I'm hoping if and when one format beats out the other, someone will figure out a way to transfer content (either an officially-sanctioned conversion, or a DRM-breaking hack will do fine by me) from one format to the other.
Of course, I'm hoping that further into the future we'll be able to rip hi-def discs of any format and store their content on multi-terabyte media servers. I suspect that will happen before the internet has the bandwidth for high-quality on-demand HD movies.
This is the primary reason I favour HD-DVD. I know ripping will eventually be commonplace on this format. On Blu-Ray, Sony will do their best to lock up their content for sure, and make you buy it again for the next-gen server formats.
They have been going back and forth on which is better and to me there is no clear winner yet. As far as disc space, Of course, "the HD-DVD camp has approved a new spec for a 51 GB disc or TL 51 disc which has more storage capacity than Blu-Ray?s BD 50 disc."
What seems to be more important is not the platform but rather,
" What is apparent to me is that the skill of the compressionist doing the encode is more important than the codec used, the data transmission rate of the available disc space."
So why not stamp the both formats one on each side and avoid this wasted war which has prevented most from experiencing true HD?
While I agree that the skill of the compressionist is quite important, I don't agree that stamping both formats on each side of a disc is the answer. Warner had this same bright idea you are touting...it's called TotalHD and it is indeed a failure without ever having been launched. Warner has shelved the idea indefinitely.
Also, this notion of a TL51 disc doesn't even have a working prototype (aka vaporware), and yet you and others here are comparing it to a disc that has been selling for over a year.
Even BD 100 and BD 200s HAVE working prototypes...just because the DVD Forum has ratified a spec for TL-51s for HD DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans until they can show an ACTUAL working prototype. Maybe at CES 2008 perhaps
Moreover, this new TL51 hasn't been even tested to see if current HD DVD players will be able to successfully read the new disc--for one because they don't have a working prototype, and two, because from Toshiba sources cited by Bill Hunt, the new disc would require new HD DVD hardware (ahem, players--whereas the BD 100s and 200s from Hitachi have been purported to work with simply a firmware upgrade on Blu-ray players.
So a 51GB HD DVD disc is somehow going to hold less than 50GB. Can you tell me how this is possible?
Do I not have Heroes, BSG, Smallville and Star Trek on HD DVD already? I've heard no complaints from content providers.
Let me know when 200GB discs are ratified for Blu-ray chief.
At the very least, the BDA has working prototypes of BD 100s and BD 200s, too bad the same can't be said for TL-51...so tell me again how your comparison has any validity?...
Actually this works in my favor. I thought the extras on 300 would propel the HD DVD version over the BD version but I found out just how little the consensus cares about extras. If they don't care about a content advantage then they're not going to give a rip about HD extras particularly if they aren't processed to look like the film
If you think you can end the war by being sacrificing your access to content more power to you. If U put a $99 BD player in front of me I'm buying it nuff said. Anyone so stuck on principal that they would forgo such a deal is not someone I'd entertain getting advice from.
Well, everything works in your favor if your going to continue to change your stance on subjects of the format war. In 2006 you didn't give a rip about extras, in 2007, as HD DVD talking points most assuredly dwindled, you do a 180 and claim how important extras are (because it is a perceived advantage by HD DVD proponents)...and now, that we are approaching 2008 you do another 180 and have come full circle as the "extras" talking point of HD DVD now has dwindled too and are back to not giving a rip about extras...
Sorry, we're a few pages into this thread already, but this is spoken like a true reality distortion field. You sure you're not really Steve in disguise?
I agree wholeheartedly by the way...
I wish I was Steve Jobs......or at least had his income anyhow...
I bought Blade Runner on Blu-Ray and it wastes five disks, why is this? Do they use five disks because the HD-DVD version does the same? So pointless, it could have been done on, at most, 4. There are two disks that basically contain extras, why not make that one? Btw, the high def cases definitely are more efficient, space wise.
For a second there, i thought someone had copied and pasted an entire series of posts from 2006. Not that there is anything wrong with still being stuck on the same arguments...
But it demonstrates that the consumers don't care about the underling technical differences between these two formats. What consumers want is a clear winner to the format war. To 99.99% of consumers, differences between models and brands of players already overshadow the technical differences between the formats. The formats are effectively identical from a usage perspective.
Hell, I'd even prefer to have the "worse" format win just to have a true standard.
At the very least, the BDA has working prototypes of BD 100s and BD 200s, too bad the same can't be said for TL-51...so tell me again how your comparison has any validity?...
You're not making any sense. While the efficacy of TL51GB isn't public facing the ratification of the format is implicitly suggests that working prototypes exist.
The comparison of BD100 or BD200 is poor because while prototypes may exist they haven't even been submitted for ratification to the BRD standard. So any "apples to apples" comparision still leaves you clutching for air. Thought is seems rather pointless to argue the point. Both formats top out at 1080p with <50Mbps throughput. A 100GB or 200GB is superfluous. Consumers have been taught that value comes through premium packaging. 2-Disc DVD sets.
This isn't going to give way to whole series on a disc. The next "logical" step is HDD based persistent storage for storing favorite movies a la what people have on a DVR. Instant access to potentially terabytes of information.
I "like" that my Extended Edition LotR disc come on multiple discs. I like my Alien Quadrilogy and all the discs laid out. The next step for me isn't consolidating that stuff on one disc (that could be damaged) the next step is digital representation on a HDD that I can stream to multiple set top boxes in the home
For "computer guys" you guys are woefully archaic.
I bought Blade Runner on Blu-Ray and it wastes five disks, why is this? Do they use five disks because the HD-DVD version does the same? So pointless, it could have been done on, at most, 4. There are two disks that basically contain extras, why not make that one? Btw, the high def cases definitely are more efficient, space wise.
Who cares? If you had persistent storage with adequate DRM you'd be able to plug the whole series onto internal/external storage for unbeatable speed in access.
Both formats are hobbled by optical technology which is flaky and error prone.
I don't want my movies stored on HDD though. I want a physical, tangible medium. I want cases and I want a collection. You don't want everything on one disc but you want them on one disc (hard drive), that makes a lot of sense. I want mine stored on an optical format and be able to back them up on a HDD. I am less worried about a very scratch resistant and well handled blu-ray disc being damaged than I am of a HDD. Hard Drives are much more delicate. Maybe ten years from now when there is a solid state solution, then I can jump on board.
I bought Blade Runner on Blu-Ray and it wastes five disks, why is this? Do they use five disks because the HD-DVD version does the same? So pointless, it could have been done on, at most, 4. There are two disks that basically contain extras, why not make that one? Btw, the high def cases definitely are more efficient, space wise.
That blade Runner series has only one (the main disk) High Definition disk in the set right? I heard the rest of the disks we all DVD's. Hence the price is $63.00
Frankly if you're not willing to own both formats then your motives are suspect. You certainly don't love movies. I'll do what it takes to have full access. If Costco has a Blu-ray player for $250 next year it's coming home with me.
...
Ridiculous! I also love watching movies and if the title I want isn't available in my HDM of choice then I'll gladly watch it on DVD or even LD.
That blade Runner series has only one (the main disk) High Definition disk in the set right? I heard the rest of the disks we all DVD's. Hence the price is $63.00
All the discs are BD. I think all four of the movies, on two discs, are 1080p, the two special feature discs are 480i or 480p and disc 5, the Workprint may or may not be 480i or 480p.
The price at Best Buy for the 5-disc Collector's Edition was $34.99.
Ridiculous! I also love watching movies and if the title I want isn't available in my HDM of choice then I'll gladly watch it on DVD or even LD.
Sure, I do the same for Blu-Ray exclusives for now. The REON VX video processor on my HD-XA2 does a great job upscaling SD titles to 1080p, but I'm sure HiDef source would look and sound even better.
As you know, the HDM contents provided by both HiDef formats are identical in audio and video quality offering. However, people do forget that and do get caught up on the optical disc format war instead of the bigger dispute between SD vs. HD contents. For many, the cost is the main issue for not being able to support both formats, but for others, the support comes from the love of the game console?
Having said that, I just got a Wii yesterday due to driving demand of the visiting nieces. Got lucky while shopping at toysrus. A line was forming quickly as soon as people found out the "Wii" was in stock. I don't think anyone will form a line for other game consoles out there. I'll be keeping it for the future visitors. I bought wii play, cross-bow training, and an nunchuck and have been much fun thus far.
BTW, did anyone take advantage of the Amazon HD-DVD BOGO?
All the discs are BD. I think all four of the movies, on two discs, are 1080p, the two special feature discs are 480i or 480p and disc 5, the Workprint may or may not be 480i or 480p.
The price at Best Buy for the 5-disc Collector's Edition was $34.99.
I bought a 5-disc complete collector's edition HD-DVD set for $25 shipped from Amazon.
There are 3 HD-DVD's and 2 DVD's, and I beleive all the included contents are the same on BD & HD.
Well, everything works in your favor if your going to continue to change your stance on subjects of the format war. In 2006 you didn't give a rip about extras, in 2007, as HD DVD talking points most assuredly dwindled, you do a 180 and claim how important extras are (because it is a perceived advantage by HD DVD proponents)...and now, that we are approaching 2008 you do another 180 and have come full circle as the "extras" talking point of HD DVD now has dwindled too and are back to not giving a rip about extras...
You flip flop more than John Kerry.
Vacuous logic. In Politics one is more or less forced to take and maintain a stand. In life however if tapping a bee's nest results in numerious bee stings one would logically be expected to change their course of action in the future as to prevent the same result from occuring. I'm not a politician so I do not care about the perception of flipping or flopping. I thought the extras on 300 may have been a selling point but the benefits could not ameliorate the price differential for many dual format owners. Even had there been pricing parity the results may not have differed. This isn't flip flopping this is understanding the current paradigm.
Extras are only as valuable as the work put into them IMO. The attempt to somehow avert this war by dogmatically sticking to one format is futile and honestly hilarious. Talk about cutting off your nose to spit your face. When the price is right I'll bring a BD player home. I've got an empty HDMI port waiting for it or an Apple TV.
As much as I loathe the tactics and strategy of the BDA I love movies more. HD DVD will always be my lead in because it represents the least intrusive most inclusive platform of the bunch.
I don't want my movies stored on HDD though. I want a physical, tangible medium. I want cases and I want a collection. You don't want everything on one disc but you want them on one disc (hard drive), that makes a lot of sense. I want mine stored on an optical format and be able to back them up on a HDD.
I don't understand this. It is clear that in the not-too-distant future, home media servers will hold movies and music and pipe them on demand into any TV in the house.
It makes far more sense to say that the movie collection should be stored on a hard drive, and the optical format is the backup.
Who cares? If you had persistent storage with adequate DRM you'd be able to plug the whole series onto internal/external storage for unbeatable speed in access.
Both formats are hobbled by optical technology which is flaky and error prone.
FkuC me! now he's going to crap all over optical formats as a whole
FYI this isn't the BD Vs HD-DVD Vs Persistent storage, so go back to your nine disc Alien set and spread it out
Comments
I'm hoping if and when one format beats out the other, someone will figure out a way to transfer content (either an officially-sanctioned conversion, or a DRM-breaking hack will do fine by me) from one format to the other.
Of course, I'm hoping that further into the future we'll be able to rip hi-def discs of any format and store their content on multi-terabyte media servers. I suspect that will happen before the internet has the bandwidth for high-quality on-demand HD movies.
This is the primary reason I favour HD-DVD. I know ripping will eventually be commonplace on this format. On Blu-Ray, Sony will do their best to lock up their content for sure, and make you buy it again for the next-gen server formats.
They have been going back and forth on which is better and to me there is no clear winner yet. As far as disc space, Of course, "the HD-DVD camp has approved a new spec for a 51 GB disc or TL 51 disc which has more storage capacity than Blu-Ray?s BD 50 disc."
What seems to be more important is not the platform but rather,
" What is apparent to me is that the skill of the compressionist doing the encode is more important than the codec used, the data transmission rate of the available disc space."
So why not stamp the both formats one on each side and avoid this wasted war which has prevented most from experiencing true HD?
While I agree that the skill of the compressionist is quite important, I don't agree that stamping both formats on each side of a disc is the answer. Warner had this same bright idea you are touting...it's called TotalHD and it is indeed a failure without ever having been launched. Warner has shelved the idea indefinitely.
Also, this notion of a TL51 disc doesn't even have a working prototype (aka vaporware), and yet you and others here are comparing it to a disc that has been selling for over a year.
Even BD 100 and BD 200s HAVE working prototypes...just because the DVD Forum has ratified a spec for TL-51s for HD DVD doesn't mean a hill of beans until they can show an ACTUAL working prototype. Maybe at CES 2008 perhaps
Moreover, this new TL51 hasn't been even tested to see if current HD DVD players will be able to successfully read the new disc--for one because they don't have a working prototype, and two, because from Toshiba sources cited by Bill Hunt, the new disc would require new HD DVD hardware (ahem, players--whereas the BD 100s and 200s from Hitachi have been purported to work with simply a firmware upgrade on Blu-ray players.
So a 51GB HD DVD disc is somehow going to hold less than 50GB. Can you tell me how this is possible?
Do I not have Heroes, BSG, Smallville and Star Trek on HD DVD already? I've heard no complaints from content providers.
Let me know when 200GB discs are ratified for Blu-ray chief.
At the very least, the BDA has working prototypes of BD 100s and BD 200s, too bad the same can't be said for TL-51...so tell me again how your comparison has any validity?...
Actually this works in my favor. I thought the extras on 300 would propel the HD DVD version over the BD version but I found out just how little the consensus cares about extras. If they don't care about a content advantage then they're not going to give a rip about HD extras particularly if they aren't processed to look like the film
If you think you can end the war by being sacrificing your access to content more power to you. If U put a $99 BD player in front of me I'm buying it nuff said. Anyone so stuck on principal that they would forgo such a deal is not someone I'd entertain getting advice from.
Well, everything works in your favor if your going to continue to change your stance on subjects of the format war. In 2006 you didn't give a rip about extras, in 2007, as HD DVD talking points most assuredly dwindled, you do a 180 and claim how important extras are (because it is a perceived advantage by HD DVD proponents)...and now, that we are approaching 2008 you do another 180 and have come full circle as the "extras" talking point of HD DVD now has dwindled too and are back to not giving a rip about extras...
You flip flop more than John Kerry.
Sorry, we're a few pages into this thread already, but this is spoken like a true reality distortion field. You sure you're not really Steve in disguise?
I agree wholeheartedly by the way...
Thanks.
But it demonstrates that the consumers don't care about the underling technical differences between these two formats. What consumers want is a clear winner to the format war. To 99.99% of consumers, differences between models and brands of players already overshadow the technical differences between the formats. The formats are effectively identical from a usage perspective.
Hell, I'd even prefer to have the "worse" format win just to have a true standard.
At the very least, the BDA has working prototypes of BD 100s and BD 200s, too bad the same can't be said for TL-51...so tell me again how your comparison has any validity?...
You're not making any sense. While the efficacy of TL51GB isn't public facing the ratification of the format is implicitly suggests that working prototypes exist.
The comparison of BD100 or BD200 is poor because while prototypes may exist they haven't even been submitted for ratification to the BRD standard. So any "apples to apples" comparision still leaves you clutching for air. Thought is seems rather pointless to argue the point. Both formats top out at 1080p with <50Mbps throughput. A 100GB or 200GB is superfluous. Consumers have been taught that value comes through premium packaging. 2-Disc DVD sets.
This isn't going to give way to whole series on a disc. The next "logical" step is HDD based persistent storage for storing favorite movies a la what people have on a DVR. Instant access to potentially terabytes of information.
I "like" that my Extended Edition LotR disc come on multiple discs. I like my Alien Quadrilogy and all the discs laid out. The next step for me isn't consolidating that stuff on one disc (that could be damaged) the next step is digital representation on a HDD that I can stream to multiple set top boxes in the home
For "computer guys" you guys are woefully archaic.
I bought Blade Runner on Blu-Ray and it wastes five disks, why is this? Do they use five disks because the HD-DVD version does the same? So pointless, it could have been done on, at most, 4. There are two disks that basically contain extras, why not make that one? Btw, the high def cases definitely are more efficient, space wise.
Who cares? If you had persistent storage with adequate DRM you'd be able to plug the whole series onto internal/external storage for unbeatable speed in access.
Both formats are hobbled by optical technology which is flaky and error prone.
I bought Blade Runner on Blu-Ray and it wastes five disks, why is this? Do they use five disks because the HD-DVD version does the same? So pointless, it could have been done on, at most, 4. There are two disks that basically contain extras, why not make that one? Btw, the high def cases definitely are more efficient, space wise.
That blade Runner series has only one (the main disk) High Definition disk in the set right? I heard the rest of the disks we all DVD's. Hence the price is $63.00
....
Frankly if you're not willing to own both formats then your motives are suspect. You certainly don't love movies. I'll do what it takes to have full access. If Costco has a Blu-ray player for $250 next year it's coming home with me.
...
Ridiculous! I also love watching movies and if the title I want isn't available in my HDM of choice then I'll gladly watch it on DVD or even LD.
That blade Runner series has only one (the main disk) High Definition disk in the set right? I heard the rest of the disks we all DVD's. Hence the price is $63.00
All the discs are BD. I think all four of the movies, on two discs, are 1080p, the two special feature discs are 480i or 480p and disc 5, the Workprint may or may not be 480i or 480p.
The price at Best Buy for the 5-disc Collector's Edition was $34.99.
You flip flop more than John Kerry.
You mean Mitt Romney, the absolute KING of flip flopping. But I digress...
Ridiculous! I also love watching movies and if the title I want isn't available in my HDM of choice then I'll gladly watch it on DVD or even LD.
Sure, I do the same for Blu-Ray exclusives for now. The REON VX video processor on my HD-XA2 does a great job upscaling SD titles to 1080p, but I'm sure HiDef source would look and sound even better.
As you know, the HDM contents provided by both HiDef formats are identical in audio and video quality offering. However, people do forget that and do get caught up on the optical disc format war instead of the bigger dispute between SD vs. HD contents. For many, the cost is the main issue for not being able to support both formats, but for others, the support comes from the love of the game console?
Having said that, I just got a Wii yesterday due to driving demand of the visiting nieces. Got lucky while shopping at toysrus. A line was forming quickly as soon as people found out the "Wii" was in stock. I don't think anyone will form a line for other game consoles out there. I'll be keeping it for the future visitors. I bought wii play, cross-bow training, and an nunchuck and have been much fun thus far.
BTW, did anyone take advantage of the Amazon HD-DVD BOGO?
All the discs are BD. I think all four of the movies, on two discs, are 1080p, the two special feature discs are 480i or 480p and disc 5, the Workprint may or may not be 480i or 480p.
The price at Best Buy for the 5-disc Collector's Edition was $34.99.
I bought a 5-disc complete collector's edition HD-DVD set for $25 shipped from Amazon.
There are 3 HD-DVD's and 2 DVD's, and I beleive all the included contents are the same on BD & HD.
Well, everything works in your favor if your going to continue to change your stance on subjects of the format war. In 2006 you didn't give a rip about extras, in 2007, as HD DVD talking points most assuredly dwindled, you do a 180 and claim how important extras are (because it is a perceived advantage by HD DVD proponents)...and now, that we are approaching 2008 you do another 180 and have come full circle as the "extras" talking point of HD DVD now has dwindled too and are back to not giving a rip about extras...
You flip flop more than John Kerry.
Vacuous logic. In Politics one is more or less forced to take and maintain a stand. In life however if tapping a bee's nest results in numerious bee stings one would logically be expected to change their course of action in the future as to prevent the same result from occuring. I'm not a politician so I do not care about the perception of flipping or flopping. I thought the extras on 300 may have been a selling point but the benefits could not ameliorate the price differential for many dual format owners. Even had there been pricing parity the results may not have differed. This isn't flip flopping this is understanding the current paradigm.
Extras are only as valuable as the work put into them IMO. The attempt to somehow avert this war by dogmatically sticking to one format is futile and honestly hilarious. Talk about cutting off your nose to spit your face. When the price is right I'll bring a BD player home. I've got an empty HDMI port waiting for it or an Apple TV.
As much as I loathe the tactics and strategy of the BDA I love movies more. HD DVD will always be my lead in because it represents the least intrusive most inclusive platform of the bunch.
Thanks.
ya wanna dollar?
I don't want my movies stored on HDD though. I want a physical, tangible medium. I want cases and I want a collection. You don't want everything on one disc but you want them on one disc (hard drive), that makes a lot of sense. I want mine stored on an optical format and be able to back them up on a HDD.
I don't understand this. It is clear that in the not-too-distant future, home media servers will hold movies and music and pipe them on demand into any TV in the house.
It makes far more sense to say that the movie collection should be stored on a hard drive, and the optical format is the backup.
Who cares? If you had persistent storage with adequate DRM you'd be able to plug the whole series onto internal/external storage for unbeatable speed in access.
Both formats are hobbled by optical technology which is flaky and error prone.
FkuC me! now he's going to crap all over optical formats as a whole
FYI this isn't the BD Vs HD-DVD Vs Persistent storage, so go back to your nine disc Alien set and spread it out