is to fork hardware compatibility with their own embattled formats, so we'll hope what we've heard about 2nd and 3rd gen HD DVD players being able to read 51GB discs via firmware upgrade is true. Also up to bat: the "twin" dual-layer DVD / HD DVD combo-disc was also approved, with one 5GB DVD layer and two 17GB HD DVD layers."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/hd-dvd-51gb.jpg" /><br /><br />We'll have to see if these rumors pan out, but I still have to ask: why? VC-1 encoding is good enough to fit a full length movie <i>and</i> HD audio <i>and</i> HD extras onto a standard dual-layer HD DVD disc; which begs the question: why the need for more room? I don't watch most of the extras as it is. As for twin dual-layer combo discs, I don't think it will help sell more HD DVDs. Consumers who have a regular DVD player will look at the two versions side by side, and buy the DVD copy, because it's half the price. Those who have HD DVD players aren't going to care if there's a DVD version on the disc. Not to mention the fact that you're going to lose most of the extras (and possibly part of the main movie) with just one 5GB DVD layer. So what's the point? I'm a fan of HD DVD, don't misunderstand, but both of these developments seem pretty meaningless.

[Felix Torres]

Why?
To even up the listings on the specifications checklist.

Its all about the mainstream media saying "BD has 50GB capacity while HD-DVD has only 30".

Its an optional format, anyway; I doubt anything will ship on it.
Not sure, but I think the disks are backwards compatible; remember, Toshiba was talking about triple-layer disks before any players shipped. The issue isn't likely the players--the laser heads already have to focus on different depths to accomodate both red and blue laser specs and even CD specs in some players.
Realistically, the only real use for a 50GB format is for shipping an entire season of an SD TV show on a single disk.
Now, if they ever stage The Ring Cycle for disk release, then maybe they'd need it. :wink:

[Jeremy Charette]

Dumbest. Format war. Evar.

[Felix Torres]

This is what you get when you're more concerned with Powerpoint Bullets and Press Conferences that what customers actually want.
Both sides are so hung up on beating each other they're no longer even thinking of the customer.

[Jeremy Charette]

As has been pointed out in other articles on the subject today, this means that the HD DVD camp can say they have more capacity than Blu-Ray.

Exactly 1 GB more. :roll:

Here's an open suggestion to the HD DVD consortium (hell, I won't even charge for it): instead of spending money on triple-layer technology to "beat" Blu-Ray, why not just explain why you don't need it? Put money into an ad campaign touting the advantages of HD DVD.

This is precisely what Microsoft did with the Xbox 360. Pundits cried out "But it doesn't have an HD DVD drive! The PS3 ships with Blu-Ray! How will you fit all that game content on a DVD disc!?!?!?!"

Microsoft said: "We don't need HD DVD." And they were right. Even the biggest Xbox games were only using 20-30% of a DVD's capacity. No one has maxed out DVD's capacity on the Xbox 360, and I don't know of any upcoming games that will need more than one DVD disc.

With VC-1, HD disc capacity is a non issue. End of story.

The really ironic thing is that Blu-Ray is designed around 50GB capacity so they can fit an MPEG-2 encoded movie on the disc. They originally claimed it produced the best picture quality. Turns out VC-1 actually produces better PQ than MPEG-2, and at a fraction of the size.

All of this makes me wonder how or why WMV HD never took off (besides Microsoft's lack of willingness to support it). The WMV HD movies I have look phenomenal, and they easily fit on a standard DVD disc.

[Jason Dunn]

All of this makes me wonder how or why WMV HD never took off (besides Microsoft's lack of willingness to support it). The WMV HD movies I have look phenomenal, and they easily fit on a standard DVD disc.

I think the industry didn't want to let Microsoft get a foot in the door: WMV HD was a direct frontal assault by Microsoft on the video industry...VC-1 is more of a stealth approach and is working much better. ;-)

[Felix Torres]

No one has maxed out DVD's capacity on the Xbox 360, and I don't know of any upcoming games that will need more than one DVD disc.


Actually, BLUE DRAGON (from MS itself) comes on multiple DVDs.
The MS argument is a bit more subtle than "You don't need the space", because realistically, you can use the extra space under *some* conditions. The full Ms position is that blue laser drives are slower than a 12X DVD drive, that with built-in hardware decompression a lot of bulky data can be stored in compressed form, and that the kind of games that might need more than 9GB disks (JRPGs) are highly linear and can be stored on multiple DVDs with no problem. More, if current-gen consoles are as graphically-capable as they're supposed to be, there should be no need for pre-rendered video, which is why the JRPGs need lots of space; they don't do pre-scripted scenes in-engine.

There is every indication that the upcoming likely masterpiece, MASS EFFECT, will make that point with a flourish. Think: GEARS OF WAR graphics for a an 80+ hour Action-RPG built around dozens of explorable planets fitting on a single DVD. That should be the end of that debate.

As for why WMV HD never took off, its pretty clear that it was:
1- ahead of its time
2- too PC-centric
3- too consumer focused
MS was pitching it for digital cinema but Hollywood took issue with the fact that the format didn't provide for DVD-style "extras"; that the file format was stream-based, not frame-based; and that since files were too compact. Hollywood *doesn't* want a format that can be replicated too cheaply. In fact, ideally, they'd want a strictly Read-only media format but they just haven't found one that would fly in the market yet.

With VC-1, MS has taken a different tack, promoting not its higher compression capabilities but rather its superior video quality even compared to higher data-rate codec implementations. Between that and the early availability of professional grade authoring tools (something H.264 may be getting soon but still lacks) they got VC-1 onto both BD and HD-DVD.

In yet another instance of the format war helping MS, the BD camp was forced to adopt VC1 because of its adoption by HD-DVD, which still grates on Sony because, as pointed out; it moots the whole capacity argument. Add-in that VC1 is integral to the MS IPTV effort and there is a lot of momentum building behind it. Biggest lack is they need to get digital camcorder manufacturers to start supporting it.