[icruise]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The other twist though is that in Q1 there were almost no HD DVD releases. Thus, the slow sales is not unexpected in that context.

That is true. Looking at the historical release data for HD-DVD and Blu-ray shows that while they have had a comparable number of releases up to now (my quick Excel-assisted count shows 222 for Blu-ray and 191 for HD-DVD), there were more than twice as many titles released on Blu-ray in the first quarter. Still, since the overwhelming majority of releases on both sides so far are catalog titles, I wonder if having fewer releases actually has that much of an effect. After all, the movies are there on both sides, if people want to buy them. Do people really get all excited about buying something like Apollo 13 or Fantastic Four on the release date?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Adam Betts 

I don't see the difference between two for movies but for games Blu-ray is considerably slow due to 2X read speed.

I hear the "Blu-ray is slow for games" thing bandied about quite a bit, but I have yet to notice any abnormally long load times on the PS3. In fact, Oblivion loads noticeably faster, since the developers used the extra capacity on the disc to "cache" repeated copies of the game data (remember that Oblivion was originally developed to fit on a normal DVD).

Of course, HD-DVD is not used in games, so it's not possible to do a direct comparison.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Do people really get all excited about buying something like Apollo 13 or Fantastic Four on the release date?

Strangely enough, yes, at least when the releases are so few to begin with.

P.S. The video on Planet Earth BBC is frickin' awesome. (I just got it today.)



This is a definitely an excellent series to demo HD. I'm told the BD version is the same VC-1 encode BTW.

[Adam Betts]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I hear the "Blu-ray is slow for games" thing bandied about quite a bit, but I have yet to notice any abnormally long load times on the PS3. In fact, Oblivion loads noticeably faster, since the developers used the extra capacity on the disc to "cache" repeated copies of the game data (remember that Oblivion was originally developed to fit on a normal DVD).

It is clearly slow to me. Even a simple game like Go Sudoku! have loading time which is absurd. I would be more than glad to record a video of how long it took Motorstorm to load various stuffs such as individual vehicle, track, etc if you think "Blu-ray is slow for games" is greatly exaggerated.

Of course I know that developer can take advantage of hard drive caching in PS3 but it's not enabled by default for all games. Very few games currently take advantage of it.

See this video of loading time comparison for THP8 on Xbox360/PS3:
GameTrailers.com - User Movie: PS3 vs. XBox 360 Loading Times by facetheglue

I love both Resistance and Motorstorm games but PS3's general loading time is really putting me off.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Adam Betts 

Even a simple game like Go Sudoku! have loading time which is absurd.

Go Sudoku! is a download, and is running off of the hard disk, so I don't see how it's relevant. My point is simply that in my opinion, talk of extremely long loading time on the PS3 (and the PSP) is exaggerated. Sure, you can find some examples of sloppily coded or ported games, but even those don't really affect the overall experience.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Adam Betts 

I love both Resistance and Motorstorm games but PS3's general loading time is really putting me off.

You can tell Motostorms problem is with bad programming.
It really only feels slow when choosing vehicles because the developers load the model each time you pull up your car and don't cash or preload anything.

Other than that Motostorm and Resistance don't load levels noticeably slower than Xbox games.

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Strangely enough, yes, at least when the releases are so few to begin with.

P.S. The video on Planet Earth BBC is frickin' awesome. (I just got it today.)



This is a definitely an excellent series to demo HD. I'm told the BD version is the same VC-1 encode BTW.

I'm eyeing for the Blu-ray version. Meanwhile, where did you buy yours at?

Blu-ray - BD25 single layer disc
HD-DVD - HD-DVD 30 dual layer disc

[aristotles]

I have to say it again, I hate the Warnerbros BD releases. They are quick ports from their HD-DVD versions with the same limitations no doubt as their HD-DVD version.

I bought Superman II (the special directors version) and it had no main menu again and they only offered Dolby Digital 5.1. It was also encoded in VC-1. Those bastards are too lazy to do a proper BD title.

If I wanted half-assed DVD to High-Def conversions, I would have opted for an HD-DVD player.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I'm just renting Planet Earth.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

I have to say it again, I hate the Warnerbros BD releases. They are quick ports from their HD-DVD versions with the same limitations no doubt as their HD-DVD version.

I bought Superman II (the special directors version) and it had no main menu again and they only offered Dolby Digital 5.1. It was also encoded in VC-1. Those bastards are too lazy to do a proper BD title.

If I wanted half-assed DVD to High-Def conversions, I would have opted for an HD-DVD player.

That shows your ignorance of the subject.

1) Warner Bros. VC-1 encodes have been stellar. In fact because the quality is so good, many of their VC-1 titles have been used as examples to bash the initial BD-only MPEG2 titles.

2) Interactivity limitations on Blu-ray can be blamed on Blu-ray's lack of proper support of interactivity at this time. For example, the Blu-ray versions are missing stuff like picture-in-picture commentaries, because current Blu-ray players can't support it. (Such support is mandatory on HD DVD.)

3) Lack of next gen audio is due to Blu-ray's limitation again. TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus aren't used on most Blu-Ray titles because it's an optional format on Blu-ray. (Such support is mandatory on HD DVD.)

The reason why so many BDs are half-assed is because the first version of the Blu-ray spec is half-assed. This changes to a certain extent as of October 31, 2007, but that doesn't help 1st generation Blu-ray owners. In fact, it may not help 2nd generation Blu-ray owners either, because studios will want to release discs that still work on 1st generation Blu-ray players.

Ironically, HD DVD owners are complaining about Blu-ray's half-assed implementation, because a few format neutral releases may have been held up somewhat on HD DVD since the studio initially wanted to release them on Blu-ray with the exact same features as HD DVD, but couldn't because Blu-ray's implementation of advanced features is still incomplete. Fortunately, it seems Warner may have reconsidered that. The Matrix is coming first to HD DVD in May, complete with picture-in-picture support.

P.S. I think it's foolish to buy a Blu-ray player now unless it supports or can be updated to support the October 31, 2007 requirements. Unfortunately, most existing Blu-ray players will never be able to support this profile. ie. Most first gen Blu-ray players are obsolete as of fall of this year.

Originally Posted by Kenneth 

I'm eyeing for the Blu-ray version. Meanwhile, where did you buy yours at?

Blu-ray - BD25 single layer disc
HD-DVD - HD-DVD 30 dual layer disc

Amazon.com.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I'm just renting Planet Earth.

From where?

[exca1ibur]

I think, he was referring to having a menu at all. If so, that is pretty half-ass on their part, as you can do that on a standard DVD.

They audio seems to be an issue with them using a Bluray 25 so they went with the lowest common denominator on the audio.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

From where?

www.zip.ca

Got lots of BR tracks from them that I am damn glad I just rented. Like Flyboys. Prettiest damn movie you'll ever see but incredibly sucky everything else.

[icruise]

Do you really need a main menu? In general I prefer the pop-up menus anyway. In any case, it's not as if the lack of a menu is somehow a fault of Blu-ray itself. It's just a design decision.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Do you really need a main menu? In general I prefer the pop-up menus anyway. In any case, it's not as if the lack of a menu is somehow a fault of Blu-ray itself. It's just a design decision.

Well, not if there is nothing to select because they only offer one audio track but if they did offer more than one track, it would be nice to be presented with a menu. I don't consider it a design decision. Rather, it is reminiscent of those crappy DVD's that came on cereal boxes.

It give a cheap feel to the disks.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That shows your ignorance of the subject.

1) Warner Bros. VC-1 encodes have been stellar. In fact because the quality is so good, many of their VC-1 titles have been used as examples to bash the initial BD-only MPEG2 titles.

The two titles that look muddy are the two Warner bros titles with VC-1. All of the rest of my titles are either higher bitrate AVC or MPEG2.

2) Interactivity limitations on Blu-ray can be blamed on Blu-ray's lack of proper support of interactivity at this time. For example, the Blu-ray versions are missing stuff like picture-in-picture commentaries, because current Blu-ray players can't support it. (Such support is mandatory on HD DVD.)

More FUD. Titles such as Crank for BD have picture in picture video commentaries. Are we going to talk facts here or not? I have not tried out the other titles special features yet.

3) Lack of next gen audio is due to Blu-ray's limitation again. TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus aren't used on most Blu-Ray titles because it's an optional format on Blu-ray. (Such support is mandatory on HD DVD.)

FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD. Go to any AV forum and they will tell you that Uncompressed PCM offers equal or superior quality on a wide range of receivers whereas you have to downmix to Linear PCM on HDDVD player anyway as very little, if any equipment supports those formats.

The reason why so many BDs are half-assed is because the first version of the Blu-ray spec is half-assed. This changes to a certain extent as of October 31, 2007, but that doesn't help 1st generation Blu-ray owners. In fact, it may not help 2nd generation Blu-ray owners either, because studios will want to release discs that still work on 1st generation Blu-ray players.

Your FUD is half-assed. I already called and owned you on the FUD about interactive PinP features. The PS3 playback software has been updated and several titles required Samsung standalone player owners upgrade their firmware before playing the titles back.

All of the Warner brother titles are half-assed because they are doing quick ports from HD-DVD. All of my other titles from the other studios have either Uncompressed PCM or DTS HD as options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...m#DTS_variants

Ironically, HD DVD owners are complaining about Blu-ray's half-assed implementation, because a few format neutral releases may have been held up somewhat on HD DVD since the studio initially wanted to release them on Blu-ray with the exact same features as HD DVD, but couldn't because Blu-ray's implementation of advanced features is still incomplete. Fortunately, it seems Warner may have reconsidered that. The Matrix is coming first to HD DVD in May, complete with picture-in-picture support.

Right. How about sticking to the facts?

[Eug]

More FUD. Titles such as Crank for BD have picture in picture video commentaries. Are we going to talk facts here or not? I have not tried out the other titles special features yet.

Crank has two separate copies of the movie on the disc, one with a video commentary hard-coded into the stream, and one without. Talk about a complete waste of space.

The Blu-ray update in October requires dual-decoders (something present in HD DVD r