Blu-Ray to Take off After 2009: Report (http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/News/Details.aspx?NewsId=19682)

Interesting. this report despite its title of the article that references it, says HD DVD will dominate 2007 and 2008 because of its lower price and then Blu-ray won't have a strong market until 2009.

"With regard to Blu-ray and HD DVD, It is widely acknowledged that Blue-ray will be the development trend in spite of HD DVD being presently supported by most manufacturers.

On account of low price, HD DVD also sells very well in America. Yet, some manufacturers hold HD DVD as the transitional product, and they invest a lot into the R&D of Blu-ray driver. Since the instability occurred to Sonys Blu-ray driver PS3, the shipment has been delayed for several times, which led to the wait-and-see attitudes from most manufacturers.

Besides, the high cost of Blu-ray also hampers the development of Blu-ray," reads the report.

"The majority of manufacturers believe that there wont generate a strong market growth for Blu-ray until 2009. And HD DVD will still be the mainstream in the market during 2007-2009," the report concludes.

Interesting. this report despite its title of the article that references it, says HD DVD will dominate 2007 and 2008 because of its lower price and then Blu-ray won't have a strong market until 2009.

Here is the source of the report. "Research and Markets" is a reseller of the report generated by "Research in China".. I asume that is why they refer to optical drives as "drivers", something getting lost in translation. ;)
http://www.researchinchina.com/aboutus.htm

You can order the report here (Chinese version) for $885.00

http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reportinfo.asp?report_id=367810&t=t&cat_id=

b2b

However, I note that some folks are accustomed to having a much free-er rein in discussions on forum.bluray.com than here on AVS, and that you are typically very quick to have any contrary opinion silenced over there within minutes.


Of course, that is a Blu-ray supporters site. Why would you expect anything else? It would be like expecting your site to be balanced.

Can a debate be considered truelly open if any discussions on how it is moderated are disallowed?

Gary

Interesting. this report despite its title of the article that references it, says HD DVD will dominate 2007 and 2008 because of its lower price and then Blu-ray won't have a strong market until 2009.

If this plays out (big if) as described, there is no way you won't see more neutrality, especially in terms of multi-format players being developed, because 2 years is going to mean a lot more adoption of both formats. However, they must also think anything beyond niche-market status for all HD discs isn't going to change too soon.

Weekly units sold in Japan.Thanks. That doesn't look too bad for the XBOX360 with the PS3 outselling it for base units by less than 3:1 and the XBOX360 actually outselling the PS3 for software by 36.5k to 32k (mostly with "The Idolmaster" on the XBOX360). I see that the PS2 is still outselling both there.

I wonder how many XBOX360 add-ons are selling in Japan.

--Darin

...

It never ceases to amaze me that some people will try to look for a scheme in even the most simple things.

...

Too funny!

Quote of the month award ... :)

Interesting. this report despite its title of the article that references it, says HD DVD will dominate 2007 and 2008 because of its lower price and then Blu-ray won't have a strong market until 2009.

Hehe. I guess this is a new meaning of the word 'dominate'. All of the numbers indicate that HD DVD is not dominating anything and it is only Q1 2007...

Please stop attacking the AVS site just because it is not like the bluray.com forum. Over here, you will find that there are TWO sides in a debate, and I truly hope it remains that way.

The AVS forum does have two sides of the debate... the issue at hand is whether both sides are treated fairly and evenly.

One would hardly expect a forum at bluray.com to be unbiased, any more than one would expect the forum at hd-dvd.com to be unbiased.

Perhaps the lookandsoundofperfect.com should be unbiased too... or hdnowonline.com...? ;)

The AVS forum does have two sides of the debate... the issue at hand is whether both sides are treated fairly and evenly.

One would hardly expect a forum at bluray.com to be unbiased, any more than one would expect the forum at hd-dvd.com to be unbiased.

Perhaps the lookandsoundofperfect.com should be unbiased too... or hdnowonline.com...? ;)

One big problem is this:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=156440

Each of Sony's chosen 12 will then distributed content digitally across a wide range of outlets including social networks such as MySpace, websites, blogs, e-mail and their own contacts.

According to SCE UK marketing man Alan Duncan, 'traditional' avenues of avertising and PR aren't enough to communicate the PS3's appeal: "The idea is to use physical space, blogs and other forms of digital networking to inform, entertain and encourage interaction and debate about all the different things the PS3 can do."

The same marketing tactics that created alliwantforxmasisapsp.com are still being used by Sony Marketers for PS3.

It's hard to be fair and even when one side refuses to be fair and even.

Originally Posted by Kosty
Interesting. this report despite its title of the article that references it, says HD DVD will dominate 2007 and 2008 because of its lower price and then Blu-ray won't have a strong market until 2009. Hehe. I guess this is a new meaning of the word 'dominate'. All of the numbers indicate that HD DVD is not dominating anything and it is only Q1 2007... .... we don't have even all of the first month's numbers in! long time left in 2007 let alone 2008. :)

Here is the source of the report. "Research and Markets" is a reseller of the report generated by "Research in China".. I asume that is why they refer to optical drives as "drivers", something getting lost in translation. ;)
http://www.researchinchina.com/aboutus.htm

You can order the report here (Chinese version) for $885.00

http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reportinfo.asp?report_id=367810&t=t&cat_id=

b2b
Do they discount if you buy multiple copies? :confused: :p

.... we don't have even all of the first month's numbers in! long time left in 2007 let alone 2008. :)

Any predictions on who'll win January? Both $ and unit player / disc sales?

Any predictions on who'll win January? Both $ and unit player / disc sales?

Jan Disc $ sales = Blu-ray
Jan Disc # titles sold = Blu-ray
Jan standalone players = Blu-ray early , HD DVD later overall even

Not counting Xbox 360 HD DVD add ons or PS3's

Febuary more even as HD A2 sales have impact

Do they discount if you buy multiple copies? :confused: :p

I doubt it... ;)

$1100 PDF version, $1000 hardcopy (USD) direct from Research in China..

http://www.researchinchina.com/report/Electronics/3386.html

BTW, this report is more about PC drives than players..

http://www.researchinchina.com/report/UploadFiles_8547/200612/20061228103205988.gif

b2b

.... we don't have even all of the first month's numbers in! long time left in 2007 let alone 2008. :)

I admire your optimism. :)

Jan Disc $ sales = Blu-ray
Jan Disc # titles sold = Blu-ray
Jan standalone players = Blu-ray early , HD DVD later overall even

Not counting Xbox 360 HD DVD add ons or PS3's

Febuary more even as HD A2 sales have impact

I agree, but the shows a pretty easy steal right now.

I wouldn't expect policy change based on it either; it's almost a given knowing what we know in terms of releases for the next couple months.

I guess after they own 2 or 3 HD-DVD players they will figure out that if they want to watch something different they will have to buy a PS3 or BD player... ;)



That has to be one of your funnier quotes b2b. :) Like HD DVD is the only format we own . :)

I guess after you own 1 PS3, you will figure out that if you want to watch something different you will have to become neutral. :)

Perhaps the lookandsoundofperfect.com should be unbiased too... or hdnowonline.com...? ;)

Maybe I should start a poll asking if blu-ray.com is biased, and then we can all post about how slanted the information on that site is, and how some of it is dated and/or may never have been true.. :)

That has to be one of your funnier quotes b2b. :) Like HD DVD is the only format we own . :)

I guess after you own 1 PS3, you will figure out that if you want to watch something different you will have to become neutral. :)


So what BD ( or other Hi Def optical player ) does he have?

The AVS forum does have two sides of the debate... the issue at hand is whether both sides are treated fairly and evenly.

One would hardly expect a forum at bluray.com to be unbiased, any more than one would expect the forum at hd-dvd.com to be unbiased.

Perhaps the lookandsoundofperfect.com should be unbiased too... or hdnowonline.com...? ;)
Ah, but there IS no debate at HDNOWonline.com - :p - Was never intended to be a forum.

The point is I see some Bluray.com regulars complaining that they don't have the same treatment on AVS as they are accustomed to and they think AVS is unfair.

But I would say that AVS is even in their treatment of both sides and Mods here only ask that debate be mature.

So what BD ( or other Hi Def optical player ) does he have?


I might be wrong but I think he is still waiting for the showdown to end. :)

Very good point. And there's no knowing how many of the Bluray.com regulars here are actually part of that particular campaign. In my opinion, plenty...

It's a publicly admitted strategy of Sony and their marketing companies.

One big problem is this:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=156440

Each of Sony's chosen 12 will then distributed content digitally across a wide range of outlets including social networks such as MySpace, websites, blogs, e-mail and their own contacts.

According to SCE UK marketing man Alan Duncan, 'traditional' avenues of avertising and PR aren't enough to communicate the PS3's appeal: "The idea is to use physical space, blogs and other forms of digital networking to inform, entertain and encourage interaction and debate about all the different things the PS3 can do."

The same marketing tactics that created alliwantforxmasisapsp.com are still being used by Sony Marketers for PS3.

It's hard to be fair and even when one side refuses to be fair and even.

Maybe I should start a poll asking if blu-ray.com is biased, and then we can all post about how slanted the information on that site is, and how some of it is dated and/or may never have been true.. :)

You might also ask if Sony marketer Zipatoni who was responsible for the infamous alliwantforxmasisapsp.com marketing campaign and claims on their website to represent the Playstation is biased too.

Zipatoni on their website says:

We move consumers into action and get them to interact with brands. How? By being retail shoppers, TV viewers, commuters, DIYers, bloggers, guerrillas, technophiles, fashionistas, and brand evangelists ourselves. We use our experiences to arm brands with strategy-fueled, market-leading ideas that transform marketing dollars into market share and revenue.

I might be wrong but iI think he is still waiting for the showdown to end. :)

Nah,......I can't believe anyone would spend that much time obsessively and relentlessly defending, promoting, and spinning every tidbit of news remotely relating to, a product they don't even own!?!? That makes no sense at all. :confused:

BD has 3 that HD DVD doesn't have. HD DVD has 1 that BD doesn't have, giving BD 2 more studios. That's not "many". That's a "few." Now if you want to count smaller, indie, and foreign studios, than HD DVD might actually have more.

Said like that it doesn't seem like there is much of a difference. But when you look at how many and which movies those studios released and how they fared at the BO, the picture is quite different.

How can a poll of owners of a PARTICULAR format possibly be biased?Trivial. All the HD DVD partisans who have both an add-on and a Toshiba player claim they only have the add-on, which suggests the number of duplicate owners is smaller than it really is, which suggests HD DVD has more strength than it actually does.

Actually, I was surprised that the 360 had sold about 1/2 as many players as the Ps3 in Japan. I thought the PS3 would sell 4X as well as the 360.If you compare to-date sales it's probably a factor of 10:1 or more, given the 1M+ PS3's shipped in Japan. Looking at numbers from a few weeks after the holidays when sales of any format are low doesn't represent the full picture.

As an aside, how do the Amazon numbers make any kind of sense??

HD-DVD now has the Departed at 49, then DVE at 683, then Beerfest at 1368, in that order.

Yet the HD-DVD players are really high in the DVD player rankings.

Either all those new owners are buying from Amazon and making their setup really pretty with DVE just to watch Beerfest or everyone is buying movies from another store....Easy. Most Blu-ray standalone players are higher-end devices which consumers are more likely to buy from Magnolia or Tweeter than Amazon, and Amazon got far smaller allocations of the PS3 than did many other outlets. Conversely, HD DVD has had far less prominent retail presence, and its price point lends itself to Amazon, especially given the discounting which has taken place there. I would guess the total percentage of Blu-ray players sold via Amazon is in the low single digit percentages, wherease Amazon probably has a double-digit percentage of total HD DVD player sales. Which also accounts for why the DVD Wars site reflects disproportionately high HD DVD title sales relative to Blu-ray, since you can assume many of those buying players from Amazon are buying titles to go with it.

- Talk

Sorry, but I'm not following these numbers. They look too low to be total units sold to me and too high to be hundreds of thousands of units sold.Yes, it is quite remarkable how low these numbers are. Though less remarkable, in my opinion, than how low Japan HD DVD sales are relative to Blu-ray, even excluding the PS3.

My contribution to the format war:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Fettastic/Tastes20Great-Less20Filling.jpg

Nah,......I can't believe anyone would spend that much time obsessively and relentlessly defending, promoting, and spinning every tidbit of news remotely relating to, a product they don't even own!?!? That makes no sense at all. :confused:

So who's playing Samu and who's playing Fatu on this little tag team.... ;)

http://www.obsessedwithwrestling.com/pictures/h/headshrinkers/02.jpg

b2b

Trivial. All the HD DVD partisans who have both an add-on and a Toshiba player claim they only have the add-on...

Trivial ... ? No, a blatant lie.

Can you tell me how do you that ALL the HD DVD partisans do this ? Do you have any proof ?

Looking at numbers from a few weeks after the holidays when sales of any format are low doesn't represent the full picture.


I'm glad you feel that way.

Because some people are trying to make a big deal out of the BD/HD DVD "disc sold" numbers that are out "a few weeks after the holidays when sales of any format are low."

(I'm bookmarking this quote for future reference.)

Can you tell me how do you that ALL the HD DVD partisans do this ? Do you have any proof ?rdjam asked how a poll could be skewed. I provided a scenario in which it could be skewed. This doesn't require all the partisans (a term I use to imply "fanboy") to post falsely to the poll, if only a single partisan does so the results are skewed. Are you saying you think that every single response was truthful?

I'm glad you feel that way.

Because some people are trying to make a big deal out of the BD/HD DVD "disc sold" numbers that are out "a few weeks after the holidays when sales of any format are low."

(I'm bookmarking this quote for future reference.)OK, but you may find that works against you. With such a huge multiple of Blu-ray players in the market than HD DVD players, sales during a high-volume period might be even more skewed in favor of Blu-ray.

From the news thread, discussion here:

Toshiba produces two new HD DVRs
http://feeds.engadgethd.com/2007/02/04/toshiba-produces-two-new-hd-dvrs/

Interesting that they went red laser rather than HD DVD for these two models. Perhaps because HD DVD recordability is still sketchy? Or perhaps Toshiba thought labelling these HD DVD players would turn off consumers, given HD DVD's performance in Japan?

From the news thread, discussion here:

Toshiba produces two new HD DVRs
http://feeds.engadgethd.com/2007/02/04/toshiba-produces-two-new-hd-dvrs/

Interesting that they went red laser rather than HD DVD for these two models. Perhaps because HD DVD recordability is still sketchy? Or perhaps Toshiba thought labelling these HD DVD players would turn off consumers, given HD DVD's performance in Japan?

Or maybe because it's cheaper, and cheap DVD still sells more than either of the HD formats.

From the news thread, discussion here:

Interesting that they went red laser rather than HD DVD for these two models. Perhaps because HD DVD recordability is still sketchy?

Unlikely, since the RD-A1 has been available in Japan for over 6 months now.

Those are "Hard Drive & DVD" recorders, which can record digital HD broadcasting program onto internal HDD and later user can move it onto a DVD with downconverting to SD (no capability of HD recording on a DVD disc). Those are one of products popular category in Japan, and are nothing related to "HD DVD".

Those are "Hard Drive & DVD" recorders, which can record digital HD broadcasting program onto internal HDD and later user can move it onto a DVD with downconverting to SD (no capability of HD recording on a DVD disc). Those are one of products popular category in Japan, and are nothing related to "HD DVD".
We understand that. Talkstr8t was questioning the decision to include a DVD recorder instead of an HD DVD recorder in the HD DVR, and what that may imply.

So who's playing Samu and who's playing Fatu on this little tag team.... ;)


So, straight up, b2. Do you or do you not own a BD player of any description?

I wrote Warner Brothers a letter asking them about the HD-DVDs being "Held BacK" controversy and got this response which I will also post in the news forum.

I have to say of all the studio's, they have the most thoughtful customer relations staff of any of the major studios.

First of all, thank you for your support of Warner Bros. and for our films in the new HD DVD format, as well as the existing SD DVD format. As you have pointed out in your note, there have recently been on-line discussions claiming that Warner Home Video is holding titles back from the marketplace in the HD DVD format due to plans in BD, and that this is now a company policy. Regardless of the source of this information, it is not true.

Warner Home Video is releasing titles in both high definition formats, and where possible we try to release a title simultaneously in both formats. But this is not always the case, and in fact since we released our first titles in April, 2006 there have been some titles that have been released in HD DVD before BD, and some that have been released in BD before HD DVD.

There are many factors that determine the timing for the release of a motion picture in DVD, HD DVD, and BD. We currently have released more titles in HD DVD than any other studio, and we are anticipating a very exciting schedule for the rest of 2007. In the month of January 2007, we released 4 new titles in HD DVD.

We hope you will enjoy our upcoming HD DVD releases, including two of our best movies from last year (and both recognized with multiple Academy Award nominations), THE DEPARTED and HAPPY FEET, which will be released in February and March 2007, respectively.

We also expect to announce shortly some title plans for April and May. The titles will be quite a thrill for all HD DVD owners and supporters.


Best regards..

We understand that. Talkstr8t was questioning the decision to include a DVD recorder instead of an HD DVD recorder in the HD DVR, and what that may imply.As you know, Toshiba had released HD DVD & HDD recorder RD-A1 back in August 2006 in Japan. It hasn't sold well at all because of its ridiculous price tag , but still be available. Since NEC stopped development of HD DVD drives, Toshiba has to develop its own writable drive for "HD DVD" recorder, it seemed that at the moment of product planning for those models, writable drive had not been available yet. I don't see any reason that Toshiba won't release "HD DVD & HDD" recorder this year, perhaps it will come around July, during Summer sales period.

If you compare to-date sales it's probably a factor of 10:1 or more, given the 1M+ PS3's shipped in Japan. Looking at numbers from a few weeks after the holidays when sales of any format are low doesn't represent the full picture.Actually, if you count up the weekly reported sales of both consoles:
http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=8272&page=27

To January 28:
PS3: 594134
X360: 306379

Hardly 10:1. Also makes you wonder where all those consoles Sony has "shipped" to Japan are. (Note, as I've mentioned before, I assume those numbers are only "estimated" and may be low, but in this case thay're from the same source, and can be meaningfully compared since they'd both be wrong in similar ways)

Don't get me wrong, I expect to see the PS3's lead grow in Japan for a while yet, but it's not going to be the massive walkover Sony seems to be expecting.

As you know, Toshiba had released HD DVD & HDD recorder RD-A1 back in August 2006 in Japan. It hasn't sold well at all because of its ridiculous price tag , but still be available. Since NEC stopped development of HD DVD drives, Toshiba has to develop its own writable drive for "HD DVD" recorder, it seemed that at the moment of product planning for those models, writable drive had not been available yet. I don't see any reason that Toshiba won't release "HD DVD & HDD" recorder this year, perhaps it will come around July, during Summer sales period.


Thanks Rio

Yes, it is quite remarkable how low these numbers are. Though less remarkable, in my opinion, than how low Japan HD DVD sales are relative to Blu-ray, even excluding the PS3.

I thought the big sellers in Japan were BD writables because the Japanese were big into recording. As a slight diversion, how big are HD movie sales compared to the US? My guess is quite a bit smaller because people are more like to record something off hi-def TV rather than go to the store and buy the same movie.

Also makes you wonder where all those consoles Sony has "shipped" to Japan are. (Note, as I've mentioned before, I assume those numbers are only "estimated" and may be low, but in this case thay're from the same source, and can be meaningfully compared since they'd both be wrong in similar ways)Yeah, really...

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/01/1-31-07-sony_sauce.jpghttp://japanese.engadget.com/images/2007/02/sonysauce.jpg
"SIXAXIS: Emmy Award Winning"
"Exceeded 1 million manufactured-shipments"
"Note: Source is Sony "

"sauce" and "source" have same pronunciation in Japanese.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/01/sony-sauce-spices-up-your-real-ps3-grill-bbq/
http://japanese.engadget.com/2007/02/01/sony-sauce-source/

Nah,......I can't believe anyone would spend that much time obsessively and relentlessly defending, promoting, and spinning every tidbit of news remotely relating to, a product they don't even own!?!? That makes no sense at all. :confused:
Hmm, an earlier version of my response disappeared :confused:
As I was saying a number of posters here will defend BD to the end because it is a "revolutionary" technology that provides about 50% more storage capacity :rolleyes:

How can a poll of owners of a PARTICULAR format possibly be biased?
Let me lay out an example for you. Let's say I'm an HD DVD fanboy, and I have both a standalone AND a 360 Add-on. I want the poll to look as though there are as many DIFFERENT & unique users of my format out there as possible. So when given an option, I vote that I have either the add-on or the standalone, but not both. You honestly don't think some of the fanboys here did that?

Please...

Some other websites (e-magazines, what ever you call them) have picked up on this being an HD DVD fanboy site, and it well known that it is within the industry. Microsfot is very active here. Opinions from people in the industry not with HD DVD have been silenced. It is YOU who need to open your eyes my friend.
That assertion calls for documentation. Otherwise everyone should ignore it, for what it is.

If you compare to-date sales it's probably a factor of 10:1 or more, given the 1M+ PS3's shipped in Japan. Looking at numbers from a few weeks after the holidays when sales of any format are low doesn't represent the full picture. Then why are we talking about the Blu-ray disc sales lead in January then?

Let me lay out an example for you. Let's say I'm an HD DVD fanboy, and I have both a standalone AND a 360 Add-on. I want the poll to look as though there are as many DIFFERENT & unique users of my format out there as possible. So when given an option, I vote that I have either the add-on or the standalone, but not both. You honestly don't think some of the fanboys here did that?

Please... Well the two polls we had don't support this ridiculous assertion. The idea of coordinating something that that on an open poll is beyond ridiculous.

One poll in the HD DVD forum asked for a headcount of Xbox HD DVD drive owners, it also asked what percentage owned a HD DVD standalone.

That poll had a large count of Xbox 360 HD DVD drive owners (912) with only showing (134) 12% dual ownership.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=4036

912 86.45% YES - I own/purchased 1 XBox 360 HD DVD add on drive

025 2.37% YES - I bought 2 XBox 360 HD DVD add on drives

134 12.70% YES - I own both the XBox 360 HD DVD add on drive/s and standalone player/s

Another poll done about the same time, had a larger percentage of dual owners

HD DVD owners (including Xbox HD DVD bundles)
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=768075

Blu-ray owners (including PS3 movie watchers)
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=768087

These are probably pretty solid polls for looking at the early adopter market.


39.40% 435 Toshiba HD A1
10.24% 113 Toshiba HD XA1
02.45% 027 RCA HDV5000
01.27% 014 Walmart HD D1

53.36% 589 1st generation

15.85% 175 Toshiba HD A2
04.71% 052 Toshiba HD XA2 (includes preorder)
01.54% 017 Toshiba HD E1 / HD XF2
00.45% 005 Toshiba HD XE1 / HD XA2 (Japan)

22.55% 249 2nd generation

39.67% 438 X Box 360 HD DVD Player bundle
01.81% 020 Other (state reason in comments)

multiple answers permitted


21.50% 161 PS3 20 GB
49.13% 368 PS3 60 GB

70.63% 529 (PS3 Owners)

13.35% 100 Samsung BDP -1000

8.41% 063 Panasonic DMP-BD10
9.61% 072 Sony BDP-S1
2.94% 022 Pioneer BDP-HD1
1.87% 014 Philips BDP9000
1.47% 011 Other (explain in comments)

24.30% 182 (Other Blu-ray)

34.18% 256 I also own a HD DVD player

If you look at both polls it would be tough to coordinate what you are saying among 2000 people giving responses.

That assertion calls for documentation. Otherwise everyone should ignore it, for what it is.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6690707-1.html?tag=bubbl_1

Most notably, my prediction that "HD DVD would surrender by September" really got the flamethrowers out in force, and even set off a nice discussion over on AVS Forum , which appears to be home to many an HD DVD cheerleader. Among the hurled insults, I was accused of being a moron, a Sony shill, a Sony lover, and of harboring a bias against Toshiba and HD DVD. A few folks even accused the whole of CNET of being biased toward Blu-ray.

One, you can check that link out.

Two, I have personally seen insider comments which "outed" certain other industry folks as clueless (or refuted that said insider was not as much in the know as he/she wants you all to believe) disappear.

Three, I am not about to discuss other private matters in a public forum.

Thank you very much.

One pro Blu-ray commentator at CNET doesn't justify your worldview.

Well the two polls we had don't support this ridiculous assertion. The idea of coordinationg something that that on an open poll is beyond ridiculous.
Where did I say such an effort was coordinated? All I said was that the 12.7% would be the floor. Evidently, HD DVDers are touchy on installed base numbers these days? :confused:

As far as your linked polls, unless I am reading them incorrectly, there is the opportunity to vote in just such a matter as I posted.

Y'all take this way too seriously.

One pro Blu-ray commentator at CNET doesn't justify your worldview.
That was but an example i could easily link to. And like I said, I am not going to divulge information not public to this forum despite you baiting me as such. Maybe some people will post to back me up. If not, believe what you want to believe. I know what I've seen, what I've read, and what has been relayed to me. ;) Thank you very much.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Night-Luck-Blu-ray/dp/B000H1RFJQ/sr=8-7/qid=1170903179/ref=pd_bbs_sr_7/002-4276878-9016064?ie=UTF8&s=dvd

Thank you very much.




Your welcome.

BTW, remember way back in October 05 when you voted that HD DVD was dead in the water? Nat just reminded me of that today. Good times. :)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=587148&page=6&pp=30

What reminded me of that was the post you linked to by the guy who predicted HD DVD would be dead by September. Here's an October 7, 2005 article in the VideoBusiness titled ""Blu-ray wins, no war"

http://www.videobusiness.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6266816

Funny stuff, if you dont' take it too seriously. :)

Your welcome.

BTW, remember way back in October 05 when you voted that HD DVD was dead in the water? Nat just reminded me of that today. Good times. :)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=587148&page=6&pp=30

What reminded me of that was the post you linked to by the guy who predicted HD DVD would be dead by September. Here's an October 7, 2005 article in the VideoBusiness titled ""Blu-ray wins, no war"

http://www.videobusiness.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6266816

Funny stuff, if you dont' take it too seriously. :)Ha ha! Classic. Before my time here on this side of the AVS forum.

I was still happily posting away on the non-controversial sub $3500 front projector threads. :) Ah, those were my happy low post count , everybody loved me days.

Then I discovered the wild side of AVS. :eek: here in the Blu-ray & HD DVD Areas, and AVS posting life has never been the same.

What's funny about that thread is if you start reading some of the the posts in it.

Coffee spewing funny. :D

Let me lay out an example for you. Let's say I'm an HD DVD fanboy, and I have both a standalone AND a 360 Add-on. I want the poll to look as though there are as many DIFFERENT & unique users of my format out there as possible. So when given an option, I vote that I have either the add-on or the standalone, but not both. You honestly don't think some of the fanboys here did that?Shoot! I participated in those polls. And I forgot to lie! I have (in purchase order) a XA1, a 360HDAO and an XA2. And to think I could have helped skew those polls. Missed it. Dang-it!

Of course I should have voted otherwise in order to verify the slander against AVS forum members who perfer HD DVD. :mad:

I count the majors, Fox Sony and Disney for BD, and Universal for HD DVD.

For the purposes of that conversation, I didn't count Weinstien, Studio Cannel or any of the smaller studios for either side.

I agree about Weinstein with around 30 titles in their collection and SC that has no distribution in NA. But LGF and MGM tend to be considered major by most people

To January 28:
PS3: 594134
X360: 306379

Don't get me wrong, I expect to see the PS3's lead grow in Japan for a while yet, but it's not going to be the massive walkover Sony seems to be expecting.

To January 28:
PS3: 594134 (Since Nov 2006)
X360: 306379 (Since Nov 2005)

You don't see anything odd about that?

There is a stark difference in time there. And for our purposes, all that matters is how many of those 360s have add-ons attached.

Gary

I agree about Weinstein with around 30 titles in their collection and SC that has no distribution in NA. But LGF and MGM tend to be considered major by most people
Given that HD DVD is regionless, why does it matter if SC doesn't distribute in NA?

To January 28:
PS3: 594134 (Since Nov 2006)
X360: 306379 (Since Nov 2005)

You don't see anything odd about that?

Gary

Ha! It's the little details that make all the difference :)

To January 28:
PS3: 594134 (Since Nov 2006)
X360: 306379 (Since Nov 2005)

You don't see anything odd about that?

There is a stark difference in time there. And for our purposes, all that matters is how many of those 360s have add-ons attached.


No. The original statement to which this was the answer is ...

If you compare to-date sales it's probably a factor of 10:1

Clearly wrong, as proven by the above numbers.

Given that HD DVD is regionless, why does it matter if SC doesn't distribute in NA?

Cost mostly.

One at a time shipments across the pond will be a heck of a lot more expensive than shipping 10K for distribution here. And the overseas prices tend to be higher to start with.

Refering to my sig, a hypothetical Universal BD from Japan would probably cost >$50 to land.

Gary

Shoot! I participated in those polls. And I forgot to lie! I have (in purchase order) a XA1, a 360HDAO and an XA2. And to think I could have helped skew those polls. Missed it. Dang-it!

Of course I should have voted otherwise in order to verify the slander against AVS forum members who perfer HD DVD. :mad: Maybe you were motivated by the shame of those being public polls?

As opposed to the several chuckleheads that voted on one of my polls that listed buying four or five different $999 plus standalone players. Somehow, I didn't think they were HD DVD fanboys for some reason.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=768087

Cost mostly.

One at a time shipments across the pond will be a heck of a lot more expensive than shipping 10K for distribution here. And the overseas prices tend to be higher to start with.

Refering to my sig, a hypothetical Universal BD from Japan would probably cost >$50 to land.

Gary

European HD-DVDs cost about $32.98, and can be imported from Amazon or bought here from places like http://www.xploitedcinema.com.

If the exchange rate ever swings our way again they can drop to the $26 range.

I buy a lot of region 2, PAL DVDs, sometimes they are cheaper, sometimes they are better looking too. I don't buy many Japanese DVDs because even those average $39-$50.

For those who wish to Euro-shop, I can highly recommend http://www.dvdbeaver.com as an informative site that compares and announces US & Euro-releases.

Very informative HD VS BLU article....I am neutral just looking for a good player. This helped.
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/feature_microsofthddvdinterview.html

THat article seemed to skirt around some very big issues and was incredibly optomistic about other issues that seems unwarrented.

First off, the advantages of 50-30 gigs per disc will be huge. The explaination in the article if weak.

Second, the chances of Universal going neutral is MUCH more likely than Fox and Disney going to HD-DVD. THe article points out that HD-DVD needs these studios which is true, but it seems irrationally optomistic that it will happen.

DIsney and Fox are smart enough to know that they will make far more money with a single successful format which is why they will not make HD-DVD.

I admit there were a few good points in the article, but it does not capture the entire picture. I am not sure when the converstation took place, but it seems to have more relevance for Oct 06 when HD-DVD had more of a chance.

The playing field is much different now as all of the advantages that were discussed at the beginning of the article have come to bear. Blu-ray is now racing past HD-DVD, and HD-DVD content appears to be drying up.

I wrote Warner Brothers a letter asking them about the HD-DVDs being "Held BacK" controversy and got this response which I will also post in the news forum.

I have to say of all the studio's, they have the most thoughtful customer relations staff of any of the major studios.
That's the same note I got. :)

THat article seemed to skirt around some very big issues and was incredibly optomistic about other issues that seems unwarrented.

It wasn't an article, it was an interview.

Anyone from either camp is going to spend more time accentuating the positive about their format.

I actually though he showed admirable restraint in Blu-ray bashing.

That's the same note I got. :)

I see that now myself, :o but I've been involved in direct Q & A forums that WB bothers to conduct, and low-and-behold a good portion of the rarities they promise are on the way, do get released.

They truly do bend over backwards compared to the others, many of which won't respond at all.

First off, the advantages of 50-30 gigs per disc will be huge.

Considering that

1. King Kong, a 3+ hour long release on HD DVD with a nice array of extras, is one of the best quality transfers to date in any format, and

2. The vast majority of BD releases are on 25 gig disks.

I think the 50/30 gigs difference is only "huge" for people susceptible to storage envy.

... Second, the chances of Universal going neutral is MUCH more likely than Fox and Disney going to HD-DVD.How did you arrive at that assumption?

last week HD DVD closed back on Blu-ray in weekly sales

Blu-ray still leads, but it closed to a few points

15% swing between last week and this week :eek:


Percentage of total Hi-Def sales:
HD-DVD Blu-ray

Week of Feb. 06th 48.17% 51.83%

Week of Jan. 30th 33.33% 66.67%
Week of Jan. 23rd 41.99% 58.01%
Week of Jan. 16th 45.83% 54.17%
Week of Jan. 09th 43.87% 56.13%
Week of Jan. 02nd 49.32% 50.68%
Week of Dec. 26th 43.11% 56.89%
Week of Dec. 19th 35.38% 64.62%

http://www.dvdempire.com/index.asp?userid=99365291527966&tab_id=61&site_id=68&site_media_id=0

Discussion here
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9721048&&#post9721048

THat article seemed to skirt around some very big issues and was incredibly optomistic about other issues that seems unwarrented.

First off, the advantages of 50-30 gigs per disc will be huge. The explaination in the article if weak.

Second, the chances of Universal going neutral is MUCH more likely than Fox and Disney going to HD-DVD. THe article points out that HD-DVD needs these studios which is true, but it seems irrationally optomistic that it will happen.

DIsney and Fox are smart enough to know that they will make far more money with a single successful format which is why they will not make HD-DVD.

I admit there were a few good points in the article, but it does not capture the entire picture. I am not sure when the converstation took place, but it seems to have more relevance for Oct 06 when HD-DVD had more of a chance.

The playing field is much different now as all of the advantages that were discussed at the beginning of the article have come to bear. Blu-ray is now racing past HD-DVD, and HD-DVD content appears to be drying up.

Oh wow...Wait, aren't you the same guy that declared yourself smart and rich a couple pages back? :p

First off, the advantages of 50-30 gigs per disc will be huge. The explaination in the article if weak. There are still relatively few 50gb blu titles out there. King Kong, which is over 3 hours is tops in video quality. Looks like the use of more advanced video codecs like VC-1 overcomes alot.

Second, the chances of Universal going neutral is MUCH more likely than Fox and Disney going to HD-DVD. THe article points out that HD-DVD needs these studios which is true, but it seems irrationally optomistic that it will happen. Being smart and rich must allow you access to Universal's strategies? :confused:
Actually, it would be the opposite. Those chinese factories making HD-DVD players supply discount stores like Walmart and Target. Those stores are a substantial percentage of current DVD sales. Fox and Disney by remaining blu exclusive forfeit the shelf space (the most coveted retail shelf space in North America but being smart and rich I presume you know that already) next to those players that will be blaring HD content all over the electronics area of those stores and then explain it to their stockholders.

Blu-ray is now racing past HD-DVD, and HD-DVD content appears to be drying up Being smart and rich means you found out that announced HD-DVD titles have been canceled? And this weeks Bluray vs HD-DVD sales from DVD Empire aren't backing your statement up Week of Feb. 06th 48.17% 51.83%

There are still relatively few 50gb blu titles out there. King Kong, which is over 3 hours is tops in video quality. Looks like the use of more advanced video codecs like VC-1 overcomes alot.

King Kong's a bad example, because they didn't have any room left for advanced audio on that disc.

King Kong's a bad example, because they didn't have any room left for advanced audio on that disc.
Since when is 1.5mbps DD+ not considered "advanced audio?" Put another way, since when does advanced audio = lossless?

Since when is 1.5mbps DD+ not considered "advanced audio?"

Since it's not lossless and we're moving into a lossless era?

Since it's not lossless and we're moving into a lossless era?
So you've taken it upon yourself to redefine what's considered advanced? I've always heard the advanced audio codecs described as the codecs not available on SD DVD - DD+, DTHD, DTS-HD, DTS-HD MA, etc. (and of couse, uncompressed PCM, which uses no codec.)

I will have to disagree with you here. I consider DD+ "advanced audio" and I'm sure I'm not alone.

So you've taken it upon yourself to redefine what's considered advanced?

I guess so; perception is relative afterall.

I will have to disagree with you here. I consider DD+ "advanced audio" and I'm sure I'm not alone.

I'm sure you're not.

Let me rephrase then, so that there can be no confusion. King Kong on an HD DVD dual-layer disc does not have enough room for a lossless audio track.

I trust there will be no disputes on that wording.

ILet me rephrase then, so that there can be no confusion. King Kong on an HD DVD dual-layer disc does not have enough room for a lossless audio track.

I trust there will be no disputes on that wording.
If you had used that wording in the first place, I would not have responded. Thanks for clarifying.

I'm amazed what compromises are acceptable in the pursuit of the Look and Sound of Perfect.

Gary

People have a VERY hard time telling the difference between the lossy DD+ and the lossless Dolby True HD even on a premium system.

There JUST aren't that many people out there that have an HDMI receiver hooked up to hear it vs. toslink and analog 5.1 either.

I'm amazed what compromises are acceptable in the pursuit of the Look and Sound of Perfect.

Gary
You mean like the vast majority of titles released and announced being on BD-25 discs (which happens to be 5GB smaller than the discs used for the vast majority of released and announced titles on HD DVD?) That's a fairly large compromise, wouldn't you agree?

May not have been a compromise because of capacity or bandwidth. It could be a valid decision by the studio that DD+ is superior to any DVD audio that some soundtracks just don't warrant the cost or complication of True HD.

Not sure I agree with it, but that decision may be legitimate. DD+ is surely superior to DD or DTS that is on DVD's.

So you've taken it upon yourself to redefine what's considered advanced? I've always heard the advanced audio codecs described as the codecs not available on SD DVD - DD+, DTHD, DTS-HD, DTS-HD MA, etc. (and of couse, uncompressed PCM, which uses no codec.)

I will have to disagree with you here. I consider DD+ "advanced audio" and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Then you need to read some of Roger Dressler's comments on DD+ and his statement that for 5.1 DD+ "It is indeed rapidly diminishing returns beyond 640 kbs".
The same question can be asked for the 1.5 Mbps rate, but at least in that case there's ample room to grow for the 7.1 option, but after that, we're almost maxed out again. We thought it was cool that Universal matched our bitrate to DTS's. But that rate is not necessary to get the full benefit of DD+ for 5.1. It is indeed rapidly diminishing returns beyond 640 kbs.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8197590&&#post8197590

b2b

You mean like the vast majority of titles released and announced being on BD-25 discs (which happens to be 5GB smaller than the discs used for the vast majority of released and announced titles on HD DVD?) That's a fairly large compromise, wouldn't you agree?

Released, yes, and I think many made a point of that for many months. But, it's now Feb 2007 not summer 2006.

Going forward it is a per title issue. And the vast majority of BD announced are not BD-25. If they are even a majority. I'd have to check. Do you have stats to back up your claim? Or are you simply counting titles before BD50 was released?

But, capacity is rarely the issue with lossless audio on HD DVD. It's BANDWIDTH.

There are now many very well reviewed BD-25 titles that are MPEG-2 with LPCM.

Gary

People have a VERY hard time telling the difference between the lossy DD+ and the lossless Dolby True HD even on a premium system.

There JUST aren't that many people out there that have an HDMI receiver hooked up to hear it vs. toslink and analog 5.1 either.

Yet, many of the reviewers claim they hear a significant difference between LPCM on Blu-ray and lossless on HD DVD. And its no contest for them when they compare to DD+.

Gary

Yet, many of the reviewers claim they hear a significant difference between LPCM on Blu-ray and lossless on HD DVD. And its no contest for them when they compare to DD+.

Gary

Yeah, but that's dateless A/V reviewers :p

I'm talking about the masses of people that prefer mp3 over all other music sources.

They can't hear or just can't tell the difference.

Yeah, but that's dateless A/V reviewers :p

I'm talking about the masses of people that prefer mp3 over all other music sources.

They can't hear or just can't tell the difference.

The "masses of people that prefer mp3 over all other music sources" are not buying either HD DVD or Blu-ray right now.

Yet, many of the reviewers claim they hear a significant difference between LPCM on Blu-ray and lossless on HD DVD. And its no contest for them when they compare to DD+.

Gary

Audio reviews are notoriously inaccurate. I would like to see them in a blind study.


Not directed particularly at you, but just a statement in general:

Many people are pretending to be audiophiles. SACD and DVD-A failed because most people simply don't care about that degree of accuracy even in music tracks. Now people are pretending that it's suddenly of dire importance to have something better than DD+ in movies. It reeks of an argument made out of convenance.

The "masses of people that prefer mp3 over all other music sources" are not buying either HD DVD or Blu-ray right now.

Nope, they're waiting for the price to drop to under $300 or even less before they jump on a format.

That's why they are jumping on the Wii too.

Yet, many of the reviewers claim they hear a significant difference between LPCM on Blu-ray and lossless on HD DVD. And its no contest for them when they compare to DD+.

Gary Or people that see what the audio codec is on the box. Not in a double blind test.

Most people can't tell the difference, and some people who swear they can are talking themselves into it or kinda fibbing. IMHO

Or people that see what the audio codec is on the box. Not in a double blind test.

Most people can't tell the difference, and some people who swear they can are talking themselves into it or kinda fibbing. IMHO

Exactly, they believe they can hear the difference that's written on the box because they bought those expensive monster cables.

Exactly, they believe they can hear the difference that's written on the box because they bought those expensive monster cables.

I don't think it matters whether the difference is psychological or real, if having TrueHD/PCM/DTS-MA written on the label helps sell the disc, then they will put it on the disc. It is not about giving us the best AV experience, it is about making money.

Exactly, they believe they can hear the difference that's written on the box because they bought those expensive monster cables. Let me tell you stories about how some people were using composite cables or s-video with $10,000 displays, and bragging about the picture. :eek: .

All the HD DVD partisans who have both an add-on and a Toshiba player claim they only have the add-on, False statement. As you can see in the poll there are many who own both and readily state they own both - including me.

which suggests the number of duplicate owners is smaller than it really is, which suggests HD DVD has more strength than it actually does.Which suggests... nothing - given that the assumption on which the suggestion is based is false.

Let me tell you stories about how some people were using composite cables or s-video with $10,000 displays, and bragging about the picture. :eek: .

Or people with nice HDTV big screens that set the display to 480i because they think it looks better :eek:

Yes, I've seen that too.

Let me tell you stories about how some people were using composite cables or s-video with $10,000 displays, and bragging about the picture. :eek: .

Again, does it really matter. The company sold a $10,000 display, just because the owner is too stupid to realise that you need to use a HD interface for good PQ (I thought everyone knew about component and HDMI these days! :confused: ), doesn't mean that the display company aren't $10,000 better off, which they are.

I don't think it matters whether the difference is psychological or real, if having TrueHD/PCM/DTS-MA written on the label helps sell the disc, then they will put it on the disc. It is not about giving us the best AV experience, it is about making money.

You're counting on the consumer being able to read the fine print that says what soundtracks are on the discs.

If that really mattered, many, many more DVD's would have DTS-ES soundtracks and Sony's Superbit discs would have taken off in sales too.

Then you need to read some of Roger Dressler's comments on DD+ and his statement that for 5.1 DD+ "It is indeed rapidly diminishing returns beyond 640 kbs".

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8197590&&#post8197590

b2b
Note that he didn't say "No returns beyond 640K"

Your point here is highly hypocritical:

On one hand you effectively claim there is no audible advantage beyond 640K - which is false, by the way, which you probably know, so you place the "responsibility" for this quote (out of context) on Roger Dressler's head.

Yet, in other posts, you claim that lossless audio is superior to 1.5 mbps DD+

So which is it, b2b? Pick a side... today?

I'll tell you MY opinion: 1.5 mbps DD+ or DTS is FAR superior to 640 DD or DD+ - and I maintain it's easy to hear the difference between the two. I also maintain that lossless can sound superior to 1.5 mbps, but it's much more difficult and requires that the quality of source material be superb.

You're counting on the consumer being able to read the fine print that says what soundtracks are on the discs.

If that really mattered, many, many more DVD's would have DTS-ES soundtracks and Sony's Superbit discs would have taken off in sales too.

DTS didn't have a big enough user base to rival DD, many DVD players still don't come with DTS decoding as standard. Superbits are great for upconversion, but J6P cares more about extras than the PQ, which could be why it never took off, added to the fact that they are on average more expensive.

Yet, many of the reviewers claim they hear a significant difference between LPCM on Blu-ray and lossless on HD DVD.
Hmmm - I'm really curious - could you link these reviews where the reviewer claimed to hear a difference between lossless LPCM and Lossless (anything else but assuming you mean) TruHD?

I'd really love to see that :)

DTS didn't have a big enough user base to rival DD, many DVD players still don't come with DTS decoding as standard. Superbits are great for upconversion, but J6P cares more about extras than the PQ, which could be why it never took off, added to the fact that they are on average more expensive.

There are plenty of DTS capable DVD players out there. But studios didn't see any demand except from the enthusiasts for the DTS tracks. Sony's Superbits are down to $10 in Best Buy last I saw. But they don't have those "extras" so people pick up the disc, go :confused: and move on.

But for the lossless soundtracks you need an HDMI receiver don't you? There still aren't that many of those that have found a home yet. So there is just not that much demand for the lossless soundtrack except for the enthusiast that has already sprung for the HDMI receiver.

There are plenty of DTS capable DVD players out there. But studios didn't see any demand except from the enthusiasts for the DTS tracks.

True, most if not all of us on this forum own one, but the $30 one from walmart most definitely doesn't decode DTS

Sony's Superbits are down to $10 in Best Buy last I saw. But they don't have those "extras" so people pick up the disc, go :confused: and move on.

Yup, these are the same people with the $30 DTS-less players from walmart, Superbit was never meant to cater for these people.

But for the lossless soundtracks you need an HDMI receiver don't you? There still aren't that many of those that have found a home yet. So there is just not that much demand for the lossless soundtrack except for the enthusiast that has already sprung for the HDMI receiver.

Agree.

You're counting on the consumer being able to read the fine print that says what soundtracks are on the discs.

If that really mattered, many, many more DVD's would have DTS-ES soundtracks and Sony's Superbit discs would have taken off in sales too.

I'll admit I don't much give a crap about audio, I do hear the difference between my original CDs and what falls away in MP3. With movies I just shoot'em through my amp to four Bose speakers, two aimed at the screen two aimed from. I'll spend hours calibrating a picture, but I just opt for the two channel mix on films since there is no way to set up a practical surround system in my living room. They didn't build houses in 1911 for home theater.

Better than two-thirds of my disks are from pre-70's movies anyway. Faster Pussycat Kill! Kill! will probably sound about the same whatever the coding.

I'll admit I don't much give a crap about audio, I do hear the difference between my original CDs and what falls away in MP3. With movies I just shoot'em through my amp to four Bose speakers, two aimed at the screen two aimed from. I'll spend hours calibrating a picture, but I just opt for the two channel mix on films since there is no way to set up a practical surround system in my living room. They didn't build houses in 1911 for home theater.

Better than two-thirds of my disks are from pre-70's movies anyway. Faster Pussycat Kill! Kill! will probably sound about the same whatever the coding.

Which sites do you recommend for DVD discussion ??

b2b

I'll admit I don't much give a crap about audio, I do hear the difference between my original CDs and what falls away in MP3. With movies I just shoot'em through my amp to four Bose speakers, two aimed at the screen two aimed from. I'll spend hours calibrating a picture, but I just opt for the two channel mix on films since there is no way to set up a practical surround system in my living room. They didn't build houses in 1911 for home theater.

Better than two-thirds of my disks are from pre-70's movies anyway. Faster Pussycat Kill! Kill! will probably sound about the same whatever the coding.

I prefer "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" for my Russ Meyer :p

Audio reviews are notoriously inaccurate. I would like to see them in a blind study.

Not directed particularly at you, but just a statement in general:

Many people are pretending to be audiophiles. SACD and DVD-A failed because most people simply don't care about that degree of accuracy even in music tracks.

I personally can't figure out how there can be a difference between LPCM and lossless. Yet, reviewers (and posters on here) are saying there is. :confused:

The only thing I can figure is the HD DVD decks are messing up the LPCM in the mixing phase of the advanced mode.


Now people are pretending that it's suddenly of dire importance to have something better than DD+ in movies. It reeks of an argument made out of convenance.


The bandwidth and capacity for lossless or LPCM was one of the things that attracted many to BD. It's not fair to say that it is sudden. The reviewers have been raving about the LPCM from day one. Through some extremely disappointing PQ, the AQ kept the early BD from being a total disaster.

I won't deny that some people on both sides look for differences and then claim the difference is vital. But, it is interesting the counter to lossless is a push for specifically 1.5Mbps DD+. Does BD not directly being able to offer that somehow make that the premier offering? 1.5Mbps DTS is available too.

Since every HD DVD deck decodes lossless, why would you possibly not want it be made available if it could be?

Gary

Hmmm - I'm really curious - could you link these reviews where the reviewer claimed to hear a difference between lossless LPCM and Lossless (anything else but assuming you mean) TruHD?

I'd really love to see that :)

Here is one reviewers take on it, or somewhat on it (since he doesn't have both from the same source): http://www.hometheaterspot.com/htsthreads/dvd-review.php?sequence=1842 under Audio.

I personally don't think he just looks at the box and suddenly the sound becomes better. YMMV. I'm more likely to believe that the encoding makes a difference, than changing your HDMI or powercable to something insanely expensive.

That said, I don't have the equipment yet (why oh why did I ever marry.. ;)) to test this, but someday I will. I might hear the difference, I might not. What I do expect is that TrueHD, Master Audio or Lossless LPCM all will sound terrific.

Since every HD DVD deck decodes lossless, why would you possibly not want it be made available if it could be?

Gary

My point is that the difference is insignificant, and therefore trivial.

It may even be indistingioushable, and therefore irrelevent.

But for me, and I would submit the vast majority of people, it is not a substantial difference, and so it is not an important difference.

My point is that the difference is insignificant, and therefore trivial.

It may even be indistingioushable, and therefore irrelevent.

But for me, and I would submit the vast majority of people, it is not a substantial difference, and so it is not an important difference.

Sounds like you need to open up a poll in the HD-DVD SW forum and find out if your views on DD+ being "good enough" is OK with everybody else... ;)

b2b

Which sites do you recommend for DVD discussion ??

b2b

In spite of being opinionated, I don't do a lot of web-yakking about the movies themselves, but I have my haunts.

For reviews and news;
http://www.dvddrive-in.com
http://www.eccentric-cinema.com/index.htm
http://www.dvdbeaver.com
http://www.videowatchdog.com/home/home.html
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/index.html
http://www.inthebalcony.com
http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com
http://p075.ezboard.com/bmonsterkidclassichorrorforum

For buying the odd and import;
http://xploitedcinema.com/catalog/index.php
http://diabolikdvd.com

Sounds like you need to open up a poll in the HD-DVD SW forum and find out if your views on DD+ being "good enough" is OK with everybody else... ;)

b2b
But I don't care what people think they can hear. We would need some double blind testing.

In spite of being opinionated, I don't do a lot of web-yakking about the movies themselves, but I have my haunts.

For reviews and news;
http://www.dvddrive-in.com
http://www.eccentric-cinema.com/index.htm
http://www.dvdbeaver.com
http://www.videowatchdog.com/home/home.html
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/index.html
http://www.inthebalcony.com
http://www.hollywoodbitchslap.com
http://p075.ezboard.com/bmonsterkidclassichorrorforum

For buying the odd and import;
http://xploitedcinema.com/catalog/index.php
http://diabolikdvd.com

Thanks, I've been looking for a good list for a while.

b2b

I prefer "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" for my Russ Meyer :p


I projected that to 30 friends in my backyard two years ago last summer, and they must have liked it because the came back for Cemetery Man in the fall.

Liquid Sky, however caused some to get up and walk out. It was hated by all but three people.

Go figure :D

My point is that the difference is insignificant, and therefore trivial.

It may even be indistingioushable, and therefore irrelevent.

But for me, and I would submit the vast majority of people, it is not a substantial difference, and so it is not an important difference.

It will make a difference to some people. And if it truly is irrelevant for the rest, why would you specifically fight against it?

It's like fighting 1080p/24 output because most people don't have it. Or future deep colour upconversion across HDMI 1.3 because most monitors won't have deep colour capability.

There must be some relevance for you to be expressing an opinion against lossless.

Gary

It will make a difference to some people. And if it truly is irrelevant for the rest, why would you specifically fight against it?

It's like fighting 1080p/24 output because most people don't have it. Or future deep colour upconversion across HDMI 1.3 because most monitors won't have deep colour capability.

There must be some relevance for you to be expressing an opinion against lossless.

Gary

I can give ya indifference, which means it's simply not a factor in my choice. Doesn't mean you shouldn't care.

It will make a difference to some people. And if it truly is irrelevant for the rest, why would you specifically fight against it?

It's like fighting 1080p/24 output because most people don't have it. Or future deep colour upconversion across HDMI 1.3 because most monitors won't have deep colour capability.

There must be some relevance for you to be expressing an opinion against lossless.

Gary

I'm not specifically fighting against it, nor am I expressing an opinion against it. What I am fighting against is the idea that it is crucial, and I'm simply acknowledging the fact that it is unimportant.

I'm just not THAT convinced that someone can hear the difference between a well-sourced DD+ soundtrack and the Dolby True HD.

Anyway, ask a Lord of the Rings junky if they'd rather have a Dolby True HD soundtrack or an HD documentary on the fitting of those hairy feet, you know what most people would go for ;)

But I don't care what people think they can hear. We would need some double blind testing.

Thanks, I was beginning to feel like a voice in the wilderness around here. It's been repeatedly illustrated through ABX comparator double blind testing, that people report that they hear differences in a single source when they simply believe they're listening to two different ones. It wouldn't be the least bit surprising if repeated marketing claims and human psychology were entirely responsible for anecdotal reports of superior sound we read in professional and informal reviews. Does it matter if a fool and his money are soon parted? I'd reply that there's no excuse when such ignorance could so easily be rectified by a few points of empirical data.

Anyway, ask a Lord of the Rings junky if they'd rather have a Dolby True HD soundtrack or an HD documentary on the fitting of those hairy feet, you know what most people would go for ;)

I'll take uncompressed 7.1/6.1 (LOTR was DTS-ES IIRC) PCM for $1000, Alex.

The hairy feet can go on a specials disc FULL of HD footage, but is hardly necessary.

I'll take uncompressed 7.1/6.1 (LOTR was DTS-ES IIRC) PCM for $1000, Alex.

The hairy feet can go on a specials disc FULL of HD footage, but is hardly necessary.

The extended special editions had the dts-es 6.1's or Dolby EX. The theatricals had good ol' dubly 5.1.

Sounds like you need to open up a poll in the HD-DVD SW forum and find out if your views on DD+ being "good enough" is OK with everybody else... ;)
b2b

1 well designed double blind test is worth 10000 polls :D

The extended special editions had the dts-es 6.1's or Dolby EX. The theatricals had good ol' dubly 5.1.

Makes sense... i skipped the theatricals on DVD and will skip them on HD/BD until EE's come out.

1 well designed double blind test is worth 10000 polls :D

Yeah you leave it to the polls you'll end up with everyone staying with VHS.

Haven't you seen what's happened with the MP3? We certainly do not want to leave this as a popularity contest... It's doomed Audiophiles to an expensive niche while the masses are more than ok with lossy crud... let's not do the same to the Videophiles...

Yeah you leave it to the polls you'll end up with everyone staying with VHS.

Haven't you seen what's happened with the MP3? We certainly do not want to leave this as a popularity contest... It's doomed Audiophiles to an expensive niche while the masses are more than ok with lossy crud... let's not do the same to the Videophiles...

How would that even be possible?

1 well designed double blind test is worth 10000 polls :D

Oh but then good sir, how would we then take into account the value of marketing to perceptions ?? :)

b2b

Oh but then good sir, how would we then take into account the value of marketing to perceptions ?? :)
b2b

You're right, that could be the end for a lot of high end CE if people depended on double blind tests instead of marketing. :D

Anybody in the market for some old, used Monster cable? I've got a box full of them in my closet that I bought in my pre-internet days.

Here is one reviewers take on it, or somewhat on it (since he doesn't have both from the same source): http://www.hometheaterspot.com/htsthreads/dvd-review.php?sequence=1842 under Audio.Very interesting except that it is:
This PCM track is 24-bit/48kHz and delivers some of the best sound available in presentation, if not in the mix itself, which consists of a lot of helicopter radio talk that sounds innate, yet easily intelligible for such muffled dialogue.of which no TrueHD track that I have ever read of has -- they have all been 16 bit/48kHz :( .

So sorry that is not a valid anything for uncompressed lossless versus compressed lossless. The extra 8 bits of encoding depth could easily be all the differences.

The extended special editions had the dts-es 6.1's or Dolby EX. The theatricals had good ol' dubly 5.1.Yeh but the extended LOTR dts-es 6.1 was only the bastardized 768 kbps of which dts never approved. dts provided 1536 kbps capability to early DVD titles and did not like the studio switch to half bitrate. A lot of early DVDs with dts tracks did have the recommended 1536 kbps bitrate. (I'm using the numbers my Yamaha AVR shows here).

Yeh but the extended LOTR dts-es 6.1 was only the bastardized 768 kbps of which dts never approved. dts provided 1536 kbps capability to early DVD titles and did not like the studio switch to half bitrate. A lot of early DVDs with dts tracks did have the recommended 1536 kbps bitrate. (I'm using the numbers my Yamaha AVR shows here).

Which ones?

Blade 2 or 3 for example?

Very interesting except that it is:
of which no TrueHD track that I have ever read of has -- they have all been 16 bit/48kHz :( .

So sorry that is not a valid anything for uncompressed lossless versus compressed lossless. The extra 8 bits of encoding depth could easily be all the differences.

Just for fun:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/BitsTest.html

Which ones?

Blade 2 or 3 for example?Sorry I doubt that those have the higher rate:
http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_1a.asp
DreamWorks realised that using full 1509kbps DTS would force them to spread 'Saving Private Ryan' over two discs, as had been the case with 'Dances With Wolves'. Consumers accustomed to films presented on single discs generally pick the single disc version of a film when competing one- and two-disc versions of the same film are available (as Image learned with their two versions of 'Dances With Wolves'). DreamWorks were determined that both the Dolby Digital and DTS Digital Surround versions of 'Saving Private Ryan' would be presented on single discs. To accomplish this feat, DreamWorks released the DTS version of 'Saving Private Ryan' with a bitrate of only 754kbps, making it the first DTS DVD product to use a bitrate other than 1509kbps. Using 754kbps DTS, DreamWorks managed to shoehorn 'Saving Private Ryan' into a single RSDL disc, albeit without the 25 minute documentary included with the Dolby Digital version. It would be preferable from an audiophile perspective for 754kbps DTS's use to be restricted to longer duration films (i.e. over 160 minutes) that require 754kbps in order to be presented on a single disc. However, studios have found themselves unable to resist the practical advantages offered by 754kbps DTS, and this datarate is now the defacto standard for all DTS releases. Digital Theater Systems themselves have stated that 754kbps DTS is not "transparent", a claim they make for 1509 and 1235kbps DTS, and an assertion based largely on their format's higher bitrates.
BTW 1509 or 1536 kbps, etc. is really the same thing just consumed datarate versus utilised datarate.

You're right, that could be the end for a lot of high end CE if people depended on double blind tests instead of marketing.

There's something to be said for quality of construction, pride of ownership, etc., and I think many would still purchase high end gear, even if they were fully cognizant of the fact that 99% of the benefit gained for such a disproportionate outlay of funds would be utterly intangible. My beautiful Marantz 2330b has been operating without fail.........OK I've replaced a few lamps, and need to spritz some tuner cleaner on the contacts occasionally........since the day I purchased it, thirty years ago. It wasn't even a particularly exclusive piece at the time, but obviously extremely well built. I've never even considered selling it.

Sorry I doubt that those have the higher rate:
http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_1a.asp

BTW 1509 or 1536 kbps, etc. is really the same thing just consumed datarate versus utilised datarate.

Thanks for the link!

Found the DTS dvd list on it with a bit rate chart

http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_6a.asp

There's something to be said for quality of construction, pride of ownership, etc., and I think many would still purchase high end gear, even if they were fully cognizant of the fact that 99% of the benefit gained for such a disproportionate outlay of funds would be utterly intangible. My beautiful Marantz 2330b has been operating without fail.........OK I've replaced a few lamps, and need to spritz some tuner cleaner on the contacts occasionally........since the day I purchased it, thirty years ago. It wasn't even a particularly exclusive piece at the time, but obviously extremely well built. I've never even considered selling it.

Sure, but where does efficiency fall. Is it not respectable? If a person can park their eyes and ears in front of a monitor and not be able o tell the difference between formats, why shouldn't there be some credit given to the design that did just as much with less?

1 well designed double blind test is worth 10000 polls :D
I will bet my engineering dollars that most true differences that people perceive are due to slight differences in output volume. I remember similar thing happening with DD and dts. dts was usually encoded at slightly higher volume, so it sounded better when switching between the two even when there was negligible difference between the two. I bet that LPCM is output at slightly higher volume than TrueHD on most receivers. Can anyone confirm if this is true?

I personally can't figure out how there can be a difference between LPCM and lossless. Yet, reviewers (and posters on here) are saying there is. :confused:

The only thing I can figure is the HD DVD decks are messing up the LPCM in the mixing phase of the advanced mode.

...snip...

Gary

There isn't. The DAC's are getting the same input bits. (somebody will likely claim jitter differences, but until I see some objective proof of such, I'll ignore it).

I'd love to see some double-blind tests of these people claiming to hear differences between LPCM and lossless, when they don't have an opportunity to read "LPCM" on the cover first.

If double-blind tests reveal differences, then it may be filtering in the mastering stage in an attempt to more easily compress the stream... which I'd be unhappy with...

If double-blind tests reveal differences, then it may be filtering in the mastering stage in an attempt to more easily compress the stream... which I'd be unhappy with...

Well, then that wouldn't be really lossless in the intended sense. The spirit of lossless is that you take the audio master and put it on the disc. There is an expectation of lossless from the source, not merely a wink-wink geek lossless.

Taking the master and performing a filter that compresses better under a lossless codec, is really a lossy stage. What's the point? The similar thing would be done with a lossy encoder with far more efficiency.

Gary

It will make a difference to some people. And if it truly is irrelevant for the rest, why would you specifically fight against it?

...

There must be some relevance for you to be expressing an opinion against lossless.

Gary

I think that the lossless audio case was decided int the DVD-A/SACD war. Consumer just didn't care and gave it a pass.

This is a video format. Save the space and BW for video, not audio. I'll bet that more people can enjoy the benefit of increasing video BW compared to audio BW. The latter is certainly a very small minority, as history have shown. I don't see a need to re-open a failed format.

This is a video format. Save the space and BW for video, not audio. I'll bet that more people can enjoy the benefit of increasing video BW compared to audio BW. The latter is certainly a very small minority, as history have shown. I don't see a need to re-open a failed format.If you have enough for both, do you have a problem with putting lossles audio on there? Amir told us how much he pushed for lossless audio support on HD DVD back before the format specs were finalized, but now we haven't seen all that much of it and what we have seen is limited to 16/48 for just about everything (I can't think of an HD DVD movie in the US with lossless or uncompressed beyond 16/48).

--Darin

Check out this video from Wayde Robson...kinda scary.

http://www.gizmocafe.com/blogs/gizmo_cafe_blog/archive/2007/02/08/106130.aspx

Yet, many of the reviewers claim they hear a significant difference between LPCM on Blu-ray and lossless on HD DVD. And its no contest for them when they compare to DD+.

The reviewers also suggest a $1000 cable "sounds" much better than $20 cable.

Are you going to advocate buying them ?

Well, then that wouldn't be really lossless in the intended sense. The spirit of lossless is that you take the audio master and put it on the disc. There is an expectation of lossless from the source, not merely a wink-wink geek lossless.

So, what is the real source ? Is it lossless to the real source ?

I personally can't figure out how there can be a difference between LPCM and lossless. Yet, reviewers (and posters on here) are saying there is.

That is because they know before hand what they are listening to and that affects their perception. It is like the placebo. That is why DBT is important .... and the only real scientific test. As Darin keeps reminding us, this is AV Science website .... :D

Well, then that wouldn't be really lossless in the intended sense. The spirit of lossless is that you take the audio master and put it on the disc. There is an expectation of lossless from the source, not merely a wink-wink geek lossless.

Taking the master and performing a filter that compresses better under a lossless codec, is really a lossy stage. What's the point? The similar thing would be done with a lossy encoder with far more efficiency.

Gary

Well, the important distinction that must be made is that lossless encoding refers to... well... encoding.

If there is any real discernable difference (which I've yet to be convinced there is), then the right place to poke is at the folks handling the master, not at the codecs themselves.

It becomes an issue of master preperation "A", vs. master preperation "B", rather than TrueHD vs. LPCM.

Check out this video from Wayde Robson...kinda scary.

http://www.gizmocafe.com/blogs/gizmo_cafe_blog/archive/2007/02/08/106130.aspx


That's very interesting, and it supports one of the reasons that don't support BD.

When Sony bought MGM a lot of movie-collectors who saw what a lousy job the bid with Columbia's library knew we were in for it, and this has proven true as several (profitable) lines niche interest DVDs that MGM had started were unceremoniously dumped. The school of thought was, if this is how Sony treats us when they are trying to sell us something new, how are they going to be if they control the medium and it's content?

I just don't see them as fighting to lower prices, cater to low-volume titles, or even keep the quality and extras at an even if they have no competition, and they have a bad record on SD to shore those fears up.

It's a lot of eggs in one basket.

Sure, but where does efficiency fall. Is it not respectable? If a person can park their eyes and ears in front of a monitor and not be able o tell the difference between formats, why shouldn't there be some credit given to the design that did just as much with less?


Of course efficiency is not only respectable, but clearly preferable from a pragmatic standpoint. I was simply suggesting that people regularly justify, rationalize, and defend enormous expenditures far beyond a point of vanishingly diminished returns for a variety of reasons. In the case of BD vs. HD-DVD, I haven't yet discerned any real benefit from either the increased capacity offered by BD, or the considerable investment in new infrastructure necessitated by its' putative adoption as an HD media standard-bearer. This doesn't mean I cannot be convinced, but thus far reality is lagging far behind promises and claims of an obvious advantage.

Check out this video from Wayde Robson...kinda scary.

http://www.gizmocafe.com/blogs/gizmo_cafe_blog/archive/2007/02/08/106130.aspx

Thank you for posting this. I've transcribed a small excerpt.....

Do you think the consumer is a priority to the Blu-Ray disc association? Blu-Ray only won over 20th Century Fox by promising an extra layer of DRM encryption called BD+. They weren't even going to support managed copy until HP threatened to pull the plug. Oh and they still don't even suppport iHD, and why should they? Do you think if the Soviet Union were a disc format they'd bother to support iHD or managed copy?

If you have enough for both, do you have a problem with putting lossles audio on there? Amir told us how much he pushed for lossless audio support on HD DVD back before the format specs were finalized, but now we haven't seen all that much of it and what we have seen is limited to 16/48 for just about everything (I can't think of an HD DVD movie in the US with lossless or uncompressed beyond 16/48).

--Darin

What I know are:
1) video contains much much more information than audio - both spectrally (450-700 nm vs 20-20kHz) and spatially
2) human are more sensitive to visual info compared to audio - the optic nerve and the part of the brain to process video is much bigger than audio
3) most adult over 30 have problem hearing above 16kHz. I won't disbelieve someone who claim they hear higher but I won't believe that they can hear higher without proof.

What I am looking for in a video format is that an appropriate distribution of BW between video & audio. From the above 3 factoids, I prefer that 85-90% of the available BW be given to video. If BD/HD DVD had enough BW such that lossless audio use up only 10-15% of the BW, then I am OK with lossless. Unfortunately, we're don't have the BW with the two existing technology.

To me, any argument that people can make for higher BW for audio can be made for video. The argument is similar for lower BW. This is a video format and I don't want video compromised in favour of sound or extras. I want BD/HD DVD to use the maximum video bitrate possible to fit a disk, not the minimum bitrate that the studio can get by so that they cram more extras on. Personally, I am not too thrill at the idea of 12Mbps or even 16Mbps for video, no matter what the codec used. Video averaging 25-35Mbps would be my ideal.

Well, the important distinction that must be made is that lossless encoding refers to... well... encoding.

If there is any real discernable difference (which I've yet to be convinced there is), then the right place to poke is at the folks handling the master, not at the codecs themselves.

It becomes an issue of master preperation "A", vs. master preperation "B", rather than TrueHD vs. LPCM.

People complained the bobbed deinterlaced Warner titles weren't true 1080p. Why? They are stored as 1080p frames. And on BD they are 1080p encoded. But, it seemed people had no problem declaring distinctions then.

Also, HD DVD doesn't provide true 1080p encodings. Shall we get this technical about encodings, or is the nature of the actual data what matters?

The premise presented to explain perceived differences was that some TrueHD encodings might have been pre-filtered to make TrueHD compress better. And I was questioning whether that should be considered lossless in the sense people are expecting.

I don't believe that people could tell the difference between LPCM and a lossless encoding of the same LPCM played back with the same equipment.

Gary

I'll do ya one better, who really cares about hours of extras?

Behind the scenes footage of one nimrod acting in front of a green screen is interchangeable with any other as far as I'm concerned. I also don't much care for alternate and deleted scenes out of context, usually just think "I can see why that never made it in."

I'd rather watch two movies than watch one to death.

If BD/HD DVD had enough BW such that lossless audio use up only 10-15% of the BW, then I am OK with lossless. Unfortunately, we're don't have the BW with the two existing technology.Blu-ray has a max video rate of 40Mbps, while it has a max combined of 48Mbps. That 17% set aside fro things other than video is close to the range you mentioned. Unless space is the problem, there is at least 8Mbps for things like audio on Blu-ray before it affects the video bitrate available.

I should mention that the ease mentioned above is for a title with no seamless branching. With seamless branching it gets more complicated.
Video averaging 25-35Mbps would be my ideal.A 2 hour movie with an average of 32Mbps for video will take 28.8GB. A 2 hour and 20 minute movie 33.6GB. With a BD50, that leaves plenty of room for lossless audio (unless extras take up that space).

--Darin

Thank you for posting this. I've transcribed a small excerpt.....

Do you think the consumer is a priority to the Blu-Ray disc association? Blu-Ray only won over 20th Century Fox by promising an extra layer of DRM encryption called BD+. They weren't even going to support managed copy until HP threatened to pull the plug. Oh and they still don't even suppport iHD, and why should they? Do you think if the Soviet Union were a disc format they'd bother to support iHD or managed copy?


Can someone define "managed copy" to me?

Thank you for posting this. I've transcribed a small excerpt.....

Do you think the consumer is a priority to the Blu-Ray disc association? Blu-Ray only won over 20th Century Fox by promising an extra layer of DRM encryption called BD+. They weren't even going to support managed copy until HP threatened to pull the plug. Oh and they still don't even suppport iHD, and why should they? Do you think if the Soviet Union were a disc format they'd bother to support iHD or managed copy?Is he talking about Microsoft's HDi here? If so, he could make a similar complaint with, "Oh, and HD DVD still doesn't support BD-J." Why would he expect Blu-ray to support HDi?

--Darin

Can someone define "managed copy" to me?Well to give a brief description managed copy is the ability to make a secured copy of a HD disc onto a computer. You can than play that copy on the computer or stream it across a home network to play on another computer or possibly a future HD player. This capability is part of the final AACS specs and originally a few people used to mention mandatory managed copy. This meant that studios would have to provide this feature for every title they released. Haven't heard much on that for a while and the final AACS specs, which are supposed to allow for managed copy, keep getting delayed. To make a managed copy you connect to the internet, most likely pay a fee, and after providing some type of personal information (don't ask me what) your computer would than be able to make a managed copy.

Back in late 2005 rumors were spread around about how this would be an advantage for HD DVD since BD+ might get in the way of managed copy with Blu-ray but the BDA made the assurance that BD+ would not interfere with it in November of 2005. HP suddenly started supporting both managed copy and HDi in October of 2005. Just a guess but this sudden decision might, just might, have been caused by pressure from Microsoft. As I said recently to someone in another thread I think politics have been involved in both HD formats.


Why would he expect Blu-ray to support HDi?Now that is a good question and I notice that he never even mentioned BD-J or why he was against it. My guess is that he read some old press release from the HP incident back in October of 2005 and must have assumed that HP had a good reason for supporting HDi. In my opinion not a very good assumption to make and that would explain why he kept referring to HDi as iHD. For anyone curious that is because it is what HDi used to be called before September of 2006.

Quote:Richard Paul
Originally Posted by Timothy Ramzyk
Can someone define "managed copy" to me?
Well to give a brief description managed copy

Thanks, that was a highly digestible explenation.

IMO the only thing you get with more sophisticated protection is more sophisticated hacking.

My mantra; A well distributed, reasonably priced, and high quality product is the the most effective tool in fighting piracy there is.

Disney especially, never seems to understand this.

IMO the only thing you get with more sophisticated protection is more sophisticated hacking. My mantra; A well distributed, reasonably priced, and high quality product is the the most effective tool in fighting piracy there is. Disney especially, never seems to understand this.
It makes me wonder if the studios don't realize the utter futility of copy protection, but... can a lawyer out there tell us ... if they don't defend their copyright do they lose it? Is it all a dance?

Is he talking about Microsoft's HDi here? If so, he could make a similar complaint with, "Oh, and HD DVD still doesn't support BD-J." Why would he expect Blu-ray to support HDi?

--Darin

I'm not familiar with iHD either. I found this on google.

http://www.ihd.org/

It sounds similar to what Microsoft is doing for Xbox Live downloads.

It makes me wonder if the studios don't realize the utter futility of copy protection, but... can a lawyer out there tell us ... if they don't defend their copyright do they lose it? Is it all a dance?

This is what I've been told.

If they don't give the appearance of fighting piracy then the random lawsuits where they make an example of some offender won't hold up in court, and make it even harder to legally protect content from bigger fish. It's like being pulled over for doing 75mpr when most around you aren't driving any slower, and then they briefly slow down even though you've just tied up the cop.

Disney on the other hand I think does want to believe in all this hogwash, since resting on and profiting by their laurels has been their way of doing business since their theme-parks opened. They've always favored some sort of restricted rotation-plan with their popular titles, and that invites piracy.

It makes me wonder if the studios don't realize the utter futility of copy protection, but... can a lawyer out there tell us ... if they don't defend their copyright do they lose it? Is it all a dance?

I beleive so. But that doesn't mandate DRM in any fashion ... just like now, if anyone copies a song from CD and tries to use it elsewhere (plagiarism) - the original IP holders will definitely be able to get the courts to enforce copyright.

That's very interesting, and it supports one of the reasons that don't support BD.

When Sony bought MGM a lot of movie-collectors who saw what a lousy job the bid with Columbia's library knew we were in for it, and this has proven true as several (profitable) lines niche interest DVDs that MGM had started were unceremoniously dumped. The school of thought was, if this is how Sony treats us when they are trying to sell us something new, how are they going to be if they control the medium and it's content?

I just don't see them as fighting to lower prices, cater to low-volume titles, or even keep the quality and extras at an even if they have no competition, and they have a bad record on SD to shore those fears up.

It's a lot of eggs in one basket.


Most of the piece while somewhat accurate, was a tad slanted.

HD-DVD is Toshiba, period. They get the vast majority of patent revenue if it wins. Sony is the main backer of BD, but it does have other CE's which are involved in development so there will be competition on features and pricing.

Sony did buy CTS so they would have a leg up after the Beta defeat in future format wars. However when DVD came around they bowed to the superior tech (their's was based more on CD's while Toshiba's was new, more complicated, and could hold more info) and a format war was averted. They expected the same consideration this time around, but no such luck - this time they had more on their side so they decided to fight.

They did try to control MGM's catalog to gain even more advantage, but in the end I think Fox gained control - so if you like Fox's releases, you should be fine.


While it is worriesome to have one company involved in the movies, the electronics, and the discs they aren't the only company involved in any of them. Suddenly dropping the Soviet Union bomb is only a small step away from the usual copout argument of comparing someone or something to the Nazi's, ie "you know who else made people wear flair? The NAZIS!!"

The oligopolistic arguments presented against Sony have also been used in this war against MS - iHD, AACS, VC-1, MC (or MMC maybe) and now big time promoter. But like the arguments against Sony, they are facetious at best and demeaning at worst.

This is HD, not the evening news. If the system is too oppressive, it will be ignored by the consumer until it changes or a new one comes along.

It makes me wonder if the studios don't realize the utter futility of copy protection, but... can a lawyer out there tell us ... if they don't defend their copyright do they lose it? Is it all a dance?

Good question. I think simply claiming it prominantly is sufficient to protect the copyright legally. It's not like a trademark where you must defend it or risk losing it.

Given $500 BD burners, $400 1 TB HDD, high speed internet, and a the MP3 history, what do you think would happen if it was easy to transfer the content of HD discs and playback without a disc player? (Consider what affect purchasing those burners, media, and HDD would have on the prices).

Managed copy (and the pre-encoded variants) seems to the appropriate ease of transfer that the consumer needs, while maintaining a difficulty level that doesn't leave the discs open to rampant theft.

Gary

No. The original statement to which this was the answer is ...

Clearly wrong, as proven by the above numbers.

My argument a tad out of date, but possibly he meant rate of purchase?

To January 28:
PS3: 594134 (Since Nov 2006)
X360: 306379 (Since Nov 2005)


Gives ~200,000 a month for PS3 and ~20,000 a month for X360.

My argument a tad out of date, but possibly he meant rate of purchase?

Not sure why you are argueing for him ... if that is what he meant, he should have written that. You can't write something totally different from what you mean ....

My point is that the difference is insignificant, and therefore trivial.

It may even be indistingioushable, and therefore irrelevent.

But for me, and I would submit the vast majority of people, it is not a substantial difference, and so it is not an important difference.

Skogan, let's assume in many movies and many people there is no difference, let's even assume that most of the remaining have trivial differences. That still does not answer the question of why are you and others fighting against it. The question is why make the argument that if a studio wants to offer something that is no worst (can only be better)they should not be able to.

I'm just not THAT convinced that someone can hear the difference between a well-sourced DD+ soundtrack and the Dolby True HD.

Anyway, ask a Lord of the Rings junky if they'd rather have a Dolby True HD soundtrack or an HD documentary on the fitting of those hairy feet, you know what most people would go for
Snickering Hound : then why not a foormat that can do both?

Can someone define "managed copy" to me?

managed copy is a business transaction where you get permission from the studio to copy the contents of your disk to an other media.

In essence your player contacts a central server, tells it what you want to do (i.e. copy the contents to MS DRM in media centre) then you pay for that privilege (what ever they decide to charge) and your player allows the copy to happen. IT companies wanted it in AACS so they can sell large HDD based media servers.

What I am looking for in a video format is that an appropriate distribution of BW between video & audio. From the above 3 factoids, I prefer that 85-90% of the available BW be given to video. If BD/HD DVD had enough BW such that lossless audio use up only 10-15% of the BW, then I am OK with lossless. Unfortunately, we're don't have the BW with the two existing technology.
eecubed:
even though I agree in principle (give more BW to video and stop this BS that it is good enough and you should pay less attention to artifacts). I don't understand your % position

HD DVD has max of 30mbps BD has 48mbps even if you assume the 30 is 27V/3A, you can end up (on a BD) with 27V/21A, the 27V in HD DVD and BD is the same, now if on the BD it is 40V/8A, then even though the BD has a lower% for Video (83% vs 90%) it still has much higher BW for video then the HD DVD example.

Is he talking about Microsoft's HDi here? If so, he could make a similar complaint with, "Oh, and HD DVD still doesn't support BD-J." Why would he expect Blu-ray to support HDi?

didn't you notice everything else in that report was pure HD DVD BS?

Even though the BDA (BFG at the time) was formed before Toshiba even started working on HD DVD let alone even bring it in front of the DVD forum, he blames BD for bringing in an alternate format. Even though the BDA has always maintained MC is part of BD because it is part of AACS, he maintains it was not there.........

didn't you notice everything else in that report was pure HD DVD BS?

Even though the BDA (BFG at the time) was formed before Toshiba even started working on HD DVD let alone even bring it in front of the DVD forum, he blames BD for bringing in an alternate format.

Does it matter if the BDA was formed first or not, the bottom line is the DVD Forum approved HD DVD as the standard for High Def yet the BDA decided to go ahead and release an alternate format anyway.

So much for these same companies belonging to this organization designed upon agreeing on set standards so we don’t have these types of format wars.

Does it matter if the BDA was formed first or not, the bottom line is the DVD Forum approved HD DVD as the standard for High Def yet the BDA decided to go ahead and release an alternate format anyway.

So much for these same companies belonging to this organization designed upon agreeing on set standards so we don’t have these types of format wars.

The BDA went ahead with their own format because the DVD forum wanted ridiculous royalties for nothing, so the BDA, rightly, told them where they could go.

Even though the BDA (BFG at the time) was formed before Toshiba even started working on HD DVD
Care to attribute a year to the BDA/BFG's formation?

So much for these same companies belonging to this organization designed upon agreeing on set standards so we don’t have these types of format wars.This commonly happens when a new technology is developed and/or a group of companies develop a different vision of future. If this didn't happen, we wouldn't have many of the technological advances we do.

The BDA went ahead with their own format because the DVD forum wanted ridiculous royalties for nothing, so the BDA, rightly, told them where they could go.

I haven't read or heard that scenario, could you link to that information?

Never mind Anthony; found it, 2002.
About the Blu-ray Disc Founders: The Blu-ray Disc Founders was formed in May 2002 to pursue broad acceptance of the Blu-ray Disc formats
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/Section-14029/Section-14033/Section-14038/Article-14844.html

And here's a press release from 1997 talking about Toshiba working on a blue laser HD DVD playback system.
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/1997_02/pr2401.htm

My point wasn’t to quibble with your overall assertion, but to point out that HD DVD wasn’t something Toshiba cooked up yesterday on a whim.

I haven't read or heard that scenario, could you link to that information?

This is going to take some looking as it is old info, check back in a day and I should have something for you.

Care to attribute a year to the BDA/BFG's formation?Looks like BDF became public knowledge around February 2002. BDA started around May 2004 for accepting additional members. My first meeting was October 2004...

This commonly happens when a new technology is developed and/or a group of companies develop a different vision of future. If this didn't happen, we wouldn't have many of the technological advances we do.

I think its a load of crap to belong to an organazation who's sole purpose is to agree upon set technology standards so that exactly this type of format war does not happen to the consumers.

Futhermore for these companies that did decide to go there own way, I dont think they should be allowed to remain as members in the DVD Forum since they decided to go against them.

Either follow what they agree upon or go there own way. To do both is just slowing the progress of companies that actually follow what they agree upon.

Otherwise we might as well have Microsoft and Toshiba chairing the BDA

The BDA went ahead with their own format because the DVD forum wanted ridiculous royalties for nothing, so the BDA, rightly, told them where they could go.

Oh yea, what royaties were they?

DVD Forum was just for DVD.

Did they sign some agreement saying they would abide by the DVD Forum for the next optical format?

Anyways, every member of that forum other than Toshiba and Warners were getting a raw deal, royalties-wise. That is why Toshiba and Warners wanted to extend the arrangement and rejected the overtures of Sony and Matsushita.

Expecting these other companies to accept their little share of the pie is like expecting Alfonso Soriano to stay with the Nationals for his old contract instead of signing the much bigger contracts offered by several teams in free agency.

Oh yea, what royaties were they?

For the DVD name and the rights associated, I would imagine.

How are the votes in the DVD Forum structured anyways? Does Toshiba and Warner have veto power or something? It appears that a good majority of the Steering Committee companies are BDA... so I'm curious why they didn't force the issue in DVD Forum instead of abstaining on the HD DVD votes. If it was simple majority vote, then BDA could have stopped DVD Forum from ever pursuing HD DVD from the inside, if not forced adoption of BD *as* the hi def format of choice over AOD...

They did try to control MGM's catalog to gain even more advantage, but in the end I think Fox gained control - so if you like Fox's releases, you should be fine.



Fox yoinked it out of their hands when they started showing they didn't know what they were doing. Fox is a little better with tried and true classics but on the whole also has an aversion to catalog titles, particularly exploitation and drive-in and B-movie fare, which comprised a lot of MGM's Orion holdings. The titles actually aren't originally MGM productions, they were originally United Artists, Belair, and American International Pictures films and a great deal of classic foreign-language imports.

Ironically the majority of MGM's actual productions (and RKO) are in the safe and reliable hands or Warner Brother's, and Universal now owns the bulk of Paramounts pre-70's titles.

Fox yoinked it out of their hands when they started showing they didn't know what they were doing. Fox is a little better with tried and true classics but on the whole also has an aversion to catalog titles, particularly exploitation and drive-in and B-movie fare, which comprised a lot of MGM's Orion holdings. The titles actually aren't originally MGM productions, they were originally United Artists, Belair, and American International Pictures films and a great deal of classic foreign-language imports.

Ironically the majority of MGM's actual productions (and RKO) are in the safe and reliable hands or Warner Brother's, and Universal now owns the bulk of Paramounts pre-70's titles.

There is this new thread in the Blu-ray forum.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=803282

Fox delaying/cancelling Titles

Hmm got some interesting news from my distributor. Apparently these upcoming Blu-Ray titles are on Moratorium aka. Delayed/Cancelled. So i wouldn't expect these to show up on time.

Commando
Dodgeball
Ice Age
Tristan & Isolde
Dude, Where's my Car?
The Fly
Turistas

I'm not sure what to make of all this but they are all Fox titles. Don't know if they are having problems, or if they just want to delay some titles.

Is this part of the same thing?

Damn, I was looking forward to Commando, too... Other than Ice Age, I don't really care about the rest, though.

I think its a load of crap to belong to an organazation who's sole purpose is to agree upon set technology standards so that exactly this type of format war does not happen to the consumers.Jeez, Tom, when are you going to get over this grudge you have against the BDA? The DVD Forum was created to establish DVD standards. Blu-ray is not DVD. Complaining that most of the industry formed a new body outside of the DVD Forum to standardize a new technology would be like complaining that Toshiba and friends formed the DVD Forum rather than standardizing on Sony's CD-based vision of optical media video.

The only load of crap is that one CE company (Toshiba), one studio (Universal), and one IT company (Microsoft) are standing in the way of the clear market success for the format which the overwhelming majority of their industry peers support. If/when any one of those companies backs off exclusive support HD DVD will be dead, as it long ago deserved to be.

I think its a load of crap to belong to an organazation who's sole purpose is to agree upon set technology standards so that exactly this type of format war does not happen to the consumers.You are basically saying that once a standards organization has been set up for one video format it should be able to make new video formats without competition. No offense but that doesn't sound like a good idea to me.


Futhermore for these companies that did decide to go there own way, I dont think they should be allowed to remain as members in the DVD Forum since they decided to go against them.So your saying that the companies that support Blu-ray should have no say on any matter concerning the DVD format even if they helped make it?

Jeez, Tom, when are you going to get over this grudge you have against the BDA? The DVD Forum was created to establish DVD standards. Blu-ray is not DVD. Complaining that most of the industry formed a new body outside of the DVD Forum to standardize a new technology would be like complaining that Toshiba and friends formed the DVD Forum rather than standardizing on Sony's CD-based vision of optical media video.

The only load of crap is that one CE company (Toshiba), one studio (Universal), and one IT company (Microsoft) are standing in the way of the clear market success for the format which the overwhelming majority of their industry peers support. If/when any one of those companies backs off exclusive support HD DVD will be dead, as it long ago deserved to be.

The DVD Forum as a whole decided for and moved forward with pursuing a standard for a high def format otherwise there would not have been a vote at all, but I'm sure you’re aware of that already.

Just because some companies want to be dishonorable and belong to an organization that agrees upon standards but not actually follow those same standards is enough reason for me to hold a grudge.

And to have a professional from Sun Microsystems sit here and try to imply to the public that only Microsoft, Toshiba and Universal are the only ones that approved the standard is really not the truth now is it?

I would much rather see companies like yours attempt to do the honorable thing and either back the format that the DVD Forum actually approved (and yes no matter what you say HD DVD was approved by the DVD Forum) and still supports it or leave the organization to follow a different format such as Blu-ray that was NOT approved by the DVD Forum.

For the DVD name and the rights associated, I would imagine.

Imagine, so you dont really know eh?

You are basically saying that once a standards organization has been set up for one video format it should be able to make new video formats without competition. No offense but that doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

So your saying that the companies that support Blu-ray should have no say on any matter concerning the DVD format even if they helped make it?

Umm the DVD Forum didnt just pop up and say HD DVD wins, they decided to look for a high def format and voted on it. Members had the choice to take a stance before a standard was set for a vote but instead they chose just not to follow the approved vote because it wasnt the one they backed.

And yes if you belong to an organazation you are exepected to actually follow what is agreed upon by its fellow members otherwise there is no reason for them to be there.

Then why are you rewarding their bad behavior by buying Blu-Ray products?

Anyways, they have a big vested interest in DVD since it's still a bigger revenue source than either of the hidef formats.

Then why are you rewarding their bad behavior by buying Blu-Ray products?

Anyways, they have a big vested interest in DVD since it's still a bigger revenue source than either of the hidef formats.

Yes as a consumer, I own a BR player. I'm also in the military, that doesnt give me the right to pick which rules in the military I get to follow. If I decide there is something I dont like in it I am still duty bound to follow all there rules or get out at the end of my contractual obligation.

Regardless of anything they have vested in DVD does that give them the right to pick which standards in the same organazation they get to follow and which ones to go against?

...The only load of crap is that one CE company (Toshiba), one studio (Universal), and one IT company (Microsoft) are standing in the way of the clear market success for the format which the overwhelming majority of their industry peers support. If/when any one of those companies backs off exclusive support HD DVD will be dead, as it long ago deserved to be.

When are you ever going to get over the grudge you have against legitimate competition in the marketplace?

You sound very bitter today.

Other people obviously differ in their assessment of the situation.

I think you rant deserves an apology. Sir, insider status or not.

Skogan, let's assume in many movies and many people there is no difference, let's even assume that most of the remaining have trivial differences. That still does not answer the question of why are you and others fighting against it. The question is why make the argument that if a studio wants to offer something that is no worst (can only be better)they should not be able to.

No one is attempting to dictate studio choices. The problem, is oft-repeated marketing and anecdotal claims of superiority, which by definition would be false for the overwhelming majority of individuals in the scenario you just delineated. If a feature offers no real-world benefit, its' inclusion is irrelevant.

The only load of crap is that one CE company (Toshiba), one studio (Universal), and one IT company (Microsoft) are standing in the way of the clear market success for the format which the overwhelming majority of their industry peers support.

You sound like a bitter kid whose toys were taken away.

Welcome to competition ... the world is not made so that CE companies & studios can screw customers however they want. I know you guys at BD don't think much of consumers and think it is your birth right to impose your format ...

If/when any one of those companies backs off exclusive support HD DVD will be dead, as it long ago deserved to be.

Then you can get back to screwing customers with sub-par PQ movies and call that beyond HD :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Talkstr8t

...The only load of crap is that one CE company (Toshiba), one studio (Universal), and one IT company (Microsoft) are standing in the way of the clear market success for the format which the overwhelming majority of their industry peers support. If/when any one of those companies backs off exclusive support HD DVD will be dead, as it long ago deserved to be. Obviously those companies are willing to compete in the marketplace and have a different assessment that you on how deep that true level of support is in the marketplace is from normally competitive companies.

I notice I don't see see a lot of CE companies taking great financial risks in subsidizing their Blu-ray players to gain market penetration, It seems that a lot of them are letting Sony take all the risk with the PS3. A lot of Blu-ray studio support seems luke warm also.

Although Toshiba, Universal, Microsoft and Intel are fewer in numbers than the BDA membership slide, they seem to be producing more standalone players and movies being sold than all of the other BDA members except Sony combined.

Level of commitment can be more significant than a token level of support.

Jeez, Tom, when are you going to get over this grudge you have against the BDA? The DVD Forum was created to establish DVD standards. Blu-ray is not DVD. Complaining that most of the industry formed a new body outside of the DVD Forum to standardize a new technology would be like complaining that Toshiba and friends formed the DVD Forum rather than standardizing on Sony's CD-based vision of optical media video.

The only load of crap is that one CE company (Toshiba), one studio (Universal), and one IT company (Microsoft) are standing in the way of the clear market success for the format which the overwhelming majority of their industry peers support. If/when any one of those companies backs off exclusive support HD DVD will be dead, as it long ago deserved to be.

Isn't the consumer the deciding factor? Oh, that's right, you're a BD insider. You'll tell the consumer what to like. After all, who's heard of this kind of nonsense....the consumer deciding what standard will succeed in the marketplace?

It's interesting that the consumer isn't falling lock step in line with your marketing program. Could they be getting wise to the regular Pravda like declarations of victory? Perish the thought....

The only load of crap is that one CE company (Toshiba), one studio (Universal), and one IT company (Microsoft) are standing in the way of the clear market success for the format which the overwhelming majority of their industry peers support. If/when any one of those companies backs off exclusive support HD DVD will be dead, as it long ago deserved to be.

So are you saying that HD DVD has put no QC pressure on the BR companies due to their clearly better launch?

I'm format neutral, so really if BR wins tomorrow, I will still give HD DVD credit for pushing BR to step up on all fronts. I'm sure you've read paidgeek's comments about Sony now being more selective and careful about what they put on BR so it looks great. Had HD DVD not existed, HoFD and TFE would be perfectly fine as would the Samsung player and no one would complain about BD-J because it wouldn't have anything to measure upto.

The same can be said of BR. Because it is the majority leader, HD DVD had to make sure their execution out of the gate was a home run with the early adopters and clearly it was. Going forward, it's anyone's guess but for you to sit there with yet another pompous comment, it gets a bit old Bill. And really, how long do you plan to sit behind your "anonymous" status so you can keep acting like this?

I like your "standing in the way of clear success" comment. Do everyone a favor and tell Sun to close up whatever server shop they have left. I mean really, why should companies compete? Maybe pass that email onto apple also!

Futhermore for these companies that did decide to go there own way, I dont think they should be allowed to remain as members in the DVD Forum since they decided to go against them.

Either follow what they agree upon or go there own way. To do both is just slowing the progress of companies that actually follow what they agree upon.

This is indeed an interesting POV. BTW, they (sony/Phillips) did this before with SACD.

May be these formats should be done at ISO rather than a private committee.

The DVD Forum as a whole decided for and moved forward with pursuing a standard for a high def format otherwise there would not have been a vote at all, but I'm sure you’re aware of that already.A standard. Not the standard.
I would much rather see companies like yours attempt to do the honorable thing and either back the format that the DVD Forum actually approved (and yes no matter what you say HD DVD was approved by the DVD Forum) and still supports it or leave the organization to follow a different format such as Blu-ray that was NOT approved by the DVD Forum.So companies who have legitimate intellectual property in DVD, the format which the DVD Forum was created for, should now leave (and lose any control over their own IP) just because the DVD Forum decided to standardize a separate format? No, that's absurd. The DVD Forum should have created a separate group for the new format, or they should live with the consequences of having rivals in the existing organization. And given that most of the BDA companies simply abstain from HD DVD votes, they are doing the honorable thing. Toshiba and other HD DVD backers knew exactly what the governance situation would be when they chose to standardize HD DVD within the DVD Forum in spite of knowing that most of the companies back a rival format.

When are you ever going to get over the grudge you have against legitimate competition in the marketplace?I have no problem with competition. But at this point I think most of the benefits of competition between the formats have been achieved (more features, better PQ, etc.) and the consumer is only being harmed by the ongoing war given that it is greatly slowing overall adoption of high-def optical media. There is more than enough competition within the BDA to ensure ongoing price, feature, and quality improvement. No one (except Microsoft) will benefit if both formats die due to lack of consumer adoption...

Do you disagree?

So are you saying that HD DVD has put no QC pressure on the BR companies due to their clearly better launch?They absolutely did, as did Blu-ray on HD DVD, and both formats are better as a result. But as I just posted these benefits are mostly "used up" given that both formats specifications are set. If either format succeeds there will be sufficient competition to ensure ongoing player and content improvement, but the two formats battling each other only slows consumer adoption and makes both more likely to fail. Since Blu-ray is stronger by almost every measure (with the exception of price, which is more a reflection of market strategy than underlying costs) an enthusiast primarily interested in having high definition content available to them should be pushing for the stronger format to prevail (survival of the fittest). Would you rather have one format or no formats? That may well be the choice at hand.

I have no problem with competition. But at this point I think most of the benefits of competition between the formats have been achieved (more features, better PQ, etc.) and the consumer is only being harmed by the ongoing war given that it is greatly slowing overall adoption of high-def optical media. There is more than enough competition within the BDA to ensure ongoing price, feature, and quality improvement. No one (except Microsoft) will benefit if both formats die due to lack of consumer adoption...

Do you disagree?

So previously you supported competition, but now you feel it's no longer good for the consumer?

I don't dispute that the initial format competition has certainly helped both to produce better products,, but I think further competition between the two formats is likely to result in little improvement in either format and only increases the likelihood that they both fail.

So previously you supported competition, but now you feel it's no longer good for the consumer?


The reason BD supporters feel the time has come for victory, is because time is BDs biggest enemy. A quick-kill to HD-DVD now, while both formats are insignificant is their greatest hope, otherwise they're looking at HD-DVD player prices hitting the tipping point well before BD can.

This is HD-DVDs biggest advantage. That's why Sony is chucking everything they can at promotion, they don't want to see that day come, but it will.

I'm not even worried about studio alliances, if there are enough HD-DVD players in peoples houses, you just watch them shift.

TALK said: I have no problem with competition. But at this point I think most of the benefits of competition between the formats have been achieved (more features, better PQ, etc


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!! are you in insane? Who in the world are YOU to claim such a thing? I'm at work and I laughed out loud when I read that.....in fact I'm still laughing. So you think where the formats are at now is pretty much it huh? Well thats kinda depressing don't you think?
Here....why don't I try.....I thinnnnnnkkkkkkk.....T.V.s are pretty much not going to get any better either so everyone but sony should stop making them cause they are not going to get any better.....ololololololololoo......my stomach hurts......

This is indeed an interesting POV. BTW, they (sony/Phillips) did this before with SACD.

May be these formats should be done at ISO rather than a private committee.


Or better yet, why don't we have the government dictate what formats the public will get? Or how about only Harvard alumni? Or maybe a random hermit living in Northern Montana?

Heaven forbid the marketplace decide these things! How dare companies want to make money by creating something new. Maybe we can take money out of it entirely and have a committee dictate what movies will be made, what type of players and formats, and who is allowed to watch what and how!

I have no problem with competition. But at this point I think most of the benefits of competition between the formats have been achieved (more features, better PQ, etc.) and the consumer is only being harmed by the ongoing war given that it is greatly slowing overall adoption of high-def optical media. There is more than enough competition within the BDA to ensure ongoing price, feature, and quality improvement. No one (except Microsoft) will benefit if both formats die due to lack of consumer adoption...

Do you disagree? Gee at this point, I don't know.

I may now think that "no one (except Sony and Sun) will suffer if Blu-ray dies since at this point I see HD DVD doing everything Blu-ray can or will do for years at a lower consumer cost.

I see HD DVD consistently getting better and player and disc prices going down.

I see Blu-ray getting better and standalone player a disc prices remaining high, with the vast majority of adoption being tied to a game console.

I see both formats disc volumes still low and presumptions of victory sounding hollow.

For all the declarations of victory by the BDA, I see HD DVD backers making more and more money and not giving any signs of giving up soon. I see real prices dropping for real consumers now. I see HD DVD delivering real value to consumers now. i see interactivity on titles now. I see prices dropping to $299 and even $199 much sooner for HD DVD than Blu-ray. But I also see Sony not giving up.

I think both formats will survive. I want Blu-ray to get better, and I am glad that you are working hard to make that happen. But I think HD DVD has now done enough to survive and prosper.

Now I actually think you do too, and that just irritates you to no end because the economics of Blu-ray don't work unless its a dominant monopoly product.

I own a HD DVD and I know I will own a Blu-ray or combo player in the future so I want both formats to be the best they can be.

I don't dispute that the initial format competition has certainly helped both to produce better products,, but I think further competition between the two formats is likely to result in little improvement in either format and only increases the likelihood that they both fail.

Interesting mindset.

Since BD is the superior technology it should welcome all competition with open arms, with the express purpose of crushing said competition in the months and years to follow. You should be inviting competion at every turn. Without competion Sony wouldn't be giving The Fifth Element the gold glove re-release treatment and you know that.

Frankly as long as BD exclusive studios have to fake PIP*, the HD DVD group has nothing to worry about.

* By the way, I think the fake PIP on The Descent is some ingenious outside-the-box thinking.

They absolutely did, as did Blu-ray on HD DVD, and both formats are better as a result. But as I just posted these benefits are mostly "used up" given that both formats specifications are set. If either format succeeds there will be sufficient competition to ensure ongoing player and content improvement, but the two formats battling each other only slows consumer adoption and makes both more likely to fail. Since Blu-ray is stronger by almost every measure (with the exception of price, which is more a reflection of market strategy than underlying costs) an enthusiast primarily interested in having high definition content available to them should be pushing for the stronger format to prevail (survival of the fittest). Would you rather have one format or no formats? That may well be the choice at hand. Your assumption about underlying costs may not be valid.

There indeed might be inherent cost advantages to HD DVD players design, and replication because of the closer similarity to DVD that HD DVD possesses. If the extra capacity and bandwidth of Blu-ray is not needed for excellent PQ and AQ or won't be taken advantage of for years then HD DVD may be the more elegant engineering solution for the task at hand.

...If/when any one of those companies backs off exclusive support HD DVD will be dead, as it long ago deserved to be.Would you rather have one format or no formats? That may well be the choice at hand Now your sounding like Glenn Close attacking Micheal Douglas near the end of "Fatal Attraction" , saying if I can't have you noone will.

There is every chance that HD DVD will now survive, even if (and I don't think this will happen BTW) the PS3 sales implode and Blu-ray becomes a niche PS3 format. In that case, the cheaper more favorable mass adoption economics of HD DVD may allow it to become the dominant format.

Its just too early to tell.

It seems to be pretty damn arrogant to say if Blu-ray dies then both formats will.

What was that George Orwell analogy again?

ohh yahhh.....nevermind ;) I guess we shouldn't go there.....

Just because some companies want to be dishonorable and belong to an organization that agrees upon standards but not actually follow those same standards is enough reason for me to hold a grudge.Ridiculous, sorry but that really is ridiculous. Your saying that because many of the CE companies didn't want to support HD DVD they should have left the DVD Forum? That they are "dishonorable" for not going along with the companies that were for HD DVD? No offense but I don't think that is very logical and I certainly don't see how anyone could claim that all companies should be bound to all decisions made by an organization.


Umm the DVD Forum didnt just pop up and say HD DVD wins, they decided to look for a high def format and voted on it. Members had the choice to take a stance before a standard was set for a vote but instead they chose just not to follow the approved vote because it wasnt the one they backed.And that is wrong how? No one on the DVD Forum has to support all of the standards voted on by the DVD Forum and in fact that would be illegal if it was required. No offense but you seem to be arguing against a free market.


And yes if you belong to an organazation you are exepected to actually follow what is agreed upon by its fellow members otherwise there is no reason for them to be there.No, not really. In fact what you are arguing for is illegal and would be a danger to the free market. For instance should all the companies that supported the development of MPEG-4 AVC be unable to compete with it? If so you might want to tell Microsoft how "dishonorable" they are for developing VC-1.


Welcome to competition ... the world is not made so that CE companies & studios can screw customers however they want. I know you guys at BD don't think much of consumers and think it is your birth right to impose your format ...Yeah, because Microsoft really gave us a choice of a Blu-ray drive with the Xbox 360 didn't they? Come on nataraj if Microsoft had managed to get HDi in Blu-ray they probably would have sat this format war out.


Isn't the consumer the deciding factor?Certainly, and I remember how some HD DVD supporters used to say that movie sales would determine the winner in this format war. Surprising how a good number of them stopped saying that once Blu-ray movie sales surpassed HD DVD movie sales.

Would you rather have one format or no formats? That may well be the choice at hand Now your sounding like Glenn Close attacking Micheal Douglas near the end of "Fatal Attraction" , saying if I can't have you noone will.

There is every chance that HD DVD will now survive, even if (and I don't think this will happen BTW) the PS3 sales implode and Blu-ray becomes a niche PS3 format. In that case, the cheaper more favorable mass adoption economics of HD DVD may allow it to become the dominant format.

Its just too early to tell.

It seems to be pretty damn arrogant to say if Blu-ray dies then both formats will.

http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/criswell.jpg Criswell Predicts,

" would you rather have one or none" scenario turns out to be a silly scare-tactic.

The consumer will probably respond well to machines that play it all, and probably still call them all DVDs players for that matter. H-DVD, Blu-ray DVD, and regular DVD. people won't care, they will buy all three, and not even notice if one falls away as long as the price is right.

Both formats continue to improve.

Small independent labels, porn, and studio catalog titles will enter on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD will be the "blockbuster" high-volume format.

Everyone too hungry for a definitive "winner" probably feel a bit sour until the revelation that their needs have actually been met sinks in.

Let's watch.

They absolutely did, as did Blu-ray on HD DVD, and both formats are better as a result. But as I just posted these benefits are mostly "used up" given that both formats specifications are set. If either format succeeds there will be sufficient competition to ensure ongoing player and content improvement, but the two formats battling each other only slows consumer adoption and makes both more likely to fail. Since Blu-ray is stronger by almost every measure (with the exception of price, which is more a reflection of market strategy than underlying costs) an enthusiast primarily interested in having high definition content available to them should be pushing for the stronger format to prevail (survival of the fittest). Would you rather have one format or no formats? That may well be the choice at hand.

Oh I still think there's quite a ways to go actually. Mainly on the interactivity. Come on Bill. You should be salivating at the mouth to show us that the BDA picked Java over HDi for a damn good reason. What better way to validate that then to show up HDi after all the talk Amir has done? Don't you want to show the AVS members who have followed this war for years just how much better than HDi, Java really is?

Personally, if this war goes on throughout this year, it'll end with dual format players being the norm. Then the studios simply decide, based on the importance of the title, which media and roylaties are cheaper for them to produce in. I don't see anything wrong with that either.

Originally Posted by Talkstr8t
The only load of crap is that one CE company (Toshiba), one studio (Universal), and one IT company (Microsoft) are standing in the way of the clear market success for the format which the overwhelming majority of their industry peers support. If/when any one of those companies backs off exclusive support HD DVD will be dead, as it long ago deserved to be. I notice that consumer choice isn't part of the success equation in your eyes.

Welcome to the free market where lower price, demonstrated performance and a higher perceived price/performance ratio against a competitors product are part of the equation for success.

So in one thread you point out the low sales volumes of both formats and say neither can be considered a success. But here you claim HD DVD has been a success. Interesting...

http://members.aol.com/dhtreptow/criswell.jpg Criswell Predicts,

" would you rather have one or none" scenario turns out to be a silly scare-tactic.

The consumer will probably respond well to machines that play it all, and probably still call them all DVDs players for that matter. H-DVD, Blu-ray DVD, and regular DVD. people won't care, they will buy all three, and not even notice if one falls away as long as the price is right.

Both formats continue to improve.

Small independent labels, porn, and studio catalog titles will enter on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD will be the "blockbuster" high-volume format.

Everyone too hungry for a definitive "winner" probably feel a bit sour until the revelation that their needs have actually been met sinks in.

Let's watch.
Yes, lets watch as the porn studios can't sell their content to the millions of PS3 owners, and the movie studios can't sell their content to the owners of 360 add-ons. And as time goes by, with more consoles being sold, the relevance of universal players becomes increasingly diminished.

So in one thread you point out the low sales volumes of both formats and say neither can be considered a success. But here you claim HD DVD has been a success. Interesting... I didn't say that HD DVD has not been a success so far, or for that matter Blu-ray, even though HD DVD has clearly exceeded some expectations and has a lot of loyal followers.

IIRC. I didn't comment on either formats eventual or current success in those threads , but I did say that its too early to declare the format war over because of the low sales volume.

Blu-ray backers have been the only ones doing that for the most part, certainly there are no official HD DVD spokesmen saying that. the same cannot be true for the BDA or for Sony or Fox who declare the war over every few weeks or so.

Hi

Interesting conversation – thanks for the input about the video blog post. I learn a lot from the conversations you guys have on this board. I don’t claim to have the definitive word. I certainly don’t claim to be fair and balanced. A blog is about one guy’s opinion. I call the rants “tunnel vision” in an effort to be somewhat self-deprecating. Hey, I’m still only learning, if you’ve learned more, please teach. That’s why I am here on AVSforum.

Darrin - Thanks for the heads up about iHD/HDi. I read about it on Wikipedia and cried when I heard myself still using iHD, oh well.

My main (only) point is that I am distrustful of Sony controlling so many pieces of my entertainment pie. I want my hardware manufacturer to find clever ways to piss off the content provider and push the AACS envelope. Think TiVo! Think old Sony (Sony vs Universal Studios) I don’t want them all on the same paycheque. The truth is I don’t know what the ramifications are going to be.

Skogan, let's assume in many movies and many people there is no difference, let's even assume that most of the remaining have trivial differences. That still does not answer the question of why are you and others fighting against it. The question is why make the argument that if a studio wants to offer something that is no worst (can only be better)they should not be able to.

Once you get past that fact that there in no discernable PQ or AQ difference between the two formats, you have to look at the other factors. Which factors one finds important varies from person to person. But price is one most people care about, and depending on how you do your apples to apples comparison, HD DVD is probably at least 25% cheaper than BD. Interactivity is something that only marginally matters to me, but it looks like HD DVD's method is easier to execute. Finally, while I have nothing against Sony, and own a lot of Sony products, I personally like MS and like their products.

I personally like MS and like their products.
:D Do you heartily endorse their product/service?

My main (only) point is that I am distrustful of Sony controlling so many pieces of my entertainment pie. I want my hardware manufacturer to find clever ways to piss off the content provider and push the AACS envelope. Think TiVo! Think old Sony (Sony vs Universal Studios) I don’t want them all on the same paycheque. The truth is I don’t know what the ramifications are going to be.
If you have reservations about Sony owning a stake in each step of the movie food-chain how do you think the CEs and Studios feel about the situation? And yet they've almost unanimously decided to go with BD anyway, which should tell you something about the way they foresee events playing out.

Personally I'm no great fan of companies branching out into other sectors, as they invariably leverage their pre-existing advantage to stifle the (often times better) competition in the new area. I'm thinking of MS, Sony, BBC, and others while typing. Unfortunately we have to live with reality instead of the fantasy world I've created inside my head: Jessica Alba probably prefers it this way...

Sony's Tretton: "If You Can Find a PS3... I'll Give You 1,200 Bucks For it" (http://www.dailytech.com/Sonys+Tretton+If+You+Can+Find+a+PS3+Ill+Give+You+1200+Bucks+ Gor+it/article6050c.htm)

When questioned on why PS3s were sitting on store shelves instead of on entertainment center shelves, Tretton responded with "If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than a few minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." He continues, "I can get any retail buyer on the phone with you and get them to verify that not a single retail location in America where there's a PlayStation 3 on the shelf for sale. They've all been sold in a matter of minutes."
http://home.woh.rr.com/apgminime/bagdad_bob_large.jpg

Baghdad Jack Tretton.

Sony's Tretton: "If You Can Find a PS3... I'll Give You 1,200 Bucks For it" (http://www.dailytech.com/Sonys+Tretton+If+You+Can+Find+a+PS3+Ill+Give+You+1200+Bucks+ Gor+it/article6050c.htm)

Baghdad Jack Tretton.

Heck, who needs Ebay or the lottery, with this opportunity to make $1200 a pop? I see a cottage industry in the making here.

Another cottage industry will be for a third party to buy poor selling PS3s and rebuild them as real standalone players with real remotes. A new plastic case ought to do the job.

Or Apple can buy Sony's PS3 division and design a new line of cherry, blueberry, and lime colored Blu-macs.

Sony's Tretton: "If You Can Find a PS3... I'll Give You 1,200 Bucks For it" (http://www.dailytech.com/Sonys+Tretton+If+You+Can+Find+a+PS3+Ill+Give+You+1200+Bucks+ Gor+it/article6050c.htm)


http://home.woh.rr.com/apgminime/bagdad_bob_large.jpg

Baghdad Jack Tretton.
That interview is from early January, around the same time TalkSt8t claimed PS3s were sold out everywhere. Turns out they've been readily available since late December with a few spot shortages around the country (mostly mall shops or urban areas).

Sony sold less than 75% of their shipments in 2006 in the US, and has sold less than 60% of their shipments in Japan so far. The BS about a nation-wide shortage of PS3's needed to stop a long time ago.

Yes, lets watch as the porn studios can't sell their content to the millions of PS3 owners, and the movie studios can't sell their content to the owners of 360 add-ons. And as time goes by, with more consoles being sold, the relevance of universal players becomes increasingly diminished.


Anyone who bought a game or game add-on as their primary player ought to have been aware that at this stage they were just getting their feet wet. There are already things you can't do with game versions of these players.

As a consumer, I don't think I should make my choice based on what's good for the non neutral studios. They made their beds.

The DVD Forum as a whole decided for and moved forward with pursuing a standard for a high def format otherwise there would not have been a vote at all, but I'm sure you’re aware of that already.

Just because some companies want to be dishonorable and belong to an organization that agrees upon standards but not actually follow those same standards is enough reason for me to hold a grudge.

now that is deluded. 1 it was not backed by the forum as a whole, actually it was not getting passed (stalemate) until Toshiba decided to add Disney and MS in order to force it through.

Does it matter if the BDA was formed first or not, the bottom line is the DVD Forum approved HD DVD as the standard for High Def yet the BDA decided to go ahead and release an alternate format anyway.

So much for these same companies belonging to this organization designed upon agreeing on set standards so we don’t have these types of format wars.

1) yes it does matter, if BD was first then the DVD did not try and go with one format, they brought in the alternate format in order to start a war.

2) the DVD forumwas not set up to stop wars. It was set up dto divide the royalties for DVD and to speak on behalf of DVD. DVD was the first none proprietery format, and as such the companies thought they needed a way to manage it.

My point wasn’t to quibble with your overall assertion, but to point out that HD DVD wasn’t something Toshiba cooked up yesterday on a whim.

I did not say it was a whim. Obviously they needed to work on it, but if you go look back at the transcripts Toshiba and Warner were pushing for the DVD forum to adopt normal DVD but with advanced codecs. The BD companies realizing they were getting no where decided to get together and share blue tech in order to come out with something that was good enough for HD. At that point Toshiba changed its stand and put together what it brought to the DVD forum because realizing that a 10GB DL disk can't compare with a 20+GB SL disk would never work. Toshiba and WB plan was to keep the media the same so that the replacement would be around for as long as their right on the patents. A patent is good for 20y. with DVD being 10y the only get the benefit for 1/2 the life. By going with an intermediate they would continue with the benefit while not losing anything, and then in less then 10 years they can come out with blue in order to get patent royalties again (don't forget once a patent has expired no one needs to pay royalties any more).

Toshiba like most companies was working on different stuff. If you do a search you will see they also worked on .1mm disks like the BD disks.

The point was they were not ready to go blue at this time, they wanted red for one more generation but when they saw that the rest of the companies would not play with their time table they decided to slap together the research they had, go blue but keep as many of the DVD patents that they had in use.

Anyone who bought a game or game add-on as their primary player ought to have been aware that at this stage they were just getting their feet wet. There are already things you can't do with game versions of these players.

As a consumer, I don't think I should make my choice based on what's good for the non neutral studios. They made their beds.
It doesn't matter what the consumers who purchased game systems should or shouldn't have known. All that matters is that they have bought these systems in their millions, which means dual format players are almost dead before they've been launched. Unless the studios decide not to sell to all those PS3 owners of course...

It doesn't matter what the consumers who purchased game systems should or shouldn't have known. All that matters is that they have bought these systems in their millions, which means dual format players are almost dead before they've been launched. Unless the studios decide not to sell to all those PS3 owners of course...

I really don't see the cause and effect in your assertion.

Certainly, and I remember how some HD DVD supporters used to say that movie sales would determine the winner in this format war. Surprising how a good number of them stopped saying that once Blu-ray movie sales surpassed HD DVD movie sales.

I stand by that Richard. It's not enough though for BD to have a lead in sales for a month or two. BD needs to dominate disc sales over an extended period of time to kill off HD-DVD.

I remeber a number of BD supporters saying that the key would be to watch sales of The Departed on both formats. Check it out.

http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/index.cfm

Despite the fact that the BD version is $4 less in price, the numbers are very close.

How are the votes in the DVD Forum structured anyways? Does Toshiba and Warner have veto power or something? It appears that a good majority of the Steering Committee companies are BDA... so I'm curious why they didn't force the issue in DVD Forum instead of abstaining on the HD DVD votes. If it was simple majority vote, then BDA could have stopped DVD Forum from ever pursuing HD DVD from the inside, if not forced adoption of BD *as* the hi def format of choice over AOD...


UxiSXRD
http://www.dvdforum.com/about-charter.htm

(4) Decisions. Decisions of the Steering Committee on any matter (except a matter covered by Article 18) shall be made by the majority of those members of the Steering Committee casting a yes or no vote on such matter, provided that the number of yes votes shall be at least one-third of elected Steering Committee members.

This Charter may be amended or repealed, or a new charter may be adopted, by the affirmative vote of at least 70% of all the members of the Steering Committee.

why is 18 important? to add HD a change was needed and Toshiba and Warner used the need for 70% to stop it. So the 50% that wanted blue could not. That is why the blue discussions started outside the forum and the BFG was formed. that was when Toshiba decided stalling was not an option and voted yes. I am guessing that after the BFG was formed there was less interest in going back to the DVD forum, after all according to its charter (article 2) the DVD forum was created for a life off 10 years. So Toshiba brought in their idea and they did not have the majority they needed. That is when the forum increased the steering committee by two (the comity can have 10-20 members) and they got over 50%

That interview is from early January, around the same time TalkSt8t claimed PS3s were sold out everywhere. Turns out they've been readily available since late December with a few spot shortages around the country (mostly mall shops or urban areas).

Sony sold less than 75% of their shipments in 2006 in the US, and has sold less than 60% of their shipments in Japan so far. The BS about a nation-wide shortage of PS3's needed to stop a long time ago.Yes, I am aware. Everywhere I went in early January I saw PS3s. The way I see it, Jack Tretton owes me over $100K.

How do I collect? Class action suit? :cool:

Sony's Tretton: "If You Can Find a PS3... I'll Give You 1,200 Bucks For it" (http://www.dailytech.com/Sonys+Tretton+If+You+Can+Find+a+PS3+Ill+Give+You+1200+Bucks+ Gor+it/article6050c.htm)


http://home.woh.rr.com/apgminime/bagdad_bob_large.jpg

Baghdad Jack Tretton.

Isn't Tretton the one that also said the reason for lukewurm reception of the PS3 is because people's expectations were unrealistically high or something like that?

He's the one that said the Killzone Footage was Realtime too ... no?

:rolleyes:

Isn't Tretton the one that also said the reason for lukewurm reception of the PS3 is because people's expectations were unrealistically high or something like that?

He's the one that said the Killzone Footage was Realtime too ... no?

:rolleyes:He makes Blu ray Ben Feingold look like Abraham Lincoln. 6 million PS3s by March 31... Another lie???

No one is attempting to dictate studio choices. The problem, is oft-repeated marketing and anecdotal claims of superiority, which by definition would be false for the overwhelming majority of individuals in the scenario you just delineated. If a feature offers no real-world benefit, its' inclusion is irrelevant

no RTO, the problem is that scientifically lossless is superior to lossy, some people are using spin that in some cases there might not be a difference to say that a format is good enough if it does not support it.

Let me go a different route. There used to be an Indian restaurant in one of the food courts downtown. When they first opened they used to have all you can eat for X$, then they added an asterisk that you were not allowed refills (only one plate), then when you asked for two pieces of Tandoori chicken, the guy would say only one piece per customer. I stopped going there because I thought it was total BS to have so many restrictions while claiming it is “all you can eat”. I guess I am not the only one since it did not last long after that.

Yes if someone just wanted one plate and one piece of chicken he had all he could eat, but what about the other times and other people?

The same is here too. A lossless codec is lossless and for most movies and many parts of them the decoded will be different depending if it is lossless or lossy. Now in some of those that are different some people might not hear the difference in some of those parts. But unless someone proves that for all people and all situations there is no difference, the only reason to believe it is that you bought into the marketing, because in reality there are differences. The next question will be “does it matter?” for some of us that want the look and sound of perfect (or at least as close as possible given today’s tech) the answer is yes.

The issue is when someone says KK is proof that a 3h movie can be put on a 30GB disk, it does not hold. Let’s assume KK is one of those movies where lossless was not needed and so customers won’t miss the lossless, does it mean that it will be true for every other movie? What if someone wanted to put a 3h Bollywood movie that have lots of signing and dancing?

All KK shows is that as long as people are willing to live with compromises a 3h movie can fit on 30GB, but then again wasn’t that same 3h movie on one DVD? Just depends how many compromises you are willing to make.

Once you get past that fact that there in no discernable PQ or AQ difference between the two formats, you have to look at the other factors. Which factors one finds important varies from person to person. But price is one most people care about, and depending on how you do your apples to apples comparison, HD DVD is probably at least 25% cheaper than BD. Interactivity is something that only marginally matters to me, but it looks like HD DVD's method is easier to execute. Finally, while I have nothing against Sony, and own a lot of Sony products, I personally like MS and like their products.

Skogan, not sure what you are talking about. The discussion was lossy vs lossless

Yes, I am aware. Everywhere I went in early January I saw PS3s. The way I see it, Jack Tretton owes me over $100K.

How do I collect? Class action suit? :cool:


It's February and I have yet to see one in a store. I don't frequent Gamestop, but have been in many a Target, BestBuy, CC, and CompUSA since launch.

Maybe they just didn't ship any to the SF Bay Area?

I really don't see the cause and effect in your assertion.
Timothy Ramzyk :

let me give you an example.

Joe just bought a PS3, his friend Frank an HD DVD add on for the Xbox and John a dual player (or one of each). They go to the store.

Joe: I would like KK, let's see if they have it, no don't see on BD
Frank: I want X-men, let's see if they have it, no don't see on HD DVD
John: I want KK and X-men, cool X-men is on BD and KK on HD DVD I will buuy them.

Universal lost Joe's sell, Fox lost Frank's sell and even though they both got John's, John did not give a crap if it was HD DVD or BD.


The point is that even if dual players (or dual owners) become the majority of none game console related ownership, the vast majority won't be dual. The equation is Joe>>Frank>John and there is no reason to believe that it will not be true in the short or even long term. Even if all standalone players changed to dual magically, the vast majority of people would be single formats and nothing has changed.

It's February and I have yet to see one in a store. I don't frequent Gamestop, but have been in many a Target, BestBuy, CC, and CompUSA since launch.

Maybe they just didn't ship any to the SF Bay Area?

thomopolis: come on every one knows that Mike is right PS3 are plentiful and taking up valuable space on the shelves while HD DVD players are hard to find. That is why the HD DVD players are heavily discounted while Future Shop and BB used the exchange rate as an excuse to charge more then MRSP here in Canada. I guess all the shipments where rerouted to Mikes neighbourhood :)

I was at Target in San Jose and I didn't see any PS3s either. Maybe they keept them in the back or something.

A couple of weeks ago, at a Costco, none were to be seen on the floor.

I'm sure they are at some stores.

Just checked Amazon. Not available from them but from Amazon Marketplace:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Computer-Entertainment-60GB-PlayStation/dp/B0009VXAM0/sr=8-1/qid=1171221886/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1_s9_rk/102-3874647-2452903?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&s9r=8a5801be0d117bc7010d3a74224705dc&itemPosition=1

Anyone who bought a game or game add-on as their primary player ought to have been aware that at this stage they were just getting their feet wet. There are already things you can't do with game versions of these players.

As a consumer, I don't think I should make my choice based on what's good for the non neutral studios. They made their beds.


re: cause and effect

If there are enough PS3's out there AND those with them buy/rent movies, the studios either support BD or they leave all that money on the table. The same argument can be made for the HD-Addon as well. In this race quality doesn't matter nearly as much as the habits of those buying game consoles - kinda weird, maybe even annoying, but that is how it is. The largest market share almost always directs the overall market direction.

But even then it isn't that simple. This war is pretty weird. BD has chosen to keep all their players expensive. Therefore most people who want to get into HD inexpensively but aren't interested in consoles are going HD-DVD. Most people who have a 360 probably aren't going to pick up a PS3 rather than just get the Addon.

The PS3 is BD's trump card as long PS3 owners also watch movies. HD-DVD's trump card is the lower priced players as long as they can keep movies coming out to make them worth it. At some point soon (if we haven't already passed it) we are going to have two formats forever because nobody is going to leave all that cash sitting on the table for the other side. This is a tad different than BETA and VHS since replication technology is much cheaper for disc printing than tape duplication (even with BD's increased cost) so they can effectively support both in perpetuity as long as stores will shelve everything.

It's February and I have yet to see one in a store. I don't frequent Gamestop, but have been in many a Target, BestBuy, CC, and CompUSA since launch.

Maybe they just didn't ship any to the SF Bay Area?Have you actually asked for one? A lot of stores keep them behind the counter, so they don't get a "chew and screw" ripoff. They've done that with the 360 and other high priced merchandise. All you have to do is ask.

It is common knowledge tha PS3 has been readily available since late December in the USA. Fanboy or viral marketers go elsewhere.

I was at Target in San Jose and I didn't see any PS3s either. Maybe they keept them in the back or something.

A couple of weeks ago, at a Costco, none were to be seen on the floor.

I'm sure they are at some stores.




I wasn't trying to be facetious (well maybe only a little). I know they have shown up occasionally, since a coworkeer picked one up at a Target in San Jose. I'm just saying I haven't seen one and I have always looked when at stores that sell them. I figure I will go on a hunt next week to finally get one. There are enough movies out now to make it worth it. If things don't change in a few months after that, I will get an A2 as well.

Have you actually asked for one? A lot of stores keep them behind the counter, so they don't get a "chew and screw" ripoff. They've done that with the 360 and other high priced merchandise. All you have to do is ask.

It is common knowledge tha PS3 has been readily available since late December in the USA. Fanboy or viral marketers go elsewhere.


I'll generally ask at BestBuy and the repsonse is usally, "no, we randomly get shipments of 50-100 and then they are gone."

I also always see a pile of 360's at Best Buy so I'm not sure about the "chew and screw" ripoff. And I'm not sure how anyone can claim they are readily available if they are also hidden in the back.

For the record, I know what the "common knowledge" is repeated here over and over - I was just relaying my experience. Calling me a FanBoy or accusing me of working for Sony because it doesn't match is a bit much.

And I'm not sure how anyone can claim they are readily available if they are also hidden in the back.

I think PS3 availability in certain markets is still not good. I've not seen one around here (but I'm not actively looking).

I think that shows people at BB &CC don't really know how to distribute based on demand - or their demand estimation needs improvement.

I'll generally ask at BestBuy and the repsonse is usally, "no, we randomly get shipments of 50-100 and then they are gone."

I also always see a pile of 360's at Best Buy so I'm not sure about the "chew and screw" ripoff. And I'm not sure how anyone can claim they are readily available if they are also hidden in the back.

For the record, I know what the "common knowledge" is repeated here over and over - I was just relaying my experience. Calling me a FanBoy or accusing me of working for Sony because it doesn't match is a bit much.I was not accusing you of Fanboyism. I know your history. You've been here over the entire crusade, and I respect everything you say. There is a cadre of others, though.

NPD numbers got delayed from last week (geez, wonder why?). They will apear this week.

Anyone know what to do with a burned finger? I'm cooking pasta, and, well you know...

A lot of stores keep them behind the counter, so they don't get a "chew and screw" ripoff. They've done that with the 360 and other high priced merchandise. All you have to do is ask.


My local BB has a cage they keep on the floor in the games area. It currently holds PS/3 (when available), PSP, DS, and World of Warcraft boxes. It initially held Vista too, but now they have empty cases you exchange in the computer area.

The XBox 360 are out on the shelves or piled up, as were the add-on drives (although they don't seem to get those in anymore). Those are/were never caged.

Gary