ESPNSTI
.
Not trying to convince you or anything like that (and I'm not married to blu-ray just yet), but I believe that this portion of what you said is incorrect.NAIDANAC A said:i have heard that the bigger blue-ray disc are actually no better than HD-DVD's because of the compression technology they are using, Mpeg2 (i think) and it is 10 year old technology that compared to the compression device and method HD-DVD is using Blue-Ray's disc need more space and also have worse quality than HD-DVD because of this outdated way of compression.ESPNSTI said:What have you heard?
I think that Blu-Ray supports mpeg2, h.264 (avc) and vc1, which I believe is exactly the same as what HD-DVD supports:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD
MPEG2 doesn't automatically equate to lower quality if sufficient disk space is used to offset for the lower compression.
Looks like this was a problem with early development that was resolved:NAIDANAC A said:Also Blue-Ray disc coding and info is all written on the surface of the disc not under many layers, it is more prone to scratches.ESPNSTI said:What have you heard?
A solution was announced in January 2004 with the introduction of a clear polymer coating that gives Blu-ray Discs unprecedented scratch resistance
You mean Blu-Ray didn't do what Microsoft wanted, right.NAIDANAC A said:BTW my source is from an Microsoft employee so it is pretty biased but it is good to know that M$ was working on both sides until last year when they picked HD-DVD because they didn't like what Blue-Ray was doing.