[starman]

50 GB discs aren't needed by most users, but I could sure as hell use one.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

]

Yes they ARE. Just because you don't have any important large sized data or never backed up a large volume to optical doesn't mean no one does.

I'm not sure we have to rehash this entire discussion - just go back about 20 pages if you want to know everyone's position on this.

But actually I do have important large sized data and I do backup large volumes. For my personal data I use hard drive backups. And for the company I run IT for I use a combination of hard drives, magnetic storage, and offsite network backups.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by starman 

Ok, here's my prediction.

Flash media will eventually become much cheaper to produce. Yeah, I know that falls in like with "the sun will come up tomorrow", but if you think about it, we already have 16GB iPhones. That's almost 4x what a single-layer DVD can hold, but the price is still WAY out of whack to go to flash memory right now. Flash's positive trait is the fact that you don't need to "burn" anything, you just copy the stuff over like you do any file or folder. Boom, done. Once the price of flash becomes reasonable (read: no fantasy Radio Shack prices), and competes DIRECTLY with optical media (including the price of the burner), then will we see a decline in the need for optical media.

Also, we need all computers (PC, Mac) to boot off flash media.

The only caveat to that is persistent storage. Honestly, I don't know how long stuff will stay on a flash drive. A year? 10? I know that the CDs I bought in 1986 still play fine.

Broadband still can't carry/stream HD media reliably. It just can't, and it won't for a while. There's a part of me that would like to "rent" online, but I can't right now because the transport for HD isn't quite there yet.

So that leaves us with....optical media for a long, long time. The stuff on floppies we were all able to transfer over and burn onto a new media very easily. The only floppies I have left are a few for silly reasons (like, what I wrote on the labels).

Flash will be cheaper in the future to produce than today's price, but optical media will remain cheaper to produce than flash for the life of that optical media's format.

Yeah, a DVD only holds 4.37 GB, but it only costs a few cents for that to produce today.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by starman 

50 GB discs aren't needed by most users, but I could sure as hell use one.

Since the pervasiveness of digital cameras (most of which can also record movies) a lot of consumers have more than 4.7 GB to back up. By the time burners and media reach reasonable prices those 50 GB discs won't come too soon.

[Eug]

I suspect the common media type for Blu-ray burning will be 25 GB. BD 50 GB won't have the same traction in the market as BD25, simply because of cost. The same is true for DVD-9 vs. DVD-5. I personally use DVD-9 quite often, but it's just not as popular.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I suspect the common media type for Blu-ray burning will be 25 GB. BD 50 GB won't have the same traction in the market as BD25, simply because of cost. The same is true for DVD-9 vs. DVD-5. I personally use DVD-9 quite often, but it's just not as popular.

Agree 100%... Unless the price difference is only 20% or so, people will simply burn two 25 GB disks.

Most of the time, the item I need to burn is under 4.7GB, but above 8GB. There have only been a few situations where I've needed 4.7GB or more to be on a single disk.

Obviously, in the future, that will change.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

If you hadn't spent one year being a pissant you would be happier right now. Next time don't diss a technology just because of brand loyalty.

Let's leave the name calling on the playground, eh? Or maybe you should make sure that you know the most common meaning of a derogatory term before you use it. Either way, this wasn't a useful post.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

Most of the time, the item I need to burn is under 4.7GB, but above 8GB. There have only been a few situations where I've needed 4.7GB or more to be on a single disk.

The most common place where I use DVD-9 is when I back up my Apple install discs. I have backups of every single set of Mac install discs. (Yes, I'm anal.)

(I thought once DVD ripping got easy, DVD-9 would become much more popular, but people simply convert bootlegs to fit on DVD-5.)

[analogue SPRINKLES]

CES: Funai's Sub-$300 Blu-ray Player | High-Def Digest

[starman]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

CES: Funai's Sub-$300 Blu-ray Player | High-Def Digest

Boink! There ya go.

[Eug]

That's getting better. Funai is a low end Japanese manufacturer, but hopefully they'll make a good one. (We don't know if it's based off a reference design or if it's their own.)

I still want a sub $200 player though.

[brassplayersrock²]

and after that comes out will you want a sub $100 player?

[analogue SPRINKLES]

"We have reiterated multiple times since launching the Xbox 360 HD-DVD Player that we have no plans to integrate an HD-DVD player in to the Xbox 360. We feel that offering the drive externally is the best way to give consumers the ultimate choice to create their own high-definition experiences."

Microsoft: Microsoft Furious At Your Ridiculous HD-DVD-In-A-360 Chatter

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

and after that comes out will you want a sub $100 player?

Na but I am sure once the sub $200 one hits he will say he isn't getting it because it doesn't come with a HDMI cable.

[Lateralus]

I'm more of an HD-DVD person, but if I were to jump on the Bu-ray bandwagon it'd be a little later on this year and it'd probably with this Philips.

Looks like a great player for the price, especially if it sells for less than the MSRP. The design is fantastic too.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

and after that comes out will you want a sub $100 player?

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Na but I am sure once the sub $200 one hits he will say he isn't getting it because it doesn't come with a HDMI cable.

Well, you can try to redirect the discussion all you want, but I've been saying I wanted a good quality $200 1.1 BD player since last year, well before the Warner announcement.

P.S. I get 1080p compatible 6' HDMI cables for about $15 these days. I don't know what you guys pay for those.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, you can try to redirect the discussion all you want, but I've been saying I wanted a good quality $200 1.1 BD player since last year, well before the Warner announcement.

Hey I was joking, I don't get how that was a misdirect on the discussion. It seems someone else was picking up on your "I'll get it when..." bit though

[starman]

While I do think this will be available in the next 10 years, it's interesting in the midst of this HD DVD/BR war that this is shown now.

Panasonic's 150" 4K Plasma TV

Panasonic's gigantic 150-inch plasma is official! - Engadget

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.S. I get 1080p compatible 6' HDMI cables for about $15 these days. I don't know what you guys pay for those.

I got mine for about $5. (Linky)

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

I got mine for about $5. (Linky)

Love monoprice. Have a collection of their cables - such a great product and great pricing. I used to make my own audio cables and the price they charge is barely more than buying all the components and doing it yourself.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

"We have reiterated multiple times since launching the Xbox 360 HD-DVD Player that we have no plans to integrate an HD-DVD player in to the Xbox 360. We feel that offering the drive externally is the best way to give consumers the ultimate choice to create their own high-definition experiences."

The 360 is screwed when developers simply won't be able to fit their games on a DVD anymore. They've already maxed out a DVD-9 and some of the latest games like Blacksite are 15GBs in size.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

The 360 is screwed when developers simply won't be able to fit their games on a DVD anymore. They've already maxed out a DVD-9 and some of the latest games like Blacksite are 15GBs in size.

Well they can go with 2 disks, bit of a pain but better than trying to squish it all on one disk.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by starman 

While I do think this will be available in the next 10 years, it's interesting in the midst of this HD DVD/BR war that this is shown now.

Panasonic's 150" 4K Plasma TV

Panasonic's gigantic 150-inch plasma is official! - Engadget

Like some of us have been saying, 4K cinema is where it is at. That's when you really get blown away with HD and have a cinema experience at home. It will come when players and computers are powerful enough to author and playback 4K well enough and Blu-ray can fit three hours of it on a disc.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Well they can go with 2 disks.

And gamers will shake their heads. The PS3 is dropping in price, Blu-ray will take off in a big way now and games are growing double in size every six months. Suddenly the X Box 360 won't be attractive anymore at any price.

[jokell82]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And gamers will shake their heads. The PS3 is dropping in price, Blu-ray will take off in a big way now and games are growing double in size every six months. Suddenly the X Box 360 won't be attractive anymore at any price.

Considering they've sold over 17 million of them, I don't think they're worried at the moment. All those people wont just stop buying games because halfway through they have to change a disc.

And I don't remember anyone bitching about Final Fantasy VII when it came out.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Like some of us have been saying, 4K cinema is where it is at. That's when you really get blown away with HD and have a cinema experience at home. It will come when players and computers are powerful enough to author and playback 4K well enough and Blu-ray can fit three hours of it on a disc.

4k is irrelevant for the home market.

I don't think the studios would be foolish enough to try to sell that to the mass market, cuz few people would care.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by Eug 

4k is irrelevant for the home market.

I don't think the studios would be foolish enough to try to sell that to the mass market, cuz few people would care.

You haven't seen 4K so please don't speak like jokell about what people want and don't want. Once you see 4K you will want it. It's not going to happen for a while though but already a 4K digital camera and edit suite is available from RED and Peter Jackson shot a WWI short with it to prove how good it is. He showed the short to an audience at the last NAB and they were blown away.

You can't download the short but full size stills are available online. Open them up at 100% and let your jaw drop.

[starman]

Originally Posted by jokell82 

And I don't remember anyone bitching about Final Fantasy VII when it came out.

FF VII came out JUST as DVD was being released. Nobody complained simply because there were no viable alternatives at the time.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

And gamers will shake their heads. The PS3 is dropping in price, Blu-ray will take off in a big way now and games are growing double in size every six months. Suddenly the X Box 360 won't be attractive anymore at any price.

I don't agree with that. Yes the Xbox was first on the market and it can bit them in the ass in the long run as they don't have any motion controllers or next gen disk format, not to mention the hardware is rushed and junkie.

But they will probably always try to stay cheaper then the PS3 and very few games might have to come out on 2 disks.

The 360 already has a huge game library because of this head start so it will always remain attractive. 2 disks for a game is not going to change that. It might get teased in the media for it but people aren't going to skip buying a 360 because of it.

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

But they will probably always try to stay cheaper then the PS3 and very few games might have to come out on 2 disks.

The 360 already has a huge game library because of this head start so it will always remain attractive. 2 disks for a game is not going to change that. It might get teased in the media for it but people aren't going to skip buying a 360 because of it.

Anything can happen these days. We've just seen HD-DVD owners made to eat their precious discs and cheap players.

[starman]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

You haven't seen 4K so please don't speak like jokell about what people want and don't want. Once you see 4K you will want it. It's not going to happen for a while though but already a 4K digital camera and edit suite is available from RED and Peter Jackson shot a WWI short with it to prove how good it is. He showed the short to an audience at the last NAB and they were blown away.

You can't download the short but full size stills are available online. Open them up at 100% and let your jaw drop.

Linky?

And yeah, 4k is irrelevant TODAY, but if there was a 150" 4k display or 4k projector for under $5k today, I'd get one in a heartbeat.

(assuming the cables don't change between now and when these things are more common)

[PaperNotes]

Originally Posted by starman 

Linky?

All at red.com

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by starman 

Linky?

And yeah, 4k is irrelevant TODAY, but if there was a 150" 4k display or 4k projector for under $5k today, I'd get one in a heartbeat.

I don't know much about 4k but the source would also need to be in 4k no?

Blu-ray is one thing but broadcast transmissions in 4k won't happen for 15 years if ever. Broadcasters have all already said they don't plan on 1080p broadcasts because the bandwidth doubles for a tiny improvement over 1080i.

[jokell82]

Plus for normal people with 20/20 vision you'd need at least a 100" TV to get any benefits from a 4K picture, depending on where you sit. 1080p is already overkill for many people without giant sets (60"+).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes[/QUOTE

You haven't seen 4K so please don't speak like jokell about what people want and don't want. Once you see 4K you will want it. It's not going to happen for a while though but already a 4K digital camera and edit suite is available from RED and Peter Jackson shot a WWI short with it to prove how good it is. He showed the short to an audience at the last NAB and they were blown away.

You can't download the short but full size stills are available online. Open them up at 100% and let your jaw drop.

4K stills are not magic. Hell, any half-decent digital SLR camera today has way higher than 4K resolution. In fact, Corpse Bride was shot at a resolution similar to 4K, five years ago.

4K will remain a pro format for editing and might be eventually be a viable commercial theatre format for playback. However, nobody really cares for the home market. In a way, it's sort of like CD (1080p) vs DVD-Audio (4K).

Even if they did market 4K for the home, it would only ever appeal to a very, very small niche. I personally have zero interest in 4K for the home. Total waste of effort.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

... Peter Jackson shot a WWI short with it to prove how good it is.

I can summarize the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it (including me):

Some marines charge valiantly into the trenches, scored with big epic music. One of them turns to the camera and cries. Half the movie you're thinking, "Hey, pretty good special effects." The half of the movie you're thinking, "Why did they use a model kit so horrible it looks like the sequel to Dante's Peak?" 99% of the movie is about walking.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

4K stills are not magic. Hell, any half-decent digital SLR camera today has way higher than 4K resolution. In fact, Corpse Bride was shot at a resolution similar to 4K, five years ago.

Ya the difference was that was a still camera with seconds between frames.

The red is a video camera that is near that corpse bride resolution at 60 frames a SECOND. Plus it costs under $20,000 That is awesome!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

I can summarize the movie for anyone who hasn't seen it (including me):

Some marines charge valiantly into the trenches, scored with big epic music. One of them turns to the camera and cries. Half the movie you're thinking, "Hey, pretty good special effects." The half of the movie you're thinking, "Why did they use a model kit so horrible it looks like the sequel to Dante's Peak?" 99% of the movie is about walking.

I thought LOTR was very good myself.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Ya the difference was that was a still camera with seconds between frames.

The red is a video camera that is near that corpse bride resolution at 60 frames a SECOND. Plus it costs under $20,000 That is awesome!

Well, we were discussing stills, and the benefits of higher resolution for home theatre use.

FPS of course is not resolution.

[Oversoul]

Originally Posted by PaperNotes 

Like some of us have been saying, 4K cinema is where it is at. That's when you really get blown away with HD and have a cinema experience at home. It will come when players and computers are powerful enough to author and playback 4K well enough and Blu-ray can fit three hours of it on a disc.

On that note: Sound and Vision Magazine - Blade Runner on the Cutting Edge

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Oversoul 

On that note: Sound and Vision Magazine - Blade Runner on the Cutting Edge

Yep. According to people who do this for a living, 4K is quite common now for film transfers. However, film transfers and home theatre applications are completely different kettles of fish. The same people say that 4K for the home theatre market is a pipe dream, even 10 years from now, because it simply is overkill and very few people will be interested. I agree.

[starman]

Yeah, that's what they said about 1080.

My favorite, watching "Jurassic Park" on LD:

"Doesn't it look like film?"

Me: the FILM COLLECTOR:

"No, not really"

[Eug]

Originally Posted by starman 

Yeah, that's what they said about 1080.

No they didn't. Or maybe some did, but 1080 (albeit 1080i, not 1080p) has been a big goal for the home for a very, very long time.

There are several forms of higher-than 1080p video capture out there right now, but it simply isn't a priority for the home. You won't see 4K TVs, projectors, or optical discs for the mass home market in 10 years.

My favorite, watching "Jurassic Park" on LD:

"Doesn't it look like film?"

Me: the FILM COLLECTOR:

"No, not really"

Hey, I agreed with you on LD. To me it looked good, but not that good. And I never bought into it because it was a major pain in the ass, and expensive.

As for liking film, I have a medium format film camera.

Remember, there are significant technical limitations that make 4K less necessary. Seating distance is a huge concern. People have a hard enough time telling 720p from 1080p, unless they sit close, so once you go above 1080p you have to sit even closer to really notice the difference. That just isn't practical.

[starman]

Well, 10-15 years is exactly what I expect for 4k. I don't think we're going to get past 4k for the home EVER. I know there's 8k, but I think that's more for archival purposes.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by starman 

Well, 10-15 years is exactly what I expect for 4k. I don't think we're going to get past 4k for the home EVER. I know there's 8k, but I think that's more for archival purposes.

I don't think we'll see higher than 1080p as a major dominating standard. If 4K does get introduced to the home market (after 10 years of course), it will never gain traction as a single united standard IMO, for two main reasons: I think the focus will be on other delivery methods of 1080p quality material, and the vast majority of people won't care about higher-than-1080p anyway.

In the meantime, to get back on topic, here's the WSJ's take on the Blu-ray/HD DVD format war:

In Blu-ray Coup, Sony Has Opening But Hurdles, Too
The Wall Street Journal 01/07/2008
Authors: Sarah McBride and Yukari Iwatani Kane
(Copyright (c) 2008, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)


Sony Corp.'s Blu-ray technology for high-definition DVDs has given the Japanese electronics giant an opportunity it hasn't had in 25 years: the chance to win a high-stakes format war and reap the benefits across its sprawling empire. However, its victory comes at a high cost and may be fleeting.

Sony on Friday scored a key win by luring Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. to its Blu-ray technology, putting itself in a position to triumph over Toshiba Corp.'s HD DVD after a years-long fight to become the standard for the next generation of DVDs.

However, Sony's push for Blu-ray -- which analysts estimate as an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars -- has cost the company in areas such as the key videogame market.

Many analysts believe that Sony's insistence on putting Blu-ray on its PlayStation 3 players gave it just enough extra consumers to help tilt next-generation DVD sales toward Blu-ray. Paul Erickson, analyst at the NPD Group's DisplaySearch research firm, calls it the "X factor" that "saved their Blu-ray fortunes." If Toshiba had underwritten the cost of putting HD DVD onto the rival Xbox 360 from Microsoft Corp., the reasoning goes, the battle might have swung another way.

But complications related to the Blu-ray technology played a part in repeated delays of the PlayStation 3 release, giving Microsoft's Xbox a full year in stores before the PlayStation 3 came out in November 2006. The PlayStation also had a heftier price tag than the Xbox. In the U.S., the Xbox 360 has outsold the PlayStation 3 more than 3-to-1 from the time the consoles have been on the market through November.

Even with major studios on board, Sony must still win over consumers to Blu-ray. Consumers were arguably better off with HD DVD technology, which generally cost less to produce, contributing to HD DVD players selling for as little as $99 over the holidays. Meanwhile, Blu-ray players cost about $300 and up -- and movie titles issued in Blu-ray are often sold for twice the cost of a regular DVD.

Both HD DVD and Blu-ray offer similarly crisp resolution and have extra features, such as interactivity, that aren't available on regular DVDs.

Then there is the Internet. Sony is counting on sluggish development and slow consumer acceptance of technology that will allow for quick and easy downloads of movies at home, sending them directly to the TV set. If that snowballs faster than expected, Sony may never recoup the costs of its Blu-ray investments.

In any case, most home-entertainment chiefs see next-generation DVD as a temporary format that will last only as long as it takes for a superior technology to catch on. Most agree that while online movie distribution is still too clunky for the casual movie consumer, one day in the not too distant future it will dominate.

For now, Blu-ray gives Sony the rare chance to capitalize on being the creator of a market-dominating tech product -- a status it has rarely known in recent years. In the 1980s, its Betamax videotape format lost to VHS. It failed in an effort to get significant chunks of its technology into the highly lucrative DVD format. More recently, it was outflanked by Apple Inc.'s iPod in the drive to create personal digital music players.

The Warner Bros. move to exclusively issue high-definition movies in Blu-ray tips the balance toward Blu-ray, leaving HD DVD with just a 25% share of the video market, compared with nearly half previously, according to Adams Media Research.

Now Sony can earn money on patents in Blu-ray technology as other companies license it to include it in items ranging from DVDs to computers.

Moreover, Sony's vast reach across so many technology and content areas will likely help keep Blu-ray in the ascendant for some years, helping keep at bay rival technologies that might arise. Sony's purchase of CBS Records in 1988 and Columbia Pictures in 1989 was an effort to gain greater influence over the content businesses its technology served, in part to avoid another fiasco like its Betamax venture.

But the outcome of the high-definition DVD battle remained uncertain until the final days before the annual Consumer Electronics Show, kicking off now in Las Vegas, where both sides like to make big announcements concerning their formats. Toshiba was still working hard last week to court Warner and News Corp.'s Twentieth Century Fox to use HD DVD exclusively. Warner was considering it, people familiar with the matter say, but when it realized Fox wouldn't leave Blu-ray, decided to go with Blu-ray exclusively as well, to bring an end to the format war.

A Blu-ray win is important for Sony Chief Executive Howard Stringer, who made it part of his mission to beef up the content and software offerings in a notoriously hardware-centric company when he took the helm 2½ years ago. As Sony nears completion of a three-year turnaround plan, Mr. Stringer also told reporters in Tokyo last month that driving innovation would be his next goal.

Over the last couple of years, Mr. Stringer, a former movie executive, was involved in many discussions with studios Sony was courting, people familiar with the matter say.

Toshiba, which conceded Friday that the Warner Bros. move is a "setback," is expected to continue making its case for HD DVD, at least for awhile. Paramount Pictures, a unit of Viacom Inc., plans to continue to support the HD DVD format, a spokeswoman said yesterday. The other remaining Hollywood supporter, General Electric Co.'s Universal Pictures, declined to comment.

For Toshiba, its declining fortunes in DVD are a big blow to plans to expand its consumer-electronics business. It had long counted on HD DVD technology as a driving force behind the unit's future growth. Like many other consumer-electronics companies, its plan was to sell interconnected fully-digital electronics products, and HD DVD technology was meant to play a central role.

Now, Toshiba will have to focus more on other areas that can help broaden its consumer-electronic presence, such as technologies that copy movies directly onto USB flash drives. Those are tiny sticks that consumers can just plug into their computers, or in the future, directly into their TVs.

"You're going to see that hard drives and reusable flash are much more economical and green" compared to DVDs, says Warren Lieberfarb, a consultant to Toshiba and former head of home entertainment at Warner Bros. "You don't need packaging." He sees portable drives as an interim technology that will last the five or 10 years it takes for online movie distribution to rise to the fore.

And while Microsoft's decision to leave HD DVD out of its Xbox may have cost the format some crucial support, Microsoft's bet appears to have paid off for its games business.

The technical specifications for HD DVD weren't ready at the time Microsoft was gearing up to start manufacturing the Xbox 360 in 2005. The Redmond, Wash., company was determined to beat Sony to market with its game console by introducing the Xbox 360 in time for the 2005 holiday shopping; waiting for HD DVD to be ready would have eaten away at the company's head start on Sony.

Microsoft never seriously considered integrating a high definition disc format onto its player, says Albert Penello, director of global platform marketing for Xbox. The company didn't want to force gamers to "pay for something they may never use," he says.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

" Sony asserted. Blu-ray accounted for 70 percent of the standalone high dev video players during the holidays, according to the company."

Sony's challenge for 2008: Take on software companies | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Now I am sure some of you will argue that one to death but Warner also said about the same thing and they know better than any of us do.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Even with major studios on board, Sony must still win over consumers to Blu-ray. Consumers were arguably better off with HD DVD technology, which generally cost less to produce, contributing to HD DVD players selling for as little as $99 over the holidays. Meanwhile, Blu-ray players cost about $300 and up -- and movie titles issued in Blu-ray are often sold for twice the cost of a regular DVD.

That's a seriously misleading statement, because it says that HD-DVDs cost less to produce and that Blu-ray movies are often sold for twice the price of DVDs, giving the reader the impression that HD-DVD movies were cheaper than Blu-ray movies. If anything, the dual-format discs on the HD-DVD side made HD-DVD movies more expensive in many cases.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Even with major studios on board, Sony must still win over consumers to Blu-ray. Consumers were arguably better off with HD DVD technology, which generally cost less to produce, contributing to HD DVD players selling for as little as $99 over the holidays. Meanwhile, Blu-ray players cost about $300 and up -- and movie titles issued in Blu-ray are often sold for twice the cost of a regular DVD.[/i]

I like how badly worded and sneaky that bit is. Note how after they mention BR players cost more they also mention "and movie titles issued in Blu-ray are often sold for twice the cost of a regular DVD." but don't mention that HD-DVD's also cost that much and typically more than BR because they were combos.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Ha just saw icruise's comment. Good thing I am not the only one that thought this was worded poorly.

[icruise]

Heh, great minds. The rest of the piece seemed well done. But the way that was written really makes me wonder whether the author didn't believe that BR movies were more expensive.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I like how badly worded and sneaky that bit is. Note how after they mention BR players cost more they also mention "and movie titles issued in Blu-ray are often sold for twice the cost of a regular DVD." but don't mention that HD-DVD's also cost that much and typically more than BR because they were combos.

Yeah, worded poorly, but "sneaky"? Huh?

Anyways, overall HD DVD and Blu-ray discs are similarly priced, although I agree that some combo discs are more expensive.