I have no doubt that Warner received money or other massive incentives for their decision.
I don't know why this necessarily has to be the case. In the Paramount case, there was something unintuitive about going with the format with the minority sales. HD partisanship aside, it makes sense, if you're going to go exclusively with one format, to choose the one getting the majority of sales. The "massive incentive" may well simply be Warner's own stated explanation: the HD-BD war is dragging on (and on and on and on), to the detriment of the market in general. Unifying on a single standard will likely strengthen the market by way of reducing consumer confusion and uncertainty, and it will allow them to save money by not duplicating their efforts.
Payola might also have taken place, but I don't think such an idea needs to be invoked to explain Warner's decision. Whereas it seemed like it did, to explain Paramount's. But even there, speculation did not constitute evidence (of course, in the latter case, that evidence did come). And if payola does turn out to have been part of Warner's incentive, I'd be very surprised if they required as much money to go BD as Paramount did to go HD.
You have to cut Murch some slack. His attitude for the last year or two has been, "I don't care who wins. As long as it's not Sony." Once a Toshiba employee, always a Toshiba employee. This is a big shock to his system. He just needs time to grieve.
ooh, hahaha an early contender for funniest post of 2008!
But I thought his attitude for the last 2 years was more "I'll point this way.. no this way, no wait a minute.. THIS way.. no.. hold on.. hold on which way is up?"
Well, all I know is that my Toshiba HD-A3 player has some sort of handshake issues with my Sony Bravia LCD and it's pissing me off. I chose HD just before Christmas as I was looking for an upconverting player and thought that it was OK to spend just a little extra to get the HD. But now my A3 sometimes decides not to recognize my TV, or loose video for 2-3 seconds during a movie.
Honestly, besides the 10 HD-DVD movies that came free with it, I've just used it for upconversion of standard DVDs to 1080i. I just want it to work.
This is a shame in many ways. BR is not superior and is MUCH more difficult to programme for small producers like myself. A win for corporate interests and strong DRM I think. At least Microsoft are on the wrong side.
That link that marzetta posted on another thread debunks the payoff rumor. It seems Warners as sick of seeing customers sitting on the sideliine waiting this whole thing out too.
I had already made my choice with blu ray so I feel somewhat vindicated now. For those who purchased HD DVD players they still work for all the content they purchased and they'll probably be able to pick up some great titles cheaply in the not so distant future.
For those who haven't yet chosen to purchase at all, they can safely buy a blu ray player with no remorse and start enjoying HD content.
i like HD DVD better simply because of the combo disks - if i only have one hd player, then i want my movies to work on my kids' dvd players and in the car where there is no hd. it's unfair to double charge people when all you're paying for is a license.
Yeah, that would have been a great feature because with Blu-Ray you have to buy two copies (no doubt this will make the movie studios happy). However, we had to do that with DVD when it first came out. Everyone had VHS players and only a handful had DVD players. Eventually most people got a DVD player.
Having the dual format would have eased the transition but having vastly more space on Blu-Ray is enough to make that advantage irrelevant for me anyway.
I'd say HD-DVD was better for people who like movies alone as it is backwards compatible but Blu-Ray is the better data format having more space and I think that with movies for ipods and dvd rips, divx etc, the data storage capacity is more important for future movie watching.
I still wish they hadn't gone to market with both products though.
If Blu-Ray really wins out in the end, which seems very likely, Microsoft are really going to take a hit with their 360 again. I guess they can sell another add-on but it doesn't look good for them.
I'd say HD-DVD was better for people who like movies alone as it is backwards compatible
How is HD DVD backwards compatible? Can I take any HD DVD disc and play it in my regular DVD player? Are you only talking about the discs that shipped with both versions of the movie stamped on it?
This is the same situation I faced when I switched to DVD from VHS. I stopped buying VHS tapes and started buying DVD exclusively. In the not-so-distant future I'll just pick up another blu ray player for the kids' TV and it'll play all their old DVDs plus any new blu ray content I've picked up in the meantime. (Currently there is a DVD/VHS player for my kids to use, though the attrition rate of VHS tapes in the proximity of kids is pretty high)
Blu ray is backward compatible too, in that it will also play DVD.
Unfortunately, there are lots of people that look at me funny when I say Blu-ray. I have to say Blu-ray DVD player or something. HD-DVD is kinda self explanatory.
Just curious, but why does that matter to you at all?
This is a shame in many ways. BR is not superior and is MUCH more difficult to programme for small producers like myself. A win for corporate interests and strong DRM I think.
@ vinney57
This is a very interesting remark, and one I don't think I've seen mentioned before. I have heard that Blu-Ray was somehow more difficult to program for, but I had not heard anyone say that one or the other represented stronger DRM.
I take it that you are saying that Blu Ray is stronger DRM than HD? In what way? Actually, if you'd elaborate on both points, please, I think it would be edifying (like I say, I've seen remarks about HD being easier to program for, but never any specifics). Considering how bitter the partisanship about BR vs HD tends to be, a little genuine edification would be extra-welcome.
You have proof to back up your claim? Or are you just having a tantrum at the other poster for linking to a pair of articles you didn't agree with. It's not "End of story" until you offer something more substantive than foot-stamping invective. I don't recall a single informed article written after the Paramount deal that said it was game-over in favor of HD DVD. Every single thing I read was either "Now, it's a stalemate" or "This is going to delay the final result" or "The HD-BD war is going to drag on until another alternative wins, probably downloads." (Notice that Warner appears to have found that third idea worrisome) Perhaps you can link a cogent article supporting either of the extraordinary statements of your second paragraph.
I have probably 6x your posts in the HD DVD vs Blu-ray threads alone. I know a rookie when I see one. Blu-ray is technically superior in some areas and technically inferior in others. For instance
HD DVD players shipped day 1 with networking in "every" player, a unified menu/interactive system in HDi and persistent storage. Today those features in Blu-ray will require Blu-ray Profile 2.0 players which have yet to ship.
If you look at the format war from a very simplistic level you'll see 30GB discs vs 50GB discs and want to proclaim that the larger number denotes superiority. Kind of tantamount to looking at a Core 2 chip and proclaiming it superior to an Itanium processing because the Itanium "only" runs at 1.6Ghz.
We know from titles that have shipped on both platforms with two encodes (The Prestige, Natures Journey etc) that the much ballyhooed extra space doesn't normally manifest in better quality. Your display device will have a far more determinant effect on quality.
Ronbo ...I've been at the front lines for a while in this battle. I know when a rookie hits the line writing checks his ass can't cash.
OK. So given that we 'know' what format is going to rule next, how long does a standard DVD have left? 5 more years? less/more?
5-8 yrs IMO.
I think in 7 years there will be an equal amount of people who download their movies vs buying them in the store.
The immediacy/availability of downloads is nice. I think we need another generation of codec improvements. h.265 coming in a few years should offer a further 50% reduction in bandwidth which will be most beneficial.
I have probably 6x your posts in the HD DVD vs Blu-ray threads alone. I know a rookie when I see one. Blu-ray is technically superior in some areas and technically inferior in others. For instance
HD DVD players shipped day 1 with networking in "every" player, a unified menu/interactive system in HDi and persistent storage. Today those features in Blu-ray will require Blu-ray Profile 2.0 players which have yet to ship.
If you look at the format war from a very simplistic level you'll see 30GB discs vs 50GB discs and want to proclaim that the larger number denotes superiority. Kind of tantamount to looking at a Core 2 chip and proclaiming it superior to an Itanium processing because the Itanium "only" runs at 1.6Ghz.
We know from titles that have shipped on both platforms with two encodes (The Prestige, Natures Journey etc) that the much ballyhooed extra space doesn't normally manifest in better quality. Your display device will have a far more determinant effect on quality.
Ronbo ...I've been at the front lines for a while in this battle. I know when a rookie hits the line writing checks his ass can't cash.
So more posts makes you more knowledgeable on a subject than someone else. That's some warped logic if I ever heard any.
I agree that Blu-Ray coming to market with an unfinished spec. But at the end, the only things 1.0 Profile players lacked in comparison to HD DVD is Picture-in-Picture and networking features. Neither of those features has been widely used on HD DVD. With Profile 1.1 Blu-Ray players available, the PiP advantage is gone and all that remains is HD DVD's networking which have been put to some pretty abysmal use (mostly stuff better served using a computer).
As for the technical advantages of one versus the other, you might want to go back to your example of The Prestige. You seem to forget that video is only half the movie watching experience. From the reviews of the two versions from HighDefDigest, they state the video is nearly identical but the HD DVD lacks lossless audio that the Blu-Ray version has. Here's an excerpt from their audio review:
"Unfortunately, with just a few simple compares between the Dolby Digital track on this HD DVD and the PCM on the Blu-ray, the differences between the two tracks are obvious. Failing to reproduce fine detail and clarity in the rears with much finesse, the back soundfield on the Dolby track is flat and listless. The score in particular doesn't have the same nice blend to the back as it did on the PCM."
Likewise, Paramount stated they dropped lossless audio from Transformers because of space issues.
Since you mentioned asses, perhaps you could quit talking out of yours.
How is HD DVD backwards compatible? Can I take any HD DVD disc and play it in my regular DVD player? Are you only talking about the discs that shipped with both versions of the movie stamped on it?
Yeah the combo discs with DVD + HD-DVD. They can do that with Blu-ray discs too if they wanted but it's not as easy:
As they say though, Sony could up the storage too. However, they can't really make the storage arbitrarily high without considering the write speed. DL DVDs take much longer than double the time to burn compared to SL DVDs.
If it takes half an hour to burn a standard Blu-Ray disc, it won't matter if they *can* make a 200 GB disc that burns in 3 hours, no one will buy it without being able to support multiple sessions or unless it behaves like DVD-Ram.
If HD-DVD can match the storage of Blu-Ray with this new development and maintain the burn speed, compatibility, cost and easier manufacturing, they might still be able to pull something back. It would probably just be delaying the inevitable though if big studios are stopping support.
So more posts makes you more knowledgeable on a subject than someone else. That's some warped logic if I ever heard any.
Did I state that my post count equates to more knowledge or is that what you're inferring on your own? Whether you perceive my logic to be warped or not is irrelevant as you are aren't the arbiter of what "is" or "isn't" Logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
I agree that Blu-Ray coming to market with an unfinished spec. But at the end, the only things 1.0 Profile players lacked in comparison to HD DVD is Picture-in-Picture and networking features. Neither of those features has been widely used on HD DVD. With Profile 1.1 Blu-Ray players available, the PiP advantage is gone and all that remains is HD DVD's networking which have been put to some pretty abysmal use (mostly stuff better served using a computer).
Of course you'd agree with that. Blu-ray Profile 1.1 = HD DVD at shipping date. Whether you think the feature is abysmal or not doesn't refute my point that if one is to argue superiority they they best quantify what areas considering Blu-ray 2008 is just now catching up to HD DVD 2006.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
As for the technical advantages of one versus the other, you might want to go back to your example of The Prestige. You seem to forget that video is only half the movie watching experience. From the reviews of the two versions from HighDefDigest, they state the video is nearly identical but the HD DVD lacks lossless audio that the Blu-Ray version has. Here's an excerpt from their audio review:
Video is only half the equation when one doesn't consider the priority of consumers. People will drop $2-4k on a TV easy but getting them to buy anything other that Bose or "hang on the wall" speakers flanking the flat panel. That being said thought I should preface my statement by acknowledging that the video quality isn't likely to take a leap forward because of more space but the audio and extras can indeed be more bountiful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Likewise, Paramount stated they dropped lossless audio from Transformers because of space issues.
Since you mentioned asses, perhaps you could quit talking out of yours.
LOL "you're no Daisy...you're no Daisy at all"
Please show me where you just smacked my argument down and delivered abject defeat of my arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highdefdigest
That said, it is hard to imagine any film taking a Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround track to its zenith better than 'Transformers.' This is one highly-aggressive experience. Discrete effects are constant and pounding, but the lack of subtlety here is exactly what fans want.
The goal from a compressionist whether it be audio or video is to deliver an end result that delivers fidelity to the source. There are cases in which lossless audio could be inferior to lossy audio (i.e lossless 16/48 vs lossy 24/48). I doubt you'll hear a 640k that sounds good but many 1.5Mb soundtracks sound great (King Kong). I tend to be a "show me" person who doesn't get caught up in the specs.
Oddly enough, the HD DVD boosters have been arguing the opposite all along. "Most PS3 owners play games only. They don't buy movies!" "HD DVD is the movie lover's format. People buy HD DVD players because they want the movies, not games." (Not direct quotes.)
Yes, that's an incorrect argument. The better argument would be that NOT ALL PS3 owners watch Blu-Ray movies, so for Sony to spout "2.7 million" as number of Blu-Ray players sold in North America is misleading. Including PS3s, Blu Ray players outnumber HD DVD 4.3 to 1 in North America, but weekly disc sales are generally only 2 to 1. That would imply that slightly less than half of PS3 owners are actually buying Blu-Ray movies, but obviously that's enough of them to give the illusion that "consumers are choosing Blu-Ray hand over fist". Reality is, only 370,000 consumers chose Blu-Ray (the number of dedicated Blu-Ray players), the other 2.3 million got one for free when they bought a new game console. Of course, some number of people bought a PS3 more for movies than games, but there hasn't been a survey yet that's been able to confirm how many that actually is (my guess is only a small percentage).
Sony is winning this format war the same way Microsoft won the browser war; it has more to do with strategy than the actual merits of the products.
I have probably 6x your posts in the HD DVD vs Blu-ray threads alone.
Thanks, man. I'll be laughing at that one for a month. I always find it amusing when people mistake how much they talk about something for how much they know about it. Remember that the man who isn't talking might have spent his time listening.
Quote:
HD DVD players shipped day 1 with networking in "every" player, a unified menu/interactive system in HDi and persistent storage. Today those features in Blu-ray will require Blu-ray Profile 2.0 players which have yet to ship.
If you look at the format war from a very simplistic level you'll see 30GB discs vs 50GB discs and want to proclaim that the larger number denotes superiority. Kind of tantamount to looking at a Core 2 chip and proclaiming it superior to an Itanium processing because the Itanium "only" runs at 1.6Ghz.
We know from titles that have shipped on both platforms with two encodes (The Prestige, Natures Journey etc) that the much ballyhooed extra space doesn't normally manifest in better quality. Your display device will have a far more determinant effect on quality.
Ronbo ...I've been at the front lines for a while in this battle. I know when a rookie hits the line writing checks his ass can't cash.
So, to answer my initial question... no, you don't have any evidence to support your earlier statement that "Paramount got paid to go exclusive and now Warner has gotten paid. End of story." And now, after having had a tantrum at the other poster, you're having one at me.
You seem to think being rude is an adequate substitute for logic. You made some wild claims. I asked you to back them up, and you responded by being rude and insulting, and then conveniently failing to back things up. Precisely what checks have I tried to write that my ass can't cash? Look up the word "non sequitur". No, never mind. You wouldn't get it.
To answer your points, though....
Quote:
HD DVD players shipped day 1 with networking in "every" player, a unified menu/interactive system in HDi and persistent storage. Today those features in Blu-ray will require Blu-ray Profile 2.0 players which have yet to ship.
Yes? So? Nowhere have I said different. And in no way does this support your paranoid claims of payola. In a more rational and thoughtful post, this could have been a worthwhile point to be made in favor of HD vs Blu Ray, and I'd have agreed with you. I'd have also pointed out that deficiencies in software aren't as difficult to circumvent as others that are well known, where the greater-than sign is pointing the other way. Such as what you conveniently mention next.
Quote:
If you look at the format war from a very simplistic level you'll see 30GB discs vs 50GB discs and want to proclaim that the larger number denotes superiority. Kind of tantamount to looking at a Core 2 chip and proclaiming it superior to an Itanium processing because the Itanium "only" runs at 1.6Ghz.
Once again, you seem to be refuting something that someone else has talked about. Filling space, no doubt.
But your comparison is very misleading. In processors MHz means very little on its own, or at least considerably less than the more-important measures of processing power. So the Itanium's tremendous power was very poorly reflected in a simple MHz number. (We Mac users, of course, remember the angst of Intel's chips being less powerful but having higher clock speeds... and the greater frustration of seeing the x86 gradually reach a point where it was faster, both in MHz and in processing power).
On the other hand, if someone were to want to compare storage capacity between HD and Blu Ray, then 30GB vs 50GB is an excellent metric. Does it translate into superior picture quality, though? Does "300" look better on Blu than HD? I doubt it. Even in spite of numerous people who tout the higher bitrate ceiling of Blu-Ray, that probably a potential difference not seen in practice. Not at this time anyway. But "potential advantages" do have a way of turning into real advantages with time.
Quote:
We know from titles that have shipped on both platforms with two encodes (The Prestige, Natures Journey etc) that the much ballyhooed extra space doesn't normally manifest in better quality. Your display device will have a far more determinant effect on quality.
That's both true and obvious. Such expertise you show.
Quote:
Ronbo ...I've been at the front lines for a while in this battle. I know when a rookie hits the line writing checks his ass can't cash.
I take it that you've been in the front lines fighting in favor of HD DVD? Perhaps you should reassess your tactics. To the extent you've have any impact at all, I imagine it's been a negative one, if your behavior here is any indication of what you're like in person. And by the way, look up the classic logical fallacy referred to as the "Appeal to Authority". It's by no means the only fallacy you've made in this post, but it's the one you seem to think carries the most weight. It carries no weight at all in this case. But it's very revealing of the man behind the fallacies.
Thanks, man. I'll be laughing at that one for a month. I always find it amusing when people mistake how much they talk about something for how much they know about it. Remember that the man who isn't talking might have spent his time listening.
Glad you got a little humor in your day.
So, to answer my initial question... no, you don't have any evidence to support your earlier statement that "Paramount got paid to go exclusive and now Warner has gotten paid. End of story." And now, after having had a tantrum at the other poster, you're having one at me.
My "assumption" is Paramount (and now Warner) have been compensated in some fashion to forgo on dual platform support. I fully realize this runs counter to what most HD DVD fans believe but companie are in the business to make money. While they love to come up with altruistic PR releases regarding their decision there's always a money trail. I think they're loath to say "we got paid" for fear of potential legal retribution.
You seem to think being rude is an adequate substitute for logic. You made some wild claims. I asked you to back them up, and you responded by being rude and insulting, and then conveniently failing to back things up. Precisely what checks have I tried to write that my ass can't cash? Look up the word "non sequitur". No, never mind. You wouldn't get it.
LOL..I know what a non sequitur is chief. Remember my STFU comment came from this comment
"But of course! Blu-ray is so superior to HD-DVD that it is weird the latter is still alive."
And while I love your gallantry in defending your fellow poster I often have a problem with people that espouse the superiority of a product without providing adequate backing. If you're going to tell me how superior something is you should be able to rattle off 3-4 salient reasons why.
To answer your points, though....
Yes? So? Nowhere have I said different. And in no way does this support your paranoid claims of payola. In a more rational and thoughtful post, this could have been a worthwhile point to be made in favor of HD vs Blu Ray, and I'd have agreed with you. I'd have also pointed out that deficiencies in software aren't as difficult to circumvent as others that are well known, where the greater-than sign is pointing the other way. Such as what you conveniently mention next.
But your comparison is very misleading. In processors MHz means very little on its own, or at least considerably less than the more-important measures of processing power. So the Itanium's tremendous power was very poorly reflected in a simple MHz number. (We Mac users, of course, remember the angst of Intel's chips being less powerful but having higher clock speeds... and the greater frustration of seeing the x86 gradually reach a point where it was faster, both in MHz and in processing power).
Not really. Let me clarify. If you only compare products from 1 or two metrics then it's fairly easy to make a product appear superior. In my examply the Holy Grail of processor superiority is clockspeed and thus the Core 2 is a superior processor when clockspeed is the sole criterion. However most computer enthusiasts know that the Itanium is powerful and faster in many cases so the clockspeed measurement can be misleading.
On the other hand, if someone were to want to compare storage capacity between HD and Blu Ray, then 30GB vs 50GB is an excellent metric. Does it translate into superior picture quality, though? Does "300" look better on Blu than HD? I doubt it. Even in spite of numerous people who tout the higher bitrate ceiling of Blu-Ray, that probably a potential difference not seen in practice. Not at this time anyway. But "potential advantages" do have a way of turning into real advantages with time.
Yes an excellent metric but it alone will not denote superiority to for many people.
I take it that you've been in the front lines fighting in favor of HD DVD? Perhaps you should reassess your tactics. To the extent you've have any impact at all, I imagine it's been a negative one, if your behavior here is any indication of what you're like in person. And by the way, look up the classic logical fallacy referred to as the "Appeal to Authority". It's by no means the only fallacy you've made in this post, but it's the one you seem to think carries the most weight. It carries no weight at all in this case. But it's very revealing of the man behind the fallacies.
It's pretty hard to have any debate without resorting to some time tested Logical Fallacy. I'm not really appealing to authority in the sense that I'm asking people to wholesale believe me. I've a lot of posts in the HD DVD vs Blu-ray thread so if people want to know my stance they can do a search is my main point.
Inline comments.
All in all I think that Warner did what's best for them. I think DVD is going to be harder to beat than the studios think. Upscaling on a good DVD player looks pretty good unless you're talking about a bigger than 50" screen.
Did I state that my post count equates to more knowledge or is that what you're inferring on your own? Whether you perceive my logic to be warped or not is irrelevant as you are aren't the arbiter of what "is" or "isn't" Logic.
Your implication that higher post count equated to more knowledge was pretty obvious, otherwise you wouldn't have made it an issue in your post.
Quote:
Of course you'd agree with that. Blu-ray Profile 1.1 = HD DVD at shipping date. Whether you think the feature is abysmal or not doesn't refute my point that if one is to argue superiority they they best quantify what areas considering Blu-ray 2008 is just now catching up to HD DVD 2006.
Video is only half the equation when one doesn't consider the priority of consumers. People will drop $2-4k on a TV easy but getting them to buy anything other that Bose or "hang on the wall" speakers flanking the flat panel. That being said thought I should preface my statement by acknowledging that the video quality isn't likely to take a leap forward because of more space but the audio and extras can indeed be more bountiful.
So, audio quality doesn't matter since most consumers won't benefit from it, yet PiP that similarly very few people will watch and pathetic online features very people will use more than once just to see what it is add to HD DVD superiority? That really makes little sense. If you are considering the priority of consumers, very few give a rat's ass that they could toss in Evan Almighty or 300 and go shopping for movie-related products (and considering that broadband isn't very widespread in the U.S., very fewer can actually make use of it anyhow). Hell, I can't make use of the lossless audio, but I feel better knowing it's there so when I do upgrade my audio components I'll immediately get to enjoy the benefits.
Quote:
LOL "you're no Daisy...you're no Daisy at all"
Please show me where you just smacked my argument down and delivered abject defeat of my arguments.
It would help if you stopped acting like a rude, ignorant *ss and made a valid argument. If I come off as an ass in return, just consider it a case of reaping what you sow.
Quote:
The goal from a compressionist whether it be audio or video is to deliver an end result that delivers fidelity to the source. There are cases in which lossless audio could be inferior to lossy audio (i.e lossless 16/48 vs lossy 24/48). I doubt you'll hear a 640k that sounds good but many 1.5Mb soundtracks sound great (King Kong). I tend to be a "show me" person who doesn't get caught up in the specs.
Funny, your comments say otherwise about you being a "show me" person. You seem caught up on the marketing bullet points of HD DVD like PiP and online connectivity which have had very little use on HD DVD, yet seem quite willing to dismiss Blu-Ray's superior storage capability, higher maximum bitrate and generally wider support for lossless audio. If you really are a "show me" person, than the uninspired online features that have so far been implemented for HD DVD should be a non-factor but you seem rather caught up on it.
Comments
I have no doubt that Warner received money or other massive incentives for their decision.
I don't know why this necessarily has to be the case. In the Paramount case, there was something unintuitive about going with the format with the minority sales. HD partisanship aside, it makes sense, if you're going to go exclusively with one format, to choose the one getting the majority of sales. The "massive incentive" may well simply be Warner's own stated explanation: the HD-BD war is dragging on (and on and on and on), to the detriment of the market in general. Unifying on a single standard will likely strengthen the market by way of reducing consumer confusion and uncertainty, and it will allow them to save money by not duplicating their efforts.
Payola might also have taken place, but I don't think such an idea needs to be invoked to explain Warner's decision. Whereas it seemed like it did, to explain Paramount's. But even there, speculation did not constitute evidence (of course, in the latter case, that evidence did come). And if payola does turn out to have been part of Warner's incentive, I'd be very surprised if they required as much money to go BD as Paramount did to go HD.
You have to cut Murch some slack. His attitude for the last year or two has been, "I don't care who wins. As long as it's not Sony." Once a Toshiba employee, always a Toshiba employee. This is a big shock to his system. He just needs time to grieve.
ooh, hahaha an early contender for funniest post of 2008!
But I thought his attitude for the last 2 years was more "I'll point this way.. no this way, no wait a minute.. THIS way.. no.. hold on.. hold on which way is up?"
etc.
Honestly, besides the 10 HD-DVD movies that came free with it, I've just used it for upconversion of standard DVDs to 1080i. I just want it to work.
That link that marzetta posted on another thread debunks the payoff rumor. It seems Warners as sick of seeing customers sitting on the sideliine waiting this whole thing out too.
I had already made my choice with blu ray so I feel somewhat vindicated now. For those who purchased HD DVD players they still work for all the content they purchased and they'll probably be able to pick up some great titles cheaply in the not so distant future.
For those who haven't yet chosen to purchase at all, they can safely buy a blu ray player with no remorse and start enjoying HD content.
Everyone wins. Well, everyone except Toshiba.
i like HD DVD better simply because of the combo disks - if i only have one hd player, then i want my movies to work on my kids' dvd players and in the car where there is no hd. it's unfair to double charge people when all you're paying for is a license.
Yeah, that would have been a great feature because with Blu-Ray you have to buy two copies (no doubt this will make the movie studios happy). However, we had to do that with DVD when it first came out. Everyone had VHS players and only a handful had DVD players. Eventually most people got a DVD player.
Having the dual format would have eased the transition but having vastly more space on Blu-Ray is enough to make that advantage irrelevant for me anyway.
I'd say HD-DVD was better for people who like movies alone as it is backwards compatible but Blu-Ray is the better data format having more space and I think that with movies for ipods and dvd rips, divx etc, the data storage capacity is more important for future movie watching.
I still wish they hadn't gone to market with both products though.
If Blu-Ray really wins out in the end, which seems very likely, Microsoft are really going to take a hit with their 360 again. I guess they can sell another add-on but it doesn't look good for them.
I'd say HD-DVD was better for people who like movies alone as it is backwards compatible
How is HD DVD backwards compatible? Can I take any HD DVD disc and play it in my regular DVD player? Are you only talking about the discs that shipped with both versions of the movie stamped on it?
This is the same situation I faced when I switched to DVD from VHS. I stopped buying VHS tapes and started buying DVD exclusively. In the not-so-distant future I'll just pick up another blu ray player for the kids' TV and it'll play all their old DVDs plus any new blu ray content I've picked up in the meantime. (Currently there is a DVD/VHS player for my kids to use, though the attrition rate of VHS tapes in the proximity of kids is pretty high)
Blu ray is backward compatible too, in that it will also play DVD.
Unfortunately, there are lots of people that look at me funny when I say Blu-ray. I have to say Blu-ray DVD player or something. HD-DVD is kinda self explanatory.
Just curious, but why does that matter to you at all?
This is a shame in many ways. BR is not superior and is MUCH more difficult to programme for small producers like myself. A win for corporate interests and strong DRM I think.
@ vinney57
This is a very interesting remark, and one I don't think I've seen mentioned before. I have heard that Blu-Ray was somehow more difficult to program for, but I had not heard anyone say that one or the other represented stronger DRM.
I take it that you are saying that Blu Ray is stronger DRM than HD? In what way? Actually, if you'd elaborate on both points, please, I think it would be edifying (like I say, I've seen remarks about HD being easier to program for, but never any specifics). Considering how bitter the partisanship about BR vs HD tends to be, a little genuine edification would be extra-welcome.
You have proof to back up your claim? Or are you just having a tantrum at the other poster for linking to a pair of articles you didn't agree with. It's not "End of story" until you offer something more substantive than foot-stamping invective. I don't recall a single informed article written after the Paramount deal that said it was game-over in favor of HD DVD. Every single thing I read was either "Now, it's a stalemate" or "This is going to delay the final result" or "The HD-BD war is going to drag on until another alternative wins, probably downloads." (Notice that Warner appears to have found that third idea worrisome) Perhaps you can link a cogent article supporting either of the extraordinary statements of your second paragraph.
I have probably 6x your posts in the HD DVD vs Blu-ray threads alone. I know a rookie when I see one. Blu-ray is technically superior in some areas and technically inferior in others. For instance
HD DVD players shipped day 1 with networking in "every" player, a unified menu/interactive system in HDi and persistent storage. Today those features in Blu-ray will require Blu-ray Profile 2.0 players which have yet to ship.
If you look at the format war from a very simplistic level you'll see 30GB discs vs 50GB discs and want to proclaim that the larger number denotes superiority. Kind of tantamount to looking at a Core 2 chip and proclaiming it superior to an Itanium processing because the Itanium "only" runs at 1.6Ghz.
We know from titles that have shipped on both platforms with two encodes (The Prestige, Natures Journey etc) that the much ballyhooed extra space doesn't normally manifest in better quality. Your display device will have a far more determinant effect on quality.
Ronbo ...I've been at the front lines for a while in this battle. I know when a rookie hits the line writing checks his ass can't cash.
OK. So given that we 'know' what format is going to rule next, how long does a standard DVD have left? 5 more years? less/more?
5-8 yrs IMO.
I think in 7 years there will be an equal amount of people who download their movies vs buying them in the store.
The immediacy/availability of downloads is nice. I think we need another generation of codec improvements. h.265 coming in a few years should offer a further 50% reduction in bandwidth which will be most beneficial.
I have probably 6x your posts in the HD DVD vs Blu-ray threads alone. I know a rookie when I see one. Blu-ray is technically superior in some areas and technically inferior in others. For instance
HD DVD players shipped day 1 with networking in "every" player, a unified menu/interactive system in HDi and persistent storage. Today those features in Blu-ray will require Blu-ray Profile 2.0 players which have yet to ship.
If you look at the format war from a very simplistic level you'll see 30GB discs vs 50GB discs and want to proclaim that the larger number denotes superiority. Kind of tantamount to looking at a Core 2 chip and proclaiming it superior to an Itanium processing because the Itanium "only" runs at 1.6Ghz.
We know from titles that have shipped on both platforms with two encodes (The Prestige, Natures Journey etc) that the much ballyhooed extra space doesn't normally manifest in better quality. Your display device will have a far more determinant effect on quality.
Ronbo ...I've been at the front lines for a while in this battle. I know when a rookie hits the line writing checks his ass can't cash.
So more posts makes you more knowledgeable on a subject than someone else. That's some warped logic if I ever heard any.
I agree that Blu-Ray coming to market with an unfinished spec. But at the end, the only things 1.0 Profile players lacked in comparison to HD DVD is Picture-in-Picture and networking features. Neither of those features has been widely used on HD DVD. With Profile 1.1 Blu-Ray players available, the PiP advantage is gone and all that remains is HD DVD's networking which have been put to some pretty abysmal use (mostly stuff better served using a computer).
As for the technical advantages of one versus the other, you might want to go back to your example of The Prestige. You seem to forget that video is only half the movie watching experience. From the reviews of the two versions from HighDefDigest, they state the video is nearly identical but the HD DVD lacks lossless audio that the Blu-Ray version has. Here's an excerpt from their audio review:
"Unfortunately, with just a few simple compares between the Dolby Digital track on this HD DVD and the PCM on the Blu-ray, the differences between the two tracks are obvious. Failing to reproduce fine detail and clarity in the rears with much finesse, the back soundfield on the Dolby track is flat and listless. The score in particular doesn't have the same nice blend to the back as it did on the PCM."
Likewise, Paramount stated they dropped lossless audio from Transformers because of space issues.
Since you mentioned asses, perhaps you could quit talking out of yours.
How is HD DVD backwards compatible? Can I take any HD DVD disc and play it in my regular DVD player? Are you only talking about the discs that shipped with both versions of the movie stamped on it?
Yeah the combo discs with DVD + HD-DVD. They can do that with Blu-ray discs too if they wanted but it's not as easy:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060426-6683.html
Concerning the storage, HD-DVD can support the same as Blu-Ray now:
http://www.hometheatermag.com/news/121207hddvd/
As they say though, Sony could up the storage too. However, they can't really make the storage arbitrarily high without considering the write speed. DL DVDs take much longer than double the time to burn compared to SL DVDs.
If it takes half an hour to burn a standard Blu-Ray disc, it won't matter if they *can* make a 200 GB disc that burns in 3 hours, no one will buy it without being able to support multiple sessions or unless it behaves like DVD-Ram.
If HD-DVD can match the storage of Blu-Ray with this new development and maintain the burn speed, compatibility, cost and easier manufacturing, they might still be able to pull something back. It would probably just be delaying the inevitable though if big studios are stopping support.
So more posts makes you more knowledgeable on a subject than someone else. That's some warped logic if I ever heard any.
Did I state that my post count equates to more knowledge or is that what you're inferring on your own? Whether you perceive my logic to be warped or not is irrelevant as you are aren't the arbiter of what "is" or "isn't" Logic.
I agree that Blu-Ray coming to market with an unfinished spec. But at the end, the only things 1.0 Profile players lacked in comparison to HD DVD is Picture-in-Picture and networking features. Neither of those features has been widely used on HD DVD. With Profile 1.1 Blu-Ray players available, the PiP advantage is gone and all that remains is HD DVD's networking which have been put to some pretty abysmal use (mostly stuff better served using a computer).
Of course you'd agree with that. Blu-ray Profile 1.1 = HD DVD at shipping date. Whether you think the feature is abysmal or not doesn't refute my point that if one is to argue superiority they they best quantify what areas considering Blu-ray 2008 is just now catching up to HD DVD 2006.
As for the technical advantages of one versus the other, you might want to go back to your example of The Prestige. You seem to forget that video is only half the movie watching experience. From the reviews of the two versions from HighDefDigest, they state the video is nearly identical but the HD DVD lacks lossless audio that the Blu-Ray version has. Here's an excerpt from their audio review:
Video is only half the equation when one doesn't consider the priority of consumers. People will drop $2-4k on a TV easy but getting them to buy anything other that Bose or "hang on the wall" speakers flanking the flat panel. That being said thought I should preface my statement by acknowledging that the video quality isn't likely to take a leap forward because of more space but the audio and extras can indeed be more bountiful.
Likewise, Paramount stated they dropped lossless audio from Transformers because of space issues.
Since you mentioned asses, perhaps you could quit talking out of yours.
LOL "you're no Daisy...you're no Daisy at all"
Please show me where you just smacked my argument down and delivered abject defeat of my arguments.
That said, it is hard to imagine any film taking a Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround track to its zenith better than 'Transformers.' This is one highly-aggressive experience. Discrete effects are constant and pounding, but the lack of subtlety here is exactly what fans want.
The goal from a compressionist whether it be audio or video is to deliver an end result that delivers fidelity to the source. There are cases in which lossless audio could be inferior to lossy audio (i.e lossless 16/48 vs lossy 24/48). I doubt you'll hear a 640k that sounds good but many 1.5Mb soundtracks sound great (King Kong). I tend to be a "show me" person who doesn't get caught up in the specs.
Oddly enough, the HD DVD boosters have been arguing the opposite all along. "Most PS3 owners play games only. They don't buy movies!" "HD DVD is the movie lover's format. People buy HD DVD players because they want the movies, not games." (Not direct quotes.)
Yes, that's an incorrect argument. The better argument would be that NOT ALL PS3 owners watch Blu-Ray movies, so for Sony to spout "2.7 million" as number of Blu-Ray players sold in North America is misleading. Including PS3s, Blu Ray players outnumber HD DVD 4.3 to 1 in North America, but weekly disc sales are generally only 2 to 1. That would imply that slightly less than half of PS3 owners are actually buying Blu-Ray movies, but obviously that's enough of them to give the illusion that "consumers are choosing Blu-Ray hand over fist". Reality is, only 370,000 consumers chose Blu-Ray (the number of dedicated Blu-Ray players), the other 2.3 million got one for free when they bought a new game console. Of course, some number of people bought a PS3 more for movies than games, but there hasn't been a survey yet that's been able to confirm how many that actually is (my guess is only a small percentage).
Sony is winning this format war the same way Microsoft won the browser war; it has more to do with strategy than the actual merits of the products.
I have probably 6x your posts in the HD DVD vs Blu-ray threads alone.
Thanks, man. I'll be laughing at that one for a month. I always find it amusing when people mistake how much they talk about something for how much they know about it. Remember that the man who isn't talking might have spent his time listening.
HD DVD players shipped day 1 with networking in "every" player, a unified menu/interactive system in HDi and persistent storage. Today those features in Blu-ray will require Blu-ray Profile 2.0 players which have yet to ship.
If you look at the format war from a very simplistic level you'll see 30GB discs vs 50GB discs and want to proclaim that the larger number denotes superiority. Kind of tantamount to looking at a Core 2 chip and proclaiming it superior to an Itanium processing because the Itanium "only" runs at 1.6Ghz.
We know from titles that have shipped on both platforms with two encodes (The Prestige, Natures Journey etc) that the much ballyhooed extra space doesn't normally manifest in better quality. Your display device will have a far more determinant effect on quality.
Ronbo ...I've been at the front lines for a while in this battle. I know when a rookie hits the line writing checks his ass can't cash.
So, to answer my initial question... no, you don't have any evidence to support your earlier statement that "Paramount got paid to go exclusive and now Warner has gotten paid. End of story." And now, after having had a tantrum at the other poster, you're having one at me.
You seem to think being rude is an adequate substitute for logic. You made some wild claims. I asked you to back them up, and you responded by being rude and insulting, and then conveniently failing to back things up. Precisely what checks have I tried to write that my ass can't cash? Look up the word "non sequitur". No, never mind. You wouldn't get it.
To answer your points, though....
HD DVD players shipped day 1 with networking in "every" player, a unified menu/interactive system in HDi and persistent storage. Today those features in Blu-ray will require Blu-ray Profile 2.0 players which have yet to ship.
Yes? So? Nowhere have I said different. And in no way does this support your paranoid claims of payola. In a more rational and thoughtful post, this could have been a worthwhile point to be made in favor of HD vs Blu Ray, and I'd have agreed with you. I'd have also pointed out that deficiencies in software aren't as difficult to circumvent as others that are well known, where the greater-than sign is pointing the other way. Such as what you conveniently mention next.
If you look at the format war from a very simplistic level you'll see 30GB discs vs 50GB discs and want to proclaim that the larger number denotes superiority. Kind of tantamount to looking at a Core 2 chip and proclaiming it superior to an Itanium processing because the Itanium "only" runs at 1.6Ghz.
Once again, you seem to be refuting something that someone else has talked about. Filling space, no doubt.
But your comparison is very misleading. In processors MHz means very little on its own, or at least considerably less than the more-important measures of processing power. So the Itanium's tremendous power was very poorly reflected in a simple MHz number. (We Mac users, of course, remember the angst of Intel's chips being less powerful but having higher clock speeds... and the greater frustration of seeing the x86 gradually reach a point where it was faster, both in MHz and in processing power).
On the other hand, if someone were to want to compare storage capacity between HD and Blu Ray, then 30GB vs 50GB is an excellent metric. Does it translate into superior picture quality, though? Does "300" look better on Blu than HD? I doubt it. Even in spite of numerous people who tout the higher bitrate ceiling of Blu-Ray, that probably a potential difference not seen in practice. Not at this time anyway. But "potential advantages" do have a way of turning into real advantages with time.
We know from titles that have shipped on both platforms with two encodes (The Prestige, Natures Journey etc) that the much ballyhooed extra space doesn't normally manifest in better quality. Your display device will have a far more determinant effect on quality.
That's both true and obvious. Such expertise you show.
Ronbo ...I've been at the front lines for a while in this battle. I know when a rookie hits the line writing checks his ass can't cash.
I take it that you've been in the front lines fighting in favor of HD DVD? Perhaps you should reassess your tactics. To the extent you've have any impact at all, I imagine it's been a negative one, if your behavior here is any indication of what you're like in person. And by the way, look up the classic logical fallacy referred to as the "Appeal to Authority". It's by no means the only fallacy you've made in this post, but it's the one you seem to think carries the most weight. It carries no weight at all in this case. But it's very revealing of the man behind the fallacies.
Thanks, man. I'll be laughing at that one for a month. I always find it amusing when people mistake how much they talk about something for how much they know about it. Remember that the man who isn't talking might have spent his time listening.
Glad you got a little humor in your day.
So, to answer my initial question... no, you don't have any evidence to support your earlier statement that "Paramount got paid to go exclusive and now Warner has gotten paid. End of story." And now, after having had a tantrum at the other poster, you're having one at me.
My "assumption" is Paramount (and now Warner) have been compensated in some fashion to forgo on dual platform support. I fully realize this runs counter to what most HD DVD fans believe but companie are in the business to make money. While they love to come up with altruistic PR releases regarding their decision there's always a money trail. I think they're loath to say "we got paid" for fear of potential legal retribution.
You seem to think being rude is an adequate substitute for logic. You made some wild claims. I asked you to back them up, and you responded by being rude and insulting, and then conveniently failing to back things up. Precisely what checks have I tried to write that my ass can't cash? Look up the word "non sequitur". No, never mind. You wouldn't get it.
LOL..I know what a non sequitur is chief. Remember my STFU comment came from this comment
"But of course! Blu-ray is so superior to HD-DVD that it is weird the latter is still alive."
And while I love your gallantry in defending your fellow poster I often have a problem with people that espouse the superiority of a product without providing adequate backing. If you're going to tell me how superior something is you should be able to rattle off 3-4 salient reasons why.
To answer your points, though....
Yes? So? Nowhere have I said different. And in no way does this support your paranoid claims of payola. In a more rational and thoughtful post, this could have been a worthwhile point to be made in favor of HD vs Blu Ray, and I'd have agreed with you. I'd have also pointed out that deficiencies in software aren't as difficult to circumvent as others that are well known, where the greater-than sign is pointing the other way. Such as what you conveniently mention next.
But your comparison is very misleading. In processors MHz means very little on its own, or at least considerably less than the more-important measures of processing power. So the Itanium's tremendous power was very poorly reflected in a simple MHz number. (We Mac users, of course, remember the angst of Intel's chips being less powerful but having higher clock speeds... and the greater frustration of seeing the x86 gradually reach a point where it was faster, both in MHz and in processing power).
Not really. Let me clarify. If you only compare products from 1 or two metrics then it's fairly easy to make a product appear superior. In my examply the Holy Grail of processor superiority is clockspeed and thus the Core 2 is a superior processor when clockspeed is the sole criterion. However most computer enthusiasts know that the Itanium is powerful and faster in many cases so the clockspeed measurement can be misleading.
On the other hand, if someone were to want to compare storage capacity between HD and Blu Ray, then 30GB vs 50GB is an excellent metric. Does it translate into superior picture quality, though? Does "300" look better on Blu than HD? I doubt it. Even in spite of numerous people who tout the higher bitrate ceiling of Blu-Ray, that probably a potential difference not seen in practice. Not at this time anyway. But "potential advantages" do have a way of turning into real advantages with time.
Yes an excellent metric but it alone will not denote superiority to for many people.
I take it that you've been in the front lines fighting in favor of HD DVD? Perhaps you should reassess your tactics. To the extent you've have any impact at all, I imagine it's been a negative one, if your behavior here is any indication of what you're like in person. And by the way, look up the classic logical fallacy referred to as the "Appeal to Authority". It's by no means the only fallacy you've made in this post, but it's the one you seem to think carries the most weight. It carries no weight at all in this case. But it's very revealing of the man behind the fallacies.
It's pretty hard to have any debate without resorting to some time tested Logical Fallacy. I'm not really appealing to authority in the sense that I'm asking people to wholesale believe me. I've a lot of posts in the HD DVD vs Blu-ray thread so if people want to know my stance they can do a search is my main point.
Inline comments.
All in all I think that Warner did what's best for them. I think DVD is going to be harder to beat than the studios think. Upscaling on a good DVD player looks pretty good unless you're talking about a bigger than 50" screen.
Did I state that my post count equates to more knowledge or is that what you're inferring on your own? Whether you perceive my logic to be warped or not is irrelevant as you are aren't the arbiter of what "is" or "isn't" Logic.
Your implication that higher post count equated to more knowledge was pretty obvious, otherwise you wouldn't have made it an issue in your post.
Of course you'd agree with that. Blu-ray Profile 1.1 = HD DVD at shipping date. Whether you think the feature is abysmal or not doesn't refute my point that if one is to argue superiority they they best quantify what areas considering Blu-ray 2008 is just now catching up to HD DVD 2006.
Video is only half the equation when one doesn't consider the priority of consumers. People will drop $2-4k on a TV easy but getting them to buy anything other that Bose or "hang on the wall" speakers flanking the flat panel. That being said thought I should preface my statement by acknowledging that the video quality isn't likely to take a leap forward because of more space but the audio and extras can indeed be more bountiful.
So, audio quality doesn't matter since most consumers won't benefit from it, yet PiP that similarly very few people will watch and pathetic online features very people will use more than once just to see what it is add to HD DVD superiority? That really makes little sense. If you are considering the priority of consumers, very few give a rat's ass that they could toss in Evan Almighty or 300 and go shopping for movie-related products (and considering that broadband isn't very widespread in the U.S., very fewer can actually make use of it anyhow). Hell, I can't make use of the lossless audio, but I feel better knowing it's there so when I do upgrade my audio components I'll immediately get to enjoy the benefits.
LOL "you're no Daisy...you're no Daisy at all"
Please show me where you just smacked my argument down and delivered abject defeat of my arguments.
It would help if you stopped acting like a rude, ignorant *ss and made a valid argument. If I come off as an ass in return, just consider it a case of reaping what you sow.
The goal from a compressionist whether it be audio or video is to deliver an end result that delivers fidelity to the source. There are cases in which lossless audio could be inferior to lossy audio (i.e lossless 16/48 vs lossy 24/48). I doubt you'll hear a 640k that sounds good but many 1.5Mb soundtracks sound great (King Kong). I tend to be a "show me" person who doesn't get caught up in the specs.
Funny, your comments say otherwise about you being a "show me" person. You seem caught up on the marketing bullet points of HD DVD like PiP and online connectivity which have had very little use on HD DVD, yet seem quite willing to dismiss Blu-Ray's superior storage capability, higher maximum bitrate and generally wider support for lossless audio. If you really are a "show me" person, than the uninspired online features that have so far been implemented for HD DVD should be a non-factor but you seem rather caught up on it.