Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Dark Helmet · Dec 10, 2006 , 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Haven't we already addressed the PS3 is not the best Bluray player on the market?

Nope, but for half the price either way.

So what did that home theatre mag get wrong when they said it was outstanding. You and your Wii know better

Or for that matter everyone else here that has never seen a PS3 or Blu-ray.

goMac · Dec 10, 2006 , 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Nope, but for half the price either way.

So someone looking for an HD player can have an excellent player for $400, or a decent player for $500. Methinks they'll take the excellent player for $400 and not bother with the extra fluff in the PS3 when all they want to do is play high definition movies.

Eug Wanker · Dec 10, 2006 , 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Nope, but for half the price either way.

So what did that home theatre mag get wrong when they said it was outstanding. You and your Wii know better

Or for that matter everyone else here that has never seen a PS3 or Blu-ray.

I've seen Blu-ray. It offers no picture quality advantages over HD DVD of course.

Mrjinglesusa · Dec 10, 2006 , 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I've seen Blu-ray. It offers no picture quality advantages over HD DVD of course.

True. But I have never heard anyone in either camp argue that their platform offers better picture quality.

Eug Wanker · Dec 10, 2006 , 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa

True. But I have never heard anyone in either camp argue that their platform offers better picture quality.

I have, but that's besides the point. I was just responding to his claim that nobody here had seen Blu-ray.

starman · Dec 10, 2006 , 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Nope, but for half the price either way.

So what did that home theatre mag get wrong when they said it was outstanding. You and your Wii know better

Or for that matter everyone else here that has never seen a PS3 or Blu-ray.

I've had BR for 6 months or so now.

Dark Helmet · Dec 10, 2006 , 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

So someone looking for an HD player can have an excellent player for $400, or a decent player for $500. Methinks they'll take the excellent player for $400 and not bother with the extra fluff in the PS3 when all they want to do is play high definition movies.

Go nuts then. If that $100 is worth it to you.

Dark Helmet · Dec 10, 2006 , 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I've seen Blu-ray. It offers no picture quality advantages over HD DVD of course.

When did I say it did?

mitchell_pgh · 06:41 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I've seen Blu-ray. It offers no picture quality advantages over HD DVD of course.

While currently true, this may not always be the case. Now that 50GB Blu-Ray disks are beginning to see the light of day, I could argue that the quality of long movies my be hampered by the 30GB limit of HD-DVD.

Example: The 188 minute King Kong just fits on a HD-DVD at 27.4 GB (without the highest quality audio)

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is a 208 minute film... so I could argue that the extra room BR has could be very useful. They wouldn't need to compress the film in the same way... and they could place higher end audio on the disk AND place additional bonus materials... all on the same disk.

Granted, a good number of "they coulds" in there, but I feel the price of the players isn't such a big deal. Give BR 6+ months and who knows which will be all that more expensive. Currently there is a major crunch due to the PS3, when they start ramping up PS3 production, I feel the components will become more commonplace. Sure HD-DVD looks like a winner now, but I'm not sold on either.

voodoo · Dec 10, 2006 , 06:41 PM

It's all about marketing and entrenchment. Just ask Microsoft. The better product will not necessarily win. The better marketed product will.

Right now neither Blu-ray nor HD-DVD has gained enough share of the potential market to become entrenched. This is still a marketing war.

Who has the deepest war coffers?

V

mitchell_pgh · Dec 10, 2006 , 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

It's all about marketing and entrenchment. Just ask Microsoft. The better product will not necessarily win. The better marketed product will.

Right now neither Blu-ray nor HD-DVD has gained enough share of the potential market to become entrenched. This is still a marketing war.

Who has the deepest war coffers?

V

I agree... on one hand, both formats seem to have deep pockets. I kinda like the idea of blu-ray because I would probably feel comfortable buying a PS3 and using it for a game system and a high end video system (the game controller as a remote won't bother me), but I'm also thinking about picking up a Wii... so I'm just waiting a bit. I also need to get a nice TV, but I'm a LONG ways from picking something like that up.

Uriel · Dec 10, 2006 , 06:51 PM

While I understand movies like LOTR or T.V. shows being able to take advantage of Blue-Ray, I think those are the exception, not the rule most of the time.

Most movies fit fine on both standards, I hardly see a handful of movies changing the whole tide of the battle.

Mrjinglesusa · Dec 10, 2006 , 06:59 PM

Just wait. Movie studios aligned solely with either camp (mainly Blu-Ray only studios) will begin to offer movies in both formats (except Sony). There is too much money to be made. Blu-Ray only studios are missing out on sales to all 360 owners as well as people who don't want to pay >$1,000 for a Blu-Ray player and don't want or can't get a PS3. Disney first, others will follow...

mitchell_pgh · Dec 10, 2006 , 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Uriel

While I understand movies like LOTR or T.V. shows being able to take advantage of Blue-Ray, I think those are the exception, not the rule most of the time.

Most movies fit fine on both standards, I hardly see a handful of movies changing the whole tide of the battle.

While I somewhat agree, some of these movies are going to be forced to sacrifice the quality of the video if they want to include the highest end audio... [some are already complaining the King Kong has visible artifacts] especially when you get in to the 2 hour + films.

You can "have it all" on a 50GB BR disk. Heavy encoding of the video, the highest end audio and a bunch of extras.

Again, I'm not saying that BR will win out, but something to think about.

mitchell_pgh · Dec 10, 2006 , 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa

Just wait. Movie studios aligned solely with either camp (mainly Blu-Ray only studios) will begin to offer movies in both formats (except Sony). There is too much money to be made. Blu-Ray only studios are missing out on sales to all 360 owners as well as people who don't want to pay >$1,000 for a Blu-Ray player and don't want or can't get a PS3. Disney first, others will follow...

For starters, you would have a point about the 360 if it had HD-DVD standard ($299.99 for the Xbox 360 + $250 for the HD-DVD add on player [street ~$450+] is as expensive as a PS3 [if you could find one]), but it doesn't.

Second, many Blu-Ray stand alone players are already in the sub $750 range (and it will continue to come down). Considering Blu-Ray is also a newer format, I'm guessing the prices will be much more competitive in 2007 after the PS3 hump.

Eug Wanker · Dec 10, 2006 , 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

When did I say it did?

You didn't specifically, but you tried to discredit us by saying none of us had seen Blu-ray. Several of us have.

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

While currently true, this may not always be the case. Now that 50GB Blu-Ray disks are beginning to see the light of day, I could argue that the quality of long movies my be hampered by the 30GB limit of HD-DVD.

Example: The 188 minute King Kong just fits on a HD-DVD at 27.4 GB (without the highest quality audio)

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is a 208 minute film... so I could argue that the extra room BR has could be very useful. They wouldn't need to compress the film in the same way... and they could place higher end audio on the disk AND place additional bonus materials... all on the same disk.

Granted, a good number of "they coulds" in there, but I feel the price of the players isn't such a big deal. Give BR 6+ months and who knows which will be all that more expensive. Currently there is a major crunch due to the PS3, when they start ramping up PS3 production, I feel the components will become more commonplace. Sure HD-DVD looks like a winner now, but I'm not sold on either.

Ironically, early HD DVDs outshone early Blu-rays. Some of the early Blu-ray discs (The Fifth Element, etc.) reportedly kinda suck.

I agree that 208 minute Fellowship of the Ring could benefit from Blu-ray's BD50, if you wanted lossless audio and extras, but that's irrelevant to the format war, especially since I don't really care if the extras come on a second disc.

Eug Wanker · Dec 10, 2006 , 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

For starters, you would have a point about the 360 if it had HD-DVD standard ($299.99 for the Xbox 360 + $250 for the HD-DVD add on player [street ~$450+] is as expensive as a PS3 [if you could find one]), but it doesn't.

Second, many Blu-Ray stand alone players are already in the sub $750 range (and it will continue to come down). Considering Blu-Ray is also a newer format, I'm guessing the prices will be much more competitive in 2007 after the PS3 hump.

The 360 HD DVD add-on player is US$199 in the US, US$175 in Canada, and US$170 in Japan.

And it was $160 at Circuit City because there was a $40 off deal for a while.

Standalone 2nd generation HD DVD players are $399, and come with 3 free disks.