Your perception of what is or isn't implied is purely your own.
Again you imply that I'm stating audio doesn't matter when I've said nothing to that effect. In the pecking order of things Video is more important to the masses than audio which is why almost every home has multiple TV but you cannot say that most homes have surround sound.
Whether or not each individual cares for the given features or not one cannot simply make a claim of superiority without a rebuff in this case. Perhaps PiP, networking and Combo/DVD features ARE something that interest some people. In incredulity of HD DVD's survival in zunx post was misplaced IMO. This is a forum for discussion...I figure if people want tenderness they can go get girlfriend. I don't have the time or patience to wade through fluff.
For the record I LOVE the storage and bandwidth of Blu-ray. Hate the excessive DRM though. I love foreign films which means Region Encoding is Baaaaaaaaaaaaad. I'm not ok with virtual machines like BD+ running either. It's just me...just my principals.
HD DVD represented the best compromise IMO. They didn't quite live up to the lofty goals (Managed Copy will likely never see the light of day sadly) but they delivered. Since networking isn't mandatory on BD players the fusion between renewable content from the Internet and disc playback will take forever and will likely never take hold unless Profile 2.0 players become the norm (crossing my fingers)
There's a lot of work that needs to be done. We'll see how things go from now on now that the competiion is pretty much killed off.
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".
Both sides were misleading on this. The Blu-Ray group statements do correctly state that they're all Blu-Ray players, but but what counts is whether that feature is used, and it's implied that they are, kind of weasely in my opinion. The HD DVD group tried to have it both ways though, when they make statements comparing adoption of players, they counted only dedicated players, but when presenting the "attach rate", the PS3s are included to weigh down the numbers.
Quote:
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.
It's not as simple as that. I do believe that more than half bought it only for game considerations, but the remainder might have bought them to get both. PS3 is actually a very solid player, which works out because I wanted the machine for movies and some games.
Quote:
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).
The last time I saw figures, it's estimated to be about 25%. And that is a small percentage, but it still means a lot of them used as players, and it still presented a sizable sleeping dragon as more people buy HDTVs.
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.
I think that's true. I think it's quite astonishing how many people stretch SDTV to fill the screen. I guess many of those people wouldn't know that their Oprah's a little thinner now.
I'm not that bothered by it, I can accept HD discs being a niche format, I just don't want that niche to be split, making non-blockbusters harder to get in HD because supporting two formats on the customer side should be unnecessary, and for a studio to author two HD discs, needlessly raises the authoring & mastering cost, reduces the economy of scale. I wanted one format as much or more than I wanted a specific format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
HD DVD represented the best compromise IMO. They didn't quite live up to the lofty goals (Managed Copy will likely never see the light of day sadly) but they delivered.
The lack of managed copy wasn't directly the fault of the format. The party that's responsible for AACS didn't finish that part of the copy protection spec yet. Its support is supposedly mandatory in Blu-Ray now, but it's not going to happen without a finished AACS spec.
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.
I think it makes sense. He didn't say posts in general, he said posts in the Bluray/HDDVD thread. That's a lot of posts. And given by what you've heard him talk about in this thread, those probably weren't one sentence posts. He knows his stuff. Mostly.
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.
Well, jumping over the usual hot debate, its quite simple: the HD-DVD consortium went for a programming and networking regime that it is an extension of the existing DVD command structure. For a DVD producer like me this was fab news and meant I could continue to compete with the biggies on clever hacks and features. The BR scheme is an insanely complex Java vitual runtime (JAVA for fucks sake!) that hasn't even been fully implemented yet. I haven't actually bothered to investigate fully because I would have to pay Sony serious money for the fucking privilege of the full documentation. Its a system that frankly will NEVER get used. by anybody, ever. Oh and there is a potential extra layer of DRM available on BR which made the studios wet their pants (assuming it works; which it won't).
'Murch knows the technical details better than I.
The concept from a Sony corporate point of view, was clearly to re-impose the 'professional premium' corporate lockout that has made its Pro Video division so profitable over the years.
Two things are interesting: a) I don't actually get asked for complex DVD authoring anymore - that mantle has passed to Flash/Quicktime, DVD-ROMS, USB Sticks etc. b) the Pro-premium religion at Sony (and Panny) is taking a serious kicking from the likes of RED and others and from the fact that you just don't need a horrendously expensive Digital VTR and Monitor to edit HD anymore.
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.
Yes. If indeed one format is finally decided upon, it all comes down to pricing now. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the prices to drop. Without competition it may be a while. If they don't drop soon it will be a while before people convert in our current economy.
I personally am scared of what Sony will do with DRM . They already did a number on cd buyers some years back by selling DRMed "cds" that you couldn't use with iTunes . So you couldn't upload the music you paid for into your ipod. That didn't sit too well with consumers. Then there was that issue with the dvd version Casino Royale having issues playing in non Sony dvd players. None of the hijinks lasted since consumers won't put up with that but you still are inconvenienced while the matter gets cleared up.
I'm tired of this silly argument that there's no competition now to drive down prices. If you don't see any competition, you're blind. They're called "DVDs." They can keep prices high and futz around, but then they won't displace DVDs. Being a niche market doesn't produce much profit. Also, if they keep prices high, people will just walk away. This is not a necessity, like electricity or food, so you can't charge whatever you want. Ask Steve Jobs how the Mac lost market share in the '80s. And there's competition between Blu-ray manufacturers. When the market settled on VHS, multiple manufacturers forced the prices down. The same thing happened when the industry settled on CD players and then DVD players. A single format does not mean no competition.
edit: Standardizing on the IBM PC platform also produced rapid price drops in the computer industry, faster than when there were CP/M, PET, Apple II and other OSs battling each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Whateva
Funny, at eproductwars.com, one rabid HD DVD fanboy always dismisses his opponents by writing, "Whatever." Everyone thinks he's a joke, even his fellow HD DVD supporters.
Quote:
HD DVD represented the best compromise IMO. They didn't quite live up to the lofty goals (Managed Copy will likely never see the light of day sadly) but they delivered.
But, but, but... HD DVD was a finished format! How could it be missing something?
That's great news. I finally pulled the trigger on the Sony S300 Blu-ray player for $269 during a pre-Christmas sale. Glad to see I picked the format which will survive this "war."
One other thing that really surprised me, I didn't realize that the upscaling of "normal" DVD movies was so good when they are played in a Blu-ray player. In fact, they are nearly as good as Blu-ray movies when played on the S300 and shown on my Sony W-series 1080p LCD TV.
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.
Yes, but based on my experience with my mother in-law, some people understand that Blu-ray is different, but don't understand what HD-DVD means. She thinks that a regular DVD on an HDTV is now miraculously high def. and doesn't understand why an HD-DVD won't work in our current DVD player. With Blu-ray, people understand that it's different, new, and better.
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.
It still bugs me that proponents of HD-DVD claim they've reached parity (even exceeded) with Blu Ray but are so eager to "write off" storage gains made on the Blu Ray side. If you're going to tout an "approved but *not released*" format then it's only fair to compare it to the same on the other side of the fence. HD-DVD achieved their gains by adding a third layer. I've only seen references to the quad layer 100GB discs (and some to the 200GB) versions of the increased storage on the Blu Ray side so it seems they didn't think it necessary to stop at a third layer. Interestingly, the one article I read about TDK's 100GB prototype was that they also increased the write speed to maintain the same record time as with the 50 GB disc.
So, do the 51 GB HD DVD discs record in the same time as the 30 GB ones?
Seriously, when you start talking about capacities of 100 GB or more, I think more of archival use than purchasing content on something that large. Of course, they could release a lot of episodes of a show on 100 GB or more as well. I just know that with an iTunes library in the 200 GB range, greater storage capacity in a persistent media format really does interest me.
Another point Marvin is missing is that HD DVD burners are slow. Blu-ray has already announced 4x burners. Last I heard, HD DVD was still stuck at 1x and I don't think it's increasing anytime soon. It took Toshiba several announcements and delays over the course of a year before they were finally able to lick their initial problems and push the burners out the door. 4x longer with this kind of capacity is not my idea of a good storage medium. Of course, HD DVD only has 60% of Blu-ray's capacity per layer, so in reality, burning a disc takes only 2.4x longer.
I did a bit more searching and the write speeds of the available burners for each format did strike me as odd (most BR were 2x and most HD DVD were 1x).
So I guess the arguments are:
Space doesn't matter, oh wait, yes it does because we can do 51 GB (when the discs come out) and BR only does 50 GB (because we'll disregard improvements on that side).
Speed is important when burning (yet we're burning at 1x while BR burners almost invariably are at 2x already).
From a strictly data storage standpoint, why on earth would I even consider HD DVD as an upgrade path over DVD instead of Blu Ray? What hidden benefit is there to selecting a slower, lower capacity format with less room to grow?
I honestly wish this war hadn't boiled down to "anyone but Sony". I know Sony's fun to hate and all but they really aren't the villain many would believe. Even MS gets it right sometimes (disregarding that they can also afford to be wrong quite a bit). Apparently, people are really digging the Sync system that they've been deploying in some Ford cars and they've just announced version 2.0.
I hate it when I see that happen in politics too <insert "I'll vote for anyone but candidate X"> (look where that's gotten us at least here in the US).
It still bugs me that proponents of HD-DVD claim they've reached parity (even exceeded) with Blu Ray but are so eager to "write off" storage gains made on the Blu Ray side.
The development really only matters if it's compatible with current burners/players and if Blu-Ray developments aren't - that seems like it won't be the case. It doesn't matter to me at all, I'm backing Blu-Ray and always have been but I like to see what both sides are offering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancho
So, do the 51 GB HD DVD discs record in the same time as the 30 GB ones?
I don't know but as Kolchak points out, even if it was the same, it would still be slower than Blu-Ray.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancho
Seriously, when you start talking about capacities of 100 GB or more, I think more of archival use than purchasing content on something that large. Of course, they could release a lot of episodes of a show on 100 GB or more as well. I just know that with an iTunes library in the 200 GB range, greater storage capacity in a persistent media format really does interest me.
Storage capacity is my main concern too. I have quite a lot of archived DVDs and if I could get a 100GB disc, a 25x reduction in the number of discs is a great benefit. It would be great for TV series. No more 6 disc+ packets.
They don't have to spin so fast either while playing so Blu-Ray should be quieter when watching films.
YAY! So now, instead of sub $200 HD players, we'll find sub $300 BD players and think we, the consumers, have won. Of course, now that they have solidified their 'lead', Sony will be rolling on to the more restrictive levels of DRM and adding more 'features', thus obsoleting even more players and we'll still think we, the consumers, have won.
YAY! So now, instead of sub $200 HD players, we'll find sub $300 BD players and think we, the consumers, have won. Of course, now that they have solidified their 'lead', Sony will be rolling on to the more restrictive levels of DRM and adding more 'features', thus obsoleting even more players and we'll still think we, the consumers, have won.
We've traded Microsoft for Sony. Stupid us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain
me like bloo-ray
bloo-ray = gud
hd-dvd = bad
nuf said, now back to the techno-homers and their flaming...
Yes, the Orwellian future is upon us. It's doubleplusgood. Or for rain's edification dublplusgud.
Comments
Your perception of what is or isn't implied is purely your own.
Again you imply that I'm stating audio doesn't matter when I've said nothing to that effect. In the pecking order of things Video is more important to the masses than audio which is why almost every home has multiple TV but you cannot say that most homes have surround sound.
Whether or not each individual cares for the given features or not one cannot simply make a claim of superiority without a rebuff in this case. Perhaps PiP, networking and Combo/DVD features ARE something that interest some people. In incredulity of HD DVD's survival in zunx post was misplaced IMO. This is a forum for discussion...I figure if people want tenderness they can go get girlfriend. I don't have the time or patience to wade through fluff.
For the record I LOVE the storage and bandwidth of Blu-ray. Hate the excessive DRM though. I love foreign films which means Region Encoding is Baaaaaaaaaaaaad. I'm not ok with virtual machines like BD+ running either. It's just me...just my principals.
HD DVD represented the best compromise IMO. They didn't quite live up to the lofty goals (Managed Copy will likely never see the light of day sadly) but they delivered. Since networking isn't mandatory on BD players the fusion between renewable content from the Internet and disc playback will take forever and will likely never take hold unless Profile 2.0 players become the norm (crossing my fingers)
There's a lot of work that needs to be done. We'll see how things go from now on now that the competiion is pretty much killed off.
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".
Both sides were misleading on this. The Blu-Ray group statements do correctly state that they're all Blu-Ray players, but but what counts is whether that feature is used, and it's implied that they are, kind of weasely in my opinion. The HD DVD group tried to have it both ways though, when they make statements comparing adoption of players, they counted only dedicated players, but when presenting the "attach rate", the PS3s are included to weigh down the numbers.
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.
It's not as simple as that. I do believe that more than half bought it only for game considerations, but the remainder might have bought them to get both. PS3 is actually a very solid player, which works out because I wanted the machine for movies and some games.
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).
The last time I saw figures, it's estimated to be about 25%. And that is a small percentage, but it still means a lot of them used as players, and it still presented a sizable sleeping dragon as more people buy HDTVs.
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.
I think that's true. I think it's quite astonishing how many people stretch SDTV to fill the screen. I guess many of those people wouldn't know that their Oprah's a little thinner now.
I'm not that bothered by it, I can accept HD discs being a niche format, I just don't want that niche to be split, making non-blockbusters harder to get in HD because supporting two formats on the customer side should be unnecessary, and for a studio to author two HD discs, needlessly raises the authoring & mastering cost, reduces the economy of scale. I wanted one format as much or more than I wanted a specific format.
HD DVD represented the best compromise IMO. They didn't quite live up to the lofty goals (Managed Copy will likely never see the light of day sadly) but they delivered.
The lack of managed copy wasn't directly the fault of the format. The party that's responsible for AACS didn't finish that part of the copy protection spec yet. Its support is supposedly mandatory in Blu-Ray now, but it's not going to happen without a finished AACS spec.
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.
I think it makes sense. He didn't say posts in general, he said posts in the Bluray/HDDVD thread. That's a lot of posts. And given by what you've heard him talk about in this thread, those probably weren't one sentence posts. He knows his stuff. Mostly.
@ 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.
Well, jumping over the usual hot debate, its quite simple: the HD-DVD consortium went for a programming and networking regime that it is an extension of the existing DVD command structure. For a DVD producer like me this was fab news and meant I could continue to compete with the biggies on clever hacks and features. The BR scheme is an insanely complex Java vitual runtime (JAVA for fucks sake!) that hasn't even been fully implemented yet. I haven't actually bothered to investigate fully because I would have to pay Sony serious money for the fucking privilege of the full documentation. Its a system that frankly will NEVER get used. by anybody, ever. Oh and there is a potential extra layer of DRM available on BR which made the studios wet their pants (assuming it works; which it won't).
'Murch knows the technical details better than I.
The concept from a Sony corporate point of view, was clearly to re-impose the 'professional premium' corporate lockout that has made its Pro Video division so profitable over the years.
Two things are interesting: a) I don't actually get asked for complex DVD authoring anymore - that mantle has passed to Flash/Quicktime, DVD-ROMS, USB Sticks etc. b) the Pro-premium religion at Sony (and Panny) is taking a serious kicking from the likes of RED and others and from the fact that you just don't need a horrendously expensive Digital VTR and Monitor to edit HD anymore.
Really, I don't care anymore who wins, someone just has to win. Though I will admit the combo disc's on HD-DVD were REALLY sweet.
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.
Yes. If indeed one format is finally decided upon, it all comes down to pricing now. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the prices to drop. Without competition it may be a while. If they don't drop soon it will be a while before people convert in our current economy.
I personally am scared of what Sony will do with DRM . They already did a number on cd buyers some years back by selling DRMed "cds" that you couldn't use with iTunes . So you couldn't upload the music you paid for into your ipod. That didn't sit too well with consumers. Then there was that issue with the dvd version Casino Royale having issues playing in non Sony dvd players. None of the hijinks lasted since consumers won't put up with that but you still are inconvenienced while the matter gets cleared up.
edit: Standardizing on the IBM PC platform also produced rapid price drops in the computer industry, faster than when there were CP/M, PET, Apple II and other OSs battling each other.
Whateva
Funny, at eproductwars.com, one rabid HD DVD fanboy always dismisses his opponents by writing, "Whatever." Everyone thinks he's a joke, even his fellow HD DVD supporters.
HD DVD represented the best compromise IMO. They didn't quite live up to the lofty goals (Managed Copy will likely never see the light of day sadly) but they delivered.
But, but, but... HD DVD was a finished format! How could it be missing something?
First on the list of movies. Blade Runner 5 disc Ultimate set. Then Hmmmmmm Gattaca.
Damn, I almost forgot about that one! Thanks for reminding me. I loved that movie!
.
I hope standard DVDs don't die too soon, they're easy to copy
Most of the intelligent reading on the subject I've run across has said not to expect regular DVDs to go away for 3-5 years yet.
And why not? A ton of ppl don't have HDTVs yet, and even then, upsampled DVDs look good on a lot of sets.
.
One other thing that really surprised me, I didn't realize that the upscaling of "normal" DVD movies was so good when they are played in a Blu-ray player. In fact, they are nearly as good as Blu-ray movies when played on the S300 and shown on my Sony W-series 1080p LCD TV.
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.
Yes, but based on my experience with my mother in-law, some people understand that Blu-ray is different, but don't understand what HD-DVD means. She thinks that a regular DVD on an HDTV is now miraculously high def. and doesn't understand why an HD-DVD won't work in our current DVD player. With Blu-ray, people understand that it's different, new, and better.
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.
It still bugs me that proponents of HD-DVD claim they've reached parity (even exceeded) with Blu Ray but are so eager to "write off" storage gains made on the Blu Ray side. If you're going to tout an "approved but *not released*" format then it's only fair to compare it to the same on the other side of the fence. HD-DVD achieved their gains by adding a third layer. I've only seen references to the quad layer 100GB discs (and some to the 200GB) versions of the increased storage on the Blu Ray side so it seems they didn't think it necessary to stop at a third layer. Interestingly, the one article I read about TDK's 100GB prototype was that they also increased the write speed to maintain the same record time as with the 50 GB disc.
So, do the 51 GB HD DVD discs record in the same time as the 30 GB ones?
Seriously, when you start talking about capacities of 100 GB or more, I think more of archival use than purchasing content on something that large. Of course, they could release a lot of episodes of a show on 100 GB or more as well. I just know that with an iTunes library in the 200 GB range, greater storage capacity in a persistent media format really does interest me.
So I guess the arguments are:
Space doesn't matter, oh wait, yes it does because we can do 51 GB (when the discs come out) and BR only does 50 GB (because we'll disregard improvements on that side).
Speed is important when burning (yet we're burning at 1x while BR burners almost invariably are at 2x already).
From a strictly data storage standpoint, why on earth would I even consider HD DVD as an upgrade path over DVD instead of Blu Ray? What hidden benefit is there to selecting a slower, lower capacity format with less room to grow?
I honestly wish this war hadn't boiled down to "anyone but Sony". I know Sony's fun to hate and all but they really aren't the villain many would believe. Even MS gets it right sometimes (disregarding that they can also afford to be wrong quite a bit). Apparently, people are really digging the Sync system that they've been deploying in some Ford cars and they've just announced version 2.0.
I hate it when I see that happen in politics too <insert "I'll vote for anyone but candidate X"> (look where that's gotten us at least here in the US).
It still bugs me that proponents of HD-DVD claim they've reached parity (even exceeded) with Blu Ray but are so eager to "write off" storage gains made on the Blu Ray side.
The development really only matters if it's compatible with current burners/players and if Blu-Ray developments aren't - that seems like it won't be the case. It doesn't matter to me at all, I'm backing Blu-Ray and always have been but I like to see what both sides are offering.
So, do the 51 GB HD DVD discs record in the same time as the 30 GB ones?
I don't know but as Kolchak points out, even if it was the same, it would still be slower than Blu-Ray.
Seriously, when you start talking about capacities of 100 GB or more, I think more of archival use than purchasing content on something that large. Of course, they could release a lot of episodes of a show on 100 GB or more as well. I just know that with an iTunes library in the 200 GB range, greater storage capacity in a persistent media format really does interest me.
Storage capacity is my main concern too. I have quite a lot of archived DVDs and if I could get a 100GB disc, a 25x reduction in the number of discs is a great benefit. It would be great for TV series. No more 6 disc+ packets.
They don't have to spin so fast either while playing so Blu-Ray should be quieter when watching films.
Blu-ray has already announced 4x burners.
Yeah, you can buy 4x burners for Macs already:
http://www.hdtvuk.tv/2007/12/fastmac_deliver.html
8x might not be far off:
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=204
We've traded Microsoft for Sony. Stupid us.
bloo-ray = gud
hd-dvd = bad
nuf said, now back to the techno-homers and their flaming...
YAY! So now, instead of sub $200 HD players, we'll find sub $300 BD players and think we, the consumers, have won. Of course, now that they have solidified their 'lead', Sony will be rolling on to the more restrictive levels of DRM and adding more 'features', thus obsoleting even more players and we'll still think we, the consumers, have won.
We've traded Microsoft for Sony. Stupid us.
me like bloo-ray
bloo-ray = gud
hd-dvd = bad
nuf said, now back to the techno-homers and their flaming...
Yes, the Orwellian future is upon us. It's doubleplusgood. Or for rain's edification dublplusgud.
All hail the Blu Ray Alliance!