May the Best Hi Def Win

My first question was the obvious one: so how does one go about figuring out which is better? This is made more difficult by the fact that I don't believe there's a single answer, but rather that the answer depends on what is important to an individual end user. Therefore I decided to forgo some arbitrary scoring algorithm, and figured that the best way to approach it is to compare related features and capabilities, and let you, the reader, decide what would be best for you.

Storage Capacity, Picture Quality, Scratch Resistance

The first obvious category is how well the devices do in their primary area, i.e. the playing of content. Both HD and BD use the same underlying video encoding standards, so presumably the BD format's larger size allows for less compression of the video data, and hence better image quality. The only apparent downside to BD would be that discs might be less resistant to wear, as more data is obscured by surface damage.

Based on personal experience owning and watching both HD and BD content, it doesn't seem that HD is handicapped by its storage capacity. In many cases the BD discs don't take advantage of the higher capacity, and only use about the same 20 GB that HD content seems to use. The picture quality is also often held back by the master media, e.g. if the original master film is somewhat grainy to begin with, then HD and BD simply make that more obvious. This is especially noticeable for many older movies that date back to the days before digital movie production.

In summary: there doesn't seem to be much of an advantage to BD from its higher storage capacity. At the same time, it seems that HD is slightly more resistant to wear over time.

Interactive Content, Likelihood of Player Crash


This category is one that I must admit doesn't make much sense to me. I have yet to see anyone mesmerized by the interactive content of either DVD, HD or BD. The whole premise doesn't make sense, as the CPU in HD and BD players is very low on performance and storage, the source information is small and selective, and the same content is googled or youtubed much faster online. In my view a disc should provide only enough "interactivity" to play a movie, and maybe some deleted scenes. But for some reason the "powers that be" decided that HD and BD should include a complicated "interactive" environment, perhaps to support some unstated world domination plans in the future.

Interactivity is implemented on HD using XML and JavaScript, and a subset of Java on BD. I read some developer documentation for both and found both to have made improvements over the complicated interactivity environment that was chosen for DVD. However, it's as if the purpose of simplification was quickly lost after the unworkable DVD concepts were thrown in the trash. To play back a HD movie, a developer must create at least 6 files in addition to the encoded video. To do the same for BD, it's unclear how many files it takes, but it seemed to be many more. In both cases files are further processed to resources-file like formats, making things "more interesting".

Between the two, HD is hands down simpler and less likely to crash. BD's problem is that until recently it was not even very clear exactly which parts of Java are supported (even though they were specified by the names of standards), or what support BD players would provide in real life, rather than theory. Further, the BD playback environment seemed much riskier, in that an embedded Java environment had to be running in order to provide interactivity, and to launch the movie content.

Just based on the foregoing, it would be easy to predict that BD players will therefore be more likely to suffer from the upgrade blues, weird player crashes and unexpected behavior. I have noticed some indication of this in my personal use as well, as I have had various "interesting" issues with BD discs, such as "dead zones", periods of time during which things like a simple button press will crash or hang the player.

World Monopoly Building, Content Protection, Ease of Hacking

It seems to me that the motivations behind HD and BD are similar, differing only in implementation. HD seems to represent Microsoft's plans for the HD content market, perhaps with some long term views to how this would play well within Windows and XBox, and whatever else they talk about in Redmond. BD represents Sony's attempt to do the exact same, with their own products, of course.

At least in theory some might make a decision to avoid HD simply because Microsoft is involved in it. Others might make a decision to avoid BD because they still remember how "easy" it was to use Sony digital players when they first arrived, loaded down with aggressive content protection as they were.

If you happen to be someone who doesn't like either camp, you might buy from both equally and use tools such as SlySoft's AnyDVD to bypass the copy protection features on the HD and BD media and use the content like you would video tapes. Based on SlySoft's forums it seems that both formats are similarly "open", and content can be unlocked for both. Based on the reading of the HD XML specs, it seems that HD might be marginally "better" for purposes of hacking, as it is less of a house of cards on the interactive content side, and customizing the appearance of content is easier, too.

Note: many countries, including the United States, have laws that restrict what one can do with protected digital content, even though the same countries are likely to also have laws allowing fair use. Even if you had a fighting chance for a fair use rationale, it's quite easy to overstep the boundaries of fair use once content is no longer digitally protected, voiding such an "explanation" with just a few mouse clicks. Unless you are willing to become personally engaged in the legal process (and expense) involved in examining if laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act override basic fair use rights, it is anything but a good idea to bypass the content protection on HD and BD media.

In short, it probably makes little difference if you show preference for Microsoft or Sony, by buying HD or BD. I recommend two players in every home. One for each spec.

Production Technology, Market Situation, Pricing, Availability of Content


Pricing is where HD shines. Since the announcement that Toshiba is cutting back on HD, and Warner is not publishing further HD titles, HD players and discs have become very reasonably priced. HD discs are going on Amazon for $12 and up, while the BD average seems to be almost double that. As far as availability of content goes, both formats seem to have plenty of it, with an anticipated imbalance over time as Warner skips production of new HD content.

It seems to me that HD discs are cheaper to produce than BD. This ties to the higher density of BD, which likely requires more expensive production equipment and process, and perhaps causes a higher defect rate. This might be partially offset by making BD content fit on a single layer, reducing manufacturing steps, but limiting available storage capacity. In general terms, it seems that HD is more likely to offer a better bang per buck ratio.

In Conclusion

I personally have grown to like HD more than BD. It loads faster and I've yet to have difficulties with HD discs, whereas BD has been at times temperamental. Now that HD is cheaper than BD due to the Toshiba and Warner announcements, I like it even more. I also would like to see HD stick around despite Toshiba's announcement, as HD provides competition to BD, which in turn is probably needed if we want to avoid overpriced Hi Def content and players.