Or...maybe Blu-Ray is leading because PS3 buyers have the inherent ability to watch films at a higher quality than standard DVD, so they do?
I'm amazed at how many Blu-Ray backers continuously spout this "superior format" nonsense; the video and audio look and sound freakin' identical. Beyond the viewing experience, each format has a thing or two it can do that the other can't (yet), but at the end of the day it's about watching movies, which is exactly the same. And what's this nonsense about "the rest of the people on the planet" choosing your superior format? 80%-90% of your superior format's userbase is people who bought PS3s. Blu-Ray is presently just the new Sony UMD.
There is no nonsense involved. It's a higher capacity disk which I believe has been able to achieve over 300GB on a single side in technology demonstrations, and there is a scratch resistant layer that is part of the manufacturing process. It is therefore = SUPERIOR.
Not full blown broken yet. There is a bug in the current implementation of BD+ (or the disks implementing it thus far) which allows a user of AnyDVD to backup a BluRay disk by simply copying the BD+ files over.
AND use an older version of PowerDVD. It doesn't work in other players (soft- or hardware).
As I've always maintained, I'm only anti-Blu-Ray because Sony has learned nothing from their anti-consumer ways and DRM'd Blu-Ray discs to a ridiculous degree.
You think the format war is a level playing field? Come on Walter, the only reason Blu-Ray has more ground is because it comes bundled with the PS3, something people were going to buy regardless. It's a well-learned Microsoft tactic, probably first used to run Netscape into the ground by bundling a fully-working browser with Windows. It's really the only tactic that works when you're selling something consumers in general don't care to pay for.
M$ could have put the HD-DVD drive IN the 360, they didnt, most likely reason for this? they dont REALLY want to back the format.. my reasons for believing this is that M$ have publicly stated that they dont believe in discs any more.
but arguing with an apparent M$ shill is pointless TBH.
Or...maybe Blu-Ray is leading because PS3 buyers have the inherent ability to watch films at a higher quality than standard DVD, so they do?
I'm amazed at how many Blu-Ray backers continuously spout this "superior format" nonsense; the video and audio look and sound freakin' identical. Beyond the viewing experience, each format has a thing or two it can do that the other can't (yet), but at the end of the day it's about watching movies, which is exactly the same. And what's this nonsense about "the rest of the people on the planet" choosing your superior format? 80%-90% of your superior format's userbase is people who bought PS3s. Blu-Ray is presently just the new Sony UMD.
M$ could have put the HD-DVD drive IN the 360, they didnt, most likely reason for this? they dont REALLY want to back the format.. my reasons for believing this is that M$ have publicly stated that they dont believe in discs any more.
Then your "reasons for believing" are nonsense.
Any first-year business student could tell you why Redmond did not put an HD-DVD drive in the 360. And it has nothing to do with the nonsense about preferring downloads.
The Xbox 360 was released in November 2005, having been under development since 2002.
The first HD-DVD player did not ship until March 2006.
The tech simply wasn't ready during the 360's development phase, and putting an HD-DVD drive in later consoles would mean that Redmond would split the console's userbase and stand accused of abandoning early adopters.
The idea that a computer-focused company like Microsoft "doesn't believe in discs anymore" has always been ridiculous. Downloads have their place, but does anyone actually believe the new MS Office for Mac won't be shipped on discs at MWSF? Of course not.
Blu-Ray proponents should learn to use facts, rather than wild speculation as the basis for their rants.
There is no nonsense involved. It's a higher capacity disk which I believe has been able to achieve over 300GB on a single side in technology demonstrations, and there is a scratch resistant layer that is part of the manufacturing process. It is therefore = SUPERIOR.
As I said, each format currently has things the other doesn't yet; alas, it's a wash. Blu-Ray currently has a higher capacity and scratch-free resistance, while HD DVD is actually a finished format with full-on interactive features that won't leave 1st and 2nd gen player purchasers in need of a replacement player in two year's time. Both are great formats, and more importantly both deliver the far superior image and sound quality that needs to replace DVD. I fully intend to use both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777
Then your "reasons for believing" are nonsense.
Any first-year business student could tell you why Redmond did not put an HD-DVD drive in the 360. And it has nothing to do with the nonsense about preferring downloads.
The Xbox 360 was released in November 2005, having been under development since 2002.
The first HD-DVD player did not ship until March 2006.
The tech simply wasn't ready during the 360's development phase, and putting an HD-DVD drive in later consoles would mean that Redmond would split the console's userbase and stand accused of abandoning early adopters.
The idea that a computer-focused company like Microsoft "doesn't believe in discs anymore" has always been ridiculous. Downloads have their place, but does anyone actually believe the new MS Office for Mac won't be shipped on discs at MWSF? Of course not.
Blu-Ray proponents should learn to use facts, rather than wild speculation as the basis for their rants.
That, and I doubt Microsoft wanted to compete with Sony for the lowliest console sales figures by pricing their consoles around $600 to cover some of a next-gen players' cost. Regardless of the fact that it would have made no business sense nor would it even have been possible for Microsoft to include HD DVD in the Christmas 2005 launch of the xBox 360, Walter will forever continue to claim it's undeniable proof that Microsoft isn't really backing HD DVD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe
In denial much?
Sorry Walter, everyone in the world doesn't own a PS3. The only format "the rest of the world" has chosen is standard-definition DVD. PS3 owners choose Blu-Ray because it's built into their game console. That's about where the Blu-Ray userbase ends.
Or...maybe Blu-Ray is leading because PS3 buyers have the inherent ability to watch films at a higher quality than standard DVD, so they do?
I'm amazed at how many Blu-Ray backers continuously spout this "superior format" nonsense; the video and audio look and sound freakin' identical. Beyond the viewing experience, each format has a thing or two it can do that the other can't (yet), but at the end of the day it's about watching movies, which is exactly the same. And what's this nonsense about "the rest of the people on the planet" choosing your superior format? 80%-90% of your superior format's userbase is people who bought PS3s. Blu-Ray is presently just the new Sony UMD.
I'm amazed that you still don't get it. C'mon Corey, you know deep down that Blu-ray is the superior disc format. This IS the case because of the following...
1) More Storage: As onlooker has stated, the higher capacity of Blu-ray discs has many advantages. One, is the ability to pump the bitrate of the encode, this allows more data throughput, thus more data and finer detail on the screen at any one given time. Furthermore, the increased storage space allows for uncompressed audio, as well as 7.1 surround sound audio...something I have yet to see on and HD DVD disc and no, it doesn't "sound the same." So it is a wash? Why is that Corey? Maybe because any apples to apples comparisons we've had are from neutral studios who give Blu-ray the same neutered encode they give HD DVD. I highly doubt you or any other person would be saying it is a wash if you took a 30 GB disc for HD DVD and a 50 GB disc for Blu-ray and maxed out the potential on each disc for the same movie. The Blu-ray would be clearly superior with a maxed bitrate as well as 7.1 audio, and more room for extra features, etc. The only thing that is a wash is your attempted claim when we still have yet to see a clear apples to apples comparison of what each format could offer if given seperate encodes. Furthermore, with the ability to go to 100 GB and 200 GB discs, the higher capacity also give the consumer the potential advantage of being able to consolidate TV series discs into a more manageable form. In other words, Blu-ray will give consumers more shelf space.
2) Disc Protection: As onlooker has also stated, Blu-ray discs all come with Durabis2 or a Durabis2 like protective layer making it 100 times less susceptible to fingerprints, scratches, and dust. HD DVD simply gives you DVD protection and at a higher cost per disc on average. So much for superiortiy in durability or price.
3) Price: As I mentioned above, Blu-ray discs are cheaper on average. You'd figure as many times as you and your cronies spout price as being the all trumping factor you could actually see this one in the "superior" column. But, alas, HD DVD blinders don't coincide with seeing what is readily apparent around you.
4) Features: Blu-ray also has the potential to have better features. Sure as it stands now, more HD DVDs have PIP and other extras you and others harp on as if it trumps the importance of actual feature film itself, but as you've currently seen on some Blu-ray discs and on other future releases, it is becoming readily apparent that the use of BD-J on Blu-ray is giving you the same type of features (like PIP) on HD DVD with the extra bonuses of games not capable of having on HD DVD as well as technologies like seamless branching that aren't possible on HD DVD either. So yeah, another one in the superior column for the Blu-ray format. We've been saying it was only a matter of time before BD-J reusable libraries and code could be reutilized to make stunning extra features and not only match what HD DVD has to offer, but also surpass it. It appears the day has come, and yet another HD DVD talking point lost in the "good enough" HD DVD abyss.
Any first-year business student could tell you why Redmond did not put an HD-DVD drive in the 360. And it has nothing to do with the nonsense about preferring downloads.
The Xbox 360 was released in November 2005, having been under development since 2002.
The first HD-DVD player did not ship until March 2006.
The tech simply wasn't ready during the 360's development phase, and putting an HD-DVD drive in later consoles would mean that Redmond would split the console's userbase and stand accused of abandoning early adopters.
The idea that a computer-focused company like Microsoft "doesn't believe in discs anymore" has always been ridiculous. Downloads have their place, but does anyone actually believe the new MS Office for Mac won't be shipped on discs at MWSF? Of course not.
Blu-Ray proponents should learn to use facts, rather than wild speculation as the basis for their rants.
Yes, it is so ridiculous, even when Bill Gates and others from Microsoft state that they are doing just that--preferring that the high-def isn't on a disc but in downloads...crazy nonsense I tell ya.
Also, your Microsoft apologist excuses continue to ring hollow in that Microsoft most certainly had a chance to include a HD DVD drive in their seperate Xbox 360 Elite launch, you know, the one geared toward high-end gamers for high-def (HDMI) but readily absent was still the HD DVD drive. What's your excuse for that one?
I'm amazed that you still don't get it. C'mon Corey, you know deep down that Blu-ray is the superior disc format. This IS the case because of the following...
Save your sales pitch, Marz. As far as I'm concerned, the only meaningful advantage Blu-Ray has over HD DVD is scratch protection. Gigabytes mean nothing to the movie-watching experience, and can be increased at a later time anyhow in the same manner that standard-definition DVD went from single-layer to dual-layer. Blu-Ray is presently a half-baked format as it's feature set and player requirements are a moving target, and that should certainly be taken into consideration when talking about which is a superior format. Of course they'll get that sorted out in another year and the 400,000 people who bought dedicated players will just have to cough up money for another one, but after that time all should be well.
Regarding price, when they don't stick a standard-definition DVD on the backside, HD DVDs and Blu-Ray discs at the store cost the same. If there's a price advantage to the format, they're not sharing it with consumers so it doesn't mean much to me.
Windows Vista has the potential of being a great OS, but that doesn't mean I'm going to recommend it to anyone today. Is that short-sighted? Am I supposed to buy in to the idea that one day when they finally finish it, it's going to be way awesome so I shouldn't even bother using Mac OS X in the intermin?
When Blu-Ray finishes their format and when players (besides PS3s) become affordable, I'm there. But in the meantime I'll be using the more affordable, finished format. I want to watch high-definition films today, but I don't want a $400 player that won't play next year's movies.
Save your sales pitch, Marz. As far as I'm concerned, the only meaningful advantage Blu-Ray has over HD DVD is scratch protection. Gigabytes mean nothing to the movie-watching experience, and can be increased at a later time anyhow in the same manner that standard-definition DVD went from single-layer to dual-layer. Blu-Ray is presently a half-baked format as it's feature set and player requirements are a moving target, and that should certainly be taken into consideration when talking about which is a superior format. Of course they'll get that sorted out in another year and the 400,000 people who bought dedicated players will just have to cough up money for another one, but after that time all should be well.
Regarding price, when they don't stick a standard-definition DVD on the backside, HD DVDs and Blu-Ray discs at the store cost the same. If there's a price advantage to the format, they're not sharing it with consumers so it doesn't mean much to me.
Windows Vista has the potential of being a great OS, but that doesn't mean I'm going to recommend it to anyone today. Is that short-sighted? Am I supposed to buy in to the idea that one day when they finally finish it, it's going to be way awesome so I shouldn't even bother using Mac OS X in the intermin?
When Blu-Ray finishes their format and when players (besides PS3s) become affordable, I'm there. But in the meantime I'll be using the more affordable, finished format. I want to watch high-definition films today, but I don't want a $400 player that won't play next year's movies.
Actually, the players you speak of are about $270 - $299 dollars there Einstein. And all current Blu-ray players will play this year's and next year's movies. Nice FUD though. It is the extras, if one deems them oh so necessary that might not play back properly with future movies.
Your FUD knows no bounds.
What I find so interesting is that a couple of months ago "$299" was affordable and now all of a sudden $299 equates to $400 in HD DVD proponents eyes and "$299" is now too expensive or not affordable.
Gigabytes mean nothing...now I've heard everything from you. So instead of attempting to refute the obvious superiorities of the Blu-ray format which you can't, you just pull out a generalization without any backing that "Gigabytes mean nothing." I gave you specific reasons on why gigabytes mean everything from improved picture quality, to improved audio quality, to improved savings from a disc consolidation standpoint, and yet you reply with this generalization.
Mr. Bauer, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Great news as there is a semi-official 61:39 number floating around AVS showing Blu-ray beat HD DVD once again convincingly during Bourne week. Keep in mind that the only blockbuster release Blu-ray had was a neutral release in Harry Potter and HD DVD not only had Harry Potter but had Boune and a BOGO...time to break out my 52 and O...O...Oh face!...You know what I'm talkin about...
Warner exec: "Yeah. Where going to have to ask you HD DVD guys to move your stuff to the basement..mmm.kay. Yeah. Oh and were going to need that stapler. mmm...kay. Great
Actually, the players you speak of are about $270 - $299 dollars there Einstein. And all current Blu-ray players will play this year's and next year's movies. Nice FUD though. It is the extras, if one deems them oh so necessary that might not play back properly with future movies.
Refresh my memory, are those the players that wouldn't even play this year's Fox titles? I wasn't aware any profile 2.0-compliant players were on the market today, let alone available for $270. Sorry, with as poor as compatibility has been between titles and players (on both sides), I don't want a player without a pipe to the internet for regulatory compatibility updates. Let me know when a Blu-Ray player with ethernet is available for under $200.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marzetta7
Gigabytes mean nothing...now I've heard everything from you. So instead of attempting to refute the obvious superiorities of the Blu-ray format which you can't, you just pull out a generalization without any backing that "Gigabytes mean nothing." I gave you specific reasons on why gigabytes mean everything from improved picture quality, to improved audio quality, to improved savings from a disc consolidation standpoint, and yet you reply with this generalization.
It's all on paper, Marz. You say Blu's extra 25GB allows for higher quality, and yet every title released thus far on both formats has been visually identical. And quite frankly, I'm not seeing anything on my measly 25GB discs that looks as though it could benefit from a higher bitrate. I'd say it's about perfect. Both formats have the ability for their storage to be expanded when it becomes necessary, but at this juncture Blu-Ray's 50GB isn't going to improve my viewing experience. So as I said, it means nothing to me.
I predict that movie sales will continue to tank and that they will only pick up again after this bullshit format war is over.
If we end up having a 2009 thread, I'd venture to say that both formats will have lost by that point. It really seems like a make or break year for both formats. With both xbox and ps3 able to play divx over a network now, hollywood will have to offer players at $99 or less in order to make them more enticing than on-line and/or pirated content.
The good thing is... it seems like we will finally get those $99 players this year. (Real availability, not just pretend pricing available to a lucky few.)
I predict that movie sales will continue to tank and that they will only pick up again after this bullshit format war is over.
If we end up having a 2009 thread, I'd venture to say that both formats will have lost by that point. It really seems like a make or break year for both formats. With both xbox and ps3 able to play divx over a network now, hollywood will have to offer players at $99 or less in order to make them more enticing than on-line and/or pirated content.
The good thing is... it seems like we will finally get those $99 players this year. (Real availability, not just pretend pricing available to a lucky few.)
Joe Public neither has the bandwidth nor the desire to buy his movies on the internets and cobble together some means of viewing and storing them. There's no strong solution for doing so at this point, nor do I foresee there being one in the next couple of years. xBox only rents films, the selection is sparse, and it takes a fortnight to download a single film. Apple TV lets you buy movies and access them easily, so long as you're in to VHS-quality entertainment, but you still wait longer than a trip to the store to view it.
When Joe can walk into a store and be told they've got a player that'll play all formats for an affordable price, HDM media will really take off. Combo players will become affordable long before there's a usable means of buying high-definition movies online and keeping them.
I predict that movie sales will continue to tank and that they will only pick up again after this bullshit format war is over.
I agree, but I do not think it is because of the HiDef optical disc format war. Less people are buying SD-DVD's and probably even less will buy HiDef format as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
If we end up having a 2009 thread, I'd venture to say that both formats will have lost by that point. It really seems like a make or break year for both formats. With both xbox and ps3 able to play divx over a network now, hollywood will have to offer players at $99 or less in order to make them more enticing than on-line and/or pirated content.
The good thing is... it seems like we will finally get those $99 players this year. (Real availability, not just pretend pricing available to a lucky few.)
I agree.
Expect firesales on the Blu-Ray profile 1.0 players in early 2008. Some of these obsoleted Blu-Ray players may hit below $200 street price for limited time. I've heard some of these players really struggle playing BD+ discs or profile 1.1+ discs (even the denon rep was concerned)...... it either crashes or takes 1+ minute to load, but it's still at a bargain price....
I will never buy my movies via download, I think Microsoft has lost it trying to remove physical media. I still buy CDs because I want to physically own the product, otherwise it doesn't FEEL like I bought anything.
Since when do the Blu-Ray profiles affect the movie and not just the extras?
I am not sure how you missed the part where having extra space makes it possible to add higher quality audio, the HiDef formats aren't just about video.
Comments
Or...maybe Blu-Ray is leading because PS3 buyers have the inherent ability to watch films at a higher quality than standard DVD, so they do?
I'm amazed at how many Blu-Ray backers continuously spout this "superior format" nonsense; the video and audio look and sound freakin' identical. Beyond the viewing experience, each format has a thing or two it can do that the other can't (yet), but at the end of the day it's about watching movies, which is exactly the same. And what's this nonsense about "the rest of the people on the planet" choosing your superior format? 80%-90% of your superior format's userbase is people who bought PS3s. Blu-Ray is presently just the new Sony UMD.
There is no nonsense involved. It's a higher capacity disk which I believe has been able to achieve over 300GB on a single side in technology demonstrations, and there is a scratch resistant layer that is part of the manufacturing process. It is therefore = SUPERIOR.
Not full blown broken yet. There is a bug in the current implementation of BD+ (or the disks implementing it thus far) which allows a user of AnyDVD to backup a BluRay disk by simply copying the BD+ files over.
AND use an older version of PowerDVD. It doesn't work in other players (soft- or hardware).
As I've always maintained, I'm only anti-Blu-Ray because Sony has learned nothing from their anti-consumer ways and DRM'd Blu-Ray discs to a ridiculous degree.
Sony doesn't use BD+
You think the format war is a level playing field? Come on Walter, the only reason Blu-Ray has more ground is because it comes bundled with the PS3, something people were going to buy regardless. It's a well-learned Microsoft tactic, probably first used to run Netscape into the ground by bundling a fully-working browser with Windows. It's really the only tactic that works when you're selling something consumers in general don't care to pay for.
M$ could have put the HD-DVD drive IN the 360, they didnt, most likely reason for this? they dont REALLY want to back the format.. my reasons for believing this is that M$ have publicly stated that they dont believe in discs any more.
but arguing with an apparent M$ shill is pointless TBH.
Or...maybe Blu-Ray is leading because PS3 buyers have the inherent ability to watch films at a higher quality than standard DVD, so they do?
I'm amazed at how many Blu-Ray backers continuously spout this "superior format" nonsense; the video and audio look and sound freakin' identical. Beyond the viewing experience, each format has a thing or two it can do that the other can't (yet), but at the end of the day it's about watching movies, which is exactly the same. And what's this nonsense about "the rest of the people on the planet" choosing your superior format? 80%-90% of your superior format's userbase is people who bought PS3s. Blu-Ray is presently just the new Sony UMD.
In denial much?
M$ could have put the HD-DVD drive IN the 360, they didnt, most likely reason for this? they dont REALLY want to back the format.. my reasons for believing this is that M$ have publicly stated that they dont believe in discs any more.
Then your "reasons for believing" are nonsense.
Any first-year business student could tell you why Redmond did not put an HD-DVD drive in the 360. And it has nothing to do with the nonsense about preferring downloads.
The Xbox 360 was released in November 2005, having been under development since 2002.
The first HD-DVD player did not ship until March 2006.
The tech simply wasn't ready during the 360's development phase, and putting an HD-DVD drive in later consoles would mean that Redmond would split the console's userbase and stand accused of abandoning early adopters.
The idea that a computer-focused company like Microsoft "doesn't believe in discs anymore" has always been ridiculous. Downloads have their place, but does anyone actually believe the new MS Office for Mac won't be shipped on discs at MWSF? Of course not.
Blu-Ray proponents should learn to use facts, rather than wild speculation as the basis for their rants.
There is no nonsense involved. It's a higher capacity disk which I believe has been able to achieve over 300GB on a single side in technology demonstrations, and there is a scratch resistant layer that is part of the manufacturing process. It is therefore = SUPERIOR.
As I said, each format currently has things the other doesn't yet; alas, it's a wash. Blu-Ray currently has a higher capacity and scratch-free resistance, while HD DVD is actually a finished format with full-on interactive features that won't leave 1st and 2nd gen player purchasers in need of a replacement player in two year's time. Both are great formats, and more importantly both deliver the far superior image and sound quality that needs to replace DVD. I fully intend to use both.
Then your "reasons for believing" are nonsense.
Any first-year business student could tell you why Redmond did not put an HD-DVD drive in the 360. And it has nothing to do with the nonsense about preferring downloads.
The Xbox 360 was released in November 2005, having been under development since 2002.
The first HD-DVD player did not ship until March 2006.
The tech simply wasn't ready during the 360's development phase, and putting an HD-DVD drive in later consoles would mean that Redmond would split the console's userbase and stand accused of abandoning early adopters.
The idea that a computer-focused company like Microsoft "doesn't believe in discs anymore" has always been ridiculous. Downloads have their place, but does anyone actually believe the new MS Office for Mac won't be shipped on discs at MWSF? Of course not.
Blu-Ray proponents should learn to use facts, rather than wild speculation as the basis for their rants.
That, and I doubt Microsoft wanted to compete with Sony for the lowliest console sales figures by pricing their consoles around $600 to cover some of a next-gen players' cost. Regardless of the fact that it would have made no business sense nor would it even have been possible for Microsoft to include HD DVD in the Christmas 2005 launch of the xBox 360, Walter will forever continue to claim it's undeniable proof that Microsoft isn't really backing HD DVD.
In denial much?
Sorry Walter, everyone in the world doesn't own a PS3. The only format "the rest of the world" has chosen is standard-definition DVD. PS3 owners choose Blu-Ray because it's built into their game console. That's about where the Blu-Ray userbase ends.
The Porn industry is going to give Bluray a shot. I personally don't watch porn, but I'll at least be happy if it helps Bluray more.
http://gizmodo.com/336286/porn-comin...n-very-excited
The Porn industry is going to give Bluray a shot. I personally don't watch porn, but I'll at least be happy if it helps Bluray more.
When can we expect to start seeing this Pirates film on the top ten weekly nielsen ratings?
Or...maybe Blu-Ray is leading because PS3 buyers have the inherent ability to watch films at a higher quality than standard DVD, so they do?
I'm amazed at how many Blu-Ray backers continuously spout this "superior format" nonsense; the video and audio look and sound freakin' identical. Beyond the viewing experience, each format has a thing or two it can do that the other can't (yet), but at the end of the day it's about watching movies, which is exactly the same. And what's this nonsense about "the rest of the people on the planet" choosing your superior format? 80%-90% of your superior format's userbase is people who bought PS3s. Blu-Ray is presently just the new Sony UMD.
I'm amazed that you still don't get it. C'mon Corey, you know deep down that Blu-ray is the superior disc format. This IS the case because of the following...
1) More Storage: As onlooker has stated, the higher capacity of Blu-ray discs has many advantages. One, is the ability to pump the bitrate of the encode, this allows more data throughput, thus more data and finer detail on the screen at any one given time. Furthermore, the increased storage space allows for uncompressed audio, as well as 7.1 surround sound audio...something I have yet to see on and HD DVD disc and no, it doesn't "sound the same." So it is a wash? Why is that Corey? Maybe because any apples to apples comparisons we've had are from neutral studios who give Blu-ray the same neutered encode they give HD DVD. I highly doubt you or any other person would be saying it is a wash if you took a 30 GB disc for HD DVD and a 50 GB disc for Blu-ray and maxed out the potential on each disc for the same movie. The Blu-ray would be clearly superior with a maxed bitrate as well as 7.1 audio, and more room for extra features, etc. The only thing that is a wash is your attempted claim when we still have yet to see a clear apples to apples comparison of what each format could offer if given seperate encodes. Furthermore, with the ability to go to 100 GB and 200 GB discs, the higher capacity also give the consumer the potential advantage of being able to consolidate TV series discs into a more manageable form. In other words, Blu-ray will give consumers more shelf space.
2) Disc Protection: As onlooker has also stated, Blu-ray discs all come with Durabis2 or a Durabis2 like protective layer making it 100 times less susceptible to fingerprints, scratches, and dust. HD DVD simply gives you DVD protection and at a higher cost per disc on average. So much for superiortiy in durability or price.
3) Price: As I mentioned above, Blu-ray discs are cheaper on average. You'd figure as many times as you and your cronies spout price as being the all trumping factor you could actually see this one in the "superior" column. But, alas, HD DVD blinders don't coincide with seeing what is readily apparent around you.
4) Features: Blu-ray also has the potential to have better features. Sure as it stands now, more HD DVDs have PIP and other extras you and others harp on as if it trumps the importance of actual feature film itself, but as you've currently seen on some Blu-ray discs and on other future releases, it is becoming readily apparent that the use of BD-J on Blu-ray is giving you the same type of features (like PIP) on HD DVD with the extra bonuses of games not capable of having on HD DVD as well as technologies like seamless branching that aren't possible on HD DVD either. So yeah, another one in the superior column for the Blu-ray format. We've been saying it was only a matter of time before BD-J reusable libraries and code could be reutilized to make stunning extra features and not only match what HD DVD has to offer, but also surpass it. It appears the day has come, and yet another HD DVD talking point lost in the "good enough" HD DVD abyss.
Then your "reasons for believing" are nonsense.
Any first-year business student could tell you why Redmond did not put an HD-DVD drive in the 360. And it has nothing to do with the nonsense about preferring downloads.
The Xbox 360 was released in November 2005, having been under development since 2002.
The first HD-DVD player did not ship until March 2006.
The tech simply wasn't ready during the 360's development phase, and putting an HD-DVD drive in later consoles would mean that Redmond would split the console's userbase and stand accused of abandoning early adopters.
The idea that a computer-focused company like Microsoft "doesn't believe in discs anymore" has always been ridiculous. Downloads have their place, but does anyone actually believe the new MS Office for Mac won't be shipped on discs at MWSF? Of course not.
Blu-Ray proponents should learn to use facts, rather than wild speculation as the basis for their rants.
Yes, it is so ridiculous, even when Bill Gates and others from Microsoft state that they are doing just that--preferring that the high-def isn't on a disc but in downloads...crazy nonsense I tell ya.
Also, your Microsoft apologist excuses continue to ring hollow in that Microsoft most certainly had a chance to include a HD DVD drive in their seperate Xbox 360 Elite launch, you know, the one geared toward high-end gamers for high-def (HDMI) but readily absent was still the HD DVD drive. What's your excuse for that one?
I'm amazed that you still don't get it. C'mon Corey, you know deep down that Blu-ray is the superior disc format. This IS the case because of the following...
Save your sales pitch, Marz. As far as I'm concerned, the only meaningful advantage Blu-Ray has over HD DVD is scratch protection. Gigabytes mean nothing to the movie-watching experience, and can be increased at a later time anyhow in the same manner that standard-definition DVD went from single-layer to dual-layer. Blu-Ray is presently a half-baked format as it's feature set and player requirements are a moving target, and that should certainly be taken into consideration when talking about which is a superior format. Of course they'll get that sorted out in another year and the 400,000 people who bought dedicated players will just have to cough up money for another one, but after that time all should be well.
Regarding price, when they don't stick a standard-definition DVD on the backside, HD DVDs and Blu-Ray discs at the store cost the same. If there's a price advantage to the format, they're not sharing it with consumers so it doesn't mean much to me.
Windows Vista has the potential of being a great OS, but that doesn't mean I'm going to recommend it to anyone today. Is that short-sighted? Am I supposed to buy in to the idea that one day when they finally finish it, it's going to be way awesome so I shouldn't even bother using Mac OS X in the intermin?
When Blu-Ray finishes their format and when players (besides PS3s) become affordable, I'm there. But in the meantime I'll be using the more affordable, finished format. I want to watch high-definition films today, but I don't want a $400 player that won't play next year's movies.
Save your sales pitch, Marz. As far as I'm concerned, the only meaningful advantage Blu-Ray has over HD DVD is scratch protection. Gigabytes mean nothing to the movie-watching experience, and can be increased at a later time anyhow in the same manner that standard-definition DVD went from single-layer to dual-layer. Blu-Ray is presently a half-baked format as it's feature set and player requirements are a moving target, and that should certainly be taken into consideration when talking about which is a superior format. Of course they'll get that sorted out in another year and the 400,000 people who bought dedicated players will just have to cough up money for another one, but after that time all should be well.
Regarding price, when they don't stick a standard-definition DVD on the backside, HD DVDs and Blu-Ray discs at the store cost the same. If there's a price advantage to the format, they're not sharing it with consumers so it doesn't mean much to me.
Windows Vista has the potential of being a great OS, but that doesn't mean I'm going to recommend it to anyone today. Is that short-sighted? Am I supposed to buy in to the idea that one day when they finally finish it, it's going to be way awesome so I shouldn't even bother using Mac OS X in the intermin?
When Blu-Ray finishes their format and when players (besides PS3s) become affordable, I'm there. But in the meantime I'll be using the more affordable, finished format. I want to watch high-definition films today, but I don't want a $400 player that won't play next year's movies.
Actually, the players you speak of are about $270 - $299 dollars there Einstein. And all current Blu-ray players will play this year's and next year's movies. Nice FUD though. It is the extras, if one deems them oh so necessary that might not play back properly with future movies.
Your FUD knows no bounds.
What I find so interesting is that a couple of months ago "$299" was affordable and now all of a sudden $299 equates to $400 in HD DVD proponents eyes and "$299" is now too expensive or not affordable.
Gigabytes mean nothing...now I've heard everything from you. So instead of attempting to refute the obvious superiorities of the Blu-ray format which you can't, you just pull out a generalization without any backing that "Gigabytes mean nothing." I gave you specific reasons on why gigabytes mean everything from improved picture quality, to improved audio quality, to improved savings from a disc consolidation standpoint, and yet you reply with this generalization.
Mr. Bauer, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Actually, the players you speak of are about $270 - $299 dollars there Einstein. And all current Blu-ray players will play this year's and next year's movies. Nice FUD though. It is the extras, if one deems them oh so necessary that might not play back properly with future movies.
Refresh my memory, are those the players that wouldn't even play this year's Fox titles? I wasn't aware any profile 2.0-compliant players were on the market today, let alone available for $270. Sorry, with as poor as compatibility has been between titles and players (on both sides), I don't want a player without a pipe to the internet for regulatory compatibility updates. Let me know when a Blu-Ray player with ethernet is available for under $200.
Gigabytes mean nothing...now I've heard everything from you. So instead of attempting to refute the obvious superiorities of the Blu-ray format which you can't, you just pull out a generalization without any backing that "Gigabytes mean nothing." I gave you specific reasons on why gigabytes mean everything from improved picture quality, to improved audio quality, to improved savings from a disc consolidation standpoint, and yet you reply with this generalization.
It's all on paper, Marz. You say Blu's extra 25GB allows for higher quality, and yet every title released thus far on both formats has been visually identical. And quite frankly, I'm not seeing anything on my measly 25GB discs that looks as though it could benefit from a higher bitrate. I'd say it's about perfect. Both formats have the ability for their storage to be expanded when it becomes necessary, but at this juncture Blu-Ray's 50GB isn't going to improve my viewing experience. So as I said, it means nothing to me.
If we end up having a 2009 thread, I'd venture to say that both formats will have lost by that point. It really seems like a make or break year for both formats. With both xbox and ps3 able to play divx over a network now, hollywood will have to offer players at $99 or less in order to make them more enticing than on-line and/or pirated content.
The good thing is... it seems like we will finally get those $99 players this year. (Real availability, not just pretend pricing available to a lucky few.)
I predict that movie sales will continue to tank and that they will only pick up again after this bullshit format war is over.
If we end up having a 2009 thread, I'd venture to say that both formats will have lost by that point. It really seems like a make or break year for both formats. With both xbox and ps3 able to play divx over a network now, hollywood will have to offer players at $99 or less in order to make them more enticing than on-line and/or pirated content.
The good thing is... it seems like we will finally get those $99 players this year. (Real availability, not just pretend pricing available to a lucky few.)
Joe Public neither has the bandwidth nor the desire to buy his movies on the internets and cobble together some means of viewing and storing them. There's no strong solution for doing so at this point, nor do I foresee there being one in the next couple of years. xBox only rents films, the selection is sparse, and it takes a fortnight to download a single film. Apple TV lets you buy movies and access them easily, so long as you're in to VHS-quality entertainment, but you still wait longer than a trip to the store to view it.
When Joe can walk into a store and be told they've got a player that'll play all formats for an affordable price, HDM media will really take off. Combo players will become affordable long before there's a usable means of buying high-definition movies online and keeping them.
I predict that movie sales will continue to tank and that they will only pick up again after this bullshit format war is over.
I agree, but I do not think it is because of the HiDef optical disc format war. Less people are buying SD-DVD's and probably even less will buy HiDef format as well.
If we end up having a 2009 thread, I'd venture to say that both formats will have lost by that point. It really seems like a make or break year for both formats. With both xbox and ps3 able to play divx over a network now, hollywood will have to offer players at $99 or less in order to make them more enticing than on-line and/or pirated content.
The good thing is... it seems like we will finally get those $99 players this year. (Real availability, not just pretend pricing available to a lucky few.)
I agree.
Expect firesales on the Blu-Ray profile 1.0 players in early 2008. Some of these obsoleted Blu-Ray players may hit below $200 street price for limited time. I've heard some of these players really struggle playing BD+ discs or profile 1.1+ discs (even the denon rep was concerned)...... it either crashes or takes 1+ minute to load, but it's still at a bargain price....
Since when do the Blu-Ray profiles affect the movie and not just the extras?
I am not sure how you missed the part where having extra space makes it possible to add higher quality audio, the HiDef formats aren't just about video.