[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Sony takes royalties for Bluray too. You can hardly argue that Sony is just creating Bluray for the shared good. Microsoft and Sony are both just about as open.

Agreed, I'd just rather drink sony's piss than microsoft's, especially since sony's technology is superior.

Also Bluray uses VC1.

I never said it didn't, please reread my original post where I talk about how it does use VC1.

You can't argue Microsoft is against Bluray because they don't use VC1 because that simply isn't true.

Yes I can. Please reread my original post. I'll say it again. Most blu ray discs don't use VC1, most HD DVD discs do. Therefore MS has something to lose.

Also VC1 and MPEG4 are about the same. MPEG4 could possibly be a bit better, but light years better is a complete exaggeration.

Maybe, but out of all the technology forums/sites I've been to over the years everyone I've seen disagrees, most people don't even consider them in the same league. The difference is obvious in lower resolutions. Maybe people are being fooled with the high resolution (1080), which is fine if people can't tell the difference just because it's in 1080, but in the future when movie files become larger and larger (assuming the trend continues) more compression will be required in which case the difference will be very apparent.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by goMac 

...Apple could sell HD content to you no matter if you have a DVD drive, a Bluray drive, or an HD-DVD drive. Why pay money for an expensive drive or player when you could just download HD content?...

I don't think that downloading HD content is a good alternative to buying a BR or HD player. I just bought the newest top of the line powerbook and I only have 19gigs free on my hard drive. And wouldn't downloading some crappy movie not take several days but block all other internet access during that time or at least slow it down big time. And finally push the internet providors to start charging by the hour or GB again? No thanks... movies aren't worth it.

[tutelary]

You people saying mpeg4 is superior in ANY way to vc-1 are smoking something good apparently. I take it you have never seen actual movies encoded in either.

This "h.264 is so much better than vc-1" stuff is complete crap as well. To the eye these two are all but indiscernible.

[cSurfr]

I think it's a bit funny that people don't think sony has a monopoly with Blu-Ray. . . lets see.

1) Sony supplies the Blue Laser
2) Sony runs half of the movie studios that appear on Blu-Ray
3) Sony decides what content can and cannot be placed on the discs

The ONLY reason BR has a chance is because of the PS3. . . which isn't living up to expectations at all. . . at least 10 people I know were planning on buying a PS3, and then decided against it. Every store I go into has tons of them in stock . . . yet I can't get a Wii to save my life.

So tell me. . . Why would I want to support sony in wanting to single handedly running the entire movie market? Please tell me how the consumer would benefit from this.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I don't think that downloading HD content is a good alternative to buying a BR or HD player. I just bought the newest top of the line powerbook and I only have 19gigs free on my hard drive.

Get a USB or FW drive. Heck, you can now get them that plug into your WAP.

And wouldn't downloading some crappy movie not take several days

I guess that depends on your provider, but mine isn't that slow.

block all other internet access during that time or at least slow it down big time.

Again, mine wouldn't have a problem.

And finally push the internet providors to start charging by the hour or GB again?

That will never happen. They know people would bail if they did. Cell phones are on their way to unlimited minutes as well because people hate being screwed by plans and overages and all that BS.

It may not be immediate, but I tend to agree with those that argue that BR and HDDVD will never get a foothold before downloading destroys them.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by cSurfr 

I think it's a bit funny that people don't think sony has a monopoly with Blu-Ray. . . lets see.

1) Sony supplies the Blue Laser
2) Sony runs half of the movie studios that appear on Blu-Ray
3) Sony decides what content can and cannot be placed on the discs

The ONLY reason BR has a chance is because of the PS3. . . which isn't living up to expectations at all. . . at least 10 people I know were planning on buying a PS3, and then decided against it. Every store I go into has tons of them in stock . . . yet I can't get a Wii to save my life.

So tell me. . . Why would I want to support sony in wanting to single handedly running the entire movie market? Please tell me how the consumer would benefit from this.

Because so far we have gotten more movies than HD-DVD for less. What is the plus side of MS and Toshiba doing the same and still not having as many titles?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

I never said TrueHD was mandatory, or even on Blu Ray. I haven't seen a single one with TrueHD. I also never said ALL Blu ray disc use VC-1. I said most NEWER Blu ray movies are using MP4, which they are. Have a look for yourself. I know earlier discs used mostly MP2 and VC1, but now most are MP4 now, is what I'm saying.

I've never heard of anyone making something mandatory for either camp. I thought that was up to the developer, since no matter which formats they use they are all supported by the media.

First off, using the term "MP4" alone is kinda misleading, because MP4 often suggests something other than AVC/H.264, which is what the discs are using. (That's like calling VC-1 just WMV.) Yes most Blu-ray discs are now using AVC/H.264 but the reason for that is because that's what both Panasonic and Sony are pushing (and they write the software). However, as I said, for those format neutral studios using 3rd party authoring houses, they are using VC-1 on Blu-ray quite often, because it's easier to just encode VC-1 once for both HD DVD and Blu-ray. Either way though, AVC/H.264 and VC-1 are a huge improvement over MPEG2, at least on BD25. MPEG2 video (like PCM audio) is an incredible waste of space.

As for mandatory feature support in hardware, it is very important. It does NOT mean all discs have to support all mandatory features, but that the software developers can use it if desired.

Blu-ray does not have mandatory Dolby Digital Plus support. HD DVD does. Hence, pretty much all mainstream HD DVDs have at least Dolby Digital Plus. Blu-ray uses Dolby Digital. Dolby Digital on Blu-ray is limited to 640 Kbps and 5.1 channels. Dolby Digital Plus (which is more efficient than Dolby Digital) can be up to 3000 Kbps on HD DVD, with 7.1 channels. EVERY HD DVD player must be able to decode Dolby Digital Plus (at 3000 Kbps), unlike with Blu-ray where you may get no Dolby Digital Plus support at all on some players.

Blu-ray does not have mandatory dual simultaneous video stream decode support. HD DVD does. Hence every single HD DVD player in existence can play back picture-in-picture video commentaries using on-the-fly video overlays. Blu-ray cannot, which means that either you get only audio commentaries, or you have to have a second copy of the video with the video commentary hard-coded into the stream. Again, that is an incredible waste of space.

Blu-ray does not have mandatory TrueHD support. HD DVD does, but only sort of, as their mandatory support is only TrueHD 2.0. OTOH, every single HD DVD player to date supports TrueHD 5.1 decoding.

Mandatory feature support is very useful when talking about implementation of a format. goMac is correct to say that the implementation of HD DVD on the whole is more elegant when compared to Blu-ray. Blu-ray's main advantage is storage space... which it needs, since Blu-ray's implementation favours wasting space.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

And don't forget HD-DVD has no Sony pictures, No Disney and no pixar.

As consumers if they rather have picture in picture commentary or movies from those studios.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

So what's so wrong with that? There is plenty of space and if it has better sound anyway what is the downside?

PCM and TrueHD are identical in terms of sound, but PCM wastes space. (TrueHD uses lossless compression. PCM uses no compression at all.)

More importantly though, the baseline audio on Blu-ray is Dolby Digital, up to 640 Kbps 5.1 channel. The baseline audio on HD DVD is Dolby Digital Plus, up to 3 Mbps 7.1 channel. IMO, the sweet spot here is 1.5 Mbps 5.1 channel Dolby Digital Plus.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

And don't forget HD-DVD has no Sony pictures, No Disney and no pixar.

As consumers if they rather have picture in picture commentary or movies from those studios.

Yes. Content is very important.

For me though, my #1 desired title for HD is Battlestar Galactica. That is Universal, and thus is an HD DVD exclusive (for late 2007).

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yes. Content is very important.

Well don't worry about it then. Like you said BR can do PIP but it wastes space but we already saw 2 disk releases with special features being on the second disk because studio's know it adds the perception of value even if there is enough space to fit it on one.

Yes BSG is a biggie but if BR wins and by the current sales it looks like it will, Universal will fold and release it on BR.

OR those TrueHD disks will also do a nice job of killing HD-DVD even quicker.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Well don't worry about it then. Like you said BR can do PIP but it wastes space but we already saw 2 disk releases with special features being on the second disk because studio's know it adds the perception of value even if there is enough space to fit it on one.

Yes BSG is a biggie but if BR wins and by the current sales it looks like it will, Universal will fold and release it on BR.

Ever since early 2006, my prediction is that there will be a stalemate for quite some time, and we'd eventually get dual-format players.

That prediction has already come true. The LG standalone hybrid is a lame dual-format player, but PC-based systems are complete proper dual-format players. Furthermore, in 2007 a proper standalone dual-format player will be released.

I suspect though, neither format will be truly dominant before 2010. DVD is the king of formats, and will remain so until after 2010. Current Blu-ray and HD DVD sales are miniscule in comparison. ie. If current sales levels for Blu-ray and HD DVD persist, both formats will be effectively dead by next year.

OR those TrueHD disks will also do a nice job of killing HD-DVD even quicker.

I don't even know what that means.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Ever since early 2006, my prediction is that there will be a stalemate for quite some time, and we'd eventually get dual-format players.

How is that different that anyones else's prediction? Did they all think HD-DVD would win the first week?

How is BR having 5x the players install base and almost 3x the disks sales a stalemate? Just cuz HD is still on the market doesn't mean they are neck to neck.

Who in their right mind would buy a crippled $1200 hybrid when you can get two stand alone players for less?

[Adam Betts]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

How is BR having 5x the players install base and almost 3x the disks sales a stalemate?

Once again you're pulling stats out of your ass. Source please.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Just cuz HD is still on the market doesn't mean they are neck to neck.

Weak logic :/

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I don't think that downloading HD content is a good alternative to buying a BR or HD player. I just bought the newest top of the line powerbook and I only have 19gigs free on my hard drive. And wouldn't downloading some crappy movie not take several days but block all other internet access during that time or at least slow it down big time. And finally push the internet providors to start charging by the hour or GB again? No thanks... movies aren't worth it.

iTunes is marketed towards the average consumer though. A lot of us here will buy HD-DVD or Bluray for features like 1080p or maybe uncompressed 5.1, but most consumers have at most 720p. Apple could offer content at 720p, maybe with compressed 5.1, and the downloads would still be pretty reasonable. With music they've already offered a lower quality download than cd and been successful.

Honestly, when faced with having to pay at least $500 to get 1080p quality and uncompressed audio, which are features most consumers can't use anyway, I think most consumers would just pass on the format war and go with downloads from iTunes.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Eug 

First off, using the term "MP4" alone is kinda misleading, because MP4 often suggests something other than AVC/H.264, which is what the discs are using. (That's like calling VC-1 just WMV.) Yes most Blu-ray discs are now using AVC/H.264 but the reason for that is because that's what both Panasonic and Sony are pushing (and they write the software). However, as I said, for those format neutral studios using 3rd party authoring houses, they are using VC-1 on Blu-ray quite often, because it's easier to just encode VC-1 once for both HD DVD and Blu-ray. Either way though, AVC/H.264 and VC-1 are a huge improvement over MPEG2, at least on BD25. MPEG2 video (like PCM audio) is an incredible waste of space.

As for mandatory feature support in hardware, it is very important. It does NOT mean all discs have to support all mandatory features, but that the software developers can use it if desired.

Blu-ray does not have mandatory Dolby Digital Plus support. HD DVD does. Hence, pretty much all mainstream HD DVDs have at least Dolby Digital Plus. Blu-ray uses Dolby Digital. Dolby Digital on Blu-ray is limited to 640 Kbps and 5.1 channels. Dolby Digital Plus (which is more efficient than Dolby Digital) can be up to 3000 Kbps on HD DVD, with 7.1 channels. EVERY HD DVD player must be able to decode Dolby Digital Plus (at 3000 Kbps), unlike with Blu-ray where you may get no Dolby Digital Plus support at all on some players.

Blu-ray does not have mandatory dual simultaneous video stream decode support. HD DVD does. Hence every single HD DVD player in existence can play back picture-in-picture video commentaries using on-the-fly video overlays. Blu-ray cannot, which means that either you get only audio commentaries, or you have to have a second copy of the video with the video commentary hard-coded into the stream. Again, that is an incredible waste of space.

Blu-ray does not have mandatory TrueHD support. HD DVD does, but only sort of, as their mandatory support is only TrueHD 2.0. OTOH, every single HD DVD player to date supports TrueHD 5.1 decoding.

Mandatory feature support is very useful when talking about implementation of a format. goMac is correct to say that the implementation of HD DVD on the whole is more elegant when compared to Blu-ray. Blu-ray's main advantage is storage space... which it needs, since Blu-ray's implementation favours wasting space.

Thats fine, but you missing my point a little and still reading too far into what I'm saying.

Blu ray uses MP4/ADV for most newer movies. I've only seen earlier movies that used VC1.. This is a fact and can you can bring up any list of current movies to see that. The mandatory I'm not arguing. Never even heard of it TO argue it. As long as the developer has the option, thats their call. As a consumer I don't care.

[Eug]

The mandatory I'm not arguing. Never even heard of it TO argue it. As long as the developer has the option, thats their call. As a consumer I don't care.

As a consumer I care about mandatory hardware features. Why?

1) If a feature is mandatory, every single player must support it, even the el cheapo players.

2) If a feature is mandatory and every player must support it, the software developers are much more likely to use it on the discs they sell us.

The best example of this is mandatory support of Dolby Digital Plus on HD DVD. Almost every HD DVD has Dolby Digital Plus, whereas basically no Blu-ray discs have it. They're stuck with plain Dolby Digital for the baseline audio.

[exca1ibur]

The point is if the movie doesn't exist for the format, does it really matter? So as I said from the start. Content is the key. Studio support is the most important thing right now. As I said before, the content I want is there and I'm happy with it, that's what I base my purchases on.

[wallinbl]

Maybe it's time for the retailers to solve the problem. The retailers stand to make good money selling the players and the movies once the format war is over and consumers aren't scared of buying the wrong one. If it takes too long, they run the risk of losing out to downloads and never having a market to sell them in. If the retailers all got together, picked one and stopped carrying the other, the war would be over and sales could pick up. If they're lucky, they'll create a market before downloads beat them.

Of course, this requires all major retailers. If one or two do it, they'll get punished for trying (imagine if MS pulled their products out of Best Buy to punish them).

[goMac]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

Agreed, I'd just rather drink sony's piss than microsoft's, especially since sony's technology is superior.

Well, if you buy Bluray you're still paying a license to Microsoft for VC1 support on your player.

[Eug]

Yes, my worry is not Blu-ray beating HD DVD or HD DVD beating Blu-ray.

My worry is Blu-ray and HD DVD both failing because of this war. That's why I have high hopes for a reasonably priced dual-format player, by 2008.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Yes, my worry is not Blu-ray beating HD DVD or HD DVD beating Blu-ray.

My worry is Blu-ray and HD DVD both failing because of this war. That's why I have high hopes for a reasonably priced dual-format player, by 2008.

When are they do to ship? I haven't heard anything since the CES. I hear the price is going to be $1200 for these. Its cheaper to buy one of each Player at the moment.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

When are they do to ship? I haven't heard anything since the CES. I hear the price is going to be $1200 for these. Its cheaper to buy one of each Player at the moment.

Well. They're already out (at $1200), but the HD DVD support is incomplete.

There is the option of a HTPC though. I suspect HD DVD-ROM and BD-ROM drives (with no burning support) should be $139 or less each by 2008. In fact, you can buy the external $199 Xbox 360 HD DVD drive right now and it works fine for HTPC playback. There is 3rd party HD DVD playback software available for it that officially supports it on Windows (but not OS X yet).

Actually, I got my Xbox 360 HD DVD drive for US$175, and that includes the USB enclosure (of course), a USB cable, a remote control, and a free HD DVD. I suspect the current cost price of these drives is well under US$100 even now.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

If the retailers all got together, picked one and stopped carrying the other, the war would be over and sales could pick up.

If retailers all got together and dropped one format, that could get them into legal trouble.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well. They're already out (at $1200), but the HD DVD support is incomplete.

There is the option of a HTPC though. I suspect HD DVD-ROM and BD-ROM drives (with no burning support) should be $139 or less each by 2008. In fact, you can buy the external $199 Xbox 360 HD DVD drive right now and it works fine for HTPC playback. There is 3rd party HD DVD playback software available for it that officially supports it on Windows (but not OS X yet).

Actually, I got my Xbox 360 HD DVD drive for US$175, and that includes the USB enclosure (of course), a USB cable, a remote control, and a free HD DVD. I suspect the current cost price of these drives is well under US$100 even now.

The lack of complete HD-DVD support is why the LG player is off my list. No support for menus or interactive content is just dumb.

Of course the dual format drives on computers won't have this issue.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The lack of complete HD-DVD support is why the LG player is off my list. No support for menus or interactive content is just dumb.

I totally agree, but I think exca1ibur's point is important too. It's off most people's list already because of its US$1199 price tag.

I consider $499 reasonably priced for a dual-format player, esp. since you can already get a single-format (HD DVD) player for around $350, and that includes a bunch of free discs too.

We won't see any dual-format player even close to $499 in 2007 though, I'm guessing.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I consider $499 reasonably priced for a dual-format player, esp. since you can already get a single-format (HD DVD) player for around $350, and that includes a bunch of free discs too.

I'm waiting for the 1080p HD-DVD players to come down in price. Most people won't care about 1080p, but I'd like something that can output 1080p to my 1080p tv.

If there was a reasonably priced dual format player that fully supported HD-DVD, I would buy that.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm waiting for the 1080p HD-DVD players to come down in price. Most people won't care about 1080p, but I'd like something that can output 1080p to my 1080p tv.

If there was a reasonably priced dual format player that fully supported HD-DVD, I would buy that.

Which TV? 1080p60 or 1080p24?

Many TVs don't support 1080p24, and 1080p60 often may not really offer that much of an advantage over 1080i60.

P.S. For me it's irrelevant, since my TV only supports 1080i anyway. I probably won't buy a new TV until 2009 or 2010 either. (I'm considering a 120 Hz 47" LCD or something like that with 1080i60, 1080p30, 1080p60, and 1080p24 support.)

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

If retailers all got together and dropped one format, that could get them into legal trouble.

They can sell or not sell anything they want.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Which TV? 1080p60 or 1080p24?

Many TVs don't support 1080p24, and 1080p60 often may not really offer that much of an advantage over 1080i60.

P.S. For me it's irrelevant, since my TV only supports 1080i anyway. I probably won't buy a new TV until 2009 or 2010 either. (I'm considering a 120 Hz 47" LCD or something like that with 1080i60, 1080p30, 1080p60, and 1080p24 support.)

I know in theory 1080i60 can output the same quality as 1080p, but in my experience that hasn't strictly been true. I'd rather not depend on my tv's deinterlacer.

I would assume the HD-DVD players do 1080i60, and could in theory do 1080p30. I haven't seen any information verifying that though.

[Madrag]

I would prefer to have a BR writer on my Mac just because of the 50GB capacity...
To be honest, I don't care about movies at all, but the mocies are the main factor for the "winner"...
As I recall, the porno film industry determined VHS as the winner over the Beta format, is this correct?
I think the same will happen to these two: HD-DVD and BR... It all depends on which one the porno ind. will go for.

(I'm open for correction, these are all "hear-say")

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm waiting for the 1080p HD-DVD players to come down in price. Most people won't care about 1080p, but I'd like something that can output 1080p to my 1080p tv.

If there was a reasonably priced dual format player that fully supported HD-DVD, I would buy that.

I thought all HD-DVDs did 720p/1080p standard? 1080i is the standard for it? You got the Samsung 40" 1080p?

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Madrag 

I would prefer to have a BR writer on my Mac just because of the 50GB capacity...

50 GB rocks for computers. I wonder how common low-priced 50 GB recordable media will be though. OTOH, 25 GB is pretty good too.

To be honest, I don't care about movies at all, but the mocies are the main factor for the "winner"...
As I recall, the porno film industry determined VHS as the winner over the Beta format, is this correct?

This is not correct. This is one of many factors, not the least of which was the longer recording time of VHS as compared to beta (initially).

I think the same will happen to these two: HD-DVD and BR... It all depends on which one the porno ind. will go for.

(I'm open for correction, these are all "hear-say")

Nope. pr0n is leaning towards HD DVD at the moment, not because of the disc's specs, but because HD DVD is easier to master, and HD DVD is easier to get made by 3rd parties. Many of the big Blu-ray pressing companies won't do any pr0n at all, and there aren't that many around. Thus, if you want to press a few thousand discs of "questionable" content, for many the only feasible option is HD DVD. That's not true for Vivid though. They seem to have found a company that will press their Blu-ray pr0n discs for them. (Vivid is the biggest company. Smaller companies like Digital Playground are having problems getting Blu-ray pressed.)

However, I don't think pr0n is going to be as important this time around, mainly because DVD will remain the prime disc-based pr0n market, and because there are other popular options such as internet downloads and what not.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

They can sell or not sell anything they want.

Indeed, but forming a cartel to boycott one certain manufacturer might be illegal.

[icruise]

I don't think I've made it a secret that my support for Blu-ray is largely based on selfish reasons. I have a PS3, and so I already have a Blu-ray player, and therefore I want Blu-ray to win. I makes no sense for me to spend a lot of extra money to get a format that has a lot less of the movies I might actually like to watch. (At minimum it's $200 extra for the 360 HD-DVD drive, but I would be reluctant to get that because I don't trust my 360 when it comes to reliability.) If I hadn't bought the PS3, I wouldn't have bought either an HD-DVD or Blu-ray player for quite a while. I've said it before, but I think there are going to be a lot of people like me. Once the PS3 gets some better games (and things like PS Home take off) you're going to see a big increase in the number of people buy Blu-ray movies (and of course the recent sales help as well). Once the standalone players get to more reasonable prices (and that's happening already) it'll be all over.

If all movies were available on both formats, then these discussions about the minutiae of each format's tech specs might make sense. But they're not. And I don't really see that changing, considering that Blu-ray is *at the very least* holding its own against HD-DVD. Can the HD-DVD supporters come up with a realistic scenario where HD-DVD emerges the winner? It seems that like the absolute best you can hope for is a stalemate of some kind, which isn't good for anybody.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Madrag 

As I recall, the porno film industry determined VHS as the winner over the Beta format, is this correct?
I think the same will happen to these two: HD-DVD and BR... It all depends on which one the porno ind. will go for.

As Eug mentioned, I don't think it will have anywhere near the same effect, even if the porn industry does choose one over the other. During the beta/VHS wars, having access to porn in the home was a brand new thing, but the Internet has changed all that. And the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of porn on DVD isn't even close to taking advantage of DVD quality, so it's only going to be the bigger studios that will really use the quality offered by an HD format.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Adam Betts 

Once again you're pulling stats out of your ass. Source please.Weak logic :/

Well at least 2 mil PS3's out there and no way only 20% are buying movies, seems more like 80%.


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news...ly_in_2007/512

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news...Comparison/514

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news...n_Top_Ten_/518

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Nope. pr0n is leaning towards HD DVD at the moment, not because of the disc's specs, but because HD DVD is easier to master, and HD DVD is easier to get made by 3rd parties.

Debby does Dallas is coming out on BR along with some other titles so it is not like they are totally shunning it.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I don't think I've made it a secret that my support for Blu-ray is largely based on selfish reasons. I have a PS3, and so I already have a Blu-ray player, and therefore I want Blu-ray to win. I makes no sense for me to spend a lot of extra money to get a format that has a lot less of the movies I might actually like to watch. (At minimum it's $200 extra for the 360 HD-DVD drive, but I would be reluctant to get that because I don't trust my 360 when it comes to reliability.) If I hadn't bought the PS3, I wouldn't have bought either an HD-DVD or Blu-ray player for quite a while. I've said it before, but I think there are going to be a lot of people like me. Once the PS3 gets some better games (and things like PS Home take off) you're going to see a big increase in the number of people buy Blu-ray movies (and of course the recent sales help as well). Once the standalone players get to more reasonable prices (and that's happening already) it'll be all over.

If all movies were available on both formats, then these discussions about the minutiae of each format's tech specs might make sense. But they're not. And I don't really see that changing, considering that Blu-ray is *at the very least* holding its own against HD-DVD. Can the HD-DVD supporters come up with a realistic scenario where HD-DVD emerges the winner? It seems that like the absolute best you can hope for is a stalemate of some kind, which isn't good for anybody.

I don't see the PS3 winning the war, as the war is determined by standalones (and computers to a lesser extent). It would have been possible had the PS3 come out earlier and at a lower price but we all know what happened there.

I don't see HD DVD winning either. Its advantage is cost and ease of implementation, but that obviously hasn't been enough.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Debby does Dallas is coming out on BR along with some other titles so it is not like they are totally shunning it.

Who said they're shunning it? I guess you ignored the rest of my previous post.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by exca1ibur 

I thought all HD-DVDs did 720p/1080p standard? 1080i is the standard for it? You got the Samsung 40" 1080p?

The HD-DVD's themselves contain 1080p content, but not all the players will ouput 1080p.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Well at least 2 mil PS3's out there and no way only 20% are buying movies, seems more like 80%.

The statistics, even from your links, say only %20 of PS3 owners are buying Bluray movies.

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The HD-DVD's themselves contain 1080p content, but not all the players will ouput 1080p.

Ok. Thats what got me confused there. Thanks.

[Eug]

Also, 1080p has different meanings.

The content on the discs is usually 1080p24, but the 1080p players usually output 1080p60. (All players can output 1080i60, since that is the dominant standard.)

The Holy Grail (to ensure there aren't some weird artifacts introduced by some TVs) is to have a player output 1080p24, and have the TV take that 24 fps video and multiply it to 72 Hz or 120 Hz.

It's of note that 1080i60 is perfectly fine, IF the TV has a proper de-interlacer. With a proper de-interlacer, the video quality of the output from 1080i60 is identical to the 1080p24 source. The problem is that some TVs have crappy de-interlacers.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of players cannot output p24, and the vast majority of TVs can't input it either. As of 2007 that is beginning to change though.

P.S. Why 120 Hz for the TV? Because it is exactly divisible by 24, 30, and 60.

120/60 = 2
120/30 = 4
120/24 = 5

Most current LCD TVs are 60 Hz.

60/60 = 1
60/30 = 2
60/24 = 2.5 <-- not good

[icruise]

Originally Posted by goMac 

The statistics, even from your links, say only %20 of PS3 owners are buying Bluray movies.

I don't know where Mandato gets his figures from, but the survey I linked to several weeks ago did indeed suggest that the vast majority of PS3 users were going to use them as movie players as well. But the thing is that even with Mandato assuming 22% of PS3 owners buying movies, he's still saying the Blu-ray seems to have the advantage.

[hmurchison2001]

Blu-ray has a marked advantage. The drives are bundled with the PS3 and Sony has been able to elicit the exclusivity of more studios.

Yet, as Eug has succinctly pointed out, Blu-ray standalone hardware was insufficient in it's 1st generation save for the PS3. Sony has already revised the spec so that by June of this year spec 1.1 will require Blu-ray players to offer persistent storage and networking. They are basically bringing the players inline with what HD DVD owners have had for a year (come June)

HD DVD Promotions Group says they hope to sell 2 million players Worldwide in 2007. I think they'll hit that goal and I think this will make it much more difficult for studios to remain exclusive. 2 million player (dedicated movie players) is inertia, studios will have a hard time justifying why they don't support HD DVD.

Samsung has stated that they plan to have Generation 3 hardware out before christmas and they are watching the market to see if making a Combo player makes sense.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug 

It's of note that 1080i60 is perfectly fine, IF the TV has a proper de-interlacer. With a proper de-interlacer, the video quality of the output from 1080i60 is identical to the 1080p24 source. The problem is that some TVs have crappy de-interlacers.

I trust my TV has a good de-interlacer, it's just being mostly a gamer I have a phobia about interlaced content. The broadcast TV that I watch in 1080i doesn't help. Broadcast 1080i is going to suck by virtue of it being broadcast quality, but on 1080i feeds is noticeably more blurry. But again, this is probably because the broadcast quality sucks.

[goMac]

Toshiba is dropping prices on all HD-DVD players, so much for HD-DVD players not dropping in price:

Toshiba drops HD DVD MSRP, effective 4/1/07 - Engadget HD

The A2 will be $399, the XA2 will be $799.

[Eug]

I wonder if the new $399 MSRP is accompanied by a significant drop in the wholesale price, considering that you can already get the A2 for $350-$400 street (with a $499 MSRP), depending on the vendor.

Personally I think the magic price point is $299 for the next step, and then $199 before there is more widespread adoption. $399 is good, but not great.

BTW, reports are that the A2 makes for a great DVD upscaler, and upscaling DVD players (that don't play HD) already cost between $99 and $199.

[hmurchison2001]

I'm hoping to get my A2 for low $300s with the 5 free movies. That'll put me at 23-25 movies.

This must mean we're looking at $200-300 for the MS/Broadcom Reference players like this Venturere due out in Q2



Good pricing is how Toshiba is going to get close to selling 2 million HD DVD players Worldwide in 2007. I figure by Xmas you'll be able to pick up a player for $249 and you may get a few movies in the deal.

[icruise]

Even if a $199 HD movie player came out tomorrow, I don't think it would lead to a huge impact in adoption rates. Sales would of course increase, but player price is only one factor that's keeping people from buying these things. One is simply uncertainty about which format to choose. Another one is that HDTV ownership is not that widespread, but I think the fact that there aren't very many major movies available on the HD formats is a huge problem. Where are the "Star Wars" or "Lord of the Rings" films? Where are the Pixar films? Obviously the studios are still very much testing the waters, but until these kind of blockbusters show up (and the overall selection improves) I don't think you're going to see widespread adoption of either format.

With HD-DVD in particular, I think a lot of people are going to be reluctant to buy into a format with relatively limited studio support. Then again, most people probably have no idea that this is even an issue.

[hmurchison2001]

Yes but as the price decreases for this technology the risk is mitigated in many consumers. You'll always have the consumers who fear not having all the content but many would look at today's $99 upscaling DVD player and the $99 leap towards a HD DVD player that upscales as well yet plays HD movies as a "safer" buy. Blu-ray didn't take off until the PS3 came. At each price point there are a number of consumers will will accept the risk. At $200 price points and a decent selection of quality movies I'm thinking that many would take the plunge.

Not even DVD has come down in price at this level. If I was selling to consumers and I had a $200 player available I would impress on them that this player not only supports their CD/DVD/HD prepackaged media but it will also support their own homegrown SD and HD content authored on their Mac/PC. That's a killer feature of both platforms. Sony and Canon have HD camcorders for less than a grand. HD content for HD DVD can be burned onto Red Laser DVD and played.

Today's player will not be obsolete because it in nature is a multi-function device. If consumers are marketed correctly they will see that these players support 3 generations of audio/video technologies. $200 is an absolute steal for such technology.