An italian news site reports that Ridley Scott asked Medusa (http://www.medusa.it/) distribution (italian, exclusive HD DVD) to publish "Kingdom of Heaven" in Blu-Ray. Is Ridley Scott another Spielberg? :confused:

http://www.avmagazine.it/news/dvd/ifa-medusa-le-crociate-in-blu-ray_2410.html

Babelfish translation:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=it_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avmagazine.it%2Fnews%2Fstampa%2Fdvd%2Fi fa-medusa-le-crociate-in-blu-ray_2410.html

Note: Medusa = jellyfish in italian, and "Kingdom of Heaven" is renamed "Le Crociate" in Italy.

An italian news site reports that Ridley Scott asked Medusa (http://www.medusa.it/) distribution (italian, exclusive HD DVD) to publish "Kingdom of Heaven" in Blu-Ray. Is Ridley Scott another Spielberg? :confused:Or he owns stock in Sony. ;)

Kingdom of Heaven is already authored to the 50GB BD, they have to downgrade it to fit it on HD DVD.

Kingdom of Heaven is already authored to the 50GB BD, they have to downgrade it to fit it on HD DVD.
Do you mean upgrade from MPEG2 to VC-1?

Do you mean upgrade from MPEG2 to VC-1?No. If bitrate for MPEG2 is sufficiently high you won't see artifacts or loss of film grain found in VC-1.

Kingdom of Heaven is already authored to the 50GB BD, they have to downgrade it to fit it on HD DVD.


Shouldn't that be the 45GB BD, they can't make the 50 giggers.

Wow, 2 posts and already we're in the "mine's bigger!" argument.

It normally takes 2 pages to get to that.

@topic:

the director American

Isn't Scott british?

I happen to know 'Ridders' and he has a Toshiba HD DVD player at home.

Kingdom of Heaven is already authored to the 50GB BD, they have to downgrade it to fit it on HD DVD.

Really? How big is the encoded video?

If it's already on BD, why would he need to ask these people to do it again?

I thought it was the studios that decided these things anyway?

:confused:

I happen to know 'Ridders' and he has a Toshiba HD DVD player at home.

Looks like he will have to borrow a player to play his BR movies on then. :D

He doesn't like to watch his own movies.

He doesn't like to watch his own movies.

Ummm, ok? But he wants them on BR for everyone else then I guess. *shrug*

No. If bitrate for MPEG2 is sufficiently high you won't see artifacts or loss of film grain found in VC-1.
I can tell you've seen a lot of HD DVDs.

Someone here saw a 40Mbps AVC encoded clip of KoH and said it blew away the MPEG2 encode. I wouldn't be surprised if a good HD DVD encode was noticeably better as well even though the MPEG2 encode was very good regardless. I wonder if the studio will follow his wishes.

Ummm, ok? But he wants them on BR for everyone else then I guess. *shrug*

Like Spielberg, he probably has a deal where he is paid royalites on every piece of home media sold in lieu of having gotten a bigger paycheck upfront.
It has no absolutely nothing to do with what these people 'prefer' it has to do with how much money they are not recieving at the moment. At the moment, and for a while yet, Blu-ray is selling 2:1 over the competition- therefore by not releasing on Bd, they personally are getting a smaller cut of the pie.

I don't care if Ridley Scott asked for it on Super 8.

An italian news site reports that Ridley Scott asked Medusa (http://www.medusa.it/) distribution (italian, exclusive HD DVD) to publish "Kingdom of Heaven" in Blu-Ray. Is Ridley Scott another Spielberg? :confused:

http://www.avmagazine.it/news/dvd/ifa-medusa-le-crociate-in-blu-ray_2410.html

Babelfish translation:
http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=it_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.avmagazine.it%2Fnews%2Fstampa%2Fdvd%2Fi fa-medusa-le-crociate-in-blu-ray_2410.html

Note: Medusa = jellyfish in italian, and "Kingdom of Heaven" is renamed "Le Crociate" in Italy.Well Francesco, this article will (and has) generate some irate postings from HD-DVD fans since it infers that the disc capacity of HD-DVD is insufficient. Part of the foundational belief of the HD-DVD ideology is that HD-DVD's disc capacity is more than enough for anything. Anything that infers otherwise will be attacked.

Well Francesco, this article will (and has) generate some irate postings from HD-DVD fans since it infers that the disc capacity of HD-DVD is insufficient. Part of the foundational belief of the HD-DVD ideology is that HD-DVD's disc capacity is more than enough for anything. Anything that infers otherwise will be attacked.


Sorry but I have to ask based on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD#HD_DVD_.2F_Blu-ray_disc_comparison

if it can't fit on a HD DVD is this the super duper extended edition that runs 4 hours long? or is it possible that a lazy studio didn't bother to encode with a decent codec? which is more likely?

Why doesn't he speak out to have KOH on HD DVD here in the US?

KoH is a Fox title. Fox calls the shot not Ridley...

KoH is a Fox title. Fox calls the shot not Ridley...

Not in Italy. Medusa calls the shots. I'm sure if Sony offered them free disc pressing like they do with Fox they would consider it.

Difference between distrubitate and have the actual rights for it

imdb

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (2005) (worldwide) (all media) (sales)
Medusa Distribuzione (2005) (Italy) (all media)

So even if they have Italian rights doesnt mean they can do whatever they want it. Im still waiting to se an actuall proof that Ridley scott was behind that a Fox movie wasnt released on HD DVD...

Difference between distrubitate and have the actual rights for it

imdb

Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation (2005) (worldwide) (all media) (sales)
Medusa Distribuzione (2005) (Italy) (all media)

So even if they have Italian rights doesnt mean they can do whatever they want it. Im still waiting to se an actuall proof that Ridley scott was behind that a Fox movie wasnt released on HD DVD...Umm yes, for the Italian market they can do what they want, as it says: "All Media".

Just because Fox has the rights for the rest of the world outside Italy doesn't mean they can tell the Italian distributor what to do / smoke etc.

Of course from a BD camp standpoint that's bad, as the HD DVD isn't region coded, so essentially anybody could import the Italian version (and they probably put an english soundtrack on there anyways).

Perhaps Ridley just wants his film to be available to both format supporters in Italy?

He's getting that from WB when the BLADE RUNNER redux drops this winter. I'm sure he'd like to see GLADIATOR, ALIEN, etc to be available to ALL when they hit the HD market.

With the possible exception of Michael Bay and his late-night inebriated blogging, I'd be willing to bet that ANY director would rather their movies be on both formats so that everyone can own them (and said directors get more $$ from sales of 3 disc formats -HD/BD/good old DVD). And that folks actually go to a theater to see them is surely the top priority to any filmmaker.

ridley is a hypocrite, why he doesn`t stand up for the other format in the US? maybe he doesn`t know he can`t make picture in picture commentaries on BD ...

I don't care which format this movie is on because I don't want it, lol.

Shouldn't that be the 45GB BD, they can't make the 50 giggers.
I have yet to see any 45GB BDs but I own a lot of 50GB BDs. Stop spreading outright lies.

I have yet to see any 45GB BDs but I own a lot of 50GB BDs. Stop spreading outright lies.

I think what he's referring to is that 50gb BD yields are very very low. To get around this, they only put 40-45gb of data on the BD50 disc to get the yields above 10%.

To go from MPEG2 to VC1 is an upgrade. Look at Xylon's comparisons of MPEG2 vs VC1 encodes, and VC1 looks better.

I think what he's referring to is that 50gb BD yields are very very low. To get around this, they only put 40-45gb of data on the BD50 disc to get the yields above 10%.
The blu-ray insiders seem to disagree with you. Please stop taking what Amir and his ilk say about blu-ray as fact. They are not Blu-ray insiders.

Why don't you ask them?, I havn't read anything from them that contradicts this. PS It came from a neutral insider.

Well Francesco, this article will (and has) generate some irate postings from HD-DVD fans since it infers that the disc capacity of HD-DVD is insufficient. Part of the foundational belief of the HD-DVD ideology is that HD-DVD's disc capacity is more than enough for anything. Anything that infers otherwise will be attacked.

No......but...I would really be mad if he insisted that Warners release BLADERUNNER only in Blu-ray. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr. As far as what the Italians do...I say live and let live.

Why don't you ask them?, I havn't read anything from them that contradicts this. PS It came from a neutral insider.

Go look in Bene's disc spec page in the BD forum. There are plenty of discs that are pushing almost 50GB. Casino Royale is 47GB, Crank is 49GB, Hellboy is 49GB for example.

Go look in Bene's disc spec page in the BD forum. There are plenty of discs that are pushing almost 50GB. Casino Royale is 47GB, Crank is 49GB, Hellboy is 49GB for example.

And how many coasters were created in the process?

OT - Does anyone know if all those bad discs can be recycled? Or are they just going into landfills?

The blu-ray insiders seem to disagree with you. Please stop taking what Amir and his ilk say about blu-ray as fact. They are not Blu-ray insiders.

"Amir and his ilk" didn't say it - a neutral insider (David Vaughn) did.

Get your information right. People would ask BD insiders but they seem to have left when faced with questioning.

Go look in Bene's disc spec page in the BD forum. There are plenty of discs that are pushing almost 50GB. Casino Royale is 47GB, Crank is 49GB, Hellboy is 49GB for example.


Your calculations are out, it's 1'024'000 bytes per 1 GB.

Like Spielberg, he probably has a deal where he is paid royalites on every piece of home media sold in lieu of having gotten a bigger paycheck upfront.
It has no absolutely nothing to do with what these people 'prefer' it has to do with how much money they are not recieving at the moment. At the moment, and for a while yet, Blu-ray is selling 2:1 over the competition- therefore by not releasing on Bd, they personally are getting a smaller cut of the pie.

+1

As Deep Throat told Woodward and Bernstein - "Follow the money"

Your calculations are out, it's 1'024'000 bytes per 1 GB.

BD50 holds 50,050,629,632 bytes. Ghost Rider BD is 49,862,064,796 bytes. Full enough for you?

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11420#ivb

BD50 holds 50,050,629,632 bytes. Ghost Rider BD is 49,862,064,796 bytes. Full enough for you?

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11420#ivb


Ahh, so you admit Blu Ray isn't 50GB! :D

Ahh, so you admit Blu Ray isn't 50GB! :D
It's 50GB not 50GiB. :rolleyes:

"Amir and his ilk" didn't say it - a neutral insider (David Vaughn) did.



So you're admitting it's not firsthand knowledge?

No. If bitrate for MPEG2 is sufficiently high you won't see artifacts or loss of film grain found in VC-1.

lol, nice FUD

I have yet to see any 45GB BDs but I own a lot of 50GB BDs. Stop spreading outright lies.

You 1st.

So you're admitting it's not firsthand knowledge?

I'm not admitting anything? :confused:

David Vaughn, a trusted journalist and format neutral, got this from his sources who asked to remain anonymous under journalistic privilege. Unlike the other insiders, he has nothing to gain from either side -- and much more to lose if he does not post facts.

"Amir and his ilk" didn't say it - a neutral insider (David Vaughn) did.

Sorry, David Vaughn only became an "insider" when he suddenly became "friends" with someone at Paramount who were willing to say things anonymously the the HD DVD fiends at AVS wanted to hear.

Considering his first outting contradicts what actual insiders say, and with what zealoutry it has become gospel to the HD DVD faithful, I don't consider him neutral either.

Like Spielberg, he probably has a deal where he is paid royalites on every piece of home media sold in lieu of having gotten a bigger paycheck upfront.
It has no absolutely nothing to do with what these people 'prefer' it has to do with how much money they are not recieving at the moment. At the moment, and for a while yet, Blu-ray is selling 2:1 over the competition- therefore by not releasing on Bd, they personally are getting a smaller cut of the pie.

Thanks for the info, I didn't even think of it that way. With all the he perfers this and that crap floating around, nobody really talks about the real reason. If HDDVD takes a lead in the future, we will probably be hearing the opposite from these directors.

lol, nice FUD

if you think its a lie you must not own or watch to many hd dvds. or maybe the rose tinted glasses clear up the image. I hope SD doesn't stand for san diego. i'd be ashamed.

mpeg2 is no match for avc but as for vc1 I think it looks better. its hard to compare encodes on different movies.

the shortcoming of hd dvd are becoming more and more apparent. various directors and studious (even paramount and wb) have commented on the lack of storage capacity and the problems it creates. lack of uncompressed audio is the easiest to point out. but before I get completely off topic...

mr. scott might not watch his own movies but i'm sure he wants them to look their best. all this throwing around of ''someone paid off the obscenely wealthy director'' stuff is not very convincing. but the argument that blu ray outselling hd 2:1 and a director wanting to reach more viewers and then getting more money that makes sense. there's my post for the month. later.

I translated the article in this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11522468#post11522468):

Initially we thought that Medusa had chosen to support HD DVD exclusively, but just this morning we instead learned from inside/reliable sources that the Milanese distributor will be releasing titles in Blu-ray. At this moment, we can confirm that the release "La sconosciuta" of Giuseppe Tornatore will remain exclusive to HD DVD, instead the first title to appear in Blu-ray will be "Kingdom of Heaven" by Ridley Scott.

Behind this decision is the American director, who prefers to have all his films published in Blu-ray. At this moment, we can't give you any more technical details of this new HD edition of "Kingdom of Heaven".

I'm not admitting anything? :confused:

David Vaughn, a trusted journalist and format neutral, got this from his sources who asked to remain anonymous under journalistic privilege. Unlike the other insiders, he has nothing to gain from either side -- and much more to lose if he does not post facts.
Didn't you hear? The latest Blu-ray.com talking point is that David Vaughn is being fed information to post by Amir.

Wow, if you read Blu-ray.com and believe the stuff talked there you really are retarded.

if you think its a lie you must not own or watch to many hd dvds. or maybe the rose tinted glasses clear up the image. I hope SD doesn't stand for san diego. i'd be ashamed.

mpeg2 is no match for avc but as for vc1 I think it looks better. its hard to compare encodes on different movies.

the shortcoming of hd dvd are becoming more and more apparent. various directors and studious (even paramount and wb) have commented on the lack of storage capacity and the problems it creates. lack of uncompressed audio is the easiest to point out. but before I get completely off topic...

mr. scott might not watch his own movies but i'm sure he wants them to look their best. all this throwing around of ''someone paid off the obscenely wealthy director'' stuff is not very convincing. but the argument that blu ray outselling hd 2:1 and a director wanting to reach more viewers and then getting more money that makes sense. there's my post for the month. later.


lol what a bunch of garbage. BD talking points 101.

Yep, from San Diego. Sorry kid. Been here since 75, long before you had your 1st PS3 HOFNAR.

To go from MPEG2 to VC1 is an upgrade. Look at Xylon's comparisons of MPEG2 vs VC1 encodes, and VC1 looks better.

Blu-Ray fanboys will disagree with you everytime on this one. They also think that AVC looks better than VC-1. The reason is that VC-1 is owned by Microsoft which supports HD-DVD so it will always be inferior to AVC and MPEG2. I used to always laugh when they would try and defend AVC and MPEG2. Its to the point now that it just makes them look ignorant and uniformed which most of them are.

I like a properly encoded BR disk like the next guy but anyone with a brain and good eye site can clearly see that VC-1 is visually the most complete video codec on earth right now. AVC has many years of catching up to do and MPEG2 works good on native video but will always be worthless for film @ 24p.

MPEG2 should never be used at any frame rate for either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.

Blu-Ray fanboys will disagree with you everytime on this one. They also think that AVC looks better than VC-1. The reason is that VC-1 is owned by Microsoft which supports HD-DVD so it will always be inferior to AVC and MPEG2. I used to always laugh when they would try and defend AVC and MPEG2. Its to the point now that it just makes them look ignorant and uniformed which most of them are.

I like a properly encoded BR disk like the next guy but anyone with a brain and good eye site can clearly see that VC-1 is visually the most complete video codec on earth right now. AVC has many years of catching up to do and MPEG2 works good on native video but will always be worthless for film @ 24p.

MPEG2 should never be used at any frame rate for either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.

i do agree with you that mpeg 2 should never have been used. but the higher bitrates do save it to some extent. i am glad that it is falling by the wayside though. as for why thinking vc-1 is worse than avc; its the lower bitrates not living up to the potential of the format. its like having a big block muscle car and stuffing 2 barrel carb on it.:eek: you need to put dual quads on that sucker to get off the line. vc-1 is not bad:rolleyes:. i like the way it looks with most of the titles i have it on. but would i prefer an avc encode? hell ya. casino royale, pirates, and untouchables (with the avc encode) look amazing. the case and point would be having some friends over to watch movies. they were moderately impressed with the WB titles that were vc1 and they were blown away by the disney, sony, and paramount titles using avc. i wasn't even looking to compare the two one of my a$$hole friends decided to take a dig at me about not being impressed by 300 or the departed. it hurt until he said that the others impressed by pirates and the others. (screeching brakes) ok now this is getting way off topic. i'll slowly wandering back to the forum topic.

i really think that mr. scott's decision is purely based on money, selling more of his movies on both formats will get him more money. as for mr. speilburg, i think with him its all about the art. i think that he feels that blu ray is the best medium to display his art, and (in theory)* he'll sell more copies with blu ray based on historical figures, can 1 year be considered historical?

and chris nice retort by the way.... well.... what can i say. i guess i'll move to one of the other cities in sd county since you got me beat by 8 years. maybe if we're at frys one day in the hidef section and accidently bump into each other there will be an explosion and we'll both neutralize on another.

*i am 100% sure blu will sell more i'm just being diplomatic:D

i really think that mr. scott's decision is purely based on money, selling more of his movies on both formats will get him more money. as for mr. speilburg, i think with him its all about the art. i think that he feels that blu ray is the best medium to display his art, and (in theory)* he'll sell more copies with blu ray based on historical figures, can 1 year be considered historical?



Problem 1
There is no proof that Ridley have a preference to one format or the other.

Problem2
There is no proof that Spielberg prefer one format over the other

All this is based on factual errors.

1. Close encounters is one of the few Spielberg films he has no control over. That it is released doesnt mean Spielberg prefer BD.

2. Fox has worldwide rights for KoH, and they wouldnt want their film be released on HD DVD at this stage. That the movie is BD only isnt a proof that Ridley prefers BD.

Problem2
There is no proof that Spielberg prefer one format over the other


Yes there is. Two different named sources confirm it:

"Steven is big supporter of Blu-ray" (Marvin Levy, Spielberg's longtime spokesman and DreamWorks marketing exec)
Link (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Steven_Spielberg/Industry_Forecasts/Exclusive:_Spielberg_Big_Supporter_of_Blu-ray_Future_HD_DVD_Releases_Still_Uncertain/878)

"Spielberg is a huge supporter of Blu-Ray" (Rob Moore, President Worldwide Marketing, Distribution and Home Entertainment for Paramount Pictures)
Link (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33722)

2. Fox has worldwide rights for KoH, and they wouldnt want their film be released on HD DVD at this stage. That the movie is BD only isnt a proof that Ridley prefers BD.

I'm sorry MovieSwede, but that is incorrect.

KoH is a int'l co-production and it has split rights on some key territoires. It has been released in France and Italy by Pathé and Medusa respectively, which are independent publishers. It's also likely that KoH has been released independently in Germany since this country provided some of the financing, but I'd like to have some german reader confirm this detail.

Actually, Pathé would have wanted to release KoH on HD DVD months ago, but the idea never came together. At this moment, Pathé only has BDs in the pipeline for the next couple of months, and KoH is one of them.

Yes there is. Two different named sources confirm it:

"Steven is big supporter of Blu-ray" (Marvin Levy, Spielberg's longtime spokesman and DreamWorks marketing exec)
Link (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Steven_Spielberg/Industry_Forecasts/Exclusive:_Spielberg_Big_Supporter_of_Blu-ray_Future_HD_DVD_Releases_Still_Uncertain/878)

"Spielberg is a huge supporter of Blu-Ray" (Rob Moore, President Worldwide Marketing, Distribution and Home Entertainment for Paramount Pictures)
Link (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33722)

Actually

"I then asked when the INDIANA JONES set would hit and if it would be exclusive to HD. Rob responded that on the films that Spielberg, however, is a huge supporter of Blu-Ray and always has been and wants the titles to be available in both formats - so those will be cross-platform titles."

Seems to me he is a big supporter of both format so that the line Steven is a big supporter of Bluray seems to be taken out of context.


*EDIT*

Dont think he such big supporter at all becuase he aint throwing the HD community much bones at all right now.

And how many coasters were created in the process?

OT - Does anyone know if all those bad discs can be recycled? Or are they just going into landfills?


AFAIK all optical medias can not be recycled.

BD50 holds 50,050,629,632 bytes. Ghost Rider BD is 49,862,064,796 bytes. Full enough for you?

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11420#ivb

Yeah.....full of the WORST movie ever. If the first byte SUCKS, why would you want 49,862,064,795 more of them? :rolleyes:

Hahaahahaha....Ghost Rider...... hahahahahahaha :p

the shortcoming of hd dvd are becoming more and more apparent. various directors and studious (even paramount and wb) have commented on the lack of storage capacity and the problems it creates.Care to provide a link where Paramount or Warner have said anything to that extend?

Yes there is. Two different named sources confirm it:

"Steven is big supporter of Blu-ray" (Marvin Levy, Spielberg's longtime spokesman and DreamWorks marketing exec)
Link (http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Steven_Spielberg/Industry_Forecasts/Exclusive:_Spielberg_Big_Supporter_of_Blu-ray_Future_HD_DVD_Releases_Still_Uncertain/878)

"Spielberg is a huge supporter of Blu-Ray" (Rob Moore, President Worldwide Marketing, Distribution and Home Entertainment for Paramount Pictures)
Link (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/33722)Yeah you have to see this in the context in which these statements were made. It just HAPPENS to coincide with the release of his movie on Blu-Ray. Sure, he'll go out and say: "Hey kids, don't buy this, I really don't care either way."

What he is doing is called MARKETING, that is in the same direction as blind fanboism but usually a bit more flexible as the goal in the end is not to alienate people but rather entice them.

Unless and until he comes out and clearly says that he prefers BD over HD we won't know.

The blu-ray insiders seem to disagree with you. Please stop taking what Amir and his ilk say about blu-ray as fact. They are not Blu-ray insiders.

Jeff Williams and Dave Vaughn both came up with this information, though they did find one replicator that was getting above 40%. That replicator was getting around 50% which is still bad. I also remember Talkstr8t getting pinned down on this also.

Blu-Ray fanboys will disagree with you everytime on this one. They also think that AVC looks better than VC-1. The reason is that VC-1 is owned by Microsoft which supports HD-DVD so it will always be inferior to AVC and MPEG2. I used to always laugh when they would try and defend AVC and MPEG2. Its to the point now that it just makes them look ignorant and uniformed which most of them are.

I like a properly encoded BR disk like the next guy but anyone with a brain and good eye site can clearly see that VC-1 is visually the most complete video codec on earth right now. AVC has many years of catching up to do and MPEG2 works good on native video but will always be worthless for film @ 24p.

MPEG2 should never be used at any frame rate for either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.

I have to disagree on the AVC vs vc-1 issue. Quite a number of comparisons Xylon and others have put together has AVC looking better. More texture, more detail. Quite a number of vc-1 encodes suffer from blocking, pulsing and other problems. Plus there seems to be some grain smoothing appearing on examined titles. Go check the Prestige, Flags of Our Fathers, and any number of previous comparisons.

dp.

Care to provide a link where Paramount or Warner have said anything to that extend?

i apologize it hasn't been expressly stated, but with blades of glory and face off on blu ray getting better hd extras and uncompressed audio while the hd dvd gets the same stuff the dvd gets. another example of this with paramount is that transformers will be getting dobly digital + and dvd extras. warner has to put the hd dvd version of harry potter on 2 discs because there isn't enough space for all those precious extras on 1 disc. but oddly blu ray is getting it all on 1 disc. maybe paramount should put the audio for transformers on a second disc. then the extras on a third.;););)

actions speak louder than words i suppose. i will look for links to the articles though.:D

i apologize it hasn't been expressly stated, but with blades of glory and face off on blu ray getting better hd extras and uncompressed audio while the hd dvd gets the same stuff the dvd gets. another example of this with paramount is that transformers will be getting dobly digital + and dvd extras. [...]

That's not quite accurate. The HD-DVD gets different features:



Disc 1:

TRANSFORMERS H.U.D. (Heads Up Display)—In this mode, viewers can access running text-based behind-the-scenes background information on the production during the feature. Users can also watch relevant picture-in-picture b-roll and video with Bay, Spielberg and other filmmakers during select sequences.

Transformers Intelligence Mode web-enabled features consist of:

* Transformation Mode
* Health Meter
* Weapon Mode
* Robot Bio
* In Scene Indicator
* Text Ticker
* GPS



Please provide a list of BD players capable of the same features, if you can :D

That's not quite accurate. The HD-DVD gets different features:



Please provide a list of BD players capable of the same features, if you can :D

Its sad that now at AVS 2.0:

1) Gimmicks > Lossless Audiophile Quality Soundtracks

2) Cheapness > Quality/Performance/Specs

3) HD DVD > Blu-ray

Is it any wonder all the world's great directors have come out in favor of Blu-ray?

I guess HD DVD is good if your really poor and thats all you can afford. Its sad that these people now define what is "good" at what used to be a message board about the very best gear/specs/performance.

i apologize it hasn't been expressly stated, but with blades of glory and face off on blu ray getting better hd extras and uncompressed audio while the hd dvd gets the same stuff the dvd gets. another example of this with paramount is that transformers will be getting dobly digital + and dvd extras. warner has to put the hd dvd version of harry potter on 2 discs because there isn't enough space for all those precious extras on 1 disc. but oddly blu ray is getting it all on 1 disc. maybe paramount should put the audio for transformers on a second disc. then the extras on a third.;););)



LOL, it will be a sad day if we all get dragged down to the inferior level of HD DVD, because instead of spending their money on creating a great product they spent it to bribe studios to support an inferior standard.

That's not quite accurate. The HD-DVD gets different features:



Please provide a list of BD players capable of the same features, if you can :D

And you forgot to remind him that all the extras from the DVD version will be in HD on the HD DVD:

The HD DVD is presented in 1080p High Definition with English, French and Spanish 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus and English, English SDH+, French, Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese subtitles. In addition to the above features that will be presented in high definition, the TRANSFORMERS HD DVD will also offer the following exclusive content:

Its sad that now at AVS 2.0:

1) Gimmicks > Lossless Audiophile Quality Soundtracks

2) Cheapness > Quality/Performance/Specs

3) HD DVD > Blu-ray

Is it any wonder all the world's great directors have come out in favor of Blu-ray?

I guess HD DVD is good if your really poor and thats all you can afford. Its sad that these people now define what is "good" at what used to be a message board about the very best gear/specs/performance.

Do you even read the stuff you type? Director commentary PiP during a feature can only be done on one HD format, and it ain't Blu-Ray...that's not something directors like? That's a pretty ignorant and mis-informed statement, don't you think?

Do you just throw this filth out hoping it sticks somehow?

What about BD-Live, is that a gimmick?

Do you have an intelligent and factual point to make, or should I spare myself the trouble and just add you to my ignore list?

Its sad that now at AVS 2.0:

1) Gimmicks > Lossless Audiophile Quality Soundtracks

2) Cheapness > Quality/Performance/Specs

3) HD DVD > Blu-ray

Is it any wonder all the world's great directors have come out in favor of Blu-ray?

I guess HD DVD is good if your really poor and thats all you can afford. Its sad that these people now define what is "good" at what used to be a message board about the very best gear/specs/performance.

AVS 2.0 started when PS3 fanboys such as yourself joined up. What's sad is console gamers think they have a freaking clue about A/V. You joined last month, and are commenting on what AVS "used to be". What are your previously banned usernames?

Wanna compare systems Greg? I wager mine will blow yours away and I prefer HD DVD. There are people on this forum with $500,000 home theaters who prefer HD DVD. Your PS3 and Best Buy HTIAB don't make you an enthusiast.

Care to take my bet? I'll bet you $1,000, and I will Paypal immediately, that my system is nicer than yours. I only have to read a few of your posts to get a handle on your spelling and grammar, which clues me in on what you are probably able to afford.

AVS 2.0 started when PS3 fanboys such as yourself joined up. What's sad is console gamers think they have a freaking clue about A/V. You joined last month, and are commenting on what AVS "used to be". What are your previously banned usernames?

Wanna compare systems Greg? I wager mine will blow yours away and I prefer HD DVD. There are people on this forum with $500,000 home theaters who prefer HD DVD. Your PS3 and Best Buy HTIAB don't make you an enthusiast.

Care to take my bet? I'll bet you $1,000, and I will Paypal immediately, that my system is nicer than yours. I only have to read a few of your posts to get a handle on your spelling and grammar, which clues me in on what you are probably able to afford.

Maybe it is or maybe it isn't.

I have a deciated theater room "bat cave" if you will. room size is 17feet x 26feet x 9feet (cieling).

And about $22k in equipment. I have 1080p front projection to a fixed frame 140" screen. Lossless 7.1 surround. Everything professionally installed and calibrated.

So is the the best set-up on AVS? NO WAY.

However, I do enjoy lossless audio on most of my 150+ Blu-rays.

This is not a ooh mines better pissing contest. But even with my set-up the difference in audio from Lossless to DD is significant.

What is sad to me is the people who whine about the few hundred (or even a thousand) dollars difference that the superior Blu-ray product costs.

Also I'm in my thirties and very comfortably retired which is more than most people can say. ;)

Maybe it is or maybe it isn't.

I have a deciated theater room "bat cave" if you will. room size is 17feet x 26feet x 9feet (cieling).

And about $22k in equipment. I have 1080p front projection to a fixed frame 140" screen. Lossless 7.1 surround. Everything professionally installed and calibrated.

So is the the best set-up on AVS? NO WAY.

However, I do enjoy lossless audio on most of my 150+ Blu-rays.

This is not a ooh mines better pissing contest. But even with my modest set-up the difference in audio from Lossless to DD is significant.

What is sad to me is the people who whine about the few hundred (or even a thousand) dollars difference that the superior Blu-ray product costs.


I've got you beat with around $13k in equipment costs and my audio/video is umr calibrated. You implied people who prefer HD DVD are poor. You DID want a pissing contest. BTW wtf is "Lossless 7.1 surround". Your speakers are lossless? lol

Am I too poor to prefer BD? I bought the BDP-S1 for $999 and I think it is grossly overpriced. It just isn't $1,000 worth of player, period. The BD product *is not* superior, in any way. I find it EQUAL to HD DVD, but for a lot more money. You are comparing lossless to 640Kbps DD. Compare lossless to 1.5Mbps DD+. Very small, if any difference in most material. You are suffering from a very bad case of placebo effect.

actions speak louder than words i suppose. i will look for links to the articles though.:D

just like HD DVD supposed to be dead when Blu-ray is released?

just like HD DVD supposed to be dead when BD-50 is released?

just like HD DVD supposed to be dead when PS3 is released?

just like HD DVD supposed to be dead when BD moved to AVC/VC-1?

just like HD DVD supposed to be dead when... (put whatever BD's claims here) ?

What is sad to me is the people who whine about the few hundred (or even a thousand) dollars difference that the superior Blu-ray product costs.



yes, it's sad that not everybody is as rich and as condescending as you are. :rolleyes: