Well, I was at my local BB checking out the latest and greatest and came to the HD and BD DVD section. Upon browsing through the HD selection I over hear a guy (call him number one) that's asking for The Departed on HD DVD. The sales person replies and says that she'll go ahead and see if they have it in stock. I thought to myself, GREAT, I may have a chance to get one if they have any.

While waiting for the sales person to come back, this guys friend (guy number 2) comes by and asks' if they had it in stock. I guess number 2 notices that behind number 1, there was a vast majority of The Departed in BD. Number 2 says, "it's right there behind you." Then number 1 replies, "No, that's Blue-Ray. I need the HD DVD one." With a blank look on his face, number 2 asks, "What's that?" Drum roll please......... number 1 replies with a serious and nonchalant way, "Blue Ray is suppose to be better, it's like a step up."

Now, I'm more of a neutral guy when it comes to the format war. I mean if my finances can afford BD then I would not hesitate on getting one-- so I stuck with the HD DVD since I already had the 360-- no brainer. Well, after number 1 blurted his thoughts on BD I looked over and gave him the "wow-i-can't-believe-you-just-said-that-please-do-some-more-research-before-you-make-statements-like-that" look. I mean--- come on, if you got money to spend on this kinda stuff, please make sure you know what you're buying --but then again, it's your money. In any case, they didn't have The Departed. I'm sure this kinda of stuff happens everyday.

This may sound weird but maybe just giving him a look is not enough. Maybe you should have told him that there is no real difference in quality.

On the other hand, I would have probably just thrown him a look too. It can be embarassing to "geek out" on this stuff in public. ;)


On a more serious note: It´s probably the difference in marketing why people think Blu-Ray is tangibly better. I hope this doesn´t turn into another discussion which format is better. :) Id would just be interesting to know where he got the idea from that Blu-Ray is a "step up" over HD DVD.

"Having Geiko insurance doesn't make me less of a caveman"

I agree. I probably would have just stated that the versions will look identical and highlight that the HD DVD version plays in DVD players as well.

Umm, but he's right. Blu-ray is a step ahead in terms of technology.

Now in terms of PQ, they're equal at the moment with a very slight edge to HD DVD. This is only due to the poor tranfers early on for blu-ray.

But in the end 50 GB is 50 GB. It's 20 more than HD DVD. There's a lot more things you can do with that much extra space.

A full 48 kHz/24-bit uncompressed PCM 5.1 surround track for instance. :D

Don't get me wrong, HD DVD is a solid format.

Yeah, he's right on the BluRay is better comment. :) Lossless audio, more space FTW!

My first post. Purchased HD-DVD A2 two weeks ago and loving it. Been reading here awhile.

I respetfully desagree with your opintion.

To me Blu-ray is only ahead in CAPACITY, and this assuming that triple-layer HD-DVD never materializes.


From a potential perspective of technology the two are very much the same, in implementation of technology its a different matter.

In implementation of technology, HD-DVD is a couple steps ahead.

interativity...the standard already developed and implemented in ALL existing players.

Build-in network conectivity...already implemented into ALL existing players.



Umm, but he's right. Blu-ray is a step ahead in terms of technology.

Now in terms of PQ, they're equal at the moment with a very slight edge to HD DVD. This is only due to the poor tranfers early on for blu-ray.

But in the end 50 GB is 50 GB. It's 20 more than HD DVD. There's a lot more things you can do with that much extra space.

A full 48 kHz/24-bit uncompressed PCM 5.1 surround track for instance. :D

Don't get me wrong, HD DVD is a solid format.

My first post. Purchased HD-DVD A2 two weeks ago and loving it. Been reading here awhile.

I respetfully desagree with your opintion.

To me Blu-ray is only ahead in CAPACITY, and this assuming that triple-layer HD-DVD never materializes.


From a potential perspective of technology the two are very much the same, in implementation of technology its a different matter.

In implementation of technology, HD-DVD is a couple steps ahead.

interativity...the standard already developed and implemented in ALL existing players.

Build-in network conectivity...already implemented into ALL existing players.

First of all, HD DVD is limited due to the 30 GB capacity. They're already at their limit. With the extra 20 GB on blu-ray, there's a lot of room for improvement such as PQ and AQ. There will be no room on the HD DVD for any improvement. BD-J and network connectivity can be improved. Both of these will come around in time. The 30 GB capacity will never change. And you do realize that a triple-layer HD DVD will not work with your A2, right? They'd have to develop a new player that will read triple-layer discs. Anyhow, they're both solid formats. But the blu-ray has a lot more potential.

So wait, it's ok to talk about BD adding BD-J and networking when some BD players don't/won't support them, but it's not ok to point out that HD-DVD will probably add triple layer? And how do you know the HD-A2 will not support triple layer? Toshiba has never said that.

There's so little difference between True HD and DTS MA when compared to Uncompressed PCM yet the first two take up far less space on a disc. No studio is going take up 50G's of space with VC-1 and True HD or DTS MA cause BD/Sony wants uncompressed PCM. Since all Uncompressed PCM takes up so much space on a disc it equals to about the same as 30G hd-dvd's using one of the lossless audio tracks. Not one 50G title that uses AVC, MPEG-2 or VC-1 and DTS MA for example offers more extras or better picture than HD-DVD's at 30G. The extra space is waisted by the BD exclusive studio's I'm afraid. It's like Sony reps saying that many first gen PS3 games are already taking up all the space on a 25G BD disc and will soon have to use 50G disc's. In reality the only reason why 25G disc's are getting filled up is because Sony does not want much compression or no compression getting used by game makers so that it's harder to bootleg to copies of the game down the line due to such a large amount of space required. Pretty much Uncompressed PCM 5.1 uses up a great deal of space. Even a silent passage in PCM takes up the same amount of space as audible audio in PCM. If BD uses identical methods as HD then the extra 20G's would be worth it but at the moment and for the forseeable future I do not see that happenning so 20extra Gigs mean nothing. Again even with BD's higher bit rate ability too much space is getting waisted and video in my opinion will never get any better over what HD-DVD can accomplish so again wheres the real storage advantage other than saying we got 50G's for the marketing side. Even Disney now has to use 2 disc's for Pirates of the Carribbean movies on 50G disc's why'll the extras have to be on a 25G disc for each. So much for storage advantage. MI3 has HDi and bonus content on HD on 2 disc's one for the movie with interactivity and extras in HD on another disc. PCM is steeling too much space and the whole reason to brag about 20extra Gig's.

Yeah, he's right on the BluRay is better comment. :) Lossless audio, more space FTW!No your NOT almost insane...you are insane. :D

I can't believe people are spending over $1000 on Blu-Ray standalone players that do not and will not support next generation audio codecs! I'm not putting BD down here.... but doesn't it make sense to wait for full function units if you plan to spend that kind of money?

So wait, it's ok to talk about BD adding BD-J and networking when some BD players don't/won't support them, but it's not ok to point out that HD-DVD will probably add triple layer? And how do you know the HD-A2 will not support triple layer? Toshiba has never said that.

Yes, thats how it is. There is no guarantee TL-51 will work with current players. On the other hand, the BD-j implementation is just academic ...current players will probably just need a firmware update ...at worse, it won't work but would not break normal movie playback.

There is also the fact that Blu-ray has a data transfer rate of 54 Mbit/s compare to HD DVD's 36 Mbit/s. There is absolutely nothing HD DVD could do about that except start over from scratch.

I can't believe people are spending over $1000 on Blu-Ray standalone players that do not and will not support next generation audio codecs! I'm not putting BD down here.... but doesn't it make sense to wait for full function units if you plan to spend that kind of money?

In case you didn't get the memo, Blu-ray has HD DVD beat in terms of audio.

There's so little difference between True HD and DTS MA when compared to Uncompressed PCM yet the first two take up far less space on a disc. No studio is going take up 50G's of space with VC-1 and True HD or DTS MA cause BD/Sony wants uncompressed PCM. Since all Uncompressed PCM takes up so much space on a disc it equals to about the same as 30G hd-dvd's using one of the lossless audio tracks. Not one 50G title that uses AVC, MPEG-2 or VC-1 and DTS MA for example offers more extras or better picture than HD-DVD's at 30G. The extra space is waisted by the BD exclusive studio's I'm afraid. It's like Sony reps saying that many first gen PS3 games are already taking up all the space on a 25G BD disc and will soon have to use 50G disc's. In reality the only reason why 25G disc's are getting filled up is because Sony does not want much compression or no compression getting used by game makers so that it's harder to bootleg to copies of the game down the line due to such a large amount of space required. Pretty much Uncompressed PCM 5.1 uses up a great deal of space. Even a silent passage in PCM takes up the same amount of space as audible audio in PCM. If BD uses identical methods as HD then the extra 20G's would be worth it but at the moment and for the forseeable future I do not see that happenning so 20extra Gigs mean nothing. Again even with BD's higher bit rate ability too much space is getting waisted and video in my opinion will never get any better over what HD-DVD can accomplish so again wheres the real storage advantage other than saying we got 50G's for the marketing side. Even Disney now has to use 2 disc's for Pirates of the Carribbean movies on 50G disc's why'll the extras have to be on a 25G disc for each. So much for storage advantage. MI3 has HDi and bonus content on HD on 2 disc's one for the movie with interactivity and extras in HD on another disc. PCM is steeling too much space and the whole reason to brag about 20extra Gig's.

True HD 48/16 lossless takes about 3.5gb of space. That same track in PCM is about 6gb. It's not like PCM takes 20gb of space.

In case you didn't get the memo, Blu-ray has HD DVD beat in terms of audio.

I've seen this quote numerous times and in my opinion it is BS! Let's see a blind test on this and them maybe it will have some merit but most descent reviews I've read have only stated that *maybe* they've heard a better sound field in a certain movie for a few seconds (same movie compared) and even they questioned if it was really that different. Lossless is lossless, period. Who did you get that memo from Sony?

so i'm guessing there's some pop-up warning over in the BD forum that goes something like "hey, there's a thread over in the HD-DVD forum where someone said something bad about blue-ray. QUICK!!! get over there and defend us!!! be sure to use that 50GB line, it sounds really cool!!!"

can you disable this warning with a pop-up blocker or what?

In case you didn't get the memo, Blu-ray has HD DVD beat in terms of audio. Who says.... please post some proof. HighDefDigest reported that they could tell a difference in 4 of 10 scenes of "The Departed" where they liked the LPCM of Blu-Ray better. But Home Theater Spot quickly pointed out that LPCM is 4db louder than True-HD. This is likely what Peter Bracke was hearing. Assuming the same master audio track is used and True-Hd is truly lossless, there should be no difference between the two. Lossless compression will come out with the exact data compressionless LPCM will. 100100101101 -> 100100101101 with both audio tracks.

So tell me again how Blu-Ray is superior? We technically are comparing audio formats, not media type. LPCM is just a temporary means of offering a lossless track until BD has players (other than the PS3) that support the lossless codecs. Once the standalone players start to include support for the lossless codecs you will begin to see LPCM tracks go away from BD. Saying BD has better audio than HD-DVD is just a stupid comment anyway. There are a lot of releases on both formats that do not offer a lossless track of any sorts. You would have to break it down by title and audio offerings to make such a blanket statement and I really do not think you have done that.

Even if TL-51 discs do not completely work in existing players, of which there is still a good chance that they will since my A2 came with a brochure in the box showing a triple layer disc, there very very good chance that the first two layers of a triple layer disc will work on all players, enough for the movie.
There is also no guarantee BD-J will work on most current players. Worst case scenario, both formats first gen units missout on some of the disc extras.

One specification like 54 Mbits/s vs 36 Mbits/s is not going to make any difference in determining a winning format. No need to start from scratch, it has not been proven to make any significant difference. It is the whole product that counts.

Yes, thats how it is. There is no guarantee TL-51 will work with current players. On the other hand, the BD-j implementation is just academic ...current players will probably just need a firmware update ...at worse, it won't work but would not break normal movie playback.

There is also the fact that Blu-ray has a data transfer rate of 54 Mbit/s compare to HD DVD's 36 Mbit/s. There is absolutely nothing HD DVD could do about that except start over from scratch.

BR wins in capacity and bit rate. The problem is BR only win when they ACTUALLY release a movie in dual layer, which at the moment is very rare.
I will not purchase ANY BR movie that are 25 gig single layer using MPEG2 and PCM. Since most of the BR movies are in this format with the exception of a few AVC and VC-1 films from Disney and Warner I will continue to purchase the WB's in HD-DVD. They look better and sound as good.

Right now HD-DVD is winning the technical battle when it comes to picture quality.
Just ask all the folks who bought the Latest rollout of the Fox titles that are MPEG2 25 gig single layer with an audio codec not one single Blu-Ray player can decode.

I have been waiting patiently for a BR player that can decode DTS-HD Master Audio and have been disappointed ever since. Now what few BR movies I own I am forced to watch on my HTPC.

Now before I get flamed for making such a horrific statement with replies like
Well DTS-HDMA is better than Dolby True-HD and HD-DVD doesn't offer those audio chips either, the fact of the matter is no one is releasing movies in DTS-HDMA in the HD-DVD format!

So when BR fans continue with the "Were Better Because of this, that and the other", they need to check themselves at the door because as of right now, they really are not any better than HD-DVD.

There are serious kinks in both formats ability to deliver all of the agreed upon bells and whistles.

Well, after number 1 blurted his thoughts on BD I looked over and gave him the "wow-i-can't-believe-you-just-said-that-please-do-some-more-research-before-you-make-statements-like-that" look.


New here but a little curious whats that look really look like :D.

Man I've heard a hell of a lot of BB stories on these and many other forums it's a shame they can get away with what they do. Even though your story has nothing to do with BB in this case but it has what I think is the biggest problem with today's electronics.

That of course would be false information, my god it's really getting unbearable with sales people making stuff up and movie studios false advertising and misinformed consumers blurting stuff up. I mean it's no wonder J6P is not buying into this stuff it's overwhelming for anyone. I mean each piece of equipment has so many promised updates and huge defects it makes blind purchasing a near impossible thing. This will definatley be the biggest obstacle moving forward in these new formats and their necessary gear.

Sorry for the rant, but it really bugs me that all this stuff might not see future success only because it's too complicated to get into.

The guy working at Blockbuster and I got into a conversation when I was saying how amazing both HD formats were. He was like "yeah I hear Blu-Ray is supposed to be better" (at least he was admitting he heard it second-hand). I just replied, "Nah, I have both formats, they're both pretty much the same. The only difference is studio support."
It seemed like he was actually listening.

First of all, HD DVD is limited due to the 30 GB capacity. They're already at their limit. With the extra 20 GB on blu-ray, there's a lot of room for improvement such as PQ and AQ. There will be no room on the HD DVD for any improvement. BD-J and network connectivity can be improved. Both of these will come around in time. The 30 GB capacity will never change. And you do realize that a triple-layer HD DVD will not work with your A2, right? They'd have to develop a new player that will read triple-layer discs. Anyhow, they're both solid formats. But the blu-ray has a lot more potential.

there are already plenty of BD50 titles in the market .... feel free to point out the advantage of the xtra 20gb. Sopranos disk set for example .. total no BD brainer :p

this constant bickering between the sides is childish. replace bd and hd dvd with xbox, playstation, wii and you couldn't tell if you were at avs or a gaming forum.

if you don't like the other side stay out of their forums.

didn't even bother to read the thread after the first few bits of mudslinging posts.

stop it already.

Yes, thats how it is. There is no guarantee TL-51 will work with current players. On the other hand, the BD-j implementation is just academic ...current players will probably just need a firmware update ...at worse, it won't work but would not break normal movie playback.

There is also the fact that Blu-ray has a data transfer rate of 54 Mbit/s compare to HD DVD's 36 Mbit/s. There is absolutely nothing HD DVD could do about that except start over from scratch.

I believe the specs for even the first HD DVD drives say they support triple layer discs, and didn't Amir say they will introduce them when they are needed?

Also, 36 Mbit/s is 1x speed. Even the first HD DVD drives (in the A1) can read at up to 2x speed according to their specs.

Blu Ray drives have 1.5x speed as the standard I believe, hence the higher bandwidth spec.

THOSE MISINFORMING BBBs! :D

number 1 replies with a serious and nonchalant way, "Blue Ray is suppose to be better, it's like a step up."

I think the BB guy was totally correct in his statement.

BD is supposed to be better.... On paper it looks like it's supposed to be better. It reality it's not better and at best just matches HD DVD quality.

BD is a step up... in price :D

I think the BB guy was totally correct in his statement.

BD is supposed to be better.... On paper it looks like it's supposed to be better. It reality it's not better and at best just matches HD DVD quality.

BD is a step up... in price :D


Pirates of the Carribean 1 & 2 (release date announced for May 22) is going to be 75 gig (total) 2 disc set. 50 gb for the movie and 25 gb disc for extras on both releases. BD-J enhanced Java as well. Lots of room (and uncompressed audio). $34.95 sugg retail. Pretty good price for a 2 disc set

Pirates of the Carribean 1 & 2 (release date announced for May 22) is going to be 75 gig (total) 2 disc set. 50 gb for the movie and 25 gb disc for extras on both releases. BD-J enhanced Java as well. Lots of room (and uncompressed audio). $34.95 sugg retail. Pretty good price for a 2 disc set

Oh boy, do we have to go through this BS again... How much is a stand alone BD player? How about a stand alone that supports BD-J?

Lots of room for what? Does all that extra storage space give me any better picture than a tier one HD DVD? I highly doubt it.

there are already plenty of BD50 titles in the market .... feel free to point out the advantage of the xtra 20gb. Sopranos disk set for example .. total no BD brainer :p

What I'm concerned about right now is the increased use of 25gb BD and Mpeg2 at 18mbps by Fox. Don't know if this is an issue of limited BD50 production access or a business discission on Fox's part. Either way, we are getting product that is below what Blu Ray is capable of producing.

Oh boy, do we have to go through this BS again... How much is a stand alone BD player? How about a stand alone that supports BD-J?

Lots of room for what? Does all that extra storage space give me any better picture than a tier one HD DVD? I highly doubt it.

A standalone BD player is $499.

A standalone BD player is $499.


Brand, make, and model please. Where can you purchase this rare commodity?

Uhh, Its a PS3 made by Sony.

Uhh, Its a PS3 made by Sony.

The PS3 is not a standalone player by any definition.

Really? Mine only plays BluRay discs. And has the added advantage of playing games if I so choose.

there are already plenty of BD50 titles in the market .... feel free to point out the advantage of the xtra 20gb. Sopranos disk set for example .. total no BD brainer :p

Don't forget the most pathetic use of BD50 yet.

On The Descent, they had to put the movie on the disc twice. Once without the PiP commentary and one with it because PiP isn't supported/ready in BD-J.

Is that what the 50 gig is supposed to be for?

Don't forget the most pathetic use of BD50 yet.

On The Descent, they had to put the movie on the disc twice. Once without the PiP commentary and one with it because PiP isn't supported/ready in BD-J.

Is that what the 50 gig is supposed to be for?

No, but that may be one of the reasons that HD-DVD is not rushing titles out like BD is, right now

No, but that may be one of the reasons that HD-DVD is not rushing titles out like BD is, right now

True. HD DVD does generally get it right the first time.

True. HD DVD does generally get it right the first time.
Exactly, because they aren't rushing things out!

True. HD DVD does generally get it right the first time.

Or not at all!

Or not at all!
I'd rather it not be available, than get a POS copy!!!!!

The PS3 is not a standalone player by any definition.

What world are you living on? My PS3 was bought for movies and many of us here would consider it the best of the blu-ray players.

I'd rather it not be available, than get a POS copy!!!!!

I guess you don't care about content then. Not much of a movie buff?

What world are you living on? My PS3 was bought for movies and many of us here would consider it the best of the blu-ray players.Non-Bizarro World, how about you?

On Non-Bizarro World, we know the definition of words :eek:
And don't change them to what we want them to mean :D

What world are you living on? My PS3 was bought for movies and many of us here would consider it the best of the blu-ray players.

If standalone is defined as:

A device, product or system that’s not incorporated into another more comprehensive device, product or system.

How on earth does a PS3 qualify as a standalone BR player?

Just because you chose to use something in a particular way, doesn't change its definition by nature. IE - If I can use a screwdriver as a hammer, I can't now market the screwdriver as a hammer.

??

This thread is ridiculous.

I guess you don't care about content then. Not much of a movie buff?If that's your point (not a good one I may add), then don't you think maybe I have them on SD already?

And actually I don't like movies (Click?)
I like films (Se7en, Donnie Darko, etc)

I'm not a collector of movies (that I'll watch once, then they'll sit on a shelf). Sue me!!!

I've seen this quote numerous times and in my opinion it is BS! Let's see a blind test on this and them maybe it will have some merit but most descent reviews I've read have only stated that *maybe* they've heard a better sound field in a certain movie for a few seconds (same movie compared) and even they questioned if it was really that different. Lossless is lossless, period. Who did you get that memo from Sony?

Here's the blind test:
"Now, how do the PCM and TrueHD tracks compare? Given this historic opportunity, I decided to conduct a little experiment. I invited a friend over, who is a big movie and music buff, but not particularly technical. He knows good audio when he hears it, yet doesn't know a PCM from an RPM from R.E.M. In other words, he's Joe Six-Pack with a great ear. Anyway, together we conducted a "blind" audio test -- we select ten short sequences from the film, and listened to a compare of each. We took turns firing up each scene, and selecting which one sounded better, with no knowledge of which sample was the Blu-ray and which the HD DVD.

After writing down our answers on little scraps of paper (note that we didn't throw them into a hat -- we aren't that dorky), the results were interesting. Out of the twenty comparisons (ten for him, ten for me), we could only detect differences on four scenes total. But of those four, we both always preferred the PCM track, if only a smidgeon. For example, there is a scene in involving an attempted trade bust between the Costello character and a Chinese gang. There is a sound of a gun firing that we went back over a few times, and as silly as it sounds, the force and impact of the sounds was a shade more realistic in PCM. Also a beneficiary of the uncompressed mix is the music, as this is a film brimming with rock songs. The first scene we picked featured the Rolling Stone's "Gimme Shelter," and again the PCM track boasted a slightly more spacious feel to the music in all channels -- as if the very highest end of the frequency range was more palpable.

Granted, these are very slight differences and subjective preferences. Had we not blindfolded each other (figuratively speaking, of course) and been flipping back and forth between discs like one of those old Coke-Pepsi commercials, such deviations likely would have been imperceptible. It is also certain that the average listener wouldn't be able to tell the difference without possessing the ears of a dog. Still, in this case I give a slight edge to the PCM track, though a comparison between a single title hardly qualifies as the final word. If nothing else, it made me realize that if all the studios dumped this dueling audio format business and went all-PCM, I can't say I would be likely to complain..."

Here's the link:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/departed.html

Here's the blind test:
"Now, how do the PCM and TrueHD tracks compare? Given this historic opportunity, I decided to conduct a little experiment. I invited a friend over, who is a big movie and music buff, but not particularly technical. He knows good audio when he hears it, yet doesn't know a PCM from an RPM from R.E.M. In other words, he's Joe Six-Pack with a great ear. Anyway, together we conducted a "blind" audio test -- we select ten short sequences from the film, and listened to a compare of each. We took turns firing up each scene, and selecting which one sounded better, with no knowledge of which sample was the Blu-ray and which the HD DVD.

After writing down our answers on little scraps of paper (note that we didn't throw them into a hat -- we aren't that dorky), the results were interesting. Out of the twenty comparisons (ten for him, ten for me), we could only detect differences on four scenes total. But of those four, we both always preferred the PCM track, if only a smidgeon. For example, there is a scene in involving an attempted trade bust between the Costello character and a Chinese gang. There is a sound of a gun firing that we went back over a few times, and as silly as it sounds, the force and impact of the sounds was a shade more realistic in PCM. Also a beneficiary of the uncompressed mix is the music, as this is a film brimming with rock songs. The first scene we picked featured the Rolling Stone's "Gimme Shelter," and again the PCM track boasted a slightly more spacious feel to the music in all channels -- as if the very highest end of the frequency range was more palpable.

Granted, these are very slight differences and subjective preferences. Had we not blindfolded each other (figuratively speaking, of course) and been flipping back and forth between discs like one of those old Coke-Pepsi commercials, such deviations likely would have been imperceptible. It is also certain that the average listener wouldn't be able to tell the difference without possessing the ears of a dog. Still, in this case I give a slight edge to the PCM track, though a comparison between a single title hardly qualifies as the final word. If nothing else, it made me realize that if all the studios dumped this dueling audio format business and went all-PCM, I can't say I would be likely to complain..."

Here's the link:
http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/departed.htmlsounds blind and deaf to me, per
But Home Theater Spot quickly pointed out that LPCM is 4db louder than True-HD. This is likely what Peter Bracke was hearing.

Why don't you shop at Circuit City, I work there and I know that in independant surveys we also beat BB. We haved stricter hiring standards and what not. I'm responsible for doing the weekly ad walk for our area, and we always crush on TV's and pretty much everything other than computers (we have rebates, they don't). Our firedog services are about 25% cheaper than thiers. BUT NEWS FLASH, I work at CC and get a discount and I still purchase my HD-DVDs from Amazon because of my Amazon prime member ship. GO AMAZON, at CC we just raised the price of The Departed HD-DVD from $29.99 to $34.99 and the BD from $24.99 to $29.99

True. HD DVD does generally get it right the first time.


We dont want a Speed on our hands.

We dont want a Speed on our hands.
lol

I don't want Speed at all, per my post from above...

If that's your point (not a good one I may add), then don't you think maybe I have them on SD already?

And actually I don't like movies (Click?)
I like films (Se7en, Donnie Darko, etc)

I'm not a collector of movies (that I'll watch once, then they'll sit on a shelf). Sue me!!!
Speed ranks up there with Click, for movies I would never purchase, no matter the PQ/AQ. And for me, most BD movies are of this ilk