Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Dark Helmet · Dec 10, 2006, 02:27 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, 03:08 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, 09:37 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, 10:18 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, 10:41 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, 11:27 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, 04:18 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, 04:18 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 · 08:41 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, 08:41 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, 08:51 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, 08:51 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, 08:59 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, 09:50 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, 10:23 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, 10:34 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, 10:35 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.

Mrjinglesusa · Dec 10, 2006, 10:51 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

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.

Thanks. Saved me a post.

At any rate, Blu-Ray is more expensive than HD-DVD right now. There is no arguing that. So most people, right now, who want HD DVD capability are likely going to either buy a $399 HD-DVD or a $199 HD-DVD add-on to their 360 (that's millions of potential HD-DVD customers right there). They are not going to buy a $750 Blu-Ray player or $499/$599 PS3 (especially if they are not gamers).

My point was that movie studios are not going to let those potential HD-DVD movie sales remain untapped for very long. The profit is too much for them to pass up. Movie studios aligned with Blu-Ray exclusively are not going to stand idle and wait to see what happens in mid to late 2007.

mitchell_pgh · Dec 10, 2006, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa

Thanks. Saved me a post.

At any rate, Blu-Ray is more expensive than HD-DVD right now. There is no arguing that. So most people, right now, who want HD DVD capability are likely going to either buy a $399 HD-DVD or a $199 HD-DVD add-on to their 360 (that's millions of potential HD-DVD customers right there). They are not going to buy a $750 Blu-Ray player or $499/$599 PS3 (especially if they are not gamers).

My point was that movie studios are not going to let those potential HD-DVD movie sales remain untapped for very long. The profit is too much for them to pass up. Movie studios aligned with Blu-Ray exclusively are not going to stand idle and wait to see what happens in mid to late 2007.

I don't necessarily agree. You make it sound like the people going out to buy HD players are the same people going out to buy DVD players in the early 90's.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if both formats fail, or we see players that simply play both formats.

One thing I HATE about Blu-Ray is that at any time they could force an upgrade. I'm not sure how they would do that to a stand alone player... but who knows.

Dark Helmet · Dec 11, 2006, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

One thing I HATE about Blu-Ray is that at any time they could force an upgrade. I'm not sure how they would do that to a stand alone player... but who knows.

What do you mean?

mitchell_pgh · Dec 11, 2006, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

What do you mean?

Blu-Ray, while also having AACS as HD-DVD does, also incorporates BD+.

"BD+," described as "a Blu-ray Disc specific programmable renewability enhancement that gives content providers an additional means to respond to organized attacks on the security system by allowing dynamic updates of compromised code

I'm just waiting to hear that either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray has been hacked... and I'm guessing that format will win

Eug · Dec 11, 2006, 03:18 PM

Dell has released its first Blu-ray laptop.

Dark Helmet · Dec 11, 2006, 03:46 PM

Do you need a receiver that supports uncompressed audio as a feature or can they all do it if you input an optical signal?

residentEvil · Dec 11, 2006, 03:55 PM

I'm betting that any movies Sony put out on disc will have firmware updates on them; and the end user won't know that their machine was just updated. They go buy a new release and while they think the disc is loading....ha!

Of course, this won't instantly fix and patch holes hackers end up using. But it would be a sneaky way to repair any BD+ problems.

Eug · Dec 11, 2006, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Do you need a receiver that supports uncompressed audio as a feature or can they all do it if you input an optical signal?

Dolby Digital Plus and Dolby TrueHD do NOT get passed over optical SPDIF.

The only way to pass them is over HDMI or else have your player decode it and pass it over analogue outputs.

If you select one of the above formats on the PS3, I believe you'll get basic Dolby Digital over optical. Not sure about other players, as Dolby Digital Plus and TrueHD are optional formats on Blu-ray players.

For HD DVD Dolby Digital Plus support is mandatory by all players. However, if you use optical, they'll just re-encode the info to either plain Dolby Digital or to plain DTS. For example, the Toshiba players re-encode everything to 1.5 Mbps DTS for optical. The Xbox 360 re-encodes everything to 640 Kbps Dolby Digital for optical.

Originally Posted by residentEvil

I'm betting that any movies Sony put out on disc will have firmware updates on them; and the end user won't know that their machine was just updated. They go buy a new release and while they think the disc is loading....ha!

Of course, this won't instantly fix and patch holes hackers end up using. But it would be a sneaky way to repair any BD+ problems.

That is of course, bad karma. Anyways they tell you when they're being updated, as they should.

Dark Helmet · Dec 11, 2006, 06:47 PM

Pioneer BDP-HD1 Blu-ray player reviewed - Engadget HD

Stogieman · Dec 11, 2006, 06:57 PM

$1500? Damn! I thought the new players were suppose to be cheaper?

Dark Helmet · Dec 11, 2006, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Stogieman

$1500? Damn! I thought the new players were suppose to be cheaper?

Pioneer is usually retarded overpriced especially with high end stuff.

Heck you can get a upscaling DVD player today that costs $3500 from many companies.

Mrjinglesusa · 09:07 PM

Mini-Review on 360 HD-DVD add-on:

It rocks. For $199, I couldn't ask for more. Allows attachment of the wireless adapter and still leaves an open USB 2.0 port (that's one more than the 360 itself). Hook-up took all of 5 minutes, including downloading and installing an update.

Picture: Amazing. I'll never watch standard def DVDs again if I can help it. I don't have a 1080p TV so I am outputting at 720p. Still beats the socks off of SD DVDs.

Sound: Well, considering I am only using my TV speakers, it's nothing special.

All in all, a fantastic purchase.

Person Man · Dec 11, 2006, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Heck you can get a upscaling DVD player today that costs $3500 from many companies.

And that is truly a sad thing, too.

When I bought my iMac for work, I took my previous machine, a 1 year old Dell from work ($1500 when new), and added $300 worth of components (decent video card, 7.1 sound card, Microsoft remote) and $140 worth of software (Windows XP Media Center Edition) and hooked it to my TV instead of the crappy $60 DVD player I had before.

For about $1600* less than the $3500 upscaling DVD player (what? Are the case and controls made of platinum?), I get a machine that upscales DVDs beautifully AND does FAR more than a regular DVD player ever could.

*actual cost before depreciation. I don't think I could have sold my Dell for more than $400 on eBay, so in the end my actual cost was far lower.

mitchell_pgh · Dec 11, 2006, 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa

Mini-Review on 360 HD-DVD add-on:

It rocks. For $199, I couldn't ask for more. Allows attachment of the wireless adapter and still leaves an open USB 2.0 port (that's one more than the 360 itself). Hook-up took all of 5 minutes, including downloading and installing an update.

Picture: Amazing. I'll never watch standard def DVDs again if I can help it. I don't have a 1080p TV so I am outputting at 720p. Still beats the socks off of SD DVDs.

Sound: Well, considering I am only using my TV speakers, it's nothing special.

All in all, a fantastic purchase.

No HDMI, no thanks...

Dark Helmet · Dec 11, 2006, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

No HDMI, no thanks...

mitchell_pgh · Dec 11, 2006, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

BINGO

That being said, I wouldn't mind it for my Mac at $150

Mrjinglesusa · Dec 11, 2006, 11:48 PM

Bah. The only people who "need" HDMI are those with 1080p HD TVs. Component is perfectly fine for 720p or 1080i. Most normal people wouldn't be able to tell the difference (HDMI vs. component) anyway. Audio is another story...

Dark Helmet · Dec 11, 2006, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa

Bah. The only people who "need" HDMI are those with 1080p HD TVs. Component is perfectly fine for 720p or 1080i. Most normal people wouldn't be able to tell the difference (HDMI vs. component) anyway. Audio is another story...

Sure is, the difference is all that mess of cables. 3 for video 1 for audio. Much nicer and cheaper to do it all in one plug.

Eug Wanker · Dec 12, 2006, 10:47 AM

Despite my posts here... I have specifically avoided recommending any hi-def player to the non-geek average person. Why?

1) So far ALL affordable players have some sort of issue. The 360 HD DVD has some audio issues, and doesn't support HDMI. The PS3 doesn't have an available remote yet, and is incompatible with IR remotes. And both are consoles anyway, which non-geeks don't want. And the A2 has some issues with some SD DVDs with the current firmware. There is no such thing as an affordable Blu-ray standalone player so they aren't even in the running.
2) There isn't much video content available.
3) The content that is available is spread over two different and completely incompatible formats. We are in the midst of a format war.
4) The price is too high anyway for many average buyers.

So far my only recommendation is that if you ALREADY have an Xbox 360, then you can consider the <$200 on the HD DVD add-on. Or, if you were planning to get a PS3 for games anyway, then Blu-ray is for you. However, for most other people who aren't in a rush to upgrade I think the most practical choice is just to wait it out, until Xmas 2007 or later. IMO, by 2008 we'll have a better idea who may be the ultimate winner, or perhaps we'll see combo players by then, making this whole "winner" thing moot.

Dark Helmet · Dec 12, 2006, 11:16 AM

8 months ago I wouldn't have recommended Blu-ray or HD-DVD either.
In the last 6 months though there has been some huge price drops and content support.

I know more than one person who went from being happy with a 20" CRT to getting a 42" LCD with 1080p for under $1500.

Pretty much all of them did so because they noticed their favorite shows are in HD and the price of LCD's and Plasma's have drastically dropped.

90% of them already have an Xbox or PS2 so when they find out that either can do HD disks they are thrilled.

A recent study also showed that most people are not buying HDTV's for TV shows but for GAME SYSTEMS and MOVIES.

The consoles will have a bigger influence than we think.

Eug Wanker · Dec 12, 2006, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

The consoles will have a bigger influence than we think.

I disagree. Just about no non-geek I know wants a console to play movies. And I can't blame them. And in fact, I don't recommend consoles either for movie playback, because standalones in general are just better designed for the task.

Dark Helmet · Dec 12, 2006, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I disagree. Just about no non-geek I know wants a console to play movies. And I can't blame them. And in fact, I don't recommend consoles either for movie playback, because standalones in general are just better designed for the task.

100% of everyone I know with an HDTV was purchased by a male. In that 100% every single one of them either has a 360 or plans on an PS3.

I seriously do not know a single person with an HDTV in the living room that doesn't have a game system.

You yourself haven't owned a game system in 20 years but you got an Xbox 360 +HD-DVD.
Now tell us when you bought your last 360 game or even played one.

Dakar² · Dec 12, 2006, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

A recent study also showed that most people are not buying HDTV's for TV shows but for GAME SYSTEMS and MOVIES.

That's what I'll be doing this summer.

Gossamer · Dec 12, 2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

100% of everyone I know with an HDTV was purchased by a male. In that 100% every single one of them either has a 360 or plans on an PS3.

I seriously do not know a single person with an HDTV in the living room that doesn't have a game system.

You yourself haven't owned a game system in 20 years but you got an Xbox 360 +HD-DVD.
Now tell us when you bought your last 360 game or even played one.

I found out yesterday that anecdotal evidence is the best kind.

Eug Wanker · Dec 12, 2006, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

100% of everyone I know with an HDTV was purchased by a male. In that 100% every single one of them either has a 360 or plans on an PS3.

I seriously do not know a single person with an HDTV in the living room that doesn't have a game system.

You yourself haven't owned a game system in 20 years but you got an Xbox 360 +HD-DVD.
Now tell us when you bought your last 360 game or even played one.

Bought last game? Well, last month, but I got it for free.

Played? A couple of days ago.

Since we're talking about the people we know... Not a single person I know with an HDTV (besides you and me) has a current generation console or is planning to get one. (I know one guy who has a PS2 though.) And none of those people will buy a console for HD movies. If they get an HD player, it's only for movies.

Dark Helmet · Dec 12, 2006, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by Gossamer

I found out yesterday that anecdotal evidence is the best kind.

Good thing the study I mentioned and linked to a while ago backs up what I said about people buying HD sets for movies and games but NOT tv.

Not surprising.

When I got my first HDTV in 1999 I got it for the best quality on DVD's and that is it. At the time there was next to no HDTV on the air.

In 2001 I got the Xbox which did HD as did the PS3 which made me happy. Even the Cube could do 480p but almost no games supported it. Even now the connection I want the best quality for is the PS3 as I play my DVD's/Blu-rays on em.

Luckily now there is lots of HDTV that I watch but too many channels still air HD shows in SD.. I'm looking at you BSG!!!!

Dark Helmet · Dec 12, 2006, 04:00 PM

Ok lets talk about when these disks move into computers.

Is it true HD-DVDr's are only 15 gigs while you can get 25 or 50 gig BR-R today?

residentEvil · Dec 12, 2006, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Good thing the study I mentioned and linked to a while ago backs up what I said about people buying HD sets for movies and games but NOT tv.

Not surprising.

When I got my first HDTV in 1999 I got it for the best quality on DVD's and that is it. At the time there was next to no HDTV on the air.

In 2001 I got the Xbox which did HD as did the PS3 which made me happy. Even the Cube could do 480p but almost no games supported it. Even now the connection I want the best quality for is the PS3 as I play my DVD's/Blu-rays on em.

Luckily now there is lots of HDTV that I watch but too many channels still air HD shows in SD.. I'm looking at you BSG!!!!

you got a PS3 in 2001? no wonder you hate the Wii so much. try making sense first...

Mrjinglesusa · Dec 12, 2006, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Is it true HD-DVDr's are only 15 gigs while you can get 25 or 50 gig BR-R today?

Single layer, yes.

HD-DVD = 15 GB

Blu-Ray = 25 GB

Dual layer:

HD-DVD = 30 GB (what most released movies are using)

Blu-Ray = 50 GB

Dark Helmet · Dec 13, 2006, 12:56 AM

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa

Single layer, yes.

HD-DVD = 15 GB

Blu-Ray = 25 GB

Dual layer:

HD-DVD = 30 GB (what most released movies are using)

Blu-Ray = 50 GB

I am talking about writable ones.

Eug · Dec 13, 2006, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Is it true HD-DVDr's are only 15 gigs while you can get 25 or 50 gig BR-R today?

30 GB HD DVD-R and 50 GB BD-R were supposed to be out, but I haven't actually seen either of them in stock in North American stores.

In fact, it's rare to see even 15 GB HD DVD-R and 25 GB BD-R in stock.

Dakar² · Dec 13, 2006, 09:47 AM

HD DVD-R...

The names keep getting longer...

Eug · Dec 13, 2006, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dakar�

HD DVD-R...

The names keep getting longer...

Yeah, I like the name "BD-R" better than "HD DVD-R".
The extra space between "HD" and "DVD" makes searching online a pain sometimes.

P.S. That Dell with the Blu-ray option: It's a $950 upgrade. Ouch.