Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD

mike2h

how does you not liking sony transfer into a loss for consumers?
bty the only bad thing that could have come out of this was if the 2 formats continued to compete.

mike2h

i agree nec. just like watching some shows in hd, all sorts of imperfections become readily apparent.
of course the other side of the coin is when its done right movies & programming are so much better - visually & sound wise. i really prefer not to watch progs on reg sat & cable feed anymore. the superbowl was a great example of what we have to look forward to as they get everything dialed in.

interspaced

Any recent Pixar film looks stunning on blu-ray. The quality is most apparent in those titles.

Mr cairo

hmmmm seems that 360 add on player for Blu-Ray is way closer than we thought

Blu-ray Xbox 360 Planned By Microsoft - Smarthouse



apologies if this has been posted already

Judas

yeah a number of movies that have made it to BR or HD have shown an incredible amount of artifacts..

usually lower budget ones though...... things like transformers have shown an utterly and absalutely incredible amount of quality all the way around..... where as some others look grainy, scratchy, and in some cases even extremely bad.

CDsDontBurn

thanks for the link!

Zardon

Well I am sure I don't need to explain that this is because the resolution of DVD is much lower and it hides imperfections with poor mastering or original transfers. If however you do get a top quality HD movie it really just transforms home cinema viewing.

pepiman

I really didn't care who won ... I just wanted one of the 2 to be as affordable as the DVD format (divx standalone players at less than 80 bucks, PC burners for 30 bucks and media for less than 50 cents)


still waiting for that day I guess...

Vikingod

Thought this was funny

Hi-Def Format War Over | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Lowfat

you know grain is added on many films for effect eh? Although I think it is a silly idea.

mwalker52

Higher capacity, faster possible transfer rates, scratch resistant media. Glad the technically superior format won this time. Thank god their marketing geniuses didn't call it beta ray.

ivan300

I personally see no need for hd content. Sure its nice but i have no problem watching dvds or even xvid/divx rips on my 62"TV. I think downloadable content is the way to go. There is nothing better than wanting to watch a movie, going to a certain website and having a movie downloaded in 10 mins. I will take my xbmc/newsgroups over any hd content just because of the ease.

mike2h

superior pix & audio quality definetly isnt everybodys(or most for that matter) priority. or in their budget if it is.
i do wish peeps would stop acting like owning a dvd or bd is similar to downloading a compressed movie. there isnt a comparison. with the media you get to watch it as many times as you want. & get superior pix/sound quality. not saying it is bad, just saying that the overall movie 'experience' isnt as good.
very few people out there have streaming vid to their home theater/main tv. while i have no use whatsoever for watching tv/movies on my comp, i can understand situations were it is a viable alternative. i think streaming movies is just going to be that - an 'alternative' for the next few years.
streaming MAY become mainstream when LOTS more peeps have the bandwidth & the equipment to make use of it. true hd movie downloads as a viable alternative is many years away.

aerospace

All I can say is I hope this does not make the Blu-Ray camp charge more for the movies and players due to the monopoly on the market.

mike2h

just the opposite, prices will go down faster. though still to slow for my liking

Robert McClelland

HD DVD IS DEAD!!!!!!!! RIP sorry I have pointed that out!

The_Neon_Cowboy

well blue ray holds about 25GB on a disk it can hold 50GB in the future
with DL.the Standard hddvd disk is 15 GB but most in use are dual layer
30GB Disks Both techs use a blue laser to store the data on the
disk in a smaller space

OK so from that stand point they look similar both could hold more
in the future. A single Blu-ray Disk holds more.But a DL HDDVD holds more.
Probably costs less...on on to the players....

Blue ray median price $399 and UP
HDDVD $99 and up Would of difference that would have say
almost every household could afford a HDDVD player for $50 then a
STD DEF decent player meaning they should of spread like wildfire.
But FEW people have need of or have HDDVD TV's. People in general
just aren't tech Savoy..

the movies about the same price. both with over 300 titles , both
with exclusive titles.... according to Nielsen VideoScan. Blu-ray
movies have outsold HD DVD by 62% to 38% . But I wonder how many
are for example the buy a PS3 get 15 free movies, Buy a HDDVD player
get 5 by mail. ETC ..... Sony get in early with the big high volume
retailers like best buy. Getting 2 to 3 times the floor space and
more movies carried??? = more sales its a given.

Though HDDVD had dual format disks allowing play in ANY standard DEF
on one side and HDDVD on the other. Even those with out players could
buy the movies now player later. Can't do that with blue ray. Can take
your HDDVD over to you kids room of friends hose and know it'll play
in a Standard DVD player too...

(HDDVDs downloadable content was a cool feature too)

PS3 helped blue ray quite a bit. But the console it self is still
outsold by well everything else.

There was only one of few logical way this would end.
1) HDDVD winning due to price point
2) both formats surviving, dual players
3) behind closed doors deals

Sony took door #3

The only irritating thing though is the blu-ray won. As if there
was a fair fight and one won. There was for a time. Before the
warner deal that killed the format. They under their own name
and others are the parents of the majority of the movie studios.
70% of films are theirs!Also their fellow studio "Fox" exclusive
"deal" with Blu-ray.

What I wanted to see is who would win the market and consumers
deciding deal. Not dubious deals behind closed doors.. to shut
out their competitor.

I mean it be like tuning in and you watching two boxers fight it
out. Then the ones manager comes in with a wad of cash Hands
it out to get favor. Then walks over and shoots the other fighter
in the back of the head. Then calling saying other fighter won
anything? would be ludicrous yet for blue ray its a "win". Cut
throat but "fair" is rarely observed in the business world.

You know who losses in the end? Me, you anyone who want high
def a format war is a good thing! Competition! there now is none.
So not as much pressure for new features, lower prices, better units.
exteme movie deals...

All this throwing money thown around to get a "win" has to come
from some where. Useally it consumers pocket books in the long run.

thats my take, be gentile

mike2h

you think the hd-dvd camp wasnt making deals in the background? do even a little research & you might get a clue.
in this case a drawn out format war is not in the consumers best interst on any level. period.
the bd consortium won because it was much larger than the hd-dvd concsrtium. there is a reason why all those companies went with bd over hd dvd.
not counting the silly(imo) internet extras the only thing hd dvd had over bd was price. that was narrowing, slowly but surely. would have been pretty close to parity by end of year as the hd dvd camp was a brick wall for now as far as price drops go.
neon, the consumers did speak, or hd dvd would still be around.
& pls stop going on about movie giveaways inflating the stats. wether they actually count or not is irrelevent as both camps were doing it hot & heavy. if hd dvd wouldnt have been going down the tubes i would have got a deck a month ago just to get the 10 free movies.
your median pricing is of kilter to. might want t ocheck as to wich units have been purchased in both camos the last couple of months. the difference isnt nearly as big as you are trying to suggest.
bottom line, according to the consumer demand, their favorite format one. i for one am very glad all the sillyness is over.

BWX

Actually the encoding process and bit-rate make a lot bigger difference in the image quality of HD content than the media type that it is being played on (HD DVD, BD, or from my HD).. So it doesn't really matter which disc type won the "format war". I guess the one with the most capacity is good for bit-rates though. In theory BD can hold more data, but my internet connection or hard drive can be upgraded for more data faster than any optical disc format. In the end HD movies on demand via your cable company or ISP will win anyway.

mike2h

true hd movies via intenet beating out a physical format is many years away. if it even happens.
& your statement about 'media type' is silly. media type determines the amount of available hd material therefore the quality of the content. while what u say about bit rate & encoding is perfectly true, if you start out with crap, u get crap.

Mousey

I don't think i worded it right. I watched a few minutes of a HD-DVD on my mate's TV which yeah, is 52" (might have been 50" not sure) plasma lol.
And frankly, the quality difference was minute.
I'll stick with standard definition ta v.much

mike2h

np there mousey, seen it myself. a lot of so called hd tvs have poor pix quality. imo, plasma tend to be some of the poorest, especially considering the price.
then u have the issue of all players not being built equal either., but that plays a much smaller part.
another prob u get - & this is very common on most tvs- is poor/no proper image tuning. normally this isnt as noticable, but like other areas of hd viewing, hd will bring out most faults.
almost 2 yrs ago i purchaesd a mits 62' dlp. as i always do, i did a lot of hands on/reading research. i had a $3200 budget & this was the best bang for the buck i could get. it had great pix quality, especially compared to other dlp sets & especially lcd(never been a fan, but if i was to go lcd it would prolly be an aquos). so im in hd heaven. cept my tv keeps having various tech probs...
after 3-4 months of dealing with mits support(painful), having my tv tore donw & rebuilt multiple times(very painful), i said enough, & asked for a new tv.
mits was not happy, but said ok. now my model wasnt available as it was out of production & mits stopped making 62" tvs. so they gave me a brand new 65".. the best part was that thy had upgraded their hardware & i got a larger tv with- most importantly- better image quality.
the point being, if a manafcturer can have a noticable diff in pix quality from one model year to the next, how much difference do you think there is between various brands & more importantly, sets that are use cheaper electronics(not saying your freinds set is a cheaply made plasma cause i dont know).
i have seen many tvs that, imo, should never be termed hd. just because a tv can show 1080p/i res doesnt mean it is giving you a good hd image.
it may never be important to you mousey(like most peeps i imagine), but if it is someting you are intersted in, go to some high end stores & check out some good hd setups.

dipstick

Dude you're nuts! There is no way you can honestly sit there and tell me there is no difference. Either the TV, the HD source, or your eyes are hurting bad (no offense). And no, you don't need a 52" to appreciate HD. Even on a 20" the difference is night and day that even my 60+ year old mother notices and loves. Just the interlacing alone on sdtv's -which is now as noticeable to me as those old prison uniforms- makes me want to rip my eyes out lol

The_Neon_Cowboy