View Full Version : BluRay v HD-DVD : The Press
MR.COATES
16-10-2006, 13:29
I noticed an article in today's Metro about the release of BluRay. If the media are stating it's VHS v Betamax all over again (which ok, basically it is) and that the first BluRay players are £1k compared to the Toshiba HD-DVD Drive at "costing around half the price".
To those who own an HDTV but don't really know or care about the technical differences, it's obvious what the choice is if they're "basically the same thing".
Not exactly what BluRay needs at this stage I'd imagine?
I noticed a similar feature about a week ago in some glossy magazine like Heat or one of its rip-offs and it basically said the same thing 'VHS vs Beta' etc etc. HD cheaper, Blu Ray the same but more expensive, but at least it had a little bit about the PS3, but only to note it had been delayed.
MR.COATES
16-10-2006, 13:54
The small piece in the Metro did comment on the PS3 providing an expected boost to BluRay next year.
You have to remember that Blu-ray is the superior product (HD-DVD only has 66% capacity of Blu-ray, Blu-ray has a higher data transfer rate), and that it also has the lions share of the studio support. (Bets are even off that Universal will be supporting Blu-ray by the end of 2007 now).
You pays your money, you takes your choice....
Michael Mackenzie
16-10-2006, 15:39
You have to remember that Blu-ray is the superior product (HD-DVD only has 66% capacity of Blu-ray, Blu-ray has a higher data transfer rate), and that it also has the lions share of the studio support. (Bets are even off that Universal will be supporting Blu-ray by the end of 2007 now).
You pays your money, you takes your choice....
Yeah yeah yeah... :|
You have to remember that Blu-ray is the superior product
so was betamax
LouBarlow
16-10-2006, 16:22
It's surely all about sales, and I think HD-DVD is outselling BR releases by something like 11:1.
The Ps3 is what will ultimately decide things, as even the big-hitting Br exclusive studios, will not be able to resist the move, if that ratio is maintained.
There's something re the comparion of the "Video Tape" wars and the "HD Disc" wars that I'm not currently sure about..............
To me, the "Tape" wars were just that.
You had the same films available on BOTH formats, and in the end due to sheer numbers, VHS won the day.
Now, if the "HD-Disc" Wars actually the same?
From what I've heard, some companies are going to be releasing their movies on HD-DVD, whilst others are going to release them on BluRay.
Is this right, as if it is, it's a totally different scenario from the Tape wars.
Michael Mackenzie
16-10-2006, 16:29
It's surely all about sales, and I think HD-DVD is outselling BR releases by something like 11:1.
The Ps3 is what will ultimately decide things, as even the big-hitting Br exclusive studios, will not be able to resist the move, if that ratio is maintained.
I don't think the PS3 is going to make as much of a difference as people are suggesting. Yes, it means Sony can say they've got X number of Blu-ray players into people's living rooms, but I wonder how many of the early PS3 buyers will be rushing out to pick up copies of Click and Monster House. I suspect they'll be spending most of their money on games, and will maybe pick up a couple of Blu-ray movies for curiosity value. Not that a number of people won't buy it purely as a cheap Blu-ray player, but I suspect that they'll be vastly outnumbered by those who are first and foremost gamers.
LouBarlow
16-10-2006, 16:39
And that's of course without mentioning the 360 add-on, which will surely give the market a massive boost, and 6 months advanced prominence (at least) over the PS3
Spooksta
16-10-2006, 17:32
To me, the "Tape" wars were just that.
You had the same films available on BOTH formats, and in the end due to sheer numbers, VHS won the day.
Not how i remember it. My local renta-video shop had loads of film on VHS and very few on Betamax. It did not look and even split to me. Yes i do remember some films on both but not alot. Dont forget there was also V2000 (Double sided VHS) that came out in 1979.
And you could rent a Atari 2600 for £15 a week :lol:
fattyboombatty
16-10-2006, 17:35
I don't think the PS3 is going to make as much of a difference as people are suggesting. Yes, it means Sony can say they've got X number of Blu-ray players into people's living rooms, but I wonder how many of the early PS3 buyers will be rushing out to pick up copies of Click and Monster House. I suspect they'll be spending most of their money on games, and will maybe pick up a couple of Blu-ray movies for curiosity value. Not that a number of people won't buy it purely as a cheap Blu-ray player, but I suspect that they'll be vastly outnumbered by those who are first and foremost gamers.
what drives me crazy is the fact that people believe because the ps3 has a bluray player it will be a good player. the ps3 bluray player WILL be **** - FACT! :wave:
in fact, i'm going out to buy a hat. and do you know what i'll do if the ps3 player isn't ****??? yes, that's right...
irascian
16-10-2006, 17:53
I noticed an article in today's Metro about the release of BluRay. If the media are stating it's VHS v Betamax all over again (which ok, basically it is) and that the first BluRay players are £1k compared to the Toshiba HD-DVD Drive at "costing around half the price".
I have no axe to grind either way but I thought the Metro piece was clearly skewed when it talked about Blu-Ray getting a boost when the PS3 is released next year.
Not a word about HD-DVD getting a boost through the £129 X-Box 360 HD-DVD player being released THIS year!
Arguments about the technical superiority of one format over another seem rather academic given that that didn't help Betamax win over VHS and reviews of the first two very expensive Blu-Ray players seem to indicate that they give a disappointing picture.
LouBarlow
16-10-2006, 17:56
Arguments about the technical superiority of one format over another seem rather academic given that that didn't help Betamax win over VHS and reviews of the first two very expensive Blu-Ray players seem to indicate that they give a disappointing picture.
Indeed - size doesn't seem to matter anyway. 'Click' was one of the first 50GB BluRay releases recently hitting the streets in the States, and has been slated for it's poor transfer...all the room in the world will not make up for a poorly compressed image.
Not how i remember it. My local renta-video shop had loads of film on VHS and very few on Betamax. It did not look and even split to me. Yes i do remember some films on both but not alot. Dont forget there was also V2000 (Double sided VHS) that came out in 1979.
And you could rent a Atari 2600 for £15 a week :lol:
Yes, but it kinda went that way after a while.
It was easily 50/50 for a while, but then before long the VHS collection started growing and the rest is history.
Reason I recall at the time, was that Sony would not allow companies such a radio rentals to rent Betamax machines.
In fact I (and my mate) were only able to rent our Betamax machines as a small shop used to buy the units and rent them out in an unofficial manner.
It was only VHS you could rent, and as the players were £600 ish (and wages were half or less than they are now) Renting was very popular.
So, all the people who wanted one, had no choice but to get VHS, hence they wanted to rent VHS movies etc etc etc.........
Not quite going to be the same now, well, unless Sony (in typical Sony fashion as they NEVER learn) screw up again.
Spooksta
16-10-2006, 18:11
Arguments about the technical superiority of one format over another seem rather academic given that that didn't help Betamax win over VHS
Yes, and when did the general public buy the technically superior product....never. Price will always win with Jo Blogs off the street. The people that do want the technically better product are the ones that also want the best of both worlds. Or the ones reading forums like this. So they will buy both (eventually) Unless Blu-Ray pulls its finger out soon its game over.
And the chap that will eat his hat if the PS3 Blu-Ray player is rubbish...better get the salt and pepper ready cos i dont think it will be ****. You can get £25 dvd players that give as good a picture as a £200 one. Theres is not realy that much to DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray technology. Its expensive due to the R&D that went into it and as has been pointed out in other threads, a few codec tweaks improve the end result already.
Also.. (taken from another site)
"It has been suggested that Sony Betamax lost the format war to VHS (in becoming the general home video recording/viewing system) because the adult video industry chose VHS instead of the technically superior Sony system."
Its also looking like the porn industry is going the same way as last time and supporting the cheaper product as they have a high turnover of titles making them cheaper to produce than BR.
amcanally
16-10-2006, 18:52
Also.. (taken from another site)
"It has been suggested that Sony Betamax lost the format war to VHS (in becoming the general home video recording/viewing system) because the adult video industry chose VHS instead of the technically superior Sony system."
Its also looking like the porn industry is going the same way as last time and supporting the cheaper product as they have a high turnover of titles making them cheaper to produce than BR.
One thing that is different this time round is that back in the tape days that was pretty much the easiest way to get porn into the house, nowadays we have the monster that is the internet...
Me? I've just ordered a 360 addon so I'm slowly turning into a HDDVD fanboy :nuts: when previously I thought BlueRay was the future.
Its going to be interesting to watch this all pan out...
Yes, and when did the general public buy the technically superior product....never. Price will always win with Jo Blogs off the street. The people that do want the technically better product are the ones that also want the best of both worlds.
Technical superiority is nothing. Quality matters - Blu-ray could have a million times more capacity than HD, but if the PQ doesn't match, then even the movie fans will want the better product.
And the chap that will eat his hat if the PS3 Blu-Ray player is rubbish...better get the salt and pepper ready cos i dont think it will be ****. You can get £25 dvd players that give as good a picture as a £200 one.
True, but then again the PS2 was a terrible DVD player.
Theres is not realy that much to DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray technology. Its expensive due to the R&D that went into it and as has been pointed out in other threads, a few codec tweaks improve the end result already.
If that is the case, then why are BR players twice the cost of HD? Assuming that the majority of sunk costs are fixed (ie. not related to the cost of making the players) then it is almost certain that decreasing price would increase sales to give a greater overall profit, the HD market is very elastic - if HD players were as cheap as DVD players, everyone who owned an HDTV would buy one, and the cheaper they are, the more people will buy in. Keeping costs unnecessarily high will do nothing good for sales or profit.
Also.. (taken from another site)
"It has been suggested that Sony Betamax lost the format war to VHS (in becoming the general home video recording/viewing system) because the adult video industry chose VHS instead of the technically superior Sony system."
Its also looking like the porn industry is going the same way as last time and supporting the cheaper product as they have a high turnover of titles making them cheaper to produce than BR.
Actually, the costs of producing a DVD are similar whether you print 1000 titles or 100,000 (the main cost is in making the transfers and setting up the printing software), thus for the adult movie industry, where most DVDs have runs of only a few 1000 titles, costs will be very important. This would also suggest that many smaller DVD firms will chose HD-DVD instead of Blu-Ray, which could affect the audience demand.
Spooksta
16-10-2006, 20:04
If that is the case, then why are BR players twice the cost of HD?
I would say its because BR is quite different to DVD where HD-DVD is an advance in DVD. So there has been alot more R&D in BR. Obviously there are other costs.
Just my humble opinions but you make fair points :)
alphatyrant
16-10-2006, 20:07
We got some R2 Blu-Ray discs in our store last week, have to say for all the capacity claims it's amazing the lazy sods can't be arsed to include anything in the way of special features....Hostel, Exorcism of Emily Rose, SWAT....in fact out of the 6 titles only 1 had a few features. Pretty bad for £18-£20 each.
Spectre07
16-10-2006, 20:51
It's surely all about sales, and I think HD-DVD is outselling BR releases by something like 11:1..I read somewhere HD-DVD is only seeling 33% more than Blu-Ray.
Michael Mackenzie
16-10-2006, 21:00
I read somewhere HD-DVD is only seeling 33% more than Blu-Ray.
The sales have been quoted as everything between 3:1 and 11:1.
adencool
16-10-2006, 21:26
how about if neither format takes off!
after all most people still have crt's, and only a minorty of people have a 32"+ screen
i know a lot of people that are more than happy with dvd and the quailty that dvd gives out, i cant see people who have a £22 dvd player upgrading to one of these formats, and the price of films - most dvd's are around £10 - £15 will people be willing to spend the extra
i think the two formats are too new, i.e. people are still happy with dvd - 5 years time maybe but not now, i look at this like the cd, there are better things out there (dvd audio etc...) but people are happy with cd
i think there is only one winner now - dvd (until br / hd can price match dvd in films and players)
zantarous
16-10-2006, 22:27
i think there is only one winner now - dvd (until br / hd can price match dvd in films and players)
Just putting in my two cents but HD DVD is pretty much matching the price of new DVDs when bought on the web, as for the players remember DVD players started out a similar price. I expect the prices of HD DVD players to fall quite quickly.
Just today I was reading an article about how most of the big manufacturers are selling of their old stock of CTRs and now only producing flatscreens. Come next year and if you are buying a new TV it is going to be HD Ready. Infact I was gob smacked when I was on Totenham Court Rd on the weekend one shop had in its window a HD ready 32" screen for under £500. HD will make lots of headway in the UK next year.
I was intrigued to see The Gramophone's (http://www.gramophone.co.uk) normally balanced AV section batting for Blu-Ray in the current issue, making statements that from the perspective of these forums were completely wrong, eg., completely ignoring the fact the BD is currently more expensive and less good than HD-DVD :thinking:
The sales have been quoted as everything between 3:1 and 11:1.
13:1 and 11:1 were the fanboy made up figures, the actual figured are 3:1 as disclosed by the HD-DVD camp.
Michael Mackenzie
16-10-2006, 22:49
13:1 and 11:1 were the fanboy made up figures, the actual figured are 3:1 as disclosed by the HD-DVD camp.
I said 3:1, not 13:1. As it happens, the 3:1 figures refer to the month of August only, so it's anyone's guess what the true figure is over a more extended period of time.
I said 3:1, not 13:1. As it happens, the 3:1 figures refer to the month of August only, so it's anyone's guess what the true figure is over a more extended period of time.
I know you said 3:1 ...I saw 13:1 on another forum but you weren't to know that :P
I would say its because BR is quite different to DVD where HD-DVD is an advance in DVD. So there has been alot more R&D in BR. Obviously there are other costs.
Just my humble opinions but you make fair points :)
If that's the case it seems to me that all the R&D has yielded a product no more beneficial, in general, to that of less 'technically advanced' medium: HD-DVD.
50gb vs. 35gb?? How relative is that compared to what it's going to be used for? How much space does a Hi-def transfer, 1080p + hi-def sound etc... actually consume? I would assume that those who've backed HD-Dvd agree that 35gb (HD-dvd max, which ever is more) is an acceptable size otherwise they wouldn't have backed it.
Are Sony maxing out picture and sound quality, filling 50gb, and therefore leaving room for just bare-bones editions?
LouBarlow
17-10-2006, 06:04
Are Sony maxing out picture and sound quality, filling 50gb, and therefore leaving room for just bare-bones editions?
The 50GB title I mentioned before, is still using the old-school MPEG2 compression technique, which by design takes up more space than the much improved VCI codec from Microsoft that all HD-DVD's use...hence they are gaining absolutely nothing from the extra space.
It's all a marketing ploy 'look at us, we have bigger discs!' when the old saying as never been more apt, it is not how big it is, it's how you use it....
neilalford
17-10-2006, 08:12
There was a poll on the BBC website yesterday asking peoples opinions on which format they'd go for, last time I looked both had about 16-17% of the vote (with Blu-Ray marginally in the lead), the other 65% said DVD was good enough for them!
MR.COATES
17-10-2006, 08:31
It's a valid point actually, plenty will just let this ride out for quite some time, especially those with CRT's.
But for those with HDTV's and no Sky HD or Telewest TVDrive, an HD-DVD/BluRay player may be just the thing. And as already said here earlier, price is bound to be a factor, not the size of the discs.
I actually spoke to my girlfriend about this who I've gradually been scarring with all my geeky habits. Her opinion was quite interesting. If BluRay contains more space on the discs then that's got to be good - but only if they use that space for something. i.e. if the picture and sound quality is pretty much the same then why would you pay more for one type of disc and significantly more for a BluRay player?
Which, I honestly think is a really unbiased and obvious answer.
I'm ONLY buying HD-DVD because I've got an Xbox 360. It's the cheapest way for me to get something I really want (BluRay or HD-DVD I mean). But the price of discs in the states were very clearly $5 more for BluRay discs everywhere I looked.
I've been kinda thinking about this, and at one time I thought HD DVD was onto a winner cos it had the DVD name in the title, but anyone think there's a chance of it being percieved as a cheap alternative to the more glamourous sounding 'Blue Ray'? '
HD DVD? nah mate, thats cheap and the same as DVD, its Blue Ray that's the proper upgrade' - '
I heard far dafter things when I worked in a video store. For example, there was a perception amongst some people that the Dreamcast was the PS2, but not as powerful as the PS1, so Sony let Sega release it while they worked on the proper PS2. Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.
hookbeak
17-10-2006, 08:56
I've been kinda thinking about this, and at one time I thought HD DVD was onto a winner cos it had the DVD name in the title, but anyone think there's a chance of it being percieved as a cheap alternative to the more glamourous sounding 'Blue Ray'? '
HD DVD? nah mate, thats cheap and the same as DVD, its Blue Ray that's the proper upgrade' - '
I heard far dafter things when I worked in a video store. For example, there was a perception amongst some people that the Dreamcast was the PS2, but not as powerful as the PS1, so Sony let Sega release it while they worked on the proper PS2. Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.
i think the opposite - HD DVD tells you all you need to know, it's DVD but in HD. My dad has heard of HD DVD but wouldn't have a clue what blu ray is.
i think the opposite - HD DVD tells you all you need to know, it's DVD but in HD. My dad has heard of HD DVD but wouldn't have a clue what blu ray is.
Now he wouldn't, but what about in 12 months time? Like I said, I used to think that way, but I think there's the possibility that Blu Ray could be hyped up no end once it does come out and the price of the players will just make it look more upmarket than the 'budget' HD DVD.
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 09:15
I've been kinda thinking about this, and at one time I thought HD DVD was onto a winner cos it had the DVD name in the title, but anyone think there's a chance of it being percieved as a cheap alternative to the more glamourous sounding 'Blue Ray'? '
HD DVD? nah mate, thats cheap and the same as DVD, its Blue Ray that's the proper upgrade' - '
Unlikely. When they see the price of BR they'll singing HD-DVDs praises.
People are weary of new sounding formats and HD-DVD sounds more like a safe upgrade than BD.
We got some R2 Blu-Ray discs in our store last week, have to say for all the capacity claims it's amazing the lazy sods can't be arsed to include anything in the way of special features....Hostel, Exorcism of Emily Rose, SWAT....in fact out of the 6 titles only 1 had a few features. Pretty bad for £18-£20 each.
That is really pathetic.
What is the point of having a 50GB disc if ther's not even any room for special features. Makes you think really.
Surely there must be space to include special features on a 50GB disc. :cuckoo:
neilalford
17-10-2006, 10:26
Surely there must be space to include special features on a 50GB disc. :cuckoo:
At the moment though most Blu-Ray discs are only 25GB and they need all of that (and then some) due the compression they're currently using!
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 10:33
Yup, and while they are single layer they have less space than HD-DVD discs!
Michael Mackenzie
17-10-2006, 10:42
Yup, and while they are single layer they have less space than HD-DVD discs!
Indeed. I've also heard it suggested on a couple of occasions that, at least in the early days, they were stuggling to get the discs to function properly with more than about 21 GB used. I'd be curious to know whether there's any truth in this rumour, but I don't think anyone's checked the capacity of any Blu-ray discs.
MR.COATES
17-10-2006, 10:48
I was just reading an article over at DVD Times (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=62615) which made very interesting reading.
Nothing quite like reading something that isn't based primarily on speculation. Very interesting reading and really does highlight some major pricing issues for BluRay which I wasn't aware of but explains the price of discs at least.
A bloke on BBC breakfast said that BR had better picture quality because the discs were larger :P
MR.COATES
17-10-2006, 11:29
I'm sure the HD-DVD people will be chuffed to bits to hear that.
That's exactly the sort of rumour that goes around when people have no idea what they're talking about.
Bigger=Better
:dork:
so was betamax
Absolutely right Chris.
Being the better product is why I WANT Blu-Ray to win, but it isn't why I DO think it will win.
It will win because of the greater studio support for movies, and because of the greater number of companies producing Blu-Ray players, and of course the PS3 is going to be a major boost too.
ZOTAR
A bloke on BBC breakfast said that BR had better picture quality because the discs were larger :P
That's the sort of thing i was getting at earlier. If BR is pricier than HD, and people on the beeb keep going on about it being 'better' for being bigger or whatever, even if the difference is minimal or non existant, suddenly BR is going to look like the expensive, sexier, better choice, wheras HD DVD will look and sound a little too close to DVD to be a real step upwards. A budget version, but not truHD or something. Not saying it is, of course, but thats what the perception might be.
I don't think the PS3 is going to make as much of a difference as people are suggesting. Yes, it means Sony can say they've got X number of Blu-ray players into people's living rooms, but I wonder how many of the early PS3 buyers will be rushing out to pick up copies of Click and Monster House. I suspect they'll be spending most of their money on games, and will maybe pick up a couple of Blu-ray movies for curiosity value. Not that a number of people won't buy it purely as a cheap Blu-ray player, but I suspect that they'll be vastly outnumbered by those who are first and foremost gamers.
This is a seriously floored bit of analysis. Virtually everyone I know (inc. myself) who is wanting to get next-gen DVD is waiting to get a PS3. The cross-over demographically between people who play console games and people who like home cinema is big.
The key factor is that anyone planing to get a PS3 almost certainly won't now buy HD-DVD. I know that there was a bit too much hysteria about the PS3's being the complete knockout blow to HD-DVD, but now some people have gone too far the other way.
Grandmaster
17-10-2006, 11:58
I think you're making a whole series of assumptions there that may apply to you personally, but not to everyone else.
Here's another assumption which is equally as valid as yours.
"The cross-over demographically between people who play console games and people who like home cinema is big. Therefore the projected sell-through on the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on will be very large, especially at its low price point and when combined with the already large installed base of the console."
The key factor is that anyone planing to get a PS3 almost certainly won't now buy HD-DVD. I know that there was a bit too much hysteria about the PS3's being the complete knockout blow to HD-DVD, but now some people have gone too far the other way.
Nah, i'll be gettting a PS3 at some point, but the reason i didnt want one at launch is the vast price of it. I wanted a console, not a 'film player' and wasnt prepared to pay the extra for something i didnt want. The irony is, that I bought an Xbox instead and then ordered the HD add on :D but am fickle.
The PS2 didnt help much with the DVD launch. I do remember lots of people saying they were waiting for it as an excuse not to buy a DVD Player on launch, but by the time the PS2 was launched here, there were budget (299) DVD players about and people bought those instead on store credit and the like. I stongly suspect a similar thing will happen here.
I dont think the crossover between gamers and home cinema people is that great, to be honest, and probably only applies to a very specific and narrow demographic.
I have no axe to grind either way but I thought the Metro piece was clearly skewed when it talked about Blu-Ray getting a boost when the PS3 is released next year.
Not a word about HD-DVD getting a boost through the £129 X-Box 360 HD-DVD player being released THIS year!
Arguments about the technical superiority of one format over another seem rather academic given that that didn't help Betamax win over VHS and reviews of the first two very expensive Blu-Ray players seem to indicate that they give a disappointing picture.
You've missed the point behind the Metro piece. A Blu-Ray DVD player is build into the PS3. Microsoft however have only shown very tacid support for HD-DVD by allowing you to by an optional add-on as an after thought. Ask yourself these 2 important questions:-
1) Which will sell more units - PS3 or XBOX360?
2) Which set of owners will have the highest % of Next-Gen DVD players in there homes? (Clue - PS3/BluRay will be 100%)
Indeed - size doesn't seem to matter anyway. 'Click' was one of the first 50GB BluRay releases recently hitting the streets in the States, and has been slated for it's poor transfer...all the room in the world will not make up for a poorly compressed image.
This is quite true.
Blu-Ray did shoot itself in the foot to some degree at the begining by using the poor MPEG-2 codec for it's first few releases. This was a bad move for blu-ray and anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves.
That said, it seems the blu-ray camp has learned its lesson and stopped using MPEG-2 compression.
The irony is that due to Blu-Ray's superior capacity and data-throughput over HD-DVD, they have far less technical need to use compression....
2) Which set of owners will have the highest % of Next-Gen DVD players in there homes? (Clue - PS3/BluRay will be 100%)
How many PS3's will end up in the living room under the big telly or somewhere in little johnny's bedroom? It's all guesswork.
I read somewhere HD-DVD is only seeling 33% more than Blu-Ray.
What's even more worrying for HD-DVD is the fact that the current sales advantage they have is only 33% despite them getting out twice as many titles as Blu-Ray, and also reaching the market sooner.
Analysts agree that you'll have a much clearer picture of where both formats stand after the Christmas period. By then I guarantee that Blu-Ray will have overtaken HD-DVD in sales. The reason I say this is that they will have more movies out by then and about 7 or 8 different manufacturers will have released Blu-Ray players.
hookbeak
17-10-2006, 12:25
If current dvd releases started being released only as dual HD/DVD disks, this "war" would be over as current non-hd owners would already have a library of stuff before they upgraded.
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 12:58
If current dvd releases started being released only as dual HD/DVD disks, this "war" would be over as current non-hd owners would already have a library of stuff before they upgraded.
Good point. That would kill Bluray stone dead in under a month. :D
Please let this happen.
How many PS3's will end up in the living room under the big telly or somewhere in little johnny's bedroom? It's all guesswork.
Guess work?
If Blu-Ray is built into the PS3, then how is saying that 100% of people with a PS3 will have Blu-Ray guesswork?
And whilst we're on the subject, you could say that the PS3 outselling the XBOX360 is also "guesswork"....... and you'd be laughed at!
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 13:03
At the moment the 360 is outselling the pS3.:D That's a fact.
It's also a fact that more people have bought HD-DVD players than BD players.
zantarous
17-10-2006, 13:05
No no no I dont want them damn horrible double sided disc, didn't like them on DVD and sure as heck don't want them on the HD formats.
MR.COATES
17-10-2006, 13:08
Good point. That would kill Bluray stone dead in under a month. :D
Please let this happen.
That's a bit harsh! :lol:
The sad reality is that this whole scenario should have been avoided. But then you'll have the Wii, 360 and PS3 living side-by side.
Perhaps it's just a mentality that will stop HD-DVD and Blu Ray living side-by-side?
There are some games that I like to play on my PS2 and there are some that I like to play on my 360. I don't want to see one destroy the other - and the same goes for this.
Good point. That would kill Bluray stone dead in under a month. :D
Please let this happen.
I've never understood this sentiment.
I can understand the argument that HD-DVD could win. Whilst I think it is wrong, I respect the plausibility of the arguements in favour of HD-DVD wining the format war.
But I don't get why any techie would want HD-DVD to win. :(
Ok, so I'm assuming you're a techie because you post to this forum. Assuming that, surely you want the consumers to get the best product? Consumers lost out big time when VHS won over Betamax. Other than having an financial interest in the backers of HD-DVD or a hatred of Sony, I cannot understand why you'd want HD-DVD to win even if you think it will.
Guess work?
If Blu-Ray is built into the PS3, then how is saying that 100% of people with a PS3 will have Blu-Ray guesswork?
And whilst we're on the subject, you could say that the PS3 outselling the XBOX360 is also "guesswork"....... and you'd be laughed at!
But how many people will peope will end up using it as a Blu Ray player is what I was getting at, or will they just see it as an expensive games console?
No one is laughing at anyone as far as I can see. I certainly have no vested interest in either format and dont care which one 'wins'.
hookbeak
17-10-2006, 13:09
Guess work?
If Blu-Ray is built into the PS3, then how is saying that 100% of people with a PS3 will have Blu-Ray guesswork?
And whilst we're on the subject, you could say that the PS3 outselling the XBOX360 is also "guesswork"....... and you'd be laughed at!
You know full well what he meant. Many ps3's will not have a home in the living room of peoples houses - the primary room used for watching movies.
As for the ps3 outselling the 360, unless you are timecop i guess you'll have to wait and see with the rest of us.
You know full well what he meant. Many ps3's will not have a home in the living room of peoples houses - the primary room used for watching movies.
I took what he meant to be what he wrote. If he meant something else he should have re-worded his post.
As for the ps3 outselling the 360, unless you are timecop i guess you'll have to wait and see with the rest of us.
And the world waits with baited breath as this "Too close to predict Cliffhanger" plays out! :doh:
And may I apologise for predicting the sun will rise again in the morning - without first declaring myself a timecop!
hookbeak
17-10-2006, 13:15
I cannot understand why you'd want HD-DVD to win even if you think it will.
I think it's a better, more flexible format
it's cheaper.
you can produce dvd/hd-dvd hybrids which help the transition between dvd and hd formats.
So far, it's image quality is superior
it's not "controlled" by sony (not a fanboy - own ps1,2 and will buy 3)
With triple layer HD-DVD in the future, the size difference will dissapear
HD-DVD disks are more robust to physical manhandling (an issue if you have kids or buy online : floaters = bad)
i can probably think of a few more....
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 13:19
But I don't get why any techie would want HD-DVD to win. :(
Ok, so I'm assuming you're a techie because you post to this forum. .
Because I don't believe that BD necessarily is better. Apart from the picture quality criticisms of BD, Many of the BD releases have only been releasing films with 5.1 sound whilst HD-DVD have been releasing movies in Tru-HD sound. I'm not sold on 20GB more being that essential for movie releases. If you want extras just put them on a second disc, you can charge more for a '2 disc-set' then as well.
Tru-HD sound is mandatory for the HD-DVD spec, it isn't for BD.
I took what he meant to be what he wrote. If he meant something else he should have re-worded his post.
And the world waits with baited breath as this "Too close to predict Cliffhanger" plays out! :doh:
And may I apologise for predicting the sun will rise again in the morning - without first declaring myself a timecop!
We will see, but it depends how many people actually want to pay £100 more for a console with a bluray player.
I think Sony might get a bit of shock about 4 months after launch, and quietly drop the BR element in time for a massive xmas 2007 price cut. Would make sense if BR suddenly flops and consoles drop features all the time from launch.
MR.COATES
17-10-2006, 13:31
I'm not sold on 20GB more being that essential for movie releases. If you want extras just put them on a second disc...
I'll be a very upset little bunny if either of them even THINK about trying to justify multiple HD-DVD or Blu Ray Discs.
Can you imagine Warner Brothers releasing "Friends" on either format? I bet they'd manage to produce a 3-disc per series set!
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 13:35
I'll be a very upset little bunny if either of them even THINK about trying to justify multiple HD-DVD or Blu Ray Discs.
Can you imagine Warner Brothers releasing "Friends" on either format? I bet they'd manage to produce a 3-disc per series set!
Erm, for TV series both formats will have to use more than 1 disc for a series. It won't be much different to DVDs in this regard, with 4 or 5 disc sets.
Sorry if that offends you. :shrug:
You can't fit 20 hours of HD footage on one disc.
I'll be a very upset little bunny if either of them even THINK about trying to justify multiple HD-DVD or Blu Ray Discs.
Can you imagine Warner Brothers releasing "Friends" on either format? I bet they'd manage to produce a 3-disc per series set!
2 episodes per side, surely? Preferably the same 2 episodes.
MR.COATES
17-10-2006, 13:40
Erm, for TV series both formats will have to use more than 1 disc for a series. It won't be much different to DVDs in this regard, with 4 or 5 disc sets.
Sorry if that offends you. :shrug:
Actually that's a fair point - I've been a fool! I meant the comment purely in relation to fitting standard def onto HD-DVD capacity but it doesn't work like that.
Silly me!
:lol:
I think it's a better, more flexible format
it's cheaper.
Currently the players are cheaper. Firstly you have to expect to pay a bit more for superior technology as it takes more R&D to develop. Secondly, the price of both Blu-Ray & HD-DVD is bound to drop drastically over time which will close the gap in price.
Another point here is that there has been a rumour spread by HD-DVD fanboys that HD-DVD movies would be cheaper than Blu-Ray. This hasn't actually been the case and the movies are roughly the same price.
you can produce dvd/hd-dvd hybrids which help the transition between dvd and hd formats.
Help the transition? Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players can play normal DVD's. This is a meaningless point.
So far, it's image quality is superior
The image quality on the first releases was better on HD-DVD. This because of the MPEG-2 codec that Blu-Ray used. (Tears of the Sun is a good example). This was clearly a bad move for Blu-ray. Accordingly they have taken stock of the situation and stopped using MPEG-2 on new releases.
The fact is that both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD support the same 3 codec's (MPEG2, AVC, and VC-1). So neither side has an advantage on this stat. However, due to Blu-Ray's superior storage capacity and data throughput, it has technically more potential in this area.
it's not "controlled" by sony (not a fanboy - own ps1,2 and will buy 3)
I suspect that this is what it really comes down to some sort of loathing of Sony. I think you already new the answers to your other "Strawman" points before this post, but you don't like Sony so you're going to let it cloud your technical judgement.
With triple layer HD-DVD in the future, the size difference will dissapear
This is laughable.
FACT, HD-DVD only has 66% of the capacity of Blu-Ray per layer. Yes, HD-DVD could have triple layers, but then so could Blu-Ray. And all this does is increase Blu-Ray's GB advantage over HD-DVD
FYI, a quad layer Blu-Ray disc supporting 200GB has been created in a lab, but won't be available for a very long time, so I'm not offering that as a plus point for Blu-Ray here.
HD-DVD disks are more robust to physical manhandling (an issue if you have kids or buy online : floaters = bad)
You are right to raise this issue as Blu-ray data is closer to the surface (0.1mm) than HD-DVD. I have my concerns about this too. However, Blu-Ray discs are being coated in a stronger substance to protect it from damage.
i can probably think of a few more....
Somehow, I don't doubt that. :D
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 13:50
Another point here is that there has been a rumour spread by HD-DVD fanboys that HD-DVD movies would be cheaper than Blu-Ray. This hasn't actually been the case and the movies are roughly the same price.
D
So I guess that would make you a Bluray fanboy would it? :D
Erm, for TV series both formats will have to use more than 1 disc for a series. It won't be much different to DVDs in this regard, with 4 or 5 disc sets.
Sorry if that offends you. :shrug:
You can't fit 20 hours of HD footage on one disc.
Most TV series upto now (Star Trek, Friends, Miami Vice, etc...) that people buy on DVD is not shot in HD. Therefore whilst you may have to have multiple discs for series on HD-DVD, Blu-Ray should be able to handle entire series on 1 disc - thus reducing production costs and therefore being able to pass on the benefits to the consumer.
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 13:54
Most TV series upto now (Star Trek, Friends, Miami Vice, etc...) that people buy on DVD is not shot in HD. Therefore whilst you may have to have multiple discs for series on HD-DVD, Blu-Ray should be able to handle entire series on 1 disc - thus reducing production costs and therefore being able to pass on the benefits to the consumer.
Oh dear, dear dear dear. I thought you might have been an expert here. :nono:
Any series that was shot on film, which includes Miami Vice, or Friends or Star trek TOS can benefit greatly from HD transfers.
bonsaiguy
17-10-2006, 13:58
...thus reducing production costs and therefore being able to pass on the benefits to the consumer.
Pffttt! I don't think we'll be seeing the savings.
MR.COATES
17-10-2006, 14:08
Another point here is that there has been a rumour spread by HD-DVD fanboys that HD-DVD movies would be cheaper than Blu-Ray. This hasn't actually been the case and the movies are roughly the same price.
That definitely wasn't the case from my experience in the states a couple of weeks ago.
Every single HD-DVD and BluRay retailer had a gap of approximately $5 in favour of HD-DVD. I assure you I'm not bothered either way, suits me fine of course though!
$5 isn't exactly a HUGE difference but I've known people on this forum to buy at different retailers for the sake of 10p so £2-£3 for EVERY single disc soon adds up.
I'm sure the two will balance out over time though, heck, I can't even play my only HD-DVD disc until I get my 360 add-on!!!!
To be honest, I think more people are paying more attention to HD-DVD at the moment obviously because it's cheaper at doing the same thing as blueray. I can't see that anyone will be able to notice any difference in terms of pic quality between the formats.
You just need to look at the current Toshiba HD-DVD players and you can see the quality of picture on HD-DVDS. I'm sure people who have seen Batman Begins in HD-DVD on the Toshiba players can vouch for this as even though I haven't been able to see it myself, I'm sure that they're not lying when they say that the picture is simply jaw dropping!
I'm not saying that blu-ray cannot produce the same results. I'm sure it can. But at the end of the day. Why pay double for something you can get for ahlf the price.
I definitely think the PS3 will have a big effect on the war. If the PS3 is a big hot and the public buy one then I presume that blu-ray will have a big advantage as I can't see PS3 owners forking out for a HD-DVD player if they own a PS3 unless they are super rich.
Personally, I am in a bit of a dilemma as I am very impressed with the HD-DVD format and even the 360 HD add on has had an excellent review but I so so want a PS3 after watching some of the videos running the launch titles. RR7, Motorstorm, and the like simply look jaw droipping and to think what they would look like in front of you on a 1080p screen is mouthwatering.
hookbeak
17-10-2006, 14:17
Another point here is that there has been a rumour spread by HD-DVD fanboys that HD-DVD movies would be cheaper than Blu-Ray. This hasn't actually been the case and the movies are roughly the same price.
Don't use "fanboys", you will embarrass yourself. I was talking about the players, not the disks.
Help the transition? Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players can play normal DVD's. This is a meaningless point.
It isn't. If i have a dvd player, i can buy hybrid disks now. This way when i DO get that HDTV i already have a library of movies in HD for no extra cost of rebuying them. Far from meaningless.
The image quality on the first releases was better on HD-DVD. This because of the MPEG-2 codec that Blu-Ray used. (Tears of the Sun is a good example). This was clearly a bad move for Blu-ray. Accordingly they have taken stock of the situation and stopped using MPEG-2 on new releases.
The fact is that both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD support the same 3 codec's (MPEG2, AVC, and VC-1). So neither side has an advantage on this stat. However, due to Blu-Ray's superior storage capacity and data throughput, it has technically more potential in this area.
Potential that is as yet unrealised. Currently they can't get 50gb disks to work.
I suspect that this is what it really comes down to some sort of loathing of Sony. I think you already new the answers to your other "Strawman" points before this post, but you don't like Sony so you're going to let it cloud your technical judgement.
I have a PS1, i have a PS2, i'm buying a PS3. I have a PSP. I have a Sony TV, my portable DVD player is a Sony. I don't loathe Sony, that would be the act of someone who is 14 or a mentalist. I do not think it's good for anyone for Sony to be soley in charge of the licensing for blu-ray given their influence as a major electronics player and movie studio.
This is laughable.
FACT, HD-DVD only has 66% of the capacity of Blu-Ray per layer. Yes, HD-DVD could have triple layers, but then so could Blu-Ray. And all this does is increase Blu-Ray's GB advantage over HD-DVD
FYI, a quad layer Blu-Ray disc supporting 200GB has been created in a lab, but won't be available for a very long time, so I'm not offering that as a plus point for Blu-Ray here.
oh, i see, if you say "FACT" then it must be so. Sorry, didn't realise you were omnipotent. How do you know that in future HD-DVD couldn't do 500gb ? Or a terabyte ? Both camps are making big claims about future size, am i really bothered if i can only fit 150gb on HD-DVD and 200GB on a blu-ray disk ? is the public ? - no.
Oh dear, dear dear dear. I thought you might have been an expert here. :nono:
Any series that was shot on film, which includes Miami Vice, or Friends or Star trek TOS can benefit greatly from HD transfers.
Indeed it can. But it doesn't have to be is the point. Studio's can just as easily maintain the current standard of picture and audio as you get with DVD for TV series, and get entire series on 1 disc.
It's a bit like when you put music on your mp3 player. You can go for wav files and get relatively few songs on your player, or go for 192kps wma and get a whole lot more on.
Pffttt! I don't think we'll be seeing the savings.
Listen, both camps are aware that price is an issue. It's no use pretending that the fact that HD-DVD is cheaper than Blu-Ray isn't an advantage for the HD-DVD camp. Similarly, if Blu-Ray can bring out TV series cheaper than HD-DVD, then believe me they will! (Once one format is in a monopoly this might be less previlent).
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 14:48
Indeed it can. But it doesn't have to be is the point. Studio's can just as easily maintain the current standard of picture and audio as you get with DVD for TV series, and get entire series on 1 disc.
It's a bit like when you put music on your mp3 player. You can go for wav files and get relatively few songs on your player, or go for 192kps wma and get a whole lot more on.
And I could paint my arse blue tomorrow if I felt like it.
There's no way a company would release a TV series on an HD format in SD when they easily release it in HD. Sorry, you can't save face with this blunder.
Don't use "fanboys", you will embarrass yourself. I was talking about the players, not the disks.
I didn't call you a fanboy. I said that the people who were spouting that HD-DVD's were cheaper than Blu-ray discs are "Fanboys". If you do that then you become a fanboy (and indeed embarass yourself).
It isn't. If i have a dvd player, i can buy hybrid disks now. This way when i DO get that HDTV i already have a library of movies in HD for no extra cost of rebuying them. Far from meaningless.
I understand what you're saying, but I think the point is meaningless because I can't think that anyone is going to start buying HD-DVD discs before they've got the player. I just don't personally think that this will have any significant effect on the market. I'm happy to differ on this as this is a value judgement.
Potential that is as yet unrealised. Currently they can't get 50gb disks to work.
Now you really are embarrassing yourself. If you click here (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061009/tc_nm/media_dvd_dc), you'll find that you can buy the movie "CLICK!" on a dual layer Blu-Ray disc.
I think the phrase is "pwnd" :lol:
oh, i see, if you say "FACT" then it must be so. Sorry, didn't realise you were omnipotent.
It's not a question of me being "omnipotent". It's about doing a bit of research into the facts before coming onto a DVD forum and sounding off (as you seem to be an expert in doing).
How do you know that in future HD-DVD couldn't do 500gb ? Or a terabyte ?
Because the theoretical storage capacity of HD-DVD is only 60GB.
You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about have you.
Both camps are making big claims about future size, am i really bothered if i can only fit 150gb on HD-DVD and 200GB on a blu-ray disk ? is the public ? - no.
Is that so??? How about you stop typing yourself into any further humilation and click here (http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/19/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-state-of-the-s-union-s-division/) and have a read.
I have to say that for a DVD forum, there is a lot of technical ignorance around here.
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 15:06
You really haven't got a clue what you're talking about have you.
No, that's you. With your lack of knowledge about HD formats, and TV shows. ;)
MR.COATES
17-10-2006, 15:11
The one thing that is sad is that it looks like I'll miss out on my favourite film of the year (Talladega Nights) as it's a Sony Pictures film so looks like that'll be Blu Ray only.
:(
No, that's you. With your lack of knowledge about HD formats, and TV shows. ;)
???
If you can point to where I've got something wrong about HD formats and TV shows then I'd like to see it. The fact remains that studios can put entire series onto 1 Blu-ray disc. You have to remember that upscaling something shot in SD will never give you the same results as something shot in HD. For that reason studio's putting entire series on one disc is an entirely viable option. We await to see what they do....
Michael Mackenzie
17-10-2006, 15:14
The one thing that is sad is that it looks like I'll miss out on my favourite film of the year (Talladega Nights) as it's a Sony Pictures film so looks like that'll be Blu Ray only.
:(
Just buy the standard def version. Chances are that, upscaled on the HD-A1, it won't look considerably worse than the Blu-ray release. :D That's certainly how it was for the likes of The Fifth Element and House of Flying Daggers.
hookbeak
17-10-2006, 15:19
whatever...
We could go back and forth, unfortunately you're so unpleasant i can't say i want to have anything else to do with you. Your manner is aggressive and insulting and frankly, you should be ashamed of your tone.
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 15:24
???
If you can point to where I've got something wrong about HD formats and TV shows then I'd like to see it.
You claimed that old TV shows were not 'shot on HD' so they should just be presented as SD on HD formats.
I pointed out that many TV shows were shot on film, just like movies, and therefore would have just as much benefit in being released in HD.
So you clearly did not know this before I pointed it out.
The fact remains that studios can put entire series onto 1 Blu-ray disc.
They could fit loads of SD stuff on a bluray disc, be it TV episodes or feature films. So what point were you making?
You have to remember that upscaling something shot in SD will never give you the same results as something shot in HD. For that reason studio's putting entire series on one disc is an entirely viable option. We await to see what they do....
This again shows your lack of understanding. Film does not need to be 'upscaled' to HD.
Only video formats might need to be upscaled.
Apart from defending Bluray to the point of absurdity, predicting it's future as a FACT, because you have a time machine (presumably). You tried to save face to my correcting you on the TV format front by then suggesting it would be ok to release these TV shows in standard defintion. I thought you wanted what is best for the consumer, so which is it? :lol:
I'm just going to say this now. If you don't know what you are talking about, then don't say anything as there will always be somebody that comes along who knows and corrects you.
We could go back and forth, unfortunately you're so unpleasant i can't say i want to have anything else to do with you. Your manner is aggressive and insulting and frankly, you should be ashamed of your tone.
Ah the old classic, "Lost the argument. Try to claim a moral victory" post.
Priceless :lol:
hookbeak
17-10-2006, 15:32
Ah the old classic, "Lost the argument. Try to claim a moral victory" post.
Priceless :lol:
Thanks for proving my point.
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 15:35
Ah the old classic, "Lost the argument. Try to claim a moral victory" post.
Priceless :lol:
No he does have a point, you do come across as a deeply unpleasant person.
hookbeak
17-10-2006, 15:38
No he does have a point, you do come across as a deeply unpleasant person.
i think this is the first thing we've agreed on :)
LouBarlow
17-10-2006, 15:48
You guys have obviously missed this fruit's contributions to other areas of the forum :nuts: :lol:
I'm amazed you took him seriously for so long ;)
hookbeak
17-10-2006, 15:54
You guys have obviously missed this fruit's contributions to other areas of the forum :nuts: :lol:
i just had a look ... the korea thread.... :cuckoo:
I suppose it doesn't matter who wins out of HD-DVD and blu-ray if you live in cloud cuckoo land, as they have magic beans that can play any kind of disk. At 1080p no less.
You claimed that old TV shows were not 'shot on HD' so they should just be presented as SD on HD formats.
I pointed out that many TV shows were shot on film, just like movies, and therefore would have just as much benefit in being released in HD.
So you clearly did not know this before I pointed it out.
Clearly TV shows shot on film would be in the same situation as film I agree. (And I'll admit that I haven't checked if the series I mentioned were shot on film or not, so it is quite possible that I've wrongly listed a series to make a point).
They could fit loads of SD stuff on a bluray disc, be it TV episodes or feature films. So what point were you making?
It wasn't my point. Someone else mentioned brought up the point of how much film/TV could be put onto 1 BD or HD-DVD, and would there be any advantage of one over the other. I simply answered that by pointing out that with Blu-ray you could theoretically get an entire series on one disc. I never said it would be HD.
This again shows your lack of understanding. Film does not need to be 'upscaled' to HD.
Except that I wasn't talking about film.
Apart from defending Bluray to the point of absurdity,
I've not done this at all. Everything I've said I can substanciate. I will happily also point out where HD-DVD has the advantage (i.e. price).
predicting it's future as a FACT, because you have a time machine (presumably).
I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. I've seen it because I have a time machine.
You tried to save face to my correcting you on the TV format front by then suggesting it would be ok to release these TV shows in standard defintion. I thought you wanted what is best for the consumer, so which is it? :lol:
The consumer would indeed benefit from a cheaper product, whilst having an entire series on 1 Blu-Ray instead of 10. I'm not predicting what the studios will do, but you're just trying to negate this point because there is no way you can come back with "Well HD-DVD can do this just as well" because you know it can't.
I'm just going to say this now. If you don't know what you are talking about, then don't say anything as there will always be somebody that comes along who knows and corrects you.
Really, well when that person comes along, then please let me know. In the meantime, your efforts to twist my meaning will just have to suffice as a smoke screen to the fact that Blu-Ray is just a better product.
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 15:59
Really, well when that person comes along, then please let me know. In the meantime, your efforts to twist my meaning will just have to suffice as a smoke screen to the fact that Blu-Ray is just a better product.
:lol:
Scrounger,
Whilst I stand by all I've said above, I would not put you in the same catagory as hookbeak. You at least have some grip on the facts, and even if you distort them to backup your bias, you do it quite effectively. Hookbeak on the other hand is a better proponent for Blu-Ray than I am as I blunderfully posts utter crap on the subject that takes no effort whatsoever to disprove.
Indeed, I'm suprised that no-one has accused hookbeak of just being an alias of mine.
Putting the weapons down for a second, my advice to you would be to send him a gentle pm and ask him to leave the Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD debating to you.
Really, well when that person comes along, then please let me know. In the meantime, your efforts to twist my meaning will just have to suffice as a smoke screen to the fact that Blu-Ray is just a better product.
I think that's an unfair statement really.
Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray have their pros and cons. I personally sway towards HD-DVD due to the more roobustness of discs plus the fact that they look just as good if not even better than blu-ray with less space to play with.
I think that's an unfair statement really.
Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray have their pros and cons. I personally sway towards HD-DVD due to the more roobustness of discs plus the fact that they look just as good if not even better than blu-ray with less space to play with.
That's what saddens me about threads like these.
I think Zenza is a genuine person who genuinely believes the above with no bias or malice. Now this forum is full of people who understand why HD-DVD looked better than Blu-ray for the first few releases, and why that shouldn't sway you towards HD-DVD, and yet few say why...
It is a shame as alot of people will read these forums and not post as they want a guide to what to buy. Someone could read this thread and if I hadn't posted, bought HD-DVD because they thought they'd get a better picture, and then 6 months down the line, realise that they don't.
Michael Mackenzie
17-10-2006, 16:12
It doesn't matter whether or not Blu-ray offers inferior picture quality to HD DVD - in fact, it's a given that titles which use the same encodes for both formats (such as Warner's most recent offerings) should look the same on both. The point is that one product costs twice as much as the other, and in order to justify such a vastly inflated price tag you need to offer a little more than "as good as".
That's what saddens me about threads like these.
I think Zenza is a genuine person who genuinely believes the above with no bias or malice. Now this forum is full of people who understand why HD-DVD looked better than Blu-ray for the first few releases, and why that shouldn't sway you towards HD-DVD, and yet few say why...
It is a shame as alot of people will read these forums and not post as they want a guide to what to buy. Someone could read this thread and if I hadn't posted, bought HD-DVD because they thought they'd get a better picture, and then 6 months down the line, realise that they don't.
TBH, the only thing that has any chance of swaying me towards blu-ray is the PS3.
I have to admit that the PS3 is very appealing from what I've seen and a blu-ray built in would obviously get me buying blu-ray discs but I will see how things pan out instead of making a hasty decision.
It doesn't matter whether or not Blu-ray offers inferior picture quality to HD DVD - in fact, it's a given that titles which use the same encodes for both formats (such as Warner's most recent offerings) should look the same on both. The point is that one product costs twice as much as the other, and in order to justify such a vastly inflated price tag you need to offer a little more than "as good as".
That's not strictly true. The PS3 will be costing around the same price as a HD-DVD player and if it can produce the same pic quality as the Toshiba players then it's something to bear in mind.
Having said that the 360 add on is said to almost match the Toshiba players in terms of pic quality so it swings and roundabouts.
I have to say that I do want a PS3 really badly though. :D
Is Zotar camaj in disguise?
kiran_mk2
17-10-2006, 16:45
Sooner or later I'd have thought that all the studios will be "bipartisan" with the exceptions being Columbia and Universal. Surely, the rest will simply produce one transfer and use it for both formats, meaning that both versions <em>should</em> look identical. Therefore the extra space would only be used for extra features which could simply be fitted onto a 2nd HDDVD disc.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how BluRay buckled to the demands of Fox to implement even more stringent DRM. Hopefully, HD-DVD won't buckle when Disney and Fox come knocking.
I just hope the 50gb BluRay discs have been tested properly. Remember how The Matrix crashed a load of early DVD players.
One point I don't get about people's discussions - who really wants an entire TV series on a single disc? The bog boxsets sell well and look much more impressive. The actual cost of producing the physical media for a DVD release is tiny, only a couple of pounds even for big digipack sets.
You also have to wonder why anyone would want to buy a series like Friends on HD-DVD or BR if it is only encoded in SD, since it is unlikely to be any cheaper than the existing box sets, with no visible difference when watching, and looking far less impressive on the shelf. If people were really that concerned about saving shelf space, they could take the discs from a boxset and put them into a CD folder.
I think that Sony are just toooooo greedy, like it says previously. Price is going to be the clear winner. So all those people buying blueray are going the same way as betamax.
It doesn't matter whether or not Blu-ray offers inferior picture quality to HD DVD - in fact, it's a given that titles which use the same encodes for both formats (such as Warner's most recent offerings) should look the same on both. The point is that one product costs twice as much as the other, and in order to justify such a vastly inflated price tag you need to offer a little more than "as good as".
The superiority of the storage capacity and data throughput makes Blu-Ray worth more than HD-DVD. However, not £500 more per player though. If this were to remain the case then I'd back HD-DVD too.
Wow what a great thread!
Zoltan, you truly are an interesting and unpleasant fellow. Thank you all.
PS. I don't know anything about DVD and HD and all that but I do work in TV and am told DVD is not allowed for transmission at certain times (peek mainly) as the quality is not up to that of Digi Beta. Does this not mean that a direct HD encoding of a full SDI Digi beta signal would be better quality than a regular DVD? Or is it just about storage, maybe you could get one or two Digibeta TV eps with the complete SDI signal straight form the tape.
Wow what a great thread!
Zoltan, you truly are an interesting and unpleasant fellow. Thank you all.
I have to admit that looking back, I've been a bit more aggressive in this thread than I would have liked. I do feel very pationatly about technology and ensuring that the best product reaches the consumer. When people have informed but different points of view on something then you have accept that, but when people's points of view are based on ignorance of the facts or bias, then it can be really wriling (sp?).
hookbeak
17-10-2006, 18:05
I have to admit that looking back, I've been a bit more aggressive in this thread than I would have liked. I do feel very pationatly about technology and ensuring that the best product reaches the consumer. When people have informed but different points of view on something then you have accept that, but when people's points of view are based on ignorance of the facts or bias, then it can be really wriling (sp?).
thats no excuse for acting like you do.
If some of my opinions are wrong, i'm perfectly willing to accept it and learn - that is of course how humans do learn, from mistakes and information. Last i heard for example, the 50gb disks were still not out - i hadn't heard about "click" being released. Were someone to tell me that i was mistaken, i would accept it and conceed the point.
It's no use being passionate about anything if the only way you can express that passion is by being a ****.
irascian
17-10-2006, 18:37
I think that Sony are just toooooo greedy, like it says previously. Price is going to be the clear winner. So all those people buying blueray are going the same way as betamax.
Not necessarily because there are far more suppliers making Blu-Ray machines than there are making HD-DVD. Prices will undoubtedly fall at some point. Personally I can't figure out how much of an impact the PS3 will have and have taken the risk of ordering the Toshiba HD-EX1 today (along with a bunch of HD-DVDs from the States).
One question I have over Blu-Ray is how reliant is it on Sony, who seem to be in deep do-do at the moment over the whole laptop battery fiasco. There are estimates saying they'll be taking a 300 million dollar hit on this situation and that's BEFORE the different computer manufacturers have chased their "We want compensation" claims (which Toshiba announced they were going to be doing a day or two ago apparently). Today Sony themselves were the last major manufacturer as far as I can make out to announce a recall so the problem is going to hit their finances hard and on the back of the PS3 launch fiasco one wonders if this might not be the death of the company (or of Blu-Ray?)
LouBarlow
17-10-2006, 19:05
thats no excuse for acting like you do.
If some of my opinions are wrong, i'm perfectly willing to accept it and learn - that is of course how humans do learn, from mistakes and information. Last i heard for example, the 50gb disks were still not out - i hadn't heard about "click" being released. Were someone to tell me that i was mistaken, i would accept it and conceed the point.
It's no use being passionate about anything if the only way you can express that passion is by being a ****.
Clicks release has no relevence anyway, as it uses MPEG2 to fill it's 50GB storage space, and still looks like ****
Personally I'd LOVE both of them to fail so we can have solid state credit card sized Holographic cards instead.
bigger capacity wizzy plastic disks is the last thing I want.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20050608/105586/
but guess, we'll just have to wade thru another format or two before we actually get something like this in our home :(
Personally I'd LOVE both of them to fail so we can have solid state credit card sized Holographic cards instead.
bigger capacity wizzy plastic disks is the last thing I want.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20050608/105586/
but guess, we'll just have to wade thru another format or two before we actually get something like this in our home :(
It'll be a while yet but it WILL come, i pridict about 15-20 years
dobyblue
17-10-2006, 20:34
No no no I dont want them damn horrible double sided disc, didn't like them on DVD and sure as heck don't want them on the HD formats.
No doubt, which is why it's great news that Blu Ray will have a hybrid Blu Ray/DVD disc.
Single sided with both a dual layer 50GB Blu Ray disc and a dual layer 8.5GB DVD.
HD-DVD will be using a double sided 30GB HD-DVD dual layer with an 8.5GB DVD on the other side.
This was the biggest flaw with DualDisc. If it's all on one side it's far easier to look after.
Good point. That would kill Bluray stone dead in under a month. :D
Please let this happen.
No BR would do the same once the new hybrid is tested properly.
Michael Mackenzie
17-10-2006, 20:37
No doubt, which is why it's great news that Blu Ray will have a hybrid Blu Ray/DVD disc.
Single sided with both a dual layer 50GB Blu Ray disc and a dual layer 8.5GB DVD.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe such a combination would be vetoed by the DVD Forum.
I attach this quote from a DVD Times interview (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=62615) with a Toshiba technician. Admittedly, it's hardly the most unbiased source ever, but what he's saying certainly sounds logical:
DVDTimes: Did the Blu-ray camp have a similar idea with the combo discs?
Jim Armour, Toshiba: Well the combo discs - it would be illegal - because one side would be DVD compliant, wouldn't it? They'd have to ask the DVD Forum for permission. Another thing is, their physical format doesn't allow it, because their media is actually 1.1mm thick acro, with a 0.1mm hard top coating - so what are you going to put the back layer on?
DVDTimes: Right, no room left.
Jim Armour, Toshiba: DVD is two times 0.6mm discs glued together - whether it's HD DVD or standard DVD, they're both 0.6mm polycarbonate discs, glued back to back. Blu-ray is different - 1.2mm plus 0.1. So, it's physically impossible, using their registered format, so they'd have to go with DVD format, which would mean problems with the DVD Forum - because DVD Forum has the patent on 0.6mm times two.
DVDTimes: Ah right, right. Patents again.
thescrounger
17-10-2006, 20:44
No BR would do the same once the new hybrid is tested properly.
As pointed out above, they can't.
Am I paranoid or are we getting a lot of dormant posters suddenly in support of BD. :suspect: Of course I'm sure you're really not Zotar as well.
dobyblue
17-10-2006, 20:54
You're paranoid. :lol
You're aware that the DVD Forum is now comprised of over 220 members. Any advancement to the field of DVD would no doubt be welcomed by them.
The Forum's purpose is to exchange and disseminate ideas and information about the DVD Format and its technical capabilities, improvements and innovations.
The Forum works to promote broad acceptance of DVD products on a worldwide basis, across entertainment, consumer electronics and IT industries.
The founding 10 members.
Ten Founding Companies
Hitachi, Ltd. Blu Ray
Matsu****a Electric Industrial Co. Ltd. Blu Ray
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation Blu Ray
Pioneer Electronic Corporation Blu Ray
Royal Philips Electronics N.V. Blu Ray
Sony Corporation Blu Ray
Thomson
Time Warner Inc. BOTH
Toshiba Corporation HD-DVD
Victor Company of Japan, Ltd.
As for whether or not they can do it you need only look at the 2005 IFA reports.
JVC
JVC was showcasing their BD/DVD hybrid media (33.5GB), which was developed to ease the transition from DVD to Blu-ray by creating a disc that will play in both BD players and DVD players. The hybrid disc is basically a single-layer BD-ROM (25GB) and a dual-layer DVD-ROM (8.5GB) in the same disc, which can be read in both players as the Blu-ray layer is transparent to the red laser used in a conventional DVD player.
A JVC representative offered a live demonstration where he first put the hybrid disc in the BD player and played the video in high definition (HD), he then transferred the disc to the conventional DVD player which seamlessly played the same video in standard definition (SD). According to the JVC representative the BD/DVD hybrid will be part of the BD-ROM specification, which was also confirmed by a BDA representative at the show.
Clicks release has no relevence anyway, as it uses MPEG2 to fill it's 50GB storage space, and still looks like ****
Relevance only to show that they've got a dual layer BR disc working then?
LouBarlow
18-10-2006, 05:34
It's debateable that that is getting it working, considering it apparently looks worse than discs with half the storage space ;)
They've managed to get it spinning and not blowing into flames, so I guess it's a first step...
It's debateable that that is getting it working, considering it apparently looks worse than discs with half the storage space ;)
They've managed to get it spinning and not blowing into flames, so I guess it's a first step...
:lol:
aliman5000
18-10-2006, 12:36
Matsu****a Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.
Worst forum censoring EVER.
kiran_mk2
18-10-2006, 15:30
I wonder if the hybrid BD/DVDs will be banned from using the DVD logo. Remember, Philips banned CDs from using the CD logo if they had copy protection that made them non-red book complient. Not that Joe Public will notice.
Actually, it's probably a good get-out clause for electronics companies to get out of warranty repairs: "did you play one of these discs? Yes? Well too bad, you've voided your warranty by playing a non-standard disc in your player"
I wonder if the hybrid BD/DVDs will be banned from using the DVD logo.
Didn't Disney have that problem and use "Disney DVD"??
thescrounger
20-10-2006, 13:08
I just saw a demo of Bluray at lunchtime today and I have to say I was not blown away at all.
I can see why it's been criticised.
I just saw a demo of Bluray at lunchtime today and I have to say I was not blown away at all.
I can see why it's been criticised.
What did you see at the demo?
thescrounger
20-10-2006, 14:23
What did you see at the demo?
It was The Fantastic Four Bluray disc on the new Panasonic Bluray player.
I think BLUE-RAY will be the winner!
1. "HD-DVD" (Toshiba) that holds upto 30Gig information double layered disc.
HD DVD is supported by Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Toshiba and Microsoft, which will be offering an add-on HD DVD player for its popular Xbox 360 game console. The big movie house that supports HD DVD is Universal Studios.
2. "BluRay" (Sony) that holds 50Gig information on double layered disc.
Blu-ray, by comparison, is supported by Pioneer, Samsung and Sony, the latter of which is going to be building Blu-ray compatibility directly into the Playstation 3 game system. Blu-ray players are shipping from LG, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Philips and Sharp, in addition to the three main backers of this format.
Blu-ray has also adopted a higher data transfer rate for video and audio 54Mbps vs 36.55Mbps. It has also been tested to scale to quad layers - 200Gig for potential future use.
Sony's PS3 is going to be my cheap jump on the HD film market until decent second/third generation standalone players with mature technology are released.
That says it all!!! so POTENTIALLY even better quality is capable on Blue-Ray!
(still think HD-DVD name sounds better though!)
MR.COATES
13-11-2006, 12:22
However the press will still be reporting many cold hard facts. I missed this one:
Play.com announces pre-order statistics... (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/10/24/brits_spend_more_on_hddvd/)
Brits favour HD DVD over Blu-ray Disc, it has been claimed. According to online retailer Play.com, UK consumers are spending more than twice as much on HD DVD players and content than they are on BD kit.
Brits favour HD DVD over Blu-ray Disc, it has been claimed. According to online retailer Play.com, UK consumers are spending more than twice as much on HD DVD players and content than they are on BD kit.
Interesting, since BD kit is twice as expensive as HD!
MR.COATES
13-11-2006, 12:37
Oh absolutely, even if you completely forget about the Xbox 360, HD-DVD players work out as the obvious choice for most people.
It definitely looks like price is becoming a big factor right now.
bascadet
02-02-2007, 11:05
To be honest I think theyre both screwed. The future lies in downloadable content, people.
Ive been reading also that Sony arent allowing any adult content on BluRay, which is excatly the same situation they had with Betamax, and we all know how that story ended dont we...
So porn producers are releasing their 'art films' on HD DVD and of course its porn that drives any new technology being adopted by the mass market. Video tape, the internet...........
Personally ive seen both formats running on the same Panasonic plasma tv. My mate has an xbox360 with the HD DVD drive and a PS3. Admittedly they werent playing the same movie but IMHO the HD DVD movie looked MILES better than the BluRay one. This could be down to the transfer etc but if I had to buy tomorrow it would be HD DVD all the way........
scoobyood
02-02-2007, 11:27
To be honest I think theyre both screwed. The future lies in downloadable content, people.
Ive been reading also that Sony arent allowing any adult content on BluRay, which is excatly the same situation they had with Betamax, and we all know how that story ended dont we...
So porn producers are releasing their 'art films' on HD DVD and of course its porn that drives any new technology being adopted by the mass market. Video tape, the internet...........
Personally ive seen both formats running on the same Panasonic plasma tv. My mate has an xbox360 with the HD DVD drive and a PS3. Admittedly they werent playing the same movie but IMHO the HD DVD movie looked MILES better than the BluRay one. This could be down to the transfer etc but if I had to buy tomorrow it would be HD DVD all the way........
I would think that both formats will be around for a few years, (if HDDVD can pull their finger out and release a load more titles!).
Also it's definitely not the time for downloads to over take optical media. Maybe in 5 or 10 years, but not this generation.
If you are to download a 1080p video which is comparable to a HDDVD or Blu-Ray in terms of video and audio. That is going to fill up 20gigs of space. If you buy that then you have to store it. 20 movies will cost you a 400GB hard drive and the price for the download will be pretty close to that of it's hard copy counterpart. If your hard drive dies, then you have lost your movies. Not to mention the whole DRM and multi platform issues. Then you have to consider that all customers will have to view the content on a media centre PC...... which would limit your market GREATLY.
As for the porn thing, that was last month. Porn IS being released on Blu-Ray.
thescrounger
02-02-2007, 11:44
To be honest I think theyre both screwed. The future lies in downloadable content, people.
At over 30GB a film, I doubt it.
Grandmaster
02-02-2007, 11:54
Storage prices going down, bandwidth going up. I can't see why not. It wouldn't surprise me at all if these are the last optical disc formats for movies.
Bananaman
02-02-2007, 11:55
...and certainly not on my crappy Virgin half-meg download speed, either!
thescrounger
02-02-2007, 12:05
Storage prices going down, bandwidth going up. I can't see why not. It wouldn't surprise me at all if these are the last optical disc formats for movies.
I wouldn't like a 500+ collection of films all in one box that could break or go tits up.
I think a lot of the people who advocate downloading/streaming as the future of home video are overlooking most peoples' desire to own the tangible media; I may be a dinosaur, but I'd still rather have a shiny disk that isn't dependent on my PC, my hard drive or some DRM; that I can lend to friends; and that isn't forcing me onto a UK supply only. I think in a generation or two this will be different; and I think Grandmaster may be right that these might be the last optical formats for the mass market. I think that in five years time, HD displays and HD disks will be the norm :dork:
Michael Mackenzie
02-02-2007, 13:16
I think a lot of the people who advocate downloading/streaming as the future of home video are overlooking most peoples' desire to own the tangible media; I may be a dinosaur, but I'd still rather have a shiny disk that isn't dependent on my PC, my hard drive or some DRM; that I can lend to friends; and that isn't forcing me onto a UK supply only. I think in a generation or two this will be different; and I think Grandmaster may be right that these might be the last optical formats for the mass market. I think that in five years time, HD displays and HD disks will be the norm :dork:
Agreed 100%.
I think a lot of the people who advocate downloading/streaming as the future of home video are overlooking most peoples' desire to own the tangible media; I may be a dinosaur, but I'd still rather have a shiny disk that isn't dependent on my PC, my hard drive or some DRM; that I can lend to friends; and that isn't forcing me onto a UK supply only. I think in a generation or two this will be different; and I think Grandmaster may be right that these might be the last optical formats for the mass market. I think that in five years time, HD displays and HD disks will be the norm :dork:
I used to think this way too. But if I had a device the size of an ipod which could hold 200 movies instead of having 200 dvds sitting on a shelf, I'd like to save the space. I don't think its that far off myself. As for fears of HD failure, I'm sure some kind of backup gadget gizmo will arrive.
I used to think this way too. But if I had a device the size of an ipod which could hold 200 movies instead of having 200 dvds sitting on a shelf, I'd like to save the space. I don't think its that far off myself. As for fears of HD failure, I'm sure some kind of backup gadget gizmo will arrive.
I don't think HD download will be viable for the mass market for several years yet, but actually backup isn't needed - if you buy a title you'd get a perpetual license so you can download it again in case of loss - or indeed if you just don't want to store it locally.
I've been kinda thinking about this, and at one time I thought HD DVD was onto a winner cos it had the DVD name in the title, but anyone think there's a chance of it being percieved as a cheap alternative to the more glamourous sounding 'Blue Ray'? '
HD DVD? nah mate, thats cheap and the same as DVD, its Blue Ray that's the proper upgrade' - '
I heard far dafter things when I worked in a video store. For example, there was a perception amongst some people that the Dreamcast was the PS2, but not as powerful as the PS1, so Sony let Sega release it while they worked on the proper PS2. Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.
I think this hits the nail right on the head.
Reminds me of everyone raving over the pS1. Because the games were on discs, which was enough to more or less kill nearly twenty years of quality gaming from Nintendo even though they're games were far superior, but still on cartridge!
Bottom line is Joe public is fickle and ignorant.
thescrounger
02-02-2007, 17:04
I used to think this way too. But if I had a device the size of an ipod which could hold 200 movies instead of having 200 dvds sitting on a shelf, I'd like to save the space.
Take the discs out of the cases and stick them in wallet if you really want to save space.
zantarous
02-02-2007, 17:49
Until moves can be downloaded in minutes and not hours/days you can keep your download distribution. Look at the music sure everyone rips their CDs to mp3 and keeps them on there PC's but the quality is nowhere near as good if you use it to play on your main sound set up at home and storing them as uncompressed files will kill your HDD space.
Plus what happens if you lose your collection and have to download again but a movie has been edited or scenes removed for whatever reason and you end up with an inferior version, plus I like buy discs from different regions with exotic packaging.
I used to think this way too. But if I had a device the size of an ipod which could hold 200 movies instead of having 200 dvds sitting on a shelf, I'd like to save the space. I don't think its that far off myself. As for fears of HD failure, I'm sure some kind of backup gadget gizmo will arrive. I agree in general, but consider this: if one HD movie = 25 GB, my collection of 750 DVDs would require approximately 20 Terabytes of storage :eek:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.