Maybe it's a silly question here from this 'ol timer newbie, but since there are now hybrid players available, why couldn't Apple develope and build a hybrid burner into their machines?
Since the competing formats, Blu-ray and HD DVD, each bring something special to the table, why not go with both? It's not like the old days of the VHS vs Beta wars, where the technology was basically the same.
It would be the perfect world, the user would select the format and it's corresponding disk. Burn it, and play it back in either the proper player or a hybrid player.
Seems like Mr. Jobs and his crew of geniuses ought to have the capabilities to accomplish this.
I can't really see what specialty HD DVD brings to the table that Blu-ray doesn't already have.
Only with projected PS3 #, but since PS3 sales aren't going to reach as high as expected, the projected numbers would be revised. BTW.... what is the attachement figure of PS3 purchase as a sole BD player?... not including the one time buyer who wants to check out BD movies for the first and the last time......but ones who buy PS3 as a sole BD player would buy at least 2 to 3 BD movies/month.
Sony's launch lineup was pretty pitiful unless you only care about sports games. I'm pretty much convinced it was on purpose, just as I'm convinced they knew all along they were going to wait until March to launch in Europe. Gamer or not, most people with a PS3 are purchasing and renting Blu-ray movies because they just spent $500+ on a machine and want something new to play on it. We need to get some info from Netflix and Blockbuster about the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD requests since PS3 launched. I think that would be one of the best indicators of the PS3s effect on HD movies.
...make me wonder about the accuracy of the self-reporting of those surveyed. I sincerely doubt that anywhere near 75-80% of these PS3 owners actually currently own an HD display, or will in the near future. If, say, only 20% have HD displays, what the hell would the remaining 60% do with these Blu-Ray discs they are supposedly claiming that they're planning to buy? Settle for SD resolution for now, and hold on to the discs until they eventually buy an HD display?
I think a lot of people must have been checking off "yes" to some of these questions about Blu-Ray if they even had no more than a slight inkling that they might, just might, buy a movie on Blu-Ray some day.
I like how you just pulled those numbers out of your ass.
My interpretation of the presentation is sold to retail not sold-thru to customers and all these numbers are based off of global manufacturer projections (Shinco suggests such). The PS3 is expecting to ship and sell 6 million units worldwide by March and it's pretty safe to say that they are going to try and at least do 10 million through 2007 to compete with M$. Therefore 6.2 million would not make sense if it included PS3.
Also, looking at the manufacturers listed for HD-DVD: Toshiba (big seller), Shinco , Alco !!!! That 2.5 is including players from LG and Sharp and probably accounts for 40% of the numbers. So that's 1 million which we can say is also apart of the Blu-ray 6.2 million. Which leaves Samsung, Pioneer, Panasonic, Phillips, and Sony to make 5.2 million stand alone Blu-ray players about 1 mil a piece.
I could be wrong but, like I said, that was my interpretation of their numbers.
I viewed Engadgets link on the WB Keynote. They 6.2 million reference for BD and 2.5 million for HD DVD do cover gaming systems.
Honestly Microsoft made out like a fat rat at CES. They launched IPTV and announced a partnership with Broadcom to use the new CE 6.0 as the foundation for a reference low cost HD DVD system.
Clearly the race is
HD DVD- race down to as low as possible in player pricing
Blu-ray - maintain studio advantage.
As Marzetta7 says there's not much of a difference between the formats that's going to make a difference so price and content are going to be the lynchpins.
As Marzetta7 says there's not much of a difference between the formats that's going to make a difference so price and content are going to be the lynchpins.
Except for Blu-ray's near indestructivity, Blu-Ray being 148% faster, and of course, Blu-Ray not only holding more now, but Blu-Ray holding far much more than HD-DVD in the future.
Except for Blu-ray's near indestructivity, Blu-Ray being 148% faster, and of course, Blu-Ray not only holding more now, but Blu-Ray holding far much more than HD-DVD in the future.
HD-DVD is a one trick pony: it's cheap right now.
are you talking about the bandwidth?.... Do movies max out the bandwidth at all for 1080p24 on disc material?... I understand that you'll need the extra bandwidth for MPEG2's, but MPEG4 or VC-1 requires 1/2 the bandwidth to produce comparable picture quality and the extra bandwidth will not be needed for the movies...
Anyway, the actual benefit of HD-DVD vs. BD is cost, HD-DVD being cheaper to produce.... hence all the porn studios are coming over like pirates....... 8)
Well... the HD-DVD player, HD-DVD movies, and HD-DVD movie printing cost is cheaper than BD and J6P will definately like cheap porn in HD..... lol
Except for Blu-ray's near indestructivity, Blu-Ray being 148% faster, and of course, Blu-Ray not only holding more now, but Blu-Ray holding far much more than HD-DVD in the future.
HD-DVD is a one trick pony: it's cheap right now.
The extra coating can be added to HD DVD if the discs proved too easy to destroy. Unlike Blu-ray it's not a requirement to add a coating. Therefore IMO it's a nice feature to have but not something I really give kudos to Blu-ray for because the very design of the discs necessitate a coating of some kind.
As for bandwidth and storage sizes. I haven't seen many limitation. King Kong is 3hrs and the PQ and AQ look phenomenal. I suppose that the DVD Forum getting the 51GB triple layer discs ratified will help somewhat in the future but I don't place too much stock in the bandwidth and storage stuff until it becomes an untenable problem.
As I've said before and HD DVD is the better platform.
1. It's designed to offer superlative quality with AVC and VC-1 codecs and TrueHD lossless audio.
2. It's designed to support legacy tech in replicator lines and simplified lens assembly
3. The specification uses HDi XML based Interactivity with PiP functions available in every player
4. The mandatory nature of many of HD DVD features means everyone gets a solid player regadless of price
5. Less DRM. AACS is it. The DVD forum didn't see the need to toss in another two forms of DRM like Blu-ray has. This could haunt them if they don't get Disney and Fox to come over or they could look very smart. Time will tell
The benefits I've displayed make tangible differences in the real world. You can't show me one BD title that looks better than HD DVD because of the extra space and bandwidth.
Don't get me wrong. Blu-ray looks great on paper and if you're a spec whore you're oooh and ahhh over the specs without really drawing a corrolation between how those specs affect the actual movie watching experience. Thus far we've seen that they really don't.
As I've said before and HD DVD is the better platform.
But these are all hogwash and you know it.
Quote:
1. It's designed to offer superlative quality with AVC and VC-1 codecs and TrueHD lossless audio.
This is meaningless. "Our product is designed to take the highest advantage of our technologies blah blah blah serving the customer..."
Quote:
2. It's designed to support legacy tech in replicator lines and simplified lens assembly
This is, like I said, the only thing going for it, and the main thing holding it back. In a few years this will be irrelevant, but HD-DVD will still suck for compromising to crappier technology.
Quote:
3. The specification uses HDi XML based Interactivity with PiP functions available in every player
And Blu-ray support Java. Imperative programming languages trump declarative ones.
Quote:
4. The mandatory nature of many of HD DVD features means everyone gets a solid player regadless of price
Competition will do this anyway.
Quote:
5. Less DRM. AACS is it. The DVD forum didn't see the need to toss in another two forms of DRM like Blu-ray has. This could haunt them if they don't get Disney and Fox to come over or they could look very smart. Time will tell
HDCP is never going to happen. It's too evil. Kinda like how Sony's rootkits went, you can only push DRM so far before customers no longer take it and governments start suing.
AACS is it for both platforms.
Quote:
The benefits I've displayed make tangible differences in the real world.
Nope, they're largely meaningless. You can't just spout out features, in a comparison to Blu-ray, when Blu-ray is equal or superior one every one of those features.
Quote:
You can't show me one BD title that looks better than HD DVD because of the extra space and bandwidth.
Who cares about movie titles? Optical technology serves many purposes. For data storage, HD-DVD is wholly inferior.
Blu-ray Disc has an experimental digital rights management (DRM) feature called BD+ which allows for dynamically changing keys for the cryptographic protections involved. Should the keys currently in use be "cracked" or leaked, manufacturers can update them and build them into all subsequent discs, preventing a single key discovery from permanently breaking the entire scheme.
The Blu-ray Disc Association also agreed to add a form of digital watermarking technology to the discs. Under the name "ROM-Mark", this technology will be built into all ROM-producing devices, and requires a specially licensed piece of hardware to insert the ROM-mark into the media during replication. All Blu-ray Disc playback devices must check for the mark. Through licensing of the special hardware element, the BDA believes that it can eliminate the possibility of mass producing BD-ROMs without authorization.
Both must have AACS, as you mentioned, but Blu-Ray does have two additional DRM technologies in place (BD+ and ROM-Mark) over HD-DVD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat
Who cares about movie titles? Optical technology serves many purposes. For data storage, HD-DVD is wholly inferior.
I am guessing most people in this thread.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are, from what I gather, first and for-most a format for getting consumers their media. Both of these formats are "whole inferior" to HDDs for storage.
are you talking about the bandwidth?.... Do movies max out the bandwidth at all for 1080p24 on disc material?... I understand that you'll need the extra bandwidth for MPEG2's, but MPEG4 or VC-1 requires 1/2 the bandwidth to produce comparable picture quality and the extra bandwidth will not be needed for the movies...
I suspect he's talking about the computer applications. When you're talking about long burn times, 150% faster can save you quite a few minutes.
This is meaningless. "Our product is designed to take the highest advantage of our technologies blah blah blah serving the customer..."
This is, like I said, the only thing going for it, and the main thing holding it back. In a few years this will be irrelevant, but HD-DVD will still suck for compromising to crappier technology.
And Blu-ray support Java. Imperative programming languages trump declarative ones.
Competition will do this anyway.
HDCP is never going to happen. It's too evil. Kinda like how Sony's rootkits went, you can only push DRM so far before customers no longer take it and governments start suing.
AACS is it for both platforms.
Nope, they're largely meaningless. You can't just spout out features, in a comparison to Blu-ray, when Blu-ray is equal or superior one every one of those features.
Who cares about movie titles? Optical technology serves many purposes. For data storage, HD-DVD is wholly inferior.
Greg I don't spout hogwash. AVC and VC-1 are superior codecs to MPEG2. The BDA had to be convinced to add an advanced codec. Why? Because Sony's greed wanted them to focus on MPEG2 which looks great but is 2x less efficient than VC-1/AVC at the same bitrate. Thus they needed the extra space to deliver the right quality and have room for extras.
I don't feel "stuck" at all. Universal showed live Internet content on HD DVD media at CES and this will likely beat BD-Live to the market. HD DVD owners have gotten everything faster than Blu-ray. Interactivity, Dual Layer discs, PiP functions and soon internet content. The superior platform is clearly with HD DVD for anyone looking beyond storage per disc (which HD DVD still has the lead) and bandwidth.
Java is better for creating applications but for developing an interactive layer with networking and syncronization I'm thinking that HDi is going to be better and easier to author. We'll see..the jury is still out on this one.
You say "Competition will do this anyway" Do you realize that only 2 of the BD players will support BD live because they have ethernet ports. A $1499 Pioneer and the Playstation 3. That means all the Samsung, Sony, Philips and Panasonic players sold are already obsolete and incomplete. They cannot connect to the internet for syncronized content. Rebuy your player if you want a complete Profile 2 player. Not cool.
EVERY HD DVD player has networking. EVERY HD player has persistant storage, EVERY HD layer has PiP functionality with dual video and audio decoders. Mandatory lossless audio and DD Plus. No matter how cheap. Blu-ray can't offer this..the spec doesn't make a vendor do so.
Both formats are inferior for data storage at a small business and up level.
So we've established that Blu-ray does not offers superior PQ and has a loose specification that doesn't guarantee me a solid full featured player. Then we add in the price premium they want us to pay for it and it's clear that it is not the solution that consumers need IMO.
If you want to pay more money and get less by all means buy into the hype. I'll be over here enjoying the best HD platform on the planet.
Porn represents around 2% of the home video market. The only people who think porn has any sway whatsoever in format wars are sleazy reporters, and maybe fatcatdj.
Porn represents around 2% of the home video market. The only people who think porn has any sway whatsoever in format wars are sleazy reporters, and maybe fatcatdj.
Exactly. Secondly, I don't think you'll see much of a market for hi-def porn. Remember that the VHS porn took off even despite the poor quality as compared to film. Even if there is, it won't impact the overall industry.
Comments
Maybe it's a silly question here from this 'ol timer newbie, but since there are now hybrid players available, why couldn't Apple develope and build a hybrid burner into their machines?
Since the competing formats, Blu-ray and HD DVD, each bring something special to the table, why not go with both? It's not like the old days of the VHS vs Beta wars, where the technology was basically the same.
It would be the perfect world, the user would select the format and it's corresponding disk. Burn it, and play it back in either the proper player or a hybrid player.
Seems like Mr. Jobs and his crew of geniuses ought to have the capabilities to accomplish this.
I can't really see what specialty HD DVD brings to the table that Blu-ray doesn't already have.
Only with projected PS3 #, but since PS3 sales aren't going to reach as high as expected, the projected numbers would be revised. BTW.... what is the attachement figure of PS3 purchase as a sole BD player?... not including the one time buyer who wants to check out BD movies for the first and the last time......but ones who buy PS3 as a sole BD player would buy at least 2 to 3 BD movies/month.
Sony's launch lineup was pretty pitiful unless you only care about sports games. I'm pretty much convinced it was on purpose, just as I'm convinced they knew all along they were going to wait until March to launch in Europe. Gamer or not, most people with a PS3 are purchasing and renting Blu-ray movies because they just spent $500+ on a machine and want something new to play on it. We need to get some info from Netflix and Blockbuster about the Blu-ray vs HD-DVD requests since PS3 launched. I think that would be one of the best indicators of the PS3s effect on HD movies.
...make me wonder about the accuracy of the self-reporting of those surveyed. I sincerely doubt that anywhere near 75-80% of these PS3 owners actually currently own an HD display, or will in the near future. If, say, only 20% have HD displays, what the hell would the remaining 60% do with these Blu-Ray discs they are supposedly claiming that they're planning to buy? Settle for SD resolution for now, and hold on to the discs until they eventually buy an HD display?
I think a lot of people must have been checking off "yes" to some of these questions about Blu-Ray if they even had no more than a slight inkling that they might, just might, buy a movie on Blu-Ray some day.
I like how you just pulled those numbers out of your ass.
I can't really see what specialty HD DVD brings to the table that Blu-ray doesn't already have.
Less expensive disks, less burn time from an app like iDVD. What else...
My interpretation of the presentation is sold to retail not sold-thru to customers and all these numbers are based off of global manufacturer projections (Shinco suggests such). The PS3 is expecting to ship and sell 6 million units worldwide by March and it's pretty safe to say that they are going to try and at least do 10 million through 2007 to compete with M$. Therefore 6.2 million would not make sense if it included PS3.
Also, looking at the manufacturers listed for HD-DVD: Toshiba (big seller), Shinco
I could be wrong but, like I said, that was my interpretation of their numbers.
I viewed Engadgets link on the WB Keynote. They 6.2 million reference for BD and 2.5 million for HD DVD do cover gaming systems.
Honestly Microsoft made out like a fat rat at CES. They launched IPTV and announced a partnership with Broadcom to use the new CE 6.0 as the foundation for a reference low cost HD DVD system.
Clearly the race is
HD DVD- race down to as low as possible in player pricing
Blu-ray - maintain studio advantage.
As Marzetta7 says there's not much of a difference between the formats that's going to make a difference so price and content are going to be the lynchpins.
Adult Film Industry Chooses HD-DVD
Kupan
I like how you just pulled those numbers out of your ass.
That quote wasn't me, it was shetline. But thanks for playing
As Marzetta7 says there's not much of a difference between the formats that's going to make a difference so price and content are going to be the lynchpins.
Except for Blu-ray's near indestructivity, Blu-Ray being 148% faster, and of course, Blu-Ray not only holding more now, but Blu-Ray holding far much more than HD-DVD in the future.
HD-DVD is a one trick pony: it's cheap right now.
Except for Blu-ray's near indestructivity, Blu-Ray being 148% faster, and of course, Blu-Ray not only holding more now, but Blu-Ray holding far much more than HD-DVD in the future.
HD-DVD is a one trick pony: it's cheap right now.
are you talking about the bandwidth?.... Do movies max out the bandwidth at all for 1080p24 on disc material?... I understand that you'll need the extra bandwidth for MPEG2's, but MPEG4 or VC-1 requires 1/2 the bandwidth to produce comparable picture quality and the extra bandwidth will not be needed for the movies...
Anyway, the actual benefit of HD-DVD vs. BD is cost, HD-DVD being cheaper to produce.... hence all the porn studios are coming over like pirates....... 8)
Well... the HD-DVD player, HD-DVD movies, and HD-DVD movie printing cost is cheaper than BD and J6P will definately like cheap porn in HD..... lol
Except for Blu-ray's near indestructivity, Blu-Ray being 148% faster, and of course, Blu-Ray not only holding more now, but Blu-Ray holding far much more than HD-DVD in the future.
HD-DVD is a one trick pony: it's cheap right now.
The extra coating can be added to HD DVD if the discs proved too easy to destroy. Unlike Blu-ray it's not a requirement to add a coating. Therefore IMO it's a nice feature to have but not something I really give kudos to Blu-ray for because the very design of the discs necessitate a coating of some kind.
As for bandwidth and storage sizes. I haven't seen many limitation. King Kong is 3hrs and the PQ and AQ look phenomenal. I suppose that the DVD Forum getting the 51GB triple layer discs ratified will help somewhat in the future but I don't place too much stock in the bandwidth and storage stuff until it becomes an untenable problem.
As I've said before and HD DVD is the better platform.
1. It's designed to offer superlative quality with AVC and VC-1 codecs and TrueHD lossless audio.
2. It's designed to support legacy tech in replicator lines and simplified lens assembly
3. The specification uses HDi XML based Interactivity with PiP functions available in every player
4. The mandatory nature of many of HD DVD features means everyone gets a solid player regadless of price
5. Less DRM. AACS is it. The DVD forum didn't see the need to toss in another two forms of DRM like Blu-ray has. This could haunt them if they don't get Disney and Fox to come over or they could look very smart. Time will tell
The benefits I've displayed make tangible differences in the real world. You can't show me one BD title that looks better than HD DVD because of the extra space and bandwidth.
Don't get me wrong. Blu-ray looks great on paper and if you're a spec whore you're oooh and ahhh over the specs without really drawing a corrolation between how those specs affect the actual movie watching experience. Thus far we've seen that they really don't.
Okay, now it's all over for Blu-Ray
Adult Film Industry Chooses HD-DVD
now Blu-Ray got feverish in Island
As I've said before and HD DVD is the better platform.
But these are all hogwash and you know it.
1. It's designed to offer superlative quality with AVC and VC-1 codecs and TrueHD lossless audio.
This is meaningless. "Our product is designed to take the highest advantage of our technologies blah blah blah serving the customer..."
2. It's designed to support legacy tech in replicator lines and simplified lens assembly
This is, like I said, the only thing going for it, and the main thing holding it back. In a few years this will be irrelevant, but HD-DVD will still suck for compromising to crappier technology.
3. The specification uses HDi XML based Interactivity with PiP functions available in every player
And Blu-ray support Java. Imperative programming languages trump declarative ones.
4. The mandatory nature of many of HD DVD features means everyone gets a solid player regadless of price
Competition will do this anyway.
5. Less DRM. AACS is it. The DVD forum didn't see the need to toss in another two forms of DRM like Blu-ray has. This could haunt them if they don't get Disney and Fox to come over or they could look very smart. Time will tell
HDCP is never going to happen. It's too evil. Kinda like how Sony's rootkits went, you can only push DRM so far before customers no longer take it and governments start suing.
AACS is it for both platforms.
The benefits I've displayed make tangible differences in the real world.
Nope, they're largely meaningless. You can't just spout out features, in a comparison to Blu-ray, when Blu-ray is equal or superior one every one of those features.
You can't show me one BD title that looks better than HD DVD because of the extra space and bandwidth.
Who cares about movie titles? Optical technology serves many purposes. For data storage, HD-DVD is wholly inferior.
AACS is it for both platforms.
Blu-ray Disc has an experimental digital rights management (DRM) feature called BD+ which allows for dynamically changing keys for the cryptographic protections involved. Should the keys currently in use be "cracked" or leaked, manufacturers can update them and build them into all subsequent discs, preventing a single key discovery from permanently breaking the entire scheme.
The Blu-ray Disc Association also agreed to add a form of digital watermarking technology to the discs. Under the name "ROM-Mark", this technology will be built into all ROM-producing devices, and requires a specially licensed piece of hardware to insert the ROM-mark into the media during replication. All Blu-ray Disc playback devices must check for the mark. Through licensing of the special hardware element, the BDA believes that it can eliminate the possibility of mass producing BD-ROMs without authorization.
Both must have AACS, as you mentioned, but Blu-Ray does have two additional DRM technologies in place (BD+ and ROM-Mark) over HD-DVD.
Who cares about movie titles? Optical technology serves many purposes. For data storage, HD-DVD is wholly inferior.
I am guessing most people in this thread.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are, from what I gather, first and for-most a format for getting consumers their media. Both of these formats are "whole inferior" to HDDs for storage.
are you talking about the bandwidth?.... Do movies max out the bandwidth at all for 1080p24 on disc material?... I understand that you'll need the extra bandwidth for MPEG2's, but MPEG4 or VC-1 requires 1/2 the bandwidth to produce comparable picture quality and the extra bandwidth will not be needed for the movies...
I suspect he's talking about the computer applications. When you're talking about long burn times, 150% faster can save you quite a few minutes.
But these are all hogwash and you know it.
This is meaningless. "Our product is designed to take the highest advantage of our technologies blah blah blah serving the customer..."
This is, like I said, the only thing going for it, and the main thing holding it back. In a few years this will be irrelevant, but HD-DVD will still suck for compromising to crappier technology.
And Blu-ray support Java. Imperative programming languages trump declarative ones.
Competition will do this anyway.
HDCP is never going to happen. It's too evil. Kinda like how Sony's rootkits went, you can only push DRM so far before customers no longer take it and governments start suing.
AACS is it for both platforms.
Nope, they're largely meaningless. You can't just spout out features, in a comparison to Blu-ray, when Blu-ray is equal or superior one every one of those features.
Who cares about movie titles? Optical technology serves many purposes. For data storage, HD-DVD is wholly inferior.
Greg I don't spout hogwash. AVC and VC-1 are superior codecs to MPEG2. The BDA had to be convinced to add an advanced codec. Why? Because Sony's greed wanted them to focus on MPEG2 which looks great but is 2x less efficient than VC-1/AVC at the same bitrate. Thus they needed the extra space to deliver the right quality and have room for extras.
I don't feel "stuck" at all. Universal showed live Internet content on HD DVD media at CES and this will likely beat BD-Live to the market. HD DVD owners have gotten everything faster than Blu-ray. Interactivity, Dual Layer discs, PiP functions and soon internet content. The superior platform is clearly with HD DVD for anyone looking beyond storage per disc (which HD DVD still has the lead) and bandwidth.
Java is better for creating applications but for developing an interactive layer with networking and syncronization I'm thinking that HDi is going to be better and easier to author. We'll see..the jury is still out on this one.
You say "Competition will do this anyway" Do you realize that only 2 of the BD players will support BD live because they have ethernet ports. A $1499 Pioneer and the Playstation 3. That means all the Samsung, Sony, Philips and Panasonic players sold are already obsolete and incomplete. They cannot connect to the internet for syncronized content. Rebuy your player if you want a complete Profile 2 player. Not cool.
EVERY HD DVD player has networking. EVERY HD player has persistant storage, EVERY HD layer has PiP functionality with dual video and audio decoders. Mandatory lossless audio and DD Plus. No matter how cheap. Blu-ray can't offer this..the spec doesn't make a vendor do so.
Both formats are inferior for data storage at a small business and up level.
So we've established that Blu-ray does not offers superior PQ and has a loose specification that doesn't guarantee me a solid full featured player. Then we add in the price premium they want us to pay for it and it's clear that it is not the solution that consumers need IMO.
If you want to pay more money and get less by all means buy into the hype. I'll be over here enjoying the best HD platform on the planet.
Ahem...
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...083#post905083
http://tinyurl.com/vtpt2
Ahem...
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...083#post905083
Yeah, HD-DVD pr0n! I guess I'll pick up one of those Xbox HD-DVD addons now that I know who has won the format war. Boy am I glad that's over with.
Now anytime the Blu-Ray fanbios tout their format all that's needed is a one word response, "Porn?"
In before lock!
http://tinyurl.com/vtpt2
Ahem...
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...083#post905083
Porn represents around 2% of the home video market. The only people who think porn has any sway whatsoever in format wars are sleazy reporters, and maybe fatcatdj.
1. It's designed to offer superlative quality with AVC and VC-1 codecs.
Uhm, Blu-ray plays those too.
Porn represents around 2% of the home video market. The only people who think porn has any sway whatsoever in format wars are sleazy reporters, and maybe fatcatdj.
Exactly. Secondly, I don't think you'll see much of a market for hi-def porn. Remember that the VHS porn took off even despite the poor quality as compared to film. Even if there is, it won't impact the overall industry.