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

[big daddy]

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.

I would love to understand your reasoning behind this (other than with a "I hate Sony" slant).  I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that the HD-DVD format is actually better than the Blu-Ray format (plenty have predicted the HD-DVD would win, but I can't recall seeing anyone say it's actually a BETTER format, only that it's cheaper). 

Larger capacity,  better audio options, better video options, better scratch prevention, integrated Java....what exactly about HD-DVD surpasses that from a features standpoint?

I guess my desire for better capabilities makes me one of those dumb little sheep 

[Malenko]

I would love to understand your reasoning behind this (other than with a "I hate Sony" slant).  I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that the HD-DVD format is actually better than the Blu-Ray format (plenty have predicted the HD-DVD would win, but I can't recall seeing anyone say it's actually a BETTER format, only that it's cheaper). 

Larger capacity,  better audio options, better video options, better scratch prevention, integrated Java....what exactly about HD-DVD surpasses that from a features standpoint?

I guess my desire for better capabilities makes me one of those dumb little sheep 

They use practically the same codec so Im not sure how audio/video options are better. I'm unaware of any added "scratch prevention" measure, if anything the smaller read area of the blue laser means even minimal scratching has a greater chance to have an adverse effect on the disc. There is more data area on a BluRay but Ive heard of a dual layer HD DVD in the works that will narrow that gap, though in all honest you shouldnt need 40GBs of storage for a movie.

how exactly is integrated java a good thing?

Anyways I'll admit Im biased because I have a HD DVD drive for my 360. Its sad that the PS3 is the cheapest BluRay player, but Im not gonna buy a PS3 and boost sony's numbers for a game system Im not going to play. I will admit there are alot of movies that are only on BluRay that I'd love to have, but I'll wait till they come out on HD DVD because Im sure eventually BluRay will become the next UMD format

[Green Giant]

though in all honest you shouldnt need 40GBs of storage for a movie.

How are you gonna get 20 hours of extra content on a 3 hour movie in high def without 40GB of storage.

Think on the bright side, when the scene for illegal copies of bluray really kicks off, you can get every episode of Seinfeld on a single disc, or every episode of Star Trek for you scifi nerds on here.

[big daddy]

They use practically the same codec so Im not sure how audio/video options are better.

higher data rates (50mbps for BD v. 31mbps for HD DVD.)  Also larger size = less compression, uncompressed PCM audio, etc.

I'm unaware of any added "scratch prevention" measure, if anything the smaller read area of the blue laser means even minimal scratching has a greater chance to have an adverse effect on the disc.

It has a special coating that people have used steel wool and screwdrivers on to no affect.   

There is more data area on a BluRay but Ive heard of a dual layer HD DVD in the works that will narrow that gap

There's already a 200GB Blu-ray in the works as well.  HD-DVD just can't compete capacity-wise

though in all honest you shouldnt need 40GBs of storage for a movie.

Oh, please.  And nobody will ever need more than 16kb or RAM (or whatever that quote was).  Think uncompressed audio, DTS, DD audio options.  Think less compressed video.  Think behind the scenes, making ofs, theatrical previews, differing angles all in HD....None of which would fit on a HD-DVD right now.  Check out a video review of CLICK for some examples of this.

how exactly is integrated java a good thing?

Layering of graphics/video, animated popup menus with uninterrupted playback, internet connectivity (allowing updates after the disk is stamped and sold), access to movie related websites directly from your disk, latest movie previews versus a "snapshot in time" of when the disk was pressed, push of content to cellphones and pda's, the options are endless.

I will admit there are alot of movies that are only on BluRay that I'd love to have, but I'll wait till they come out on HD DVD because Im sure eventually BluRay will become the next UMD format

LOL

[SirPoonga]

They both have pros and cons.  HD DVD pros are it is cheaper to produce and the same laser is backwards compatible with DVD9.  So movies, like 300, can have both HD DVD and DVD9 on the same disc. 

However, more people are supporting Bluray.  Though Paramount and Dreamworks have recently went HD DVD.

It's too early to declare a winner.  Bluray is leading but until HD movies are mainstream we won't know.  I've seen 300 in HD (downloaded off of XLVM) and DVD9, while there was more detail in HD there was no compelling reason to not get the DVD9.  Same story, still looks great, etc...  In order to really see the difference you need a huge screen.

[boykster]

On my 42" HD plasma, the difference in PQ between a well mastered DVD9 and an HD title is very slim.  On my 720p projector (not even 1080p) the difference is quite noticeable.

I'm still on the fence, and will be for a while, regarding choosing an HD disc format.

[versapak]

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.

Exactly.



[EDIT]

Removed old news. Apparently I hadn't refreshed this thread recently.

[big daddy]

They both have pros and cons. 

I guess that's where I disagree.  Compared to HD-DVD, Blu-Ray has 1 con....price.  Compared to Blu-Ray, HD-DVD has one pro...price.

Search on any site that compares the 2 formats and that is the only positive thing they ever say about HD-DVD compared to Blu-Ray.  Seriously, do a search...I did a search on Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD and the first 10 or so relevent links I found the only positive they mention about HD-DVD is the cheaper production process. 

That's it.  That's the only beneficial thing it provides over the other format...  Bigger?  No.  Faster?  No?  More damage proof?  No?  Better picture?  No.  Better Audio?  No.  Better application support?  No.  Better Studio Support?  No.  Better manufacturer support?  No.   Cheaper?  Yes.

None of the above is generally debated even by those that support HD-DVD, so that's why I was a little shocked when the person posted as if HD-DVD is superior in some way.  When people argue against Blu-ray they generally fall into 2 camps
1) argue against the price
2) argue because it's Sony

I can certainly understand point #1...but I can't really see any other reason other than that, so that's why I asked for the original poster's clarification.  I suspect he's just in camp #2

[SirPoonga]

Heh, you disagree yet you agree.  You reiterated what I said.  However, as I said, there are two pros for HD DVD.  Read those reviews, the pros I said are in them.  Basically, what I said sums up most of the reviews.  HD DVD is cheaper and backwards compatible.  Bluray has more space and more industry support.

Price doesn't make a difference if there isn't anything to watch.  Similar to why the PS3 isn't taking off as a game console.  There just aren't many games for it.

[boykster]

It will be somewhat interesting to see if there is even enough market acceptance / pressure to let EITHER format really get a foothold.  With the prevalence of streaming/downloadable video, and consumers focusing so much now on portable video formats, etc I'm curious to see if the HD-DVD / BluRay fight will turn out similar to SACD vs HD-DVD. 

In a market where more and more people were concerned about portability and mp3 compression is "good enough" neither high definition audio format has even come close to dethroning the CD as the most prevalent physical audio media.  Not to say that legitimate downloadable content may not soon overtake CD for the preferred method of audio distribution....

I don't really think the analogy stands up - considering HDTV is a reality with or without a physical disc media, but we'll see....

[Malenko]

higher data rates (50mbps for BD v. 31mbps for HD DVD.)  Also larger size = less compression, uncompressed PCM audio, etc.

Honestly, is there that noticeable difference between 36.55 and 53.95 mbps (thats RAW data BTW, audio and video is more like HDDVD= 30.24 and BluRay= 48 an even slimmer margin) ? Ive seen BluRay 300 playing side by side with an HD DVD 300 and they looked identical. Its the only movie I've seen simultaneously on both formats at once, so  that is my basis for comparison.

It has a special coating that people have used steel wool and screwdrivers on to no affect.   

yeah ok I have read about the coating, and its neat to have I suppose, especially if your the kinda person who doesn't take care of your disc and thinks you clean the back with steel wool. But if the benefits are there, don't you think HD DVD will add a similar feature?  I have over 400 DVDs and like 30 HD DVDs and none of them have anything more then a few light surface scratches (My nephews aren't quite as anal as me) Also, the Durabis coating (developed by TDK) is not a standard feature on a BluRay disc

There's already a 200GB Blu-ray in the works as well.  HD-DVD just can't compete capacity-wise

I already admitted Blu Ray holds more data...so yeah I don't understand why you had to restate the obvious, but thanks! Also,

Although the Blu-ray Disc specification has been finalized, engineers continue working to advance the technology. Quad-layer (100 GB) discs have been demonstrated on a drive with modified optics. Furthermore TDK announced in August 2006 that they have created a working experimental Blu-ray Disc capable of holding 200 GB of data on a single side, using six 33 GB data layers. Such discs would probably not work on today's players, as these devices are only designed and tested on discs that meet the current specification.

Oh, please.  And nobody will ever need more than 16kb or RAM (or whatever that quote was).  Think uncompressed audio, DTS, DD audio options.  Think less compressed video.  Think behind the scenes, making ofs, theatrical previews, differing angles all in HD....None of which would fit on a HD-DVD right now.  Check out a video review of CLICK for some examples of this.

I don't really know how to reply to this, the audio pumping out of my XBOX360 HD-DVD in glorious 5.1 surround sound is incredible. I don't think uncompressing that audio would add much to it, the way audio is compressed now isn't the same as when it was compressed when PCs had 16KB of RAM. Most of my DVDs and HD DVDs are packed with behind the scenes footage, making ofs, trailers,etc so I don't see the point there. Alternate angles is a gimmick that doesn't make sense, unless maybe its a pron you're watching and I admit that'd be pretty cool to see a matrix style money shot. Also, please don't bring up "Click", justifying gimmicks and features is one thing, but saying its worth it for that turd of a movie is a bit much....why would you possibly want to see MORE of "Click"  other then the fact Christopher Walken is in it?

Yeah its cool that BluRay has more space but whats the point of all that space if you're just going to fill it up with crap? If there is no audible difference then I don't see why slightly compressed audio is used, same goes for video. Maybe in the future when movies are filmed with much better cameras and mics and all that jazz the need for more space will arise but for now, TO ME, BluRay seems like a expensive excess.

Also, speaking of the 300.... man, did you look at the laundry list of special features the BluRay version had that the HD DVD version didnt?

Layering of graphics/video, animated popup menus with uninterrupted playback, internet connectivity (allowing updates after the disk is stamped and sold), access to movie related websites directly from your disk, latest movie previews versus a "snapshot in time" of when the disk was pressed, push of content to cellphones and pda's, the options are endless.

So how is integrated Java a good thing? Adding marketing ploys is your justification?  Ummm... if you need to pop in "Taxi Driver" into your BluRay Player to visit Sony.com then you have issues, same goes if you want to drop $40 on a movie so you can get a ring tone and wallpaper for your cellie. If I want to visit websites I'll get on my computer and do it. You sound like the AT&T guy trying to sell me an Iphone, I kept telling him "I have a PC that can do all that and more with a much larger screen" I cant honestly see the need to update a movie unless there was some sort of error in manufacturing.

LOL

rofflecopter, lollerskates...I guess

I never said HD was vastly superior nor have I attacked it all (well maybe a lil in this reply), I simply stated both formats are good but I prefer HD DVD and regular DVD over BluRay. It was Sony who refused to work with a consortium to release a single next gen format, so that is why I am not supporting BluRay. They had no problem supporting the DVD consortium but when their ideas weren't accepted they basically said "give me my ball back I'm going home"

Also, one HUGE thing that everyone seems to forget is there is NO REGION LOCKOUT on HD DVD, so I can import discs from anywhere and watch them.  I personally don't think 30 GB vs 50 GB is a huge difference for a format designed for movies, you don't need 30 GB (3.3HRs of HD) let alone 50 GB (8.5 HRs of HD).

As far as I can see BluRay has more space and costs more, HD DVD has less space, costs less, and doesnt have regional lock out. Anymore replies in this will prolly further flaming so I digress.

[Mamed for life]

Hi,

Does it really matter if Blockbuster goes one way or the other? All the rental stores near me (I'm in Ireland now) in the last year have dedicated at least most of their floor space to internet use and tanning booths: looks like rental business is really down.

It's only an assumption, but most people here have more money now, and in my case, I'd rather wait a few months and buy the DVD instead of renting it, and even then, I'd really want to see it to buy it.

To be fair, with the kids, I dont watch as many movies as in the past: by the time the kids go to bed, my wife watches her shows and I see mine, a couple of hours at night to watch a movie is a luxury we rarely have anymore!

We are usually a couple of years behind the States regarding technology, so hopefully by the time I need to buy a new player, you guys will have sorted the problem out for us over this side of the pond! 

MfL

[shmokes]

Yeah, the situation you describe is not typical of the U.S.  In fact, internet cafes basically do not exist here.  You can use the internet in the public library for free, or you can use the internet at home (provided you have a computer and pay for service), but there is really no market for internet cafes here.  Frankly, just about household over here has internet access.  Beyond that, the rental market seems very healthy here.  I don't have any objective data, but there are DVD rental stores everywhere in the U.S. and they seem as busy as ever.  We have a couple of rent-by-mail services here (Netflix and Blockbuster) and they are probably eating into the B&M rental business, but overall at least as many movies as ever are being rented I would imagine.