This is to summarize a lot of thoughts which have been expressed on the threads lately.

The main contention is that buying a "Hybrid" player from Samsung, or the second-gen Hybrid player from LG, is a better choice than buying a standalone player from the Bluray camp.

Why?

Many varied reasons, but which essentially boil down to the following:

1) Bluray standalone players are more expensive than HD DVD standalone players, and more similar to the prices of the Hyrbid players. For example, the Samsung UP-5000 is rumoured to be launching at under $1,000 and so is the second-gen LG Hybrid player also.

2) Bluray standalone players are not compatible, nor will be compatible with the "proper" standard Bluray Player Profile which becomes mandatory (after another delay) on November 1st 2007. It has been admitted that current BD players do not have to hardware required to be able to meet the 1.1 BD-Video specs. However, the Samsung UP5000 has been confirmed to use the Broadcom 7440 Chip, which means that it can inddeed do the 1.1 spec, and they have announced that it will launch at the time when the spec becomes mandatory.

3) HD DVD standalone players can now be had for close to $350, and the most expensive XA2 unit can even now be found for under $600. Yet some Bluray players still have list prices of $1,500 and the cheapest versions still sell for $600. (We're talking NEW units here folks, not refurbished returns).

4) Bluray standalone players lack many basic features that the Hybrid players have already included. For instance, because these Hybrid players must meet the HD DVD minimum player specs, the Hybrids must include Ethernet Network ports, DD+ and Dolby TruHD decoders. In reality, these hybrids have also included DTS-HD decoders and 1080p, even 1080p24, video output.

Even the most expensive BD players at higher prices are having trouble matching these specs.

In Summary - while HD DVD buyers may ingnore the Hybrid players due to their higher prices, these hybrid players are a very real and also very SMART choice for anyone who is about to spend that kind of bread on a Bluray Standalone Player which is lacking in many of the same capabilities, and is not compatible with future BD specifications.

Discuss nicely...

Wow - logic must be pretty good.

No response?

(...crickets chirping...)

You know I have to respond.

In a market in which there are two competitors for indemand product a hybrid player is a good solution to end the pain.

For every DVDA/SACD hybrid failure there is DVD-r/DVD+r win.

Universals help defray the risk for consumers but they do nothing for studios especially the neutral ones. So the next step is for today's neutral studios to find a way to deliver to both formats with one SKU.

The exclusive studios are in a quandry as well. How long is Disney going to hold out and miss potential millions in movie sales for HD DVD? I don't think they'll wait that long honestly. In fact if Wal-Mart is getting HD happy Disney will follow the scent to the money pile waiting.

Looking for a fight? :mad: not from me! i have an LG already and waiting for the second G ! :D ;)

Athansios

I'm looking forward to affordable PC playback drives that support both players. I wonder if anyone will be able to make a Universal recorder

I would like to see SACD, DVD-A and I-Link support from the combo players. I think Audio is an afterthought at this stage but maybe eventually a company will release a true universal player.

Hi ALL,

I agree 100% that a dual format player is very desirable. I have a nice HD setup and the only thing that's missing is a way to play back pre-recorded HD movies. I really do NOT care which format will win, but I will NOT buy two players. I was real excited when the LG came out, but at $1200 its still too expensive. Now hopefully we'll have two choices: the 2nd gen LG and one from Samsung. They are both rumored to come out at less than $1K so hopefully I'll be able to get one soon!!!

Gerry

I would like to see SACD, DVD-A and I-Link support from the combo players. I think Audio is an afterthought at this stage but maybe eventually a company will release a true universal player.


I guess VCR's should also have played 8 track tapes too.

Sorry. I couldn't resist. ;)

In Summary - while HD DVD/ buyers may ingnore the Hybrid players due to their higher prices, these hybrid players are a very real and also very SMART choice for anyone who is about to spend that kind of bread on a Bluray Standalone Player which is lacking in many of the same capabilities, and is not compatible with future BD specifications.

Discuss nicely...

If you haven't committed money to either format, it would be totally silly to purchase either standalone at this time. You have to spend $600 to get a 1080p player in either format. If this puppy does 1080p, it'll be a steal at $800 or $1000

Great summary rdjam.

Personally I am sick of this format war already. Screw all these greedy studios and corporations. Give me a player that allows me to choose. That is what I want. Thank you LG, and Thank you Samsung. Two companies tuned in to the consumers and tuned out to forced purchase.

I guess VCR's should also have played 8 track tapes too.

Sorry. I couldn't resist. ;)

If I had lots of 8 track tapes and was running out of rack space then yes they should have :)

I bought the LG combo player knowing it was a stopgap solution to allow me to play HD video. The combo player lets me remain "format neutral" (?) while waiting for a winner, if any, to emerge. Also, I didn't want to wait a year or more before the issues with the early players have finally been resolved with newer players/specs.

I personally want Blu-Ray to win simply because of the significantly better storage capacity which allows for higher audio and video bitrates, translating to higher AQ and PQ, everything else being equal. I expect Blu-ray to rule in the computer world as well because of the storage capacity. I don't understand the reasons anyone (other than an HD-DVD owner and certain commercial interests) would want HD-DVD to thrive at the expense of Blu-Ray.

I don't understand the reasons anyone (other than an HD-DVD owner and certain commercial interests) would want HD-DVD to thrive at the expense of Blu-Ray.
Just devil's advocate here - why?

- there is no shown difference in PQ. the codecs are equal even with the higher bit rate (nothing anyone can see)
- it's driving down the price to mass acceptance level much faster = sooner SD dies
- it's cheaper to make = sooner we get cheaper discs

And (not a fanboy bash)

- Sony, they are most assuredly a crap company. I can see another rootkit in there future. Their over zealous DRM schemes & everything proprietary manure gets old fast. I don't dislike Blu-ray nearly as much as the fact Sony is "CEO" of the group.

But hey if Blu-ray wins I can live with that, especially if I have a nice hybrid player :D

I'm all over one of these once the price dips a bit. Stuff like this is what is going to end the format war - not necessarily for the companies behind Blu-Ray and HD DVD, but once these become more prevalent and affordable....in the eyes of the consumers it won't matter anymore. That's all I care about.

If you can afford it, it's a sure bet.

I think one of the reasons I support HD DVD is because regardless of the BD advantage of space on disc, they have come short on almost everything else, including things that have squandered said space advantage.

Most importantly for me, is that the HD DVD studios appear to be committed to next gen codecs like VC1 and TruHD. The picture quality on VC1 has been better than the other options, particularly Mpeg.

The BD studios, starting with Sony, generally appear to be committed to using anything BUT VC1, and it shows in many, many of their releases.

It's a calssic case of where, on paper, someone might feel that something is better, but in reality, it's not.

Add to that the fact that LPCM soundtracks on BD discs eat up the space advantage folks often talk about. Why? Because they didn't mandate TruHD or DTS-HD, and so are forced to use LPCM if they want to compete on audio quality. Heck - even the DD+ version used by Bluray is limited to only 640K for 5.1 audio tracks, whereas DD+ on HD DVD can run at 1.5 megabits for 5.1

The matter of pricing is only the clincher for me, as I know I'll have lots of company and feel safe about the format. That Bluray is not yet finished designing but is happily trying to sell effectively obsolete equipment due to themn not having finished the format, is another gripe.

The Hybrid players are the best way forward for someone who feels they definitely want a BD player.

If you haven't committed money to either format, it would be totally silly to purchase either standalone at this time. You have to spend $600 to get a 1080p player in either format. If this puppy does 1080p, it'll be a steal at $800 or $1000
If it weren't for price issues, I might agree with you.

For someone who want in on HD, $300 is simply affordable, and lowers the risk for anyone concerned about "losing".

Some of these folks might just not be readfy to plunk $800 or $1,000 on an HD player, even if there wasn't a format war.

However, for those that are ready for $800 to $1,000, the Hybrid player is the only sensible choice, instead of a BR player which will not meet the new spec, and is missing many of the features that these Hybrid players must include, simply by virtue of the fact that they must meet HD DVD player specs which are more extensive.

A lot of people say the longer the war goes on for, the more it spells doom for HD in general. My opinion is that it will simply create more demand for cheaper dual format players. I would happily trade in any single format stand alone, for a $600 Samsung dual player

Again, there are so many mentions of if so and so wins, wins what!?!??! Neither format is going away any time soon. There is no "war" other than what some of you are claiming. The fact that HD DVD has the coin to get Goodby Silverstein on board for advertising, and Blu-Ray has the financial monster that is Sony behind them, should be enough evidence that no format is dying anytime in the next decade. Companies like Toshiba and Sony could take a financial loss for five maybe even ten years on these formats, heck take apart your PS3 and I'll put money on parts being made by Toshiba Semiconductors in there.

I personally want Blu-Ray to win simply because of the significantly better storage capacity which allows for higher audio and video bitrates, translating to higher AQ and PQ, everything else being equal. I expect Blu-ray to rule in the computer world as well because of the storage capacity. I don't understand the reasons anyone (other than an HD-DVD owner and certain commercial interests) would want HD-DVD to thrive at the expense of Blu-Ray.

It's simple. Cost. Digital Video is one of my hobbies so i'm pretty familiar with multiple codecs and why you'd use MPEG2 or AVC versus DVC Pro etc. The interesting thing is the assumption that

Higher bitrate= better video quality.
Higher bitrate= better audio quality.

The reality is that both AVC and VC-1 were created to be efficient. They are 2x-3x more efficient than MPEG2. So what requires a 45Mbps MPEG2 datarate could be done with AVC/VC-1 in 15-22Mbps datarate and maintain the same quality. Thus the extra storage for packaged media is superfluous.

If Blu-ray cost the same as HD DVD and had players that were as fully spec'd then I'd be singing their praises. But to date the players have been more expensive, less featured on the player side and haven't delivered better quality. Thus the "carrot" of "I think Blu-ray may look better someday because of storage" will never be caught. Mastery of codecs will improve over time "lessening" storage requiremens further.

So on one hand I have a concrete deliverable today in cheaper HD players vs a rather whimsical "hope" that Blu-ray can deliver better quality in the future. My experience tells me both formats will look identical.

A lot of people say the longer the war goes on for, the more it spells doom for HD in general. My opinion is that it will simply create more demand for cheaper dual format players. I would happily trade in any single format stand alone, for a $600 Samsung dual player

I would too. I'm going to replace/add to my standalone HD DVD player with a Universal late next year. By then we'll be on second or third generation Universal product and I expect that $599 should be an easy price for them to hit.

It really isn't about HD DVD to me or Blu-ray. It's about getting HD Movies in my home for a good price and the least amount of encumberance. I knew I wasn't going to be happy with Blu-rays "We have the best security" mantra because that doesn't affect my bottomline. I simply want access to high quality movies without the hassle (region encoding, draconian DRM etc)

Universal players will likely become the "sought" after player for those who are willing to pay for the consolidation. Less clutter..less HDMI ports used on your AVR, less remotes.

Uni players will be popular if their price decreases scale well enough. Think about how popular the bare drives will be for HTPC environments were one tray has to be able to play multiple optical formats. The market is there.

It's simple. Cost. Digital Video is one of my hobbies so i'm pretty familiar with multiple codecs and why you'd use MPEG2 or AVC versus DVC Pro etc. The interesting thing is the assumption that

Higher bitrate= better video quality.
Higher bitrate= better audio quality.

The reality is that both AVC and VC-1 were created to be efficient. They are 2x-3x more efficient than MPEG2. So what requires a 45Mbps MPEG2 datarate could be done with AVC/VC-1 in 15-22Mbps datarate and maintain the same quality. Thus the extra storage for packaged media is superfluous.
....

A couple of friends and I did a subjective evaluation of a number of samples of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies and saw more motion artifacts with the HD-DVD movies than with Blu-ray. the theory put forth at the time (probably incorrectly because of differences in CODEC efficiencies), was the Blu-Ray movies allowed for higher bit rates so they were able to handle motion better. It turned out that yes indeed, the bitrates were typically higher with the selected Blu-ray titles vs the HD-DVD titles. Coincidence ? Or perhaps there are deficiencies in the VC-1 codecs which most ignore ? There might have been other reasons (e.g. unfortunate selection of source material) for the detected relative "deficiencies" in the VC1 encoded stuff. Don't get me wrong, the PQ was still typically excellent even when blown up on my buddy's 126" 1080p display.

I just got "Night in the Museum" and actually was disappointed with portions of the video presentation, it was still pretty good but I thought it could have been even better if they hadn't had to squeeze an MPEG2 video onto a single layer Blu-Ray. It just makes sense that removing some of the space constraints (e..g using 50G discs) driving video and audio compression should result in a better quality video and audio experience.

Why I'm not going to buy a dual format (right now).

I can spend $350 right now on HD DVD (and get 5 free movies). I enter the HD world of movie watching and am set back $350. If a dual format ends up being the way to go in the long run (2-3 years), I'm gambling that players will be ~$400-$600. Total outlay would be at most $950 for both machines (plus I end up with an extra HD player for another room).

If HD DVD goes away (big if), I must pony up the cash for a BluRay player ($600-$900 at todays rates).

So, I figure either way I will spend about the same amount of money, but this way gets me satisfaction now versus waiting to save up the $1000 for a dual format player. It's more about the want today versus waiting for a couple of years until I can afford it that is swaying me.

Then again, I don't really like M$ or Sony, so I kind of want to stay away from both :p

I say buy separate BD and HD DVD players is the smart choice.

That way, when one of the consortia update specs to a level that your player cannot be upgraded to meet, you only need to replace one of your two players and the other is OK....

You only need to update 1/2 as often!

A point that I didn't see mentioned here:

Buying a dual player sends a message to the market that you are not interested in
a format war. Buying individual players, even if one of each, gets tallied in each
collumn of sales figures used to "prove" one format or another is "winning".

Another point which applies to a select few (including myself).

Only one set of analog outputs is needed for those of us who are currenlty using "HDMI-challenged" prea/pros or Receivers and have six (6) channel analog preamp stages. This allows me to at least take advantage of 24/48 uncompressed PCM audio tracks using the players DACs with the option ot sending 1536 DTS or DD to the pre/pro via Coax/optical if desired. The manufacturers are still probably at least a year away from having a "suitable" HDMI 3.1-compliant pre/pro for my system.

I own both and I am still going to by a Samsung Duo if it lives up to all the hype.

I own both and I am still going to by a Samsung Duo if it lives up to all the hype.

And I think your reason for doing so would be interesting.

And I think your reason for doing so would be interesting.


Nothing too interesting. Simply convenience, especially for the wife and kids. Two formats, one player, one universal remote ( I have the PS3 and am not a big fan of the remote)

I don't like universal players because I don't think they play both formats with the same quality. I hear about the player X who's great playing DVDs but not CDs... or the opposite... so I guess that if you want top performance in both formats you end up having to buy two top players for each format.

That's what I think.

If it weren't for price issues, I might agree with you.

For someone who want in on HD, $300 is simply affordable, and lowers the risk for anyone concerned about "losing".

Some of these folks might just not be readfy to plunk $800 or $1,000 on an HD player, even if there wasn't a format war.

However, for those that are ready for $800 to $1,000, the Hybrid player is the only sensible choice, instead of a BR player which will not meet the new spec, and is missing many of the features that these Hybrid players must include, simply by virtue of the fact that they must meet HD DVD player specs which are more extensive.

That's why I said to get a 1080p player you would need about $600 in either format making the whole price difference irrelevant.

I don't like universal players because I don't think they play both formats with the same quality. I hear about the player X who's great playing DVDs but not CDs... or the opposite... so I guess that if you want top performance in both formats you end up having to buy two top players for each format.

That's what I think.

Some people think the earth is flat too. Frankly, I've had no issues with my BH100 playing either format. And it's far less "clunky" than my HD-A1.

For me, it allows me to support Blu Ray, without supporting it directly via a stand alone box/console.

I am firmly into the HD DVD camp, which is why I have an HD-A1 from Toshiba and about 24 HD DVD movies so far. Yes there are some movies I want in High Def that are on the Blu Ray hold outs, but I will be damned if I buy a stand alone player to watch any of their content. There is no need for Blu Ray to exist as a movie format in my opinion, when we all know that HD DVD with VC1 gets the job done, and at a lesser expense. But anyway, Im seriously going to look into the Sammy unit later this year.

I agree. The thought of buying a standalone Blu-ray only player is a no go for me.

I know that it's popular to point out playback glitches in HD DVD but let's be honest here. The level of interactivity on many HD DVD discs blows Blu-ray out of the water and unlike BD-Java which is seeming to sprout heads like a Hydra, HD DVD has one software layer in HDi that continues to evolve and deal with the issues.

Gen 1 HD DVD hardware still handles today's stuff and will handle the networking stuff. I cannot say more about how important that is for early adopters.

Universal players should become the sought after devices when money isn't the prime motivator for a HD purchase.

I will enjoy having Blu-ray access but I will always support the ethos of HD DVD more than Blu-ray. I enjoy having no Region Control and a paucity of DRM as well as reliance on new technology (TrueHD, advanced video codecs)

So my Universal player will have to exel on the HD DVD side first and foremost if it wishes to be purchased by me.

Some people think the earth is flat too. Frankly, I've had no issues with my BH100 playing either format. And it's far less "clunky" than my HD-A1.
The clerk yesterday told me it was the new remastered BD version of The Fifth Element that was playing on an LG $1,000 dual-format player and a 50-inch plasma display. Don't know if the problem was the player or the disk, but the image was little better than my SuperBit version of the same film upcon'd to 1080. Not much to look at, at all.

I read (Home Theater Mag) that the BluRay video portion of the disc was horrible. That may explain that.

It did speak highly of the audio though.

A couple of friends and I did a subjective evaluation of a number of samples of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies and saw more motion artifacts with the HD-DVD movies than with Blu-ray. the theory put forth at the time (probably incorrectly because of differences in CODEC efficiencies), was the Blu-Ray movies allowed for higher bit rates so they were able to handle motion better. It turned out that yes indeed, the bitrates were typically higher with the selected Blu-ray titles vs the HD-DVD titles. Coincidence ? Or perhaps there are deficiencies in the VC-1 codecs which most ignore ? There might have been other reasons (e.g. unfortunate selection of source material) for the detected relative "deficiencies" in the VC1 encoded stuff. Don't get me wrong, the PQ was still typically excellent even when blown up on my buddy's 126" 1080p display.

How was this testing done? Ideally it should be ABX but thats not possible since all we have access to is 2 different compressed copies and no uncompressed master. At the very least it should be a blind test so that none of the viewers knows which format they are watching.

Also how were the connections setup? Proper calibration of connections can definitely make a difference in the quality of the display and things like Black crush can cause issues that could look codec related.

What exactly were the codecs and bit rates used? A mpeg 2 encode is going to be a higher bit rate than AVC or VC1 but that doesn't mean higher quality. It may be that the HD-DVD codec was a little over compressed for that particular case but that doesn't mean that HD-DVD doesn't have enough space or bandwidth to do it with out showing artifacts.

I just got "Night in the Museum" and actually was disappointed with portions of the video presentation, it was still pretty good but I thought it could have been even better if they hadn't had to squeeze an MPEG2 video onto a single layer Blu-Ray. It just makes sense that removing some of the space constraints (e..g using 50G discs) driving video and audio compression should result in a better quality video and audio experience.

Things like this are why some people say Blu-Ray has a theoretical advantage and not an actual advantage at this point. A single layer Blu-Ray disk with an MPEG2 encoded movie is going to fall short of a Dual layer HD-DVD with a VC1 or AVC encode. It will have less space to work with and a less efficient codec to compress the video so it's going to be missing extras, audio tracks, lower quality video or some combination of the above.

Going with PCM for multichannel sound and making the lossless compression standards optional was a pretty big mistake IMO. It means that disk makers have to decide between locking out a portion of their audience from lossless audio or include a very large uncompressed track. This eats up part of Blu-Ray's disk size advantage for no real benefit just because they didn't make at least one lossless standard mandatory.

At the CEDIA show this week I did a lot of demo viewings of projectors.

Most of the demo rooms had both HD DVD and Bluray sources for the demos.

What is interesting is that in three different demos, by different vendors, the presenter quietly cursed the Bluray players.

In one demo, the Pirates of the Caribbean disc was *extremely* sluggish, due the the java. The presenter here said he felt sorry for Disney to have been caught in these BD problems. Trying to get the movie to play was suspenseful for the audience, and it had apparently crashed.

In another demo, the presenter was not thrilled by the Bluray player randomly changing video output settings, and the menus being slow and difficult.

In the other demo, the presenters were having trouble getting the Bluray player to put out the correct audio and we enjoyed periods of silent movies while they tried to kick it's tail back to the right modes.

It was good to see the amount of demos who were pleased that they were showing both formats.

If you are determined to buy a Bluray player, then I feel strongly that given the prices of the Bluray players, you are MUCH better off getting a Dual Format player.

I just think it's interesting that thanks to the standards put in place by HD DVD, BR followers will finally have a fully-functioning player.

Fascinating.:cool:

Hi all,

I'm a Blu owner, and thus a supporter. My frustration in this war is that it is a war. peaceful coexistance stinks. Why?

Instead of your cheap players that play all movies (one or the other), we now delay the process and go to 1k machines that play everything.
problem? format war continues with separates and the public has no unified cheap choice.

Blu or HD dvd, we all need cheap machines that play as many movies as possible. Prolonging the war means more on the sidelines until there are affordable universal players or a single format.

Right now we all are dual format already- High def and reg def. Let the machines become dirt cheap and one format win - then we can all enjoy common high def.

Logic would say that the Blu (more expensive) adopters would be excited for universal players in their price range. It's odd that the economical crowd is the one screaming for high priced universal players!:o

cheers,

Paul

Tell you what I think:
Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray wiill quietly die of being overtaken by new technologies.
Video streaming, movie-on-demand- there's no reason why technology would stop improving internet speed and bitrates to allow hd streaming.
So I think no disc based music/picture will survive in the end.
This may even happen pretty soon!
Hi-res does not interest the average Joe so it will be a niche product while it lasts, that is until the studios and player manufacturers pull the plug because they don't make enough money.
Joe wants to rent out from the shop around the corner, he's not interested in buying lousy flicks with great pics for a lot of money!
CD's are already getting defunct!

Tell you what I think:
Both HD-DVD and Blu-ray wiill quietly die of being overtaken by new technologies.
Video streaming, movie-on-demand- there's no reason why technology would stop improving internet speed and bitrates to allow hd streaming.
So I think no disc based music/picture will survive in the end.
This may even happen pretty soon!

I agree. That's what's missing in this conversation. Streaming is the other choice that will win with an extended format war!The same thing happened with Dvd-Audio vs. SACD, They were better quality but by prolonging a hi rez battle allowed downloading music to prevail! This isexactly how our format war is turning.

Everyone said YEAH to the universal sacd/dvd-audio players and look what happened - a reset of the high price - dooming the formats.

Adoption by the masses is what we need. NOT a prolonging of the war and a reset to 1,000 players!!!!!! Only <300 players in ONE FORMAT will guarantee success before streaming/downloading get's a foothold!

At the CEDIA show this week I did a lot of demo viewings of projectors.

Most of the demo rooms had both HD DVD and Bluray sources for the demos.

What is interesting is that in three different demos, by different vendors, the presenter quietly cursed the Bluray players.

In one demo, the Pirates of the Caribbean disc was *extremely* sluggish, due the the java. The presenter here said he felt sorry for Disney to have been caught in these BD problems. Trying to get the movie to play was suspenseful for the audience, and it had apparently crashed.

In another demo, the presenter was not thrilled by the Bluray player randomly changing video output settings, and the menus being slow and difficult.

In the other demo, the presenters were having trouble getting the Bluray player to put out the correct audio and we enjoyed periods of silent movies while they tried to kick it's tail back to the right modes.

It was good to see the amount of demos who were pleased that they were showing both formats.

If you are determined to buy a Bluray player, then I feel strongly that given the prices of the Bluray players, you are MUCH better off getting a Dual Format player.
KEY QUESTION: Who were the presenter(?) Was it the BDA, or the HD-DVD consortium, or . . . ? Inquiring minds want to know.

Adoption by the masses is what we need. NOT a prolonging of the war and a reset to 1,000 players!!!!!! Only <300 players in ONE FORMAT will guarantee success before streaming/downloading get's a foothold!It seems to me that dual-format players that are <$300 are a lot more likely to be a huge success. I know a lot of folks who are waiting before jumping to HD movies because they know that some studios are using blu-ray, and others are using HD-DVD. If an affordable player that played all discs was available, they'd jump at it in a heartbeat.

Plus, you only have 1 component in your shelf, 1 remote, and 1 HDMI connection (For bluray, hddvd, and dvd).

For me, that is a really big plus, especially for the wife.

A couple of friends and I did a subjective evaluation of a number of samples of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies and saw more motion artifacts with the HD-DVD movies than with Blu-ray. the theory put forth at the time (probably incorrectly because of differences in CODEC efficiencies), was the Blu-Ray movies allowed for higher bit rates so they were able to handle motion better. It turned out that yes indeed, the bitrates were typically higher with the selected Blu-ray titles vs the HD-DVD titles. Coincidence ? Or perhaps there are deficiencies in the VC-1 codecs which most ignore ? There might have been other reasons (e.g. unfortunate selection of source material) for the detected relative "deficiencies" in the VC1 encoded stuff. Don't get me wrong, the PQ was still typically excellent even when blown up on my buddy's 126" 1080p display.

I just got "Night in the Museum" and actually was disappointed with portions of the video presentation, it was still pretty good but I thought it could have been even better if they hadn't had to squeeze an MPEG2 video onto a single layer Blu-Ray. It just makes sense that removing some of the space constraints (e..g using 50G discs) driving video and audio compression should result in a better quality video and audio experience.

Most titles released on both formats are the exact same encodes. You shouldn't see any differences.

If they are different releases, keep in mind that it's unlikely you'll get a great encode on something like "Blazing Saddles". There's no money in it. You should compare a movie like that to say "Casino Royale".

I agree. That's what's missing in this conversation. Streaming is the other choice that will win with an extended format war!The same thing happened with Dvd-Audio vs. SACD, They were better quality but by prolonging a hi rez battle allowed downloading music to prevail! This isexactly how our format war is turning.

Everyone said YEAH to the universal sacd/dvd-audio players and look what happened - a reset of the high price - dooming the formats.

Adoption by the masses is what we need. NOT a prolonging of the war and a reset to 1,000 players!!!!!! Only <300 players in ONE FORMAT will guarantee success before streaming/downloading get's a foothold!

DVD-Audio and SACD were doomed not because of a war, but because nobody knew anything about them. Why....because few cared. Most people don't sit around listening to music anymore, it just for on-the-go type stuff. On a train, in your car, exercising, thing like that where you're not concentrating on the music. If they were, rap music wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is. :D

Movies though, that people sit and pay attention to. It has your full, undivided attention. This is where quality is appreciated and expected. I wonder what the ratio is between big screen tvs, and quality listening setups. In fact, my move into home theater is actually what started me listening to music again as well. Once I had a good setup and could actually appreciate it.

As for worrying about downloads taking over, it's not going to happen for a number of years. There's too much construction needed and red-tape to go through before we'll see decent speeds in the U.S. Heck, in order to meet requirements for the number of households with "High Speed Internet", they had to LOWER the definition in the U.S. for what defines HSI. We'll need to start seeing the 20Mbps download speeds before downloading HDM really starts to be worthwhile. I think the average right now is ~ 1 - 1.5Mbps.

In order to stream HD, you going to need even more bandwidth. And that's just in the last mile to your house. If everybody had 50Mbps, can you imagine the backbone requirements for 100 million homes. This isn't Denmark or Japan, our population isn't nearly as concentrated.

It seems to me that dual-format players that are <$300 are a lot more likely to be a huge success. I know a lot of folks who are waiting before jumping to HD movies because they know that some studios are using blu-ray, and others are using HD-DVD. If an affordable player that played all discs was available, they'd jump at it in a heartbeat.

That's my point! Dual format players are $1000. We have HD DVD players at $200 and Blu Ray at $400. We will not any time soon see this kind of price for Dual format.

Consumers will pass on the single format players because dual format tells them they only get half!

People were buying Blu or Hd DVD feeling that one was going to be the solution, now even I am holding off on actually buying discs because of uncertainty!

DVD-Audio and SACD were doomed not because of a war, but because nobody knew anything about them.

No, it was because people first looked for their favorite artists, got confused and said - screw it, I'll just buy the cd. Now they just buy a song from the cd. Much easier.

Movies though, that people sit and pay attention to. It has your full, undivided attention.

Let's be honest, quality movies are few and far between. The difference in picture for most people is not that great in their eyes. Good upconversion for $99 dollars will kill anyone's idea of a $1000 dual format player. Plain and simple.

As for worrying about downloads taking over, it's not going to happen for a number of years.

That's false also. I know many people who downloaded episodes from last year instead of recording them. Once Apple TV and other simple boxes to download movies are used more frequently, who will wait for Netflix or go to the video store.

My wife constantly uses VOD through comcast even though I cringe at the resolution and even HD on demand selection stinks - but she doesn't care. Convenience wins out.:o

We may be seeing the marginalization of HD discs.

No, it was because people first looked for their favorite artists, got confused and said - screw it, I'll just buy the cd. Now they just buy a song from the cd. Much easier.



Let's be honest, quality movies are few and far between. The difference in picture for most people is not that great in their eyes. Good upconversion for $99 dollars will kill anyone's idea of a $1000 dual format player. Plain and simple.



That's false also. I know many people who downloaded episodes from last year instead of recording them. Once Apple TV and other simple boxes to download movies are used more frequently, who will wait for Netflix or go to the video store.

My wife constantly uses VOD through comcast even though I cringe at the resolution and even HD on demand selection stinks - but she doesn't care. Convenience wins out.:o

We may be seeing the marginalization of HD discs.


There will always be people that still care about quality over convenience. And Wives don't count. I can count on one hand the number of women I've known that care one gnat's a$$ about Hi-End audio and or video. ;)

That's my point! Dual format players are $1000. We have HD DVD players at $200 and Blu Ray at $400. We will not any time soon see this kind of price for Dual format.I just went to pricescan.com to check out some prices...

Samsung BD-P1200 Blu-ray Player
It looks like the low price has dropped from ~$800 (which is the MSRP) to ~$440, in the span of about 20 weeks (approximately 5 months).

Panasonic DMP-BD10 Blu-ray Player
The player first retailed for ~$1300, and can now be found for $600.

So isn't it logical that a dual-format player, especially with multiple manufacturers in the market, would also show a similar price drop in the upcoming months?
Consumers will pass on the single format players because dual format tells them they only get half!Exactly... they know (if they do their research properly) that a single-format player will mean that they cannot view all possible HD movies - they'll have to check to see if the movie they want is being released by a movie company that releases movies in the format that their single-format player supports, and if not, they're out of luck! No HD movie for them in that case. So instead, they wait, not for a "winner", but for a DVD player that can play back all HD movies, so that they can go back to not knowing if "Die Hard" is a Paramount movie or Fox movie or Universal movie, etc. No one really cares (except maybe for Disney and Pixar stuff), and they really shouldn't have to care.
People were buying Blu or Hd DVD feeling that one was going to be the solution, now even I am holding off on actually buying discs because of uncertainty!Me too, but the dual-format players aren't the cause of that uncertainty - there was no signs that the HD-DVD format was going to suddently "lose" or "win", in my opinion. I'd much rather pay $400-500 for a dual-format player (I'm hoping for such a dual-format price point within the next 12 months) than $200 for just an HD-DVD player (is that price just for the XBox 360 add-on drive, by the way? That's not really a standalone player is it?), or $400 for just a blu-ray player.

Hi all,

I'm a Blu owner, and thus a supporter. My frustration in this war is that it is a war. peaceful coexistance stinks. Why?

Instead of your cheap players that play all movies (one or the other), we now delay the process and go to 1k machines that play everything.
problem? format war continues with separates and the public has no unified cheap choice.

I think this is a statement by the industry that cheap commodities do not have be de rigeur for all categories. This is a niche product still, and I frankly don't see the problem with maintaining a little margin on these things.

Blu or HD dvd, we all need cheap machines that play as many movies as possible. Prolonging the war means more on the sidelines until there are affordable universal players or a single format.

And this statement shows why. Cheap is starting to be synonymous with affordable.

Right now we all are dual format already- High def and reg def. Let the machines become dirt cheap and one format win - then we can all enjoy common high def.

Again, when you need a $1500 minimum to really see a major difference between this and SD, $99 HD players are not required. $299 can be floor for both formats and comfortably so for all involved IMO.

Logic would say that the Blu (more expensive) adopters would be excited for universal players in their price range. It's odd that the economical crowd is the one screaming for high priced universal players!:o

cheers,

Paul

BR consumers are confused about their format, let them be.

Adoption by the masses is what we need. NOT a prolonging of the war and a reset to 1,000 players!!!!!! Only <300 players in ONE FORMAT will guarantee success before streaming/downloading get's a foothold!

That's my point exactly. The peak price can be whatever (there's always someone that'll pay it), but the bracket for "consumer level" devices can comfortably occupy the $1k-$299 range. Does anyone see a reason why a high-quality format and cheap quality hardware are synonymous?

When everything is HDMI (which is how cheap CD players can get away with being cheap--digital transmission) then (ironically) prices can plummet.

Everyone said YEAH to the universal sacd/dvd-audio players and look what happened - a reset of the high price - dooming the formats.

Adoption by the masses is what we need. NOT a prolonging of the war and a reset to 1,000 players!!!!!! Only <300 players in ONE FORMAT will guarantee success before streaming/downloading get's a foothold!


Amen to that- which does not mean hi-res formats aren't fantastic- I have hundreds of magnificent sounding sacd discs, only waiting for somebody inventing FLAC multichannel + master tape quality.
Then even the most optimistic classical music releasers will pull the plug of making hardware...
Most of the biggies already stopped producing SACD even the inventors Philips and Sony.
Linn is already very close (see their music website).
Back to hires video dvd's:
What we don't need is another niche product, I can't think of any "small studio" producing hires dvd's...
IMO all buy discs are still far too expensive...

I have no problem with mid range (500-1300) Hi Def players. They can exist, and niche videophile players can also.

The Wife issue is HUGE for Hi Def. Why?

1. We need mass adoption. Wives have a say in family room entertainment, not necessarily in higher end or niche family theaters/av rooms.

2. Only inexpensive (sub 300) players will make the cut for a regular family. That's been the argument HD DVD has been spouting ad naseum. Dvd upconversion is good enough for wives.

3. Sub 300 dual format players will not see the light of day for a couple years! At best, thus the HD formats will be niche until that time. Dual format players guarantee both formats existence, thus studios play both sides and the mess continues. "Honey, why can't I rent Music and Lyrics on our HD DVD player?" or "Honey, this @#$%$#@ Blu ray player won't play the Heroes HD Dvd I rented" Take it back!

4. There will always be the contingent that loves video quality. We depend on the masses for reasonable prices and selection. We won't have it until this format war ends. the Mass Consumer will NOT buy both a HD DVD player and a Blu Ray player especially if there are players that play both. They will WAIT, or worse, buy a good upconverter that will last for a while. That way they get - a. Great picture, b. Universal selection of movies, c. the great feeling that they got it all for a 100+, a fraction of the price - nothing to lose, since dual format will some day be HUNDREDS less.

If I didn't already have a PS3, which does more than movies, I would skip this generation of Blu, and even the HD DVD players with the Reon are still above mass pricing. You can get an upconverting 1080P player for much less than the lowest 1080p HD player.

The Last thing we need is another SOME DAY IN THE NEAR FUTURE No Brainer.

If I didn't already have a PS3, which does more than movies, I would skip this generation of Blu, and even the HD DVD players with the Reon are still above mass pricing. You can get an upconverting 1080P player for much less than the lowest 1080p HD player.



Yes, but comparing the PQ of an upconverting DVD player to BD/HD-DVD on a 1080p display, is like comparing Rosy O'donnel to Jessica Alba.;)

Yes, but comparing the PQ of an upconverting DVD player to BD/HD-DVD on a 1080p display, is like comparing Rosy O'donnel to Jessica Alba.;)

UGH! True enough. But once again, I'll bet the common wife would rather have you watch Rosie than Jessica!:p

Yes, but comparing the PQ of an upconverting DVD player to BD/HD-DVD on a 1080p display, is like comparing Rosy O'donnel to Jessica Alba.;)

I wouldn't go that far. I would say it's more like comparing your local high school homecoming queen to Jessica Alba. Sure, Jessica is like 100x hotter, but your average public would be more than thrilled with the homecoming queen.

Oppo makes an audio universal player that gets great praise from hi-end magazines who usually sneer at anything under 2000$ for about 200$. I see no reason why, in 12-18 months, a 300$ dual format hi-def player won't emerge. As for the 99$ crowd, too bad so sad. They had to wait years for that to happen in SD DVD. There is no reason they shouldn't wait for the same thing in hi-def (and they won't wait nearly as long in any case--cheap DOES NOT equal affordable). It may not appear that way to people hanging around on boards like this one, but hi-def players are in their infancy. It took time for prices to come down for DVD, so give it time.

I see no reason why, in 12-18 months, a 300$ dual format hi-def player won't emerge. It may not appear that way to people hanging around on boards like this one, but hi-def players are in their infancy. It took time for prices to come down for DVD, so give it time.

Time is what we don't have. Have you seen the new video ipods? Downloadable movies and tv shows are becoming all the rage. If so, would someone buy the download and then also buy a hi def disc of the same thing?

We may be marginalized waiting for the Hi def dual players. More and more content is available for download - watch out, this may be the answer for the mass market for movies, tv shows, music, news, youtube vids, you name it.

Time is what we don't have. Have you seen the new video ipods? Downloadable movies and tv shows are becoming all the rage. If so, would someone buy the download and then also buy a hi def disc of the same thing?

We may be marginalized waiting for the Hi def dual players. More and more content is available for download - watch out, this may be the answer for the mass market for movies, tv shows, music, news, youtube vids, you name it.


Naaa... I don't buy it. People are always trying to make the music D/L comparison. But video is a whole different matter. To most downloaders, music is used in a passive sense. Sort of like background while they go about their business. Movies are an 'active' sport. They require time and undivided attention. So I don't see D/L video being any real competition to HD-DVD and BD discs. Because in the end, it's going to be the PQ that wins out.

Naaa... I don't buy it. People are always trying to make the music D/L comparison. But video is a whole different matter. To most downloaders, music is used in a passive sense. Sort of like background while they go about their business. Movies are an 'active' sport. They require time and undivided attention. So I don't see D/L video being any real competition to HD-DVD and BD discs. Because in the end, it's going to be the PQ that wins out.

I wish it were true. However, I'm 40 and most of the younger people I know want convenience over pq. The masses are happy with comcast HD on Demand for PQ and convenience. Many I know will watch a tv show they missed downloaded to their video ipod!?!

I love PQ and find that I am in a small minority amongst my friends and associates. We don't know ANYONE who has a hd dvd player or Blu Ray standalone!!!!!!!!!

Of course we live in Seattle and the high tech granola's here are more into the environmental impact of HD DVD over the Picture Quality!:p:p:p

Thus my opinions are skewed by my environment.

Last year at this time, only two people I know "in the real world" owned an HD display (and neither of them subscribed to HD services). I know a lot more than two people, and HD displays have been around a lot longer than HD DVD or Blu-Ray.

Now, seven people I know have HD displays and I've recently purchased one. Give it time. Video downloads of TV shows because you missed one is one thing. But no one I know will watch LOTR EE on an iPod as a FIRST (or even seventh) choice.

Last year at this time, only two people I know "in the real world" owned an HD display (and neither of them subscribed to HD services). I know a lot more than two people, and HD displays have been around a lot longer than HD DVD or Blu-Ray.

Now, seven people I know have HD displays and I've recently purchased one. Give it time. Video downloads of TV shows because you missed one is one thing. But no one I know will watch LOTR EE on an iPod as a FIRST (or even seventh) choice.

You prove my point. Adoption is going to take a long time. However, LOTR, is one of a handful of epics that will do the format justice.

Blades of Glory and the like only offer High Resolution Sound as an advantage. I watched it and am glad it didn't come out on Blu Ray:p

Not only does J6P need an HD display, but HDMI receiver/surround sound setup/ . . to take advantage of the HD Formats.

Frankly, HD media has a steep road to climb right now.:(

If you care about CHOICE, then combo players are the only way to go.

If you care about CHOICE, then combo players are the only way to go.

That would be the case if the formats were secure already. Since they are not, combo players may kill HD as a mass medium and thus CHOICE goes out the door.

It's hard logically to make sense of a statement like . ."if you care about CHOICE, then combo players are the only way to go.:o

I see combo players as the best hope of saving HDM. I just can't imagine a winner-takes-all scenario playing out. Combo players neutralize the format war. The more people buying combo players the more that will be supporting
both HD formats -- resulting in more HD media sales. I just can't imagine limiting myself to a single HD format. I would miss too many great titles in the other.

I see combo players as the best hope of saving HDM. I just can't imagine a winner-takes-all scenario playing out. Combo players neutralize the format war. The more people buying combo players the more that will be supporting
both HD formats -- resulting in more HD media sales. I just can't imagine limiting myself to a single HD format. I would miss too many great titles in the other.

Agreed at this point, only affordable combo players can save HDM.

Limiting to one format now doesn't make sense, but if there were a decisive winner, all the studios would follow the money and of course release in the winning format

Being an engineer that has been dealing with video for 25 years, I can quickly spot artifacts in video. When I go to Best buy or Circuit city and look at their HD video on display I always see motion artifacts and blurring - not to mention the oversaturated colors due the WOW settings of an uncalibrated HDTV.

But what I have seen at both Best buy and Circuit city is that the average joe that comes in to get upgraded to HD ends up buying what the unknowledgable sales person recommends or what is highlighted in the store. The average consumer has no idea what 1080p/60Hz is let alone what it's supposed to look like. They don't care about BD or HDDVD, they just want season 2 of Heros in HD.

People will buy dual players if that is what is pushed at the retailers if the price is right.

As far as the War goes - Price and the Retailers will be the determining factors.

I see combo players as the best hope of saving HDM. I just can't imagine a winner-takes-all scenario playing out. Combo players neutralize the format war. The more people buying combo players the more that will be supporting
both HD formats -- resulting in more HD media sales. I just can't imagine limiting myself to a single HD format. I would miss too many great titles in the other.I agree. And with 3 to 4 more combo manufacturers coming next year, combo players will be dropping in price.

I wish it were true. However, I'm 40 and most of the younger people I know want convenience over pq. The masses are happy with comcast HD on Demand for PQ and convenience. Many I know will watch a tv show they missed downloaded to their video ipod!?!

I love PQ and find that I am in a small minority amongst my friends and associates. We don't know ANYONE who has a hd dvd player or Blu Ray standalone!!!!!!!!!

Of course we live in Seattle and the high tech granola's here are more into the environmental impact of HD DVD over the Picture Quality!:p:p:p

Thus my opinions are skewed by my environment.

I'm 46 and work in the broadcast television business. I'm the only one in my department that has an HDTV, an HD DVD player or a Blu-ray player. Most of the folks I work with are pretty well paid sales people and can afford it, too. And our TV station transmits in HD, of course. Many people that work here talk about needing to go get an HDTV, but they don't pull the trigger.

It's just not a big priority, even among folks who work in the industry and presumably enjoy television.