all right, who has a XBOX 360 & a PS3 ?

[Samstag]

This is what I was talking about when I said that the winner of this war is likely to be the next Laserdisc and not the next dvd. Looking at my collection only about 1/3 at most is worth replacing for hi-def. Superior technology doesn't always equal mass appeal.

I think that between digital distribution and the growing popularity of mail order rentals, having the big investment in a DVD collection isn't going to be a big factor.  Getting a high def player doesn't suddenly make your DVD collection obsolete.  You can still watch the same movies and usually with a quality improvement on an upscaled player.  And as easy as it is to rent HD movies now, a big investment in media isn't necessary.

Would you believe that about two years ago, my DVD collection doubled when I bought 2 movies at the same time?  I think I'm up to about 12 now.  I doubt I'll ever own an HD movie, but I'll watch tons of them before the format disappears.

[odysseyroc]

I think that between digital distribution and the growing popularity of mail order rentals, having the big investment in a DVD collection isn't going to be a big factor.  Getting a high def player doesn't suddenly make your DVD collection obsolete.  You can still watch the same movies and usually with a quality improvement on an upscaled player.  And as easy as it is to rent HD movies now, a big investment in media isn't necessary.

Would you believe that about two years ago, my DVD collection doubled when I bought 2 movies at the same time?  I think I'm up to about 12 now.  I doubt I'll ever own an HD movie, but I'll watch tons of them before the format disappears.

The fact that I'd be keeping my DVDs is one of the main reasons I won't be getting an HD player any time soon. I don't want to make a big investment in new hardware to watch the same discs I'm already watching on my sub $100 upconverting dvd player. I'm waiting for prices to drop before I upgrade to an hd format. I don't know if prices are going to drop that much if without mass adoption of the format.

I own a lot of dvds. I usually watch 3-4 movies a day while I'm working. Unless I'm willing to pay more for a dual format disc, I wouldn't be able to watch anything I bought in a new format while I'm working.

[AtomSmasher]

I usually watch 3-4 movies a day while I'm working.

Security guard?  I remember the short time I was a security guard I went through a lot of movies and books during the graveyard shifts.

[odysseyroc]

Security guard?  I remember the short time I was a security guard I went through a lot of movies and books during the graveyard shifts.

No, I color comic books. I work from home and I'm locked in my office most of the day.

[KenToad]

Security guard?  I remember the short time I was a security guard I went through a lot of movies and books during the graveyard shifts.

No, I color comic books. I work from home and I'm locked in my office most of the day.

What books?  Just wondering if I know the titles or not.

[odysseyroc]

What books?  Just wondering if I know the titles or not.

Right now I'm coloring The Boys, Authority: Prime and the occasional Clone Wars Adventures story. Last month I also colored Wetworks and friday the 13th. I've colored lots of other stuff in the past.

[Sir Auros]

I usually watch 3-4 movies a day while I'm working.

Security guard?  I remember the short time I was a security guard I went through a lot of movies and books during the graveyard shifts.

I used to do that too (always worked third shift), but then one of the dumbass secretaries whose desk I used at night set the computer's DVD software to play movies rated as high as PG. 

[big daddy]

I think that between digital distribution and the growing popularity of mail order rentals, having the big investment in a DVD collection isn't going to be a big factor.  Getting a high def player doesn't suddenly make your DVD collection obsolete.  You can still watch the same movies and usually with a quality improvement on an upscaled player.  And as easy as it is to rent HD movies now, a big investment in media isn't necessary.

I agree.  I've had the PS3 since November.  I've only bought 1 Blu-Ray movie (Black Hawk Down), but I've watched dozens via netflix, so it's definitely getting it's use.    Before Netflix I was a collector (I have probably 50 dvd's that I just never watched more than a couple of times).  I won't be doing the same with Blu-Ray, but I will be getting my favorites as they're available.  Off the top of my head:

Sin City
Kill Bill 1 and 2
Deadwood Series
Rome Series

Only 30% or so of American homes have an HDTV, Blu-Ray is useless for the other 70 or so percent.

If that is the case, then the same can be said for the next-gen consoles in general, since if you don't have an HDTV there isn't much value in upgrading to a PS3 or 360 at the moment

Schmokes figures aren't really valid.  The problem is nothing good has been released on either format yet.  The watchable movies (note I didn't say they were good) are only on blueray.  Why?  Because they are sony pictures movies.  The thing is nobody has really adopted either format.  How can I tell?  Simple.. there aren't any budget titles in either format yet.  There isn't a 1.99 blue ray crap box at your local walmart. These things started popping up for dvds when they finally replaced vhs as the standard.

 
You mean the BRAND NEW FORMAT isn't selling for 1.99 yet?  Shocking.  The changes you're referring to happened as few as 3 years ago....yet the format was a decided success well before then.   The HD transition is right on pace with the trends we saw when DVD was first introduced.     

My best guess is that if there is a winner at all, it'll be hd-dvd... the players and discs are cheaper and easier to manufacturer. 

That is a really BAD guess as it ignores all current trends and information.  Basically your looking into a magic 8 ball asking it which will win instead of examing the actual data that is out there. 

Blu-ray has better studio and manufacturing support (as of now, only one studio is exclusively HD-DVD), and a jump on penetration despite the earlier and cheaper release of HD-DVD.   Blu-Ray disk sales have outpaced HD-DVD since February.  Blockbuster announcement was pretty much a nail in the coffin...as I've said before, this war is over...all that's left is bayoneting the wounded.

If you're saying there is a "possibility" that HD-DVD could still come out on top, I'd disagree but at least see your point.  But to predict they're going to win would be like predicting your football team can overcome a 4 TD deficit in the 4th quarter.  Is it possible?  Of course.  Likely?  Not really.

when you take game consoles out of the equation (which you should) it's 150,000 hd-dvd and around 105,000 blueray.

Why on earth should you arbitrarily take consoles out of the equation?  The PS3 launch has had a definite impact on Blu-Ray disk sales, and is the reason Blockbuster made it's decision.  Blu-Ray is clearly winning and that is due in large part to the PS3, so to take it out of the equation would make no sense.

[tommy]

 if you don't have an HDTV there isn't much value in upgrading to a PS3 or 360 at the moment

You still can enjoy next gen graphics without HD TV's.

[hulkster]

yeah and you can enjoy pacman and donkey kong with an X-Arcade joystick sitting on your couch....but you would be missing out on the experience of having your own cab with custom controls. 

[big daddy]

 if you don't have an HDTV there isn't much value in upgrading to a PS3 or 360 at the moment

You still can enjoy next gen graphics without HD TV's.

If the resolution isn't there, it's not there...you can't fake it.  Most people wouldn't notice much difference between Madden 08 on a small SD TV versus Madden 05 on that same SD TV, other than gameplay.     

If I didn't have an HD TV, I wouldn't be upgrading to either of the next gen systems at this point.  I just started playing through some of my old xbox games again and they still look pretty damn good even after I now have a next-gen system to compare them too. 

[Green Giant]

Back to the topic, don't have 360 or PS3.  Waiting for the games to utilize at least 1/4 of the systems potential.  Gonna stick with my ps2, xbox, and wii.

[Samstag]

Back to the topic, don't have 360 or PS3.  Waiting for the games to utilize at least 1/4 of the systems potential.  Gonna stick with my ps2, xbox, and wii.

One word:  Bioshock!

Not sure If it's my cup of tea.  But DAMN the demo is incredible!

[SavannahLion]

when you take game consoles out of the equation (which you should) it's 150,000 hd-dvd and around 105,000 blueray.

Why on earth should you arbitrarily take consoles out of the equation?  The PS3 launch has had a definite impact on Blu-Ray disk sales, and is the reason Blockbuster made it's decision.  Blu-Ray is clearly winning and that is due in large part to the PS3, so to take it out of the equation would make no sense.

Because, historically, console format has had very little or no impact on a particular media format. CD's did not become successful because everyone started playing music CD's on their Turbo Duo's and SEGA CD's. A there's no debate about how UMD's are a dismal failure despite Sony's push to have it accepted amongst the masses.

Not that I agree with anyone taking PS3's and 360's out of the "equation". For the first time since the Neo Geo, a console was introduced with a price point above what your average under 18 crowd (meaning the parents of those kids) is able or willing to spend. And for the first time ever, you have a large 25 to 35 age bracket with the disposable incomes, and personal gaming history, willing to justify the purchase of something like the PS3.

[Green Giant]

Back to the topic, don't have 360 or PS3.  Waiting for the games to utilize at least 1/4 of the systems potential.  Gonna stick with my ps2, xbox, and wii.

One word:  Bioshock!

Not sure If it's my cup of tea.  But DAMN the demo is incredible!

Damn that looks really sweet.  Now I just have to wait till I can be sure and get a 65nm chip with HDMI.

[shmokes]

Of course game consoles didn't influence the adoption of the CD.  Who in god's name would want to listen to their music through their TV speakers?  It was a terrible format for music CDs (and few people back then had their game consoles hooked up to a stereo receiver).  The PS2, on the other hand, had a significant impact on DVD sales, especially in Japan.

Also, there are significant visual benefits to be had from the newer systems without an HD TV.  The only thing the HD TV gives you is higher resolution, which is important, of course, but everything else, from polygon counts (also enabling more characters, etc., on-screen simultaneously without pop-in or slowdown) to radically improved physics models, to larger, more interactive world, etc., etc., etc., are all perfectly enjoyable on a standard res TV. 

[AtomSmasher]

Back to the topic, don't have 360 or PS3.  Waiting for the games to utilize at least 1/4 of the systems potential.  Gonna stick with my ps2, xbox, and wii.

One word:  Bioshock!

Not sure If it's my cup of tea.  But DAMN the demo is incredible!

Damn that looks really sweet.  Now I just have to wait till I can be sure and get a 65nm chip with HDMI.

Or buy the computer version    I prefer mouse/keyboard controls on FPS games anyways.

Bioshock does looks amazing on whichever platform you get it on, especially the water effects.

[SirPoonga]

I like GT HD demo more than Forza 2, that game was a let down .

Just curious, what didn't you like?  I've played the GT series on the PS2.  I think Forza is superior to them.  What about GT HD is better?  I don't think GT HD has damage yet?  Until it does Forza, in my book, will always be better.  It makes you drive like a real driver.  To me Forza seems more akin to SCCA racing than general street cars on a race track which I love.

[SavannahLion]

Of course game consoles didn't influence the adoption of the CD.  Who in god's name would want to listen to their music through their TV speakers?  It was a terrible format for music CDs (and few people back then had their game consoles hooked up to a stereo receiver).

Didn't stop companies like SEGA from including an audio dashboard. It wasn't just an issue of including it just because, SEGA really tried with various offerings like the VCD, CDX, Aiwa and that goofy karaoke unit. Whether it was all influenced with the popularity of the CD or an attempt to influence the popularity of certain CD formats is probably debatable.

The PS2, on the other hand, had a significant impact on DVD sales, especially in Japan.

That isn't saying much in a country that happily consumes all sorts of electronics. Here in the U.S., I don't see the PS2 as a big influence on DVD adoption. I've met all sorts of people who own a PS2 but don't use the PS2 as their exclusive player. Just wasn't happening. I'll happily take that comment back if you show me some U.S. sales numbers showing a relation between an increase in DVD sales and the introduction of the PS2.

[Sir Auros]

The inclusion of DVD capabilities with the PS2 was more a selling point for the PS2, not the other way around. DVD was already well on its way to becoming the standard when the PS2 debuted.

[shmokes]

That isn't saying much in a country that happily consumes all sorts of electronics. Here in the U.S., I don't see the PS2 as a big influence on DVD adoption. I've met all sorts of people who own a PS2 but don't use the PS2 as their exclusive player. Just wasn't happening. I'll happily take that comment back if you show me some U.S. sales numbers showing a relation between an increase in DVD sales and the introduction of the PS2.

No, I would tend to agree with that.  However, I could see the PS3 affecting this particular go-around because it differs in a couple ways from DVD.  First, DVD had no technological competitor.  There was no format war, so it was a matter of either being adopted, or not adopted, but there was no possibility of it being overlooked in favor of another competing technology.  Second, the DVD, as you mentioned, was already well on its way to acceptance in the U.S. with or without the PS2.  In this case, the PS3 was nearly the first BluRay player on the market, and certainly the most affordable.  Sales of PS3s actually make up a VERY significant portion of total BluRay player sales.  People who own PS3s do seem to be making heavy use of it as their only high definition movie player, which was not the case with the PS2 in the U.S. 

The early trends favoring BluRay are almost certainly caused in large part to PS3 sales, but the thing about these types of trends is that they can easily have a domino/ballooning effect.  Studios want to make money, and they're going to base the releases on movies on potential sales.  Currently BluRay presents the highest potential for sales, so it makes sense for companies to give it more attention, but that, in turn, only makes the format that much more attractive to consumers and they begin favoring the format even more, which in turn makes the studios favor it even more, etc., etc. 

If the PS3 is responsible for an early, even undeserved lead with BluRay, and having an early lead is responsible for a domino effect that ultimately leads to the war being called in BluRay's favor, then PS3 absolutely would have influenced the outcome of the war.

[Sir Auros]

shmokes, only 40% of PS3 owners are even aware that their machine is capable of Blu-Ray playback and of that number, only 50% used the feature recently. Couple that with the low install base for the PS3, and it's not exactly gangbusters. Yeah, it's beating out HD-DVD, but at this point, it's like winning in the Special Olympics.

Also, the new high-def formats really aren't seen as the massive jump from VHS to DVD. Even videophiles (like myself) either don't see the benefit in the costs right now or fear investing in either format until there is a clear winner (if there even is one).

[boykster]

The funny thing is,despite there not being the same perceived 'jump' in quality as from vhs to dvd, the actual quality increase from 480p (dvd) to 1080p (hddvd/bluray) is MUCH greater than vhs (~480i) to dvd.  I'll admit, the non video quality stuff (no rewind, special features,etc) were a big jump, but true videophiles see the quality increase in video quality.......but until the players and titles are comparable in price to dvd, its a no deal for the general public.

[shmokes]

It's because, really, the DVD's picture was improved vastly over VHS, not just because it got a resolution bump, but because it went from a rapidly degrading analog tape, to a crystal-clear digital picture that never degrades (though the disc itself can wear-out or be damaged, of course, but as long as it works it gives you the same, perfect picture five years after the day you bought it).

[Green Giant]

Back to the topic, don't have 360 or PS3.  Waiting for the games to utilize at least 1/4 of the systems potential.  Gonna stick with my ps2, xbox, and wii.

One word:  Bioshock!

Not sure If it's my cup of tea.  But DAMN the demo is incredible!

Damn that looks really sweet.  Now I just have to wait till I can be sure and get a 65nm chip with HDMI.

Or buy the computer version    I prefer mouse/keyboard controls on FPS games anyways.

Bioshock does looks amazing on whichever platform you get it on, especially the water effects.

Unless I want to relocate my pc to my living room, that won't work.  Why play on a 20" CRT when I can use my 50" plasma.  I have never been a fan of mouse keyboard controls pretty much after doom.  I like my computer to do computer stuff and my gaming stuff to do there thing.  Why else would I have built an entire arcade cabinet to play a few emulators that would have already run on my computer?

Anyways, the graphics on Bioshock are still not utilizing as many cpu's as the 360 offers.  Just wait till Bioshock 2.

[AtomSmasher]

Back to the topic, don't have 360 or PS3.  Waiting for the games to utilize at least 1/4 of the systems potential.  Gonna stick with my ps2, xbox, and wii.

One word:  Bioshock!

Not sure If it's my cup of tea.  But DAMN the demo is incredible!

Damn that looks really sweet.  Now I just have to wait till I can be sure and get a 65nm chip with HDMI.

Or buy the computer version    I prefer mouse/keyboard controls on FPS games anyways.

Bioshock does looks amazing on whichever platform you get it on, especially the water effects.

Unless I want to relocate my pc to my living room, that won't work.  Why play on a 20" CRT when I can use my 50" plasma.  I have never been a fan of mouse keyboard controls pretty much after doom.  I like my computer to do computer stuff and my gaming stuff to do there thing.  Why else would I have built an entire arcade cabinet to play a few emulators that would have already run on my computer?

Anyways, the graphics on Bioshock are still not utilizing as many cpu's as the 360 offers.  Just wait till Bioshock 2.

Heh, okay.  I consider my computer to be a gaming machine and prefer the more accurate (superior) controls, but to each their own.  Thats why they release it on different platforms, different strokes for different folks.

[tommy]

Yeah i agree, the PC is the real machine... the machine where you can upgrade your hardware and have a better looking game depending on that hardware is where it's at.

[AtomSmasher]

Yeah i agree, the PC is the real machine... the machine where you can upgrade your hardware and have a better looking game depending on that hardware is where it's at.

Agreed, console hardware get outdated fairly quickly and PC's can always be upgraded to have the best graphics, but I wasn't intending this thread to become a pc vs console debate.  Both platforms have their advantages and disadvantages, so lets just leave it at that.  Green Giant pointed out that he wanted to play the game, but wanted to wait until the next version of the 360 came out (the 65nm chip one), so I was just pointing out he didn't have to wait and could play it on his PC.  Of course we've since learned he prefers to play on games on his consoles, which is fine.

[big daddy]

I'll happily take that comment back if you show me some U.S. sales numbers showing a relation between an increase in DVD sales and the introduction of the PS2.

well we can show you U.S. Sales numbers showing a relation between an increase in Blu-ray disk sales and the introduction of the PS3, which is the point of the whole discussion

To recap
- Blu-ray sales have outpaced HD-DVD sales since Feb (when the PS3 started becoming readily available.)  This despite the fact that HD-DVD players are much cheaper
- If Howard's article is accurate, 93% of Blu-Ray players out there are PS3.   Coupled with the fact that Blu-Ray is outselling HD-DVD disks that seems to indicate that PS3 had a HUGE impact on the format at this point
- Because of that support, the US's largest rental chain (that holds some 40% rental revenue) is not even putting HD-DVD disks on it's shelves!  That is huge.   When Joe Sixpack goes to upgrade his system, is he going to buy a standalone player that he can't even rent disks from at his local blockbuster? 

So yes, the PS3 has had a HUGE impact on the Blu-Ray format and is the reason they are winning (won) the war. 

Now they just need to catch up with the 360 in the games department 

[SavannahLion]

bbodin, I (think) understand the point of the discussion. I was trying to explain another point and shmokes had a suitable counterpoint. Your post just cites numbers with no source. A source is what I was trying to get so someone can support a position one way or the other.

To be fair, I hate Blu-Ray more than any other format. Even more than the idea of Microsoft being a monopoly (I know it's not, that's not the point). Reading the white sheets on the format just raises my hackles. I have zero desire to see this format or any other similar format ever succeed in the consumer market. Absolutely no one should hold this much control over our heads as consumers, yet consumers happily gobble this ---Cleveland steamer--- up like dumb little sheep. I'm not thrilled with HD-DVD either, but it's a far more pallatable format for me than Blu-Ray. I haven't had these kinds of feelings for a particular format since DIVX.

Blu-Ray is the single most reason I refuse to purchase a PS3. Sony has screwed consumers over way too many times for me to continue actively supporting the company. All of the pawn shops around here have at least 3 PS3's on their shelves at any one time so I'm thinking I'll be getting mine 2nd hand.

That clarified, I made an effort to go out and actually find some kind of source to cite who is currently in the lead and not dependend on sales numbers by the major companies (which are skewed anyways). I found one. This guy culls sales data from Amazon. It's just Amazon sales data and doesn't actually reflect sales or rentals at brick and mortar stores but it gives a view into the topic.

http://www.eproductwars.com/dvd/

[Malenko]

thanks for that link, I didnt know the Big Lebowski was on HD DVD *adds that to list*.


Back to the topic, the format war isn't over because they are still producing both HD DVDs and BluRays. I'm not sitting back and waiting for a winner, I'm actively supporting the format I'd like to see win, which is HD DVD. I currently have about 20 HD DVDs in addition to nearly 500 DVDs, what can I say, I like movies.  One thing Ive learned from this thread is that with a collection like this, I should get a part time job as a security guard.

Back to the actual topic, I don't have a PS3 and theres nothing motivating me to get one. I don't know what all is out on PS3 but I know I play the crap out of Forza II, Overlord, Guitar Hero II, and NHL 07
http://profile.mygamercard.net/LLiNRAC   that has a list of like the 50 most recent Ive played, I actually have like 60 XBOX360 games.... because I'm supporting the console I want to win =)


pot shot1: Gran Turismo always looks great, but the fact you can ride the wall around turns at 100mph and the fact the AI is clinically retarded really kill the fun factor. I've heard they are over hauling the graphics engine, no word yet AI or damage models.

[SavannahLion]

pot shot1: Gran Turismo always looks great, but the fact you can ride the wall around turns at 100mph and the fact the AI is clinically retarded really kill the fun factor. I've heard they are over hauling the graphics engine, no word yet AI or damage models./quote]

Everyone keeps complaining about the damage modeling in GT or lack of it.

It's something that goes way back when the original GT was developed. In order to license many of the real world cars featured in the game, the car manufacturers contracts state the licensed cars are not to be mutilated (ie body damage). In short, it's not likely any future versions of GT will feature body damage as long as the licensing agreements forbid the developers.

As for the A.I. 

[Malenko]

Everyone keeps complaining about the damage modeling in GT or lack of it.

It's something that goes way back when the original GT was developed. In order to license many of the real world cars featured in the game, the car manufacturers contracts state the licensed cars are not to be mutilated (ie body damage). In short, it's not likely any future versions of GT will feature body damage as long as the licensing agreements forbid the developers.

As for the A.I. 

How can that apply today? Forza licenses many of the car found in GT , but in Forza they can be damaged.  I don't think any manufacturer  cares about damage models now a days , I can ram an Enzo Ferrari  head on into a McLaren GT 1 in Forza II and watch the gibs go flying. Using that excuse for GT is a cop out. Why can you ride the wall in countless turns in GT1 2 3 and 4 without even slowing down  or if you park in the racing line and just sit there the CPU will run into you like you arent there, least in forza they adjust their line round you.

[shmokes]

GT is more realistic.  Racecar drivers are hardcore.  They would ram you on principle.

[Samstag]

GT is more realistic.  Racecar drivers are hardcore.  They would ram you on principle.

You're thinking of NASCAR.

[SavannahLion]

How can that apply today? Forza licenses many of the car found in GT , but in Forza they can be damaged. <snip> Using that excuse for GT is a cop out.

How the ---fudgesicle--- should I know? I remember reading a developers interview in one of the gaming magazines (EGM or PSM or some such) I subscribed to at the time. What I remember was the developer citing licensing issues regarding the damage models and how future GT"s were likely never going to include damage models. With Forza, it might even be as something as simple as Forza acquiring (i.e. paying lots of $$$$) better licenses than GT did. Instead of asking a forum why GT is one way and Forza is another, get off your butt and ask a developer yourself.

Why can you ride the wall in countless turns in GT1 2 3 and 4 without even slowing down  or if you park in the racing line and just sit there the CPU will run into you like you arent there, least in forza they adjust their line round you.

I only explained the damage model. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why A.I. would suck. Again, go ask one of the developers of GT yourself if you're boning to know the answer.

[Malenko]

How the ---fudgesicle--- should I know? I remember reading a developers interview in one of the gaming magazines (EGM or PSM or some such) I subscribed to at the time. What I remember was the developer citing licensing issues regarding the damage models and how future GT"s were likely never going to include damage models. With Forza, it might even be as something as simple as Forza acquiring (i.e. paying lots of $$$$) better licenses than GT did. Instead of asking a forum why GT is one way and Forza is another, get off your butt and ask a developer yourself.

You were the one defending it, and it was true back in 1997 when GT1 was released, they renew the license every game so theres no reason to not have damage in GT3 or 4 other then programmer's laziness and hoping the consumers dont care.

I only explained the damage model. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why A.I. would suck. Again, go ask one of the developers of GT yourself if you're boning to know the answer.

I already know the answer, programmer laziness. It was more of a rhetorical question, and lastly, I finally got ---my bottom--- over to best buy and got the lebowski on HD DVD

Also, Overlord is freekin fun!

[shardian]

and lastly, I finally got ---my bottom--- over to best buy and got the lebowski on HD DVD

Just curious, but are these older releases on HD real re-scans, or are they just upconverted copies? If they are just upconverted, wtf is the point?

[versapak]

and lastly, I finally got ---my bottom--- over to best buy and got the lebowski on HD DVD

Just curious, but are these older releases on HD real re-scans, or are they just upconverted copies? If they are just upconverted, wtf is the point?

No they aren't just upconverted. That'd be ridiculous, as an HD-DVD/Blu-ray player will do that to your standard DVD's anyway.

Some of them are definitely better than others though, and none are really going to be competing with the quality of more modern big budget visual treats.

[shardian]

and lastly, I finally got ---my bottom--- over to best buy and got the lebowski on HD DVD

Just curious, but are these older releases on HD real re-scans, or are they just upconverted copies? If they are just upconverted, wtf is the point?

No they aren't just upconverted. That'd be ridiculous, as an HD-DVD/Blu-ray player will do that to your standard DVD's anyway.

Some of them are definitely better than others though, and none are really going to be competing with the quality of more modern big budget visual treats.

So the quality depends on the original source reels then right? The way it was explained to me is that they go back and scan the original film at HD resolutions.