Gizmodo does statistics on HD DVD vs Blu-ray... so who won?

In a highly mathematical exercise, Gizmodo has trawled the high definition disc reviews over at High-Def Digest - about 300 in all) and averaged all the ratings they've given out. They then put it in a pretty graph that concluded - statistically - that Blu-ray wins slightly on audio quality, but loses out on video quality, standard definition extras, and high definition extras.

But how could this be? Spec sheets claim the same audio codecs are supported on Blu-ray and HD DVD. Why would one format sound better? And why is HD DVD kicking major Blu-ray bonus content ass? ISN'T IT ALL IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE BOX COLOR??

The story is too old to be commented.
techie4254d ago

I expect this to level out over time. Hd-dvd made the first move with interactivity, but Blu-ray is following suit - I don' know if Hd-dvd has any sort of patent on their interactivity, but if not then Blu-ray seem to be sorting all of this out. Shame it didn't have it with it's first releases.

BubblesDAVERAGE4254d ago

It is only a mater of tiem b4 they take over...and i didnt expect ps3 owners to buy bluray dvds..but they did

chopsuey2104254d ago

Well this is very interesting, I'm just going to wait until prices go down, and that the technology is better. I remember when the DVD players were like 300 bucks and then 2 or 3 years later, they were at 100 bucks, and not only that but the DVDs had more to them then when they first came out.

Boink4254d ago

they try to point out winners, they forgot to mention the losers in the format war...the consumer.

Shadow Flare4254d ago

In the grand scheme of things, those bars aren't the ones that matter considering they are so even. They missed out the the 2 most important bars: Movie support and storage space. Each of which blu-ray punches HD-DVD into the ground, into a soft mushy pulp

Kodici4254d ago (Edited 4254d ago )

While I agree that more movie studios have come out and backed Blu-Ray over HD-DVD this has not translated into more titles available for Blu-Ray. (Not on Amazon, HMV, Play or Ebay).

Amazon : 233 HD-DVD (

Amazon : 249 Blu-Ray

PlayUsa: 117 HD-DVD

PlayUsa: 145 Blu-Ray

Ebay: 836 HD-DVD

Ebay: 1048 Blu-Ray

There are already 3hr+ 1080p Dolby 5.1 movies on HD-DVD and still space for extras such as a standard DVD copy and multiple sound tracks. I don't think extra space on Blu-ray makes a much difference is not like its 10 times the size.

Maybe HD-DVD won't have the space to hold DTS-HD audio in addition to current data. But have you seen how much DTS-HD audio equiptment costs !! Only 15% of users have Dolby 5.1 setups so how long will it take to get sensibly priced HD audio hardware.

At worse extras may have to supplied on a second HD-DVD or a double sided HD-DVD which users would be quite happy with.

Bleyd4254d ago

You mention that Blu-Ray doesn't have more titles and you reference amazon in your list of stores that has more HD-DVD titles but you must not have counted them recently because that's changed. You should check out to see just what Blu-Ray has to offer over and above HD-DVD in Amazon.

dissectionalrr4254d ago

while you are right about the movie support issue, which is what really matters, the space comment is not correct. they make 51gb hd-dvd discs now. sure blu-ray has showed huge 200+gb tech demos, but they're tech demos, and not something anyone can buy, for a long time, atleast until holo media is available. which brings up the feature that is most important yet you left out... price. 51gb hd-dvd disc costs less to replicate than a 50gb blu-ray disc. that's all that matters. well, besides studio support.

Bleyd4254d ago

While HD-DVD has come out with a 51GB triple layer disk, it has not been approved by the DVD forum yet. They plan to get it approved sometime this year for production. This new triple layer 51GB HD-DVD disk won't play in ANY of the current HD-DVD players. This will mean that the install base of the HD-DVD community will successfully be split by this new disk. The DVD forum would never allow that at such a crucial time in the format's life. This coupled with the fact that HD-DVD is currently being outsold by Blu-Ray by about 2:1 should mean that the DVD forum will be hard pressed to not only approve this new disk but will also be hard pressed to continue to support HD-DVD entirely. If anything this new triple layer disk will only see the light of day in the hands of end-users in the form of yet another backup medium.

By the way, who said that this new triple layer disk will be cheaper than the dual layer Blu-Ray disk? I call foul play on that claim. Show me something that says this. If anything I can show you how Blu-Ray disks are cheaper per GB than HD-DVD disks to manufacture.

Shadow Flare4253d ago (Edited 4253d ago )

strictly talking about the movie industry, blu-ray has far, far more movies coming out for it then HD-DVD. There was an article that stated blu-ray has more movies coming out this month then HD-DVD does in the whole year. Blu-ray has far more studios backing it and the amount and range of movies is the most important thing to the consumer. Nothing else matters since they are so similar to HD-DVD. Thats why Blu-ray sales are beating HD-DVD sales by nearly 3:1, even though HD-DVD launched before blu-ray. And for space issues, i was talking about general computer usage and games, not movies. And bluray has far more space to play around with then HD-DVD. Is there any poignant STAND OUT points that makes HD-DVD worth investing in? uhhh...

PS. I think companies and people in general want to see the battle over as soon as possible, it gets stupid with 2 media formats nuttin' it out. And blu-ray seems to be the early succesor, so everyone's rootin it to win. That electronics company in australia doesn't even sell HD-DVD products, only Blu-ray. And DELL has made a deal to install Blu-ray drives into their laptops in the future. HD-DVD is dying, there's no reason it should stay and it would be a pain to everyone if it did stay

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 4253d ago
Show all comments (18)
The story is too old to be commented.