- LOCK - Format War - HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray - LOCK -
- Thread starter GizmoGC
- Start date
- Status
propeller_head
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dallow']Duh.
Read my posts preceding that.[/quote] what makes you think games cant use TrueHD? PCM just does the same thing, just not as efficiently. PCM would use too much memory anyway. games dont stream like movies. so if anything, its a worse choice.
and future consoles will probably use whatever the hell comes after BD or HD DVD. SuperHD (or Super HiVision) 7680x4320 is the next step. and even if BD manages to get to 200GB the theoretical limit, thats still not enough.
Read my posts preceding that.[/quote] what makes you think games cant use TrueHD? PCM just does the same thing, just not as efficiently. PCM would use too much memory anyway. games dont stream like movies. so if anything, its a worse choice.
and future consoles will probably use whatever the hell comes after BD or HD DVD. SuperHD (or Super HiVision) 7680x4320 is the next step. and even if BD manages to get to 200GB the theoretical limit, thats still not enough.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Sporadic']
you, Day Of The Dead is my favorite zombie movie 
#[/quote]
To each their own, man. To each their own. I'll take the good with the bad, so long as the good keeps coming (see: Hairspray).
Indeed. That way, you can spend another $40 importing it from overseas so as to avoid buying an expensive Blu-Ray player. Tell me, just how much have you spent in imports so as to avoid buying an expensive Blu-Ray player?
you, Day Of The Dead is my favorite zombie movie #[/quote]To each their own, man. To each their own. I'll take the good with the bad, so long as the good keeps coming (see: Hairspray).
Indeed. That way, you can spend another $40 importing it from overseas so as to avoid buying an expensive Blu-Ray player. Tell me, just how much have you spent in imports so as to avoid buying an expensive Blu-Ray player?
[quote name='mykevermin']To each their own, man. To each their own. I'll take the good with the bad, so long as the good keeps coming (see: Hairspray).[/QUOTE]
New Line is only delaying the day-date releases.
Everything else (aka everything worth a damn of theirs) should be spot on.
[quote name='mykevermin']Indeed. That way, you can spend another $40 importing it from overseas so as to avoid buying an expensive Blu-Ray player. Tell me, just how much have you spent in imports so as to avoid buying an expensive Blu-Ray player?[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you asked. I've so far spent extra (using $19.95 as the price point because Blu-Rays aren't free) including shipping
Elephant Man = $15.68
Rambo: First Blood = $2.49
Mulholland Drive = $15.68
Terminator 2 (2 disc) = $15.68
Total Recall = $14.27
The Prestige = $12.20
The Pianist = $12.20
$88.20 over all which last time I checked is still way cheaper than buying a Blu-Ray player. In fact at the rate I'm going, it will take almost 40 imports to match the price of a Blu-Ray player and honastly you guys don't have that much that interest me.
New Line is only delaying the day-date releases.
Everything else (aka everything worth a damn of theirs) should be spot on.
[quote name='mykevermin']Indeed. That way, you can spend another $40 importing it from overseas so as to avoid buying an expensive Blu-Ray player. Tell me, just how much have you spent in imports so as to avoid buying an expensive Blu-Ray player?
[/QUOTE]I'm glad you asked. I've so far spent extra (using $19.95 as the price point because Blu-Rays aren't free) including shipping
Elephant Man = $15.68
Rambo: First Blood = $2.49
Mulholland Drive = $15.68
Terminator 2 (2 disc) = $15.68
Total Recall = $14.27
The Prestige = $12.20
The Pianist = $12.20
$88.20 over all which last time I checked is still way cheaper than buying a Blu-Ray player. In fact at the rate I'm going, it will take almost 40 imports to match the price of a Blu-Ray player and honastly you guys don't have that much that interest me.
[quote name='propeller_head']what makes you think games cant use TrueHD? PCM just does the same thing, just not as efficiently. PCM would use too much memory anyway. games dont stream like movies. so if anything, its a worse choice.
and future consoles will probably use whatever the hell comes after BD or HD DVD. SuperHD (or Super HiVision) 7680x4320 is the next step. and even if BD manages to get to 200GB the theoretical limit, thats still not enough.[/quote]Because TrueHD doesn't work in the same way as DD audio in current games.
DD are compressed sounds in a low bitrate.
TrueHD takes the PCM sound and kind of encapsulates them. I'm worried that consoles would not be able to do that dynamically.
(and don't say PCM does the "same thing")
PCM doesn't do anything, it just is. It's not an encode, just raw sound.
There are PS3 games that use LPCM sound, and it is the future of sound in games. (HD audio I mean)
and future consoles will probably use whatever the hell comes after BD or HD DVD. SuperHD (or Super HiVision) 7680x4320 is the next step. and even if BD manages to get to 200GB the theoretical limit, thats still not enough.[/quote]Because TrueHD doesn't work in the same way as DD audio in current games.
DD are compressed sounds in a low bitrate.
TrueHD takes the PCM sound and kind of encapsulates them. I'm worried that consoles would not be able to do that dynamically.
(and don't say PCM does the "same thing")
PCM doesn't do anything, it just is. It's not an encode, just raw sound.
There are PS3 games that use LPCM sound, and it is the future of sound in games. (HD audio I mean)
propeller_head
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dallow']Because TrueHD doesn't work in the same way as DD audio in current games.
DD are compressed sounds in a low bitrate.
TrueHD takes the PCM sound and kind of encapsulates them. I'm worried that consoles would not be able to do that dynamically.
(and don't say PCM does the "same thing")
PCM doesn't do anything, it just is. It's not an encode, just raw sound.
There are PS3 games that use LPCM sound, and it is the future of sound in games. (HD audio I mean)[/quote]
ok first of all DD is not a low bitrate. its average.
secondly by encapsulate if you mean that its compressed more yes. thats true. and thats exactly why i said its better. the speakers arent in your console, and if you care about lossless you probably have a high end home theater w/ a good receiver. which will decode TrueHD.
so the only real diff is that TrueHD uses less memory in the console and less bandwith in the cable. that's it. dynamically? all it does is call the file from the disc when it needs it. files which are called more often need to stay in memory. which is why i said if anything PCM would be WORSE for games, because it would require more memory.
PCM does do something, it does the same thing (send sound to the receiver), it just does it in a much more remedial way.
DD are compressed sounds in a low bitrate.
TrueHD takes the PCM sound and kind of encapsulates them. I'm worried that consoles would not be able to do that dynamically.
(and don't say PCM does the "same thing")
PCM doesn't do anything, it just is. It's not an encode, just raw sound.
There are PS3 games that use LPCM sound, and it is the future of sound in games. (HD audio I mean)[/quote]
ok first of all DD is not a low bitrate. its average.
secondly by encapsulate if you mean that its compressed more yes. thats true. and thats exactly why i said its better. the speakers arent in your console, and if you care about lossless you probably have a high end home theater w/ a good receiver. which will decode TrueHD.
so the only real diff is that TrueHD uses less memory in the console and less bandwith in the cable. that's it. dynamically? all it does is call the file from the disc when it needs it. files which are called more often need to stay in memory. which is why i said if anything PCM would be WORSE for games, because it would require more memory.
PCM does do something, it does the same thing (send sound to the receiver), it just does it in a much more remedial way.
[quote name='propeller_head']ok first of all DD is not a low bitrate. its average.
secondly by encapsulate if you mean that its compressed more yes. thats true. and thats exactly why i said its better. the speakers arent in your console, and if you care about lossless you probably have a high end home theater w/ a good receiver. which will decode TrueHD.
so the only real diff is that TrueHD uses less memory in the console and less bandwith in the cable. that's it. dynamically? all it does is call the file from the disc when it needs it. files which are called more often need to stay in memory. which is why i said if anything PCM would be WORSE for games, because it would require more memory.
PCM does do something, it does the same thing (send sound to the receiver), it just does it in a much more remedial way.[/quote]So you are saying that without a doubt, games could use TrueHD or DTS-HD MA for games?
And yeah yeah, it's not that low, but I meant relative to lossless.
secondly by encapsulate if you mean that its compressed more yes. thats true. and thats exactly why i said its better. the speakers arent in your console, and if you care about lossless you probably have a high end home theater w/ a good receiver. which will decode TrueHD.
so the only real diff is that TrueHD uses less memory in the console and less bandwith in the cable. that's it. dynamically? all it does is call the file from the disc when it needs it. files which are called more often need to stay in memory. which is why i said if anything PCM would be WORSE for games, because it would require more memory.
PCM does do something, it does the same thing (send sound to the receiver), it just does it in a much more remedial way.[/quote]So you are saying that without a doubt, games could use TrueHD or DTS-HD MA for games?
And yeah yeah, it's not that low, but I meant relative to lossless.
propeller_head
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dallow']So you are saying that without a doubt, games could use TrueHD or DTS-HD MA for games?
And yeah yeah, it's not that low, but I meant relative to lossless.[/quote]
if youre talking about future consoles, and Dolby is willing to licence. then yes, without a doubt.
And yeah yeah, it's not that low, but I meant relative to lossless.[/quote]
if youre talking about future consoles, and Dolby is willing to licence. then yes, without a doubt.
[quote name='propeller_head']if youre talking about future consoles, and Dolby is willing to licence. then yes, without a doubt.[/quote]I hope you're right. I still have doubts, but I'd love to see more games with lossless audio, no matter what the format.
[quote name='Sporadic']Have they?
As far as I know, the DL on both formats were available from launch. HD-DVD has added two HD layer/two DVD layer flippers and just approved production on two HD layer/one DVD layer non-flippers and the triple layer 51GB.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure DL BD disc were not introduced until a few months after the format launched. So, yes, both formats have shown growth, and I'm pretty sure will continue to show growth beyond their current 50/51GB limits. But, unless HD-DVD develops larger layers, they will always be struggling in this area. I'm not exactly sure pointing out that HD-DVD is doing what BD has been able to do for a while (albeit not completely successfully yet, I believe) utilizing more layers could be considered an 'advantage'. It is definitely an improvement, but, if this trend continues, I can see the difference in space becoming larger and larger in the future.
Yes, we did, and you downplayed extra storage space on HD/BD because 'there will be other options' for back up. As if the addition of another option (HD/BD) is a bad thing. Also, what about games? We already know the formats are already being used for games, and, I imagine, as time goes one, the need for larger formats will increase. Would definitely be nicer to have the extra space then, I would think.
As for the audio, both options would be still be possible on BD. But, with BD, there is more than one option to go about it, which definitely does not hurt (although I feel it really isn't that significant).
I couldn't answer that, but, like I said, my choosing of a format is based on long term potential, not short term benefits (most of which are not format specific, so, in the long run, are pretty irrelevant).
They have not really climbed anything, unless you think both formats will be capped off at the 50/51GB mark.
They have just shown why I am not fond of the format. Introducing what BD has had for a while now but by utilizing more layers and introducing it much later. I imagine this will continue to be the trend simply because HD-DVD hold less per layer.
As far as I know, the DL on both formats were available from launch. HD-DVD has added two HD layer/two DVD layer flippers and just approved production on two HD layer/one DVD layer non-flippers and the triple layer 51GB.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure DL BD disc were not introduced until a few months after the format launched. So, yes, both formats have shown growth, and I'm pretty sure will continue to show growth beyond their current 50/51GB limits. But, unless HD-DVD develops larger layers, they will always be struggling in this area. I'm not exactly sure pointing out that HD-DVD is doing what BD has been able to do for a while (albeit not completely successfully yet, I believe) utilizing more layers could be considered an 'advantage'. It is definitely an improvement, but, if this trend continues, I can see the difference in space becoming larger and larger in the future.
Yes, we did, and you downplayed extra storage space on HD/BD because 'there will be other options' for back up. As if the addition of another option (HD/BD) is a bad thing. Also, what about games? We already know the formats are already being used for games, and, I imagine, as time goes one, the need for larger formats will increase. Would definitely be nicer to have the extra space then, I would think.
As for the audio, both options would be still be possible on BD. But, with BD, there is more than one option to go about it, which definitely does not hurt (although I feel it really isn't that significant).
I couldn't answer that, but, like I said, my choosing of a format is based on long term potential, not short term benefits (most of which are not format specific, so, in the long run, are pretty irrelevant).
They have not really climbed anything, unless you think both formats will be capped off at the 50/51GB mark.
They have just shown why I am not fond of the format. Introducing what BD has had for a while now but by utilizing more layers and introducing it much later. I imagine this will continue to be the trend simply because HD-DVD hold less per layer.
propeller_head
CAGiversary!
well imo HD DVD doesnt NEED 51GB. 5 hours of high quality 1080p can already fit on a 30GB disc. and if you need more you can always just add another disc.
it matters a lot for the PC market though. but what really matters most is the cost per GB. if BD can maintain the $/GB value they could potentially dominate that market. but we already know that just producing the discs is much more expensive atm. if they can reduce it enough to beat HD DVD bang for buck by the time drives are sanely priced (sub $100) and fast enough (at least 8x); only time will tell. personally i'd rather have BD win in that dept because the discs are more scratch resistant, and id rather not have to switch discs as often when backing up files. but if sony wants a premium (like they usually do for all their tech), and they think their profiteering is more important than affordability; they can keep it 'cause i wont want it.
it matters a lot for the PC market though. but what really matters most is the cost per GB. if BD can maintain the $/GB value they could potentially dominate that market. but we already know that just producing the discs is much more expensive atm. if they can reduce it enough to beat HD DVD bang for buck by the time drives are sanely priced (sub $100) and fast enough (at least 8x); only time will tell. personally i'd rather have BD win in that dept because the discs are more scratch resistant, and id rather not have to switch discs as often when backing up files. but if sony wants a premium (like they usually do for all their tech), and they think their profiteering is more important than affordability; they can keep it 'cause i wont want it.
Warner stays neutral for now, want to see how the 4th quarter goes.
http://www.twice.com/article/CA6477849.html
http://www.twice.com/article/CA6477849.html
rodeojones903
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 81 (100%)
[quote name='dallow']Warner stays neutral for now, want to see how the 4th quarter goes.
http://www.twice.com/article/CA6477849.html[/QUOTE]
So their good blu ray sales win over the payment Toshiba offered?
http://www.twice.com/article/CA6477849.html[/QUOTE]
So their good blu ray sales win over the payment Toshiba offered?
propeller_head
CAGiversary!
[quote name='rodeojones903']So their good blu ray sales win over the payment Toshiba offered?[/quote]
no1 really knows. sony may have offered a reduction on manufacturing costs too. either way its nice that at least one studio is staying dual format. at least BD will continue to get some VC-1 movies that way.
no1 really knows. sony may have offered a reduction on manufacturing costs too. either way its nice that at least one studio is staying dual format. at least BD will continue to get some VC-1 movies that way.
[quote name='propeller_head']no1 really knows. sony may have offered a reduction on manufacturing costs too. either way its nice that at least one studio is staying dual format. at least BD will continue to get some VC-1 movies that way.[/quote]As well as PCM and TrueHD soundtracks (at least on more recent releases)
I'd rather them switch to AVC MPEG-4 and a higher bitrate but I guess it's more work to do two encodes.
I'd rather them switch to AVC MPEG-4 and a higher bitrate but I guess it's more work to do two encodes.
[quote name='dallow']As well as PCM and TrueHD soundtracks (at least on more recent releases)
I'd rather them switch to AVC MPEG-4 and a higher bitrate but I guess it's more work to do two encodes.[/QUOTE]
Not being a smartass but with the prices of BR players when they debuted would it have been THAT hard to make TrueHD and other Lossless codecs mandatory in terms of decoding?
I'd rather them switch to AVC MPEG-4 and a higher bitrate but I guess it's more work to do two encodes.[/QUOTE]
Not being a smartass but with the prices of BR players when they debuted would it have been THAT hard to make TrueHD and other Lossless codecs mandatory in terms of decoding?
[quote name='Sarang01']Not being a smartass but with the prices of BR players when they debuted would it have been THAT hard to make TrueHD and other Lossless codecs mandatory in terms of decoding?[/quote]I blame the studios for not including it. (looking at you warner, paramount)
Including PCM is the easiest thing in the world.
Where do you think the DD5.1 track comes from?
Why the the PCM master of course. Just throw it on the discs!!! ugh.
Just say NO to Dolby Digital.
Including PCM is the easiest thing in the world.
Where do you think the DD5.1 track comes from?
Why the the PCM master of course. Just throw it on the discs!!! ugh.
Just say NO to Dolby Digital.
[quote name='dallow']I blame the studios for not including it. (looking at you warner, paramount)
Including PCM is the easiest thing in the world.
Where do you think the DD5.1 track comes from?
Why the the PCM master of course. Just throw it on the discs!!! ugh.
Just say NO to Dolby Digital.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to Lossless codec's INSTEAD of PCM. PCM right now is partially used by BR because the specs didn't include mandatory Lossless coding on players and that companies can waste the extra space BD50 yields to put PCM on the discs so they don't have to pay DTS or Dolby royalties for using their tech. And guess what? WE never see a lower price because of it, the asshole studios just pocket the extra profit. Whenever you cut costs, charge at the same price until you have to lower it.
Including PCM is the easiest thing in the world.
Where do you think the DD5.1 track comes from?
Why the the PCM master of course. Just throw it on the discs!!! ugh.
Just say NO to Dolby Digital.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to Lossless codec's INSTEAD of PCM. PCM right now is partially used by BR because the specs didn't include mandatory Lossless coding on players and that companies can waste the extra space BD50 yields to put PCM on the discs so they don't have to pay DTS or Dolby royalties for using their tech. And guess what? WE never see a lower price because of it, the asshole studios just pocket the extra profit. Whenever you cut costs, charge at the same price until you have to lower it.
[quote name='propeller_head']well imo HD DVD doesnt NEED 51GB. 5 hours of high quality 1080p can already fit on a 30GB disc. and if you need more you can always just add another disc.[/QUOTE]
Of course. For movies, it has already been proven that the 30GB HD-DVDs are enough. The only downside I can think of as far as movies are concerned is the fact that audio has to compressed for most movies to fit on one disc. Not a huge deal as it seems to make 0% to consumers, and really only SLIGHTLY affects the studios.
It seems most not concerned with the space disadvantage only seems to be thinking about these formats in terms of their movie capabilities. In that respect, I can see why the extra space won't matter. As a gamer first and a movie enthusiast second, I definitely see the value of more space seeing as how games will be (and already are being) used for games. Again, it will be a while before the extra space will be 'necessary', but, like all formats (and pretty much anything electronic), its limits will be reached, and I would much rather have a format that has the potential to grow faster (and most likely larger) in size.
Definitely agree, which is why I find it pointless to settle for a format that works for movies, but will not be as efficient with games or backup.
Normally I'd agree but seeing as how BD is not a sony format, I wouldn't be too worried. Sure they are involved (just like they were involved with CDs and DVDs), but it is a collaborative effort, and the competition from HD-DVD and DVD will keep them in check.
Of course. For movies, it has already been proven that the 30GB HD-DVDs are enough. The only downside I can think of as far as movies are concerned is the fact that audio has to compressed for most movies to fit on one disc. Not a huge deal as it seems to make 0% to consumers, and really only SLIGHTLY affects the studios.
It seems most not concerned with the space disadvantage only seems to be thinking about these formats in terms of their movie capabilities. In that respect, I can see why the extra space won't matter. As a gamer first and a movie enthusiast second, I definitely see the value of more space seeing as how games will be (and already are being) used for games. Again, it will be a while before the extra space will be 'necessary', but, like all formats (and pretty much anything electronic), its limits will be reached, and I would much rather have a format that has the potential to grow faster (and most likely larger) in size.
Definitely agree, which is why I find it pointless to settle for a format that works for movies, but will not be as efficient with games or backup.
Normally I'd agree but seeing as how BD is not a sony format, I wouldn't be too worried. Sure they are involved (just like they were involved with CDs and DVDs), but it is a collaborative effort, and the competition from HD-DVD and DVD will keep them in check.
[quote name='Sarang01']I was referring to Lossless codec's INSTEAD of PCM. PCM right now is partially used by BR because the specs didn't include mandatory Lossless coding on players and that companies can waste the extra space BD50 yields to put PCM on the discs so they don't have to pay DTS or Dolby royalties for using their tech. And guess what? WE never see a lower price because of it, the asshole studios just pocket the extra profit. Whenever you cut costs, charge at the same price until you have to lower it.[/quote]I forget which one of the HD DVD guys said you don't have to pay a license for using TrueHD on a disc.
Can't remember the details though.
Can't remember the details though.
H.Cornerstone
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='dallow']I forget which one of the HD DVD guys said you don't have to pay a license for using TrueHD on a disc.
Can't remember the details though.[/quote]
I believe it was Geko who said you pay Dolby a certain amount of money and then you gain access to all of htier codecs. From what he said, you can't pick in choose, it's either all or nothing.
Can't remember the details though.[/quote]
I believe it was Geko who said you pay Dolby a certain amount of money and then you gain access to all of htier codecs. From what he said, you can't pick in choose, it's either all or nothing.
[quote name='Sarang01']I was referring to Lossless codec's INSTEAD of PCM. PCM right now is partially used by BR because the specs didn't include mandatory Lossless coding on players and that companies can waste the extra space BD50 yields to put PCM on the discs so they don't have to pay DTS or Dolby royalties for using their tech. And guess what? WE never see a lower price because of it, the asshole studios just pocket the extra profit. Whenever you cut costs, charge at the same price until you have to lower it.[/quote] They don't even save on royalties. Though it is TECHNICALLY within spec for a Blu-Ray to have PCM and no other soundtrack, in reality that has never once happened. There is ALWAYS a DD track, usually at 640kbps. And once you pay Dolby royalties for a title, you can use any of their codecs (DD, DD+, TrueHD) to make as many soundtracks as you like, for the low low additional cost of zero. The same goes for DTS. If you pay for a vanilla DTS soundtrack, it costs you nothing to include a DTS-HD or DTS-HD MA track as well.
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']I believe it was Geko who said you pay Dolby a certain amount of money and then you gain access to all of htier codecs. From what he said, you can't pick in choose, it's either all or nothing.[/quote]
LOL, teaches me to reply to a post before completely catching up with a thread. You're a good boy H.
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']I believe it was Geko who said you pay Dolby a certain amount of money and then you gain access to all of htier codecs. From what he said, you can't pick in choose, it's either all or nothing.[/quote]
LOL, teaches me to reply to a post before completely catching up with a thread. You're a good boy H.
propeller_head
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dpatel']Of course. For movies, it has already been proven that the 30GB HD-DVDs are enough. The only downside I can think of as far as movies are concerned is the fact that audio has to compressed for most movies to fit on one disc. Not a huge deal as it seems to make 0% to consumers, and really only SLIGHTLY affects the studios.
It seems most not concerned with the space disadvantage only seems to be thinking about these formats in terms of their movie capabilities. In that respect, I can see why the extra space won't matter. As a gamer first and a movie enthusiast second, I definitely see the value of more space seeing as how games will be (and already are being) used for games. Again, it will be a while before the extra space will be 'necessary', but, like all formats (and pretty much anything electronic), its limits will be reached, and I would much rather have a format that has the potential to grow faster (and most likely larger) in size.
Definitely agree, which is why I find it pointless to settle for a format that works for movies, but will not be as efficient with games or backup.
Normally I'd agree but seeing as how BD is not a sony format, I wouldn't be too worried. Sure they are involved (just like they were involved with CDs and DVDs), but it is a collaborative effort, and the competition from HD-DVD and DVD will keep them in check.[/quote] i agree w/ everything you said, except about sony not having control. sony did take part in CD & DVD but to a much lesser extent. sony owns much more of the rights to BD than they did to other formats (especially DVD where their tech integration was the minority). which means they have more control over licencing costs. personally, i think they would have to do something really stupid to screw up the PC market. but im not putting it beyond them:lol: time will tell
It seems most not concerned with the space disadvantage only seems to be thinking about these formats in terms of their movie capabilities. In that respect, I can see why the extra space won't matter. As a gamer first and a movie enthusiast second, I definitely see the value of more space seeing as how games will be (and already are being) used for games. Again, it will be a while before the extra space will be 'necessary', but, like all formats (and pretty much anything electronic), its limits will be reached, and I would much rather have a format that has the potential to grow faster (and most likely larger) in size.
Definitely agree, which is why I find it pointless to settle for a format that works for movies, but will not be as efficient with games or backup.
Normally I'd agree but seeing as how BD is not a sony format, I wouldn't be too worried. Sure they are involved (just like they were involved with CDs and DVDs), but it is a collaborative effort, and the competition from HD-DVD and DVD will keep them in check.[/quote] i agree w/ everything you said, except about sony not having control. sony did take part in CD & DVD but to a much lesser extent. sony owns much more of the rights to BD than they did to other formats (especially DVD where their tech integration was the minority). which means they have more control over licencing costs. personally, i think they would have to do something really stupid to screw up the PC market. but im not putting it beyond them:lol: time will tell
propeller_head
CAGiversary!
i know this doesnt have anything directly to do w/ the format war. but someone (Not naming names) who argued w/ me for more posts than i care to remember about how important and better HDMI was because it output 1080p and how toshibas HD-A2 player was inferior for outputting 1080i (what all movies are limited to over component, yes it does have HDMI too but keep in mind component is always limited to 1080i for HD movies on any player)
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/09/13/hdmi-vs-component/
http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/09/13/hdmi-vs-component/
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/2007/09/11/hdmi_vs_component/
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I recall arguing until the end of time about 1080p versus 1080i, but I don't recall arguing HDMI and component.
Then again, you may just have had a different argument with someone else.
Then again, you may just have had a different argument with someone else.
guyver2077
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
i occasionally have discussions with local idiots who wouldnt buy something because it doesnt have hdmi..or who are convinced that hdmi is loads better.. etc
mass media marketing has obviously gotten to them all
mass media marketing has obviously gotten to them all
propeller_head
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']I recall arguing until the end of time about 1080p versus 1080i, but I don't recall arguing HDMI and component.
Then again, you may just have had a different argument with someone else.[/quote]
well like i said im Not naming names, because honestly im way too tired to even begin to argue anything today.
ill just repeat what i said, that all players are limited to 1080i over component.
and this article addresses the lack of difference between component and HDMI for HD video.
Then again, you may just have had a different argument with someone else.[/quote]
well like i said im Not naming names, because honestly im way too tired to even begin to argue anything today.
ill just repeat what i said, that all players are limited to 1080i over component.
and this article addresses the lack of difference between component and HDMI for HD video.
propeller_head
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dallow']HDMI is better.
Why? HD Audio and HD video.
If you use component, you'll have to use the 6-8 channel analog outs for quality audio.
That's how many cables now with a 7.1 setup?
11?
And since they're analog, they better be quality cables. Even more $$$.[/quote]
HDMI is more convienant, not better. there is a difference
if u think it's techincally better, take it up w/ the author of the article. but theres a reason really high end home theaters run component, it doesnt use twisted pair; which means the signal degrades less over distance.
Why? HD Audio and HD video.
If you use component, you'll have to use the 6-8 channel analog outs for quality audio.
That's how many cables now with a 7.1 setup?
11?
And since they're analog, they better be quality cables. Even more $$$.[/quote]
HDMI is more convienant, not better. there is a difference
if u think it's techincally better, take it up w/ the author of the article. but theres a reason really high end home theaters run component, it doesnt use twisted pair; which means the signal degrades less over distance.
It's a digital signal...
They do have boosters for the signal as well as it does have a cut off point.
But I've seen 50foot HDMI cables carry video and audio no problem.
I can't say for the same for some analog cables.
At some point, you will lose the picture. Then you know you need a booster.
With analog, the picture just degrades gradually.
They do have boosters for the signal as well as it does have a cut off point.
But I've seen 50foot HDMI cables carry video and audio no problem.
I can't say for the same for some analog cables.
At some point, you will lose the picture. Then you know you need a booster.
With analog, the picture just degrades gradually.
H.Cornerstone
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
After going from a 1080i to a 1080p TV, I can definitaly say that 1080p>>>>>1080i. And HDMI's cables are really cheap, and if you have a PS3 or 360, are cheaper than the component, and can get you better picture quality. So, if you have a 1080p TV, HDMI is definitaly the way to go.
And geko, I usually remember things you say because I am so shocked to see a HD-DVD fan boy with logical reasons for liking the format and facts to back it up.
And geko, I usually remember things you say because I am so shocked to see a HD-DVD fan boy with logical reasons for liking the format and facts to back it up.
And BDA goes into spin mode once again, this time against the new 51GB HD-DVD.
http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertai...nds-to-51gb-hd-dvd-claims?articleid=722237102
Yeah, 15 times 3 is 45 not 51 How is that possible?!? HOW DO YOU MAKE 45 INTO 51??? VOODOO? It's completely impossible that they could have come up with a way to fit more data on to the same layer. Also I have heard nothing about a production line for this odd format even though it was just approved by the DVD Forum less than 2 weeks ago. Plus there is no way that this odd disc will ever work on current players (please ignore the giant elephant in our room)
Looks like this was another surprise that the BDA had no idea about even though, unlike the Paramount deal, there has been rumblings about it for months.
http://www.tech.co.uk/home-entertai...nds-to-51gb-hd-dvd-claims?articleid=722237102
Yeah, 15 times 3 is 45 not 51
How is that possible?!? HOW DO YOU MAKE 45 INTO 51??? VOODOO? It's completely impossible that they could have come up with a way to fit more data on to the same layer. Also I have heard nothing about a production line for this odd format even though it was just approved by the DVD Forum less than 2 weeks ago. Plus there is no way that this odd disc will ever work on current players (please ignore the giant elephant in our room)Looks like this was another surprise that the BDA had no idea about even though, unlike the Paramount deal, there has been rumblings about it for months.
[quote name='dallow']Who cares.[/QUOTE]
The head of the BDA being a stupid smug hypocritical asshole while doing the association's trademark spin maneuver?
I care because it brings a smile to my face. This announcement must have really rattled their cage for them to respond like this.
[quote name='dallow']In other news, I was pissed off yesterday at Frys that I couldn't buy Wings of Hommmenanaefjerje (yeah yeah) on BD without buying it with the DVD.
Why in the world would they package them together......?[/QUOTE]
So they can justify their ass-raping price.
I plan on just renting it from Blockbuster Online like I did for Freedom Vol. 1
The head of the BDA being a stupid smug hypocritical asshole while doing the association's trademark spin maneuver?
I care because it brings a smile to my face. This announcement must have really rattled their cage for them to respond like this.
[quote name='dallow']In other news, I was pissed off yesterday at Frys that I couldn't buy Wings of Hommmenanaefjerje (yeah yeah) on BD without buying it with the DVD.
Why in the world would they package them together......?[/QUOTE]
So they can justify their ass-raping price.
I plan on just renting it from Blockbuster Online like I did for Freedom Vol. 1
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='dallow']It's a digital signal...[/QUOTE]
You can achieve the exact same thing as HDMI with DVI + TOSlink audio.
Again, HDMI is NOT better in any way shape or form, just more convenient.
You can achieve the exact same thing as HDMI with DVI + TOSlink audio.
Again, HDMI is NOT better in any way shape or form, just more convenient.
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']You can achieve the exact same thing as HDMI with DVI + TOSlink audio.
Again, HDMI is NOT better in any way shape or form, just more convenient.[/quote]I said HD audio fool.
Don't give that DD crap.
To Sporadic.
I think I'll do the same, thanks.
Again, HDMI is NOT better in any way shape or form, just more convenient.[/quote]I said HD audio fool.
Don't give that DD crap.
To Sporadic.
I think I'll do the same, thanks.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='dallow']I said HD audio fool.
Don't give that DD crap.[/QUOTE]
Ah, right, for the 1% percent of people who claim to be able to tell the difference (and 90% of them are just fooling themselves).
Don't give that DD crap.[/QUOTE]
Ah, right, for the 1% percent of people who claim to be able to tell the difference (and 90% of them are just fooling themselves).
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Ah, right, for the 1% percent of people who claim to be able to tell the difference (and 90% of them are just fooling themselves).[/quote]Haha.
Sure. No difference between a lossy audio track and a lossless one.
Until you hear it, you'll never know what you've been missing out on.
DD sounds great, but PCM/TrueHD, is mana.
There's only two members here that I know have lossless setups. Geko, and myself.
You can get an HD audio capable recevier now for less than $300.
So yeah, like I said. HDMI is better.
Sure. No difference between a lossy audio track and a lossless one.
Until you hear it, you'll never know what you've been missing out on.
DD sounds great, but PCM/TrueHD, is mana.
There's only two members here that I know have lossless setups. Geko, and myself.
You can get an HD audio capable recevier now for less than $300.
So yeah, like I said. HDMI is better.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='dallow']Haha.
Sure. No difference between a lossy audio track and a lossless one.
Until you hear it, you'll never know what you've been missing out on.
DD sounds great, but PCM/TrueHD, is mana.[/QUOTE]
You're talking to a closet audiophile, and I've heard the comparisons firsthand (between my own equipment with "lossy" things, and the equipment of an idiot friend of mine who knows jack shit about A/V equipment, other than to buy the most expensive he can find, with "lossless" stuff).
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the perceived difference between lossless and (only very minimally lossy) audio is based almost entirely on the Placebo Effect, which, unfortunately, is impossible to disprove to an affected individual, due to their preconceived notions.
Not necessarily accusing you of falling into this category, but this is how I think it is most of the time, and I see it a lot.
Then again, hell, just to be totally fair, it can also work the other way around, and be that I've just preconceived a belief that there isn't a difference. But personally, I don't think that's the case (of course).
I also don't really care for the term "lossless." Sound loses something from the second it hits a microphone, if you want to be nit-picky.
Sure. No difference between a lossy audio track and a lossless one.
Until you hear it, you'll never know what you've been missing out on.
DD sounds great, but PCM/TrueHD, is mana.[/QUOTE]
You're talking to a closet audiophile, and I've heard the comparisons firsthand (between my own equipment with "lossy" things, and the equipment of an idiot friend of mine who knows jack shit about A/V equipment, other than to buy the most expensive he can find, with "lossless" stuff).
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the perceived difference between lossless and (only very minimally lossy) audio is based almost entirely on the Placebo Effect, which, unfortunately, is impossible to disprove to an affected individual, due to their preconceived notions.
Not necessarily accusing you of falling into this category, but this is how I think it is most of the time, and I see it a lot.
Then again, hell, just to be totally fair, it can also work the other way around, and be that I've just preconceived a belief that there isn't a difference. But personally, I don't think that's the case (of course).
I also don't really care for the term "lossless." Sound loses something from the second it hits a microphone, if you want to be nit-picky.
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']You're talking to a closet audiophile, and I've heard the comparisons firsthand (between my own equipment with "lossy" things, and the equipment of an idiot friend of mine who knows jack shit about A/V equipment, other than to buy the most expensive he can find, with "lossless" stuff).
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the perceived difference between lossless and (only very minimally lossy) audio is based almost entirely on the Placebo Effect, which, unfortunately, is impossible to disprove to an affected individual, due to their preconceived notions.
Not necessarily accusing you of falling into this category, but this is how I think it is most of the time, and I see it a lot.
Then again, hell, just to be totally fair, it can also work the other way around, and be that I've just preconceived a belief that there isn't a difference. But personally, I don't think that's the case (of course).
I also don't really care for the term "lossless." Sound loses something from the second it hits a microphone, if you want to be nit-picky.[/quote]DD isn't just lossy, it's been treated with diffent kinds of effects to enhance it's compressed bitrate, and enhance the surround experience.
Believe me, I care about how stuff sounds. I'd rather have HD audio than an HDTV.
I have thousands of CDs, and my DVD-A and SACD collections grow whenever I find something worth listening to.
The different is bigger than mp3 vs CD, it's more like mp3 vs SACD.
I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the perceived difference between lossless and (only very minimally lossy) audio is based almost entirely on the Placebo Effect, which, unfortunately, is impossible to disprove to an affected individual, due to their preconceived notions.
Not necessarily accusing you of falling into this category, but this is how I think it is most of the time, and I see it a lot.
Then again, hell, just to be totally fair, it can also work the other way around, and be that I've just preconceived a belief that there isn't a difference. But personally, I don't think that's the case (of course).
I also don't really care for the term "lossless." Sound loses something from the second it hits a microphone, if you want to be nit-picky.[/quote]DD isn't just lossy, it's been treated with diffent kinds of effects to enhance it's compressed bitrate, and enhance the surround experience.
Believe me, I care about how stuff sounds. I'd rather have HD audio than an HDTV.
I have thousands of CDs, and my DVD-A and SACD collections grow whenever I find something worth listening to.
The different is bigger than mp3 vs CD, it's more like mp3 vs SACD.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='dallow']DD isn't just lossy, it's been treated with diffent kinds of effects to enhance it's compressed bitrate, and enhance the surround experience.[/quote]
Wow, so DD is treated to "enhance the surround experience," that sounds pretty cool! You're making it sound better all the time.
[quote name='dallow']I have thousands of CDs, and my DVD-A and SACD collections grow whenever I find something worth listening to.[/quote]
LOL, you want to have a music-collection-size battle or something? Is that what you're using to justify your position as an "expert"? Don't worry, I have just as many, I'm sure.
And DVD-A and SACD are really only useful for live jazz recordings.
[quote name='dallow']The different is bigger than mp3 vs CD, it's more like mp3 vs SACD.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, you'reing delusional.
Wow, so DD is treated to "enhance the surround experience," that sounds pretty cool! You're making it sound better all the time.
[quote name='dallow']I have thousands of CDs, and my DVD-A and SACD collections grow whenever I find something worth listening to.[/quote]
LOL, you want to have a music-collection-size battle or something? Is that what you're using to justify your position as an "expert"? Don't worry, I have just as many, I'm sure.
And DVD-A and SACD are really only useful for live jazz recordings.
[quote name='dallow']The different is bigger than mp3 vs CD, it's more like mp3 vs SACD.[/QUOTE]
Holy shit, you're
ing delusional.I'll add this.
My favorite thing about PCM/TrueHD is just how much more you hear.
I described this before but.
There was a scene in which a character walked across a wooden floor to answer the door.
With DD5.1, I could hear him step and his shoes hit the wood.
With PCM, I could hear every creak as he leaned in and out of his steps.
I tried turning up the volume on DD but those sounds are just plain missing!
It's little things like this that make for an overall much more enthralling experience.
These 'effects' are not cool, they're bad for the sound.
Ok, I see you were lying about being anything close to a fellow audiophile.
Should have known.
My favorite thing about PCM/TrueHD is just how much more you hear.
I described this before but.
There was a scene in which a character walked across a wooden floor to answer the door.
With DD5.1, I could hear him step and his shoes hit the wood.
With PCM, I could hear every creak as he leaned in and out of his steps.
I tried turning up the volume on DD but those sounds are just plain missing!
It's little things like this that make for an overall much more enthralling experience.
Ok, obviously you have no idea what I'm talking about since I'm referring to DD (Dolby Digital) which is lossy.
These 'effects' are not cool, they're bad for the sound.
More proof. Ugh.
Ok, I see you were lying about being anything close to a fellow audiophile.
Should have known.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='dallow']There was a scene in which a character walked across a wooden floor to answer the door.
With DD5.1, I could hear him step and his shoes hit the wood.
With PCM, I could hear every creak as he leaned in and out of his steps.
I tried turning up the volume on DD but those sounds are just plain missing![/QUOTE]
You'reing dense if you think that this is only possible because of lossless audio.
[quote name='noob']More proof. Ugh.
Ok, I see you were lying about being anything close to a fellow audiophile.
Should have known.[/quote]
Statistically, most of the SACD/DVD-A releases have been Jazz recordings. And classical. My bad, more than half the releases are classical.
Ugh, you're such aing noob.
With DD5.1, I could hear him step and his shoes hit the wood.
With PCM, I could hear every creak as he leaned in and out of his steps.
I tried turning up the volume on DD but those sounds are just plain missing![/QUOTE]
You're
ing dense if you think that this is only possible because of lossless audio.[quote name='noob']More proof. Ugh.
Ok, I see you were lying about being anything close to a fellow audiophile.
Should have known.[/quote]
Statistically, most of the SACD/DVD-A releases have been Jazz recordings. And classical. My bad, more than half the releases are classical.
Ugh, you're such a
ing noob.[quote name='CoffeeEdge']You're ing dense if you think that this is only possible because of lossless audio.[/quote]Of course not idiot!
The more subtle effects they used in recording show up in lossless recordings.
Of course you can hear creaks in compressed formats, but in this particular film, you CAN'T.
That's the whole points.
Certain things are lost, you never know what until you hear it.
ing dense if you think that this is only possible because of lossless audio.[/quote]Of course not idiot!The more subtle effects they used in recording show up in lossless recordings.
Of course you can hear creaks in compressed formats, but in this particular film, you CAN'T.
That's the whole points.
Certain things are lost, you never know what until you hear it.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='dallow']Of course not idiot!
The more subtle effects they used in recording show up in lossless recordings.
Of course you can hear creaks in compressed formats, but in this particular film, you CAN'T.[/QUOTE]
That's because whoever was the audio technician for that release didn't do his job right.
The more subtle effects they used in recording show up in lossless recordings.
Of course you can hear creaks in compressed formats, but in this particular film, you CAN'T.[/QUOTE]
That's because whoever was the audio technician for that release didn't do his job right.
CoffeeEdge
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='dallow']No shit. But you said they're ONLY GOOD for that.[/QUOTE]
ZOMG, hyperbole, do you understand it?
Actually, that was my bad. Statistically, most of the releases are classical, the next biggest group being jazz, and then a comparitively tiny, tiny group of pop releases.
Why the am I wasting my time with you? Oi, placebo audio nutjobs. Another ignore.
ZOMG, hyperbole, do you understand it?
Actually, that was my bad. Statistically, most of the releases are classical, the next biggest group being jazz, and then a comparitively tiny, tiny group of pop releases.
Why the
am I wasting my time with you? Oi, placebo audio nutjobs. Another ignore.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
I swear to God he tries to start shit in every thread.
- Status
bread's done