What went wrong?

>>59265572
capacity

>>59265572
It was a piece of shit.

On a single layer HD DVD could only hold 15 GB while blu ray can hold 25 on one layer
Plus lack of support from movie studios
Plus when the coffin was buried if you wanted your movies on blu ray (providing you bouguht a player by then) you had to pay Werner 5 bucks to replace it on Blu ray

why use this shit existing a superior platform that is better in everything?

Just like Sega update devices 32X was not a good idea

>>59265596
How so shit poster? Also HD DVD planned on H.264 from the start, while Bluray was only really planning on MPEG2.

>>59265627
Also looking from it at a console standpoint
If you wanted to watch a blu ray movie on a PS3 you just put the disc in but if you had a 360 and wanted to watch an HD DVD you had to buy a 200 dollar drive that only played the format
Granted the PS3 was five hundred and ninety nine US dollars but you got a console that didn't use a format that was gonna die in two years

>>59265664
It had less capacity
Also, when a video standard changes, the media holding it doesn't have to.

>>59265710
MPEG2 is pretty blocky even at the highest end of the bitrate.

>Also, when a video standard changes, the media holding it doesn't have to.
Yeah but the hardware needed to decode it would need to change.

I'm still annoyed that laserdisc didn't catch on.

>>59265572
Sony actually owned a Movie studio and the PS3 was another advantage for Bluray to win.

It was an inferior format though, Bluray is a lot more fragile compared to Bluray. Bluray costs a lot more too and it uses an inefficient codec so quality ended up being worse despite having almost 2x the storage size of HD-DVD.

History always seems to repeat itself with these physical formats with the better ones losing out in the end.

File: 0669afe8_Bit-Rate-Average.jpg (83KB, 900x440px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 900x440px

>>59265746
mpeg2 holds up fine at high bitrates

>>59266031
*Bluray is a lot more fragile compared to HD-DVD

Flash drives made it irrelevant.

File: smh fam tbh.png (721KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 1280x738px

>>59266035
Kek I just wanted to quote just with this picture

>>59266069
>Kek I just wanted to quote just with this picture

Now you can quote me. I'm drunk

Blu-ray was adopted by the porno producers.

Nothing was inherently wrong with the technology, it was BETAMAX all over again.

>>59266091
I think the most relevant part was that the PS was the much more successful console if you see it on an international level. Xbox only won in the US because of muh patriotism and games catered to jocks.

>inb4 >>>/v/

>>59266432
Not all 360s even had HDDVD support.

They didn't support as invasive DRM or region locks.

Studios that released HD-DVD often did simultaneous releases on BD, while studios rarely did the other way around,

>>59265572
Sony always wins baby

Sony always wins, baby

also it was just worse than Blu Ray in every single way. Be fucking grateful that there wasn't a major home media console maker pushing HD DVD so that normies adopt it and Blu Ray would have died.

Also that monologue the nerd guy gave in Tropic Thunder.

>>59266034

>inferior to every other option in the picture
>g-guise it holds up fine

Retard.

>>59268893
The point is that no HD disc worth it's weight in plastic is encoded with a bitrate below 10MBit/s anyway.

>>59267453
bluray is terrible. new movies need a internet connection and special player to work. dvds did not have this "feature"

>>59266457
No 360 had HD-DVD support, it was a separate addon you had to buy.

>>59265627
>you had to pay Werner 5 bucks to replace it on Blu ray
at least they are region-free.

>>59269985
>new movies need a internet connection
what?
all BDs I have run fine without a connection.

>>59266034
>PSNR
Just stop, this is a horrible way to compare quality.

>>59270560
its some new copy protection thing. maybe its not used yet then

>>59269985
>new movies need a internet connection and special player to work
As which?

>>59270654
that is for UHD BD. We were talking about HD-DVD and regular BD

>>59265572
Blu-ray was better, this is actually the one time it went right, normally it goes wrong
>Betamax lost
>LaserDisc lost

>>59272002
Betamax players were more expensive to produce and buy and couldn't play as long as VHS tapes.

Laserdisc lost because shit was fuckhuge compared to VHS and was more expensive. With DVD, there was finally a consumer-friendly disc format for movies.

>>59270676
i know my terminator 2 BD has some really fucking obnoxious online features

you can just turn them off in any BD player though i think

File: s4dTtBy.jpg (86KB, 384x313px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 384x313px

>>59272002
>>59267453
>>59266034
>>59265664
>>59265627
I have both; a PS3 slim and a 360 (Arcade) with HD-DVD drive, movies on both have literally the same quality.

>>59274700
HD-DVD lost because of capacity, not quality.

>>59272002
Betamax deserved to lose. Yes it looked better but at the time people cared more about being able to record an entire football game on one tape than having it look slightly less fuzzy on their CRT televisions. Laserdisc is another story, but unlike Betamax it found a niche within the enthusiast crowd for it's bonus content and "trick playback" features like perfect still frames and time-shifting.

>>59274808
a couple years ago i found out about Video2000

>1979, so a little after vhs/betamax
>4 hours /per side/ (double sided like a cassette tape), later 8 hours per side
>better quality than VHS (not sure about betamax)
>full resolution pause (apparently a thing people wanted)

>>59274289
Ironically none of this stops someone from simply streaming the movie to a capture card

>>59276783
you need a legally-dubious HDCP-stripping box to capture video from a bluray player

>>59276783
>>59276827
can't you just rip out the video tracks using a BD player too?

>>59276827
Hardly, if I stream it to my computer I can simply capture it with something fucking stupid like OBS or some shit.

The HDCP doesn't have a clue what you're trying to stream to, it could be a TV or a capture device

>>59276847
No the blu-ray devices have some really wicked DRM on them to stop you from doing that. Thats why you need to stream from your blu-ray player to a "Television/Monitor" and capture it through that

Unlike before where you could just capture and rip the data, you have to let the movie play and capture what plays. Whats good is you don't need any special software beyond normal tools

>>59276854
>>59276871
My teacher tried to play a movie from his laptop's CD drive to a projector for the class to see but the movie wouldn't play because of the HDCP shit stopping him because he used a VGA cable.

These DRM solutions always and ONLY fuck the customer

>>59265572
HD DVD was supposed to be easier to manufacture n shiet, but Bluray was Sony and they had more money.

Also PS3 helped bring it to households.

But what happened during this transition was that internet streaming took off, so Bluray adoption wasn't as big as lets say DVD or VHS.

>>59276871
huh, could've sworn they had cracked the DRM for blu-rays a long time ago

>>59276951
They've updated it since, sure old blu-rays you can rip easy but new ones are getting more and more intrusive to the point you can't do simple stuff like >>59276910
said

>>59276951
they haven't stopped making new versions of HDCP

>>59277015
well i was thinking more of AACS but yeah HDCP is also a big pain

why do they even do this

>>59277073
to try to stop people from using capture devices by only allowing display devices to be connected

People are going to say it was a capacity issue but those people have no idea what they're talking about as it was much easier to double layer or even triple layer an HD DVD than it was a blu ray.

It came down entirely to advertising and movie studios taking sides early into the fight. It also helped that every PS3 was a blu ray player.
The prone industry also played a role.

TL;DR Sony pushed Blu Ray hard and convinced multiple prominent studios to jump on board early. HD DVD never had a chance.

People use bluray?

>>59278436
yes

>>59276871
cant you just make the capture card show fake info to the player that says its a tv?

File: 50016736_87641 (ZoomImage).jpg (139KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1200x1200px

Why even bother with optical media?

>>59281953
Some people like to buy movies and/or games

>>59280614
HDCP

>>59281953
More expensive to make

>>59278436
Yes, it's basically the last bastion of the buyfag mentality.
That's not to say buyfag mentality is completely retarded. I understand wanting to actually own your shit, but let's be honest, most of the actual blu rays anyone owns at this point are already visually outdated.

>>59283112
i don't care about your disgusting fetishes and their quality. just answer the question

>>59283418
HDCP

>>59278436
Those collectors and encoders from the scene probably. Though Techmoan bought himself a high-definition VHS (D-Theatre)

>>59281953
Discs are way cheaper per GB.

>>59265572
(((Hd DvD)

>>59265572
The PS3 helped Blu-ray succeed. Also it was just better in general.

>>59272002
>>59274232
>>59274808
>Betamax
It's right there in the name. They should've called it Alphamax, then it would have been dominant.