Originally Posted by Timothy Ramzyk
There's a fine line between "optimism" and over inflated in-your-face victory dances every ten minutes. I actually have only been here for a month, so I missed out on the same from the pre-PS3 HD DVD side.

I see, and I do think that a good number of Blu-ray supporters are having a lot of fun with the recent movie sales data that Blu-ray is getting. I can somewhat understand that though since a good number of HD DVD supporters last year also had a lot of fun with HD movie sales data, which was even smaller than the sales we have today.

Richard, you do occasionally catch my attention. This thing goes in cycles as you so wisely noticed yourself. This month it’s Blu-ray, next month it’s HD DVD leading the pack.

I do not agree with your statement that “I see, and I do think that a good number of Blu-ray supporters are having a lot of fun with the recent movie sales data that Blu-ray is getting. “ Richard enjoy all of your fun that you think you are getting from a snap-shot in time of sales figures while I and hundred of thousands of happy HD DVD prosumers are enjoying HD DVDs and BD titles in their home theater systems.

Thank goodness Toshiba, VC1, HDi are full of ego and are focused on delivering the best possible HD experience. These companies and organizations really get it. Toshiba and Microsoft are keenly paying attention to the final delivered quality right through the authorizing, mastering and replication. They have tremendous resources that are tasked to ensure it’s every detail. Working with all facets to the final end product these multi talented well funded groups of multiple teams are very smart and have executed a well planned HD packaged product.

In most cases BD and HD DVD delivers comparable quality. But HD DVD is more sophisticated with their excellent video encoding, TrueHD audio and the HDi interactivity and PIP commentaries.

I love both so very much, it's just that I favor HD DVD, mainly because of its economics. HD DVD delivers the same pq and aq and has several frills that I personally have gotten into and like a lot. You can really get more out of the movie by activating the interactive menus.

I have the pleasure of working with many of the very finest dedicated, hard working ladies and gentlemen on the HD DVD side. They clearly deserve all of the success they get and I very sincerely hope HD DVD will co-exist with BD so consumers will reap the benefits of our free society. Competition breeds the best technology, quality design and build and value for all of us to benefit by.

Keeping the same large infrastructure of excellent small, medium and large replication plants makes sense to me as well, certainly BD does not have any appreciable benefits to make me feel that it justifies the multi million dollar cost of retooling these great established businesses. I once had a great neighbor who happened to have owned a CD and DVD replication plant. I can’t imagine him spending a million dollars be able to keep his business going because of a change in technology or of my friend Don losing his business and no longer being my neighbor.

I am in favor of more studio neutrality. As it clearly is not any business of the software suppliers to unionize with CE manufacturers in an attempt to force us into a format that is not for the good of the public. I believe studios have an obligation to supply us both formats. And it would benefit the studios to sell both formats as clearly they would have more sales and built the HD optical disc market, I mean both markets, HD DVD and BD faster by helping to take away any of the consumer’s fear of obsolescence. Studios gain no economy by holding out and of course suffer by lost sales to consumers who have the alternate format hardware. I wonder how the board of any company would explain this to their shareholders.

I’m off to bed very soon and I’m too tired to proof read this so I’ll fix any errors tomorrow.

Good night.

-Robert

What exactly does the winner of the format war get as a prize? HD is not going anywhere as a format. It is rushing toward becoming the Laser Disc of the twenty first century, a niche market which can sustain itself, but which has a growth ceiling which it will never be able to exceed.

There is no interest in HD from the average consumer and probably never will be. Timing means a great deal in business. DVD was introduced at the right time. Consumers were ready for a new and better format. Consumers are not ready for HD. Most consumers have not yet experienced full value from DVD. HD is not enough of an improvement to attract the average consumer. Movies in HD format do not look like football games which are broadcast in HD or Discovery nature shows which are filmed in HD. The dirty little secret is that these movies will never look that good. Perhaps in ten years if studios begin filming exclusively in HD there will be sufficient content to attract average consumers. Until then, HD is going nowhere fast and all the wishing in the world will not alter reality.

Edward, very nice first post and your new membership makes it even more interesting. I'm flattered that my post gave you the inspiration to come out of the closet. Only kidding. I better go to bed now.

HD is not the laser disc. It's HD and HD is here to stay and we sorely need more HD content and the optical disc format with is sufficient bandwidth for the first time shows us what full true HD can really look like on our HDTVs.

-Robert

What exactly does the winner of the format war get as a prize? HD is not going anywhere as a format. It is rushing toward becoming the Laser Disc of the twenty first century, a niche market which can sustain itself, but which has a growth ceiling which it will never be able to exceed.

There is no interest in HD from the average consumer and probably never will be. Timing means a great deal in business. DVD was introduced at the right time. Consumers were ready for a new and better format. Consumers are not ready for HD. Most consumers have not yet experienced full value from DVD. HD is not enough of an improvement to attract the average consumer. Movies in HD format do not look like football games which are broadcast in HD or Discovery nature shows which are filmed in HD. The dirty little secret is that these movies will never look that good. Perhaps in ten years if studios begin filming exclusively in HD there will be sufficient content to attract average consumers. Until then, HD is going nowhere fast and all the wishing in the world will not alter reality.

I see this is your first post. You've just alienated 99% of the AVS members. Congrats.

What exactly does the winner of the format war get as a prize? HD is not going anywhere as a format. It is rushing toward becoming the Laser Disc of the twenty first century, a niche market which can sustain itself, but which has a growth ceiling which it will never be able to exceed.

There is no interest in HD from the average consumer and probably never will be. Timing means a great deal in business. DVD was introduced at the right time. Consumers were ready for a new and better format. Consumers are not ready for HD. Most consumers have not yet experienced full value from DVD. HD is not enough of an improvement to attract the average consumer. Movies in HD format do not look like football games which are broadcast in HD or Discovery nature shows which are filmed in HD. The dirty little secret is that these movies will never look that good. Perhaps in ten years if studios begin filming exclusively in HD there will be sufficient content to attract average consumers. Until then, HD is going nowhere fast and all the wishing in the world will not alter reality.

This post is exactly why I think there should be a minimum 30 day viewing/probationary period before posting. If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that "Film" is about 5x the resolution of "HD", also Blu-ray and HDDVD individually are far outpacing DVD in it's first year of release.

I think you need to read up more on the "dirty little secrets" around here before making yourself look like a schmuck on your 1st post.

There will always be people behind the curve in technology, there will also be early adopters. Sure we are probably 2 to 3 possibly 4 yrs away from mass adoption, but one or both of these formats will become the standard, and those eager little beavers storming into walmart and BestBuy every tuesday shelling out $15 bucks on new releases every week are going to wish to hell they had done a little homework or had been an early adopter. I shake my head in disbelief that people are buying Standard def still oblivious to whats out there.
Meanwhile I go home and enjoy virtually transparent video/sound to the theatre.

"These are great times we are living in brothers" ;)

BTBuck1, I like your post and you too SyHD. One of my two favorite lines are "These are great times we are living in brothers" and the other I won't repeat.

-Robert

:p

The beauty of HD is, despite peoples potential "lack of interest" in high definition, they will be forced into it in 09

Retailers are armed to the teeth with product.
Go to Best Buy, see how many Standard Def TV's you can find. They are burried in the corner of the department where it's virtually impossible to find a sales associate. Meanwhile the rest of the sales people are in the plasma/LCD aisle hyping up High def, attatching an HD source to the tv and getting customers up to $400 off with the HD advantage.

Once the average person see's HD in their home...well I don't have to tell you guys what happens...

YOU'RE HOOKED!

Richard, you do occasionally catch my attention. This thing goes in cycles as you so wisely noticed yourself. This month it’s Blu-ray, next month it’s HD DVD leading the pack.Personally I can't see HD DVD leading in sales next month regardless of what happens. Still I do expect there to be ups and downs for both HD formats this year as various products and movies are released.


I do not agree with your statement that “I see, and I do think that a good number of Blu-ray supporters are having a lot of fun with the recent movie sales data that Blu-ray is getting. “ Richard enjoy all of your fun that you think you are getting from a snap-shot in time of sales figures while I and hundred of thousands of happy HD DVD prosumers are enjoying HD DVDs and BD titles in their home theater systems.My goodness you took my post the wrong way. For one thing I don't remember you ever speaking out against those HD DVD supporters who had a lot of fun with the movies sales data for HD DVD last year so I hardly think it is fair that you are criticizing those Blu-ray supporters that are doing that now. Secondly I really don't see why you took my general observation of what I see happening and decided to immediately accuse me of it.


I believe studios have an obligation to supply us both formats.Personally I don't agree with that and do you believe that the studios have an obligation to support VMD and EVD?

Personally I don't agree with that and do you believe that the studios have an obligation to support VMD and EVD?

Simple answer, no. I could get more detailed, but it's not that important to my overall statements.

-Robert

Simple answer, no. I could get more detailed, but it's not that important to my overall statements.Interesting, and to make this clear that means you believe the studios are obligated to support Blu-ray and HD DVD but are not obligated to support VMD and EVD. Personally I don't see the logic in that and in fact I have never understood why some posters honestly believe that the studios should be obligated to support certain video formats. In my personal opinion studios should be free to choose which video formats they support. Also before anyone points this out I know that studios are free to support which video formats they want but some posters seem to be suggesting that they shouldn't be.

This post is exactly why I think there should be a minimum 30 day viewing/probationary period before posting. If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that "Film" is about 5x the resolution of "HD", also Blu-ray and HDDVD individually are far outpacing DVD in it's first year of release.

I think you need to read up more on the "dirty little secrets" around here before making yourself look like a schmuck on your 1st post.

There will always be people behind the curve in technology, there will also be early adopters. Sure we are probably 2 to 3 possibly 4 yrs away from mass adoption, but one or both of these formats will become the standard, and those eager little beavers storming into walmart and BestBuy every tuesday shelling out $15 bucks on new releases every week are going to wish to hell they had done a little homework or had been an early adopter. I shake my head in disbelief that people are buying Standard def still oblivious to whats out there.
Meanwhile I go home and enjoy virtually transparent video/sound to the theatre.

"These are great times we are living in brothers" ;)

Well, it is interesting that you needed to resort to ad hominem attacks. That speaks poorly for your position. Your entire post just reeks of elitism. For your information, BTBuck, I have been reading this forum for months. I finally decided to join and post today.

I see people at Best Buy and Circuit City looking at HD software being played and they are usually not that impressed. I have never seen someone blown away by watching Blu-ray or HD-DVD in a store. I have watched films for over a year now on HD channels and they do not look significantly better than they do on standard definition channels. You can call me a "shmuck" all you like, however, we "shmucks" are not buying HD, and we are the majority of consumers.

I have read the arguments which use statistics to argue that HD is so much better than DVD. What those statistics cannot deal with is the fact that humans can only perceive so much with regard to quality before it simply does not matter to them. Film may be 5 times the resolution of HD, but the 1931 Dracula is never going to blow anyone away on HD. There is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns. Most films have reached that point on DVD when viewed on a high end system with a good upconverting player.

Why don't movies on HD channels look anywhere near the quality of a HD broadcast of a football game or a Discovery nature program filmed in HD? Obviously because programming which is filmed in HD has an advantage over programming which is filmed. This is something we "shmucks" observe with our eyes. We "shmucks" are not interested in statistics, we prefer the evidence of our own eyes.

This post is exactly why I think there should be a minimum 30 day viewing/probationary period before posting. If you knew what you were talking about you'd know that "Film" is about 5x the resolution of "HD", also Blu-ray and HDDVD individually are far outpacing DVD in it's first year of release.Well, maybe it theoretically has more resolution, but it's all spoiled by that nasty "grain" stuff that just makes the movie look dirty, and they always seem to have those stupid black bars on the top and bottom. Don't they know plasma's have burn in problems? Stuff filmed in HD is always crystal clear, and fills the whole TV. Sheesh...
:D
I vote only people who joined before 2002 should be allowed to post ;)

I believe studios have an obligation to supply us both formats.


-Robert


I'm sorry, but no. no no no and no. Aside from the obvious, the fact that capitalism and competition for dollars created these movies in the first place and they are their property of the studios to do with as they wish and creating an "obligation" would render them the property of "the people" or "the motherland" the logistics would be impossible.

Who would get to decide when the movies should be released? If there was a lag time between each format would there be fines levied for unfailry supporting one over the other? Will we establish an independent commission to rate the quality of dual releases to be sure one side isn't being shorted? How long should such an obligation last? What if one side proves to have a much smaller market (like, I don't know, the entire country of Japan only buys one format) does every studio still have an obligation to continue producing movies for it?


These types of claims, which I have been reading more and more often here, speak of the lack of fairness of a format war, how one side is unfairly holding back their product for the benefit of one side. They are missing something I like to call, "reality."

This reminds me of college. I went to Berkeley during GWI. I remember hearing, far too often, how unfair it was that the US sent over an overwhelming force to destroy the Iraqi army. I tried to explain that no matter what side of the conflict you were on how absolutely ridiculous and stupid such an argument was. The point of war is to kill people and blow things up, not to be fair. I was of course labelled a nazi, a murderer, a racist, and dare I say....a republican.

The point of a format war is to drown the other side and take all the money; not some, not share, not be nice - BUT ALL THE F***ING MONEY. Haven't you guys ever played monopoly?? It doesn't say in the rules to divide all the properties and cash then give each other hugs and kisses.

:p

The beauty of HD is, despite peoples potential "lack of interest" in high definition, they will be forced into it in 09

Retailers are armed to the teeth with product.
Go to Best Buy, see how many Standard Def TV's you can find. They are burried in the corner of the department where it's virtually impossible to find a sales associate. Meanwhile the rest of the sales people are in the plasma/LCD aisle hyping up High def, attatching an HD source to the tv and getting customers up to $400 off with the HD advantage.

Once the average person see's HD in their home...well I don't have to tell you guys what happens...

YOU'RE HOOKED!

Mr. Buck, it is a mistake to equate owning a HD television, which is what will be forced, to buying HD software and players, which will not be forced. The two have nothing to do with one another. I know many people who own HD televisions. I know few who own HD players or software.

......... is interesting that you needed to resort to ad hominem attacks. T.................................




First, welcome to the forum.

Second, if you honestly think HD movies have no point, why are you posting in the HD Software forum? I mean, I already know why I sit here in front of the purple screen of nerd (wifes words) so much....I actually do think HD movies look awesome...but if you don't why are you here? weird.


Third, before this forum, and to be honest before this past year, I heard the phrase ad hominem used maybe four times in my life, and two of those incorrectly.

Lately you can't scroll through a thread of AVS without it being used five or six times - mostly incorrectly. It is starting to be almost as grating to the senses as LOL.....almost.

Mr. Buck, it is a mistake to equate owning a HD television, which is what will be forced, to buying HD software and players, which will not be forced. The two have nothing to do with one another. I know many people who own HD televisions. I know few who own HD players or software.

I just realized, it is freaking 3:30 am in Georgia and with Daylight Savings you are about to lose even more sleep just so you can post in the HD Software Forum that nobody wants HD Software.....wow.

Once again, welcome to the forum, and do you have a night job or something. I'm west coast btw.

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, if you honestly think HD movies have no point, why are you posting in the HD Software forum? I mean, I already know why I sit here in front of the purple screen of nerd (wifes words) so much....I actually do think HD movies look awesome...but if you don't why are you here? weird.


Third, before this forum, and to be honest before this past year, I heard the phrase ad hominem used maybe four times in my life, and two of those incorrectly.

Lately you can't scroll through a thread of AVS without it being used five or six times - mostly incorrectly. It is starting to be almost as grating to the senses as LOL.....almost.

I think HD is a format which the average consumer does not desire at present, just as laser disc was an undesired format in the eighties. The time for an HD format to replace DVD will come, but that time is not now. It will take more than HD enthusiasts shouting that HD is better to build significant market share. For HD to gain significant market share, it must deliver much more than it does at present. That really is not going to be possible until studios begin to film exclusively in HD.

By the way, referring to me as a shmuck is an ad hominem attack as whether or not I am a shmuck has no bearing on the issue being debated. It is merely an attempt to diminish my position by labeling me with a pejorative. Your reference to my use of the term ad hominem is what is known as a distraction in a debate. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is merely introduced to cause others to reflect and comment on the use of that phrase rather than the points made in my post. Likewise, your questioning why I am posting in this forum is also a distraction. It has no bearing on the points I made, but is merely an attempt to cause the discussion to focus on my motives rather than my actual comments.

If you disagree with my comments, then by all means, post your arguments against my position. But, please refrain in future from commenting on my motives for posting or my correct usage of words.

I think HD is a format which the average consumer does not desire at present, just as laser disc was an undesired format in the eighties. The time for an HD format to replace DVD will come, but that time is not now. It will take more than HD enthusiasts shouting that HD is better to build significant market share. For HD to gain significant market share, it must deliver much more than it does at present. That really is not going to be possible until studios begin to film exclusively in HD.

By the way, referring to me as a shmuck is an ad hominem attack as whether or not I am a shmuck has no bearing on the issue being debated. It is merely an attempt to diminish my position by labeling me with a pejorative. Your reference to my use of the term ad hominem is what is known as a distraction in a debate. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is merely introduced to cause others to reflect and comment on the use of that phrase rather than the points made in my post. Likewise, your questioning why I am posting in this forum is also a distraction. It has no bearing on the points I made, but is merely an attempt to cause the discussion to focus on my motives rather than my actual comments.

If you disagree with my comments, then by all means, post your arguments against my position. But, please refrain in future from commenting on my motives for posting or my correct usage of words.


I think that as more HDTV's are sold more ppl will want a HD player. Cause lets face it un less you bought a HDTV in early 2006 DVD's do not look to swell up converted. so for now it just a price thing wich is what the war is trying to resolve.

I vote only people who joined before 2002 should be allowed to post ;)

Sounds like a great idea......... :)

Sounds like a great idea......... :)
Ahhh... sorry, but... you'd be out then, Mikey. ;)

("before 2002")

:p

The beauty of HD is, despite peoples potential "lack of interest" in high definition, they will be forced into it in 09

Retailers are armed to the teeth with product.
Go to Best Buy, see how many Standard Def TV's you can find. They are burried in the corner of the department where it's virtually impossible to find a sales associate. Meanwhile the rest of the sales people are in the plasma/LCD aisle hyping up High def, attatching an HD source to the tv and getting customers up to $400 off with the HD advantage.

Once the average person see's HD in their home...well I don't have to tell you guys what happens...

YOU'RE HOOKED!


Could not agree more. I'm always hunting for HD releases so I can pounce on them. I'm trying to convince my wife to sell her old copies of the Mummy and Mummy returns so I canby the HD-DVD ones. Times are a little tight but....like the man said....I'm hooked!

What exactly does the winner of the format war get as a prize? HD is not going anywhere as a format. It is rushing toward becoming the Laser Disc of the twenty first century, a niche market which can sustain itself, but which has a growth ceiling which it will never be able to exceed.

There is no interest in HD from the average consumer and probably never will be. Timing means a great deal in business. DVD was introduced at the right time. Consumers were ready for a new and better format. Consumers are not ready for HD. Most consumers have not yet experienced full value from DVD. HD is not enough of an improvement to attract the average consumer. Movies in HD format do not look like football games which are broadcast in HD or Discovery nature shows which are filmed in HD. The dirty little secret is that these movies will never look that good. Perhaps in ten years if studios begin filming exclusively in HD there will be sufficient content to attract average consumers. Until then, HD is going nowhere fast and all the wishing in the world will not alter reality.

Edward -

Great first post!

It is true that film potentially has more resolution than HD video. But its fans sometimes very strongly tend to forget a few mitigating factors:

1) For whatever reason film often has high grain which is hard to compress and effectively just adds semi-random noise to the signal.

2) Because of the low frame rate film motion is often shot with high motion blur which amounts to strong filtering.

3) Each step or generation along the way to electronic delivery further destroys some resolution. And there are many steps getting from film to our displays.

4) Current telecine practice is still somewhat optimized to lower resolution displays that didn't need every last nickel of detail.

5) Film fans will argue realistic detail is not needed or desired, except on threads like these where someone criticizes its lack.

Anyway, I vote that only members with at least 5000 posts should be allowed to post. ;)

- Tom

Edward -

Great first post!

It is true that film potentially has more resolution than HD video. But its fans sometimes very strongly tend to forget a few mitigating factors:

1) For whatever reason film often has high grain which is hard to compress and effectively just adds semi-random noise to the signal.

2) Because of the low frame rate film motion is often shot with high motion blur which amounts to strong filtering.

3) Each step or generation along the way to electronic delivery further destroys some resolution. And there are many steps getting from film to our displays.

4) Current telecine practice is still somewhat optimized to lower resolution displays that didn't need every last nickel of detail.

5) Film fans will argue realistic detail is not needed or desired, except on threads like these where someone criticizes its lack.

Anyway, I vote that only members with at least 5000 posts should be allowed to post. ;)

- Tom
I'm not a huge film fan, myself.I think it's nostalgia for some people.

A friend of mine and I sat in front of a...

massive screen,...

in a digital theater (Century, San Jose,)...

at about 1.25 X screen width (not diagonal) (center row, center)

and watched Episode III.

That was enough for us.

Let's leave film for the indies. Time to move on to digital... and 30 or 60 fps would be just fine with me. ;)


Thanks for the info, Tom. Sounds about right to me. :)

...I have never understood why some posters honestly believe that the studios should be obligated to support certain video formats.They're extremely upset to see that BD has more and more content, while HD DVD falls behind. So they've latched on to this irrational argument. Makes them feel better, I guess.

But they aren't really arguing for "fairness". They're arguing for special treatment for HD DVD.

They're extremely upset to see that BD has more and more content, while HD DVD falls behind. So they've latched on to this irrational argument. Makes them feel better, I guess.

But they aren't really arguing for "fairness". They're arguing for special treatment for HD DVD.Oh yes - that really must be the case, because Richard Paul and Rob Zuber have decided so...Apparently they are the arbiters of the format wars, along with beatboy and all the other PS3 heads.

I think HD is a format which the average consumer does not desire at present, just as laser disc was an undesired format in the eighties. .......................................

If you disagree with my comments, then by all means, post your arguments against my position. But, please refrain in future from commenting on my motives for posting or my correct usage of words.


Fine, your arguments - saying the average consumer is not interested in HD discs "at present" when both formats have only been out for a timespan of months is stating the obvious. The same was said for DVD, VHS, Beta, CD's, and LD's - only two of those were correct. Oddly enough it was not said about UMD since the movies sold incredibly well initially, then died off almost as fast. Nobody had time to state the obvious.

Second, your argument on consumer interest is nothing new. I would think that if you had been reading here for months you would have seen the fifty some odd threads on will HD take off, how much, why isn't it faster, why isn't it slower, blah blah blah. So the only thing I'm left with is commenting on your comments. To respond to your comments would be just to repeat the same info and opinion that has been repeated here ad nauseum (an underused word here). I could just ignore your comments, but you and your posts seem somewhat unique to me at the moment.

Third, I wasn't questioning your motives as to posting here. I was asking what they were, slight difference. I can't really question something when I don't have any freaking clue as to what they are. Maybe you are an insomniac who goes from forum to forum explaining to people that what they post on all the time has no point. Maybe you make all of your money in the pressing of DVD's and are worried. Maybe you are really just trying to politely tell us all that our new toy is not worth it, not going anywhere, and we should all stop obsessing about who is going to win or lose. I don't know, that's why I was asking.


The thrust of your arguments has been the average consumer has no interest in HD and that HD movies don't look that good to you personally. AVS is a very big place with forums for all sorts of displays, upconverters, etc. etc., and your first posts are made in the one thread of the one forum discussing the one thing you say isn't all that and has no point right now - and at 4am.

I just find this odd and curious.

I didn't mean to add hominoids in your general direction.


thom

ps. the prize is licensing fees for the next ~decade - how big those fees are remains to be seen.

pps. yes, your use of ad hominem was correct (I was referring to others), I was only commenting on how overused it is.

Oh yes - that really must be the case, because Richard Paul and Rob Zuber have decided so...Apparently they are the arbiters of the format wars, along with beatboy and all the other PS3 heads.



Just curious, but do you think it would make since to require every studio to put all their movies out in every format that comes down the pike? UMD isn't selling anymore, neither is LD. Dreamworks doesn't think either HD-DVD or BD are selling enough to get into either. Should they have to put their movies on all four of those, or can they just stick with DVD?

Edward, I agree with parts of what you are saying. Sometimes on some movies, the difference isn't huge. But on other, my goodness, it is.

AND, I've now watched about a dozen Blu-ray movies. In between I've not watched anything else. So last night I switched on my satellite decoder, to skip through a few movie channels (SD). I could not believe how POOR the quality was. And this is what I've before been demoing my friends??

So, although there are movies that seemingly don't look much better, they still do. (At least if you've got a big enough screen.) I agree that quite a few will never see the point of HD, but those of us who do, we'll have a grand time.

The future never had so much detail in it before! ;)

They're extremely upset to see that BD has more and more content, while HD DVD falls behind. So they've latched on to this irrational argument. Makes them feel better, I guess.

But they aren't really arguing for "fairness". They're arguing for special treatment for HD DVD.

If the balance changed tomorrow, u would be whining just as loud. At issue is that BD's main and only real advantage is political.

It's not quality; real world no one can tell the difference, and VC1 appears to be the better compression system on average.

It's not economy; HD DVD is cheaper to produce and has the edge of a smoother economic and technical transition in manufacturing.

It's not the disks themselves; Blu-ray is still promises, promises, on extras, I don't doubt some will be implemented, but I like to support the camp that delivers (I'm funny that way).

It's not flexibility; regional encoding has seen to that.

Finally, it's not price, even if the gap narrows to $150 on stand-alone, when you get down to $300, $450 is 33% more expensive.

Weigh all this and Warner staying HD DVD only or all studios going neutral, and you would have enough parity (even with the PS3 Trojan-horse), that the completion could be based on what anyone who wasen't a fan-boy should desire; namely quality and value. What is wrong with wanting a more even playing field? I think it's more suspect to desire the deck be stacked.

All content support equal and the choice would be ours.

Well, it is interesting that you needed to resort to ad hominem attacks. That speaks poorly for your position. Your entire post just reeks of elitism. For your information, BTBuck, I have been reading this forum for months. I finally decided to join and post today.
For someone who's been reading this forum for "months" I think your post should have contained atleast some factual content as to why you feel this way, instead it was just a condescending, slapped together post with you enlightening us with your opinion and then you dipped out.


I see people at Best Buy and Circuit City looking at HD software being played and they are usually not that impressed. I have never seen someone blown away by watching Blu-ray or HD-DVD in a store. I have watched films for over a year now on HD channels and they do not look significantly better than they do on standard definition channels. You can call me a "shmuck" all you like, however, we "shmucks" are not buying HD, and we are the majority of consumers.

How do you know they are not impressed? Do you ask? Because I spend enough time at Best Buy 40+ hours a week to tell you a completely different perception.
You've watched films for over a year now on "HD-Lite" and now your the expert on all things High def? Do you own HDDVD, Blu-ray? I do and I can tell you now that the "KONG" on HBOHD can't hold a candle to the HDDVD VC-1 encode, not even mentioning it's cropped on HBO...Then there is the DVD, looks like someone threw up all over the screen and someone carelessly wiped the residue away (yes it's that bad in comparison).
It's obvious the "Majority" isn't buying HDDVD they continue to purchase up sub-par 480i content and watch them on their bubble tv's. So yes, this IMHO is Schmuck like behavior.


I have read the arguments which use statistics to argue that HD is so much better than DVD. What those statistics cannot deal with is the fact that humans can only perceive so much with regard to quality before it simply does not matter to them.
well apparently there are hundreds of thousands of people who disagree with you as is evident by the numbers of HDDVD/BD players sold. (and growing)


Film may be 5 times the resolution of HD, but the 1931 Dracula is never going to blow anyone away on HD. There is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns. Most films have reached that point on DVD when viewed on a high end system with a good upconverting player.
Because the 1931 dracula would be a bigger seller than M.I: III :rolleyes:
Come on dude, get a clue.


Why don't movies on HD channels look anywhere near the quality of a HD broadcast of a football game or a Discovery nature program filmed in HD? Obviously because programming which is filmed in HD has an advantage over programming which is filmed. This is something we "shmucks" observe with our eyes. We "shmucks" are not interested in statistics, we prefer the evidence of our own eyes.
since you haven't actually read anything in your Several months of being registered here I will go ahead and answer that, The reason movies on HD channels don't look as good is maninly bandwidth/bitrate constrainments. If you think a football game is reference HD you should get your eyes examined. Unless you think all that macroblocking and motion artifacting is showing the definition :rolleyes: The reason Discovery looks so good is it is shot digitally and generally of landscapes etc. for what might as well be still 35mm or DSLR photography 80% of the time. You won't introduce many artifacts when nothing on the screen is moving. I think you should actually test drive some HD content from an optical disc format in your own home (not window shopping at best buy) before you come in here with your presumptuous comments and assume you know something about something you clearly know little about further proving my comments that you are making yourself look like a schmuck.

take that to your debate professor.

I have read the arguments which use statistics to argue that HD is so much better than DVD. What those statistics cannot deal with is the fact that humans can only perceive so much with regard to quality before it simply does not matter to them. Film may be 5 times the resolution of HD, but the 1931 Dracula is never going to blow anyone away on HD. There is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns. Most films have reached that point on DVD when viewed on a high end system with a good upconverting player.

Um... no they haven't. Not even close.

Um... no they haven't. Not even close.
By a long shot.

Mr. Buck, it is a mistake to equate owning a HD television, which is what will be forced, to buying HD software and players, which will not be forced. The two have nothing to do with one another. I know many people who own HD televisions. I know few who own HD players or software.
The mandated change set for 2009 is to go digital, not HD. Owning an HDTV will not be required - a digital converter box will allow current TVs to work with the new system.

Ahhh... sorry, but... you'd be out then, Mikey. ;)

("before 2002")

But so would MANY others. :rolleyes:

But so would MANY others. :rolleyes:
Well... obviously... including me. :p

I just figured YOU might want to stay in the game. :)

The mandated change set for 2009 is to go digital, not HD. Owning an HDTV will not be required - a digital converter box will allow current TVs to work with the new system.
I was going to ask about that. That's what I have read. It would be really nice if everything were in HD, but that may never happen. Digital is certainly better than analog, though and should free up some bandwidth, over analog, for more HD.

I think an SD plasma would also work, but I don't know.

Bottom line is, though; most people buying big screens are getting HDTVs.

Nope, they will still use the 6 MHz channel bandwidth, with the option of 1 HD channel or 4 SD (but digital) channels on the same signal. They will really like the latter for infomercials. :( I don't think there will be room for new stations in congested areas, but I may be wrong. Although I suppose with time HD could supplant more and more SD production, so even your UHF religious channel could be in HD.

Nope, they will still use the 6 MHz channel bandwidth, with the option of 1 HD channel or 4 SD (but digital) channels on the same signal. They will really like the latter for infomercials. :( I don't think there will be room for new stations in congested areas, but I may be wrong. Although I suppose with time HD could supplant more and more SD production, so even your UHF religious channel could be in HD.
But doesn't analog chew up much more bandwidth, vs. SD digital, than that?


EDIT: From Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cable)
Each 6-MHz channel is typically used to carry 7–12 digital SDTV channels
So that give us, roughly 10 - digital, SD channels for every analog channel we dump or, roughly 3 HDTV channels.

Analog, your time has come. Beat it!

Here's another quote for confirmation from here (http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6388434.html).

In a digital-cable transmission, about 10 analog channels can be squeezed into a 6-MHz band. An analog signal requires 6 MHz for each channel.
Still working on a confirmation for the HDTV vs. Analog, bandwidth difference.


EDIT: O.K., this (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/services/2006-06-04-cable-hdtv_x.htm) article, quoting Comcast says 3 HDTV channels per analog channel dropped.

"The first thing we'll do when we start putting on more HDTV pictures is to take one analog channel off the system," says Comcast Chief Technology Officer David Fellows. "In its place, we can put three HDTV pictures."

Looks like this (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=700205) thread confirms all of this as well.


So...

For every analog channel dropped, we can get about...

10 - Digital SD channels

or

3 - HDTV channels


I'm not holding my breath for things to go just right by '99. But it sure would be nice to get rid of all of those analog channels.

Let it be known, that if it comes down to it, I would be happy to pay my fair share of the subsidy required to keep those old, analog piles working, for those that can't afford the converter box...

IF... I get a load more digital and HDTV channels.

_

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I say potential, as in it may come to pass. Last year we had these same studios supporting these same formats and BD wasn't producing as many titles as HD DVD, but now BD is producing more. Who knows what the future holds?

Baronken: what you are missing is that HD DVD had a head start of 2-3 months. BD was always producing more or less more then HD DVD after it launched. But it had some ground to make up

If the balance changed tomorrow, u would be whining just as loud. At issue is that BD's main and only real advantage is political.

.................................


Eh, probably not. Before they were released most of BluRay's proponents did look mostly to the capacity and bandwidth as the major advantages, and while those attributes can be exploited somewhat, I don't think anyone can deny that HD-DVD has really, really shined. If VC-1 was maxed out with BluRay's specs and it was compared to the same movie on HD-DVD with it's "limitation" maybe, and I mean maybe, some could find subtle differences on really big screens, but at that point I think most of the steam would go out of the discussion. With HD-DVD players so cheap, I don't think anyone could not rationally buy one right now if studio support shifted drammatically.

Just because the advantage is political doesn't mean it is useful for people to keep lamenting about it.

Let me put it this way...If HD-DVD had more studio support - say Universal, Paramount, Warner exclusive and Disney neutral - what do you think the likelyhood would have been that Toshiba still would have put out cheap players? There would have been no reason to bestow that gift onto the HD community since they could always point to the higher support as reason to buy. Sony could still hold onto the PS3, but the battle would have had more parity from the beginning.

I believe studios have an obligation to supply us both formats.Do you believe that the formats have an obligation to provide what the studios want in their format, or that they can just thumb their nose at the studios and then say that the studios should be obligated to support them anyway? For instance, providing less bandwidth and space most likely to get to the market quicker. Or the case where Blu-ray has the ROM-Mark to try to stop or slow down professional piracy. HD DVD seems to have no such measure to offer the studios in case people keep getting around AACS and getting content into the free and clear. For another, Amir told us that one of the studios not releasing on HD DVD wanted region encoding. Do you feel that studio is obligated to release on HD DVD even if HD DVD continues to tell them "No" as far as region encoding that they want, but that HD DVD should continue to be able to sell themselves to consumers as not having that feature (thus having an advantage over Blu-ray with one group because they chose not to make their format more attractive to that content provider). If you are on Microsoft's side, why doesn't Microsoft just refuse to put things into their download service that content providers want and then claim that those content providers should be obligated to release their content on Microsoft's platform?

If the HD DVD camp knew what the studios wanted and chose not to provide it, then it seems like they largely made their own bed to me and just seems like whining to complain that the studios should be obligated to release on them regardless.

--Darin

Eh, probably not. Before they were released most of BluRay's proponents did look mostly to the capacity and bandwidth as the major advantages, and while those attributes can be exploited somewhat, I don't think anyone can deny that HD-DVD has really, really shined. If VC-1 was maxed out with BluRay's specs and it was compared to the same movie on HD-DVD with it's "limitation" maybe, and I mean maybe, some could find subtle differences on really big screens, but at that point I think most of the steam would go out of the discussion. With HD-DVD players so cheap, I don't think anyone could not rationally buy one right now if studio support shifted drammatically.

Just because the advantage is political doesn't mean it is useful for people to keep lamenting about it.

Let me put it this way...If HD-DVD had more studio support - say Universal, Paramount, Warner exclusive and Disney neutral - what do you think the likelyhood would have been that Toshiba still would have put out cheap players? There would have been no reason to bestow that gift onto the HD community since they could always point to the higher support as reason to buy. Sony could still hold onto the PS3, but the battle would have had more parity from the beginning.I bring this up a million times and a million times I get no satisfactory answer.

Sony is taking a pasting introducing BD in the PS3, in terms of losses. There is no follow-on (royalty) revenue or profit for those that buy the PS3 as a BD Player. How do they make their money back for those that buy it purely as a BD player? We are talking a substantial number of PS3 sales here...

The mandated change set for 2009 is to go digital, not HD. Owning an HDTV will not be required - a digital converter box will allow current TVs to work with the new system.

true, but how easy is it to find digital converters and how many stations have gone SD digital?

My guess many will use it as an excuse to replace the TV

Sony is taking a pasting introducing BD in the PS3, in terms of losses. There is no follow-on (royalty) revenue or profit for those that buy the PS3 as a BD Player. How do they make their money back for those that buy it purely as a BD player? We are talking a substantial number of PS3 sales here...

the same way that Toshiba does with theirs.

I don't think anyone can deny that HD-DVD has really, really shined.King Kong, long movie, no room for lossless audio = crippled format. There's absolutely no reason to settle for that garbage when an alternate is readily available, and has more studio support to boot.

the same way that Toshiba does with theirs.
Not to the wacky extent of Sony, of course. :p EA's Larry Probst on Sony's loss of dominance (http://www.aussie-nintendo.com/?v=news&p=11466) Sony will go to any extreme, including crippling the PS3 (in terms of cost), in order to see that Blu ray becomes the next gen optical king. Talk about sepuku :rolleyes: .

King Kong, long movie, no room for lossless audio = crippled format. There's absolutely no reason to settle for that garbage when an alternate is readily available, and has more studio support to boot.Garbage - KK on HD-DVD? What a waste of time you are....Nothing but hot air.

Garbage - KK on HD-DVD? What a waste of time you are....Nothing but hot air.Some very very small part of me thinks that 7.1 channel 20bit/48kHz lossless audio on King Kong might have helped the listening experience a weeny tiny bit (over the 5.1 channel 24bit/48kHz DD+ at 1.5 Mbps) -- but garbage? No way! Still trying to see the alleged "pulsing". I think the viewing quality is superb!

I bring this up a million times and a million times I get no satisfactory answer.
Could that be because you have a certain answer in mind and no one agrees with it? :)

There is no follow-on (royalty) revenue or profit for those that buy the PS3 as a BD Player.
How do you figure this?

Sony is a big company. They can afford it. They have a stake in both game sales AND BD sales. They are subsidizing ONE machine to get their royalty checks from TWO places. Toshiba subsidized ONE machine (for awhile at least, maybe no longer, no one seems to be sure) to get checks from ONE place.

They have a HUGE vested interest in Blu-ray becoming the only HD optical format. If both formats survive, they'll still collect royalties from BD software so a stalemate won't bring them down. If BD dies, I'm confident they will collect enough royalties from game sales to cover the subsidy of the PS3.

King Kong, long movie, no room for lossless audio = crippled format. There's absolutely no reason to settle for that garbage when an alternate is readily available, and has more studio support to boot.

BD has movies without lossless audio = crippled format. BD is rereleasing movies because they didn't look good the first time = crippled format, BD couldn't compete if they didn't give away players to people who wanted a game machine = crippled format.

See how easy it is to be a troll? It's not just you that can do that, but most of us are trying not to.

I have generally leaned a bit toward the HD DVD camp. Part of this has been because it seemed that HD DVD's were maybe going to be slightly more HTPC friendly. I still think this may be true, but don't know yet.

But my other reason was because it seemed that HD DVD usually had sufficient space (proven by quality of existing releases) and their otherwise simpler technology would make for cheaper discs. Where are the cheaper discs? I'm starting to call this one into question, and it bothers me somewhat.

- Tom

By the way, referring to me as a shmuck is an ad hominem attack as whether or not I am a shmuck has no bearing on the issue being debated. It is merely an attempt to diminish my position by labeling me with a pejorative. Your reference to my use of the term ad hominem is what is known as a distraction in a debate. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand, and is merely introduced to cause others to reflect and comment on the use of that phrase rather than the points made in my post. Likewise, your questioning why I am posting in this forum is also a distraction. It has no bearing on the points I made, but is merely an attempt to cause the discussion to focus on my motives rather than my actual comments.

If you disagree with my comments, then by all means, post your arguments against my position. But, please refrain in future from commenting on my motives for posting or my correct usage of words.

Well said Ed, welcome to the forum.

true, but how easy is it to find digital converters and how many stations have gone SD digital?

My guess many will use it as an excuse to replace the TV
1. You can rent them for ~$10 from your cable provider. You can also buy them, but I haven't looked into it because I already have digital cable/HD service.
2. In 2009, assuming they don't push the date back again, they will all go to digital channels (it's mandatory) - some may also be available in HD. Buying an HDTV will not be required.
3. Many consumers may use it as an excuse to replace their TV, but it won't be necessary. Any TV will work with a converter.
4. Is there a reason that you don't type "=whoever" after the word quote when you're quoting someone? You're pretty much the only person on here who (consistently) doesn't attribute quotes to their original author.

I have generally leaned a bit toward the HD DVD camp. Part of this has been because it seemed that HD DVD's were maybe going to be slightly more HTPC friendly. I still think this may be true, but don't know yet.

But my other reason was because it seemed that HD DVD usually had sufficient space (proven by quality of existing releases) and their otherwise simpler technology would make for cheaper discs. Where are the cheaper discs? I'm starting to call this one into question, and it bothers me somewhat.

- Tom
Isn't the price of production of each somewhere around a buck or two a piece?

Doesn't most of the dough go to the studios?

Yeah, I think you may have drank a little Kool-Aid on that one. It can happen to the best of us. :)

I bring this up a million times and a million times I get no satisfactory answer.

Sony is taking a pasting introducing BD in the PS3, in terms of losses. There is no follow-on (royalty) revenue or profit for those that buy the PS3 as a BD Player. How do they make their money back for those that buy it purely as a BD player? We are talking a substantial number of PS3 sales here...Unlike Toshiba, Sony owns film studios. They own or co-own Sony Pictures, Columbia TriStar, and MGM. Sony's profit on discs sales are not limited to collecting royalties. Also, like Microsoft and Apple TV, Sony is postioning their box to be the hub of everyone's media center, as well as a media extender and location free player. The PS3 is much more than just a game or movie disc player.

Part of this has been because it seemed that HD DVD's were maybe going to be slightly more HTPC friendly. I still think this may be true, but don't know yet.That was just baseless propaganda from Amir. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that either format would be more "HTPC friendly", whatever that means. It's silliness and FUD from Microsoft.

But my other reason was because it seemed that HD DVD usually had sufficient space (proven by quality of existing releases)This is seriously flawed logic. Just because HD DVD can handle some movies, doesn't mean it can handle all of them. King Kong showed they had to drop lossless audio. And Cjplay clearly stated that HD DVD would benefit from greater bandwidth.

Studios can't spend months and months carefully crafting each release. The greater bandwidth and capacity of BD means the compressionists don't have to work as hard to get great quality.

This is seriously flawed logic. Just because HD DVD can handle some movies, doesn't mean it can handle all of them. King Kong showed they had to drop lossless audio. And Cjplay clearly stated that HD DVD would benefit from greater bandwidth.

Studios can't spend months and months carefully crafting each release. The greater bandwidth and capacity of BD means the compressionists don't have to work as hard to get great quality.
There are only a handful of movies, much less than 1% that fall under this limitation. When that happens, I have no problems with making a 2 disc version. Blu-ray hasn't proven any evidence that they know what to do with additional space or bandwidth. Frankly, I am getting tired of all the FUD spread by BD fanboys.

This is seriously flawed logic. Just because HD DVD can handle some movies, doesn't mean it can handle all of them. King Kong showed they had to drop lossless audio. And Cjplay clearly stated that HD DVD would benefit from greater bandwidth.Actually, the concept "had to" is only your opinion. I just went through thirty or so Universal titles, and all I found was a single title with TrueHD (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - Not a title I would have guessed would benefit from a TrueHD treatment). They had plenty of titles that had plenty of space and could have benefitted from TrueHD (Bourne Supremacy, Serenity, Van Helsing, etc) and none of them had it. I know there are other Universal titles with TrueHD, but I didn't spot them in my perusal.

My opinion is that Universal chose to go with DD+ because players are only required to decode and output 2 channels of TrueHD, so it's never a good idea for TrueHD to be your only soundtrack.
I will also note that a number of Warner titles have a lossless track on HD DVD and only a DD track on BD. Using your logic above, it must be because BD doesn't have the disc space for a lossless track.

As to CJPlay saying he'd like more bandwidth, when asked if it would affect the quality, he said it wouldn't (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=8674360&&#post8674360).

It's amazing that anyone would think having to split up long movies over two disks is an acceptable solution for a next generation optical disk format.

Of course there is no reason to do so, since the excellent Blu-Ray option is available.

It's amazing that anyone would think having to split up long movies over two disks is an acceptable solution for a next generation optical disk format.

Of course there is no reason to do so, since the excellent Blu-Ray option is available.
I agree with this. I think it's a pretty weak argument (excuse?) Yeah, some movies, in the theater have intermissions, but we have HOME THEATERS. We can pause the film at our leisure, not someone else's... if we have Blu-ray, that is. ;)

I'm also quite certain that every single HD DVD supporter that argues this point, would argue the other way if their format had higher capacity.

It would be interesting to see what would happen IF 45G discs started rolling out. Of course, what's the point. HD DVD supporters don't need more than 30G, right? ;)

Well, it is interesting that you needed to resort to ad hominem attacks. That speaks poorly for your position. Your entire post just reeks of elitism. For your information, BTBuck, I have been reading this forum for months. I finally decided to join and post today.

I see people at Best Buy and Circuit City looking at HD software being played and they are usually not that impressed. I have never seen someone blown away by watching Blu-ray or HD-DVD in a store. I have watched films for over a year now on HD channels and they do not look significantly better than they do on standard definition channels. You can call me a "shmuck" all you like, however, we "shmucks" are not buying HD, and we are the majority of consumers.

I have read the arguments which use statistics to argue that HD is so much better than DVD. What those statistics cannot deal with is the fact that humans can only perceive so much with regard to quality before it simply does not matter to them. Film may be 5 times the resolution of HD, but the 1931 Dracula is never going to blow anyone away on HD. There is such a thing as a point of diminishing returns. Most films have reached that point on DVD when viewed on a high end system with a good upconverting player.

Why don't movies on HD channels look anywhere near the quality of a HD broadcast of a football game or a Discovery nature program filmed in HD? Obviously because programming which is filmed in HD has an advantage over programming which is filmed. This is something we "shmucks" observe with our eyes. We "shmucks" are not interested in statistics, we prefer the evidence of our own eyes.

I read your note on Best Buy / Circuit City and it reminded me of a case just the day before yesterday where I went to pick up some DVD's at Best Buy. There I am, taking a look at the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray Section -- both of which have two racks each -- and there is a couple discussing the formats. The wife asks of the husband what the difference is. The response was that Blu-Ray was something he just didn't understand, it wasn't really high definition, yet it supposedly had more space and was just a marketing ploy. She asked about HD-DVD and he said that it was at least HD, so it was much better quality, but still too expensive and wasn't worth buying. He also said he had some friends that worked in the movie theatres and they were of the opinion that Blu-Ray wasn't all that big a deal and that HD-DVD was likely to be around for the long haul. It was what to buy when it got cheaper.

I'm not saying I agree with what this guy was saying, my point is just that the average consumer just doesn't get it. They don't care about all these pixels and lossless sound and extras and HDi and etc, etc. What they do seem to care about is $$. For as much information is here for the taking, there are so many people (likely the majority) that will never see it. :(

It's amazing that anyone would think having to split up long movies over two disks is an acceptable solution for a next generation optical disk format.

Of course there is no reason to do so, since the excellent Blu-Ray option is available.
I've got about 500 DVDs and about 5 are on more than one disk or side. Hardly a big deal, and certainly not enough of a reason to choose one format over the other.

That was just baseless propaganda from Amir. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that either format would be more "HTPC friendly", whatever that means. It's silliness and FUD from Microsoft.

This is seriously flawed logic. Just because HD DVD can handle some movies, doesn't mean it can handle all of them. King Kong showed they had to drop lossless audio. And Cjplay clearly stated that HD DVD would benefit from greater bandwidth.

Studios can't spend months and months carefully crafting each release. The greater bandwidth and capacity of BD means the compressionists don't have to work as hard to get great quality.

The insiders said a while back that Universal CHOSE to go with the 1.5DD+ over something like TrueHD. Why? I don't know - Universal has only done a few TrueHD movie and seems to be their trend.

BD could do with greater bandwidth as well. These are all COMPRESSED.

Why don't you ask about why Fox uses DTS:MA for their lossless and NO PCM tracks? Especially since it has now come out that the Sony and Pioneer players will NEVER be able to decode DTS:MA.

Why don't you ask why the PS3 is still the only player to decode TrueHD?

Why don't you ask about the further delay of BD-J according to paidgeek to fall now? Or do you like using that extra space to store another whole copy of a movie with PIP overlay?

I've got about 500 DVDs and about 5 are on more than one disk or side. Hardly a big deal, and certainly not enough of a reason to choose one format over the other.

Didn't someone else say that 'two disc special editions' seem to sell better than single disc ones? I thought there was a note or two that studios liked 2-discs SE sets better than singles due to the 'marketing power' of it or something?

Didn't someone else say that 'two disc special editions' seem to sell better than single disc ones? I thought there was a note or two that studios liked 2-discs SE sets better than singles due to the 'marketing power' of it or something?
I don't know, but I can speak for myself. If the EXTRAS are on the 2nd disc, then I'm all for it. Much rather have the movie, itself on one, though.

This also goes for DVD. If the film isn't too long where it NEEDS two discs like LOTR SEs, then I want the extras on a 2nd disc so the 1st has more room for less compression.

I don't know, but I can speak for myself. If the EXTRAS are on the 2nd disc, then I'm all for it. Much rather have the movie, itself on one, though.

This also goes for DVD. If the film isn't too long where it NEEDS two discs like LOTR SEs, then I want the extras on a 2nd disc so the 1st has more room for less compression.

I'm fine with that as well ... as long as I don't need more than one disc (or have to flip the disc, etc) to watch the WHOLE movie in one sitting. If the bonus and extras and games are on another disc, that's fine by me. Frankly, I buy the SE's and I don't know why ... I think I can count the amount of times I've actually used Disc-2 on one hand. :o

Of Course, for Epic Movies, I have no issue swapping out discs for each 'Episode'. For example, I wouldn't mind if Star Wars was on 6 Discs, just for the movies -- as long as it was one complete 'Episode/Movie' per disc.

Let me put it this way...If HD-DVD had more studio support - say Universal, Paramount, Warner exclusive and Disney neutral - what do you think the likelyhood would have been that Toshiba still would have put out cheap players? There would have been no reason to bestow that gift onto the HD community since they could always point to the higher support as reason to buy. Sony could still hold onto the PS3, but the battle would have had more parity from the beginning.

I think there would still be plenty of competition, and it would mostly be in price, because that's the only angle either format would have, also the bigger battle that hangs over both would of course be DVD, You can't make your money back on $700 players, if there aren't enough people who think a $700 player is worth owning. The war is one thing, but people probably see HD as a mere upgrade is another. Actually it pretty much is.

My second generation Sony DVD player was only about $400, and it had no competition other than other DVD players.

[QUOTE=Rob Zuber]This is seriously flawed logic. Just because HD DVD can handle some movies, doesn't mean it can handle all of them.

Rod, since you seem to be an expert on HD DVD titles, would you mind narrowing down the 'some' in your statement and tell us how many current and future titles for HD DVD could have lossless audio ?
Thanks in advance

would you mind narrowing down the 'some' in your statement and tell us how many current and future titles for HD DVD could have lossless audio ?Who knows? At this very early stage, one long HD DVD movie already ran into a problem. Not a good sign for a supposed "next generation" format.

But, again, there's no need for such nonsense. No need to worry. Just buy BD at a retailer near you and all your troubles go away. There is no rational reason to settle for the inferior product.

[QUOTE=Rob Zuber]This is seriously flawed logic. Just because HD DVD can handle some movies, doesn't mean it can handle all of them...
...nor as many as the competition. ;)

Man, I thought beatboy was a sad case. Rob, you and Sketcha now hold the title.

Man, I thought beatboy was a sad case. Rob, you and Sketcha now hold the title.
Oh so your the moral compass now. :rolleyes:

Way to address the information in the post and not the posters, tr. Next time you see your shrink, ask him/her about projection.

Oh, and BTW, I was on kid watch today and, yeah I may have been a little desperate for some grown-up interaction, alright! Instead I got you. :p

J6P = Joe Six Pack. I've often referred to him as JQP (John Q Public) but it seems that the consensus at AVS is J6P so I've learned to conform. :p

I also wanted to add that quality doesn't always win. Take McDonald's hamburgers for example. They're alright, but certainly NOT the best burger you can buy. They aren't always even the cheapest burger you can buy.



Thanx BoyScout.

What information would that be? ...nor as many as the competition. What a jewel! I now know everything there is to know about ...what exactley was your point?

Who knows? At this very early stage, one long HD DVD movie already ran into a problem. Not a good sign for a supposed "next generation" format.

But, again, there's no need for such nonsense. No need to worry. Just buy BD at a retailer near you and all your troubles go away. There is no rational reason to settle for the inferior product.

Why worry? Just swallow the blue pill.

The vast majority of titles are on BD-25 and you can step right up and buy an overpriced BD-Video 1.0 compliant player now at a retailer near your. Life is good......why wait? ;)

No thanks Rob. The blue cake isn't fully baked yet.

From the news thread, this intersting tidbit:

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6423230.html

Sony Electronics recently announced that it will lower the price of its set-top Blu-ray player in June, from $999 to $599.

Companies don’t typically announce price cuts so far in advance, because it signals consumers to stop buying until the price cut takes effect.

The logical inference is that Sony wasn’t selling many $999 players anyway and is feeling pressure to narrow the price gap with HD DVD.


Anybody else notice something interesting about that date?

Why, isn't that the mandated date for BR decks manufactured to begin supporting BD-Live 1.0 profile aka PiP?

Glass-half-full: This price drop will be for new players supporting the updated profile.

Glass-half-empty: Sony will be clearing out inventory of obsolete players by pricing them only slightly above HD DVD decks.

What a jewel!
Hey, thanks!

Oh, and I believe you named another member in your post, tr.

Regardless, I would think it would take more than one post to take the "title." There are 10 posts of mine, including the "jewel" on the last couple of pages, besides my responses to you. Would you care to count back and point out how many, out of those, were of the type that should be counted toward this "title?"

I wouldn't want to accept something that I didn't deserve, after all.

...Sony will be clearing out inventory of obsolete players by pricing them only slightly above HD DVD decks...The $599 player will be a new model with exactly the same features, plus CD playback capability.

No thanks Rob. The blue cake isn't fully baked yet.

This is true. But just wait till late summer..........;)

This is true. But just wait till late summer..........;)

Rather than "Blu-ray, beyond HD" Sony should have gone with "Blu-ray, just wait" :D

Who knows? At this very early stage, one long HD DVD movie already ran into a problem. Not a good sign for a supposed "next generation" format.

But, again, there's no need for such nonsense. No need to worry. Just buy BD at a retailer near you and all your troubles go away. There is no rational reason to settle for the inferior product.


I couldn't agree more that there's no need for the kind of obnoxious "nonsense" in this post. Stating that there's "no rational reason to settle for the inferior product" clearly implies that those who've bought into the format must be stupid dolts for not recognizing the obvious superiority of BD. Sorry to burst your bubble Rob, but I'm afraid that you and others of your ilk don't enjoy any monopoly in excellence of cognitive rationality or discernment, and that statement simply reflects a stupendous level of arrogance.

Rather than "Blu-ray, beyond HD" Sony should have gone with "Blu-ray, just wait" :D

Alternatively: "Blu-ray! The longer you wait, the better it gets."

Who could argue that isn't truth in advertizing?

Didn't someone else say that 'two disc special editions' seem to sell better than single disc ones? I thought there was a note or two that studios liked 2-discs SE sets better than singles due to the 'marketing power' of it or something?Well, if studios are putting out 2 Blu-ray discs instead of a single disc just for marketing purposes wouldn't that show that Blu-ray's higher manufacturing costs are negligible?

Also, would those BD 2-disc sets have over 20GB of extras and use a bit rate lower than HD DVD's maximum? In which case, the main movie could be put on a 30GB HD DVD disc. If not, could the compressionist get the same video and audio quality out of an encoding for HD DVD with a smaller file?

Why don't you ask about the further delay of BD-J according to paidgeek to fall now? Or do you like using that extra space to store another whole copy of a movie with PIP overlay?

This just makes me pissed even more at Warners for not just getting their crap together and release those Hdi HD DVD's already, Why the heck are they waiting for this half baked format to have their product finished before we HD DVD buyers can enjoy their releases!
Too bad If the Blu-Ray crowd whine about it!, so let them wait another year along with "Batman Begins".
The HD DVD's are ready to be played so lets roll them out A.S.A.P! :mad:

Please use link to continuation of this thread:


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9998075&&#post9998075



Thank you :)