Which would it be at this time. Just purely curious as to which one you'd pick if you had to pick one. BTW, if this thread exists already, can someone point me to it? I got nothing in a search.

At this point, I don't see any reason not to pick BR.

It has an affordable player out (and we will probably hear about more at CES). It has bunch of good titles out and coming out in the next 3 months. PQ of recent titles is very good. And it still has the untapped "potential" of having lots more support and disc space.

HD DVD is the easy choice. It's the best platform for the consumer.

Hardware

Every HD DVD player supports networking.
Every HD DVD player supports secondary audio and video decoders for Pip
Every HD DVD player supports persistent storage for bookmarks, etc
Every HD DVD player supports Lossless audio
Every HD DVD player supports Interactivity via HDi
Every HD DVD player supports CD and DVD ROM

The choice is clear. You simply get more player for your money.

At this point, I don't see any reason not to pick BR.

It has an affordable player out (and we will probably hear about more at CES). It has bunch of good titles out and coming out in the next 3 months. PQ of recent titles is very good. And it still has the untapped "potential" of having lots more support and disc space.

HD DVD is a better value. That's why it's winning the war and that's why this poll will likely show HD DVD being supported by a larger margin.

HD-DVD of course. Cheaper price for same or better quality. And I'm still looking for a quality player(IMO PS3 is not a player for Home Theater) at a decent price point for blu-ray. I'm not going to pay over $500 dollars for a game system I won't use, plus hdmi cable, plus remote. Not to mention it's hard to find the PS3.

But probably the biggest reason is that now that major publications are saying blu-ray is not going to last as a movie format, I don't want to buy something that isn't going to last. Especially when it's this expensive.

HD DVD for me.. That was easy. :)

Neither one is going away anytime soon.
Just get what you like and relax..

Easy choice, HD-DVD.

Where's the choice for "both"?

What's the purpose of such a poll other than starting up a giant pissing contest? The entire HD-DVD/BR forum section is a giant poll to that question in and of itself.

If BR leads in the poll, HD-DVD fans will say its due to an influx of gam0rs and ignorance, and if HD-DVD leads in the poll, BR fans will claim that AVS is HD-DVD-heavy and not representative of the "real world".

And the beat goes on...

I would also say both, but i would choose BR at this point (i already have HD-DVD and blu ray)as i think there starting to get there game together and 2007 looks like it will be a fine year for BR. Not so sure how HD-DVD will expand much further unless they get more CE manufacturies on board.

HD DVD is a better value. That's why it's winning the war and that's why this poll will likely show HD DVD being supported by a larger margin.

Well, obviously it's going to win a poll here. There's just a larger number of people dedicated to HD-DVD here. People are likely to vote for the side they've already purchased. It has little to do with value as it stands now or the future of the format.

I own both, so far more impressed with the picture on HD-DVD.

Bottom line- HD DVD is a much better value. Anyone who says that Blu-ray has a $500 player is whistling dixie out their ass. Not only is the ps3 a GAME machine, it's also not AVAILABLE. HD DVD software is also more wallet-friendly with more 19.99 titles than BD. Everything else (technical aspects of the two formats, picture quality, studio support etc.) is just smoke and mirrors. And I own both formats too BTW.

Neither one is going away anytime soon.
Just get what you like and relax..

No no, this thread isn't about which one to personally pick because I'm really thinking about buying (since I'm not for a while)...simply something I'd like to look back on in a year and see how the results have changed. From day 1 I favored BluRay...but then when it became reality and the players hit the market I found myself now favoring HD DVD mostly on what I get for the money...meaning that at this time it's not worth it to pay double for BR. In a year we could all be singing a different tune. In 10 years we'll look back on both and it will be like what VHS and Beta are to us today.

easy choice HD DVD ..

No no, this thread isn't about which one to personally pick because I'm really thinking about buying (since I'm not for a while)...simply something I'd like to look back on in a year and see how the results have changed. From day 1 I favored BluRay...but then when it became reality and the players hit the market I found myself now favoring HD DVD mostly on what I get for the money...meaning that at this time it's not worth it to pay double for BR. In a year we could all be singing a different tune. In 10 years we'll look back on both and it will be like what VHS and Beta are to us today.

I looked at value for the money too, until I read quite a number of posts in the HD-DVD forums about Toshiba player problems (skipping, etc). So I bought the Sony standalone and have had zero problems with it. It has played every disc flawlessly and seems built to last.

If both players were the same price I'd still go with HDDVD at the moment. But I like many of the universal films

HD DVD, no question.

If you don't actually want to buy and watch anything today but want to talk about it a lot, then evidence on these boards might suggest choosing Bluray :)

But joking aside - HD DVD !

Own both, but only one it would be HD DVD.

HD DVD is a no-brainer. I support it 110%.

Bottom line- HD DVD is a much better value. Anyone who says that Blu-ray has a $500 player is whistling dixie out their ass. Not only is the ps3 a GAME machine, it's also not AVAILABLE. HD DVD software is also more wallet-friendly with more 19.99 titles than BD. Everything else (technical aspects of the two formats, picture quality, studio support etc.) is just smoke and mirrors. And I own both formats too BTW.

I picked HD-DVD for the same reason. Both the hardware and software are consumer friendly. I just don't see any reason to spend more on a format which fails to prove its superiority over its counterpart.

Own an A1 and a PS3. HD DVD gets my vote.

maybe when Blu Ray gets some better value per $ it'll be supported by people other than those that can afford both. You won't find many people too thick to buy a HD DVD player that own a BD player. You will find many people who own HD DVD wondering why they should pay 2x for something that doesn't perform as well.

Pick as in which one would I buy right now?
HD-DVD hands down. Best bang for buck, doesn't have Sony's arrogant asses involved, and I generally root for the underdog.

As far as picking a (eventual) winner: I'd say neither. If I had to pick one, well, let's just say it's still Blu-Ray's war to lose at this point with the CE and Studio advantage, and overwhelming B&M presence.

Why would I buy a format I thought would lose you ask? I'm betting the war's going to take a good long time and I will have gotten plenty of enjoyment outta my investment by the time it's over

I own both. 50 titles for HD DVD ad 3 titles for BD. I wonder which way I'm swayed towards :D

HD DVD. The studios will soon realize the mistake they are making. Who wants to pay double for a player that is not better than HD DVD...just because is SONY.

Right now HDDVD for quality, price ,and titles I like better. My crystal ball is fogged a bit tonight so this war has many more battles to be fought.

Art

HD DVD. I am not a format fanboy - I'll go exactly where the quality is. I evidenced that when I dropped my pro-BD stance when I heard about what the first titles looked like.

And I'm not complaining - $500 vs $1000 AND consistently better quality, with guys that truly care about video calling some of the shots? I'm glad I switched!

Before I could even blink, I voted HD DVD.

Though I'm waiting until a little more dust settles with this issue before taking the plunge, HD-DVD gets my vote for now.

HD DVD is a better value. That's why it's winning the war and that's why this poll will likely show HD DVD being supported by a larger margin.

The "better value" argument is gone. PS3s are available, and for $499 they are just as good at playing HD as the A2 (if not better, since they output 1080p). The reviews for the PS3 as a BD player have been overwhelmingly positive. True, there are not massive piles of them on store shelves, but they are starting to show up. I saw 2 at Toys R Us on Sunday and Costco had a whole stack of them as of an hour ago. I'll bet $500 that if I went driving around looking tonight I'd find more of them on shelves than I would A2s. In my opinion they are a better value than the A2, not to mention that it supports SACD.

Please stop with the whole "better value" argument as its really no longer relevant.

The "better value" argument is gone. PS3s are available, and for $499 they are just as good at playing HD as the A2 (if not better, since they output 1080p). The reviews for the PS3 as a BD player have been overwhelmingly positive. True, there are not massive piles of them on store shelves, but they are starting to show up. I saw 2 at Toys R Us on Sunday and Costco had a whole stack of them as of an hour ago. I'll bet $500 that if I went driving around looking tonight I'd find more of them on shelves than I would A2s. In my opinion they are a better value than the A2, not to mention that it supports SACD.

Please stop with the whole "better value" argument as its really no longer relevant.

"better" is a subjective measure based on what each person finds is valuable. The argument will always exist because of this. The best you can do is explain why you think your chosen format offers the better value and then if you must, agree to disagree with the disenters.

HD-DVD gets my vote...Why spend $1000 on Bluray when you can :D get a HD-DVD player for half that... and the discs are cheaper :) No Brainer to me and everyone else that I know that are interested in these players

HD DVD rocks! Latest movie purchase Blazing Saddles

Ahh Irony!

The exact same transfer on BD! Same video compression, same audio, same extras, same price!

Time's ticking Toshiba, I mean HD DVD.

Hardware

Every HD DVD player supports networking.
Every HD DVD player supports secondary audio and video decoders for Pip
Every HD DVD player supports persistent storage for bookmarks, etc
Every HD DVD player supports Lossless audio
Every HD DVD player supports Interactivity via HDi
Every HD DVD player supports CD and DVD ROM

What about the HD DVD player from Panasonic? Samsung? Hitachi? Sharp? LG? Pioneer? Yamaha? Philips? Sony?

I guess it's easy for the players to support what you list when they are ALL made by the same one manufacturer.

The features you list are all supported by the PS3 by the way. Which supports MORE lossless audio formats!

Where are the DTS-MA HD DVDs? Where are the multichannel PCM HD DVDs?

Video quality? Where are the HD DVDs that support above 30 Mbps?

Some Blu-ray players play SACDs.
Some Blu-ray players play DVD-Audio discs.


Every Blu-ray player supports 1080p output.
Every Blu-ray player supports resume.
Every Blu-ray player supports Lossless audio via PCM 5.1
Every Blu-ray player supports Interactivity via JAVA
Every Blu-ray player supports discs above 30GB in size

Every Blu-ray player can play HD discs from Columbia/Tri-Star
Every Blu-ray player can play HD discs from Disney
Every Blu-ray player can play HD discs from 20th Century Fox
Every Blu-ray player can play HD discs from Lions Gate

Finally:

EVERY BD CUSTOMER HAS ***CHOICE***

HD-DVD gets my vote...Why spend $1000 on Bluray when you can get a HD-DVD player for half that... and the discs are cheaper

:D Again, the A2 and the PS3 are the same price. How long is this $1000 lie going to keep being told?

"better" is a subjective measure based on what each person finds is valuable. The argument will always exist because of this. The best you can do is explain why you think your chosen format offers the better value and then if you must, agree to disagree with the disenters.

I agree "better value" is somewhat subjective. My main point was responding to the $500 vs. $1000 nonsense.

I'm not going to pay over $500 dollars for a game system I won't use, plus hdmi cable, plus remote.

So you won't pay $500 for a player that also has a game system and an SACD player built in, but you will pay $500 for a player that contains neither???? An HDMI cable is $6 at monoprice. The remote is $25. I'll pay the extra $31 for the SACD player alone.

People are comparing prices from months ago as if they were still valid. Yes, there are higher-priced players available from Sony & Panasonic just as there is a higher priced player from Toshiba. But you can get one for either format for $500. If you want to argue that HD-DVD is a better value because the titles from Universal are more appealing to you, fine, but throwing out this $1000 figure left and right is downright wrong.

... and the discs are cheaper

Let's not forget that Universal discs listed for $40 when they arrived. Prices are set by the studios. I am not aware of any price differences on the same title except on some of the combo-discs where the HD-DVD is $5 extra.

Again, the A2 and the PS3 are the same price. How long is this $1000 lie going to keep being told?
Again, the ps3 is largely unavailable just about anywhere you go. Either you live at the edge of the world or you're lying when you say something like "Costco had a whole stack of them an hour ago."I agree "better value" is somewhat subjective. My main point was responding to the $500 vs. $1000 nonsense.
If you wanna put it that way, then it's really a $200 to $500 difference thanks to the add-on.

Let's not forget that Universal discs listed for $40 when they arrived. Prices are set by the studios. I am not aware of any price differences on the same title except on some of the combo-discs where the HD-DVD is $5 extra.
Meanwhile, BD movies like Devil Wears Prada and The Usual Suspects are selling for $39.99 on buydotcom. On the whole, HD DVD software is still cheaper and anyone who routinely shops for both formats would know that.

Please stop with the whole "better value" argument as its really no longer relevant.

Those opinions were very cleverly disguised as facts.

Anyway, the HD-A1 was and still is a better value for me.

First of all, the PS3 can't play HD DVDs which was a requirement for me since the transfers are just better. The best discs are still by and large HD DVDs both for PQ and for extras. I'm one of those who prefers VC-1 to MPEG-2... I haven't liked any of the MPEG-2 transfers I've seen on HD DVD.

Second, since I don't give 2 sh*ts about playing video games, even the 'tard pack PS3 @ $499 is still not a bargain for me. I bought the HD-A1 for $464 out-the-door with a free HD DVD of my choice (not a movie I don't care about: Ricky Bobby).

And some people have scored HD-A1s for $350. Can't do that with a PS3.

I hope hd dvd is the winner in the end since I ordered one last night :P

:D Again, the A2 and the PS3 are the same price. How long is this $1000 lie going to keep being told?

I agree "better value" is somewhat subjective. My main point was responding to the $500 vs. $1000 nonsense.

So you won't pay $500 for a player that also has a game system and an SACD player built in, but you will pay $500 for a player that contains neither???? An HDMI cable is $6 at monoprice. The remote is $25. I'll pay the extra $31 for the SACD player alone.

People are comparing prices from months ago as if they were still valid. Yes, there are higher-priced players available from Sony & Panasonic just as there is a higher priced player from Toshiba. But you can get one for either format for $500. If you want to argue that HD-DVD is a better value because the titles from Universal are more appealing to you, fine, but throwing out this $1000 figure left and right is downright wrong.

i thought we are talking about about players not consoles ... if you want to include consoles than HD DVD can be obtained at $199 (inclusive of a FREE HD DVD title and the universal remote control. Anyhow why talk about A2 at 499 when A1 can be obtained at >$399 :D .. another anyhow, A2 is still cheaper than PS3, there reports in the HD DVD thread saying that BB is selling the player for $449 and purchasers get 3 FREE HD DVD movies too. So that makes the player how much? >$399. DAMN that NEXT GENERATION DVD player IS STILL $100 cheaper than the low end PS3 console. Dont mean to offend, just stating the facts ;)

Yup, HD-DVD for me as well. The best damn piece of HT equipment I ever got for such a small amount!

You know what Bob? You brought up an interesting point. The HD-A1 is probably the best purchase hobby-wise I have ever made. I've never experienced less buyer's remorse in my life than with the A1 and I can honestly say that even if HD DVD loses the war tommorow, I will still be using this machine for years to come.

The "better value" argument is gone. PS3s are available, and for $499 they are just as good at playing HD as the A2 (if not better, since they output 1080p). The reviews for the PS3 as a BD player have been overwhelmingly positive. True, there are not massive piles of them on store shelves, but they are starting to show up. I saw 2 at Toys R Us on Sunday and Costco had a whole stack of them as of an hour ago. I'll bet $500 that if I went driving around looking tonight I'd find more of them on shelves than I would A2s. In my opinion they are a better value than the A2, not to mention that it supports SACD.

Please stop with the whole "better value" argument as its really no longer relevant.

It only cost me $175 to get into HD DVD, using the XBox HD DVD add-on with my HTPC. Considering that the King Kong HD DVD costs around $30, then it only cost me $145. I'm a VERY happy camper :)

It only cost me $175 to get into HD DVD, using the XBox HD DVD add-on with my HTPC. Considering that the King Kong HD DVD costs around $30, then it only cost me $145. I'm a VERY happy camper :)
I VOTED HD DVD!!! I got the CC deal too. Great value! BR is way way way too expensive for the PQ you get. Hopefully HD DVD nocks BR out in the 2nd round! :D So the studio's can go with the winner and give us our movies in the glourious HD DVD format.

Another vote for HD DVD.

The "better value" argument is gone. PS3s are available, and for $499 they are just as good at playing HD as the A2 (if not better, since they output 1080p). The reviews for the PS3 as a BD player have been overwhelmingly positive. True, there are not massive piles of them on store shelves, but they are starting to show up. I saw 2 at Toys R Us on Sunday and Costco had a whole stack of them as of an hour ago. I'll bet $500 that if I went driving around looking tonight I'd find more of them on shelves than I would A2s. In my opinion they are a better value than the A2, not to mention that it supports SACD.

Please stop with the whole "better value" argument as its really no longer relevant.

Absolutely, the PS3 is the best value for HD movie playback period. Sony delivered in a major way.

Absolutely, the PS3 is the best value for HD movie playback period.
How so? The ps3 costs $500. The add-on costs $200. They both do the same thing- play movies. Now if you said the best bang for your buck then I would agree since it also plays games, but attributing that value to the BD format alone doesn't make any sense.

Can't help you there if you don't get it. Makes sense to me and others. But yes, best bang for the buck as well as being the best value (almost sounds like the same thing;) )

Yup, add-on route for me would be $600 total for HD-DVD playback. Almost pulled the trigger last month, but I'm glad I didn't.

The ps3 costs $500. The add-on costs $200. They both do the same thing- play movies.

Can you spin the FUD some more?
You mean the HD DVD add on plays BY ITSELF?

Nope. You've either bought an XBOX 360 or must buy an XBOX 360 for either $299 or $399 bringing the cost of ownership to $500 or $600.
Yet you STILL don't have HDMI, or multichannel lossless. Not to mention the unit sounds like a damn mini-vac when playing.

PS3 is a superior machine in every way.

Yup HD-DVD is better in the same way that Betamax was better than VHS.

And in a similar way BD will win this war because of significantly greater studio support.

This has little to do with the better format or features or technology but public perception, marketing, and sheer weight of content choice which has already exceeded HD and will continue to do so because of all the studios.

It is simply delusional to think that HD can possibly win. And when Universal start producing BD, which seems inevitable (they will need to compete) then HD will quietly die.

Can't help you there if you don't get it. Makes sense to me and others. But yes, best bang for the buck as well as being the best value (almost sounds like the same thing;) )
You didn't say best value. You said best value for HD movie playback. Doesn't almost sound the same to me.

Can you spin the FUD some more?
You mean the HD DVD add on plays BY ITSELF?

Nope. You've either bought an XBOX 360 or must buy an XBOX 360 for either $299 or $399 bringing the cost of ownership to $500 or $600.
It's not an extra $400 for the 7 million people who already own a 360, and no ones going to buy the add-on unless they already have one. That's like saying a memory stick costs $500 because you have to have a digital camera or a cell phone to use it. At this point, there are MORE people with 360's who can buy an add-on than people who can get their hands on a ps3. And regardless, even without hdmi and lossless, at $200 it is still a much better VALUE as an HD movie player. Is that too much spin for you?

And regardless, even without hdmi and lossless, at $200 it is still a much better VALUE as an HD movie player

You forgot no HDMI 1.3, SACD, DTS, 7.1, 1080p and a QUIET movie experience.
Imagine watching the death scene at the end of "Million Dollar Baby" with the WHIRRRRRRR of the XBOX drowning out any subtlety.

At this point, there are MORE people with 360's who can buy an add-on than people who can get their hands on a ps3.

Probably, since there are many many 360 add ons sitting unbought on store shelves out here. Target, Circuit City, Best Buy, GameStop...

Meanwhile the PS3 continues to sell out with steady shipments.

Probably, since there are many many 360 add ons sitting unbought on store shelves out here. Target, Circuit City, Best Buy, GameStop...

Meanwhile the PS3 continues to sell out with steady shipments.
And your point? How does that have any bearing on the value of the add-on? I could care less if the ps3 is selling out, I was among those who picked one up on launch day. So what?

You forgot no HDMI 1.3, SACD, DTS, 7.1, 1080p and a QUIET movie experience.
No DTS? No 1080p? You don't know what you're talking about. And I can say with a great degree of certainty you've never actually seen one playing in person.

Has anyone compared the same Paramount title with VC1 on HD and mpeg2 on BD against each other?

thanks

Video quality? Where are the HD DVDs that support above 30 Mbps?

Where are the HD DVDs that need above 30 Mbps to look top-notch?

Has anyone compared the same Paramount title with VC1 on HD and mpeg2 on BD against each other?

There are numerous reviews out there. Either they look exactly the same or the BD versions look ever so slightly better...leading to one thread here where some of the HD DVD zealots accused Paramount of conspiracy.

Where are the HD DVDs that need above 30 Mbps to look top-notch?

"Superman Returns" & "Unforgiven" apparently.

And I can say with a great degree of certainty you've never actually seen one playing in person

How many people have VGA, much less VGA that accepts 1080p input?
The 360 does NOT support DTS. The update supports it on HD DVD ***only*** and not for DVD playback.
1080p is upconverted, everything is decoded at 1080i. Games run at 720p and are upconverted to 1080i or 1080p.
Well with that you're batting .000 (0-2). The other wrong being your support of HD DVD over BD.

There are numerous reviews out there. Either they look exactly the same or the BD versions look ever so slightly better...leading to one thread here where some of the HD DVD zealots accused Paramount of conspiracy.
Damn, I cant believe I missed out the reviews. Could you please tell me where they are? thanks.

I will google for the online reviews, but I need help with the threads on AVS. I did multiple searches but I guess my keywords are too generic to help. Which specific thread or forum? thanks

cheers

There are numerous reviews out there. Either they look exactly the same or the BD versions look ever so slightly better...
Wow... a straight up lie. I thought you were about to say something worthwhile until you threw in "the BD versions look ever so slightly better."

"Superman Returns" & "Unforgiven" apparently.
Another ridiculous lie. I don't see how Superman Returns can benefit from 30 mbps just because it looks soft on top of the fact that it looks exactly the same on both HD and BD.


How many people have VGA, much less VGA that accepts 1080p input?
Have I ever heard of VGA that accepts 1080p??? I think you should stop since clearly you have no clue what you're talking about. And let me ask YOU something, have you ever heard of component?


The 360 does NOT support DTS. The update supports it on HD DVD ***only*** and not for DVD playback.
You specifically said the add-on doesn't support DTS. Which is it???

1080p is upconverted, everything is decoded at 1080i. Games run at 720p and are upconverted to 1080i or 1080p.
How is it upconverted if it outputs at 1080p? Seriously you're just making stuff up. And last I checked the add-on doesn't play games. It's astonishing to me how misinformed you are.


Well with that you're batting .000 (0-2). The other wrong being your support of HD DVD over BD.
I laugh.

Another ridiculous lie. I don't see how Superman Returns can benefit from 30 mbps just because it looks soft on top of the fact that it looks exactly the same on both HD and BD.I don't think there is enough evidence here to say, but just wanted to mention that Warner uses basically the same encodes and so the part about it looking exactly the same is what we should expect (other than player differences).

--Darin

^I was just pointing out that it's no different from any other title since Peter used that and Unforgiven as two seemingly nonsensical and random examples.

From "Home Theater Spot"
I’ve spent the past six hours straight doing back and forth comparisons on several of Paramounts discs. So, I’m starting to get a little punchy. But, I could discern no distinguishable difference between this and the HD DVD using Panasonics new BD player, the XA1, and the VP50 deinterlacing the 1080i feeds from both.

From "HiDef Digest"
I previously reviewed two of Paramount's first wave of Blu-ray launch titles, 'Four Brothers' and 'U2 Rattle and Hum,' and found that those transfers looked slightly smoother than their HD DVD counterparts, if also a bit softer. Nothing spectacularly noticeable, but present nonetheless to the discerning eye. However, 'Sky Captain' for me is more on par with the results of my HD DVD versus Blu-ray comparisons of Warner's titles. Namely, I can't tell a dime's worth of difference between the two formats on this one.

I have a "life" (job) so I can't whip up the stuff I've been seeing for the past few months. They're out there. The Paramount titles are the ones that led to speculation that MPEG2 preserves film grain "better" than VC-1, that the VC-1 versions were "sterile" and not representative of the original film.

used that and Unforgiven as two seemingly nonsensical and random examples.

Not random as you want to dismiss.
These are 2 titles that Warner had to limit bitrate in order to fit onto HD DVD's limited space..and many reviews and user comments have called them "soft". The BD versions suffered for it.

From "Home Theater Spot"


From "HiDef Digest"


I have a "life" (job) so I can't whip up the stuff I've been seeing for the past few months. They're out there. The Paramount titles are the ones that led to speculation that MPEG2 preserves film grain "better" than VC-1, that the VC-1 versions were "sterile" and not representative of the original film.
thanks man, I appreciate the pointers

cheers

From "Home Theater Spot"


From "HiDef Digest"


I have a "life" (job) so I can't whip up the stuff I've been seeing for the past few months. They're out there. The Paramount titles are the ones that led to speculation that MPEG2 preserves film grain "better" than VC-1, that the VC-1 versions were "sterile" and not representative of the original film.
Did you bother reading any of that? Show me where it says that the BD versions look ever so slightly better. The first one says "I could discern no distinguishable difference between this and the HD DVD" and Peter Bracke said he "found that those transfers looked slightly smoother than their HD DVD counterparts, if also a bit softer."

Not random as you want to dismiss.
These are 2 titles that Warner had to limit bitrate in order to fit onto HD DVD's limited space..and many reviews and user comments have called them "soft". The BD versions suffered for it.
Oh my goodness such ineptitude... I already said both versions look identical. The softness is also inherent to the source it has nothing to do with encoding. And you've gotten so many facts wrong I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore or I'll lose precious brain cells.

Wow... a straight up lie. I thought you were about to say something worthwhile until you threw in "the BD versions look ever so slightly better."

Not a lie. You wish it was.


Another ridiculous lie. I don't see how Superman Returns can benefit from 30 mbps just because it looks soft on top of the fact that it looks exactly the same on both HD and BD.

"Superman Returns" suffered from being crammed onto a 30GB disc limit. The BD50 was capable of so much more.

Have I ever heard of VGA that accepts 1080p??? I think you should stop since clearly you have no clue what you're talking about. And let me ask YOU something, have you ever heard of component?

You obviously know nothing about televisions. A majority device displays with VGA are limited to 720p.
And the 360 doesn't output HD DVD 1080p thru component.

read this and cry:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/09/21/xbox-360-hd-dvd-playback-maximum-1080i-via-component-1080p-vga/


You specifically said the add-on doesn't support DTS. Which is it???

It doesn't. There is an upcoming update that allows DTS from HD DVD only. It will not support DTS-HD MA.


How is it upconverted if it outputs at 1080p? Seriously you're just making stuff up. And last I checked the add-on doesn't play games. It's astonishing to me how misinformed you are.

It's astonishing how deliberately obtuse you're being.
No XBOX 360 game on the market renders at 1080p.


I laugh.

Disturbing maniacal laughter...

Without a doubt.. Blu-Ray.. I'm using the 20GB $499 PS3 as my player and have over 20 BD movie's and all have played perfectly on the PS3. Zero issues and the playback is the fastest I've seen for any movie player I've owned. They have mroe studio support which is a big plus, and is the more advanced technology with more disc space and a tougher disc to scratch. Overall HD-DVD did start out with much higher quality releases due to Microsoft having a better codec while Sony started out poorly as usual. However thank God for the competiton that HD-DVD is and it got Sony to get off their collective rears and push out those DL discs and start to increase the quality of their releases. Now both are even in quality in many respects and both are selling players that are affordable by a wider range of people. I'm putting my money behind Blu-Ray at the moment because I see it as the better format that has the greater potential and has already tied HD-DVD's best. Once we start to see "Superbit"-like Sony titles using 50GB DL discs to their full potential, the tides will turn very quickly and HD-DVD cannot catch up in quality at that point unless they span two discs for the same movie..

I had the Sammy BDP-1500 and returned it within a week - too bad I got stuck w/ T1, T2, and Underworld :(

as of now, definately HD-DVD. But I wouldn't be reticent to become neutral in the near future

Bob, dragon: yes, the best valued CE item I have ever spent money on. Given the quality of releases, it's like a magic box that with the snap of a finger(okay 50+ seconds) allows your hard earned, expensive HDTVs to reach their full potential.

I hope alot of non film content get's released in '07 like NatGeo and Discovery stuff(Already have all the Atlast titles on preorder, pity the delay)

I wish they'd come out with a dual-format player. Then this whole thing would be moot. Otherwise, I'm a fan of HD-DVD, primarily due to the price difference (there is still a rather significant gap between DEDICATED players-I'm not going to buy a $500-600 game system to solely play movies).

Being from Europe, I prefer HD-DVD, because HD has ONE MAJOR advantage over BD.:

As of this day, I can pick from around 300 HD-DVD titles, why.?? HD-DVD players and films are HD-regionfree, if I bought a European BD player I could choose among 10 BD films or so, the BD players sold over here will NOT play US-BDs. :rolleyes:

Some of the guys over here, allready bought more than 30 HD-DVD films, still awaiting their Toshiba HD-DVD player. But only for a few days more, the players are due in, anyday now.

:D

i thought we are talking about about players not consoles ... if you want to include consoles than HD DVD can be obtained at $199 (inclusive of a FREE HD DVD title and the universal remote control. Anyhow why talk about A2 at 499 when A1 can be obtained at >$399 .. another anyhow, A2 is still cheaper than PS3, there reports in the HD DVD thread saying that BB is selling the player for $449 and purchasers get 3 FREE HD DVD movies too. So that makes the player how much? >$399. DAMN that NEXT GENERATION DVD player IS STILL $100 cheaper than the low end PS3 console. Dont mean to offend, just stating the facts

OK, so in your case I can see why the add-on is a better value for you. For someone who doesn't already own the 360 (such as myself), the scenario is quite different. My main argument was that it was unfair for people to keep throwing that $1000 figure around as if you can't get a great BD machine for under a grand. If you want to make the argument that the A2 can be had for $100 less than the PS3, OK. But there's a big difference between saying that and saying "BD costs twice as much!!!"

Again, the ps3 is largely unavailable just about anywhere you go. Either you live at the edge of the world or you're lying when you say something like "Costco had a whole stack of them an hour ago."

I was at the store in NW Indianapolis. Again, they said they received this shipment yesterday afternoon and I was there early evening. Perhaps my timing has been right, but I was making the point that they can be found if you look around. Call the store up if you think I was lying. They probably sold out last night but I'm sure they'll tell you they had them yesterday. I would just guess by the display that they had 20 or so in stock at arount 6:30 last night.

I'm not some BD zealot who thinks BD is flawless and HD-DVD sucks. I actually think that civilized debate regarding the two formats is informative for those who haven't purchased either format yet. However, I just think it's unfair when people constantly say that BD costs twice as much to buy into. That $1000 figure gets thrown around in threads here every single day and it's just not valid anymore. Two months ago? Yes, it was a fair point. Even when PS3s were all going on eBay for $1500+ it was a valid argument since it was all for impossible for the average consumer to pick one up for $499. But they are starting to appear on shelves again and I'm not the only one reporting this. I've seen several people mention that they've seen PS3s in stores within the last few days.

Meanwhile, BD movies like Devil Wears Prada and The Usual Suspects are selling for $39.99 on buydotcom. On the whole, HD DVD software is still cheaper and anyone who routinely shops for both formats would know that.


According to the DVD wars the average price for a BD disc is $27.70 and the average HD-DVD disc is $26.40. Not much difference there if you ask me. Do you think if Fox and Buena Vista started selling HD-DVD titles that the price would be cheaper?

It only cost me $175 to get into HD DVD, using the XBox HD DVD add-on with my HTPC. Considering that the King Kong HD DVD costs around $30, then it only cost me $145. I'm a VERY happy camper

That is a great value for you. I don't own a 360 nor does the average consumer, so it's not relevant to most of us.

HD DVD is still 1/2 the price.
For millions of households it's as cheap as $200. For others, they can pick up an A1 for $300.
The cheaper PS3 (if you can find one) is $500 +HDMI cable+remote will really set you back to $550+. I wouldn't get a PS3 without the remote. And it really blows I can't use my $200 Harmony remote.

I'm holding off on Blu-ray until I can get a stand alone for $200 or if I'm lucky, the studios go neutral.

Can you spin the FUD some more?
You mean the HD DVD add on plays BY ITSELF?

Nope. You've either bought an XBOX 360 or must buy an XBOX 360 for either $299 or $399 bringing the cost of ownership to $500 or $600.
Yet you STILL don't have HDMI, or multichannel lossless. Not to mention the unit sounds like a damn mini-vac when playing.

PS3 is a superior machine in every way.

Yup, that is factual.

Yup, that is factual.
The statement below is true
The statement above is false

HD DVD is the easy choice. It's the best platform for the consumer.

Hardware

Every HD DVD player supports networking.
Every HD DVD player supports secondary audio and video decoders for Pip
Every HD DVD player supports persistent storage for bookmarks, etc
Every HD DVD player supports Lossless audio
Every HD DVD player supports Interactivity via HDi
Every HD DVD player supports CD and DVD ROM

The choice is clear. You simply get more player for your money.

you forgot

Every HDDVD player is in someway made by toshiba.
Every HDDVD player has some kind of clunkiness/bugginess
Every HDDVD player is owned by members of this forum ;)

you forgot

Every HDDVD player is in someway made by toshiba.
Every HDDVD player has some kind of clunkiness/bugginess
Every HDDVD player is owned by members of this forum ;)

I wonder where the lowest denominator lies...

HD DVD is still 1/2 the price.


The MSRP of the Samsung has been officially lowered to $799.

Gary

For millions of households it's as cheap as $200.

What percentage of households have a 360?

:D Again, the A2 and the PS3 are the same price. How long is this $1000 lie going to keep being told?


Hey Jack, you're arguing console vs stand alone player. Your average non gaming consumer is not interested in buying a PS3 to play BD. They want a stand alone player. Apples to apples comparison please.

What percentage of households have a 360?
What percentage of households have a ps3?

the Canadian price for Samsung BD is still approx US$1,000 after taxes. Don't tell me to buy it on eBay or someplace non-Canadian because then there'll be no warranty whatsoever.

So yeah, BD is still US$1,000 and HD DVD is US$600.

Not to mention, let's remember this. You will get a slightly better picture on BD and better sound assuming you have all the latest and greatest audio and video equipment. Tell me that for the money $500 vs $1000 (stand alone player) that it's worth it to buy BD?

When you argue technology winning, you must think like a consumer, not like a techie. No one will disagree which format is superior on paper...but in the market, the best doesn't always win.

I'll vote HD DVD. There's just something about the personal support from the MS guys that BD doesn't have. Like them or hate them they animate the discussions around here and are actually prepared to go on the road and talk to us. That shows somebody cares - great PR!!!

The fact that HD DVD is region free for now also allows HD DVD owners to import some BD releases on HD DVD and often before they are even released in North America - that's gotta bug the BD supporters.

Cheers,

Grant

I'll vote HD DVD. There's just something about the personal support from the MS guys that BD doesn't have. Like them or hate them they animate the discussions around here and are actually prepared to go on the road and talk to us. That shows somebody cares - great PR!!!

The fact that HD DVD is region free for now also allows HD DVD owners to import some BD releases on HD DVD and often before they are even released in North America - that's gotta bug the BD supporters.

Cheers,

Grant

check my signature ;)


The MSRP of the Samsung has been officially lowered to $799.

Gary

after better and more reliable BD players are out and selling at the same price as them previously.

What percentage of households have a ps3?

I'd guess it's probably around 15-20% of HD TV owners have the 360, maybe 2-3% have the PS3

At the moment I think Hd-dvd's "Remote" is a little bigger mainly due to Advanced Audio Decoding in the player so I don't have to worry about buying a new receiver but with some exercise maybe Blu-Ray will be able to grow their "Remote" with some players that do this as well.

Not to mention, let's remember this. You will get a slightly better picture on BD and better sound assuming you have all the latest and greatest audio and video equipment. Tell me that for the money $500 vs $1000 (stand alone player) that it's worth it to buy BD?

When you argue technology winning, you must think like a consumer, not like a techie. No one will disagree which format is superior on paper...but in the market, the best doesn't always win.

I don't see it that way. One of the many reasons I bought a BD player is because the top 3 studios don't support HD-DVD.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/

What good is HD-DVD if you can't get Fox, Disney or Sony movies? Those 3 studios represent 50% of the box office gross for 2006.

I don't see it that way. One of the many reasons I bought a BD player is because the top 3 studios don't support HD-DVD.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/

What good is HD-DVD if you can't get Fox, Disney or Sony movies? Those 3 studios represent 50% of the box office gross for 2006.

That varies year by year and really isn't a valid comparison. If you look at last years numbers they both had 2 of the top 3. 2001 HD had 3 BRD had 2. 2002 BRD had 3 to HD's 1. I would go on but I am already bored.

That varies year by year and really isn't a valid comparison. If you look at last years numbers they both had 2 of the top 3. 2001 HD had 3 BRD had 2. 2002 BRD had 3 to HD's 1. I would go on but I am already bored.

50% for 2006, and 41% average for 2004-2006 (Sony 14.4, Disney 13.3 and Fox 13.2%). I would go on, but there's really no point. Any way you slice it, the studios representing 36-50% of the box office take for the past 3 years don't support HD-DVD.

50% for 2006, and 41% average for 2004-2006 (Sony 14.4, Disney 13.3 and Fox 13.2%). I would go on, but there's really no point. Any way you slice it, the studios representing 36-50% of the box office take for the past 3 years don't support HD-DVD.

True and 100% of them support DVD which just beat out VHS in the Family Room recently after how many years? Don't get me wrong I love both formats (Picture is slightly better on HD, Audio is better on BRD on my setup anyways) but more and more I see this turning into a DVD-A vs SACD scenario then a VHS vs Beta.

Even D-VHS had a bunch of support for a number of years and where is that format now? That reminds me I need to get one of those for transfers from my HDV camcorder.

I am thinking we should be lucky if both of these formats last as long as laser disc did with no great market penetration.

I too see no reason not to pick Blu-Ray. More movies, more storage available to allow for PQ and PQ to keep rising, and since I'm a gamer PS3 is a very lost cost option.

In fact, that's Blu-Rays only disadvantage, not having a low-cost standalone player. Some average consumers won't consider getting the PS3 just for Blu-Ray. That and PS3's not being readily available, but once they are, what reason is there for HD-DVD? A few classic Universal movies?

I too see no reason not to pick Blu-Ray. More movies, more storage available to allow for PQ and PQ to keep rising, and since I'm a gamer PS3 is a very lost cost option.

In fact, that's Blu-Rays only disadvantage, not having a low-cost standalone player. Some average consumers won't consider getting the PS3 just for Blu-Ray. That and PS3's not being readily available, but once they are, what reason is there for HD-DVD? A few classic Universal movies?
By the time the ps3 becomes readily available there's a very good chance we'll see the A1 drop to $299 or less. That's not to mention the fact that for the 7 million or so 360 owners, the add-on is a more practical alternative to the ps3. Yes, on paper Blu-ray should be running away with this one. However, this was also true 6 months ago and what do you know, HD DVD is still ahead. I don't care if Blu-ray has 100% studio support and starts releasing quadruple layer discs tommorow, this war is going to last a long time and you can't really go wrong with either format.

I went with the logical choice. Better value and the format that is winning the war and will likely win the war.
I initially was in Blu-ray's corner, but they've failed to impress me. I believe HD DVD is not only more affordable, but better quality in terms of advanced audio and video resolution. Not to mention Sony has a great history of failed products and formats. I'm not going to be a sucker once again.

I love my A2! Great player and great movies, at half the price of the Sony machine.

It will be interesting to try this poll again in 6 months or so.

It will be interesting to try this poll again in 6 months or so.

Seems like I remember you saying something like that 6 or so months ago.:)

I wish someone would decide which 6 months is going to be the right one for BR. So far, they have all been wrong.

HD DVD for being more consumer friendly and less expensive with much more A/V quality

Hey guys - the cost of entry for HD DVD just got $200 cheaper!

I just bought Power DVD Ultra for $99 and am just about to set up my Laptop to play HD DVD s with my Xbox player!

Now anyone with a decent PC can play pick up the Xbox HD DVD player.

I believe HD DVD is not only more affordable, but better quality in terms of advanced audio and video resolution. Not to mention Sony has a great history of failed products and formats. I'm not going to be a sucker once again.

Better video? It's the SAME. Of course only BD can give true 1080p/24fps output NOW. So you could say HD DVD has lost that edge completely.
Better audio? Which format has more releases in either multichannel PCM or DTS-MA? Hint: it's not the one you tout.

By the time the ps3 becomes readily available there's a very good chance we'll see the A1 drop to $299 or less

Seeing as the A1 isn't even being MADE anymore you must be referring to eBay sales.

PS3s are at Costco now. I'd call that pretty available. Still selling out too.

Seems like I remember you saying something like that 6 or so months ago

No. All those folks saying HD DVD still has better video quality are living 6 months in the PAST.

Look at the review sites. HD DVD & BD versions look exactly the same, even with Paramount using the "ancient" MPEG2.

Most BD releases have uncompressed or lossless audio. Even HBO/Warner has started.

No. All those folks saying HD DVD still has better video quality are living 6 months in the PAST.

Look at the review sites. HD DVD & BD versions look exactly the same, even with Paramount using the "ancient" MPEG2.

Most BD releases have uncompressed or lossless audio. Even HBO/Warner has started.
I love it when BR supporters use the VC1 HD DVD encodes released on BR as proof that BR has matched HD DVD quality.

Of course they leave out the little matter of those studios still churning out titles in something other than VC1 (ie Mpeg).

HD DVD is still consistently better than Bluray in the PQ department. Consistency is not yet something that the BR titles can boast.

Hey guys - the cost of entry for HD DVD just got $200 cheaper!

I just bought Power DVD Ultra for $99 and am just about to set up my Laptop to play HD DVD s with my Xbox player!

Now anyone with a decent PC can play pick up the Xbox HD DVD player.How do you define a "decent PC" here? What are the specs for your laptop? I'll be interested to hear if you can play the AVC/MPEG4 titles from Weinstein without problems.

If that Power DVD Ultra has the bitrate monitor stuff then maybe you will be able to see with your own eyes that your claim about most recent titles being 8-12Mbps wasn't true.

--Darin

there's 3 bluray titles on buy.com's "what's shaken" list this morning... a sign of things to come? Spider man on bluray is the number 6 selling thing on buy.com i yesterday though I'm not quite sure what they mean by that because there are other items that are number 6.. perhaps they just mean in the "bluray" catagory.

Although HD-DVD is still selling alright, bluray sales have picked up momentium significantly in the last week or two at least on buy.com.

I don't care that much who wins.. I'd rather HD-DVD since I own a player but regardless of how many people bash the playstation 3 it will still likely outsell the other consoles and sell many millions if you give it a few years.

It will be interesting to try this poll again in 6 months or so.

yes, just wait until... :rolleyes:

Look at the review sites. HD DVD & BD versions look exactly the same...

Yet BD is still far more expensive than HD DVD.

"buy this product! it's a lot more expensive than its counterpart! yet it looks exactly the same!" :p

No it doesn't. Sometimes it looks worse :p

:D Again, the A2 and the PS3 are the same price. How long is this $1000 lie going to keep being told?


For as long as you have to spend $500-600 on a kid's toy that looks like a flying saucer and has a gamepad instead of a proper remote.

;)

No it doesn't. Sometimes it looks worse :pLink? Can you show any evidence anywhere that blu-ray exceeds HD DVD?

I think he refers that sometimes BD looks worse than HD DVD

Better video? It's the SAME.

Exactly. Despite being more expensive, having more storage capacity and higher bandwidth, the best BD can do right now is be as good as HD DVD.

In real world terms, the 1080i vs 1080p argument means next to nothing.

And while I have nothing to back this up, I also believe the lossless audio argument means next to nothing, in real world terms. For people with the right setup, lossless audio is great, and as educated consumers we should demand it.

But for the person whose life doesn't revolve around their HT, it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a SD and a HD picture. Not so easy - and therefore not so important - to tell the difference between LPCM and DD+.

I have no doubt that the differences between BD and HD DVD will lessen over time, and at that point I may pick up a BD player. But again, despite that seemingly huge studio advantage, there are only 3 BD movies I would buy, compared to my collection of 15 HD DVDs with another 5 I want to pick up soon.

For me, Blu-Ray looks better on paper, HD DVD works better in real life.

Although my heart is with HD DVD I'll be picking up a BD player when they reach a certain price point. If you're a Science Fiction fan and own a BD player only then you miss titles like Serenity, CoR, Pitch Black, The Thing, Dune and 12 Monkeys - that's gotta hurt! I just watched 12 Monkeys and Dune and was very impressed. Saved The Thing for tonight. Universal rocks and if you're missing out then the question has to be why?

Personally I think both formats are termendous and we would have sold our grandmothers for either one only a year or two ago. The constant bickering and FUD is really becoming annoying and is definitely slowly bringing the reputation of this forum into disrepute.

Cheers,

Grant

PS3s are at Costco now. I'd call that pretty available. Still selling out too.
It's pretty available but selling out? Yeah that makes sense. I suppose BD is expensive and cheap at the same time too.

I.m curious when the BR supporters will say this poll is invalid as well? It's been running at 70-30% for a while now.

I guess they will claim that BR supporters don't visit the AVS forum, Or some suvh nonsense.

No. All those folks saying HD DVD still has better video quality are living 6 months in the PAST.

Look at the review sites. HD DVD & BD versions look exactly the same, even with Paramount using the "ancient" MPEG2.

Most BD releases have uncompressed or lossless audio. Even HBO/Warner has started.

you failed to mention, HBO/Warner (you mean Sopranos?) has only a PCM English track which requires analogue or HDMI output to get 5.1. If you have a the PS3 and without at HDMI receiver, you will get only 2.0 channel of english track. Try telling potential PS3 players that they need to a HDMI receiver to enjoy the so called lossless audio track on BD.

[QUOTE=Quadra]Exactly. Despite being more expensive, having more storage capacity and higher bandwidth, the best BD can do right now is be as good as HD DVD.

In real world terms, the 1080i vs 1080p argument means next to nothing.

And while I have nothing to back this up, I also believe the lossless audio argument means next to nothing, in real world terms. For people with the right setup, lossless audio is great, and as educated consumers we should demand it.

But for the person whose life doesn't revolve around their HT, it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a SD and a HD picture. Not so easy - and therefore not so important - to tell the difference between LPCM and DD+.

I have no doubt that the differences between BD and HD DVD will lessen over time, and at that point I may pick up a BD player. But again, despite that seemingly huge studio advantage, there are only 3 BD movies I would buy, compared to my collection of 15 HD DVDs with another 5 I want to pick up soon.

a combination of good qualities that a smart and trustworthy salesperson who value his/her business would love in order to sell products and to achieve customer loyalty.

I have both, but would hands down choose HD DVD. I appreciate Universal's HD DVD exclusive efforts in getting out quality content, along with Warner, Paramount and others. I favor HD DVD in all buying decisions for titles I want that are available for both formats.

I have both, but would hands down choose HD DVD. I appreciate Universal's HD DVD exclusive efforts in getting out quality content, along with Warner, Paramount and others. I favor HD DVD in all buying decisions for titles I want that are available for both formats.
I usually favor HD DVD titles too except for combos because it's ridiculous to make people pay for something they don't want.

HD-DVD!
Still keeping an eye on Blu ray though.
Can't waite for CES 2007!

There is a Zen like simplicity to having a simple A/B poll.

Kinda takes the nuances away when you force a decision.

I love it when BR supporters use the VC1 HD DVD encodes released on BR as proof that BR has matched HD DVD quality.

Of course they leave out the little matter of those studios still churning out titles in something other than VC1 (ie Mpeg).

HD DVD is still consistently better than Bluray in the PQ department. Consistency is not yet something that the BR titles can boast.

It is strange then that the average picture quality rating at High Def Digest is higher than that of HD DVD. And sound quality significantly higher.

That includes all the reviews, even the MPEG2 ones.

The Paramount MPEG2 titles are as good or better than their VC-1 counterparts.

On the downside, the banding in the VC-1 titles is also present on the Bluray presentations. Superman Returns has banding that could be avoided by using more bandwidth in the copious ammounts of space left empty on this high volume BD50 release. So the HD DVD encode limits the Bluray image performance.

None of this agrees with your postulations.

Universal has been the torchbearer in Exlusive HD-DVD quality, yes(they're the only exlusive studio btw :)

anyway, I appreciate their efforts. They can do much much better by us though by act least doing even minimal cleanup on catalogue titles - almost every single Uni catalogue title pre 2000 I've seen are a bit underwhelming and all have some degree of excessive EE

They need to have better extras, and better menus

The last two would be lovely, but I'd appreciate it if Uni were to just concentrate on prepping their catalogue titles for great HD presentations, not just passable

Universal has been the torchbearer in Exlusive HD-DVD quality, yes(they're the only exlusive studio btw :)
Yes yes. Universal has been a savior to HD DVD and I would like to see people support them just for sticking to their guns. And though they are the only officially exclusive studio, you could also consider Weinstein as exclusive for the time being and both Warner and Paramount can be considered semi-exclusives however that will change once they actually follow through on their "catching up" plan.

There is a Zen like simplicity to having a simple A/B poll.

Kinda takes the nuances away when you force a decision.I'm not sure that BD supporters will be all that happy with the results.

I'm not sure that BD supporters will be all that happy with the results.

Why would they care?

HD DVD is still consistently better than Bluray in the PQ department. Consistency is not yet something that the BR titles can boast.

Pure B.S.

Clearly, you're not reading reviews of Blu-ray releases these days, nor would it seem you're reading reviews of HD DVD titles, either -- not every HD DVD release is a gem, you know. Several are below BD in terms of PQ ratings.

not every HD DVD release is a gem, true. But moreso with Blu-ray. Consistency IS STILL the issue.

Consistency is no longer an issue with Blu-ray, but people who point out the PQ of recently released BD titles are not taking into account the fact that HD DVD releases far more "old" catalog titles so therefore can expect the PQ to be less outstanding.

why i would buy HD DVD OVer BR

if it had a lossless soundtrack and br didnt.

if it had ported over the spec features and the br didnt.

everything equal i choose br, because my hd xa1 only outputs 1080i my br player puts 1080p

everything equal i choose br, because my hd xa1 only outputs 1080i my br player puts 1080p
Haven't we gone over this like a hundred thousand times?

Haven't we gone over this like a hundred thousand times?

Yes. If HD DVD can't do it, it "doesn't matter"

1080p doesn't matter. HDMI 1.3 doesn't matter. Lossless PCM soundtracks on a majority of releases doesn't matter. Disney, FOX, Columbia/Tristar, MGM, LionsGate exclusive support doesn't matter. "Resume" doesn't matter. Consumer choice from a wide variety of electronics companies doesn't matter (etc).

it's just as "doesn't matter" as BD PQ being inferior than HD DVD, it's just as "doesn't matter" as after bazillion just-wait propaganda for the past 6+ months, BD owner still have to just-wait until...

PS: considering your name have a THX designation, you should know better than 1080i and 1080p really does not matter regardless how you want to slice it.

it's just as "doesn't matter" as BD PQ being inferior than HD DVD

Why are you trying to continue this blatant lie?

you should know better than 1080i and 1080p really does not matter regardless how you want to slice it

1,036,800 vs 2,073,600 active source pixels DOES matter. No matter how you try to spin it.

Why are you trying to continue this blatant lie?

I have both players, I buy both formats, Blu-ray IS inferior in PQ. Why? Dollar over performance value. BD player was (and still is, in Canada) double the price of HD DVD, with quality at best equals to HD DVD. Dollar over performance value, BD can only equal HD DVD is the PQ is actually 100% better. Which will never be.

Also why BD is trying to continue their blatant lie of "Beyond High Definition"? High def is 1080. Does BD output something more than 1080? Alwo why BD is trying to continue their blatant lie of "better than HD DVD"? They can NOT be better than HD DVD. It's mathematically impossible. Oh that's right... just wait until...


1,036,800 vs 2,073,600 active source pixels DOES matter. No matter how you try to spin it.

Not if the 2,073,600 source pixels are sourced from 1,036,800 output which then de-interlanced internally by the player. De-interlacing, whether it's done within the player or by the TV is exactly the same. :rolleyes:

Blu-ray IS inferior in PQ. Why? Dollar over performance value

Oh that's "rich". You can't knock actual picture quality but now resort to player price. Fact is: PS3 is $500, offers HDMI 1.3 output, and is a much better HD player than ANY other of either format. Plus it plays games. That is real value.

Not if the 2,073,600 source pixels are sourced from 1,036,800 output which then de-interlanced internally by the player.

The Sony BDPS1 (as you should know) has true 1080p/24 output.

1,036,800 vs 2,073,600 active source pixels DOES matter. No matter how you try to spin it.
Either way, you're still seeing all 2 million pixels so why don't you explain to us why it "matters."

Oh that's "rich". You can't knock actual picture quality but now resort to player price. Fact is: PS3 is $500, offers HDMI 1.3 output, and is a much better HD player than ANY other of either format. Plus it plays games. That is real value.

For someone who complains about spin so much you sure do alot of it yourself. The ps3 is a much better HD player than ANY other format? Is that supposed to be a fact? And since you want to factor in the ps3, then why don't you include the 360 add-on? I guess since it's only a peripheral it doesn't "matter" to you even though it does the exact same thing: play movies. And what if people who buy a ps3 to watch Blu-ray don't want to play games? I guess it becomes a waste of money then according to your logic.

then why don't you include the 360 add-on

No DTS support.
No Dolby TrueHD support.
No Dolby Plus support.
No HDMI.
No HDMI 1.3.
Sounds like a shop vac
No multichannel PCM
no industry support (save Toshiba)

If you're going to pretend that the 360 & add on is the best HD DVD solution you might want to dial back on the medication.

HD DVD for sure. More consistent A/V quality, more mandatory features in players, cheaper standalones, more interactivity. Better all around format.

no industry support (save Toshiba)

I don't understand what this means.

No DTS support.
No Dolby TrueHD support.
No Dolby Plus support.
No HDMI.
No HDMI 1.3.
Sounds like a shop vac
No multichannel PCM
no industry support (save Toshiba)

If you're going to pretend that the 360 & add on is the best HD DVD solution you might want to dial back on the medication.

you screwed up in the post. Few of BD top Standalone players with the price tag of $999 and more arent capable to doing advance audio codec such as those you have mentioned. And here you are complaining the $199 (+ free King Kong and remote control) add on not doing the same thing.

HDMI 1.3 - NONE of the BD stand alone players released or announced have HDMI 1.3 albeit selling at *$999 - $1499. HD DVD on the other hand will have its HDMI1.3 HD DVD player in less than a week at the price of *$7**.

No multichannel PCM = good for HD DVD, a waste of space n consumer money, and its only there because some of the extremely expensive and BD players are not capable of doing advance audio decoding.

no industri support - can also be translated into positive news for Toshiba. The control the whole of HD DVD market will make it be easier for them to acchieve economy of scale and then translated to cheaper players for us, the consumer to enjoy - can also be translated into faster adoptation of high def video, good for both HD DVD and BD ;)

no industry support = failing format? tell that to Apple with their iPod please. LOL! spin - wait - spin - wait - spin - wait... what is that? BD!

Blu-ray's prolly got more potential, but it's mainly because they set the bar so low.

A couple of years ago I was in the Blu-ray camp, now since both formats present the movies equally, Microsoft made my mind up for me with the $199 add on for the 360. And it works great! No, it doesn't have all the bells and lights of present and future stand alone players, nor is it the only player I will ever buy, but it's got me collecting HD-DVD movies. So it's a format I will stick with for at least the foreseeable future.

you screwed up in the post. Few of BD top Standalone players with the price tag of $999 and more arent capable to doing advance audio codec such as those you have mentioned. And here you are complaining the $199 (+ free King Kong and remote control) add on not doing the same thing.

And you screwed up your post. I was comparing it to the PS3. Equal value here.

HD DVD on the other hand will have its HDMI1.3 HD DVD player in less than a week at the price of *$7**

What a lie! The retail of the X2 is $999!

The control the whole of HD DVD market will make it be easier for them to acchieve economy of scale and then translated to cheaper players for us, the consumer to enjoy

Can you say "BETA"?

tell that to Apple with their iPod please.

You failed again. The Apple iPod didn't gain traction until (wait for it)...Windows PC support!

PS: Hardware wise Apple is Blu

Gentlemen:
I can see that many of you are very strong minded in your support for one format over the other. I'm still trying to make up my mind here, but it looks like I am going to have to wait and see what both BR and HD do. I see Toshiba has their second gen player out. (although I can't find one ANYWHERE to either see or demo) When can we see some second gen's from the BR camp? I am really trying not to make the same mistake I made with Beta-Max all those years ago.

They've just released their first gen after months of delays. Although I'm also a BD owner, I don't hold my breath for their success.

One trend I am noticing in this thread is the trend of HDDVD being the winner because of its value. That value may be wasted if BluRay comes out on top. I personally think HDDVD will win, so I got the HDDVD drive for my Xbox 360. Why do I think it will win? For one the value is very good, as has been said in this thread. The second reason is that the average consumer is going to walk in a store and see "HD DVD" and think, "Oh, DVDs in high definition." They will then see "BluRay" and think, "What's that?" I also hear that BluRay discs are having big problems with scratching.

Sounds like a shop vac

Unlike you, many consumers, and by that I mean everyone that used their Xbox and PS2 as DVD players, don't care about a little noise. And it is only a little noise. Not a shopvac.

One trend I am noticing in this thread is the trend of HDDVD being the winner because of its value. That value may be wasted if BluRay comes out on top. I personally think HDDVD will win, so I got the HDDVD drive for my Xbox 360. Why do I think it will win? For one the value is very good, as has been said in this thread. The second reason is that the average consumer is going to walk in a store and see "HD DVD" and think, "Oh, DVDs in high definition." They will then see "BluRay" and think, "What's that?" I also hear that BluRay discs are having big problems with scratching.

BD is not having big problems with scratching (from my personal experience). Then again, I handle my discs very carefully (habit from LP and LD days).

BD is not having big problems with scratching (from my personal experience). Then again, I handle my discs very carefully (habit from LP and LD days).

Well it's not necessarily that they scratch easier, just the scratches affect the playback a lot more. You can't leave them out like you could regular DVDs. This is only to be expected though, considering the way optical disks are read.

I've never left any media out. Regardless, even with regular DVD you shouldn't leave them out just like that. Why would you anyway?

That's the problem with this hobby getting cheaper, people are having less and less respect towards the media. I remember the days of reel-to-reel, LP, LD, heck even 8-track. I never leave any media out just like that. I mean, how difficult is it to put them back where they belong right after using them?

well owning both BD and HD-DVD, i find the HD-DVD discs more dodgy with scratches but that could be due to the the A1s over sensitive drive.
I accidently manage to put quite a nasty scrsatch in one BD, and it played just fine.
there was a chap on the UK forums who did a BD and HD-DVD disc test and found that both were as robust as each other for the most part.

They've just released their first gen after months of delays. Although I'm also a BD owner, I don't hold my breath for their success.

omg .. we can have this from christmas till new year .. :D

the top BD players were released prematurely (no advance audio codec support) just prevent the embarrassment for releasing first gen players after toshiba released their second gen players :D . it is also done as to not to reinforce the belief that BD IS NOT ready for prime time. They are still doing the profile and with the BD-J and BD Live ....... So you are complaining that HD DVD released their first gen after months of delays. :confused:

Picked HD-DVD, but would have picked both now that I have a PS3

Oh that's "rich". You can't knock actual picture quality but now resort to player price. Fact is: PS3 is $500, offers HDMI 1.3 output, and is a much better HD player than ANY other of either format. Plus it plays games. That is real value.



The Sony BDPS1 (as you should know) has true 1080p/24 output.

Oh my God, not another one! When one leaves there always seems to another to take his place. Sony , has lots of money to spend, don't they.

I don't see it that way. One of the many reasons I bought a BD player is because the top 3 studios don't support HD-DVD.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/

What good is HD-DVD if you can't get Fox, Disney or Sony movies? Those 3 studios represent 50% of the box office gross for 2006.

Again, thinking like a techie or with greater analysis. Most people go and look at what's on the shelf.

Look, let's put it this way. If consumers educated themselves beforehand or did analysis of which studio is backing what, then we would not have had a Beta/VHS war. Not to mention VHS seemed like the underdog in the first place with simply offering longer play times.

So yes, people on this forum can argue logic of which format is clearly superior. But that's obviously not how the average consumer thinks it to be.

I don't see it that way. One of the many reasons I bought a BD player is because the top 3 studios don't support HD-DVD.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/studio/

What good is HD-DVD if you can't get Fox, Disney or Sony movies? Those 3 studios represent 50% of the box office gross for 2006.


Oh and to add...don't worry about which studio supports what. Studios will change one way or the other. MS will be making BR drives if they lose and vise versa as well as the movie releases. The 'studio' argument is not written in stone. They do not dictate which player people buy. And if HD DVD was total crap with absolutely no movies, then people would not buy ANY player since it's purely out of most peoples needs, cares, and price range.

also with pricing such as Goodfellas SD DVD re-release of $30 and HD DVD for $24, people would buy HD DVD. Whereas Talladega Nights for $20 on SD and $30 on BD, which one would people buy?

(based on prices I saw at my local Wally World less than a week ago)

I.m curious when the BR supporters will say this poll is invalid as well? It's been running at 70-30% for a while now.

I guess they will claim that BR supporters don't visit the AVS forum, Or some suvh nonsense.

It's a legit poll at this very moment. In 6 months, if BD was to have a price cut below all HD DVD prices then I'm sure the numbers would change quite dramatically. But right now it's pretty clear of what the preference is. This poll cannot be used to determine the future winner and that's not why I posted it. It's simply a snapshot to me.

Pure B.S.

Clearly, you're not reading reviews of Blu-ray releases these days, nor would it seem you're reading reviews of HD DVD titles, either -- not every HD DVD release is a gem, you know. Several are below BD in terms of PQ ratings.
With all due respect to a noobie, Bluray is not yet as consistent as HD DVD.

This is due in some measure to the variation of codecs being used still on Bluray, whereas HD DVD is mostly using VC1.

Calling B.S. is fine if you choose - but them's the facts...

Why are you trying to continue this blatant lie?



1,036,800 vs 2,073,600 active source pixels DOES matter. No matter how you try to spin it.
You clearly don't understand what you are proposing here, 1080i still delivers the same 2 million pixels - it just delivers them in fields. What your putting forward here is a bit of a straw argument.

No DTS support.
No Dolby TrueHD support.
No Dolby Plus support.
No HDMI.
No HDMI 1.3.
Sounds like a shop vac
No multichannel PCM
no industry support (save Toshiba)

If you're going to pretend that the 360 & add on is the best HD DVD solution you might want to dial back on the medication.
You seem to forget, the Xbox HD DVD addon works fine with pretty much an decent Windows PC.

I'm running it right now on my SOny VAIO SZ330 - and and just working out how to send the full multichannel decoded audio out to my AVR via firewire.

So I'll have full DTS-HD, TRuHD and DD+ decoding.

PS: Hardware wise Apple is Blu
Apple is supporting both... both in the OS and in their software being released.

Oh that's "rich". You can't knock actual picture quality but now resort to player price. Fact is: PS3 is $500, offers HDMI 1.3 output, and is a much better HD player than ANY other of either format. Plus it plays games. That is real value.



The Sony BDPS1 (as you should know) has true 1080p/24 output.

You know, I was flipping through the PS3 forums the other day and in a signature of someone, the sales figures of Microsoft were compared to Sony in the console wars. PS3 was well ahead of the 360 in his chart because he coupled it with PSP sales.

So look...let's argue apples to apples. You're either talking stand alone players or you're talking consoles. I'm not going to compare a compact car to a mid-sized one am I? Would that argument be completely pointless?

Think of it this way. Your average mom and pop consumer are going to walk into a store like Best Buy looking for a new tv and dvd player. They'll find a tv they like and maybe even consumer report it. Then they'll ask about dvd players. The rep will say "You may want to consider a high def player such as BR or HD DVD." (assuming he doesn't totally push one or the other). So at face value the choices for stand alone players are either $500 for an HD DVD player or $1000 for BD. So they check out the movie sections which they see titles on both sides that they like. While the rep tells them about the higher picture quality, they see the pictures side by side in the displays and see very little difference. The superiority of BD may even be visible, but it's not visible for paying double. So then the rep says that they can simply buy a PS3 (assuming they are in stock) for $500 and get the same price. Ok so now mom'n pop who simply wanted a dvd player are going to go out and buy a game console to play movies? For a kid or possibly a young professional this might be reasonable...but for a married couple or those further ahead in life they are not interested in getting a gaming console unless they are gamers. Chances are that our example customers here will either buy HD DVD stand alone player, or not be bothered with either and just get a nice upconverting dvd player.

Like I said in an earlier post the 360 add on by way of it's price let me jump on the HD bandwagon. Some day I will buy a stand alone player with all the high end support that any BD player has, but now I'am buying HD-DVD movies and I see no reason to switch formats since both are equal in sound and PQ. For me it was price, price and price.

You seem to forget, the Xbox HD DVD addon works fine with pretty much an decent Windows PC.

I'm running it right now on my SOny VAIO SZ330 - and and just working out how to send the full multichannel decoded audio out to my AVR via firewire.

So I'll have full DTS-HD, TRuHD and DD+ decoding.
amen, it seems to me bd supporters are really running scared ,some of the posts around here are just nuts,talking about 1080p vs 1080i i dont see the difference with my eyes and i dont know of a player to hd tv that is direct. meaning pure 1080p. or they talk about studio support, who cares anybody with a brain knows studios go where the money is and if hd sells more more bd only studios will also do hddvd, and the same could happen for hd, its about making money folks noting more . i wish all studios would produce movies for both sides,and let the hardware be the war!!! like you said if bd lowers the price on there players then the polls might even out until that happens hd will keep its pace going. also i think bd with its maybe bd50 would be better off getting out of the movie business all together,i know that sounds nuts, but i see bd has a storage media more then anything else, and downloading hd movies is lurking in the shadows and will only get better ,a long way off yes but something that could put a end to both formats!!

I don't understand what this means.

It likely means that only Toshiba makes a standalone HD-DVD player. The RCA is made by Toshiba.

1,036,800 vs 2,073,600 active source pixels DOES matter. No matter how you try to spin it.

Why?

The Sony BDPS1 (as you should know) has true 1080p/24 output.

And the state capital of Washington is Olympia.... , neither "fact" has anything to do with your original statement.

It is strange then that the average picture quality rating at High Def Digest is higher than that of HD DVD. And sound quality significantly higher.

That includes all the reviews, even the MPEG2 ones.

The Paramount MPEG2 titles are as good or better than their VC-1 counterparts.

On the downside, the banding in the VC-1 titles is also present on the Bluray presentations. Superman Returns has banding that could be avoided by using more bandwidth in the copious ammounts of space left empty on this high volume BD50 release. So the HD DVD encode limits the Bluray image performance.

None of this agrees with your postulations.

Nice

It likely means that only Toshiba makes a standalone HD-DVD player. The RCA is made by Toshiba.

I don't understand why it matters.

he means that because Toshiba is the only maker, HD DVD is likely to fail. Take for example Apple's iPod... oh wait, it's a freakin' great success! :D

he means that because Toshiba is the only maker, HD DVD is likely to fail. Take for example Apple's iPod... oh wait, it's a freakin' great success! :D

One has to look at Apple's iPod's whole universe and how they got there. Apple hit the market when there was no clear leader and created an entire economy around their product. They linked their iPod with their iTunes Music Store on which content from every major label was available at launch, and many independent labels were added fairly quickly. In addition, any content that one had on CD (or could steal online) would also play on these devices.

By contrast, neither HD DVD nor Blu-ray has that level of studio support (Blu-ray is closer lacking only Universal of the majors), nor are these devices useful with existing or stolen content (sure you can play DVDs on both format players, but one can get a DVD player for $24 so, it is not a draw.

Finally, unlike Apple, Toshiba does not have a brand that adds value. Almost no one pays extra to get Toshiba products. You may remember that they tried to compete with Apple in that space, and failed. They are now trying again by producing Microsoft's Zune.

/carmi

I can't argue with that (proper) logic.

PS: M$ Zune is a failure, methinks. Even Bill Gates have been quoted telling people to "go buy an audio CD and rip it youself". :p

It is strange then that the average picture quality rating at High Def Digest is higher than that of HD DVD. And sound quality significantly higher.

That includes all the reviews, even the MPEG2 ones.

The Paramount MPEG2 titles are as good or better than their VC-1 counterparts.

On the downside, the banding in the VC-1 titles is also present on the Bluray presentations. Superman Returns has banding that could be avoided by using more bandwidth in the copious ammounts of space left empty on this high volume BD50 release. So the HD DVD encode limits the Bluray image performance.

None of this agrees with your postulations.


Are you confused? Hidefdigest rates HD-DVD higher in PQ than BD overall. As a matter of fact, there are only two titles that have received a perfect 5 stars for PQ, and they were BOTH Universal HD-DVD's (King Kong and The Hulk). They also recently announced their "Best of 2006" awards which saw HD-DVD dominate every category including "Best Transfer".

And your premise that the MPEG2 transfers are superior to their VC-1 counterparts on HD-DVD are complete BS! Even hidefdigest, which you quoted, has stated that the BD transfers in MPEG2 aren't as sharp as the VC-1 transfers (MI3, World Trade Center, etc.) Here is a direct quote from the reviewer, "Despite the fact that the studio continues to use different codecs for each format -- Blu-ray goes MPEG-2, HD DVD gets VC-1 -- the image on both is very similar. My impressions are consistent with the differences I've been noticing between the two codecs. I tend to find MPEG-2 gives an image a slightly coarser, harder-edged look. Noise is a tad bit more pronounced versus VC-1, which gives off a smoother veneer."

In the future, don't create lies to try to back up your agenda. Reality paints a very different picture, and people here aren't stupid.

You should really read what you quote. I have no opinion in this discussion... I just find it funny:

Smoother, in general, can be translated to softer. The reviewer said the vc1 is "smoother". The reviewer also said the mpg transfers is "harder edged", which sounds more synonymous with sharper. Anyone who has worked with digital photos knows that excessive sharpening creates harsh/hard edges.

"In the future, don't create lies to try to back up your agenda. Reality paints a very different picture, and people here aren't stupid."


Are you confused? Hidefdigest rates HD-DVD higher in PQ than BD overall. As a matter of fact, there are only two titles that have received a perfect 5 stars for PQ, and they were BOTH Universal HD-DVD's (King Kong and The Hulk). They also recently announced their "Best of 2006" awards which saw HD-DVD dominate every category including "Best Transfer".

And your premise that the MPEG2 transfers are superior to their VC-1 counterparts on HD-DVD are complete BS! Even hidefdigest, which you quoted, has stated that the BD transfers in MPEG2 aren't as sharp as the VC-1 transfers (MI3, World Trade Center, etc.) Here is a direct quote from the reviewer, "Despite the fact that the studio continues to use different codecs for each format -- Blu-ray goes MPEG-2, HD DVD gets VC-1 -- the image on both is very similar. My impressions are consistent with the differences I've been noticing between the two codecs. I tend to find MPEG-2 gives an image a slightly coarser, harder-edged look. Noise is a tad bit more pronounced versus VC-1, which gives off a smoother veneer."

In the future, don't create lies to try to back up your agenda. Reality paints a very different picture, and people here aren't stupid.

You should really read what you quote. I have no opinion in this discussion... I just find it funny:

Smoother, in general, can be translated to softer. The reviewer said the vc1 is "smoother". The reviewer also said the mpg transfers is "harder edged", which sounds more synonymous with sharper. Anyone who has worked with digital photos knows that excessive sharpening creates harsh/hard edges.

"In the future, don't create lies to try to back up your agenda. Reality paints a very different picture, and people here aren't stupid."

Most here have reasonable reading comprehension skills and can spot it when someone cherry-picks definitions and takes quotes out of context. Unless you believe "coarser" is a compliment and more pronounced noise is a good thing, the reviewer prefers the VC-1 compression on HD DVD to the mpeg2 on BD.

Gentlemen:
I can see that many of you are very strong minded in your support for one format over the other. I'm still trying to make up my mind here, but it looks like I am going to have to wait and see what both BR and HD do. I see Toshiba has their second gen player out. (although I can't find one ANYWHERE to either see or demo) When can we see some second gen's from the BR camp? I am really trying not to make the same mistake I made with Beta-Max all those years ago.

I agree 100%. So far, none of the formats have any large number of movie titles released and not many of the currently released are really interesting to my taste. Curious to what a distributor like Criterion Collection will do, their choice of format will be one of the criteria for my own choice. Studio support is lager for the BD format, but that might still change, who knows. Beta was supposed to be the superior video format in those days, but VHS "won" anyway. Right now I lean a little bit more towards BD, but will wait with any purchases well into the coming year.

Thomas

Blu-ray for me.

Wow!! 71% for HD DVD, who'd of thought? :eek:

Not many BD supporters, but they sure are noisy :rolleyes:

I was thinking about going format neutral but after the strong arm tactics with cjplay I see no Blu-Ray in my future.............

I want the format that has room to grow, not the one that has already peaked, so Blu-ray for me. Any problems with PQ right now is the blame of the Studios and their BD authoring, not the format.

The simplicity of this poll is brilliant. Here, on the eve of 2007, with the both formats out and kicking, this is a poll that might actually mean something. The numbers don't lie.

Hopefully, someone will point this to anyone interested at the various studios. They should pay attention.

I'm trying to stay as neutral as I can. But being a Seattle-lite originally, I'm kinda pullin for Gates et al.

Hopefully, someone will point this to anyone interested at the various studios. They should pay attention

Sorry Robert, but the studios are far more interested in what JP6 and real world numbers are doing. What a bunch of geeks (and I proudly admit I am one) on a forum on the internet has less pull than what Joe and Jane Doe are buying at Walmart, Circuit City, Best Buy, etc. If they were, then all transfers would be OAR and "Blade Runner" would be the top grossing film of all time. :)

I want the format that has room to grow, not the one that has already peaked, so Blu-ray for me. Any problems with PQ right now is the blame of the Studios and their BD authoring, not the format.Exactly, and this is precisely why I voted Blu-ray as well. (Capacity is a bigger issue than people think; don't forget about set-top recorders or use for data backup on PCs, the added capacity of Blu-ray Disc will definitely make a difference there).

I'm tired reading the "capacity is a big issue" phrase. It's a big issue when you're using MPEG2 and wanting to put 5.1 LPCM for movies AND you want extras on the same disc. Something that can easily be done by using VC1 and TrueHD using 30 Gb.

For storage I agree. Capacity IS a big issue (hence owning a BD burner but still being an HD DVD proponent -- although I also own a BD player)

Something that can easily be done by using VC1 and TrueHD using 30 Gb.

Oh. Like King Kong, right?

OOPS!

I'm tired reading the "capacity is a big issue" phrase. It's a big issue when you're using MPEG2 and wanting to put 5.1 LPCM for movies AND you want extras on the same disc. Something that can easily be done by using VC1 and TrueHD using 30 Gb.This is my opinion, but for long movies (think LOTR:ROTK:EE), 30 GB and VC-1 aren't going to work (not without sacrificing something, like say, lossless audio (be it PCM or Dolby TrueHD)). My dream edition of LOTR:ROTK:EE in HD? Medium-High bitrate VC1 or H.264/AVC, lossless film audio, lossless score-only track (Howard Shore's music is absolutely wonderful stuff), the commentaries, and perhaps a PiP commentary. Getting all that squeezed onto a single BD50 would be a challenge, but I just don't see it happening on an HD30.

Further, as new HD software is developed, I expect the capacity issue will become more pronounced as studios try to pack in more and more in the way of extra features (interactive content and the like). HD DVD is doing well right now, but in the not-so-distant future, I suspect Blu-ray Disc will have the edge.

Some other places where capacity comes in:

Box sets of TV shows; Blu-ray has the potential to hold more episodes per disc than HD DVD
Set-top recording; Blu-ray will allow for longer recording on a single disc (assuming identical CODECs)

For storage I agree. Capacity IS a big issue (hence owning a BD burner but still being an HD DVD proponent -- although I also own a BD player)What I think is important to understand is that media price (spindles of BD media) will likely remain expensive if Blu-ray Disc fails as a consumer HD media format. Kind of a backwards reason to support BD, I know, but that's the feeling I have.

Oh. Like King Kong, right?

OOPS!

Oh that's right. King Kong in BD50 does have tonloads of extras.


Ooops, it's not even available on BD50! :rolleyes:

Oh. Like King Kong, right?

OOPS!

There's been no acknowledgment that King Kong did not have a lossless track because of space constraints -- that's your own opinion! Universal has not done many TruHD tracks on their discs yet -- even Miami Vice does not include one.

If it were a space issue, however, they could have simply taken the Sony route -- include lossless audio and make the PQ look like garbage (eg. Click or Talledega Nights)! Thankfully for HD-DVD, they don't prescribe to Sony's backwards-assed philosophy. I'll take the 5-Star video ratings anyday, as well as the "Best Transfer" Award on hidefdigest that KK received. How many Sony or BD releases made that list again... :rolleyes:

wow .. the result of the polls is showing that, HD DVD is extending its lead over BD ... need say no more :D

I voted HD DVD, I have the XA1 and PS3, the PS3 is a nice machine and Blu-ray offers good image quality, but I haven't got those goose pimples that HD DVD delivers... yet.

This is my opinion, but for long movies (think LOTR:ROTK:EE), 30 GB and VC-1 aren't going to work (not without sacrificing something, like say, lossless audio (be it PCM or Dolby TrueHD)). My dream edition of LOTR:ROTK:EE in HD? Medium-High bitrate VC1 or H.264/AVC, lossless film audio, lossless score-only track (Howard Shore's music is absolutely wonderful stuff), the commentaries, and perhaps a PiP commentary. Getting all that squeezed onto a single BD50 would be a challenge, but I just don't see it happening on an HD30.


How about, wait for it, using more than one disc?

That should work.

For the other 99% of the movies that either are not long enough or deserve that kind of treatment, one disc will suffice. For epic movies for LOTR, multiple discs are physical testament that these are not your ordinary movies.

This is my opinion, but for long movies (think LOTR:ROTK:EE), 30 GB and VC-1 aren't going to work (not without sacrificing something, like say, lossless audio (be it PCM or Dolby TrueHD)). My dream edition of LOTR:ROTK:EE in HD? Medium-High bitrate VC1 or H.264/AVC, lossless film audio, lossless score-only track (Howard Shore's music is absolutely wonderful stuff), the commentaries, and perhaps a PiP commentary. Getting all that squeezed onto a single BD50 would be a challenge, but I just don't see it happening on an HD30.

Further, as new HD software is developed, I expect the capacity issue will become more pronounced as studios try to pack in more and more in the way of extra features (interactive content and the like). HD DVD is doing well right now, but in the not-so-distant future, I suspect Blu-ray Disc will have the edge.

Some other places where capacity comes in:

Box sets of TV shows; Blu-ray has the potential to hold more episodes per disc than HD DVD
Set-top recording; Blu-ray will allow for longer recording on a single disc (assuming identical CODECs)

What I think is important to understand is that media price (spindles of BD media) will likely remain expensive if Blu-ray Disc fails as a consumer HD media format. Kind of a backwards reason to support BD, I know, but that's the feeling I have.

Regarding the possible sacrifice of lossless audio due to the 30GB/VC-1 issue, it should not be of much concern because a DTS-HD Master Audio track can be used to deliver both the lossless (true to the audio masters used) and the lossy (DTS/DTS-ES/DTS-HD Hi-Res) audio track, instead of 2 seperate audio tracks (DD-Plus and TrueHD). And theoretically, DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD should sound the same if the same audio master is used.

For me, the real advantage that will attract my attention is that if Blu-ray with its much touted higher capacity with "future expandability") can hold the entire season of a TV show (23-26 45-minute episodes in 1080p and lossless audio) on a single/double disc set. Anything more than a 2-disc set does not give it any real advantage over HD DVD in my opinion. Being able to do this will help reduce the shelf space occupied by season sets significantly.

How about, wait for it, using more than one disc?I am definitely against the idea of multiple discs (for the main feature anyways, as a repository for extras I don't have as big a problem with it, but I'd still prefer to have as much as possible available without having to swap discs).

Regarding the possible sacrifice of lossless audio due to the 30GB/VC-1 issue, it should not be of much concern because a DTS-HD Master Audio track can be used to deliver both the lossless (true to the audio masters used) and the lossy (DTS/DTS-ES/DTS-HD Hi-Res) audio track, instead of 2 seperate audio tracks (DD-Plus and TrueHD). And theoretically, DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD should sound the same if the same audio master is used.DTS-HD Master Audio and Dolby TrueHD should result in identical sound (assuming the same source). Having said that, you're still allocating a much larger amount of space for a lossless track (even if it also includes the lossy track for backwards compatibility). On an HD30, that might prove too much of a cost for the PQ to bear (and we're still not touching on the idea of a score-only lossless track).

For me, the real advantage that will attract my attention is that if Blu-ray with its much touted higher capacity with "future expandability") can hold the entire season of a TV show (23-26 45-minute episodes in 1080p and lossless audio) on a single/double disc set. Anything more than a 2-disc set does not give it any real advantage over HD DVD in my opinion. Being able to do this will help reduce the shelf space occupied by season sets significantly.I don't see them putting 12-13 45 minute episodes per disc on Blu-ray. But I do see them managing 2 episodes more per disc than HD DVD. Over an entire season box set, that could result in 2-3 fewer discs.

am definitely against the idea of multiple discs (for the main feature anyways, as a repository for extras I don't have as big a problem with it, but I'd still prefer to have as much as possible available without having to swap discs).

Swapping discs for a 4hour movie is a bogus issue. Remember intermissions in theaters for long movies? They were there for good reason. How often will you remain motionless in your seat for the 4 plus hours when you watch one of the LOTR movies? Any time you pause the movie for a bio break or interuption you have effectively implemented a virtual disc swap.

In any event, since your preference is only impacted in a miniscule occurence because there are not very many movies that push the one disc limit, it is really a nonissue.

Swapping discs for a 4hour movie is a bogus issue.To me it's not.

Remember intermissions in theaters for long movies? They were there for good reason. How often will you remain motionless in your seat for the 4 plus hours when you watch one of the LOTR movies?Maybe you weren't aware, but theaters did in fact show the extended editions, and as I recall, there were no intermissions.

Any time you pause the movie for a bio break or interuption you have effectively implemented a virtual disc swap.Interruptions, be them from real life issues or from technical ones, interfere with the viewing of the film as it was meant to be seen. I view single films being spread across multiple discs the same way some view OAR issues.

In any event, since your preference is only impacted in a miniscule occurence because there are not very many movies that push the one disc limit, it is really a nonissue.That's not the only reason I chose Blu-ray Disc over HD DVD. Even for regular length films, the capacity offered by BD will provide potential benefits that HD DVD won't be able to duplicate.

... the capacity offered by BD will provide potential benefits that HD DVD won't be able to duplicate.

The two most famous words in BD dictionary. WILL and POTENTIAL. :rolleyes:

The two most famous words in BD dictionary. WILL and POTENTIAL. :rolleyes:Your response was probably an attack, but yes, Blu-ray Disc does have more potential for added features than HD DVD. Lossless score-only tracks? Additional space for deleted scenes or behind the scenes footage? Blu-ray Disc has the capacity to do these things without sacrificing picture quality or other standard features. HD DVD does not.

HD DVD has shown, with King Kong anyways, that they've hit the ceiling of their potential with the format, and it's only been six months.

Your response was probably an attack, but yes, Blu-ray Disc does have more potential for added features than HD DVD.

Setting aside your unsubstantiated conclusion of Blu-ray's potential, it wasn't an attack. Simply pointing out what has been the hallmark of Blu-ray marketing versus reality up to now. A lot of talk about potential, but very little realization. Unrealized potential is worthless. Even if your conclusion were accurate, which it isn't, then it is still irrelevant. Blu-ray's potential compared to HD DVD's real, delivered capability. Ever hear the old saying, a bird in the hand is worth...

HD DVD has shown, with King Kong anyways, that they've hit the ceiling of their potential with the format, and it's only been six months.

Another totally flawed conclusion with no bearing in reality. Because the King Kong disc is near capacity, the format has "hit the ceiling". Sure. I can point out 50 GB Blu-ray discs that are near capacity with shorter movies. Does that mean Blu-ray has "hit the ceiling"?

Just vote in the poll and leave your uninformed opinions for the proper threads.

Your response was probably an attack.

No it's not. As a BD owner* myself, I'm sick and tired of the "potentials", "wills" and "wait-untils" from the BD camp.

* I own a BD burner, BD player and my production company actually authors wedding videos on BD... still I'm sick and tired of BD's "wait until" game.

The studios have made it very clear that they prefer two disk sets for marketing purposes so the 50 gb disk is not a concern or advantage. Look at some of the two disk dvd's. They don't come close to using the space even on a dvd.

Blu-ray for me. :)

The studios have made it very clear that they prefer two disk sets for marketing purposes so the 50 gb disk is not a concern or advantage

ONLY for collector's editions. Not catalog titles. Even then, companies like Warner, Paramount, Universal and Fox have made the 2 disc collector editions scarce. "Jarhead" anyone?

One of the selling points of DVDs over LD was the lack of disc changing. "Casino" or "Titanic" on one disc, rather than 2 VHS tapes. People like having an entire season of a TV show at the touch of a button. They like ripping their entire collection of music to a single iPod so they don't have to swap CD after CD!

The studios have made it very clear that they prefer two disk sets for marketing purposes so the 50 gb disk is not a concern or advantage.According to what I've read from one insider they seem to prefer 2 disk sets for bigger (like made more money at the box office) titles, but not as much for average or lower titles. I don't recall if the HD DVDs with more than one disc have bigger packaging than single disc titles, but there are supposedly packaging, shipping, and other costs that are considered. With a big hit these considerations may fall out differently than with more obscure titles.

--Darin

There's been no acknowledgment that King Kong did not have a lossless track because of space constraints -- that's your own opinion! Universal has not done many TruHD tracks on their discs yet -- even Miami Vice does not include one.

If it were a space issue, however, they could have simply taken the Sony route -- include lossless audio and make the PQ look like garbage (eg. Click or Talledega Nights)! Thankfully for HD-DVD, they don't prescribe to Sony's backwards-assed philosophy. I'll take the 5-Star video ratings anyday, as well as the "Best Transfer" Award on hidefdigest that KK received. How many Sony or BD releases made that list again... :rolleyes:

If you would examine some of the HD DVD threads you'd find "Kong" takes about 29GB. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR A LOSSLESS AUDIO TRACK!

As for your "Talledega" or "Click" remarks...did you see these in a theater? If you had you'd know that is the way they are SUPPOSED to look. "Talledega" looks BETTER than it did theatrically BTW. Did you complain that "War of the Worlds" looked bleached and grainy on DVD? Probably, being ignorant of what the films are supposed to look like.

Meanwhile, "Superman Returns", a title in your precious VC-1 codec, looks noticable worse than it did theatrically. Your entire world must have come crashing down on that one, eh?

Besides, folks could trust a vegan PETA member's opinion on a Ruth's Chris Porterhouse steak than your opinion of a Blu-ray disc.

hey PeterTHX, chill. This is not the HTF.

Lovely, here, let me substantiate it for you:

50 GB > 30 GB.

You understand we're only six months in to this "format war" and one format has reached the maximum capacity it can provide (using the most efficient CODEC available on either format), while the other format is only just beginning to utilize discs that allow for the maximum capacity (and still utilizing the least efficient CODEC available in most/all cases)?

Similarly, a lack of potential is also worthless. And, FWIW, "unrealized potential" is inaccurate: there's still opportunities for the potential to be realized.

HD DVD has already reached the apex of its capability: everything is down hill from here. There will be trade offs and compromises made on future HD DVD titles that don't have to be made on BD titles.

Says the insulting HD DVD fanboi. :rolleyes:

Did any of those BD50 discs utilize the full capacity of the disc and get encoded with VC1 (or even H.264/AVC)? No? I thought not. King Kong is the first title on HD DVD that would have had to compromise something (in this case, a lossless audio track) due to its inadequacies. BD50 titles that use near or at the full capacity of the disc, on the other hand, are often using MPEG-2. If there were something that needed to be added to the disc, another CODEC could be used (such as VC-1 or H.264/AVC).

Quite well informed actually, but thank you for making assumptions about my level of knowledge on these subjects. It's telling that you have to effectively resort to personal attacks to try and make your case.

Oh my God!!! I thought the current zealots were rediclious. You sir, take the cake.

Well, if consumers prefer two disc collectors editions to one disc, and two DL 30GB discs cost less to produce than one DL 50GB disc and two discs can easily fit into standard packaging, then what you have effectively is:

30 GB + 30 GB = 60 GB > 50GB

not just
50 GB > 30 GBin the cases that 30 GB is not enough.

Greeeaaat! Another gamer finds AVS. SUPER!

Doesn't this go against the HD DVD fanboy mantra that gamers don't care about or buy Blu-ray movies?

I wonder why there is no THX approved HD DVD or BD. Oh that's right, because anything comes out of THX as of late is utterly useless.

I wonder why there is no THX approved HD DVD or BD.

Looks at his "T2" disc

BZZT! Wrong again! Getting personal I see Davey. Desperate eh?

If most movies on HD DVD had to be put on 2 discs or be compromised in sound or picture because of size or bitrate constraints, it would be a significant issue. But if we are talking about few special movies (LOTR or some other 3+ hour epic), I would not mind if they put it on multiple discs rather than a single one. In fact, if given the option of buying LOTR on 2 disc HD DVD with IME vs. 1 disc BD with otherwise similar specs (probably same VC-1 and lossless audio, TrueHD on HD DVD and uncompressed PCM on BD given that this is going to be a New Line/WB release), I probably would buy the 2 disc HD DVD version even if that cost few dollars more.

Since i own both format players, i pick hd-dvd first and whatever movie doesnt come out for it, i go to blu ray

Since i own both format players, i pick hd-dvd first and whatever movie doesnt come out for it, i go to blu ray

Seems to be the popular theme around here for dual format owners.

If you would examine some of the HD DVD threads you'd find "Kong" takes about 29GB. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR A LOSSLESS AUDIO TRACK!


That's a very presumptuous statement to make.

Once you get the movie to fit with everything you want, why keep working to make it smaller?

Universal has not used TrueHD on many shorter movies as well so using length as the reason for KK not having it isn't not the best arguement.

PS - Voted HD-DVD and loving every minute of it! Only downside is I can't go back to SDDVD now :P

That's a very presumptuous statement to make.
Once you get the movie to fit with everything you want, why keep working to make it smaller?

You're serious, right?

One: the film itself screams for lossless audio, unless you think "End of Days" is more deserving. Face it, HD DVD has hit the capacity wall, and lossless audio DOESN'T FIT!
Two: Universal bends over backwards to include any and every extras found in the standard DVD versions. "Kong" has the U-control with stills and production diary excerpts. That is it, no trailer, nada.

You're serious, right?

One: the film itself screams for lossless audio, unless you think "End of Days" is more deserving. Face it, HD DVD has hit the capacity wall, and lossless audio DOESN'T FIT!
Two: Universal bends over backwards to include any and every extras found in the standard DVD versions. "Kong" has the U-control with stills and production diary excerpts. That is it, no trailer, nada.

My point still stands. You can't look at a disc and say it's full and then use that as proof that the format has reached it's breaking point in storage. You almost always want to fill the disc completely, just as many BD50 disc are also full capacity.

If you ever download TV shows off the net you'll notice they are always 175MB per half hour show. Is that because the codec can't make them 150 and still look good? No, it's so that you can exactly fit 4 episodes per 700 meg CD. Making them any smaller is pointless.

So to proclaim that KK is 29GB and therefore HD-DVD has reached it's limit is a weak arguement. You can make the same claim about BD50.

As far as lossless sound goes, as an audio engineer I can tell you the vast majority of people will not hear the difference, especially on average HT equipment. Heck, most people can't hear the difference between CD and mp3. That's not say there isn't a difference but it's not a deal breaker for most people.

My point still stands. You can't look at a disc and say it's full and then use that as proof that the format has reached it's breaking point in storage. You almost always want to fill the disc completely, just as many BD50 disc are also full capacity.Yes, it's true that you likely do want to utilize the full capacity of either format (give a film the most bitrate you can, for example). The issue with King Kong is that it's at a very low bitrate and, with very little in the way of extras, has filled up the space available. In other words, there's no room for anything else even if they wanted to add something else. Lossless audio is just one example of content consumers might want, there are others, and in any event, there's no more room for them.

If you ever download TV shows off the net you'll notice they are always 175MB per half hour show. Is that because the codec can't make them 150 and still look good? No, it's so that you can exactly fit 4 episodes per 700 meg CD. Making them any smaller is pointless.Smaller is pointless? If they were smaller, you could fit more on a CD. I don't see the problem with that (assuming there's not a loss in PQ from going smaller, that is).

So to proclaim that KK is 29GB and therefore HD-DVD has reached it's limit is a weak arguement. You can make the same claim about BD50.No, you can't. Because most/all BD50's out right now use MPEG-2; if they needed to add more content (a lossless audio track, again, as an example), they could use VC-1 or H.264/AVC. With HD DVD and specifically King Kong, they're using one of the most efficient video CODECs available (VC-1) at a low bitrate and they're filling the disc (and with hardly anything in the way of extras).

As far as lossless sound goes, as an audio engineer I can tell you the vast majority of people will not hear the difference, especially on average HT equipment. Heck, most people can't hear the difference between CD and mp3. That's not say there isn't a difference but it's not a deal breaker for most people.This is silly. An MP3 and a CD are a little different from AC3 and multichannel LPCM. You have to understand that at the bitrates used for AC3, there's a lot more content being lost due to the discrete channels used than there is with MP3 (where we're almost always dealing with strictly stereo content).

We're also ignoring the fact that, even here on AVS, people are generally singing the praises of uncompressed LPCM tracks on Blu-ray Disc or lossless Dolby TrueHD tracks on HD DVD. So obviously some people can tell the difference (myself being one of them).

We're also ignoring the fact that, even here on AVS, people are generally singing the praises of uncompressed LPCM tracks on Blu-ray Disc or lossless Dolby TrueHD tracks on HD DVD. So obviously some people can tell the difference (myself being one of them).

Yeah, that's cause we're a forum of gee.....errr, enthusiasts hehe. Yeah, I totally understand that point but my point is that for the average consumer the audio is less important than the video. Let's face it, how many average people listening to their iPods are saying "this music would be SOOOO much better if it was a lossless CD I was listening to right now". DVD has certainly had no problems selling with lossy audio. Meanwhile I would bet the same person walking into Best Buy would be much more picky about the picture quality of the TV they were about to buy.

KK LOOKS amazing. The lack of a TrueHD track would not disuade many people from buying it.

There is no reason that BD should not win the war based on the specs but the specs rarely tell the whole story. The HD camp has done a lot of things right, Sony has not.

Besides, folks could trust a vegan PETA member's opinion on a Ruth's Chris Porterhouse steak than your opinion of a Blu-ray disc.
Boy, there's a first for me.. funny stuff

(just the expression is funny, not the person its directed at)

No, you can't. Because most/all BD50's out right now use MPEG-2; if they needed to add more content (a lossless audio track, again, as an example), they could use VC-1 or H.264/AVC. With HD DVD and specifically King Kong, they're using one of the most efficient video CODECs available (VC-1) at a low bitrate and they're filling the disc (and with hardly anything in the way of extras).

Yes you can. This is still the early age of VC-1. It's been mentioned by Amir that VC-1 can still be at lesat 20% more efficient than its current state. Therefore the (today's) 29 Gb disc content can be brought down to a mere 23 Gb (if not less) which leaves more than enough room to be filled with other stuff.

I chose HD DVD because the quality of HD DVD is much more impressiv than the quailty of a Blue Ray Disc.

i watched Elephant Dreams and King Kong on HD DVD,. its amazing!

compare

I watched "Click" (adam sandler) and "Into the blue" the quality of both movies is not a quarter as good at the quality of HD DVDs in my eyes

i watched all the movies on a SONY BRAVIA KDL 46X2000 ( i think its a very nice LCD ;) )

KK is 29GB and therefore HD-DVD has reached it's limit. You can make the same claim about BD50.

And when the 236 minute Dances With Wolves comes out on a BD50 in March, you will.

Since this thread is WAY too long for me to read all of the comments... I'll add my $2 werth... HD DVD is better simply because it's called "HD DVD" (hear me out) .... hopefully this hasnt been said already...


what's in a name? lots, apparently... all the OEMS have spent a decade and a bit drumming the term "HD" into our heads... it's now synonymous with the product and what it will do. Bluray isnt...

HD DVD will win because of its branding and nothing more... in fact IMHO HD DVD could be inferior to Bluray, and still win, simply because it's called HD DVD...

That's just the way it is... and when the street price drops so sufficiently for "joe avg" to walk into a walmart and pick up a unit for $99 bucks... side by each the uneducated avg consumer will choose HD DVD for no reason other than the name..

hope this train of thought makes sense... I'm sure it's been discussed here before. It doesnt matter which widget does what trick... what matters is what it's called and how easily the guy with the money in his pocket can get that message.

Seems to be the popular theme around here for dual format owners.

Agreed. I also own both, but only purchase HD DVD at this time.

As an owner for both formats I must say that out of the majority of the movies that I have watched so far the PS3 has won out on PQ. I think that HD DVD also presents excellent HD quality movies, but so far out of the majority of both I believe PS3 is to be better.

I don't know if this is due to the fact that the PS3 outputs 1080p on my SXRD so that my TV does not have to do any de-interlacing?? I hear that is doesn't make a difference, maybe its just all the movies I have been watching in blu-ray have been excellent transfers, I have yet to watch a tier 0 HD-DVD because the all suck, but I might rent one. I have seen Riddick and think that its incredible, but a notch below BHD and KOH.

Since this thread is WAY too long for me to read all of the comments... I'll add my $2 werth... HD DVD is better simply because it's called "HD DVD" (hear me out) .... hopefully this hasnt been said already...


I've thought the same thing from the beginning. I don't think it will win the war but it's definately an advantage for HD and something that should not be underestimated. Most people know what HD is by now, and they certainly know what DVD is. Without having to explain anything I think most would instantly understand what an HD DVD is whereas you have to explain what a Bluray is.

"Gonna go pick up a DVD at the store" is already in the vernacular. "Gonna go pick up a Bluray".....just doesn't sound right.

You could say HD DVD has brand recognition right out of the gates while Bluray has to educate the masses.

<-- holding pattern for a bit longer.

Nothing in HD or BR got my intrest for me to shell out $500.

I've thought the same thing from the beginning. I don't think it will win the war but it's definately an advantage for HD and something that should not be underestimated. Most people know what HD is by now, and they certainly know what DVD is. Without having to explain anything I think most would instantly understand what an HD DVD is whereas you have to explain what a Bluray is.

"Gonna go pick up a DVD at the store" is already in the vernacular. "Gonna go pick up a Bluray".....just doesn't sound right.

You could say HD DVD has brand recognition right out of the gates while Bluray has to educate the masses.

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.

Besides, it's "BD". CD, DVD, BD. Not an AYCH DEE DEE VEE DEE.

I chose HD DVD because the quality of HD DVD is much more impressiv than the quailty of a Blue Ray Disc.

i watched Elephant Dreams and King Kong on HD DVD,. its amazing!

compare

I watched "Click" (adam sandler) and "Into the blue" the quality of both movies is not a quarter as good at the quality of HD DVDs in my eyes

i watched all the movies on a SONY BRAVIA KDL 46X2000 ( i think its a very nice LCD ;) )


Well, I watched "Animal House" and "Army of Darkness" on HD DVD after watching "Pearl Harbor" and "Black Hawk Down" on Blu-ray, therefore HD DVD is vastly inferior to Blu-ray :rolleyes:

Seriously, the quality argument doesn't wash anymore. With the PS3 available, the price argument doesn't wash. Now it's capacity, studio support, and CHOICE (as in players from more than 1 or 2 makers). Blu-ray wins so hugely it's not even close.

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.

Besides, it's "BD". CD, DVD, BD. Not an AYCH DEE DEE VEE DEE.


LOL, if you think the average Joe consumer knows what HDMI or Upconverting even are you're living in dreamland. Most people walking into a Best Buy don't know the difference between component, composite or S-Video and you think the majority of people assume HD DVD has something to do with HDMI? EVERYONE knows what a DVD is. My mother can't even program the clock on her VCR but she knows what a DVD is and she knows what high def is. If I said the words HDMI or upconverting to her I would get a blank stare.

As for the second part I really don't know what you're getting at. On the cover it says Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD (with the words DVD using the standard logo by the way). All the commercials call it Blu-ray. The term BD is only used on forums.

LOL, if you think the average Joe consumer knows what HDMI or Upconverting even are you're living in dreamland. Most people walking into a Best Buy don't know the difference between component, composite or S-Video and you think the majority of people assume HD DVD has something to do with HDMI? EVERYONE knows what a DVD is. My mother can't even program the clock on her VCR but she knows what a DVD is and she knows what high def is. If I said the words HDMI or upconverting to her I would get a blank stare.

As for the second part I really don't know what you're getting at. On the cover it says Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD (with the words DVD using the standard logo by the way). All the commercials call it Blu-ray. The term BD is only used on forums.



ditto.... Joe avg knows nothing about unconverting this and that... they're going to walk in and say I want to buy one of them new fangled HD dvd players for my new big hd tv and their going to get what they ask for...

it would be a different case if 12 years ago we all started hearing about amazing "bluray" tvs and then everyone bought RPTV Bluray tvs and then DLP bluray TVs and then Plasma Bluray TVs...

but that didnt happen.


this is a case of branding, nothing more, nothing less IMHO

I've thought the same thing from the beginning. I don't think it will win the war but it's definately an advantage for HD and something that should not be underestimated. Most people know what HD is by now, and they certainly know what DVD is. Without having to explain anything I think most would instantly understand what an HD DVD is whereas you have to explain what a Bluray is.

"Gonna go pick up a DVD at the store" is already in the vernacular. "Gonna go pick up a Bluray".....just doesn't sound right.

You could say HD DVD has brand recognition right out of the gates while Bluray has to educate the masses.

I think that a lot of people associates DVD with a disk containing video. A HD DVD is a disk storing HD video which can either be HD-DVD or BD.

I don't know if the HD-DVD will be a brand name will play much importance in the long term. Beside, good marketing can create new brand names in people's mind - e.g. DVD = video disk.

HD DVD is to HD as velcro is to hook and loop fastener... kleenex is to paper tissue etc... bluray aint dat.

Now it's capacity, studio support, and CHOICE (as in players from more than 1 or 2 makers). Blu-ray wins so hugely it's not even close.

The first is debatable, the second I'll agree with but I disagree with the third. Apple does very well as the only manufacturer of the iPod and, as has been shown so far, Toshiba has outsold all other BD stand alone players combined.

I will agree that the 360 and it's add-on is TOO LOUD! Fine for games but for movies it is too loud if it is in the same room.

My issue with Blu-Ray is with Sony. And Disney, etc. The neo-cons of the entertainment industry IMHO. I really do not like to throw my money into a format that seeks to take choice AWAY from the consumer.

However, with that said - I really can't afford (SPACE wise or money wise) room for players of both formats - so I will wait for an eventual dual format player to come out. I fear that it is all eventually headed in the SACD/DVD-A direction though (also called the graveyard)

Hopefully one will come out that will be affordable. Because I will tell you all what - until the affordability is there - average joe consumer won't give two craps about HD DVD or Blu-Ray when they read the ad copy that states (correctly or not) that you can get an upconverting player for $100 or less that will upconvert the SD DVD to "HD signals." That and the fact that the majority of people just do not have the display to really see/care about the difference in an upconverted DVD versus its counterpart HD disc on a $600 ps3 or any HD DVD player.

I also agree with the post above - most people have no clue how to hook up all this stuff anyway - it is a lot of greek to them and I am continually amazed at how clueless the general public is about how to even get a half-ass PQ out of their setups. Even more amazed at the lack of skills that people selling the stuff to joe consumer have. A co-worker of mine had been enjoying a shiney new 42" $2000 plasma via a composite connection because "thats what the quick start guide" said.

The first is debatable, the second I'll agree with but I disagree with the third. Apple does very well as the only manufacturer of the iPod and, as has been shown so far, Toshiba has outsold all other BD stand alone players combined.

You neglect to mention the iPod didn't achieve success until it added Windows PC support.

So one propietary format bad. Mass consumer choice: good!

Many, many people consider and use the PS3 as their BD standalone player. That makes BD outselling HD DVD in a month than HD DVD has done the past 7.

My issue with Blu-Ray is with Sony. And Disney, etc. The neo-cons of the entertainment industry IMHO. I really do not like to throw my money into a format that seeks to take choice AWAY from the consumer.

This makes absolutely no sense (and what's with the gratuitous political statement).

Sony is one of MANY. Toshiba is one of one. Panasonic, Sharp, Pioneer, Yamaha, LG, Samsung, Mitsubishi, Apple, Dell, etc. You're going to say that BD isn't the one that gives you choice? More studios vs less studios is ***more*** choice?

Sony is one of MANY. Toshiba is one of one. Panasonic, Sharp, Pioneer, Yamaha, LG, Samsung, Mitsubishi, Apple, Dell, etc. You're going to say that BD isn't the one that gives you choice? More studios vs less studios is ***more*** choice?
How about "choosing" my favourite format - one that I don't think is going to stitch me up and restrict my enjoyment and rights as soon as they have the opportunity to?

I choose HD DVD, thanks.

You neglect to mention the iPod didn't achieve success until it added Windows PC support.

So one propietary format bad. Mass consumer choice: good!

Many, many people consider and use the PS3 as their BD standalone player. That makes BD outselling HD DVD in a month than HD DVD has done the past 7.

That because a MP3 player requires a Computer and whats the use a device that can only be hooked up to 4% of the computers out there. Also Windows support within one second shipment of the first gen Ipods. All the first Ipods off the assembly line were pre-formated for Mac and after the initial shipment they were split 3-1 in windows favor. I hate it when people make that comment. An Ipod is an accessory that has become Keystone object under the understanding that finding a house without a computer with windows on it is damn near impossible.

Second Itunes is proprietary but not an Ipod and you are not forced to purchase music through Itunes and Itunes is a free software. Many people here Use the PS3 a Blu-Ray player because its damn near the only affordable one, in the end I wonder how many people here bought a PS3 for movies over games. Thats the exact opposite theory that everyone had for the PS2. Trust me its the exact opposite out in the real world as well, people out there are purchasing it for games and then maybe movies.

What really confuses me is how a bunch of Uber HT gurus can sit by and Use a game console as movie playback device. Hell at least X-box360 users can use a Harmony (in fact the make one just for it) for a remote.

You neglect to mention the iPod didn't achieve success until it added Windows PC support.

So one propietary format bad. Mass consumer choice: good!

Many, many people consider and use the PS3 as their BD standalone player. That makes BD outselling HD DVD in a month than HD DVD has done the past 7.

"Many people" is not a statistic, it's a guess. Not you, me, Sony or anyone else have any idea how many people are using their PS3s as BD players.

Based on software sales of HD STILL outselling BD despite the 700k PS3s out there I would say the number is small.

Based on software sales of HD STILL outselling BD despite the 700k PS3s out there I would say the number is small.

And when will you guys learn Amazon isn't the end all be all of software sales?

Stores here locally have had their BD sections ransacked after the holidays. Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City...

How about "choosing" my favourite format - one that I don't think is going to stitch me up and restrict my enjoyment and rights as soon as they have the opportunity to?

Sorry, but BD supports managed copy as well.

With the recent AACS scare and talk about key revocation, it's HD DVD owners that would suffer. If HD DVD was indeed fully cracked expect studio support to dry up faster than spittle on hot pavement.

And when will you guys learn Amazon isn't the end all be all of software sales?

Stores here locally have had their BD sections ransacked after the holidays. Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City...

I'm not sure who "you guys" are. I'm just a person expressing my opinion. I'm not a part of some clique, mob or organized party.

In fact, if there had been a Blu-ray player even approaching a decent price 3 months ago I would probably have bought one instead of my A1. As it stands I'm very happy with my purchase and I don't see that changing in the near future. 53 HD DVDs and counting.

I don't recall ever mentioning Amazon but yes I do think they are a very good measuring stick. As polls on both the HD and BD forums has shown, they are the retailer of choice for both sides with the forum members. Aside from that though all the posts I have seen from retailers here citing Videoscan numbers show HD in the lead, as well as from my conversations with friends who work retail here in Toronto where I live.

I'm really not here to promote one side over the other, I'm mearly looking at the facts I have access to. I have no agenda.

Sorry, but BD supports managed copy as well.

With the recent AACS scare and talk about key revocation, it's HD DVD owners that would suffer. If HD DVD was indeed fully cracked expect studio support to dry up faster than spittle on hot pavement.

Unless bd+ is cracked as well then bd is in a real sh$tstorm becuase they are the ones hyping copy protection to the studios (and the reason some of the studios are exclusive). That said it seems aacs really isnt cracked yet.

I really expect aacs and bd+ to be cracked eventually.... I just find the world is generally smarter than a few people (by comparison) who developed the security. But I expect it will take years to crack. And thats not even mentioning the ps3 which sony isnt condoning linux being installed on the ps3 (which was another device that won the exclusive studios over) and linux being installed on it could be much worse for bd's image if the ps3 is used to hack bluray. Not saying it will happen but sony had better be very careful with it.

BD+ has to to be used on a disk and player to be cracked! So far it's like a lot of things concerning BR. Just hype or "just wait another few months". Well, I see and I don't like what I've seen so far.

We are allowed not to like a product, aren't we?

Stores here locally have had their BD sections ransacked after the holidays. Walmart, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City...

Just got back from Wally World (3 of them), BB (2 of them), FS (3 of them). Although sales of their BD movies seems to go up, their sections of HD DVD are the ones that actually have lots of empty spaces.

HD DVD

Read this from a BD insider.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9345564&&#post9345564

"How do you define screwed? Most people, especially early adopters, are buying either format primarily for PQ and AQ, not for interactivity. No one buys a 1G product without understanding that follow-on products will have new capabilities. More importantly, the number of 1G products not capable of full BD-Video 1.1 capabilities will be a tiny percentage of total players in the market by the end of this year (I would estimate a few percent at most). You can paint that to be a huge issue, but that doesn't make it so, especially given how frequently early adopters tend to upgrade equipment. Yes, I'm counting the PS3 as being BD-Video 1.1 capable. I'm in a far better position to know whether this will be the case than you are."

I know I am if I buy a BR player before the end of 2007.

F.

My vote is for the just announced dual format player from LG expected in March - so glad I waited!! :D Yes, that's March this year!!

If we rerun this poll with "wait for the LG dual format player" as the 3rd choice it will be the run away hands down winner.