I would favor a dual format player also but if I had to pick right now I would go BR. PQ about the same, software price about the same, studio support much greater, CE support much greater, disk capacity much greater and hardware cost differences insignificant.

I will probably wait at least another year for less flawed hardware (both formats suffer from this problem).

Well, after truding through these forums and highdefdigest.com reviews for months, I finally took the plunge... on HD-DVD.

Main reason? Cheaper player. I was able to get an new A2 for 375 shipped via Amazon. The cheapest BD player I could find is the PS3.

Well, after truding through these forums and highdefdigest.com reviews for months, I finally took the plunge... on HD-DVD.

Main reason? Cheaper player. I was able to get an new A2 for 375 shipped via Amazon. The cheapest BD player I could find is the PS3.

If the HD DVD camp really wanted to nail the coffin shut, they would come out with a sub $300 HD DVD player that delivered. Maybe throw out a sub $200 HD DVD player that was stripped down for the average joe as well and flood the market with them. Price rules for the average consumer. Given them "no reason" to not buy the HD DVD player over a decent SD DVD player. People who want the best will always go for the more expensive units anyway but to really establish roots fast they need to do a fast spread into the marketplace.

If the HD DVD camp really wanted to nail the coffin shut, they would come out with a sub $300 HD DVD player that delivered. Maybe throw out a sub $200 HD DVD player that was stripped down for the average joe as well and flood the market with them. Price rules for the average consumer. Given them "no reason" to not buy the HD DVD player over a decent SD DVD player. People who want the best will always go for the more expensive units anyway but to really establish roots fast they need to do a fast spread into the marketplace.That would be a good strategy.

Well, shows you what kind of fantasyland HD DVD supporters live in.

First: There ARE no other HD DVD companies to provide hardware. Toshiba's ALREADY LOSING MONEY!

Companies support a format to MAKE money. Not lose it (or "loose" for all those who are products of today's education system and can't spell). All BD machines except the PS3 are sold at profit.

No company is going to defect to the HD DVD side to lose a bundle making sub $300 players just to help Toshiba rake in patent money.

Well, shows you what kind of fantasyland HD DVD supporters live in.

First: There ARE no other HD DVD companies to provide hardware. Toshiba's ALREADY LOSING MONEY!

Companies support a format to MAKE money. Not lose it (or "loose" for all those who are products of today's education system and can't spell). All BD machines except the PS3 are sold at profit.

No company is going to defect to the HD DVD side to lose a bundle making sub $300 players just to help Toshiba rake in patent money.
No company has to make "sub $300 players".
What info do you have to back that post up?
Tosh has two players on the market today.
The retail price of which is $499US & $999US.

Who's going to line up to make sub $499US players just to help Sony rake in patent money?
At least my post is true.
The Home Computer System preforms as well or out preforms all other BD players.
So if a CEC wanted to make money selling BD hardware, it would have to be priced below the gaming device.
While the top preforming HD Disc player is the top priced player as well at $1000US. So other CEC could be priced at $499US or more and not get blown out of the water by a toy.
I don't know what "fantasyland" you live in!
Oh yes I do, "Blu-rayland" where everything is better six month from today. :rolleyes:

Eddie, try reading above in the thread before you attack out of context, mmmkay?

I was referring to post #254.

While the top preforming HD Disc player is the top priced player as well at $1000US.

The top performing BD player is the PS3, and the other companies offer their players at profit for those foolish enough to dismiss the PS3 as a "toy" (and the hypocrisy of the HD DVD folk that dismiss the PS3 yet laud the under performing HD DVD add on for the XBOX 360).

Fact: Sony is losing money selling the PS3
Fact: Toshiba sells all players for profit.

Fact: Toshiba sells all players for profit.

No, they don't.

Toshiba's claim of profit was debunked by those who totaled up the cost of the PC components within, even with a massive OEM discount. They still lost $200+ per A1.

Meanwhile, Pioneer, Sony (BDPS-1), Pioneer, Samsung, Panasonic, and Philips make money on their BD players. As will Sharp, Mitsubishi, and Yamaha when they bring theirs to market. You know, the rest of the electronics industry not called "Toshiba".

Meanwhile, Pioneer, Sony (BDPS-1), Pioneer, Samsung, Panasonic, and Philips make money on their BD players. As will Sharp, Mitsubishi, and Yamaha when they bring theirs to market.

Building a player and slaping a price tag on does not a profit make.
You actually need to have people buying them...... :D

No, they don't.

Toshiba's claim of profit was debunked by those who totaled up the cost of the PC components within, even with a massive OEM discount. They still lost $200+ per A1.And in case anyone decides to deny this, here's the proof (following is an excerpt, for the full article, follow the link):

"'Teardown' finds Toshiba taking a loss on HD DVD player"

According to iSuppli's teardown analysis, bill-of-materials (BOM) costs for Toshiba's HD-A1 HD DVD total an estimated $674, far exceeding the unit's $499 U.S. retail price. The estimated BOM figure excludes costs for manufacturing, testing, cables, remote control and packaging—costs that could easily push the total cost of each unit to more than $700, iSuppli (El Segundo, Calif.) said.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=189600999

Building a player and slaping a price tag on does not a profit make.
You actually need to have people buying them...... :D

How does one do "slaping" anyway?

HD DVD folk wouldn't look so foolish if they'd learn to spell their "clever" little retorts.

Meanwhile, the PS3 is slapping the A2 silly in sales.

Meanwhile, the PS3 is slapping the A2 silly in sales.

So? The Xbox 360 is "slapping" the PS3 in sales. :D

Did I spell everything ok champ? :rolleyes:

So? The Xbox 360 is "slapping" the PS3 in sales. :DAnd? The XBox 360 doesn't play HD DVD on it's own. :rolleyes:

So? The Xbox 360 is "slapping" the PS3 in sales. :D

Did I spell everything ok champ? :rolleyes:

Yeah.

Mind you the 360 is a year ahead in production (and still outsold by the PS2!).

At this time last year, the 360 did NOT have as many sales. How long do you think it will take Sony as long to hit 10 million worldwide? Hint: far less time than the 360 took.

Haha Peter I can't believe you're still on this subject. When are you going to give it a rest and just enjoy your movies. Considering you don't even own HD DVD the only thing people should be feeling for you is pity because you're not enjoying all the HD content you can get and instead spend your time arguing with other fanboys over the merits of the ps3 and BD. Mind you, no one really cares.

How does one do "slaping" anyway?

HD DVD folk wouldn't look so foolish if they'd learn to spell their "clever" little retorts.
Two things. One, this is a lame and pathetic attempt at an insult. Two, I agree, how does one "do" slaping? Have you ever done slapped someone? If you're going to correct other people's spelling why don't you also brush up on your grammar skills while you're at it.

So, if had to pick one i would choose the one and only true: High-Def DVD.

HD-DVD: price and quality.

The world is a vampire.

If I was forced to pick it would be Blu Ray

I think we need to get the red states and the blue states together and really solve a few things here.

The mainstream success is the only success that matters--look at HD in general. This year the tide turned and HD really took off. Why? We finally had enough content to interest the average viewer--and there was the price drop thing. But mainly, it was the array of decent things to watch. Fanboys and enthusiasts interested in bit rates and compression artifacts and the like do NOT a successful format make--we're a footnote, folks. I love that we're into quality A/V, but it's the content, stupid. And we haven't seen much yet. Really.

So neither purely blue, nor purely red, but purple (combo player) for me please. Let this thing drag out, let each side push the other to fulfill all their promises; Let the studios get their A-list titles (new and catalog) out the door; Let the LONG-TERM potential of each format be known...then we'll have a winner.

The consumer. I'll have players for both formats in a few months (have HD-DVD now, Blu-ray by summer)...and by mid-2007, if we don't see ultimately compelling content coming out from either side, it'll be a wash anyways. Right now the number of truly GOOD A-grade movies in either format wouldn't fill a shoebox.

Oh, and I know the OT was 'if you HAD to chose', so I voted purely on spec--Blu-ray. Nothing about this poll is purely rational, you know. Just read through the thread.

This poll needs to be taken again to capture the post-CES views of folks.

I think we need to get the red states and the blue states together and really solve a few things here.

The mainstream success is the only success that matters--look at HD in general. This year the tide turned and HD really took off. Why? We finally had enough content to interest the average viewer--and there was the price drop thing. But mainly, it was the array of decent things to watch. Fanboys and enthusiasts interested in bit rates and compression artifacts and the like do NOT a successful format make--we're a footnote, folks. I love that we're into quality A/V, but it's the content, stupid. And we haven't seen much yet. Really.

So neither purely blue, nor purely red, but purple (combo player) for me please. Let this thing drag out, let each side push the other to fulfill all their promises; Let the studios get their A-list titles (new and catalog) out the door; Let the LONG-TERM potential of each format be known...then we'll have a winner.

The consumer. I'll have players for both formats in a few months (have HD-DVD now, Blu-ray by summer)...and by mid-2007, if we don't see ultimately compelling content coming out from either side, it'll be a wash anyways. Right now the number of truly GOOD A-grade movies in either format wouldn't fill a shoebox.

Oh, and I know the OT was 'if you HAD to chose', so I voted purely on spec--Blu-ray. Nothing about this poll is purely rational, you know. Just read through the thread.

Amen.... my thougts exactly. I am trying to hold out for a decent combo player so I can enjoy both formats.

If I absolutely HAD to pick one format (in my case, give up one), it would have to be BD. That's what I voted for. I find that the PS3 makes a great BD player with 1080p (and HDMI 1.3 support). It's also a great option for playing back video and audio from external USB sources or from it's drive. It plays games too and cost me $400 with $100 off for PS2 trade-in and another $100 off with new Sony Visa card. Hence, it was in the same ball park as my HD-A1, but with more features. The only downside is the bluetooth remote vs. IR. That takes player costs out of the equation. (The HD-A1 is a better DVD player though due to great upscaling.)

So, I'm left with just these other issues: codec choice/PQ and studio support. PQ on BD seems to have improved over initial releases and hopefully will continue to do so, eliminating this issue entirely. It's probably at the point where the quality of the master is the bigger issue. That just leaves studio support and obviously BD has the edge there. That's why if I HAD to choose, I'd have to go with BD. Another plus in BD's favor for me is the lack of any combo titles which means cheaper disc costs. I also see more discounts/specials on the BD side, so that's nice too.

Fortunately, I don't have to choose one over the other, but am enjoying both formats. Life is good in HiDef.

I'd like the cheapest and best format, whatever that may be but whoever the porn industry chooses and the easiest to crack format will probably be it.

I see that HD-DVD is in fact, cracked and downloads are already out there.

Interestingly enough I think Blu Ray will win out because Sony is so involved in the input market.

They rule in home video camera's and their current push in Home Video HD camera's means that format and Blu Ray stay hand in hand. I just bought one of their SXR TV's and after several years of owning another top brand DLP I can say Sony tops them greatly.

And I know this sounds strange, but when Sony bought Konica Minolta and came out with the Alpha 100 (Camera of the Year in 2006) that accepts over 12,000,000 existing Minolta lenses throughout the world then Sony has positioned themselves as a consumer choice for video and digital captue and they also own the highest grossing TV studio in the world.

When you have this many angles working for you then you are hard to supplant. Also, that security built into Blu Ray versus the HD "cracks" means the studios and the producer's will start to gather where their assets can be protected.

I have yet to buy a HD DVD player, but feel Blu Ray is where the future is for many reasons.

Would it be bold to create the same poll again after PS3 has launched in Europe :) It would be intresting to see what kind of impact has PS3 had in these forums.

And I know this sounds strange, but when Sony bought Konica Minolta and came out with the Alpha 100 (Camera of the Year in 2006) that accepts over 12,000,000 existing Minolta lenses throughout the world then Sony has positioned themselves as a consumer choice for video and digital captue and they also own the highest grossing TV studio in the world.



Camera of the year or not, the performance of Alpha 100 in the eye of serious and professional photographers is a big joke.

If any professional photographer is considering the Alpha as a professional SLR then the joke is on the photographer. Sony is very clear in all their publications that the Alpha 100 is a consumer SLR and that their "pro" versions will follow.

The fact that the Alpha with the Minolta lenses turned out to be such an achiever I guess got folks confused and thought it was suppose to be a pro's camera. It is interesting that the Alpha has sold more since it came out than the corresponding entry level Cannon's and Nikon's.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when that Sony Pro does arrive late this year or early next.

The fact that the Alpha with the Minolta lenses turned out to be such an achiever I guess got folks confused and thought it was suppose to be a pro's camera. It is interesting that the Alpha has sold more since it came out than the corresponding entry level Cannon's and Nikon's.


You got your facts wrong.

1. the part which confuses people is the high price of Alpha (higher than Rebel XTi, which is a far better performer than Alpha). People think if the price is that high, it can't be low-end model.

2. Alpha only sold more during the release month and only in Japan. Worldwide, Alpha doesn't sell. A couple of my friends own camera stores in the Toronto area, to date, all 5 stores only sold 5 Alphas. Yes, 5, not 15, not 50... just 5. Canon is still dominating the digital camera world and Nikon being the second.

This thread is about Blue Ray versus HD DVD and what we think about how one will fare over another.

I've stated my opinion and gave my reasons. I respectfully recognize you don't think Sony's Blue Ray will win out. We simply disagree.

My neighbor, a Canon representative, seems to say that worldwide the Alpha is selling better than you imply or his company had hoped. That "in the body" stabilization thing that Sony and Pentax have has taken root with the public.

my final input WRT Sony dSLR worldwide marketshare.

2006 worldwide dSLR marketshare (data courtesy of Canon Indonesia)

Canon 38.3%
Nikon 32.4%
Sony 13.0%
Pentax 11.6%
Olympus 3.8%
Matsushita 0.8%

Going back to BD vs HD DVD. If HD DVD is still lacking in movie releases like these days, BD will win out, there is no doubt about it. We need NEW MOVIES. The market will be won with the camp with more day-and-date releases. Thus far, HD DVD have become more and more disappointing.

David....can we agree that a single HD format would in the end be the best for the consumer in terms of price? Competition, especially at the inception level, gave us better quality but price is ultimately important to the masses, of which I'm certainly one.

absolutely agree !!!

This thread is about Blue Ray versus HD DVD and what we think about how one will fare over another.

I've stated my opinion and gave my reasons. I respectfully recognize you don't think Sony's Blue Ray will win out. We simply disagree.

My neighbor, a Canon representative, seems to say that worldwide the Alpha is selling better than you imply or his company had hoped. That "in the body" stabilization thing that Sony and Pentax have has taken root with the public.
Wow - sounds like Sony management type :p

ATM I'd go with HD DVD for four reasons:

- The hardware is cheaper.
- The HD DVD release list seems a little heavier on independent/arthouse/classic material, which is what I like, whilst BD is a bit bigdumbblockbuster.
- There is no region coding on HD DVD.
- I'd figure the HD DVD camp are more likely to maintain quality standards without competition than the BD camp.

I am leaning towards Blu-ray. I know the players are more expensive and the hype and marketing is annoying, but you can't deny the support from both the manufacturers and studios. Most of the movies I want to see released in HD will be on Blu-ray or Blu-ray exclusively. I believe the Blu-ray exclusivity of Sony, Fox and Disney, amongst others, will severely handicap HD DVD. If Universal ever cracks and decides to release on both formats, the war will be over.

Having said that, I originally supported HD DVD and still believe that it is the most logical marketable successor to DVD. The format war is ridiculous and ultimately confusing to the consumer. I feel sorry for the poor schmuck who lays down his hard-earned cash on a player that may or may not play his favourite movie because it is not available in the format he chose. Hopefully people do their homework before buying, but you know that some will be pressured into buying before they could really check things out.

I'm hoping one of the formats caves before the end of the year and we can move forward from there.

For normal planar 2-D content it appears to me that either format is the equal of the other. HD-DVD might even have better bang for the buck.

For Stereoscopic dual stream left right frame sequential 3D it appears Blu-Rays higher storage capacity and throughput will be advantageous. In stead of recording 2 separate streams I suppose it might be possible to record one stream and generate the second from a parallax differential signal in which case some of Blu-Rays andvantage would dissapear.

I read an article about a year ago that said the PS3 was going to support stereoscopic 3-D. It appears that feature was left out of the current players. Does anybody have any info on this?

I beleive that stereoscopic 3-D will be the next big thing beyond 1080P if Lucas, Cameron, RealD,In-three, etc can get the ball rolling. Just read that the NBA is going to experiment with 3-D at their All star game.

Since I am interested in 3D Blu-Ray is my choice.

For normal planar 2-D content it appears to me that either format is the equal of the other. HD-DVD might even have better bang for the buck.

For Stereoscopic dual stream left right frame sequential 3D it appears Blu-Rays higher storage capacity and throughput will be advantageous. In stead of recording 2 separate streams I suppose it might be possible to record one stream and generate the second from a parallax differential signal in which case some of Blu-Rays andvantage would dissapear.

I read an article about a year ago that said the PS3 was going to support stereoscopic 3-D. It appears that feature was left out of the current players. Does anybody have any info on this?

I beleive that stereoscopic 3-D will be the next big thing beyond 1080P if Lucas, Cameron, RealD,In-three, etc can get the ball rolling. Just read that the NBA is going to experiment with 3-D at their All star game.

Since I am interested in 3D Blu-Ray is my choice.
But lacking any kind of 3D spec, neither format is going to do 3D. The best that could happen is interlaced left/right encoding, which either could handle nicely.

But real 3D would presumably be in a followup format.

If forced to go the interlaced field sequential route, 1920 x 540 is still a lot better than 720 x 240 which is available on DVD to 3D cultists.
This will be a job for Home Theater PC's.

I got the 3D bug when I was growing up because we had an old 35 mm film strip 3D viewer that looked like it was from the 1930's.

I got reenthused in 2001 when I read an article in the September 2001 SMPTE Journal by Lenny Lipton. Go to Google and search for SMPTE Journal Sep 2001 Lipton or try url.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&q=cache:U7dxCPqCeKIJ:www.stereographics.com/x_downloads/whitepapers/SMPTE.PDF+author:%22Lipton%22+intitle:%22The+Stereoscopic+Ci nema:+From+Film+to+Digital+Projection%22+

I picked Blur-ray first, then realized I made a mistake, took it back, and got HD DVD. There were a few reasons for it:

1. The first Gen Blur-ray players are absolute junk compared to the Toshiba HD-XA2 that I decided on. No contest, whatsoever.
2. The only Blur-ray player that is even worth the investment right now is the PS3. Since there are no games for the PS3, and from what I've heard and read the PS3 is a huge letdown, and since I already have an XBOX 360... Well, I'm not paying $600 for a video game system that happens to play blur-rays, but will never be used for games.
3. There are more titles that I enjoy being released exclusive to HD DVD than tiles released exclusively for Blur-ray.

With that said, if any of the Blur-ray manufacturers introduce a player that is as great as the Toshiba HD-XA2 (and it has to have built in decoders like the XA2, also) for $800 or less, then I will buy another Blur-ray. Right now I have 8 Blur-ray titles collecting dust after I returned my Samsung BD-P1000.

I'm no expert on these things, so I have to find one to rely on. Says Arcam founder John Dawson, who really is an expert,

"It is staggering that these two groups weren't able to get themselves together. Too much corporate pride, too much patent and intellectual-property income in the way. And deep rivalry between Toshiba, who snatched the DVD business from Philips' and Sony's patent pool, and Philips and Sony—Sony in particular, who really didn't want that to happen a second time around. I do have opinions on which is more fit for purpose as a replay medium, and it's not Blu-ray.

"As I understand it, BD (Blu-ray Disc) was developed not as a ROM, a playback-only medium, but as a recording medium for Japanese high-definition television broadcasts. And because high-definition television in America and Japan is based on the older and relatively inefficient MPEG-2 video codec, you need very high data rates and lots of disc space to support the programming. To get this space—25 gigabytes per layer—on a 5" disc you need to put the laser very close to the disc's surface, which introduces a whole new set of problems.

"It turns out that Europe's high-definition broadcasting will run on more modern video codecs needing approximately half the space. So with these new codecs, VC-1 and H.264, there is no longer a need for all that amount of space in a replay or ROM format. But BD had already invested the time and effort in getting this to work for MPEG-2 video as a recording format—although all you can do is record off-air; you can't record off disc because of copyright issues—and they've now tried to adapt it as a replay-only format.

"The HD DVD specification proposed by Toshiba and its partners and endorsed by the DVD Forum is a substantial extension of today's DVD format. It's much cheaper to replicate the discs—you can modify existing production lines—and it's less hard to make the players. The disadvantage, if it has one, is less playing capacity, but with a modern video codec, that doesn't get in the way. With BD, you need totally new disc-manufacturing lines and more complex optical pickups, both of which add significant cost." [see Stereophile, Jan. 2007]

If you want to help Sony make money for decades off what is already old technology, buy Blu-ray. If you want a more modern and efficient product that is and always will be less expensive, buy HD DVD and make it the standard format for high definition playback at home.

No, I don't work for either side or even own any stock of either side.

Um, no.

Most people think HD DVD is HDMI upconverting DVD players.

They *know* Blu-ray is a different format and it is High Definition.


http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c111/mic-el/smileys/rofl.gif

You got your facts wrong.

1. the part which confuses people is the high price of Alpha (higher than Rebel XTi, which is a far better performer than Alpha). People think if the price is that high, it can't be low-end model.

2. Alpha only sold more during the release month and only in Japan. Worldwide, Alpha doesn't sell. A couple of my friends own camera stores in the Toronto area, to date, all 5 stores only sold 5 Alphas. Yes, 5, not 15, not 50... just 5. Canon is still dominating the digital camera world and Nikon being the second.
The A100 comes with a 18-70mm lens and is priced lower than the XTi with the 18-55mm lens.

Note that the 18-55mm lens is basically useless to even semi pros and is the general advice is to avoid it and go for the 17-85 lens instead.

The XTi with the 17-85mm lens is priced close to the pro SLR levels, being about $500 above the A100. The XTi with 17-85 is even 250 more than the A100 kit with 18-70 & 75-300mm lenses

Henry's and aden's camera has prices on their website.

Actually, the A100 is based on CCD technology whereas the XTi is a CMOS sensor. It used to be pros won't touch a cmos and prefer CCDs exclusively, but they both have different noise characteristics, even though I would give the edge to the XTi in higher ISO noise handling.

Sony's HDR-UX1 records AVCHD to the 5cm red-laser disk that is playable directly on the PS3, their player and the panasonic. In terms of ease of use, the ability to archive and store the disks directly without the need for PC editing, makes the HDR-UX1 an ideal if somewhat pricey HDCAM for the consumer.

The A100 comes with a 18-70mm lens and is priced lower than the XTi with the 18-55mm lens.

Note that the 18-55mm lens is basically useless to even semi pros and is the general advice is to avoid it and go for the 17-85 lens instead.

The XTi with the 17-85mm lens is priced close to the pro SLR levels, being about $500 above the A100. The XTi with 17-85 is even 250 more than the A100 kit with 18-70 & 75-300mm lenses

Henry's and aden's camera has prices on their website.

Actually, the A100 is based on CCD technology whereas the XTi is a CMOS sensor. It used to be pros won't touch a cmos and prefer CCDs exclusively, but they both have different noise characteristics, even though I would give the edge to the XTi in higher ISO noise handling.


1. Henry's and Aden's are overpriced by at least 15% on Nikon and Canon products but in-line for Sony product. For better comparison, deduct 15% from Nikon and Canon pricing on Nikon/Canon products.

2. Canon Rebel XTi combined with the highly regarded Sigma 18-125 (not the 18-200) is no more expensive than an Alpha with 18-70 lens

3. lens reach is not a sign of quality. If it is, then my 50mm f/1.2 L should be cr@p

4. It's not about CMOS or CCD. It's about implementation. Although Sony uses CCD and Canon uses CMOS for their still cameras, the reverse is true for their semipro and pro level broadcast camera (Sony uses 3 CMOS, Canon uses 3 CCD)

5. Mixing the A100 to XTi is a joke at best. I have seen many pros who use XTi as their backup bodies, but have yet to see a single pro using the Alpha. I personally use 2x 5D as backup for my 2x 1DsMKII and 2x XTi as backup for my 2x 30D. I originally bought the Alpha for my daughter, even she complain about the image quality of that camera. Now she uses another XTi with 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens (btw, 17-85 lens, albeit from Canon, is a big joke).

note: my off-topic discussion of photography in a BD/HD DVD thread ends with this post.

Sincerely,
David Susilo

I picked Blu-ray if I had to pick just one.

1) More studio support
2) Better studio support in 2007
3) Disney's AVC and VC1 encodes are some of the best I've seen with some of the best audio I've seen from either format. And this is just the first year. Imagine what they'll manage in coming years with the higher thoroughput maximums of BD...
4) The PS3 is the best high def disc player out there, bar none. It's quick, it's beautiful, respnosive, capable of more than just movies, and it is silent. The XA2 has only DVD upconversion in its favor. Upconversion convinced me to buy an XA2, but upconversion is not a feature to base an entire format around.
5) The discs cost the same on both formats. For discs that have superior features and specs (and no I don't give a fig about interactive features I'll use maybe once, maybe never and never look at again), I pay the same as the lower-end HD DVD format.
6) Even the PS3, the best player on the format, costs the same as the lower end HD DVD player without 1080p playback. Meanwhile, the PS3--the cheapest player out there--actually is the most feature complete, including Dolby TrueHD already despit the fact that few BD's use it.

So when BD's the same price as HD DVD in all ways, it offers better encodes today with the promise of even greater improvements in the future, gives you more movies by more movie studios along with 2/3's of the studio support of HD DVD being neutrla to do BD, too, the choice seems clear.

Blu-ray.

That said, life isn't limited like that. So I own HD DVD for Universal movies and WB titles that do not offer LPCM on BD but offer TrueHD on HD DVD.

Oh, and I almost forgot the other major, MAJOR reason to support BD over HD DVD:

No flippers.

Oh, and I almost forgot the other major, MAJOR reason to support BD over HD DVD:

No flippers.

Umm, it's only a flipper if you intend to use the other side :p

I'm no expert on these things, so I have to find one to rely on. Says Arcam founder John Dawson, who really is an expert,

"As I understand it, BD (Blu-ray Disc) was developed not as a ROM, a playback-only medium, but as a recording medium for Japanese high-definition television broadcasts. And because high-definition television in America and Japan is based on the older and relatively inefficient MPEG-2 video codec, you need very high data rates and lots of disc space to support the programming. To get this space—25 gigabytes per layer—on a 5" disc you need to put the laser very close to the disc's surface, which introduces a whole new set of problems. [see Stereophile, Jan. 2007]

If you want to help Sony make money for decades off what is already old technology, buy Blu-ray. If you want a more modern and efficient product that is and always will be less expensive, buy HD DVD and make it the standard format for high definition playback at home.
Thanks for the reminder

You know, I keep hearing about the Blu-Ray being old technology. It's true you know, this technology took over a decade to make work, and the detractors use the same old arguments --- too close to the surface, easy to scratch, too expensive, violates physical laws.

The spectrum of arguments run from too old to too advanced, so often they are made by people with little relevant scientific training in the particular field to be even worth commenting.

The Too Old argument : Consider the HD DVD. If we consider it carefully, it is basically triple density DVD, and yet it is about 3/5 of the data density of Blu-Ray. How is HD DVD a more advanced media technology than a Blu-Ray when it has less data density, lower peak bandwidth? If we use the floppy disk analogy, we are essentially talking about taking the 3.5" 1.44MB floppy and making it triple density --- a feasible enough task, but hardly worth doing because there is a better, more advanced storage technology here that has been proven to work.

Now for the Too New argument : The argument is about technology being too immature or too expensive to manufacture to reach mainstream. I have seen a lot of BD50 disks, in fact, I've often paid less for BD50 disks than most HDDVD disks (even non combos). There is also that thing about violating physical laws. I have been playing a lot of disks at home, I have recordables and rerecordables working well, I have seen that it is essentially scratch proof under even unrealistic use scenarios. And when the disks play in my BD players, space and time continuum did not warp, newtonian mechanics did not fail, and nothing strange outside of the screen and the speakers is really happening. So I can say for sure, that BD does not violate physical laws.

As for letting Sony make more money, I let these companies compete without any preference or dislike to any name brand. I know if I need software, MSFT is the only source to get OS and Office suites (and they're pretty good too), and they've been making money for decades off what essentially is the shrewdest deal of the century when Gates bought DOS off that poor guy, but this does not interest me, as I use whatever has been proven to work.

I know if I need CE gear, I can choose from Sony, Panasonic, Pioneer, etc etc. My house is littered with CE devices from all sorts of manufacturers. I don't have loyalty or hatred for any box maker, they just have to prove that they have something I want to buy, it's that simple. I do know however that I dislike single sourcing any technology, and right now, Toshiba is still the only maker of the HD DVD player, but that has not stopped me from keeping my last HD-A1.

BD is "old" technology. If it were a new technology, the increases in storage capacity wouldn't be fractionally above HD, it would be like going from floppy to CD. In other words the differences between HD and BD are not that large, so that one is vastly superior to the other. BD can store a bit more, but it is more difficult and expensive to make - look at the recent announcement to finally introduce DL capability to private replicators later this year. And, the results aren't any better in terms of movie quality.

BD is "old" technology. If it were a new technology, the increases in storage capacity wouldn't be fractionally above HD, it would be like going from floppy to CD. In other words the differences between HD and BD are not that large, so that one is vastly superior to the other. BD can store a bit more, but it is more difficult and expensive to make - look at the recent announcement to finally introduce DL capability to private replicators later this year. And, the results aren't any better in terms of movie quality.

The IOMEGA disks were 250MB, and for a while they served a purpose, but they could not compete against the 600MB+ CD/RW. 5400RPM HDD gave way to 7200RPM, bigger at the same price always wins, that is the nature of technology.

HD DVD as a technology actually started later than Blu-Ray. These things were mashed around and cooked for a long time before we got BD which is still the cutting edge in terms of releasable optical storage technology.

To reach production, any device has to have it's core technology mature before it can be sold on the scale that BD is today. My assertion that it is a mature technology and very reliable. In most ways you measure optical media, BD-rom/R/RE is actually substantially more stable and reliable than any HD DVD-rom. (I have not ever seen a HD DVD-R/RW to comment as I could not buy a burner).