Talk:HD DVD/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There is already an wikipedia article for "

" article should be updated to the same format with cross-linking to show which companies support which format(s) exclusively or non-exclusively.

From my understanding of HD-DVD it is basically a DVD that uses a blue laser (and consequently smaller and tighter track) and is really just an upgrade of the DVD specs. —The preceding

) 2004-12-24t07:50:29z.

I thought HD DVD was a disc that used the normal red laser, but used compression algorithms to get the higher desnity. If it uses a blue laser, then why was it even created, it would mean that a new player would have to be bought anyway. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 131.216.19.30 (talk • contribs

) 2005-09-01t15:49:15z.

You're thinking of HD-DVD-9, which was proposed by Warner Bros. and uses a red laser. -Finster 2005-09-29t17:51:10z

Name change. Proper usage is HD DVD (no hyphen). See the DVD Forum and HD DVD Promotion Group links for confirmation. - HB —The preceding

) 2005-07-06t19:33:58z.

Edited the wording in the sentence mentioning HD-DVD being cheaper to manufacture, because existing DVD equipment can be modified to manufacture the HD-DVD disks.... —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 69.250.132.147 (talk • contribs

) 2005-08-10t23:33:43z.

Please get an account and/or log in... It only takes a few seconds, and really helps people, not only to be less likely to revert your edits, but also, to indentify yourself, so other Wikipedians can get an idea of your personality, based on what edits you make :) --Wulf 06:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

"On November 25th the Xbox 360 will be upgraded to HD-DVD in the Premium Version only."

Where is the source!? Nothing has been announced. —The preceding

) 2005-08-22t12:39:45z.

As far as I know, Microsoft has simply stated the Xbox 360 will eventually support whichever form of high definition disc (HD-DVD, or Blu-ray) "wins". --Wulf 06:02, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Microft is on the DVD Forum Steering Committee, which approved the HD DVD spec. A simple Google Search turns up more. But HD DVD for the Xbox 360 that's launching at the end of the year? That's news.
- Pueywei 06:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As stated before, nothing has been confirmed. The source of all this is the statement Bill Gates did in Japan in late June. See the article on Xbox 360 for more information.
- FoH

Actually it was annnounced at the 2006 CES in Las Vegas that Xbox 360 will have an external HD DVD drive add-on; however not much details are announced.

This article demeans Blu-Ray. It's not neutral. Give details not comparisions! —The preceding

) 2005-09-12t21:43:49z.

[Prejudice wording] It would be most proper to allow criticism from within the reader rather than using suggestive wording. The details are relative to the topic. But to use a word like "substantially" suggests that HD DVD is at a great disadvantage as far as the required size for the new video market. Storage size does not suggest a direct advantage or disadvantage especially since it's not defined which market that scenario may exist in. Negative wording motivates the reader to look with a cynical eye rather than a neutral eye.

HD DVD was developed for the market it was intended for. Blue Ray was developed for the market it was intended for.

This information should be presented objectively. —The preceding

) 2005-09-21t05:53:01z.

I think we all share your feelings on

sign your posts on talk pages.) -- Chris

18:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I was comming to wikipedia for information and I found this statement: "Blu-ray Disc was developed outside of the DVD Forum, and was never submitted to the forum for consideration." and I belived it was true, which it is but it doesn't tell the whole story. If it wasn't for the fact that I know of two DVD forums that have seem to have formed that it dawned on me a few minutes later. There is one for the movie industry and some dvd player companies (IIRC, who also spawed the formats DVD-R, DVD-RW, and DVD-RAM) and one for the PC market and the other dvd player compaines (who spawned the DVD+R and DVD+RW formats). It would be good to clarify that Blu Ray was submitted with one forum where HD-DVD was submitted to the other. --ZacBowling 05:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's actually incorrect as there is only one DVD Forum, which support and created DVD-R/W and DVD-RAM; DVD-RAM being mainly for the PC market. DVD+R/W formats were created by the DVD Alliance (a grouping of companies that didn't agree with certain projects from the DVD Forum or left for other reasons.) Mind you that the DVD Forum is/was considered the "official" format. WiZZLa 04:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[Neutral?] Are we being neutral on the competition subject? The Blu-ray page is much deeper and contains more information than this one. Perhaps a comparison page would help people decide more fairly?Hearth 02:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the neutrality here either. There's also some apparent vandalism/fanboyism going on in the

Blu-Ray Disc with regard to the history of that format. I'd also like to see some neutrality in these articles, or at least, factual accounts with sources... Locke Cole

05:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I tend to feel the same way. I was editing the

unsigned comment was added by 71.109.0.182 (talk • contribs

) 2006-01-06t04:56:54z.

I'm sure more information could be here. This is too small.--Occono 16:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This article definitely conveys an unconscious bias. I would attempt to fix it, but my coding and wiki-editing skills are not up to the task. It seems to me that this article does not provide a neutral standpoint, and I support Locke Cole's suggestion of a comparison page.

DVD Studio Pro does not allow burning HD DVD media, but it does allow burning HD H.264 content to a normal DVD. Why would Apple support HD DVD when they are on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS for Blu-Ray? -Finster 2005-09-29t17:39:54z

Nevertheless, DVD Studio Pro claims to support this. --Yamla 22:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

From the website: "Showcase your HD content with integrated, scalable H.264 encoding that allows you to fit HD content on DVDs using existing drives and existing media. Create HD on DVD versions from existing SD projects. Go from native HDV to HD on DVD with no recompression from Final Cut Pro and save time by encoding HD and SD in one Compressor batch." As you can see there is no mention of HD DVD anywhere. DVD Studio Pro does not claim to support the HD DVD standard in any way. [1] Paul^C/_T+ 00:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes but don't forget you'll need a H.264 compatible DVD player ;) It's like DivX. 81.247.103.54 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Psantora only quoted part of that feature from Apple's page -- he omits the final sentence: "Even create HD DVD versions from existing SD DVD projects." (http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/dvdstudiopro/) —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 198.77.206.228 (talk

) 20:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

I believe (from context) that that refers to HD projects that will be burned onto normal DVDs. An unfortunate combination of wording by Apple and silly naming conventions by the HD DVD Assoc. MasterCKO 04:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

HP Engineer claims Blu-Ray cash incentives

In the Controversies section it states an HP engineer has claimed the Blu-Ray alliance offers cash incentives to hardware manufacturers who adopt their technology. Is there a citation which states this engineer's name or has the engineer opted to remain anonymous? --Klhuillier 07:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm, I believe that's FUD. Thunderhawk89 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't doubt it, but that's my bias. --Can Not 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the "Controversies" section three times so far as blatant copyright infringement. I will continue to remove the section until such time as the issue of copyright infringement is addressed. I have warned two users (here and here) who added this section, but I'm assuming both are sockpuppets of eachother (as is the third anon IP to add it). People should remove these additions on sight and without hesitation. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, isn't copyvio man.. and I hope you invented sockpuppet story to try gain respect, by the way you are no minority... —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 201.29.9.238 (talk • contribs

) 07:01, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

It's a word for word copy of the articles cited. One user modified them slightly, but they are still a derivitive of a copyrighted work. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No copyvios, sorry and keep the information (looks like you trying to hide the section in pro-HD-DVD bias) —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 201.29.34.245 (talk • contribs

) 13:24, December 31, 2005 (UTC)

Copying content, verbatim, from another copyrighted source is a violation of copyright. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No copyvios Locke Cole is vandal blanking true informations. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 201.29.32.208 (talk • contribs

) 18:16, January 2, 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's true or not is irrelevant, it is illegal to copy verbatim from copyrighted sources into Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble finding exactly what passages are actual verbatim copies of the linked articles--could you perhaps provide a side-by-side comparison of the anon's text and the article sources? I'm pretty picky about plagiarism (see User:TenOfAllTrades/Aloha Dupe), but there's a lot of material to wade through in all those links. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page, it looks like it got changed at some point though significantly (though the first sentence and the initial FUD part were left behind, which was enough for me to believe it was just being copied still). —Locke Cole • t • c 19:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone disagrees with you. You are wrong. I've run searches on all the articles for key phrases and can't find any evidence that the text was copied from another article. You even admit this. So why keep deleting valid facts? —The preceding

) 2006-01-25t20:25:24z.

Region codes

Will HD DVD "support" region codes ? If somebody reliably knows then please add this information .... —The preceding

) 2006-01-10t16:21:11z.

It seems HD DVD, at this point, is still unclear about whether to use region code or not, though various reports seems to indicate that it will not have region code. On the other hand, Blu-ray has 3 regions: 1. America and Asia (Excluding China), 2. Europe and Africa, and 3 (China and Russia). —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 71.109.0.182 (talk • contribs

) 2006-01-28t00:15:56z.

The HD DVD format doesn't have a region code system. HD DVD players are mandated to play DVD-Video discs, and as such must respect the full DVD-Video specification, including support for region codes on DVD-Video discs. Tvaughan1 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's clear up some confusion and misinformation about this. First, there is this line, taken from the article:

HD DVD is frequently mispelled 'HD-DVD' as people think it copies the dash from previous generation DVD-R/RW.

First, this is not a misspelling, which is also misspelled. Spelling involves letters, not punctuation.

Second, the name of the character is a hyphen, not a dash. There are several kinds of dashes, see Dash.

Third, what exactly draws the correlation to DVD-R? I would think the correlation, if any, would come from CD-ROM—remember those?

Fourth, HD-DVD is a perfectly acceptable abbreviation. It is a hyphenation of two abbreviations: high-definition–digital versatile disc.

Abbreviations in English do not use spaces for one very good reason: it breaks up a word, which makes its placement in a sentence confusing. It's great that some Japanese marketing exec though that "HD DVD" looked better than "HD-DVD", but he didn't actually speak English. Compare the readability of the following two versions of the same excerpt from the article:

There are many advantages to the fact that HD DVD discs will be the same size as current DVD discs. Backwards compatibility will be available with all HD DVD players allowing consumers to only require a single player in their homes to play both HD DVD and DVD discs.

There are many advantages to the fact that HD-DVD discs will be the same size as current DVD discs. Backwards compatibility will be available with all HD-DVD players allowing consumers to only require a single player in their homes to play both HD-DVD and DVD discs.

For me—and I am a quite literate individual—the second is more easily readable. So, though "HD DVD" is official, "HD-DVD" is easier to read and as such will be what most English-speaking people will use, regardless. It should not be shunned, but rather stated as an acceptable alternative.—Kbolino 22:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

For me—and I am a quite literate individual—the first is more officially accurate. So, though "HD-DVD" is easier to read, "HD DVD" is official and as such will be what most English-speaking consumers will use, regardless. It should not be shuned, but rather stated as the official term. Pvt Mahoney 11:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I doubt that. History has shown that what's most used is only slightly influence by what's correct. Nil Einne 02:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. The article is about a format, and the title of the format is "HD DVD", not "HD-DVD". References to the format should use the correct spelling and punctuation. To do anything less would be inaccurate and a disservice to those who come to Wikipedia for accurate information. Tvaughan1 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed the full-sourced controversies section. Has a valid reason for this? --Rick Browser 02:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Opinionated and one-sided.

Mirror Vax

15:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact reported on media and

sourced. --Rick Browser

01:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see fact that supported the article text. Just a bunch of worthless rumor and innuendos in the old EEtimes article. Not encylopedic material. Daniel.Cardenas 03:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[Release titles changed...] I'd like to mention an article http://www.panandscan.com/news/show/Warner/HD-DVD/448, stating that the release dates of the movies Warner Bros. for the HD DVD standard have changed... Thought I'd mention it. Wondered if anyone else can confirm this? Pvt Mahoney 14:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[The video release lists] Previously, this article didn't have this content and I was happy to see it linked to in the source documents as external links. Are they really necessary? The title lists take up half the article space? :( Oh, and this is of course not just for HD-DVD; I dislike them on the Blu-ray page too. ;-) Besides, the lists here may be outdated too, at least according to this article: [2]. This conflicts with current content: "On the HD-DVD side, Warner Home Video said it will start selling HD-DVD titles on April 18. The first movies will include "Million Dollar Baby," "The Last Samurai," and "The Phantom of the Opera."" -- Jugalator 21:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[Complete list of releases - headers] This is directed toward User:shawnc. I removed the section headers because noone *noone* is going to look in the TOC for a specific company releaseing DVDs. Keep them out of the TOC. And I hope everyone likes how I condensed it. Fresheneesz 12:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed everything other then the 4 slated for 2006-04-18, which could only be a trivia footnote in an encyclopedia article anyway. --

16:45z

I know the page says it can go up to triple layers (45 GB) but I was wondering is it possible it can go up to quadruple, if not quintuple layers? Or it can just go up to 45 GB? Thanks. --McDonaldsGuy 06:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. But they aren't even done with triple layered discs, so we won't see 4+ layer discs for awhile. Sonic3KMaster 06:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK with DVDs they were talking about up to 20 layers. They never got past 2 so I wouldn't be too enthusiatic about anything above 3, if they even reach that (it's probably technically possible but it depends if they really bother or not) Nil Einne 19:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

HP is shown on the Blu-Ray page as one of the companies suporting Blu-Ray, I can not imagen a company suporting 2 standards, what is correct? —The preceding

) 06:04, 6 April 2006.

As I recall, HP is supporting both, to make sure they are on the winning side. Sonic3KMaster 06:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure HP doesn't want to make sure they're on the losing side? :-P Nil Einne 02:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

HP is still supporting BD. If they weren't, they wouldn't be on the BDA home page. They area also on the BDA Board of Directors. http://www.blu-raydisc.com/general_information/Section-14009/Index.html 02:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, that's what Sonic said. But he/she said that it's because they want to be on the winning side. I say it's because they want to be on the losing side :-P Nil Einne 12:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, porn has been one of the key drivers of new technology (video tapes, DVD, internet, broadband?). I wonder if this is going to be the case again. Does anyone know which format, if there is a bias, the porn industry is leaning towards? This may be the key to victory or defeat... Nil Einne 19:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I read on PS3updates.qj.net that some Japanese Porn companies will support Blu-Ray. I'm not sure how valid the post is, though. Sonic3KMaster 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The porn industry is a very valuable industry to have on a standards side, but it isn't the selling point that most standards organizations will talk about. You won't find the groups saying "We're supported by Porn!" But the more you think about it, Porn will be a major contributor to a success or failure of a standard.

Honestly, I'd like Blu-ray for it's capacity, but I'd like HD DVD for it's non-Sony heritage =D... I'm torn between the two... I will just be waiting until three years before I ever buy into either standard to see which is more economical. Pvt Mahoney 22:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. That's why I'm wondering whether the porn industry themselves have given any hint. Although now that I think about it, the porn industry is most likely to just do both. It doesn't make sense to take sides. Well unless one side give you more money ... Nil Einne 02:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"HD DVD proponents point out that multi-layer Blu-ray discs are still in development" This excert from the overview section don't make any sense. If the reader cares what is going on with Blue-Ray they can go to the page that discusses it. Perhaps the section should be re-writen to say, "BD 100GB for four, 200GB for eight layers have been demonstrated in a laboratory but is still in development for commercial release." Or maybe we could move all the Blue-Ray stuff to a section compairing and contrasting the two systems.

"Both formats will be backwards compatible with DVDs" From what I understand Blue-Ray is NOT backwards compatible with DVDs, though a double sided DVD can be created with DVD on one side and Blue-Ray on the other. The drives are backwards compatable, but Blue-Ray disks can not be read in a DVD player where HD DVD disks can if they are the proper format. Trisped 22:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read the Blue-ray Disc article before commenting on Blue-ray. The compatibility section in the :Blue-ray article is clear that a Blue-ray drive should be compatible with a DVD disk - certainly the :PS3 is supposed to be able to read DVD's as well as PS2 game disks etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-Ray_Disc#Compatibility

BTW - I agree that largely the article should link to the Blue-Ray article but otherwise avoid making :claims about Blue-ray directly.

GrantB 09:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt a HD-DVD disc can be read in a normal DVD player. Nil Einne 02:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who sees this as making no sense, it says that on november 19, 2003, the dvd forum decided by a seven to eight vote that HD DVD will be the successor? Shouldn't the winning format have more votes, especially in a battle with only two sides, Blu-Ray and HD DVD?...

All or most of the proponents for blu-ray probably didn't vote. Daniel.Cardenas 17:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant how HD DVD won in a seven to eight vote. The phrasing of the sentence would leave one to believe that HD DVD got seven votes with what can only be assumed to be Blu-Ray to have eight votes. If HD DVD had the eight votes instead of the seven votes, then it should be said that HD DVD won based on an eight to seven vote.

I always read that as 'seven out of eight'... MrTroy 08:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Me too, as in HDDVD got 7 votes out of 8 and BRD got 1 vote out of 8 JayKeaton 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it should be written as such. To me, 7 to 8 sounds like it's saying 7 votes for one and 8 votes for the other. If you read it carefully, you would have to assume it's 7 out of 8 but if it is 7 out of 8, it should be written as 7 out of 8... Nil Einne 02:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"The HD DVD format also can be applied to current red laser DVDs in 5, 9, 15 and 18 GB capacities..." What does that mean? Is it that the new high-resolution video format can written onto a standard DVD? That would seem obvious, as one can put any data onto a DVD disc, but I doubt that a DVD player would know what to do with it. "Blu-ray does not work with red laser discs." Blu-ray video format? physical format? Does "work with" mean "can't be put onto"? Does "red laser disc" mean a DVD disc? If these statements mean something to you, reword them. Otherwise, I don't feel they're adding much to the reader's understanding. Spiel496 04:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There has been speculation thet the audio watermark feature might stop playback of discs containing a home video that is shot with the TV in the background (with audio on) playing a audio watermarked movie (or whatever)... Nil Einne 02:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following from the list of alternatives

• Enhanced Versatile Disc - from China

Reason being EVD is an alternative format to DVD, not HD DVD. There is no evidence it supports HD content. It was clearly intended as an alternative (that appears to have failed) to DVD based on the time frame and the design. Note that we don't discuss DVD or VCD as an alternative format. Clearly it doesn't make sense. Nil Einne 02:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Whats the status of someone DeCSSing HDDVD? any other piracy or DRM circumvention out there? any stuff done by creators of HDDVD that violates fair use?Patcat88 11:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm really curious about this also, and it seems odd that it's not included, as it is a major theme in

the competing product's article. Neutral POV seems to require some mention of DRM here, but there's none. Apparently, HD DVD uses AACS[3] as well, that should probably be included. Thomas B

17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

CSS is only the system used by DVD, so DeAACS would be the more appropriate term. There doesn't seem to be any newsworthy progress on this front as of yet, but I'm sure there are already projects working on cracking it. Furthermore, I'm not sure exactly what information you wanted on piracy, but there doesn't seem to be any of that yet either. --Kamasutra 02:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

ANYTHING, i read the other bluray article, and this, and there is a total lack of ifno.Patcat88 21:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The article currently states "The HD DVD format supports 720p, 1080i and 1080p formats." Supplements included on discs have been in 480p and 480i. Is there any practical limit on what format video can be in? Could a 576x432 or a 320x240 video be included, for instance? —Gabbe 14:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. I've found info on this and included it in the article. —Gabbe 19:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Like in the section Interactive content there is to much info about Blu-ray which should be in the article about that format and not here (i think).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.166.234.67 (talk • contribs)

I agree. I've been taking blu-ray stuff out when it has been controversial. Daniel.Cardenas 13:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think reasonable minds could differ a bit on this point. HD DVD and Blu-ray are competing formats, and all uncertainty about them stems from that fact. Some aspects of the technologies can only be meaningfully understood in context of this rivalry. Certainly, comments about the other format should be sparse and brief, and rely on reference to the other article more than in-depth description, but you might give some leniency for areas of sharp comparison.Thomas B 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "sparse and brief" are the right words. When I read the section Interactive content I thought for myself "Oups, I must've hit the back-button, cos this is the blueray page again..." But then I noticed to my astonishement that it's not...I feel to inecure on the subject and to this whole wikipedia-thing to change anything though...

Mabye someone should post on this and the Blu Ray section on how someone found a way to copy the discs using the print screen method.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=32937

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/top/bluray-and-hd-dvd-hacked-already-185758.php

July 14 2006 UTC

It says that 1080p isn't supported by the players as an output... I was looking on the Toshiba site and it sad "native resolution through HDMI" as output... This was for the HD-XA1 and HD-A1... do they not output 1080p? Or, can this be clarified sourced and are there plans for units that will output 1080p... and why the limitation? I think the article should be more clear on this. gren グレン 10:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither is 1080p capable, see [4] —Gabbe 22:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

None of the players output 1080p, but as they output 1080i@60, all the information from the 1080p@24 image is being sent, all that is needed is a good deinterlacer and the image is reconstructed with the full 1080p image. Most HDTV's contain a deinterlacer that can do this. It is interesting to note that the samsung blu-ray player also produces 1080i @ 60 output, but they added a deinterlacer chip to the player to convert back to 1080p before it leaves the player, so they could claim 1080p in their marketing --Windsok 14:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In your iHD section, there is more said about BD-J than iHD, why is so much space being spent on the opposing format's interactivity layer? Also, the statement about the BD menus being "more seamless" does not appear NPOV, as well as being factually incorrect. None of the BD titles currently out use BD-J at all, they're all using BD-MV. See [5]. BD-MV is just an extension of normal DVD navigation. Bkilian 21:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think what current titles use is relevant to BD-J being mentioned unless you're implying that BD-MV should be mentioned as well, but I agree with the rest you've said. The section should only talk about BD-J (or BD-MV) when in direct comparison to iHD. --Kamasutra 10:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am an HD DVD author and yes I can confirm that HD DVD does NOT support 24p. All footage has to be either at 29.97, 59.94, 25 or 50. NO 24p.

All of my sources are the actual Scenarist authoring systems which cannot exactly be sourced on the internet unless you have access to the HDAA forum, so you are just going to have to trust me.

Cinevision, the encoder for HD DVD and Blu-ray will automatically run a 3:2 pulldown for any 24p assets in HD DVD mode. Blu-ray is perfectly capable of doing 24p. This cause insurmountable irriated when attemping to edit video to align to a GOP structure since the timecode for the source material and the encoded assets do not synconize. All of this can be easily found in the Scenarist Standard Content Authoring manual. -Teekol 17:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The HD DVD video specs (section 5.2) corroborates the claim that HD DVD does not support native 24p storage. Sorry about reverting so snippily, but alot of rumours and speculation gets added to these pages all the time. —Gabbe 04:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The specs also state that for 50 Hz regions (those using PAL) video content must be incoded in 24 fps - meaning either the infamous 4% PAL speedup using 2:2 pulldown or 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 pulldown (which I doubt will be used outside musicals). This was brought up on AVS [6] in April, and I've added a mention of it in the article. —Gabbe 15:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, guys, why was the section on 24 removed again? The HD DVD encoder, Cinevision, will accept 24p video, but it will run it through a 3:2 pulldown to change the video to 29.97fps (for NTSC). You can talk to any HD DVD engineer or Author. HD DVD DOES NOT SUPPORT 24p! How else can I possibly cite this information until you leave it. I cited the bloody Sonic Scenarist manual, what more do you need! I don't mean to be belligerent but this is getting ridiculous. Why don't you look at a final disc and count the timecode. It will not be 24fps. -Teekol 17:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? It was changed by an annonymous user who may not even read this. Of you'd like, just revert it with a change message directing them here. --Kamasutra 02:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

"The HD DVD specifications also mandate

4% speedup

for film-based material."

Amir from Microsoft has confirmed that all Studio Canal's EU releases will be encoded at 24p, so I dont think this is correct. --Windsok 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course HD DVD supports 24fps: close to every VC1 HD DVD title has main video encoded at 24fps (check the timestamps in the EVOBUs). Even the European titles I have seen do this (the 50Hz support is "optional" for a player) and for very good reasons: HDTV-Ready 50Hz TVs have to handle 60Hz content. Page VI6-159 of the HD DVD spec says that "Typical usage of frame rate of 29.97 is ... (3) when source frame rate is 23.976p in conjunction with 3:2 pulldown flag". (AndyPennell 17:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

Just as a clarification to readers of this talk page, the (horribly worded) text of the article is in agreement with what you are saying. On that note, the current "Support of the 24p mode in HD DVD" section is so badly organized, horribly worded, unenlightening, and uninteresting to most readers that I think it should be deleted if it can't be fixed (perhaps by incorporating it elsewhere) soon. The factoid itself might be worthy of inclusion, but not in this form. Snacky 05:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's badly organized, but it's a valuable piece of information (and it has a reference!), it must be incorporated into one of other sections. Alexander UA 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree and removed the section, if someone wants to write it properly, with decent references, and add it to the appropriate section, please do so. --Windsok 05:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

considering i can go down to the neighborhood Best Buy and pick up a player and a few discs, can it really be called "next-generation" anymore? Paul Irwin 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point... but today DVD is the established common format... the "current generation". The term "next generation" is made with obvious reference to DVD, today's standard optical disc format. Tvaughan1 17:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone got any stats/info on the success of this format up until now? I know its proponents have been hailing it as a disruptive technology but I'm yet to see anything remotely disruptive about this or Blu-Ray. One way or the other, it's worth including info on the effect that the new formats are having on the DVD market. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 03:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Videoscan released a report recently which gives HD-DVD currently an 11:1 sales advantage over Blu-Ray, its a private report though, you have to pay to get a copy, so not easy to reference. http://www.thedvdwars.com/index.cfm tracks HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray sales for amazon.com --Windsok 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

what about the three layer thing? 1 dvd layer and 2 hddvd layers on the same disk? hopefully noone's going to be a cock and delete this this time.

Sign your posts! And watch your language. This format will be very difficult and expensive to manufacture. 1 DVD and 1 HD DVD layer is practical, but the HD DVD title would be limited in capacity. Tvaughan1 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Which of my rights does it manage? Nothing, unless manage means wrest. So I will rename it to "Digital Restriction Management" if nobody complains, because this describes much better and unmistakable what it suppose to do. --Wall unit 08:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The "rights" DRM refers to are the ones of the owner(s) of the intellectual property, not of the consumer. Clearly the opposite perspectives will yield opposite interpretations, so both are correct. However, don't be surprised if someone reverts your change eventually. --Kamasutra 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I found that the external link to an hd dvd developer's weblog techgen.spaces.live.com was removed. The editor gave a reason that it is spam which it is obvisiouly not if one looks at the page. Maybe someone revert the edit?

The HD-DVD promotion group keeps an updated list of all released, and to be released HD-DVD titles, I have used this as the new reference for the released titles section. It would be good if wikipedians could check the list for updates every now and then, and update the article when needed. The list is located here - http://www.hddvdprg.com/eng/list/list.pdf --Windsok 15:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The text in the overview seems to be anti-Blu Ray and less focused on facts...Experts and Senior Editors kindly see.--The world salutes the Rising Star...Try to be One 02:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited the article to remove a statement that claimed that HD DVD is cheaper to manufacture than Blu-Ray disc. At this point, there is no factual evidence that this is the case. If you understand how these formats are manufactured, you would know that this is not a valid claim at this point.

A single-layer Blu-Ray disc holds 25 GB... more than enough to hold a Hollywood movie in high definition, especially when advanced codecs are used. A single layer HD DVD holds 15 GB... also enough to hold a high definition movie. However, dual-layer HD DVD discs are relatively easy to manufacture, versus single-layer HD DVD. Two half-thickness substrates must be molded and bonded together in either case. The information layer can be molded into both substrates, and with the appropriate metalization and bonding processes, a dual-layer HD DVD can be made (just like a dual-layer DVD). Today it isn't much more expensive to manufacture a DVD-9 than it is a DVD-5. HD DVD will most likely be the same, as manufacturing techniques and yields improve.

Blu-Ray Discs, on the other hand, consist of a single 1.1 mm thick substrate protected by a 0.1 mm thick "cover layer". Thicker substrates are easier to mold accurately... and it takes only one injection molding machine per manufacturing line (as opposed to 2 IM machines per DVD or HD DVD line). Dual-layer Blu-Ray discs require a more exotic and difficult photopolymer process to manufacture, and yields will be lower (and costs much higher) than for single-layer Blu-Ray Disc manufacturing. However, single-layer Blu-Ray discs have more than enough capacity for most purposes. So we may see this market situation continuing... Single-layer Blu-Ray discs competing against dual-layer HD DVD. 25 GB vs. 30 GB. If this continues to be the case, and if the spin-coating process for the 0.1 mm thick cover layer on Blu-Ray discs is as cheap and reliable as it should be, Blu-Ray discs may be cheaper to manufacture than HD DVD. This is also due to the fact that only one glass master and one stamper would be required for a single layer Blu-Ray Disc, while 2 masters and 2 stampers are required for each HD DVD title.

But it remains to be seen... this story is just starting to unfold. Real, reliable financial data will be hard to come by anyhow. Both formats must be "sponsored" to some extent, as manufacturers seek to establish early market share. In any case, I would recommend that we hold off making any definitive statements on manufacturing costs of HD DVD versus Blu-Ray Disc. Tvaughan1 18:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I realize the talk page isn't exactly a vote, but I want to throw my full support behind the paragraphs above. Any treatment of cost comparisons must be able to address the points Tvaughan1 just raised, or else the comparison is invalid. Snacky 00:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

From the infromation that I found on a few web-clips. People from Microsoft have claimed that Blu-ray uses the old compression technology. However, it seems that DVD, HDDVD, and Blu-ray are all using MPEG-2? What's the story behind it? Nov. 19 2006

After participating in reformatting articles like the

. With this in mind, I would like to start this discussion regarding how to go about it.

It is my intent to bring this article inlife to the format used in the Laserdisc artcle by shuffling around current content so they fit into hardware and software areas of the HD DVD format, specifically:

• Merging, sorting, and renaming content from "Digital Rights Management", "Interactive Content" under a Software section.

• Merging, sorting, and renaming "Specifications", "Common Disc Structure", "Laser", "First released players" under a Hardware" section

Mind you, this is just a very rough plan and not set in stone. I have in mind but since it is a major one, I would like to have input from other major editors to make sure that our intents do not conflict. If there is no opposition (via my or this talk page) I will go through with it by Saturday, November 25.--Kenn Caesius 16:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A few technical specifications are listed in the table, but it isn't described in detail elsewhere in the article. Is it a standard DVD-ROM disk authored with advanced compression codecs for use only in HD-DVD players, or is it an attempt at creating a disk playable on both types of players? BigE1977 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I am very unsure but it does look like a standard DVD with the High def (h264/mp4/divx/etc) compression. I would really like someone to expand on this and also does Blu-ray support this? --64.240.163.221 00:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This refers to an HD DVD title that is written to a standard DVD. The DVD player must be able to play back the DVD at 3X the nominal DVD transfer rate , in order to be able to play the HD DVD title on the disc. Of course, the proper software and decoders must also be present. The nominal playback rate for a standard DVD-ROM is 10.08 Mb/sec, not 11.08 as shown in this table. I'll correct this now. Tvaughan1 01:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that while the video spec is 10.08 MB/sec, the drive transfer rate is spec'd at 11.08 MB/sec. I'm not sure which one belongs in the table, but I just wanted to point out this possible source of confusion. Spiel496 06:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

So it is using the mp4 compression tech on a standard DVD? How many minutes would a current DVD be able to hold on a standard double sided disc with this compression tech? Could it hold all 3 lord of the ring movies on one disc? Does Blu-ray support this?--64.240.163.221 02:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello?--64.240.163.221 18:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this thing on??--64.240.163.221 18:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Testing testing... 1...2...3... does anyone have an answer for above?--64.240.163.221 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I answered this

here. Hope it helps...J.delanoy

16:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks64.240.163.221 04:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

People keep on changing the Industry Support section to add exclusives/remove non-exclusives. Warner includes HBO and New Line Cinema, and HBO has already released on both HD DVD and Blu-ray. The Weinstein Company releases through Genius Products, and has already announced Blu-ray releases. The independents, particularly Image Entertainment, Magnolia Pictures, and Goldhil Entertainment have either released or announced releases for both formats. You can get Blu-ray titles from Image and Magnlolia right now. The section has now been updated with links.

I don't think it's fair to use a blanket statement "All movie titles released so far have had the feature encoded in 1080p" and then provide no reference to show this is true. Unless someone can verify that EVERY HD-DVD movie ever released has had the feature encoded in 1080p this statement needs to be changed. Also the sentence needs to have a clarification added, like "All HD-DVD movie titles released so far have had the feature encoded in 1080p". It's a bit vague about exactly what movies are encoded at 1080p. I'll fix it up myself in a few days if someone hasn't already. Happy 2007, from Australia! Pretender2j 15:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

68.102.100.240 replaced word exploit in the title of and in the text of the subsection with "fair use fix". It is not comprehensive because it could be used for other purposes other than fair use eg. backing up DVDs. I think replacing it with what it was, "exploit", or using something else such as "AACS key decryption code" (just some words I strung together). It exploits a vunerability to decrypt a key. Apartmento 12:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What does anyone else think? Apartmento 12:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been bold. I've done it. I've changed it to Advanced Access Content System#Muslix's exploit Apartmento 12:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems Toshiba has announced at their pre-CES promotion event that they've developed a triple layer (50 GB) variant of HD DVD. Unfortunately the only info I can find on it is incredibly light on details (re: is this real, or just a lab development that'll never make it into existing players?). I'm hesitant to add this until some confirmation is made that this is indeed being backported to existing players via firmware updates and that software will be made available on the format. Thoughts? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if it weren't light on details, I believe blogs are not considered reliable enough sources for citing on Wikipedia. Just wait until you can find a better source. --Kamasutra 06:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to veer too far off topic, but I think the resistance to blogs as reliable sources is likely because of places like LiveJournal or MySpace. This, OTOH, appears to be a staff blog at a respectable magazine. Having said that, agreed, I'd rather find out more before adding anything to the article about this. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to come to a consensus about how to handle the triple-layer "HD DVD". Yes, it's true, Toshiba made a 51 GB disc, but is it an HD DVD? Could we call it a 50GB CD-ROM? I'm sure most people would answer "No, of course not, because a CD player wouldn't be able to read it". Well, is there any chance this triple-layer 50GB disc will play on current HD DVD players? No. Those players were designed before the triple-layer disc existed. No studio is going to release movies in this format. There are always going to be new developments in optical storage, and it makes sense to include them in the article of most closely related technology. But there needs to be some separation. A person coming to the article with the question "What is this HD DVD I keep hearing about?" is going to get the wrong impression if the caption on the opening graphic says simply "15, 30 and 51 GB". Spiel496 06:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. If people keep adding it (to the main article) it will be removed. Pretender2j 07:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets try not to be suggestive in either direction, we really have no idea what could happen with this, I believe that the best wording for the last sentence is "There is no guarantee that triple layer discs will work in existing players as it was not part of the original mandatory specifications." If anyone has a better idea for wording that does not put words in toshiba's mouth let me know. Ray andrew 06:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

First, your sentence is grammatically incorrect. The pronoun "it" apparently refers to the plural "discs". Yeah, it's a minor thing, but I can't seem to fix it because you keep putting the flawed prose back in. Second, the phrase "Toshiba doesn't claim..." does not put words into Toshiba's mouth. Third, if Toshiba were selling a triple-layer-compatible player, there is absolutely zero chance that they would keep it a secret.

I'm open to suggestions, but to me the phrase "there is no guarantee" is way too optimistic, like "There is no guarantee that a pig can fly under its own power." Spiel496 07:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fix the grammar if that is the problem. Referring to a press release that says noting on the topic as "evidence" that current players will not work with TL51 is misleading. I understand that it is your opinion that it will not work, however there are many that think it will work just fine. I don't have links handy but the first generation NEC drive (used in the A1 and XA1) was advertised as working with TL45 disks. So the chances of TL51 working is definitely greater then zero.

We need to stay neutral and report the facts, the only fact so far is that Toshiba has announced TL51 and will submit it for addition to the spec. If you have a better way of wording it that remains neutral then lets discuss it here. Ray andrew 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The section previously stated that on January 8, 2006, at the Consumer Electronics Show, it had been said that hd dvd was ahead of bluray. however they didn't cite it. I looked and the article I cited said they were neck and neck.J.delanoy 02:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, my reasoning on the cnn article was probably weak, but it still may be true. Bluray's website claims to have passed hd dvd, but I doubt that that is a very reliable place to look for info. Can someone find something else or revert it back? (I don't know how to do that) J.delanoy 00:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

HD-DVD has the backing of the porn industry, so its practically won already.--58.169.56.10 05:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

and this is based on the fact that most people buy porno dvds rather than films from the 7 of 8 Blu-Ray exclusive major studios? independent research has proven Blu-Ray is winning the format war and is currently has sales higher than HD in a 3/2 ratio, this should probably be cited somewhere in the article. --AlexOvShaolin 02:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is beginning to become a major argument. The question of which format will win has yet to be answered and no one can tell at this point. We can continue to throw out evidence to support our opinions until the world ends, and it won't change anything. I do not think that a Wikipedia Talk Page is the place to carry on this discussion. Also, this article is about HD DVD, not Blu-ray. Beyond mentioning that HD DVD is in a format war with Blu-ray, nothing about Blu-ray should be in this article. The same applies to the

Blu-ray Disc article.J.delanoy

16:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and besides that, anyone who ignores the importance of the porn industry on the success of either format doesn't appear to know history to argue anyway IMHO Nil Einne 04:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as of Feb, Blu Ray is winning. January sales of BR discs are nearly triple that of HD-DVD, and industry leaders would love to see a single format take the crown in order to prod the format fence-sitters. Do a Google search for sales numbers (I put a ref in the article). Sony has shipped over 2 million PS3 units worldwide, while there have only been 175,000 HD DVD shipped to the US (Can't find global numbers, but the 360 is really struggling in Japan). I would have to say I'm pretty neutral in this format war, and in fact I rather despise Sony's marketing and PR guys, who plan to "declare Blu Ray winner", but the trends are pretty obvious. Also, this article does seem rather biased towards defending a dying format. --Jmalc 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Jmalc, I have reverted the changes you made to the article, The numbers used in the article from the first two weeks of January have been discredited since they did not include combo disks. Furthermore, this is not the place for this kind of commentary. --Ray andrew 01:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

According to this report HD DVD is still ahead of Blu-ray sales; As of the 18th of

U.S. alone, (that is standalone players only, it does not including any computers with HD DVD drives or Xbox 360 add-ons drivers - the latter sold was reported to have sold 92,000 units during the christmas holiday season alone)^[3]

.

HD DVD had an increase in sales for that single week but did not overcome blu-ray sales. HD DVD has not outsold blu-ray in a single week since blu-ray started outselling them around Christmas. All this past week did was reduce the lead blu-ray had held. As is, blu-ray is already taking back the ground it lost and the previous ratios are coming back. As far as stand-alone sales, HD DVD holds a lead but it's one of slight fractions and not tens of thousands. If you were to include computer add-ons you'd have to includes the thousands of blu-ray computer drives and millions of PS3s. Also, please sign your posts by adding 4 tildes after your comment. 70.154.188.70 17:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people keep changing articles with no proof. Stop it. —The preceding

) 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Like yourself. 17GB per layer discs and triple-layer discs are not part of HD-DVD spec and as such are POSSIBLE FUTURE additions that have no annouced released date, no schedule for when they may be released, and are 99% likely to be incompatible with the optical heads in current and near future drives. If you have some proof proving otherwise, then by all means add the 51GB disc back in and REFFERENCE it. Pretender2j 07:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's why,

http://store.hbo.com/sm-the-sopranos-season-6-part-1-blue-ray-dvd--pi-2568739.html

and,

http://store.hbo.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2568738

So there you have an HBO Blu-ray release and an HBO HD-DVD release. STOP CHANGING IT TO EXCLUSIVE. IT WILL BE CHANGED BACK! Pretender2j 05:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The poster who is editing it has been doing so repeatedly for quite some time with blatent disregard for accuracy 04:51, 24 January 2007 65.13.151.42

It's gone ? Can someone tell me why ?

This appears to be the result of vandalism. Hopefully, AntiVandalBot or another bot will be able to recover the article. J.delanoy 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I added something. Can someone make it legible? I don't have time to do it myself. See the note here. Hope someone can restore it.J.delanoy 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases. NoSeptember 00:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I didn't notice that.... oops. J.delanoy 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

People continue to remove the sentence 'However console add-ons of this type are traditionally (and notoriously) relatively unsuccessful due to poor sales.' saying that the addon is selling well. I contend that when put into perspective it is not 'selling well', not selling poorly just not well. With 10.5 million Xbox360's sold 1 and 'more than' 100,000 addons sold the attach rate is quite small for something that is supposedly 'selling well'. The maths (I'll use 150,000 to be generous) 150,000 / 10,500,000 * 100 = 1.4%. With pre-release claims from Microsoft that they would achive a 30% attach rate the current figures are less than good. Hense, I will be reverting the deletion of the sentence. Pretender2j 15:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You will have to provide a source for you comment, especially the "notorious" part. The HD-DVD add on represents almost half the sales of HD-DVDs drives, so it is very successful. This is an article about HD DVD, not about Xbox360 attach rates. Daniel.Cardenas 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

When it says that they aren't selling well, Pretender2j is talking about the add-on as opposed to projected sales of the add-on. The fact that it has made roughly 5% of the projected sales means that, even if it is the best-selling HD DVD drive, it is not, by any means, doing "well". Pretender2j, then, is correct in saying what he did if he can find an article to cite about it. J.delanoy 22:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, this is an article about HD-DVD, so it is doing very well in the only context that matters to this article. Daniel.Cardenas 22:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You all seem to be forgetting that the 360 HD DVD drive has only been available for about 3 months, and even then it hasn't been released worldwide yet. Its short sighted to declare that the attachment rate is low and thus the add-on hasn't been successful, when the availability is limited and its only recently been released. There are other problems with the sentence anyway: firstly, theres no citation. Secondly, how can you say this type of console add-on has been unsuccessful in the past when the 360 HD DVD add-on is the first of its type? There haven't been any other console add-ons (that I know of anyway) that are dedicated movie players; other add-ons in the past had the ability to play different games (Sega 32X, Sega CD, Jaguar CD, 64DD), not movies. I won't remove this again until I see what everyone else thinks, though I'll tag it with a 'cite needed' for now.58.169.6.1 00:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reference for the claim that "console add-ons of this type are traditionally (and notoriously) relatively unsuccessful due to poor sales" I think such a statement should be removed on sight. Nil Einne 12:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

3x DVD is just the name for HD DVD content on a regular DVD, it is not a separate format and thus it should not be listed on the comparison table of formats as it just causes confusion. Ray andrew 07:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, the compromised players could still be used to break old titles but not newer releases as they would be released without encryption keys for the compromised software players requiring hackers to break other players. The latter alternative is not a desirable option, because it would result in legitimate users of compromised players being forced to upgrade or replace their player software in order to view new titles.

There is no reference for this. The previous actions and words of the publishers etc suggest to me that they don't really care and indeed, this was one of the primary reasons they included AACS. Therefore, IMHO the undesirable part should be sourced or removed. It may be undesirable from a consumer or software player vendor's POV but I'm doubtful publishers etc care Nil Einne 04:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen talk of this disc being in the specs. Does anyone have a cite for this? 65.13.151.42 06:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It's in the spec, "Initial HD DVD-ROM physical format specifications (version 1.0) were released in 2004 to define 12 cm single (SL) and dual-layer (DL) discs storing 15 GB per layer in single (SS) and double-sided (DS) configurations"[7]. Its definitly feasible too as evidenced by combo disks, you would just need to glue two hd halves together. --Ray andrew 06:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I see that it says double-sided in the specs but in that link it only refers to combo DVD/HD DVD. I guess it would be possible since they have Total HD discs out there but I was curious if there was any company working on double sided HD DVD or if it's still in the realm of consumer speculation like 100GB BD-ROMs and 51GB HD DVD.166.214.162.79 21:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm somewhat doubtful anyone will bother much with double sided for the same reason no one bothered with double sided DVDs. Most drives don't support reading both sides so you need to flip the disc. Ergo, there is limited advantage to double sided versus 2 discs from a consumer POV. And consumers generally speaking don't like to flip or change discs. Ergo no one is going to bother with either double sided or two discs. As a recordable media, perhaps it will happen to some extent like with DVD-RAM but most will almost definitely be single sided. However as I understand it, given the way HD DVD is designed, there is absolutely no reason why you can't have double sided discs Nil Einne 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)