Of course, you're entitled to belive whatever you wish to, but the question of storage capacity on either format in the Hi-Def format movies become irrelevant. For movies, 30GB in advance codec has shown to be more than enough storage space for 3+ hour movies in top quality PQ. King Kong is a good example where none of the BD movies on the 50GB disc can come close in PQ to the 30GB HD-DVD as of today. Unless, studios are putting multiple sequals on one disc..... which will never happen, 50GB is over kill for movies when using advance H264AVC or VC-1. However, for sony using MPEG2, they may need more than 50 GB dual layer BD and the storage capacity is definite issue only on BD movies from Sony.
King Kong pretty much maxed out the capacity of HD DVD and it would not have enough room for TrueHD audio, So while the video quality is superb, they have to make tradeoff on the audio side, but I guess if needed, the publisher could put the special features on a separate disc to make room for better audio, but then again that would just increase manufacturing cost.
I still think 50GB is the ideal capacity for HiDef AV. And if Toshiba's proposed TL-51 format turns out to be backward compatible with current-gen players, then I think HD DVD will prevail because the bottomline to studios is all about profit and return of investment.
Haha... as expected, you're twisting things like Sony does. You're figures aren't correct....on both HD or BD figures.... BTW, where's the BD standalone player figures?... Oh.... yeah, they don't sell because of PS3..... and all PS3 buyers all of a sudden become die hard BD movie fans.......... 1 Million PS3 shipped is alot...... but many are collecting dust either in the warehouse or on the store shelves..... Go PS3!!!! The ultimate trojan horse to BD!
Twisting? Hmm? What motive do I have to twist things? A: None.
Now what does that add up too...c'mon you can do the math Rain Man, I know you can...that's 152,000 HD DVD players out there.
Now, some of you are now questioning the over 1 million Blu-ray players out there now in people's homes, well, all I have to say is that it is most likely true when 2 million, that's 2,000,000 PS3 have been shipped worldwide...
So yes, it is quite likely that there are more than 1 million Blu-ray players out in people's homes, and this isn't even counting the number of standalone Blu-ray players sold. Where are the BD standalon player numbers? Good question, as I have yet to see any numbers released.
But lets just say for giggles, that Blu-ray only managed to sell half of the standanones HD DVD at 30,000. And, heck let's use Murch's favorite pipe dream moniker about the 15% of people using their PS3 as a movie player. Now, if we assume that only 1.5 million of the 2 million shipped worldwide have sold, you now have 225,000 dedicate Blu-ray players out there plus the 30,000 standalones, giving you 255,000 dedicated Blu-ray players. More than 100,000 more players than HD DVD.
This gap will only widen through 2007 as the content of Blu-ray discs will far outpower the content of HD DVD with huge blockbuster exclusives coming out from Disney, Fox, MGM, Sony and Lionsgate (Cars, Pirates of the Carribean, etc.) thus increasing the number of Blu-ray players sold--PS3 or standalone--that much more. Moreover, with Sharp hopping on board with a player as well as Samusung's second gen player along with second gen players likely from Sony, Pioner, Panasnonic, and Philips. Well, lets' just say once again that economies of scale, presence, trusted name brand value, (together with more content to push sales) and a host of other variables like better durability and marketing will accumulate to Blu-ray domination in 07.
Murch, you crack me up. Given that the HD DVD camp only managed to sell a paltry 152,000 players, including the much hyped add-on, and you think Toshiba itself will sell two million. What can I say to this other than it is borderline delusional.
Of course, you're entitled to belive whatever you wish to, but the question of storage capacity on either format in the Hi-Def format movies become irrelevant. For movies, 30GB in advance codec has shown to be more than enough storage space for 3+ hour movies in top quality PQ. King Kong is a good example where none of the BD movies on the 50GB disc can come close in PQ to the 30GB HD-DVD as of today. Unless, studios are putting multiple sequals on one disc..... which will never happen, 50GB is over kill for movies when using advance H264AVC or VC-1. However, for sony using MPEG2, they may need more than 50 GB dual layer BD and the storage capacity is definite issue only on BD movies from Sony.
I think the Covenant from Sony is a good example of how full of crap you are...
It got a 5 star PQ rating and a 41/2 star rating all on one 25 GB Blu-ray disc using good ol MPEG2. King Kong got the same PQ and AQ rating as the Covenant, and yet here you are claiming that no movie matches King Kong. Hmm, a bit too bold of a claim methinks.
PQ by the way, to be quite honest is equal on both formats, you just get greater capacity, greater durability, greater amount of content, greater amount of players, greater amount of IT support, and a greater amount of more trusted brands with Blu-ray. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Of course, you're entitled to belive whatever you wish to, but the question of storage capacity on either format in the Hi-Def format movies become irrelevant.
Movies are only part of the equation. The other part is computer storage. Unless and until the amazing 37TB hard drives Seagate claim they will introduce in the next few years appear, optical drives will remain cheaper for offline storage for personal and small business users. 50GB beats 30GB any day and that's assuming the even higher capacity BR discs never make it out of the lab. I seriously doubt the mythical triple layer HD DVD disk will ever see the light of day. Yes, some people prefer large-capacity hard drives for backups, but they're not exactly easy to ship to clients when you want to transfer data. They tend to be a wee bit fragile.
Don't be so quick to mock. You've been absolutely 100% convinced of blu-ray's triumph since before any numbers were out even.
I'm convinced because on a factual and logical basis, the industry as a whole--Hollywood, IT, CE, etc.--is on Blu-ray's side. This has been in the case in the past, and it is currently how it stands now, and it is how it appears it will be for the foreseeable future. That support itselfe constitutes numbers, so really, I've always had numbers from day 1 as has Blu-ray.
HD DVD is still maintaining their lead overall in Top 20 movie sales.
That being said I think you should get a PS3 because you have a PS2. I don't hate Blu-ray I just don't think it's measurably better than HD DVD to the point where I feel like I have to pay more.
I see the battle working out like this.
Toshiba will sell 2 million players worldwide this year. Sony will have 6 million BD players primarily through the PS3.
Warner will begin to ship their Total HD (Blu-ray/HD DVD combo discs) by late summer. Paramount will join them in delivering Total HD discs at CES 2008.
Universal will stay HD DVD exclusive until early 2008 where there will be a press release proclaiming neutrality for Universal, Fox/MGM, Lionsgate and Disney/Buena Vista. They will all announce Total HD support.
Retailers will rejoice because they now get to stock on HD movie SKU for the large studios. Both formats are assured survival and we'll have at least 3 total Universal players.
I don't think the PS3 is a bad gaming console. In fact it's great but it simply doesn't have enough games to drive additional demand after the first wave of consumers have purchased.
Sales were down for all systems, not to mention that the World of Warcraft expansion came out on the 16th here and in Europe and is expected sometime later in the month in Japan. 7,000,000 gamers world wide with broad band connections are planning on spending some extra time with their CPUs not their consoles. Just another reason why a much higher percentage than anyone will admit of PS3s are being bought to serve as a Blu-ray player first, game machine second.
King Kong pretty much maxed out the capacity of HD DVD and it would not have enough room for TrueHD audio, So while the video quality is superb, they have to make tradeoff on the audio side, but I guess if needed, the publisher could put the special features on a separate disc to make room for better audio, but then again that would just increase manufacturing cost.
I still think 50GB is the ideal capacity for HiDef AV. And if Toshiba's proposed TL-51 format turns out to be backward compatible with current-gen players, then I think HD DVD will prevail because the bottomline to studios is all about profit and return of investment.
I do agree and I also would've liked having TrueHD5.1 audio, but King Kong audio was encoded in DD+ at 1.5mbps which performs very close to TrueHD level which not many systems or audience would have trained auditioning to tell the difference from TrueHD5.1. Therefore, even on DD+ 1.5mbps, it also got very high marks on the audio as well. If the publisher really did wanted the best of the best technology, two disc edition would've done that like MI:III and Clerks II, but I gues it wasn't intended.
Anyway, the point is that 30GB disc is capable of 3+ hrs of movie in the highest performance in both video and audio. I still don't see the need for the extra space everyone is talking about... Most movies aren't 3+ hours long and majority of movies around 2+ hrs will easily fit into 30GB disc and be able to produce highest video and audio playback along with tons of extras included in the same disc.
Basically, need for more storage space is tide to the cost vs. convenience and when you think about it, why do majority of people are still happy with SL DVD+/-R instead of the dual layer discs?.... Basically, the SL is big enough for most tasks and cheap enough. Most people don't mine having few 2 discs sets instead of expensive one dual layer disc when more space is needed once in a blu-moon.... I've had my DL DVD writer for more than 3 years now, but I've never burned a single dual-layer disc.... even I had bought a 25 pack spindle a while back.
Movies are only part of the equation. The other part is computer storage. Unless and until the amazing 37TB hard drives Seagate claim they will introduce in the next few years appear, optical drives will remain cheaper for offline storage for personal and small business users. 50GB beats 30GB any day and that's assuming the even higher capacity BR discs never make it out of the lab. I seriously doubt the mythical triple layer HD DVD disk will ever see the light of day. Yes, some people prefer large-capacity hard drives for backups, but they're not exactly easy to ship to clients when you want to transfer data. They tend to be a wee bit fragile.
I didn't know you're taking about Hi-Def Storage format, however, even in the storage space of optical technology, I think the cost or price will determine the winner vs. the capacity. When you think about it.... 15GB, 25GB, 30GB, and 50GB are priced the same..... then the highest capacity wins the consumer's choice..... but what if each disc cost $1.50, $2.50, $3.00, and $5.00 per those discs.... which would consumers buy?.... I bet the outcome would be like the dual layer vs. single layer DVD+/-R scenario.... if it's cheap enough and big enough..... it will be the most popular item for the consumer.
I didn't know you're taking about Hi-Def Storage format, however, even in the storage space of optical technology, I think the cost or price will determine the winner vs. the capacity. When you think about it.... 15GB, 25GB, 30GB, and 50GB are priced the same..... then the highest capacity wins the consumer's choice..... but what if each disc cost $1.50, $2.50, $3.00, and $5.00 per those discs.... which would consumers buy?.... I bet the outcome would be like the dual layer vs. single layer DVD+/-R scenario.... if it's cheap enough and big enough..... it will be the most popular item for the consumer.
Check the prices. As of right now, 15GB HD DVD blanks are at least $18. Name brand 25GB Blu-ray blanks are as low as $14. A bit pricey still, but remember that it wasn't so long ago when Apple introduced "breakthrough" pricing of $10 per DVD blank; other DVD blanks were much more than $14 at the time. The question is why are HD DVD blanks so expensive if they're supposed to be based on the same technology as DVDs and that was supposed to work to their advantage.
BTW, there are no "hi-def storage" formats. There is no definition involved when you're talking optical storage, just bytes.
BTW, there are no "hi-def storage" formats. There is no definition involved when you're talking optical storage, just bytes.
Exactly, and this thread isn't about storage capacity, but how either or both optical format will make it to the main stream supporting Hi-Def Movies on either optical formats and we can drop the storage capacity talk all together since it has no relevance due to 30GB not being the limiting factor. Even the 25GB BD seems to be okay for short movies on MPEG2.
BTW, I don't think there's an official HD-DVD burner out on the market. Hence the price seems to be a proto-type cost for both BD and HD blank discs. I think there was an announce at CES from Toshiba HD-DVD burner, but don't think it's available to consumers, yet. Once it's considered main stream item, the prices will drop close to current DVD blanks, I'd hope.
I do agree and I also would've liked having TrueHD5.1 audio, but King Kong audio was encoded in DD+ at 1.5mbps which performs very close to TrueHD level which not many systems or audience would have trained auditioning to tell the difference from TrueHD5.1. Therefore, even on DD+ 1.5mbps, it also got very high marks on the audio as well. If the publisher really did wanted the best of the best technology, two disc edition would've done that like MI:III and Clerks II, but I gues it wasn't intended.
Anyway, the point is that 30GB disc is capable of 3+ hrs of movie in the highest performance in both video and audio. I still don't see the need for the extra space everyone is talking about... Most movies aren't 3+ hours long and majority of movies around 2+ hrs will easily fit into 30GB disc and be able to produce highest video and audio playback along with tons of extras included in the same disc.
Well, if you want all extras to be in HD resolution as well on the same disc you wouldn't have any room left, but I guess you can put the movie on one DL 30GB disc and all the extras on a 15GB SL disc, but with the advent of HDi interactive access, where you can view special features while the main feature is playing, then it's not feasible. So I still think 50GB is much more preferable capacity to work with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
I
Basically, need for more storage space is tide to the cost vs. convenience and when you think about it, why do majority of people are still happy with SL DVD+/-R instead of the dual layer discs?.... Basically, the SL is big enough for most tasks and cheap enough. Most people don't mine having few 2 discs sets instead of expensive one dual layer disc when more space is needed once in a blu-moon.... I've had my DL DVD writer for more than 3 years now, but I've never burned a single dual-layer disc.... even I had bought a 25 pack spindle a while back.
For computer data storage, I agree with you, but for movie storage, a majority of movies titles are in DL because it simply looks much better. I don't think I've seen one SL release unless the movie is from Asia.
Exactly, and this thread isn't about storage capacity, but how either or both optical format will make it to the main stream supporting Hi-Def Movies on either optical formats and we can drop the storage capacity talk all together since it has no relevance due to 30GB not being the limiting factor. Even the 25GB BD seems to be okay for short movies on MPEG2.
BTW, I don't think there's an official HD-DVD burner out on the market. Hence the price seems to be a proto-type cost for both BD and HD blank discs. I think there was an announce at CES from Toshiba HD-DVD burner, but don't think it's available to consumers, yet. Once it's considered main stream item, the prices will drop close to current DVD blanks, I'd hope.
Really? I didn't realize I had named the topic Hi-Def Movie Battle 2007. I thought it was Blu-ray vs. HD DVD. And part of that battle is in the personal computer arena whether you want to discuss it or not. After all, this forum is about future hardware for Apple computers. It's not about movies, per se. If you just want to talk about those exclusively, you should go to one of the home theater forums.
You are the one making up terms like "Hi-Def Storage," so don't try to palm it off on anybody else. You also seem to be flip-flopping all over the place. First you think it'll work out like expensive dual layer discs, then you turn around and say it'll be close to DVD blanks. In case you didn't know, that Toshiba burner is pitiful, only 1x speed. Blu-ray burners released months ago were already 2x.
Thanks, because the point, totally missed on you obviously, is that Microsoft won't be the saviour of HD DVD. As a side note, Apple will most likely.
I disagree. Microsoft will be one of two saviours for HD DVD. Basically everyone with a decent PC can now buy a $200 add on drive and hook it up to their PC to play HD movies,. And for those with Xbox 360, a 10% attachment rate would equate to at least 1 milllion HD DVD, by the end of 2007, when sales of 360 will be around 17 million, you are looking at 1.7 dedicated HD DVD players
the add-on even works on Macs even though there is no software player for it at the moment.
I predict as long as Universal remains committed to HD DVD they would be around for quite some time.
The only worry I have about HD DVD is with copy protection, while BD has the watermark to prevent mass distribution from replicators, HD DVD as no way to prevent it so Chinese pirates could make movie studiios think twice about release their titles on HD DVD. If that is not the case then someone please correct me if I am wrong.
I am currently Pro-BD myself, but if HD DVD can deliver backward compatible TL-51 and at the same time reassure studios Chinese pirates won't gobble them up, then I am all for HD DVD to succeed.
Exactly, and this thread isn't about storage capacity, but how either or both optical format will make it to the main stream supporting Hi-Def Movies on either optical formats and we can drop the storage capacity talk all together since it has no relevance due to 30GB not being the limiting factor. Even the 25GB BD seems to be okay for short movies on MPEG2.
I find this amusing. It's a no-no to talk about storage but all right to talk about the PS3's shortcoming as a gaming machine. Oh, well.
In my never ending but so far futile quest to inject some reality into this thread, here are some comments.
Numbers for either format really don't mean much at this time. I don't know about Toshiba but Sony is in this for the long run. They still support failed niche formats, SACD and MD-DAT come to mind. Plus people seem to forget that it's not just Sony, Sony is only a part of a consortium of hardware manufacturers producing Blu-Ray players.
Another reason Sony is in it for the long haul is that B-R is the basis for their PS3, their latest game generation. I'm not a gamer so I don't know if the lament that the PS3 is too expensive for a game machine is valid, but once some killer PS3 only must have games come out I wonder how many people will still be saying that.
The PS3 consistently gets good reviews as a B-R player. There's an on-going ownership poll on the AVSforum B-R board. The people who post on AVS tend to be knowledgeable and more affluent people and actually own a machine, not like some of the most vocal fanboys in this thread who don't even own a HD or B-R player. In the poll results 2/3 own a PS3, with the 60GB at a 2 to 1 ratio over the 20GB. Until other manufacturers come out with a quality machine at the PS3's price-point, the PS3 will remain the machine of choice for those looking for a "budget" entry into B-R.
PS3's availability seems to be hit-or-miss. There was none on the shelf at the Best Buy I checked last week on Thursday.
The bottom line is if you like HD-DVD buy a machine, the same for B-R. Buy a player and don't look back but also there's no need to knock the other format. If you're not sure which way to go, hold off as things might be clearer near the 2007 Christmas buying season.
A question for the one or two people who actively post in this thread and actually have bought a machine. Does your receiver have HDMI in and out and if not, did you buy a new receiver or are you using optical sound?
I find this amusing. It's a no-no to talk about storage but all right to talk about the PS3's shortcoming as a gaming machine. Oh, well.
A question for the one or two people who actively post in this thread and actually have bought a machine. Does your receiver have HDMI in and out and if not, did you buy a new receiver or are you using optical sound?
I didn't mean to state in such way that it is no-no to talk about storage capacity at all of both technology. It just gets old when people think storage capacity will be the driving factor in the Hi-Def movie industry and many points of storage limitation issue are irrelevant in this nature due to most movies do not require much storage space, hence many BD movies are in even smaller 25GB SL disc when using advanced video codec.
As for the receiver question, my receiver does not have HDMI switching capability and if you're an audio enthusiast, you'd probably want to wait for HDMI 1.3 switching and Hi-Def audio format decoding. There's no such AVR available at the moment. I use analog 5.1 to get the best audio possible for now. Any advanced audio will be decoded and converted to either multi-channel PCM via HDMI or DTS via optical SPDIF by the player. Basically, the worst sampling will be via optical out since it's limited to 0.64 mpbs spec, but I find it still better than any DD or DTS 5.1 on normal DVD's.
A question for the one or two people who actively post in this thread and actually have bought a machine. Does your receiver have HDMI in and out and if not, did you buy a new receiver or are you using optical sound?
No. I just have a stereo receiver. I got a hand-me-down pair of McIntosh speakers from my Dad, and I bought an integrated NAD stereo amp (cheapest quality amp to power those speakers). I also got a hand-me-down Velodyne sub from my Dad (he was getting a bunch of new equipment, and I played the starving college student card). This setup would blow away any 5.1 setup I could afford at the time.
I am vey pleased with my HD-DVD player. I just got a blockbuster online subscription, and have 19 hd-dvds in my queue. We currently own 6, and soon 7 (once I go pick up serenity). All in all, I am very pleased. The picture quality is amazing, and the sound is great. I am sure if I had more invested in my audio side of things, it would be even better. But for my small front room in my apartment, the setup I have at 40% is ratteling doors
My number is all that matters to me, it's a guess, a SWAG, a "pure speculation," a prediction, a forecast. It has nothing to do with a simplistic X*Y=Z based on short term historic data.
And if your number is an ~order of magnitude linear extrapolation, by all means be my guest, mine isn't and never was!
And someone who doesn't accept my guess for what it is, a guess, and makes up their own set of assumptions, and then applies their assumptions to my guess, saying that their answer "proves the future" just doesn't get it, and apparently at this point never will!
frank my problem is not with your guess ok
nor is it with your numbers ok
it is with the fact you made a guess, and then, to back it up, you used numbers that DIDNT.
it is with the fact you made a guess, and then, to back it up, you used numbers that DIDNT.
got that... ok.
message ends
Dude,
Basically you don't know how I think, you don't know how I came up with my guess, and you ASSUMED that the numbers I did mention were the ONLY input to my aforementioned quess!
Go back to my original post and READ the part about "and plenty of room to grow this year" at the end.
So basically, you made the WRONG assumption about how I arrived at my quess!
Comments
Of course, you're entitled to belive whatever you wish to, but the question of storage capacity on either format in the Hi-Def format movies become irrelevant. For movies, 30GB in advance codec has shown to be more than enough storage space for 3+ hour movies in top quality PQ. King Kong is a good example where none of the BD movies on the 50GB disc can come close in PQ to the 30GB HD-DVD as of today. Unless, studios are putting multiple sequals on one disc..... which will never happen, 50GB is over kill for movies when using advance H264AVC or VC-1. However, for sony using MPEG2, they may need more than 50 GB dual layer BD and the storage capacity is definite issue only on BD movies from Sony.
King Kong pretty much maxed out the capacity of HD DVD and it would not have enough room for TrueHD audio, So while the video quality is superb, they have to make tradeoff on the audio side, but I guess if needed, the publisher could put the special features on a separate disc to make room for better audio, but then again that would just increase manufacturing cost.
I still think 50GB is the ideal capacity for HiDef AV. And if Toshiba's proposed TL-51 format turns out to be backward compatible with current-gen players, then I think HD DVD will prevail because the bottomline to studios is all about profit and return of investment.
Haha... as expected, you're twisting things like Sony does. You're figures aren't correct....on both HD or BD figures.... BTW, where's the BD standalone player figures?... Oh.... yeah, they don't sell because of PS3..... and all PS3 buyers all of a sudden become die hard BD movie fans.......... 1 Million PS3 shipped is alot...... but many are collecting dust either in the warehouse or on the store shelves..... Go PS3!!!! The ultimate trojan horse to BD!
Twisting? Hmm? What motive do I have to twist things? A: None.
I'm way off on HD DVD players sold?...
60,000 standalone players sold (All Toshiba and RCA)... http://www.e-gear.com/story/story.bs...4760&var=story
92,000 HD DVD add-ons... http://zhouzishuo.bb.engadgethd.com/...-the-holidays/
Now what does that add up too...c'mon you can do the math Rain Man, I know you can...that's 152,000 HD DVD players out there.
Now, some of you are now questioning the over 1 million Blu-ray players out there now in people's homes, well, all I have to say is that it is most likely true when 2 million, that's 2,000,000 PS3 have been shipped worldwide...
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6164206...s&subj=6164206
So yes, it is quite likely that there are more than 1 million Blu-ray players out in people's homes, and this isn't even counting the number of standalone Blu-ray players sold. Where are the BD standalon player numbers? Good question, as I have yet to see any numbers released.
But lets just say for giggles, that Blu-ray only managed to sell half of the standanones HD DVD at 30,000. And, heck let's use Murch's favorite pipe dream moniker about the 15% of people using their PS3 as a movie player. Now, if we assume that only 1.5 million of the 2 million shipped worldwide have sold, you now have 225,000 dedicate Blu-ray players out there plus the 30,000 standalones, giving you 255,000 dedicated Blu-ray players. More than 100,000 more players than HD DVD.
This gap will only widen through 2007 as the content of Blu-ray discs will far outpower the content of HD DVD with huge blockbuster exclusives coming out from Disney, Fox, MGM, Sony and Lionsgate (Cars, Pirates of the Carribean, etc.) thus increasing the number of Blu-ray players sold--PS3 or standalone--that much more. Moreover, with Sharp hopping on board with a player as well as Samusung's second gen player along with second gen players likely from Sony, Pioner, Panasnonic, and Philips. Well, lets' just say once again that economies of scale, presence, trusted name brand value, (together with more content to push sales) and a host of other variables like better durability and marketing will accumulate to Blu-ray domination in 07.
Murch, you crack me up. Given that the HD DVD camp only managed to sell a paltry 152,000 players, including the much hyped add-on, and you think Toshiba itself will sell two million. What can I say to this other than it is borderline delusional.
Of course, you're entitled to belive whatever you wish to, but the question of storage capacity on either format in the Hi-Def format movies become irrelevant. For movies, 30GB in advance codec has shown to be more than enough storage space for 3+ hour movies in top quality PQ. King Kong is a good example where none of the BD movies on the 50GB disc can come close in PQ to the 30GB HD-DVD as of today. Unless, studios are putting multiple sequals on one disc..... which will never happen, 50GB is over kill for movies when using advance H264AVC or VC-1. However, for sony using MPEG2, they may need more than 50 GB dual layer BD and the storage capacity is definite issue only on BD movies from Sony.
I think the Covenant from Sony is a good example of how full of crap you are...
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/covenant.html
It got a 5 star PQ rating and a 41/2 star rating all on one 25 GB Blu-ray disc using good ol MPEG2. King Kong got the same PQ and AQ rating as the Covenant, and yet here you are claiming that no movie matches King Kong. Hmm, a bit too bold of a claim methinks.
PQ by the way, to be quite honest is equal on both formats, you just get greater capacity, greater durability, greater amount of content, greater amount of players, greater amount of IT support, and a greater amount of more trusted brands with Blu-ray. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Good point. Because Sony's OS totally has native Blu-Ray support.
Thanks, because the point, totally missed on you obviously, is that Microsoft won't be the saviour of HD DVD. As a side note, Apple will most likely.
Of course, you're entitled to belive whatever you wish to, but the question of storage capacity on either format in the Hi-Def format movies become irrelevant.
Movies are only part of the equation. The other part is computer storage. Unless and until the amazing 37TB hard drives Seagate claim they will introduce in the next few years appear, optical drives will remain cheaper for offline storage for personal and small business users. 50GB beats 30GB any day and that's assuming the even higher capacity BR discs never make it out of the lab. I seriously doubt the mythical triple layer HD DVD disk will ever see the light of day. Yes, some people prefer large-capacity hard drives for backups, but they're not exactly easy to ship to clients when you want to transfer data. They tend to be a wee bit fragile.
Don't be so quick to mock. You've been absolutely 100% convinced of blu-ray's triumph since before any numbers were out even.
I'm convinced because on a factual and logical basis, the industry as a whole--Hollywood, IT, CE, etc.--is on Blu-ray's side. This has been in the case in the past, and it is currently how it stands now, and it is how it appears it will be for the foreseeable future. That support itselfe constitutes numbers, so really, I've always had numbers from day 1 as has Blu-ray.
Snoopy
That's not how it's going down
PS3 sales had their worst week in sales
PS3 sales dropping in Japan
Playstation 3 missies goals by %25
Sony only sold 490,700 consoles in December
The demand for the PS3 is ALREADY waning clearly. The Wii is still red hot.
So you can certainly rule out the 850k pipe dream. I'd say they're probably lucky if %15 are using their consoles consistently for movie playing as
http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/Top.cfm
HD DVD is still maintaining their lead overall in Top 20 movie sales.
That being said I think you should get a PS3 because you have a PS2. I don't hate Blu-ray I just don't think it's measurably better than HD DVD to the point where I feel like I have to pay more.
I see the battle working out like this.
Toshiba will sell 2 million players worldwide this year. Sony will have 6 million BD players primarily through the PS3.
Warner will begin to ship their Total HD (Blu-ray/HD DVD combo discs) by late summer. Paramount will join them in delivering Total HD discs at CES 2008.
Universal will stay HD DVD exclusive until early 2008 where there will be a press release proclaiming neutrality for Universal, Fox/MGM, Lionsgate and Disney/Buena Vista. They will all announce Total HD support.
Retailers will rejoice because they now get to stock on HD movie SKU for the large studios. Both formats are assured survival and we'll have at least 3 total Universal players.
I don't think the PS3 is a bad gaming console. In fact it's great but it simply doesn't have enough games to drive additional demand after the first wave of consumers have purchased.
Sales were down for all systems, not to mention that the World of Warcraft expansion came out on the 16th here and in Europe and is expected sometime later in the month in Japan. 7,000,000 gamers world wide with broad band connections are planning on spending some extra time with their CPUs not their consoles. Just another reason why a much higher percentage than anyone will admit of PS3s are being bought to serve as a Blu-ray player first, game machine second.
King Kong pretty much maxed out the capacity of HD DVD and it would not have enough room for TrueHD audio, So while the video quality is superb, they have to make tradeoff on the audio side, but I guess if needed, the publisher could put the special features on a separate disc to make room for better audio, but then again that would just increase manufacturing cost.
I still think 50GB is the ideal capacity for HiDef AV. And if Toshiba's proposed TL-51 format turns out to be backward compatible with current-gen players, then I think HD DVD will prevail because the bottomline to studios is all about profit and return of investment.
I do agree and I also would've liked having TrueHD5.1 audio, but King Kong audio was encoded in DD+ at 1.5mbps which performs very close to TrueHD level which not many systems or audience would have trained auditioning to tell the difference from TrueHD5.1. Therefore, even on DD+ 1.5mbps, it also got very high marks on the audio as well. If the publisher really did wanted the best of the best technology, two disc edition would've done that like MI:III and Clerks II, but I gues it wasn't intended.
Anyway, the point is that 30GB disc is capable of 3+ hrs of movie in the highest performance in both video and audio. I still don't see the need for the extra space everyone is talking about... Most movies aren't 3+ hours long and majority of movies around 2+ hrs will easily fit into 30GB disc and be able to produce highest video and audio playback along with tons of extras included in the same disc.
Basically, need for more storage space is tide to the cost vs. convenience and when you think about it, why do majority of people are still happy with SL DVD+/-R instead of the dual layer discs?.... Basically, the SL is big enough for most tasks and cheap enough. Most people don't mine having few 2 discs sets instead of expensive one dual layer disc when more space is needed once in a blu-moon.... I've had my DL DVD writer for more than 3 years now, but I've never burned a single dual-layer disc.... even I had bought a 25 pack spindle a while back.
Movies are only part of the equation. The other part is computer storage. Unless and until the amazing 37TB hard drives Seagate claim they will introduce in the next few years appear, optical drives will remain cheaper for offline storage for personal and small business users. 50GB beats 30GB any day and that's assuming the even higher capacity BR discs never make it out of the lab. I seriously doubt the mythical triple layer HD DVD disk will ever see the light of day. Yes, some people prefer large-capacity hard drives for backups, but they're not exactly easy to ship to clients when you want to transfer data. They tend to be a wee bit fragile.
I didn't know you're taking about Hi-Def Storage format, however, even in the storage space of optical technology, I think the cost or price will determine the winner vs. the capacity. When you think about it.... 15GB, 25GB, 30GB, and 50GB are priced the same..... then the highest capacity wins the consumer's choice..... but what if each disc cost $1.50, $2.50, $3.00, and $5.00 per those discs.... which would consumers buy?.... I bet the outcome would be like the dual layer vs. single layer DVD+/-R scenario.... if it's cheap enough and big enough..... it will be the most popular item for the consumer.
I didn't know you're taking about Hi-Def Storage format, however, even in the storage space of optical technology, I think the cost or price will determine the winner vs. the capacity. When you think about it.... 15GB, 25GB, 30GB, and 50GB are priced the same..... then the highest capacity wins the consumer's choice..... but what if each disc cost $1.50, $2.50, $3.00, and $5.00 per those discs.... which would consumers buy?.... I bet the outcome would be like the dual layer vs. single layer DVD+/-R scenario.... if it's cheap enough and big enough..... it will be the most popular item for the consumer.
Check the prices. As of right now, 15GB HD DVD blanks are at least $18. Name brand 25GB Blu-ray blanks are as low as $14. A bit pricey still, but remember that it wasn't so long ago when Apple introduced "breakthrough" pricing of $10 per DVD blank; other DVD blanks were much more than $14 at the time. The question is why are HD DVD blanks so expensive if they're supposed to be based on the same technology as DVDs and that was supposed to work to their advantage.
BTW, there are no "hi-def storage" formats. There is no definition involved when you're talking optical storage, just bytes.
BTW, there are no "hi-def storage" formats. There is no definition involved when you're talking optical storage, just bytes.
Exactly, and this thread isn't about storage capacity, but how either or both optical format will make it to the main stream supporting Hi-Def Movies on either optical formats and we can drop the storage capacity talk all together since it has no relevance due to 30GB not being the limiting factor. Even the 25GB BD seems to be okay for short movies on MPEG2.
BTW, I don't think there's an official HD-DVD burner out on the market. Hence the price seems to be a proto-type cost for both BD and HD blank discs. I think there was an announce at CES from Toshiba HD-DVD burner, but don't think it's available to consumers, yet. Once it's considered main stream item, the prices will drop close to current DVD blanks, I'd hope.
I do agree and I also would've liked having TrueHD5.1 audio, but King Kong audio was encoded in DD+ at 1.5mbps which performs very close to TrueHD level which not many systems or audience would have trained auditioning to tell the difference from TrueHD5.1. Therefore, even on DD+ 1.5mbps, it also got very high marks on the audio as well. If the publisher really did wanted the best of the best technology, two disc edition would've done that like MI:III and Clerks II, but I gues it wasn't intended.
Anyway, the point is that 30GB disc is capable of 3+ hrs of movie in the highest performance in both video and audio. I still don't see the need for the extra space everyone is talking about... Most movies aren't 3+ hours long and majority of movies around 2+ hrs will easily fit into 30GB disc and be able to produce highest video and audio playback along with tons of extras included in the same disc.
Well, if you want all extras to be in HD resolution as well on the same disc you wouldn't have any room left, but I guess you can put the movie on one DL 30GB disc and all the extras on a 15GB SL disc, but with the advent of HDi interactive access, where you can view special features while the main feature is playing, then it's not feasible. So I still think 50GB is much more preferable capacity to work with.
I
Basically, need for more storage space is tide to the cost vs. convenience and when you think about it, why do majority of people are still happy with SL DVD+/-R instead of the dual layer discs?.... Basically, the SL is big enough for most tasks and cheap enough. Most people don't mine having few 2 discs sets instead of expensive one dual layer disc when more space is needed once in a blu-moon.... I've had my DL DVD writer for more than 3 years now, but I've never burned a single dual-layer disc.... even I had bought a 25 pack spindle a while back.
For computer data storage, I agree with you, but for movie storage, a majority of movies titles are in DL because it simply looks much better. I don't think I've seen one SL release unless the movie is from Asia.
Exactly, and this thread isn't about storage capacity, but how either or both optical format will make it to the main stream supporting Hi-Def Movies on either optical formats and we can drop the storage capacity talk all together since it has no relevance due to 30GB not being the limiting factor. Even the 25GB BD seems to be okay for short movies on MPEG2.
BTW, I don't think there's an official HD-DVD burner out on the market. Hence the price seems to be a proto-type cost for both BD and HD blank discs. I think there was an announce at CES from Toshiba HD-DVD burner, but don't think it's available to consumers, yet. Once it's considered main stream item, the prices will drop close to current DVD blanks, I'd hope.
Really? I didn't realize I had named the topic Hi-Def Movie Battle 2007. I thought it was Blu-ray vs. HD DVD. And part of that battle is in the personal computer arena whether you want to discuss it or not. After all, this forum is about future hardware for Apple computers. It's not about movies, per se. If you just want to talk about those exclusively, you should go to one of the home theater forums.
You are the one making up terms like "Hi-Def Storage," so don't try to palm it off on anybody else. You also seem to be flip-flopping all over the place. First you think it'll work out like expensive dual layer discs, then you turn around and say it'll be close to DVD blanks. In case you didn't know, that Toshiba burner is pitiful, only 1x speed. Blu-ray burners released months ago were already 2x.
Thanks, because the point, totally missed on you obviously, is that Microsoft won't be the saviour of HD DVD. As a side note, Apple will most likely.
I disagree. Microsoft will be one of two saviours for HD DVD. Basically everyone with a decent PC can now buy a $200 add on drive and hook it up to their PC to play HD movies,. And for those with Xbox 360, a 10% attachment rate would equate to at least 1 milllion HD DVD, by the end of 2007, when sales of 360 will be around 17 million, you are looking at 1.7 dedicated HD DVD players
the add-on even works on Macs even though there is no software player for it at the moment.
I predict as long as Universal remains committed to HD DVD they would be around for quite some time.
The only worry I have about HD DVD is with copy protection, while BD has the watermark to prevent mass distribution from replicators, HD DVD as no way to prevent it so Chinese pirates could make movie studiios think twice about release their titles on HD DVD. If that is not the case then someone please correct me if I am wrong.
I am currently Pro-BD myself, but if HD DVD can deliver backward compatible TL-51 and at the same time reassure studios Chinese pirates won't gobble them up, then I am all for HD DVD to succeed.
Exactly, and this thread isn't about storage capacity, but how either or both optical format will make it to the main stream supporting Hi-Def Movies on either optical formats and we can drop the storage capacity talk all together since it has no relevance due to 30GB not being the limiting factor. Even the 25GB BD seems to be okay for short movies on MPEG2.
I find this amusing. It's a no-no to talk about storage but all right to talk about the PS3's shortcoming as a gaming machine. Oh, well.
In my never ending but so far futile quest to inject some reality into this thread, here are some comments.
Numbers for either format really don't mean much at this time. I don't know about Toshiba but Sony is in this for the long run. They still support failed niche formats, SACD and MD-DAT come to mind. Plus people seem to forget that it's not just Sony, Sony is only a part of a consortium of hardware manufacturers producing Blu-Ray players.
Another reason Sony is in it for the long haul is that B-R is the basis for their PS3, their latest game generation. I'm not a gamer so I don't know if the lament that the PS3 is too expensive for a game machine is valid, but once some killer PS3 only must have games come out I wonder how many people will still be saying that.
The PS3 consistently gets good reviews as a B-R player. There's an on-going ownership poll on the AVSforum B-R board. The people who post on AVS tend to be knowledgeable and more affluent people and actually own a machine, not like some of the most vocal fanboys in this thread who don't even own a HD or B-R player. In the poll results 2/3 own a PS3, with the 60GB at a 2 to 1 ratio over the 20GB. Until other manufacturers come out with a quality machine at the PS3's price-point, the PS3 will remain the machine of choice for those looking for a "budget" entry into B-R.
PS3's availability seems to be hit-or-miss. There was none on the shelf at the Best Buy I checked last week on Thursday.
The bottom line is if you like HD-DVD buy a machine, the same for B-R. Buy a player and don't look back but also there's no need to knock the other format. If you're not sure which way to go, hold off as things might be clearer near the 2007 Christmas buying season.
A question for the one or two people who actively post in this thread and actually have bought a machine. Does your receiver have HDMI in and out and if not, did you buy a new receiver or are you using optical sound?
I find this amusing. It's a no-no to talk about storage but all right to talk about the PS3's shortcoming as a gaming machine. Oh, well.
A question for the one or two people who actively post in this thread and actually have bought a machine. Does your receiver have HDMI in and out and if not, did you buy a new receiver or are you using optical sound?
I didn't mean to state in such way that it is no-no to talk about storage capacity at all of both technology. It just gets old when people think storage capacity will be the driving factor in the Hi-Def movie industry and many points of storage limitation issue are irrelevant in this nature due to most movies do not require much storage space, hence many BD movies are in even smaller 25GB SL disc when using advanced video codec.
As for the receiver question, my receiver does not have HDMI switching capability and if you're an audio enthusiast, you'd probably want to wait for HDMI 1.3 switching and Hi-Def audio format decoding. There's no such AVR available at the moment. I use analog 5.1 to get the best audio possible for now. Any advanced audio will be decoded and converted to either multi-channel PCM via HDMI or DTS via optical SPDIF by the player. Basically, the worst sampling will be via optical out since it's limited to 0.64 mpbs spec, but I find it still better than any DD or DTS 5.1 on normal DVD's.
A question for the one or two people who actively post in this thread and actually have bought a machine. Does your receiver have HDMI in and out and if not, did you buy a new receiver or are you using optical sound?
No. I just have a stereo receiver. I got a hand-me-down pair of McIntosh speakers from my Dad, and I bought an integrated NAD stereo amp (cheapest quality amp to power those speakers). I also got a hand-me-down Velodyne sub from my Dad (he was getting a bunch of new equipment, and I played the starving college student card). This setup would blow away any 5.1 setup I could afford at the time.
I am vey pleased with my HD-DVD player. I just got a blockbuster online subscription, and have 19 hd-dvds in my queue. We currently own 6, and soon 7 (once I go pick up serenity). All in all, I am very pleased. The picture quality is amazing, and the sound is great. I am sure if I had more invested in my audio side of things, it would be even better. But for my small front room in my apartment, the setup I have at 40% is ratteling doors
My number is all that matters to me, it's a guess, a SWAG, a "pure speculation," a prediction, a forecast. It has nothing to do with a simplistic X*Y=Z based on short term historic data.
And if your number is an ~order of magnitude linear extrapolation, by all means be my guest, mine isn't and never was!
And someone who doesn't accept my guess for what it is, a guess, and makes up their own set of assumptions, and then applies their assumptions to my guess, saying that their answer "proves the future" just doesn't get it, and apparently at this point never will!
frank my problem is not with your guess ok
nor is it with your numbers ok
it is with the fact you made a guess, and then, to back it up, you used numbers that DIDNT.
got that... ok.
message ends
the REALITY is that LG has brought out their dual player EARLIER than expected
nother link here
and Circuit city have it too
frank my problem is not with your guess ok
nor is it with your numbers ok
it is with the fact you made a guess, and then, to back it up, you used numbers that DIDNT.
got that... ok.
message ends
Dude,
Basically you don't know how I think, you don't know how I came up with my guess, and you ASSUMED that the numbers I did mention were the ONLY input to my aforementioned quess!
Go back to my original post and READ the part about "and plenty of room to grow this year" at the end.
So basically, you made the WRONG assumption about how I arrived at my quess!