Are you kidding me, Verizon's FIOS offers 100Mb service to the home, even a tenth of that is enough for a couple simultaneous HD streams.
I use Cablevision which is up to 15Mb dowstream, still plenty fast.
I have no need for stock piling discs that scratch and become obsolete. And you have to either wait for them to be delivered or go out to the store to pick them up. And you have to buy a proprietary player/recorder that can handle half of HD discs (1/2 standards).
Heck we minus well mail letters instead of using these online message boards.
Again, don't buy this junk. Blu-ray and HD-DVD players are just a compilation of cheap plastics and electronics that probably cost about 10-20 bucks per player. The whole thing is a marketing scam. They created two standards on purpose, to get a lot of media attention and hype.
True, HP and Apple, as of right now are not Blu-ray exclusive. I just reread my post and I do make it sound like HP and Apple are Blu-ray exclusive in my sentence (although I think Apple will be here pretty soon). My apologies. I only meant the CE manufactures I listed as exclusive.
Quote:
"According to Bob Perry, VP of sales and channel marketing who outlined product plans at the company's 2006 Summer Line Show this week in New York, LG remains part of the Blu-ray camp and will make a product announcement later in the year."
They basically engaged in BDA'esque hype about what they were going to do and now they're saying "sorry we're not going to do this"
They can do what they want but an LG product will not be in my house for a while. I absolutely abhor companies that are flaky. Samsung is on the verge of me looking for another TV because of their flakiness. Mean what you say and say what you mean.
Sour Grapes? Perhaps but I'm tired of vendors huffing and puffing with no action.
Are you kidding me, Verizon's FIOS offers 100Mb service to the home, even a tenth of that is enough for a couple simultaneous HD streams.
And how widely spread is that? And the cost? I just looked on their website and could only find Up to 30 Mbps/5 Mbps for $179.95. I would hate to see the cost of a 100mbps service.
Now let me just pick a random country out of my hat that is not America and we see...
Now, tell me how we are not getting badly beaten here...
Oh, and 1/10th of a 100Mbps stream is not enough for "a couple simultaneous HD streams". It would handle one compressed HD stream. And add to the fact that this line doesn't exist in the US, and it handle a whopping 0 HD streams.
Quote:
I use Cablevision which is up to 15Mb dowstream, still plenty fast.
And I am using Comcast at 8Mbps, which is pretty fast. But then I realize I pay $60/month, and I could be getting 3-4 times the speed for that price in MANY other countries.
Again, don't buy this junk. Blu-ray and HD-DVD players are just a compilation of cheap plastics and electronics that probably cost about 10-20 bucks per player. The whole thing is a marketing scam. They created two standards on purpose, to get a lot of media attention and hype.
I do think that VoD will take off in this next decade but in fairness to both Blu-Ray and HD DVD they have hooks that ensure that VoD features can be added to your current physical media.
Say you buy a movie and later on there is a new Directors Cut rather than press a new disc studios will be able offer downloadable content that branches into the movie. The beauty of this is that while the disc has a finite bandwidth the extra content doesn't count towards the muxed audio/video on the disc. The controller will have to handle the additional bandwidth but that shouldn't be a problem by the time we start seeing HD players with built in HDD.
In my review of the standard DVD I mentioned that "...there are scenes in ?Æon Flux? that look so crystal clear, you feel you could touch the actors through your television set..." well, that rings especially true in the High Definition version and anything that was "wrong" in the standard DVD has been corrected for its HD release. The wide 2.40:1 aspect ratio looks crystal clear in most every shot. And as with most of the HD-DVD releases, there's a new layer of depth with the background shots, that seem to give even more of a 3D effect while watching. The annoying edge enhancement that plagued a couple of the scenes in the earlier release is nowhere to be found here and I might just have a new reference-quality HD-DVD in "Æon Flux".
Sadly the new movies like Ultraviolet and AF look GREAT. Too bad they're not movies you want to watch over and over. You give me LotR and The Matrix Trilogy at these levels and I'll damn near pay you whatever you want for them.
True, HP and Apple, as of right now are not Blu-ray exclusive. I just reread my post and I do make it sound like HP and Apple are Blu-ray exclusive in my sentence (although I think Apple will be here pretty soon). My apologies. I only meant the CE manufactures I listed as exclusive.
"The HD DVD release of 'Training Day' was only the second on the format to include a TrueHD Dolby Digital track (after another Warner title, 'Phantom of the Opera'). Unfortunately, due to disc space limitations, Warner has elected to drop the track altogether on the Blu-ray release. Of course, since there are currently no TrueHD-compatible HD DVD or Blu-ray players nor A/V receivers on the market that can even decode the format, as of this writing the question remains moot. But more troubling is that Warner has also dropped the Dolby Digital-Plus track off of this Blu-ray release, too -- the only format available is plain old Dolby Digital 5.1 surround. So instead of this Blu-ray sounding identical to the HD DVD, it sounds identical to the standard DVD released back in 2001. "
"The HD DVD release of 'Training Day' was only the second on the format to include a TrueHD Dolby Digital track (after another Warner title, 'Phantom of the Opera'). Unfortunately, due to disc space limitations, Warner has elected to drop the track altogether on the Blu-ray release. Of course, since there are currently no TrueHD-compatible HD DVD or Blu-ray players nor A/V receivers on the market that can even decode the format, as of this writing the question remains moot. But more troubling is that Warner has also dropped the Dolby Digital-Plus track off of this Blu-ray release, too -- the only format available is plain old Dolby Digital 5.1 surround. So instead of this Blu-ray sounding identical to the HD DVD, it sounds identical to the standard DVD released back in 2001. "
Why on earth would Warner Home Video use VC1 on the HD-DVD but then use MPEG2 on the Blu-Ray disc when Blu-Ray supports VC1 as well? That just doesn't make any sense. Why go through the trouble of encoding twice? These studios have their heads up their asses.
And how widely spread is that? And the cost? I just looked on their website and could only find Up to 30 Mbps/5 Mbps for $179.95. I would hate to see the cost of a 100mbps service.
Now let me just pick a random country out of my hat that is not America and we see...
Now, tell me how we are not getting badly beaten here...
Oh, and 1/10th of a 100Mbps stream is not enough for "a couple simultaneous HD streams". It would handle one compressed HD stream. And add to the fact that this line doesn't exist in the US, and it handle a whopping 0 HD streams.
And I am using Comcast at 8Mbps, which is pretty fast. But then I realize I pay $60/month, and I could be getting 3-4 times the speed for that price in MANY other countries.
The US has always been behind in implementing technology. The government moves at a snails pace. I pay about $45/month for 6Mbps. I guess that's pretty good considering that everything moves through tubes but still...
And how widely spread is that? And the cost? I just looked on their website and could only find Up to 30 Mbps/5 Mbps for $179.95. I would hate to see the cost of a 100mbps service.
Now let me just pick a random country out of my hat that is not America and we see...
Now, tell me how we are not getting badly beaten here...
Oh, and 1/10th of a 100Mbps stream is not enough for "a couple simultaneous HD streams". It would handle one compressed HD stream. And add to the fact that this line doesn't exist in the US, and it handle a whopping 0 HD streams.
And I am using Comcast at 8Mbps, which is pretty fast. But then I realize I pay $60/month, and I could be getting 3-4 times the speed for that price in MANY other countries.
US Population = 295,734,134 / 80% + of US homes have internet access.
French Population = 60,656,178 / 50% of french homes have internet access.
Now I hate to be sticky over details, but only 50% of french households have internet access, and 80%+ US house holds have internet access.
With our population, and access not only do we have a bandwidth issue that france does not have to deal with, but we also have to get ahead of the curve next time.
We have a much larger area to cover, and getting wired across the country isn't the easiest thing to do. Also, How many updates must we have? We laid T3, then started OC3, and OC12 and we keep working, but because of our size every time we get half way through laying down the technology for better service, a new one has already emerged. Criticize all you want, but if you need to download at 2.5GB per second that bad go ahead and move to France. Fuckin A.
US Population = 295,734,134 / 80% + of US homes have internet access.
Where is this data from? I found this:
Internet users as of March/2006: 68.6% of the population, according to Nielsen//NetRatings.
So a little off from your 80% figure.
Quote:
Now I hate to be sticky over details, but only 50% of french households have internet access
This plan calls for a 60% coverage of French households initially, with a rollout to the other 40% over time. The later 40% will be the bulk of the investment (3 times the initial 60% coverage). So their goal is to get 100% broadband coverage. What is the US figure for broadband coverage?
Quote:
We have a much larger area to cover, and getting wired across the country isn't the easiest thing to do.
I've heard arguments like this before ("they're much more tightly packed than we are, so laying down fiber in major cities has a much greater profit/sq. ft ratio than a telco could get in the US."), but there are places in New York and other large metropolises that are just as packed as some of less dense Asian cities and even they don't have bandwidth to compare. I am not saying that every square inch must be covered at once. But at least start rolling out something in major metropolitan areas, to be rolled out across the country over time.
Quote:
Also, How many updates must we have? We laid T3, then started OC3, and OC12 and we keep working, but because of our size every time we get half way through laying down the technology for better service, a new one has already emerged.
I don't want to derail this thread, but our situation is a joke and gets worse everyday. The United States currently ranks 12th in the world for broadband subscribers. Our system is so messed up it is ridiculous. Backdoor political dealings, payoffs, etc...it all just screws over the consumer and lines the pockets even more of these corporations. Believe me, if I had a choice in broadband providers, I would drop Comcast in a second. But guess what? I don't! There is no other means of getting broadband where I am located. So it is either take it from Comcast, or go back to dialup. And with 3 guys in an apartment, dialup isn't even close to an option.
But really, we have government regulation to thank for our laughable phone and data networks. By trying to encourage phone companies to lay out phone wire in not so profitable locations back in the 40s and 50s, we granted them monopolies, and now they've become as poorly managed as the airlines. Most phone companies in European countries are also monopolies. The difference is that they're government regulated and partially (or wholly) government funded monopolies. It's that lack of state intervention that makes the huge difference. On the one hand, we (Americans) have never really had to wait long times to get phone service for decades. On the other hand, our internet growth has become a quagmire.
Quote:
Criticize all you want, but if you need to download at 2.5GB per second that bad go ahead and move to France. Fuckin A.
But here is the thing. It is not just you or me. Imagine if businesses could get lines like these at these kinds of prices, rather than paying hundreds of dollars for a T1. Having this kind of bandwidth (or potential) could open the doors for many smaller business ideas, or allow existing companies to offer greater services. Imagine IPTV, VOIP, Internet, on demand movies, etc, all over one pipe into your home for $85/month.
"The HD DVD release of 'Training Day' was only the second on the format to include a TrueHD Dolby Digital track (after another Warner title, 'Phantom of the Opera'). Unfortunately, due to disc space limitations, Warner has elected to drop the track altogether on the Blu-ray release. Of course, since there are currently no TrueHD-compatible HD DVD or Blu-ray players nor A/V receivers on the market that can even decode the format, as of this writing the question remains moot. But more troubling is that Warner has also dropped the Dolby Digital-Plus track off of this Blu-ray release, too -- the only format available is plain old Dolby Digital 5.1 surround. So instead of this Blu-ray sounding identical to the HD DVD, it sounds identical to the standard DVD released back in 2001. "
Some of it looks like a hardware issue. The 1st Blu-Ray player is a dud maybe? - But warner dropping the tracks is unexplainable. The Blu-Ray disc should have ample room compared o the HD-DVD version. I'm doubting that disc space is their true reasoning. The Video seems like an encoding issue which could also be hardware related, but I'm still suspicious about the lost tracks.
Some of it looks like a hardware issue. The 1st Blu-Ray player is a dud maybe? - But warner dropping the tracks is unexplainable. The Blu-Ray disc should have ample room compared o the HD-DVD version. I'm doubting that disc space is their true reasoning. The Video seems like an encoding issue which could also be hardware related, but I'm still suspicious about the lost tracks.
That's what I said, too.. I've been lurking in this thread for a while and finally I realized I knew nothing about HDDVD or Blu-Ray so I went to wikipedia.
I got the numbers on both and I can see why people are arguing. It seems that the more alike two products are, the more people argue over which is better. This is the case with BR vs HDDVD, IMO.
The only advantage to HDDVD, from what little I know, is that it can be in smaller players due to the necessary hardware bloat of blu ray.
The advantage to Blu Ray is that it holds more stuff by a relatively slim margin.
I tried to find out which is more popular these days, because that should lean towards a winner in the future, but they both seem pretty much non-existant.
I'd also like to know about DRM with HD movies on either format. Am I going to need a 'sanctioned' TV in order to use them? Is ripping software even a possibility?
Comments
I use Cablevision which is up to 15Mb dowstream, still plenty fast.
I have no need for stock piling discs that scratch and become obsolete. And you have to either wait for them to be delivered or go out to the store to pick them up. And you have to buy a proprietary player/recorder that can handle half of HD discs (1/2 standards).
Heck we minus well mail letters instead of using these online message boards.
Originally posted by ngmapple
Again, don't buy this junk. Blu-ray and HD-DVD players are just a compilation of cheap plastics and electronics that probably cost about 10-20 bucks per player. The whole thing is a marketing scam. They created two standards on purpose, to get a lot of media attention and hype.
"According to Bob Perry, VP of sales and channel marketing who outlined product plans at the company's 2006 Summer Line Show this week in New York, LG remains part of the Blu-ray camp and will make a product announcement later in the year."
Sounds like a plan to me.
They basically engaged in BDA'esque hype about what they were going to do and now they're saying "sorry we're not going to do this"
They can do what they want but an LG product will not be in my house for a while. I absolutely abhor companies that are flaky. Samsung is on the verge of me looking for another TV because of their flakiness. Mean what you say and say what you mean.
Sour Grapes? Perhaps but I'm tired of vendors huffing and puffing with no action.
Originally posted by ngmapple
Are you kidding me, Verizon's FIOS offers 100Mb service to the home, even a tenth of that is enough for a couple simultaneous HD streams.
And how widely spread is that? And the cost? I just looked on their website and could only find Up to 30 Mbps/5 Mbps for $179.95. I would hate to see the cost of a 100mbps service.
Now let me just pick a random country out of my hat that is not America and we see...
2.5Gb/s Internet For French Homes for $85/month!!!
Now, tell me how we are not getting badly beaten here...
Oh, and 1/10th of a 100Mbps stream is not enough for "a couple simultaneous HD streams". It would handle one compressed HD stream. And add to the fact that this line doesn't exist in the US, and it handle a whopping 0 HD streams.
I use Cablevision which is up to 15Mb dowstream, still plenty fast.
And I am using Comcast at 8Mbps, which is pretty fast. But then I realize I pay $60/month, and I could be getting 3-4 times the speed for that price in MANY other countries.
Originally posted by ngmapple
Again, don't buy this junk. Blu-ray and HD-DVD players are just a compilation of cheap plastics and electronics that probably cost about 10-20 bucks per player. The whole thing is a marketing scam. They created two standards on purpose, to get a lot of media attention and hype.
You need to get out more.
I do think that VoD will take off in this next decade but in fairness to both Blu-Ray and HD DVD they have hooks that ensure that VoD features can be added to your current physical media.
Say you buy a movie and later on there is a new Directors Cut rather than press a new disc studios will be able offer downloadable content that branches into the movie. The beauty of this is that while the disc has a finite bandwidth the extra content doesn't count towards the muxed audio/video on the disc. The controller will have to handle the additional bandwidth but that shouldn't be a problem by the time we start seeing HD players with built in HDD.
In my review of the standard DVD I mentioned that "...there are scenes in ?Æon Flux? that look so crystal clear, you feel you could touch the actors through your television set..." well, that rings especially true in the High Definition version and anything that was "wrong" in the standard DVD has been corrected for its HD release. The wide 2.40:1 aspect ratio looks crystal clear in most every shot. And as with most of the HD-DVD releases, there's a new layer of depth with the background shots, that seem to give even more of a 3D effect while watching. The annoying edge enhancement that plagued a couple of the scenes in the earlier release is nowhere to be found here and I might just have a new reference-quality HD-DVD in "Æon Flux".
Sadly the new movies like Ultraviolet and AF look GREAT. Too bad they're not movies you want to watch over and over. You give me LotR and The Matrix Trilogy at these levels and I'll damn near pay you whatever you want for them.
Originally posted by marzetta7
True, HP and Apple, as of right now are not Blu-ray exclusive. I just reread my post and I do make it sound like HP and Apple are Blu-ray exclusive in my sentence (although I think Apple will be here pretty soon). My apologies. I only meant the CE manufactures I listed as exclusive.
Sounds like a plan to me.
You may still be wrong about LG
http://www.engadget.com/2006/06/13/l...hd-dvd-player/
They have a HD DVD enabled laptop as well.
but nothing compared to this.
Acer 20" laptop with HD DVD
Wow.
Read the article and see who wins.
"Holy inferior audio Batman!"
"The HD DVD release of 'Training Day' was only the second on the format to include a TrueHD Dolby Digital track (after another Warner title, 'Phantom of the Opera'). Unfortunately, due to disc space limitations, Warner has elected to drop the track altogether on the Blu-ray release. Of course, since there are currently no TrueHD-compatible HD DVD or Blu-ray players nor A/V receivers on the market that can even decode the format, as of this writing the question remains moot. But more troubling is that Warner has also dropped the Dolby Digital-Plus track off of this Blu-ray release, too -- the only format available is plain old Dolby Digital 5.1 surround. So instead of this Blu-ray sounding identical to the HD DVD, it sounds identical to the standard DVD released back in 2001. "
Originally posted by hmurchison
HD DVD vs Blu-Ray head to head on Training Day
Read the article and see who wins.
"Holy inferior audio Batman!"
"The HD DVD release of 'Training Day' was only the second on the format to include a TrueHD Dolby Digital track (after another Warner title, 'Phantom of the Opera'). Unfortunately, due to disc space limitations, Warner has elected to drop the track altogether on the Blu-ray release. Of course, since there are currently no TrueHD-compatible HD DVD or Blu-ray players nor A/V receivers on the market that can even decode the format, as of this writing the question remains moot. But more troubling is that Warner has also dropped the Dolby Digital-Plus track off of this Blu-ray release, too -- the only format available is plain old Dolby Digital 5.1 surround. So instead of this Blu-ray sounding identical to the HD DVD, it sounds identical to the standard DVD released back in 2001. "
Why on earth would Warner Home Video use VC1 on the HD-DVD but then use MPEG2 on the Blu-Ray disc when Blu-Ray supports VC1 as well? That just doesn't make any sense. Why go through the trouble of encoding twice? These studios have their heads up their asses.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Acer 20" laptop with HD DVD
Wow.
Can a 20 inch laptop really be called a laptop? It's 2-1/2 inches thick and weighs 17 lbs.
Originally posted by kupan787
And how widely spread is that? And the cost? I just looked on their website and could only find Up to 30 Mbps/5 Mbps for $179.95. I would hate to see the cost of a 100mbps service.
Now let me just pick a random country out of my hat that is not America and we see...
2.5Gb/s Internet For French Homes for $85/month!!!
Now, tell me how we are not getting badly beaten here...
Oh, and 1/10th of a 100Mbps stream is not enough for "a couple simultaneous HD streams". It would handle one compressed HD stream. And add to the fact that this line doesn't exist in the US, and it handle a whopping 0 HD streams.
And I am using Comcast at 8Mbps, which is pretty fast. But then I realize I pay $60/month, and I could be getting 3-4 times the speed for that price in MANY other countries.
The US has always been behind in implementing technology. The government moves at a snails pace. I pay about $45/month for 6Mbps. I guess that's pretty good considering that everything moves through tubes but still...
try to beat that.
Originally posted by kupan787
And how widely spread is that? And the cost? I just looked on their website and could only find Up to 30 Mbps/5 Mbps for $179.95. I would hate to see the cost of a 100mbps service.
Now let me just pick a random country out of my hat that is not America and we see...
2.5Gb/s Internet For French Homes for $85/month!!!
Now, tell me how we are not getting badly beaten here...
Oh, and 1/10th of a 100Mbps stream is not enough for "a couple simultaneous HD streams". It would handle one compressed HD stream. And add to the fact that this line doesn't exist in the US, and it handle a whopping 0 HD streams.
And I am using Comcast at 8Mbps, which is pretty fast. But then I realize I pay $60/month, and I could be getting 3-4 times the speed for that price in MANY other countries.
US Population = 295,734,134 / 80% + of US homes have internet access.
French Population = 60,656,178 / 50% of french homes have internet access.
Now I hate to be sticky over details, but only 50% of french households have internet access, and 80%+ US house holds have internet access.
With our population, and access not only do we have a bandwidth issue that france does not have to deal with, but we also have to get ahead of the curve next time.
We have a much larger area to cover, and getting wired across the country isn't the easiest thing to do. Also, How many updates must we have? We laid T3, then started OC3, and OC12 and we keep working, but because of our size every time we get half way through laying down the technology for better service, a new one has already emerged. Criticize all you want, but if you need to download at 2.5GB per second that bad go ahead and move to France. Fuckin A.
Originally posted by onlooker
US Population = 295,734,134 / 80% + of US homes have internet access.
Where is this data from? I found this:
Internet users as of March/2006: 68.6% of the population, according to Nielsen//NetRatings.
So a little off from your 80% figure.
Now I hate to be sticky over details, but only 50% of french households have internet access
This plan calls for a 60% coverage of French households initially, with a rollout to the other 40% over time. The later 40% will be the bulk of the investment (3 times the initial 60% coverage). So their goal is to get 100% broadband coverage. What is the US figure for broadband coverage?
We have a much larger area to cover, and getting wired across the country isn't the easiest thing to do.
I've heard arguments like this before ("they're much more tightly packed than we are, so laying down fiber in major cities has a much greater profit/sq. ft ratio than a telco could get in the US."), but there are places in New York and other large metropolises that are just as packed as some of less dense Asian cities and even they don't have bandwidth to compare. I am not saying that every square inch must be covered at once. But at least start rolling out something in major metropolitan areas, to be rolled out across the country over time.
Also, How many updates must we have? We laid T3, then started OC3, and OC12 and we keep working, but because of our size every time we get half way through laying down the technology for better service, a new one has already emerged.
I don't want to derail this thread, but our situation is a joke and gets worse everyday. The United States currently ranks 12th in the world for broadband subscribers. Our system is so messed up it is ridiculous. Backdoor political dealings, payoffs, etc...it all just screws over the consumer and lines the pockets even more of these corporations. Believe me, if I had a choice in broadband providers, I would drop Comcast in a second. But guess what? I don't! There is no other means of getting broadband where I am located. So it is either take it from Comcast, or go back to dialup. And with 3 guys in an apartment, dialup isn't even close to an option.
But really, we have government regulation to thank for our laughable phone and data networks. By trying to encourage phone companies to lay out phone wire in not so profitable locations back in the 40s and 50s, we granted them monopolies, and now they've become as poorly managed as the airlines. Most phone companies in European countries are also monopolies. The difference is that they're government regulated and partially (or wholly) government funded monopolies. It's that lack of state intervention that makes the huge difference. On the one hand, we (Americans) have never really had to wait long times to get phone service for decades. On the other hand, our internet growth has become a quagmire.
Criticize all you want, but if you need to download at 2.5GB per second that bad go ahead and move to France. Fuckin A.
But here is the thing. It is not just you or me. Imagine if businesses could get lines like these at these kinds of prices, rather than paying hundreds of dollars for a T1. Having this kind of bandwidth (or potential) could open the doors for many smaller business ideas, or allow existing companies to offer greater services. Imagine IPTV, VOIP, Internet, on demand movies, etc, all over one pipe into your home for $85/month.
Originally posted by kupan787
Where is this data from? I found this:
Internet users as of March/2006: 68.6% of the population, according to Nielsen//NetRatings.
So a little off from your 80% figure.
#1 Nielsen Ratings. were proven to be inacurate a few years ago.
#2 you were correct though. I did read that incorrectly. The actual quote was as follows:
While 80 percent of U.S. households have computers, just over half of these households subscribe to broadband service.
#3 This has taken the Blue ray Discussion off topic.
If you want to continue down this road I suggest you start another thread in the general Discussion forum.
Originally posted by hmurchison
HD DVD vs Blu-Ray head to head on Training Day
Read the article and see who wins.
"Holy inferior audio Batman!"
"The HD DVD release of 'Training Day' was only the second on the format to include a TrueHD Dolby Digital track (after another Warner title, 'Phantom of the Opera'). Unfortunately, due to disc space limitations, Warner has elected to drop the track altogether on the Blu-ray release. Of course, since there are currently no TrueHD-compatible HD DVD or Blu-ray players nor A/V receivers on the market that can even decode the format, as of this writing the question remains moot. But more troubling is that Warner has also dropped the Dolby Digital-Plus track off of this Blu-ray release, too -- the only format available is plain old Dolby Digital 5.1 surround. So instead of this Blu-ray sounding identical to the HD DVD, it sounds identical to the standard DVD released back in 2001. "
Some of it looks like a hardware issue. The 1st Blu-Ray player is a dud maybe? - But warner dropping the tracks is unexplainable. The Blu-Ray disc should have ample room compared o the HD-DVD version. I'm doubting that disc space is their true reasoning. The Video seems like an encoding issue which could also be hardware related, but I'm still suspicious about the lost tracks.
Originally posted by onlooker
Some of it looks like a hardware issue. The 1st Blu-Ray player is a dud maybe? - But warner dropping the tracks is unexplainable. The Blu-Ray disc should have ample room compared o the HD-DVD version. I'm doubting that disc space is their true reasoning. The Video seems like an encoding issue which could also be hardware related, but I'm still suspicious about the lost tracks.
That's what I said, too.. I've been lurking in this thread for a while and finally I realized I knew nothing about HDDVD or Blu-Ray so I went to wikipedia.
I got the numbers on both and I can see why people are arguing. It seems that the more alike two products are, the more people argue over which is better. This is the case with BR vs HDDVD, IMO.
The only advantage to HDDVD, from what little I know, is that it can be in smaller players due to the necessary hardware bloat of blu ray.
The advantage to Blu Ray is that it holds more stuff by a relatively slim margin.
I tried to find out which is more popular these days, because that should lean towards a winner in the future, but they both seem pretty much non-existant.
I'd also like to know about DRM with HD movies on either format. Am I going to need a 'sanctioned' TV in order to use them? Is ripping software even a possibility?
Originally posted by slughead
The only advantage to HDVD is that it can be in smaller players due to the necessary hardware bloat of blu ray
MPEG2 is much easier to decode than MPEG4, so I think that you have this reversed - HD-DVD should have the hardware bloat.
Originally posted by e1618978
MPEG2 is much easier to decode than MPEG4, so I think that you have this reversed - HD-DVD should have the hardware bloat.
Wiki said something about the LED's being different--HDDVD's use smaller lasers.
Also, if HDDVD uses mpeg 4, that means more information/size... I might need to go back to wikipedia