- LOCK - Format War - HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray - LOCK -

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='propeller_head']he didnt have to Explicitly exclude DVD.[/quote]

Umm.. he didn't 'explicitly exclude DVD'. He included DVD. That is what you're complaining about, right? I don't mean to be an ass, but if you don't know what words mean, please don't use them.

the question was related to the existing & potential HD market. DVD wasn't part of the equation.
Click to expand...

How is DVD excluded from this equation?:
And as for how consumers are supposed to get around the Dreamworks and Paramount shift to HD DVD? "Buy it on DVD," Marty suggested - before quickly adding that Blu-ray players have upscaling features so you can still get the most out of the picture quality.

From what I understand, the word 'consumers' isn't limited to potential HD owners. Even if it was, 'potential HD owners' would encompass people who have yet to adopt hi-def (aka DVD owners).

like i said before, would you appreciate a salesman trying to convince you to buy a SDTV because the HDTV you want is out of stock? that it's just as good because you cant notice the difference anyway? no
Click to expand...

I wouldn't, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

i already put it in context for you, like i said i never said he SHOULD say "buy HD DVD". i would think that should be obvious. i was saying he could have just as easily said that. as in its equally ridiculous. honestly, i feel like were goin in circles here. if we cant come to an understanding even after i clarify i dont think this ride is ever going to end. maybe its when i said "instead" thats throwing you off, i didnt mean he should say it "instead". i said that he could have easily said that "instead". again, because recc'ing DVD is just as asanine as reccomendnig the competition imo.
Click to expand...

It's clear as day what you said originally, but, from the sounds of it, you have changed that stance. You have NOT put anything in context for me. I quote you, directly, and you claim it is not accurate because it is 'out of context'. Well then, I ask you, please put it in context for me, because, as far as I can see, you specifically said that the rep should've advised consumers to "make do" with HD-DVD. It was only AFTER I pointed out how ridiculous an answer that would've been, when you changed your stance.

So, please, explain to me how you are NOT advising the rep to advocate HD-DVD adoption:
the "Getting around" he's talking about was primarily aimed at him re: what "consumers" (aka the general public) should do re: the lack of viacom titles now. he could have easily said "they will have to make due on HD DVD until the 18 months is over and the contract is open for negotiations". no, he instead say buy it on DVD because BD players will upscale it. what he's attempting to do is spin it so he avoids acknowledging that until at least 2009 the format war will continue. he's towing the BDA line trying his best (considering the situation) to play down even the existence of HD DVD.
Click to expand...

How about we just simplify this discusssion. You are obviously not pleased with the answer that he gave, so how about you tell us what he should've said. Even though you have already told us what you think he should've said:
he could have easily said "they will have to make due on HD DVD until the 18 months is over and the contract is open for negotiations"

but that doesnt prevent the BDA from wooing warner into exclusivity or universal into dual format (however unlikely).

even a cryptic "we're working on that" would have been better than suggesting DVD as a replacement for a competing HD format. (as im sure every1 who owns either HD format knows)

According to you, he should've said all of those answers, but, at the same time, he shouldn't have said any of them. Very contradictory, if you ask me.
 
[quote name='dpatel']Umm.. he didn't 'explicitly exclude DVD'. He included DVD. That is what you're complaining about, right? I don't mean to be an ass, but if you don't know what words mean, please don't use them.[/quote] i didnt say that. what i said was he (the reporter) didnt have to Explicitly exclude DVD (for it to be understood in the question). the BDA rep was the one who included it. geez. ug no understand english, ug raised by wolves in cave.
How is DVD excluded from this equation?:
And as for how consumers are supposed to get around the Dreamworks and Paramount shift to HD DVD? "Buy it on DVD," Marty suggested - before quickly adding that Blu-ray players have upscaling features so you can still get the most out of the picture quality.

From what I understand, the word 'consumers' isn't limited to potential HD owners. Even if it was, 'potential HD owners' would encompass people who have yet to adopt hi-def (aka DVD owners).
Click to expand...
because OBVIOUSLY DVD owners arent in the predicament where they have a lack of studio support.
I wouldn't, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Click to expand...
its got everything to do w/ WHY recc'ing DVD as a substitue was asanine. how many times do i have to repeat the same thing?
It's clear as day what you said originally, but, from the sounds of it, you have changed that stance. You have NOT put anything in context for me. I quote you, directly, and you claim it is not accurate because it is 'out of context'. Well then, I ask you, please put it in context for me, because, as far as I can see, you specifically said that the rep should've advised consumers to "make do" with HD-DVD. It was only AFTER I pointed out how ridiculous an answer that would've been, when you changed your stance.

So, please, explain to me how you are NOT advising the rep to advocate HD-DVD adoption:
Click to expand...
if its clear as day then why are you misinterpreting it over and over and accusing me of being incongruous? i have not changed my stance as i have explained already about what 5 times? just go reread my posts if you want because theres nothing new i can add. the quote as whole is accurate but the way youre interpreting its meaning is whats out of context. how are you understanding it as the rep "should've" recc'd HD DVD? do you seriously think i (or any1 for that matter) would believe that's a good decision considering his JOB? you keep reverting to that as a STRAW MAN because you are trying to avoid the Very Simple Fact that the guy just said some incredibly stupid things. "BUY BLU-RAY BECAUSE ITS MORE EXPENSIVE AND WE CAN PROFIT MORE!" "DVD IS DEAD! WE DONT LIKE DVD BECAUSE WE CANT PROFIT AS MUCH ANYMORE!" "BUY DVD!" honestly...
How about we just simplify this discusssion. You are obviously not pleased with the answer that he gave, so how about you tell us what he should've said. Even though you have already told us what you think he should've said:
he could have easily said "they will have to make due on HD DVD until the 18 months is over and the contract is open for negotiations"

but that doesnt prevent the BDA from wooing warner into exclusivity or universal into dual format (however unlikely).

even a cryptic "we're working on that" would have been better than suggesting DVD as a replacement for a competing HD format. (as im sure every1 who owns either HD format knows)

According to you, he should've said all of those answers, but, at the same time, he shouldn't have said any of them. Very contradictory, if you ask me.
Click to expand...
what part of this are you not understanding?

[quote name='propeller_head']no im not contradicting myself. because again its being taken out of context. i didnt say he SHOULD say that. i said he could have just as easily said that. as in its equally ridiculous to suggest DVD as it is to recommend the competing format. which btw is exactly what i said in the quote im supposedly contradicting myself in. it was meant to illustrate the dichotomy between what would have been the most honest answer and what would have been the most perverse (suggesting DVD).[/quote] [quote name='propeller_head']i already put it in context for you, like i said i never said he SHOULD say "buy HD DVD". i would think that should be obvious. i was saying he could have just as easily said that. as in its equally ridiculous. honestly, i feel like were goin in circles here. if we cant come to an understanding even after i clarify i dont think this ride is ever going to end. maybe its when i said "instead" thats throwing you off, i didnt mean he should say it "instead". i said that he could have easily said that "instead". again, because recc'ing DVD is just as asinine as recommending the competition imo.[/quote]
AGAIN, the BDA wooing warner was an illustration of what the reporter could have wished for in a tidbit. AGAIN, obviously chances are extremely low a PR rep would say such a thing to a reporter since thats what press releases are for. BUT AGAIN, it was meant to illustrate the (what should be obvious imo) connotations of the question.

and my last quote is the only one you seem to be understanding (or admitting to at least). yes thats one thing that would have been a better answer among many. "we're working on that". because AGAIN like i said before, if they werent working on it they wouldnt be doing a very good job, n'est-ce pas?

really guys. do you honestly think that was a good interview?
 
[quote name='dpatel']Umm.. he didn't 'explicitly exclude DVD'. He included DVD. That is what you're complaining about, right? I don't mean to be an ass, but if you don't know what words mean, please don't use them.[/quote] i didnt say that. what i said was he (the reporter) didnt have to Explicitly exclude DVD (for it to be understood in the question). the BDA rep was the one who included it. geez. ug no understand english, ug raised by wolves in cave.
How is DVD excluded from this equation?:
And as for how consumers are supposed to get around the Dreamworks and Paramount shift to HD DVD? "Buy it on DVD," Marty suggested - before quickly adding that Blu-ray players have upscaling features so you can still get the most out of the picture quality.

From what I understand, the word 'consumers' isn't limited to potential HD owners. Even if it was, 'potential HD owners' would encompass people who have yet to adopt hi-def (aka DVD owners).
Click to expand...
because Obviously DVD owners arent in the predicament where they have a lack of studio support.
I wouldn't, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.
Click to expand...
its got everything to do w/ WHY recc'ing DVD as a substitue was asanine. how many times do i have to repeat the same thing?
It's clear as day what you said originally, but, from the sounds of it, you have changed that stance. You have NOT put anything in context for me. I quote you, directly, and you claim it is not accurate because it is 'out of context'. Well then, I ask you, please put it in context for me, because, as far as I can see, you specifically said that the rep should've advised consumers to "make do" with HD-DVD. It was only AFTER I pointed out how ridiculous an answer that would've been, when you changed your stance.

So, please, explain to me how you are NOT advising the rep to advocate HD-DVD adoption:
Click to expand...
if its clear as day then why are you misinterpreting it over and over and accusing me of being incongruous? i have not changed my stance as i have explained already about what 5 times? just go reread my posts if you want because theres nothing new i can add. the quote as whole is accurate but the way youre interpreting its meaning is whats out of context. how are you understanding it as the rep "should've" recc'd HD DVD? do you seriously think i (or any1 for that matter) would believe that's a good decision considering his JOB? you keep reverting to that as a STRAW MAN because you are trying to avoid the Very Simple Fact that the guy just said some incredibly stupid things. "BUY BLU-RAY BECAUSE ITS MORE EXPENSIVE AND WE CAN PROFIT MORE!" "DVD IS DEAD! WE DONT LIKE DVD BECAUSE WE CANT PROFIT AS MUCH ANYMORE!" "BUY DVD!" honestly...
How about we just simplify this discusssion. You are obviously not pleased with the answer that he gave, so how about you tell us what he should've said. Even though you have already told us what you think he should've said:
he could have easily said "they will have to make due on HD DVD until the 18 months is over and the contract is open for negotiations"

but that doesnt prevent the BDA from wooing warner into exclusivity or universal into dual format (however unlikely).

even a cryptic "we're working on that" would have been better than suggesting DVD as a replacement for a competing HD format. (as im sure every1 who owns either HD format knows)

According to you, he should've said all of those answers, but, at the same time, he shouldn't have said any of them. Very contradictory, if you ask me.
Click to expand...
what part of this are you not understanding?

[quote name='propeller_head']no im not contradicting myself. because again its being taken out of context. i didnt say he SHOULD say that. i said he could have just as easily said that. as in its equally ridiculous to suggest DVD as it is to recommend the competing format. which btw is exactly what i said in the quote im supposedly contradicting myself in. it was meant to illustrate the dichotomy between what would have been the most honest answer and what would have been the most perverse (suggesting DVD).[/quote] [quote name='propeller_head']i already put it in context for you, like i said i never said he SHOULD say "buy HD DVD". i would think that should be obvious. i was saying he could have just as easily said that. as in its equally ridiculous. honestly, i feel like were goin in circles here. if we cant come to an understanding even after i clarify i dont think this ride is ever going to end. maybe its when i said "instead" thats throwing you off, i didnt mean he should say it "instead". i said that he could have easily said that "instead". again, because recc'ing DVD is just as asinine as recommending the competition imo.[/quote]
AGAIN, the BDA wooing warner was an illustration of what the reporter could have wished for in a tidbit. AGAIN, obviously chances are extremely low a PR rep would say such a thing to a reporter since thats what press releases are for. BUT AGAIN, it was meant to illustrate the (what should be obvious imo) connotations of the question.

and my last quote is the only one you seem to be understanding (or admitting to at least). yes thats one thing that would have been a better answer among many. "we're working on that". because AGAIN like i said before, if they werent working on it they wouldnt be doing a very good job, n'est-ce pas?

really guys. do you honestly think that was a good interview?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']There's just one question we all need to ask ourselves here:

WTF are we arguing about?[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'm not too sure anymore. Most of this discussion started when prop suggested that the BD rep advise consumers of adopting HD-DVD:
the "Getting around" he's talking about was primarily aimed at him re: what "consumers" (aka the general public) should do re: the lack of viacom titles now. he could have easily said "they will have to make due on HD DVD until the 18 months is over and the contract is open for negotiations". no, he instead say buy it on DVD because BD players will upscale it. what he's attempting to do is spin it so he avoids acknowledging that until at least 2009 the format war will continue. he's towing the BDA line trying his best (considering the situation) to play down even the existence of HD DVD.
Click to expand...

I know I'm repeating myself, but I honestly can't see how you are NOT suggesting that. I'd like to also point out the last sentence. You are now faulting him for not mentioning HD-DVD? Is this something else I am taking out of context?

AGAIN, the BDA wooing warner was an illustration of what the reporter could have wished for in a tidbit. AGAIN, obviously chances are extremely low a PR rep would say such a thing to a reporter since thats what press releases are for. BUT AGAIN, it was meant to illustrate the (what should be obvious imo) connotations of the question.
Click to expand...

You keep saying the post was just something to illustrate 'what the reporter could have wished for', but I see no reason for something like that to be brought up. I never asked what the reporter could've wished for. It's nice that you felt like sharing what he could've wished for, but I imagine, when asking a question about Paramount/Dreamworks movies, he would expect an answer about Paramount/Dreamworks movies. To me, it seems like you made that statement as a suggestion for a better answer than the one provided. If you claim it was simply just a comment on what the reporter could've hoped for, then it really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and probably the reason the discussion has strayed so far away from the original point.

and my last quote is the only one you seem to be understanding (or admitting to at least). yes thats one thing that would have been a better answer among many. "we're working on that". because AGAIN like i said before, if they werent working on it they wouldnt be doing a very good job, n'est-ce pas?
Click to expand...

We've already established there is nothing they can legally do regarding Paramount/Dreamworks. It's possible something else is in the works, but the question was about Paramount/Dreamworks, and, I'm almost certain nothing will change regarding that until the end of the contract. So, no, that would not have been a good answer.

And, apologies for the incorrect English comment. I completely misread that quote. I take back my comment.
 
The DVD Forum, the international DVD standards authority, has approved a 51 GB single-sided triple-layer HD DVD disc for production. Extension to the HD DVD standard, which was submitted by Toshiba in April, received approval on 31 August 2007. Other recent developments include:

- A single-sided triple-layer HD DVD/DVD hybrid (combi) disc, the DVD layer of which would be playable by legacy DVD players, is expected to be approved before the year end.

- The Forum has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China's Optical Memory National Engineering Research Centre (OMNERC) regarding licensing of the HD DVD-ROM China (formerly HD DVD-ROM China-only) format, specification for which was approved earlier this year. The only difference between the latter and the standard HD DVD format is the modulation scheme: the optical pickup in HD DVD China player will be able to play standard HD DVD discs, although Chinese discs will not be playable in standard HD DVD drives. According to the Forum, the Chinese government is keen to introduce the format domestically before the Olympic Games in August 2008. Large-scale integrates (LSIs) are already under development by manufacturers and use of AACS for the format is currently under negotiation.
Click to expand...

Cool stuff and as far as I heard, it will work on older players after a firmware upgrade.

http://www.screendigest.com/online_services/intelligence/video_and_dvd/updates/vi-060907-ec3/show
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Great, so now HD DVD has 51GB discs. What advantage does Blu-ray have over it?

At least we now know that Disney can fit Pirates of the Caribbean on HD DVD next year since 30GB was just not enough.[/quote]

All Blu-ray players can read up to 4 layers and They have an extra 10 gb per layer, so with the introduction of one more layer, they are at 75gb vs > 51? I don't know, just a guess.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']All Blu-ray players can read up to 4 layers and They have an extra 10 gb per layer, so with the introduction of one more layer, they are at 75gb vs > 51? I don't know, just a guess.[/QUOTE]

REVERSAL OF FORTUNE

"These three layer HD-DVDs Blu-Rays are just vaperware. No reason to bring them up because they are just a dream at this point."
 
[quote name='dpatel']So now extra space is good?[/QUOTE]

If its being used, yes. Most Blu-rays that use 50GB are not even taking advantage of them. All this means is a nothing think the Blu-boys can cross off their list of why they feel their format is 'superior'.
 
[quote name='dpatel']So now extra space is good?[/QUOTE]

I was more excited about the proposed triple layer single sided HD/DVD because depending on the cost, it could be the perfect replacement for combos and the silver bullet of the format war.

Imagine studios releasing only on those. People buy it for the DVD, find out that even more extras are also on the same disc and buy a cheap HD-DVD player off of Amazon. And there is no downside since they could fit the SD movie on one layer and then the normal HD-DVD on the other two.

But back on topic, if it finally shuts people up about ZOMG 50>30 then yes I'm glad the 51s are on the way.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']it could be the perfect replacement for combos and the silver bullet of the format war.[/QUOTE]

That's pretty wishful thinking. One thing all of us can agree on is this: there have been no silver bullets thus far, and there probably won't be any.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']I was more excited about the proposed triple layer single sided HD/DVD because depending on the cost, it could be the perfect replacement for combos and the silver bullet of the format war.

Imagine studios releasing only on those. People buy it for the DVD, find out that even more extras are also on the same disc and buy a cheap HD-DVD player off of Amazon. And there is no downside since they could fit the SD movie on one layer and then the normal HD-DVD on the other two.[/QUOTE]

Possible, but, at this point, seems a bit unlikely. If that was true, that would definitely ensure a HD-DVD victory as all future DVDs would pretty much be sucking in more HD-DVD owners by the sale. But, I really can't see that happening.

But back on topic, if it finally shuts people up about ZOMG 50>30 then yes I'm glad the 51s are on the way.
Click to expand...

How is that going to shut people up? 50GB will always be > 30GB. It was never about a BD vs HD thing, it was just common sense. This announcement just means that, once those discs hit the market, the two formats will be equal in size, but 50GB will always be > 30GB, no matter how many times people tried to downplay the extra space in the past.

It's good to see that, now HD-DVD has the extra 21GB, the extra space is now a good thing.
 
[quote name='dpatel']How is that going to shut people up? 50GB will always be > 30GB. [/QUOTE]

51>50

[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Your right, 3 layer Discs are vaporware. However 4 layered ones: http://www.engadget.com/2005/05/19/tdk-announces-100gb-blu-ray-disc/[/QUOTE]

News from 2005, not on the market, not shown off anywhere since then, vaperware = doesn't count.

That's what you guys were saying every time I brought up the TL51's in development right?

I do like using Blu-Ray fans' own logic against them.

[quote name='H.Cornerstone']And if Extra space isn't being used, why was Face Off going to be 2 discs on HD-DVD but only 1 on BD?[/QUOTE]

Oh, you mean before it was canceled following Paramount pulling out?

And the movie that was originally slated for a 2 disc Blu-Ray set until they decided to try to squeeze both of them on to one disk?

I'm guessing to save money and use their 50GB perks before they ran out.

Anyways, who gives a shit? A 2 disc set for the same amount of money doesn't bother me at all. Plus it's been known for awhile that one 30 can hold up to 4 hours of video. So they can easily just put the movie on one disc and the extras on another.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']51>50[/QUOTE]

Yep, definitely. It would be ridiculous to say otherwise. It would be even more ridiculous to say otherwise when the difference is 20GB as opposed to 1GB.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']51>50



News from 2005, not on the market, not shown off anywhere since then, vaperware = doesn't count.

That's what you guys were saying every time I brought up the TL51's in development right?

I do like using Blu-Ray fans' own logic against them.

Oh, you mean before it was canceled following Paramount pulling out?

And the movie that was originally slated for a 2 disc Blu-Ray set until they decided to try to squeeze both of them on to one disk?

I'm guessing to save money and use their 50GB perks before they ran out.

Anyways, who gives a shit? A 2 disc set for the same amount of money doesn't bother me at all. Plus it's been known for awhile that one 30 can hold up to 4 hours of video. So they can easily just put the movie on one disc and the extras on another.[/quote]
I will agree with Dpatel that is was so funny that every HD-DVD supporter was like "the extra 20gb doesn't matter, blah blah blah" and now that it's 1gb more "Eat that Blu-ray!." Either way, if these discs are more expensive and clearly have unused space, than what's the benefit to the consumers?

Anyways, Blu-ray still has the potential to hold more, and although they never released BD-100, they have been showcased at CES, however their probably isn't any market for them which is probably why we haven't seen them. And Gizmo, 25gb per layer > 15gb per layer, which is exactly what me and blu-ray supporters have been saying all along as to why Blu-ray is superior.
 
48Mbps > 30Mbps

Wake me when they actually start using 51GB discs.

(a question though, how did it go from 15gb a layer to 51gb with 3 layers? just wondering)
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']I will agree with Dpatel that is was so funny that every HD-DVD supporter was like "the extra 20gb doesn't matter, blah blah blah" and now that it's 1gb more "Eat that Blu-ray!." Either way, if these discs are more expensive and clearly have unused space, than what's the benefit to the consumers?

Anyways, Blu-ray still has the potential to hold more, and although they never released BD-100, they have been showcased at CES, however their probably isn't any market for them which is probably why we haven't seen them. And Gizmo, 25gb per layer > 15gb per layer, which is exactly what me and blu-ray supporters have been saying all along as to why Blu-ray is superior.[/QUOTE]

Its just something that the Blu-boys can stop holding over HD DVDs head. Thats it. No new equipment is needed to press 51GB discs so it shouldn't cost anymore money then it already is, unlike BD50.
 
I'm curious why an audiophile like Sporadic, who mentioned just how much he loves his lossless audio (320KBS or death!), is a proponent of HD DVD. Strange, that.

Also, the Paramount deal pays off in spades, as they announce their first indefinitely postponed HD DVD title!

You can put that polyester suit back in the closet, 'Saturday Night Fever' fans: next week's HD DVD version of the '70s classic has been indefinitely postponed.

News of a next-gen 'Saturday Night Fever' release in first surfaced this past April, when Paramount issued a promotional flyer touting the seminal 1977 John Travolta blockbuster as "Coming Soon," even including pics of proposed box art for both HD DVD and Blu-ray versions. Later, the studio officially announced a cross-format bow to celebrate the film's 30th anniversary, with a scheduled street date of September 18.
ADVERTISEMENT

Though Paramount's subsequent revelation in late August that it was going HD DVD-exclusive saw plans scrapped for any immediate 'Fever' release on Blu-ray, the studio has now removed the HD DVD version from next week's release schedule as well.

Though Paramount has not revealed any reason for the bump of the HD DVD, the standard DVD version remains on track for release next week. We'll certainly keep you posted if/when a high-def version is re-announced by the studio.

With this news, we've moved 'Saturday Night Fever' to the "Release Dates Postponed" section of our HD DVD Release Schedule. Stay tuned...
Click to expand...

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...ramount_Bumps_Saturday_Night_Fever_HD_DVD/947

That's money well spent! :rofl:
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Its just something that the Blu-boys can stop holding over HD DVDs head. Thats it. No new equipment is needed to press 51GB discs so it shouldn't cost anymore money then it already is, unlike BD50.[/quote]

While DVD Forum approval is one obstacle cleared for Toshiba, it remains to be seen when (or even if) the new disc type will actually be put into use for movie releases. Insiders say it could take years for production yields to reach manageable levels, and there are conflicting reports as to whether or not the new triple layer discs would be supported by current players.
Click to expand...

How do you know they won't cost any more?

Why do DL DVDs cost me more than SL?
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']If its being used, yes. Most Blu-rays that use 50GB are not even taking advantage of them. All this means is a nothing think the Blu-boys can cross off their list of why they feel their format is 'superior'.[/QUOTE]

I would think that Blu-ray NOT being maxed out this early on would be a good thing. When I adopt a new format, I rather have something that allowed for more breathing room. It's great to see HD-DVD developing this 51GB disc, but, being quite a bit later and already on their third layer, I'm a bit concerned as to how long they will be able to 'keep up' with the competition.
 
Do movie/game companies even use stuff past the 2nd layer? If not, is the only point saying that it's bigger? Kinda useless if you ask me. Plus, 51gb prices > 50gb prices. Take another advantage off HD-DVD's plate if you do that. Oh wait, it's already gone because they combo deal every movie release, making it more expensive than BR movies.

Face facts:
HD-DVD going to a third layer just to say they're bigger than Blu-Ray isn't much of an improvement movie people/game developers are going to look at kindly, because when it comes to development less layers is better to develop for.
Plus, when Blu-Ray adds a 3rd layer, it'll be 75gb, and then what?
 
Code:
[quote name='KingBroly']Do movie/game companies even use stuff past the 2nd layer? If not, is the only point saying that it's bigger? Kinda useless if you ask me. Plus, 51gb prices > 50gb prices. Take another advantage off HD-DVD's plate if you do that. Oh wait, it's already gone because they combo deal every movie release, making it more expensive than BR movies.

Face facts:
HD-DVD going to a third layer just to say they're bigger than Blu-Ray isn't much of an improvement movie people/game developers are going to look at kindly, because when it comes to development less layers is better to develop for.
Plus, when Blu-Ray adds a 3rd layer, it'll be 75gb, and then what?[/quote]

I think I read somewhere that Casino Royale and Pirates were over 30gb, maybe around 40 with all the features and what not.
 
The only movies pushing over 30GB are the ones with very high bitrate video encodes.

Like Pirates with has peaks in the 40s. (Mbps)

And it shows.

Max bitrate for BD is 48Mbps, max for HD DVD is 30Mbps.
 
[quote name='dallow']The only movies pushing over 30GB are the ones with very high bitrate video encodes.

Like Pirates with has peaks in the 40s. (Mbps)

And it shows.

Max bitrate for BD is 48Mbps, max for HD DVD is 30Mbps.[/QUOTE]

Good, shouldn't be too hard for Disney to put both Pirates on HD DVD then.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Good, shouldn't be too hard for Disney to put both Pirates on HD DVD then.[/quote]Like I said, it has peaks of over 40Mbps, so yeah, it would be kinda hard without a lesser encode.
 
My big question in all of this is: Will the extra cost in triple-layer discs be passed down to consumers? Will we be paying Combo prices for non-combo releases (aside from those released by Paramount)? The same applies to multi-layer BD's as well.
 
[quote name='orimental']Will the extra cost in triple-layer discs be passed down to consumers?[/QUOTE]

Come on, you're smarter than that. As in every case ever, in the long run, extra cost is passed on to the consumer. I don't know of any exceptions. Of course you'll be paying for them.

Now, of course, if you were to ask if there are extra costs for 3-layer HD DVDs, that's a good question, and one I don't know the answer to.
 
Not necessarily. Single-layer and dual-layer releases didn't differ much in price. Judging by HDDVDStats.com, a lot of the HD15 discs cost the same as many of the HD30 discs. The same goes for BD25 and BD50 releases over at Blu-rayStats.com.

But triple-layer releases haven't been announced and seeing as it's something that hasn't really been proven in the real world.
 
[quote name='orimental']Not necessarily. Single-layer and dual-layer releases didn't differ much in price. Judging by HDDVDStats.com, a lot of the HD15 discs cost the same as many of the HD30 discs. The same goes for BD25 and BD50 releases over at Blu-rayStats.com.

But triple-layer releases haven't been announced and seeing as it's something that hasn't really been proven in the real world.[/QUOTE]

IIRC, The BD50 discs were given a heavy discount for the studios to play around with. Apparently, that has ended (which is a rumored reason as to why Paramount left Blu-ray, and why Face/Off was changed from a 2 disc to 1 disc, it would have been the last BD50 title). The 51GB HD DVD discs can be produced using the same equipment as current HD DVDs and I don't think there is any extra fee (I may be wrong though).
 
Warner Bros is considering a "lucrative offer" to back HD DVD exclusively in the high-def disc format war.

That's according to an article in today's Los Angeles Times.

Warner Bros. is now releasing titles in both Blu-ray and HD DVD and the studio has preached that the two-format approach has led to increased sales of such titles as The Departed.

But the surprise departure last month of Steve Nickerson, Warner Home Video's senior vice president for High-Definition, has raised speculation that the studio may be reconsidering its policy. Nickerson was an outspoken booster of the two-format approach in the high-def war.

The Times writes that "Hollywood insiders" say Warner is "mulling over a lucrative offer that could bring such popular titles as Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix into the HD DVD camp." The newspaper doesn't say, but the offer is presumably from Toshiba, the leading backer of the HD DVD format.

If Warner were to endorse HD DVD exclusively, it would follow similar exclusive endorsements last month from Paramount and DreamWorks. (Universal is also backing HD DVD exclusively while four major studios are supporting Blu-ray exclusively.)

While a Warner switch would seriously boost HD DVD's chances in the high-def format war, the Times reports that the Blu-ray side is also busy trying to line up exclusive deals with studios and retailers.

Wal-Mart, the newspaper said, had set a mid-August deadline for deciding which format to keep in its stores; it now carries both players. But Toshiba supposedly offered a large promotional budget to support HD DVD sales in a recent meeting at Wal-Mart headquarters.

Wal-Mart would not comment on that, but told the Times that "it would be good for the studios or somebody to make the call (on the high-def format war.)."
Click to expand...
http://www.tvpredictions.com/warner091007.htm
 
Given 67%, 70%, and 90% of the HD movie market in the US, Europe, and Japan (respectively), it shouldn't be a question at all.

That's not the case, of course, but it shouldn't be one.
 
Indeed. BR is outselling HD 2 to 1 in the closest region (US), and if the rumors of a $400 PS3 (40GB, the 80GB will drop to $500) come to fruition for the fall, then WB will really want to stay on board the BR behemoth.

Taking the payoff like Paramount did is a very shortsighted maneuver that will just harm the market and cause people to stay away from HD discs even more. While competition is good for the market (players), it doesn't extend to movies as much. Moreover, the degree of competition is unarguably hurting disc sales, as focus groups seem to show that consumers have cold feet when adopting formats due to general confusion and an unwillingness to buy into what could pan out to be a failed format.
 
[quote name='dallow']48Mbps > 30Mbps[/quote]
Did you mean to say 48Mbps > 36Mbps or 40Mbps > 30Mbps? Because the above mix 'n matching of stats sounds like something HD DVD fans are often accused of doing with PS3 sales numbers. :)
 
So it was shortsignted of Paramount to take payoffs from Toshiba to be exclusive, but not subsidies from Sony to go neutral in the first place? Also not shortsighted for WB to take subsidies to go neutral? And it wasn't shortsighted for Disney and Fox to take payoffs from the BDA in return for their exlcusivity? Or for Target to accept a "jaw-dropping sum" to keep one side's standalones off their shelves?

Either it's always good business, or it's always bad business. You can't have it both ways. The only thing that would have been good for the consumer is if all studios and retailers had been neutral from day 1. The war would be over already. But it's business, and politics, as usual, and given the situation I'm glad Toshiba finally decided to throw down.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']IIRC, The BD50 discs were given a heavy discount for the studios to play around with. Apparently, that has ended (which is a rumored reason as to why Paramount left Blu-ray, and why Face/Off was changed from a 2 disc to 1 disc, it would have been the last BD50 title). The 51GB HD DVD discs can be produced using the same equipment as current HD DVDs and I don't think there is any extra fee (I may be wrong though).[/quote]If that were true, Dual Layer DVD-Rs wouldn't cost me more $$$ in stores.
 
[quote name='geko29']Either it's always good business, or it's always bad business. You can't have it both ways.[/quote]

That's absurd - clearly the format war has helped the price of players - but it's also shut off a large number of people who want to move up to hi-def video, but refuse to do so on account of adopting a failed format. I don't buy into this absolutism nonsense you're pushing.

The only thing that would have been good for the consumer is if all studios and retailers had been neutral from day 1. The war would be over already. But it's business, and politics, as usual, and given the situation I'm glad Toshiba finally decided to throw down.
Click to expand...

If there were only one format to choose from, few of us would have bought players for the measly sum that we spent at this point. Toshiba's "throwing down" involves moves of desperation from a format that can't sell on its own merits, relative to its hi-def competition.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Its just something that the Blu-boys can stop holding over HD DVDs head. Thats it. [/QUOTE]

That's basically it.

The whole time I have been posting in this thread, the only real argument I've had thrown at me is "but Sporadic Blu-Ray has 50GBs while HD-DVD only has 30 HOW CAN YOU SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT IS SO INFERIOR TO THE ALMIGHTY BLU-RAY! What do you mean compression negates the data size difference? JUST LOOK AT OUR GODLY MPEG2 TRANSFERS AND ORGASM INDUCING PCM AUDIO TRACKS! WE NEED THIS MUCH ROOM! What's that? A 51GB HD-DVD is in the works? No, that's vaperware. 50GB Blu-Rays are now"

That argument is finally dead and gone until BDA can come up with a tangible/realistic upgrade to the DL50s.

[quote name='mykevermin']I'm curious why an audiophile like Sporadic, who mentioned just how much he loves his lossless audio (320KBS or death!), is a proponent of HD DVD. Strange, that.
[/QUOTE]

Not an audiophile, nor is lossless audio a deal breaker for me (320kbps is still lossy and not all of my music is in that anyways) but the audio tracks on most HD-DVDs are enough to get the job done for me.

Last time I heard, there is zero difference between PCM and TrueHD besides compression.

[quote name='dallow']Like I said, it has peaks of over 40Mbps, so yeah, it would be kinda hard without a lesser encode.[/QUOTE]

The Prestige UK import proved that HD-DVD can go toe to toe with Blu-Ray video wise. It's identical PQ-wise to the American Blu-Ray released by Buena Vista.

[quote name='H.Cornerstone']All I have to say is, the BDA better do everything in their power to keep Warner Bros, tehy are probably the biggest Studio out there.[/QUOTE]

Now this I can agree with.

Warner can make or break the format war by which way they decide to go.

Honestly, my faith in HD-DVD would be more than rattled if they decided to go Blu-Ray only. I don't believe they would, I really think the choices are either HD-DVD only with a mindblowing deal from the DVDForum/Toshiba or staying neutral/waiting for BR to get their shit together. Most of my collection is Warner titles and they have been at the forefront of HD innovation since this started.

[quote name='mykevermin']Toshiba's "throwing down" involves moves of desperation from a format that can't sell on its own merits, relative to its hi-def competition.[/QUOTE]

Moves of desperation?

You mean doing the same exact thing Blu-Ray Disc Association is doing but with less underhanded tricks and PR spin?
 
[quote name='dallow']If that were true, Dual Layer DVD-Rs wouldn't cost me more $$$ in stores.[/quote]
Sure they would. Price has very little to do with cost. Price is based on what it is believed the market will bear. a 9GB disc has more value to the consumer than a 5GB one. Ergo the price is higher. It could cost LESS to make and the price would STILL be higher.

But the price difference is about what you'd expect. For the most part, DL discs cost twice what SL discs do. For example, Verbatim DVD+R DLs are $15.99 for a 10 pack, while Verbatim DVD+Rs are $15.99 for 2 10 packs.

It's tough to compare larger sizes since no one sells DLs in a spindle (cakebox is as large as they come), and nobody sells SLs in a cakebox (spindle and half spindle only).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']If there were only one format to choose from, few of us would have bought players for the measly sum that we spent at this point. Toshiba's "throwing down" involves moves of desperation from a format that can't sell on its own merits, relative to its hi-def competition.[/quote] So again, you're saying that when Toshiba resorts to payoffs and incentives, it's desparation. But when Sony does it, it's just good business. That is the very definition of hypocracy.
 
I see...your "it's good business or bad business" referred to payoffs, not the format war as a whole.

I need more coffee and fewer data to gather this morning, forgive me.

No, I do not think that payoffs are good in general, but I do think the context of the company seeking the payoffs does matter to a degree. Certainly you'll disagree, but find this out of the realm of your heavyhanded "hypocrite" claim. Toshiba, losing the hi-def disc battle (completely unarguable), has had to throw down the financial gauntlet in order to stay alive and in this thing - OTOH, once that sort of activity starts, the competing company would be foolish and suicidal to stand idly by and let such payoffs ruin their chances at market success - it's very much a damned if you do/don't scenario.

Let me put it this way: the way BR movies are selling relative to HD, BDA doesn't *need* to buy exclusivity; HDG does, however. That's the difference.
 
Sorry about the comment, didn't mean to offend, the stark contrast just struck me particularly hard.

Not many people bitched two years ago when Paramount and WB suddenly went neutral (which we now know was due to replication subsidies), or when Fox and Disney went exclusive--which is rumored to be due at least in part to a payoffs, which both companies flatly refuse to deny, despite being investigated for anticompetitive practices based on said rumors (ie it would save them a LOT of trouble to just deny the incentives if they didn't happen). But yet when there's possibly a payoff involved to return a formerly-exclusive studio back to exclusivity, all of a sudden that's going too far.

That doesn't sit well with me. If it's unfair and bad for the consumer now, it was back then too. As I said, I would have preferred all studios to be neutral and let the consumer decide. But if one side's going to play dirty pool and the other isn't, chances are the "good boy" is going to lose. And that's exactly what we've seen up until this point. Now I'll agree that neither side is blameless, as there was probably always an incentive of some sort involved with Universal, as there was with many the other studios. But you can't blame Toshiba for everything because of what happened in the past month.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Let me put it this way: the way BR movies are selling relative to HD, BDA doesn't *need* to buy exclusivity; HDG does, however. That's the difference.[/QUOTE]

Sony has already paid heavily for what they have now. They paid with the market share for the PS3.

If you would have told anybody three years ago, that today the PS3 would be in last place while Nintendo would be in first you would have laughed right out of the building.

Who knows how many studios were tempted into joining BDA on that fact alone or how many PS3 sales were loss thanks to Sony added another very expensive item to their console right out of the gate or how the war would be today if they decided to cut cost and not put it in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top