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

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='geko29']It's shattering the sales records made by the GameCube.....except, it isn't. :lol:

I'm not a fan of VGchartz, but their last few weeks have the PS3 selling a bit under 30k units/week, as opposed to say the 360 selling 120-130k/week (a bit high due to Halo3, obviously) or the Wii doing roughly 100k/week (pretty much normal at this point. 30k is an improvement over the 20k it had been doing the previous 8 months, I will admit that. But it ain't exactly flying off the shelves, relatively speaking.

We'll find out for sure in a week or so how close those numbers are when the NPD report for September comes out. If it does in fact come back as 120k for the month, that will turn out to be a record--for PS3 sales in 2007, at least--but still not something to be proud of.[/QUOTE]

I was being sarcastic: gizmo remarked that the HD DVD sales were high because people loved the $200 pricepoint...except that HD DVD players AREN'T $200 at the moment. That was my point.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I was being sarcastic: gizmo remarked that the HD DVD sales were high because people loved the $200 pricepoint...except that HD DVD players AREN'T $200 at the moment. That was my point.[/QUOTE]

The fact that Xbox 360 HD DVD AO is $200 (well, $180 as of a few weeks ago), means people would purchase HD DVD players for $200. If the 360 HD DVD AO is selling BETTER and has sold MORE then all Blu-ray stand alones...well...people like the $200 price point.

But hey, I'm sure PS3 will sell dozens of systems this month! Dozens!
 
Yeah, you're all good. The PS3 will re-encode everything into a codec your receiver supports. I believe you have the choice of either DD or DTS, but I don't have a PS3, so I don't know for sure. Make sure you set the optical output for "bitstream" and not "PCM".
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']The fact that Xbox 360 HD DVD AO is $200 (well, $180 as of a few weeks ago), means people would purchase HD DVD players for $200. If the 360 HD DVD AO is selling BETTER and has sold MORE then all Blu-ray stand alones...well...people like the $200 price point.[/QUOTE]

Except for the fact that the month or so when BR standalones were outselling HD DVD standalones happened after the HD DVD drop to $179. Which would mean, unfortunately, that you've dived headfirst into another inescapable tautological argument: that being, evidently people like the $200 price point...except when they don't. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Except for the fact that the month or so when BR standalones were outselling HD DVD standalones happened after the HD DVD drop to $179. Which would mean, unfortunately, that you've dived headfirst into another inescapable tautological argument: that being, evidently people like the $200 price point...except when they don't. ;)[/QUOTE]

It actually wasn't 'a month'. It was a few weeks, not an entire month (All of September for example). Still, means that the $179/$199 360 HD DVD AO has sold better then all Blu-ray stand alones overall. Hilarious.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which, of course, means that the 360 add-on price is very enticing to consumers, except when it isn't.

Quite a novel argument on your part.[/QUOTE]

What does that mean?
Fact: 360 HD DVD AO has sold more then all standalone Blu-ray Players

Please, tell me how it 'isnt enticing to consumers'. Blu-ray stand alones had a 4-5 months head start before the 360 AO came out...yet the AO has sold more units. Those blu-tinted glasses must hurt sometime.
 
Looks like Wal-Mart has landed a sub $200 HD DVD Player. The Toshiba A2 is now coming into stores for $198. My local Wal-Mart, which has never carried an HD/BR player before (and only a handful of random movies) had 1 HD-A2W (Wal-Mart branded) player for $198 which was being sold to someone. Apparently, according to other AVSers, other Wal-Marts are getting them in to. My other Wal-Mart has yet to get the A2W in as of Thursday when I stopped in.

Apparently the item number: 564786/570634 will tell you if you're store has them or when they are getting them in. One employee noted that he should begetting 17 A2W's in the next few days. Looks like the Target/Sony deal just got fucked if this is true. I'll wait for more conformation from other people first.

The A3 has also arrived at Wal-Mart for $298. Looks good...but I'll stick with my A2 for a bit longer.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://www.twice.com/article/CA6488779.html?nid=2402-

Aww...no poor, poor $250 HD DVD player.

1010072146.jpg


:lol: Makes me remember what it looked like when I would shop for Macintosh software.[/QUOTE]

I kinda laughed when I went to Formatcentral.com. You forgot to include these two pictures

1010072153.jpg

1010072154.jpg


Wow. What an IMPRESSIVE setup there Target! You have a dozen movies ona shelf along with a non-functioning Blu-ray player showing off...the $500 pricetag? Honestly, I hope this is just the exception and other stores show it off correctly. This is just plain sad.

After all the hubbub when Target announced they would only be carrying Blu-ray stand alone players. We wonder if Sony is getting their money’s worth. Some Target stores are now rolling out the Sony Blu-ray end caps to selected stores. Also the same stores are expanding their Blu-ray/HD DVD movie sections. The Blu-ray section is now 23 movies wide by 5 movies high (up from 4 x 5), the HD DVD section is now 7 movies wide by 5 movies high (up from 2 x 5). One other thing had us scratching our head, the Sony Blu-ray end cap had no display device, a nonfunctional player, and no players available for sale.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='geko29']Yeah, you're all good. The PS3 will re-encode everything into a codec your receiver supports. I believe you have the choice of either DD or DTS, but I don't have a PS3, so I don't know for sure. Make sure you set the optical output for "bitstream" and not "PCM".[/quote]

I learned that one the hard way. :)
 
Damn, all the BD sales going on this week are ridiculous!

Best Buy, Frys, Circuit City, Target, Amazon

All doing buy 1 get 1 free on many titles.

Start buying them up Gizmo!
 
[quote name='dallow']Damn, all the BD sales going on this week are ridiculous!

Best Buy, Frys, Circuit City, Target, Amazon

All doing buy 1 get 1 free on many titles.

Start buying them up Gizmo![/QUOTE]
Already bought 4 movies from Frys. Done for the week. I'll wait for the next fire sale
 
[quote name='dallow']Damn, all the BD sales going on this week are ridiculous!

Best Buy, Frys, Circuit City, Target, Amazon

All doing buy 1 get 1 free on many titles.

Start buying them up Gizmo![/quote]

Target has a Blu-ray sale?
 
I seen something interesting in a local Sam's club. They had a couple of stacks of the Sony $499 player (of course they were selling it for 498.98) and several BR titles. Yet the only HD player they had was the HD add-on for the 360 and had no HD titles. My local WallyWorld has both BR and HD titles now, not many and they carry BR probably 7 to 1 against HD. My question is what happened to the rumors that WallyWorld was going to be HD exclusive? I guess once again they can care less as long as they can make a buck they will sell whatever.
 
[quote name='millrat1030']I seen something interesting in a local Sam's club. They had a couple of stacks of the Sony $499 player (of course they were selling it for 498.98) and several BR titles. Yet the only HD player they had was the HD add-on for the 360 and had no HD titles. My local WallyWorld has both BR and HD titles now, not many and they carry BR probably 7 to 1 against HD. My question is what happened to the rumors that WallyWorld was going to be HD exclusive? I guess once again they can care less as long as they can make a buck they will sell whatever.[/QUOTE]

Please see my post a few up. Wal-Marts are now getting in A2's for $198. Sams Club has been hit and miss with both formats. Some have only Blu-ray, some only HD DVD, some both, some none. They are very YMMV.
 
[quote name='dallow']I noticed in the Transformers review that it is AVC MPEG-4.
Are most HD DVDs going away from VC-1 into MP4 now?[/QUOTE]

Beats me. Its getting 5/5 ratings on Video and Sound, reference quality for both. Funny, I thought 30GB just couldn't must that? :cool:
 
[quote name='dallow']I noticed in the Transformers review that it is AVC MPEG-4.
Are most HD DVDs going away from VC-1 into MP4 now?[/QUOTE]

No, most of Paramount's releases are in AVC.

Nothing really new.
 
I see, though Paramount is up to their old tricks again and using only DD+ and not TrueHD (albeit at 1.5mbps).

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/transformers.html
Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality.
Click to expand...
Although it still sounds EXCELLENT I'm sure. I'd rather studios be able to be as robust in their HD offerings as possible.

However I know only Geko here has the equipment to tell the difference anyway. Ya bastard! ;)
 
[quote name='Sporadic']No, most of Paramount's releases are in AVC.

Nothing really new.[/quote]
Actually it is (relatively) new. They switched over to AVC in late June. In the ~15 months prior to that, they only released 4 titles in AVC:
August 8,2006 U2: Rattle and Hum
February 20, 2007 Babel
April 10, 2007 Payback: Straight Up
May 22, 2007 Freedom Writers

22 of the 26 titles released before June 26th were VC-1.
 
[quote name='dallow']I see, though Paramount is up to their old tricks again and using only DD+ and not TrueHD (albeit at 1.5mbps).

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/transformers.html

Although it still sounds EXCELLENT I'm sure. I'd rather studios be able to be as robust in their HD offerings as possible.

However I know only Geko here has the equipment to tell the difference anyway. Ya bastard! ;)[/QUOTE]

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=30988
Although Paramount has used lossless audio on a few of their other releases, the space of everything they wanted to include in this set meant that instead of including a Dolby True HD or a DTS-HD MA track, they went for a Dolby Digital Plus track encoded at 1.5 mbps. There's been a lot of buzz about the difference between 1.5 mbps DD+ and Dolby True HD, with many knowledgeable people saying that there is no audible difference even on professional equipment, while others claim to be able to hear the difference right in their own homes. I was very vocal about my outrage that Transformers, which aims to be a benchmark HD DVD, does not feature a lossless track of any kind. But now, having heard the audio for myself, I can understand why professional film mixers, HD DVD technical directors, and more claim that the difference is negligible.

Put simply, this 5.1 Dolby Digital Plus rocks hard. The level of aural detail is most impressive. I could hear every click and whine of the transforming parts, the grinding of metal when the robots fought, and even the startup sound of the 360 when it comes alive. During big action sequences, the surrounds were often used to assault the senses, but I noticed that the mixers would often use the rears for isolated sounds that they wanted to highlight, such as Frenzy's gibbering when he's on Air Force One. The bass has to be felt to be believed. At times it was so thunderous that I thought it might actually affect my bowels. Everything about this track just screams "REFERENCE!" and it holds up easily to the best PCM and True HD mixes that I have heard. Call me a doubter no more.
Click to expand...

http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/1110/transformers.html
When audio specs for 'Transformers' were announced, there was a collective sigh of disappointment from early adopters when we learned that there would be no high-res audio tracks included on this disc. Given that this is such a flagship title for the studio, the decision was quite the head-scratcher.

Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality.

That said, it is hard to imagine any film taking a Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround track to its zenith better than 'Transformers.' This is one highly-aggressive experience. Discrete effects are constant and pounding, but the lack of subtlety here is exactly what fans want. Directionality, imaging, accuracy of localized effects, and the sheer depth of the soundfield are all fantastic stuff. Even the front soundstage is a stunner -- stereo effects are quite pronounced, and when the sounds ping-pong (as they do just about any time a robot transforms), it's just as cool as the first time you heard that lightsaber effect in 'Star Wars.' If I had had this disc when I was a twelve year-old kid, I don't I would have stopped playing it for months.

Also top-notch are all technical aspects of the mix. As you would expect, this is the kind of disc your subwoofer will devour. Even at moderate volume levels I was blown away by the sheer low frequencies churned out by my poor sub. Whether you're talking about the opening attack, the sequence with that weird sand Decepticon in the desert, or any sequence during the film's last 30 minutes, there's such a sustained low bass presence that it's almost like it's another character in the movie. The realism and texture to every sound -- from the effects to the score to the dialogue -- is pitch perfect. Volume issues are also, thankfully, not a problem -- I was truly shocked that I didn't have to reach for my remote once, as dialogue is leveled nicely throughout.

Note that although I'm giving this audio mix five stars, that doesn't mean I agree with Paramount's decision to forgo high-res audio on this title. Without a TrueHD or PCM mix to compare this one to, there's no way of telling how much better such a track might have been, but based on the upgrade I've seen with other titles, I'm guessing a high-res mix could well have trounced this one. That's not to take anything away from this truly exceptional mix, but this is one case where I think you truly can improve upon perfection.
Click to expand...

Not too worried about the sound ;)
 
Yeah, I pretty much said that.
As well as posted that second link.

Note that although I'm giving this audio mix five stars, that doesn't mean I agree with Paramount's decision to forgo high-res audio on this title.
Click to expand...
This is what I agree with most, would give up that second disk to have it.

PQ and AQ are the only important things.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Yeah, the fire sale is damage control for Transformers tomorrow.[/QUOTE]

Then they probably would have started the sale yesterday instead of Friday, so as to cluster ALL of the sales in the same week, no?

The gap gets larger the more you expand the list In the top 100 selling hidef videos, *80* of them are Blu-Ray. Of the top 50 selling hidef discs, 45 are Blu-Ray.

:lol:

I still firmly believe that Amazon rankings don't matter, but it *will* be funny to see Gizmo scramble to disregard them now that they show such substantial favor towards Blu-Ray. It looks like the entire format war is "Blu-Ray" on one side, and "Transformers" on the other.

Face it: if HD DVD can't outsell Blu-Ray this week, you'll NEVER be able to outsell them. I know that the HD kids are scared of the possibility.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Then they probably would have started the sale yesterday instead of Friday, so as to cluster ALL of the sales in the same week, no?

The gap gets larger the more you expand the list In the top 100 selling hidef videos, *80* of them are Blu-Ray. Of the top 50 selling hidef discs, 45 are Blu-Ray.

:lol:

I still firmly believe that Amazon rankings don't matter, but it *will* be funny to see Gizmo scramble to disregard them now that they show such substantial favor towards Blu-Ray. It looks like the entire format war is "Blu-Ray" on one side, and "Transformers" on the other.

Face it: if HD DVD can't outsell Blu-Ray this week, you'll NEVER be able to outsell them. I know that the HD kids are scared of the possibility.[/QUOTE]

Most deals started Sunday. Fry's only started Friday as thats when their big ad hits. You should know that by now :roll:

I would have never guessed those movies would be so high on Amazon with most of them being $10-$15 either. Wow, gee, what a surprise. When was the last time POTC was that high?

Still waiting for responses to some of my above posts. $198 A2s at Wal-Mart. You're 'selective picture posting' of the Q4 Target...C'mon buddy.

I don't think HD DVD fanboys are that scared. You seem to forget you're chosen format lost an entire Studio. We have not. You're format has 10x the amount of players in homes and can barley muster a better then 60/40 most weeks. Sad.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Most deals started Sunday. Fry's only started Friday as thats when their big ad hits. You should know that by now :roll:[/quote]

I should? Why? I've never ordered from Fry's before, so why should I know about the sales patterns of stores I don't purchase from?

I would have never guessed those movies would be so high on Amazon with most of them being $10-$15 either. Wow, gee, what a surprise. When was the last time POTC was that high?
Click to expand...

You're pretty good at skirting the issue. Imagine if a catalog HD DVD title showed up in the top 10! You'd bake a fuckin' birthday cake for it!

Still waiting for responses to some of my above posts. $198 A2s at Wal-Mart. You're 'selective picture posting' of the Q4 Target...C'mon buddy.
Click to expand...

I don't have a reaction to $198 A2s at Wal-Mart. I'll wait until sales figures show how they do before I have a reaction.

As for "selective" photos, you're insinuating things that aren't true. Somehow I'm biased towards Blu-Ray because I didn't show EVEN MORE SHELF SPACE that BR gets? Or a standalone product not hooked up to a TV? Now, if I had avoided posting a picture of one that had crashed/broken, you may be onto something, but as is typical, grasping at straws is your forte.

I don't think HD DVD fanboys are that scared. You seem to forget you're chosen format lost an entire Studio. We have not. You're format has 10x the amount of players in homes and can barley muster a better then 60/40 most weeks. Sad.
Click to expand...

:lol: You say "lost" as if Paramount left because they preferred 40% of the market to 100%, and not that they were wooed by $150 million.

Barley? When did this become a conversation on beer?

Yes, yes, Blu-Ray is 66% for the year, just so you know...so in order to break even, HD DVD has to DOUBLE the sales of every disc sold this year. If you think that's sad, well...then you ought to be a bit more restricted on your perpetually ironic use of the word "fanboy."
 
The question is which looks better, Spider man 3 or Transformers...

and I always though AVC > VC-1 but still interesting Paramount chose to go with though seeing how most HD-DVD's are VC-1. Either way, I think the movie has more to do with PQ than the codec, As Crank was done with Crappy mpeg 2 on a 25gb disc and still looked awesome. Why can't more movies be filmed with 1080p 24fps hi-def cameras? :(
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I should? Why? I've never ordered from Fry's before, so why should I know about the sales patterns of stores I don't purchase from?



You're pretty good at skirting the issue. Imagine if a catalog HD DVD title showed up in the top 10! You'd bake a fuckin' birthday cake for it!



I don't have a reaction to $198 A2s at Wal-Mart. I'll wait until sales figures show how they do before I have a reaction.

As for "selective" photos, you're insinuating things that aren't true. Somehow I'm biased towards Blu-Ray because I didn't show EVEN MORE SHELF SPACE that BR gets? Or a standalone product not hooked up to a TV? Now, if I had avoided posting a picture of one that had crashed/broken, you may be onto something, but as is typical, grasping at straws is your forte.



:lol: You say "lost" as if Paramount left because they preferred 40% of the market to 100%, and not that they were wooed by $150 million.

Barley? When did this become a conversation on beer?

Yes, yes, Blu-Ray is 66% for the year, just so you know...so in order to break even, HD DVD has to DOUBLE the sales of every disc sold this year. If you think that's sad, well...then you ought to be a bit more restricted on your perpetually ironic use of the word "fanboy."[/QUOTE]

Spin, Spin, Spin.
LOVE IT!
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']The question is which looks better, Spider man 3 or Transformers...

and I always though AVC > VC-1 but still interesting Paramount chose to go with though seeing how most HD-DVD's are VC-1. Either way, I think the movie has more to do with PQ than the codec, As Crank was done with Crappy mpeg 2 on a 25gb disc and still looked awesome. Why can't more movies be filmed with 1080p 24fps hi-def cameras? :([/QUOTE]

No THANK you! I want film's shot in 35 mm. film if at ALL possible financially. You see "I", unlike you, actually plan on buying these film's down the road at 4000x2000 res. as will be available eventually in the future.
Have you thought of changing your username to Motor Ed btw? I think it would be PERFECT considering how your avatar looks.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']The question is which looks better, Spider man 3 or Transformers...[/quote]
I guess we'll know in a month. But hopefully they did a good job on Spiderman 1 and 2 as well, because 3 was a travesty. :)

[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Either way, I think the movie has more to do with PQ than the codec, As Crank was done with Crappy mpeg 2 on a 25gb disc and still looked awesome.[/quote]
Actually Crank is on a BD50, and takes up 49.9GB of the disc. If it didn't have "PiP", necessitating a 2nd complete copy of the film, and they cut a few extras it might have fit on a BD25, because the movie itself is only 21.3GB, plus another 7.4GB of extras.
 
[quote name='geko29']I guess we'll know in a month. But hopefully they did a good job on Spiderman 1 and 2 as well, because 3 was a travesty. :)


Actually Crank is on a BD50, and takes up 49.9GB of the disc. If it didn't have "PiP", necessitating a 2nd complete copy of the film, and they cut a few extras it might have fit on a BD25, because the movie itself is only 21.3GB, plus another 7.4GB of extras.[/quote]
According to everything I have read, spider 1 and 2 look awesome as well. And I didn't think SPider-man 3 was THAT bad. And your right, I always thought Crank was bd-25 since it was an earlier movie, but didn't realize it came out after bd-50, that would explain why it looks so awesome as mpeg2 is uncompressed as far as I know... Either way, Why can't more movies be shot with hi-def cameras? :cry:

Well, by the time 4000x2000 resolution is available (which is completely unncessary because the human eye cant tell the difference anyways) the film will have degraded so much it wouldn't look very good, hence why they have to "digitally remaster" them. You ever wonder why old movies don't look as good as newer ones? Either way, to this day Crank is still my favorite transfer ever, even more so than POTC, mainly because it's 1.85:1 and just looks stunning.

And Motor Ed? You'd better not be dissing Dimebag Darrell!
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']According to everything I have read, spider 1 and 2 look awesome as well. And your right, I always thought Crank was bd-25 since it was an earlier movie, but didn't realize it came out after bd-50, that would explain why it looks so awesome as mpeg2 is uncompressed as far as I know... Either way, Why can't more movies be shot with hi-def cameras? :cry:

Well, by the time 4000x2000 resolution is available (which is completely unncessary because the human eye cant tell the difference anyways) the film will have degraded so much it wouldn't look very good, hence why they have to "digitally remaster" them. You ever wonder why old movies don't look as good as newer ones? Either way, to this day Crank is still my favorite transfer ever, even more so than POTC, mainly because it's 1.85:1 just looks stunning.[/QUOTE]

You know Warner is already making 4000x2000 masters right Motor Ed?
 
[quote name='Sarang01']You know Warner is already making 4000x2000 masters right Motor Ed?[/quote]
But why? TV's can't display it, and there is no media that could store it, seems extremely superfluous to me. And seeing how there is the argument that the human eye can't even tell the difference between 1080p and 720p, when is someone going to tell the difference between those two? Seems to me it's only use would be for people with projectors in their house.

And please link a story that shows warner is working on these masters, First off, the ratio doesn't match as it's 2:1 which I don't think any display device does, and 2nd, I googled it and didn't find anything.

EDIT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema
found something on wikipedia about a 4000 x 2000 resolution which will only be used for Digital Projectors in move theaters, so again unless you have a projector in your house, don't see how this would be useful. ANd considering how one of the required resolutions for these Digital Projectors in a movie theater is 2048 X 1080 (or essentially 1080p), 1080p digital cameras would work fine, or other digital cameras that have higher resolution. Either way, Digital > Film in my mind.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']that would explain why it looks so awesome as mpeg2 is uncompressed as far as I know... [/quote]
No, MPEG-2 is the name of a compression algorithm. The full uncompressed size of Crank would be just over 1 terabyte, not including audio.

[quote name='H.Cornerstone'] Well, by the time 4000x2000 resolution is available (which is completely unncessary because the human eye cant tell the difference anyways) the film will have degraded so much it wouldn't look very good, hence why they have to "digitally remaster" them. You ever wonder why old movies don't look as good as newer ones?[/quote]
You really need to check out The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), The Searchers (1956), Casablanca (1942), Grand Prix (1966), or The Thing (1982). They all look AMAZING. Granted only one of them is available on Blu-Ray (The Searchers), but you really should see how incredible a 51-year movie can look.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']But why? TV's can't display it, and there is no media that could store it, seems extremely superfluous to me. And seeing how there is the argument that the human eye can't even tell the difference between 1080p and 720p, when is someone going to tell the difference between those two? Seems to me it's only use would be for people with projectors in their house.

And please link a story that shows warner is working on these masters, First off, the ratio doesn't match as it's 2:1 which I don't think any display device does, and 2nd, I googled it and didn't find anything.[/QUOTE]

I'll find it for you. Also HVD's will be able to carry that much data. I don't know about you but I plan to purchase a 100" SED someday and that res. WILL make a difference.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']According to everything I have read, spider 1 and 2 look awesome as well. [/QUOTE]

From some AVSers who have the trilogy in other regions Spider 1 looks better then an up-converted SD, but 2 and 3 look "amazing". I have yet to watch ANY of the Spider-Man films, so I'm looking forward to watching all of them in HD.
 
[quote name='geko29']No, MPEG-2 is the name of a compression algorithm. The full uncompressed size of Crank would be just over 1 terabyte, not including audio.


You really need to check out The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), The Searchers (1956), Casablanca (1942), Grand Prix (1966), or The Thing (1982). They all look AMAZING. Granted only one of them is available on Blu-Ray (The Searchers), but you really should see how incredible a 51-year movie can look.[/quote]
But mpeg2 is not compressed as much, I guess that's what I should have said. I have no doubt that older movies can look awesome, but as good as a newer movie such as Transformers, Hot Fuzz, spider-man, crank or POTC? I doubt it.

And I know about HVD, but I don't see those coming out for A LONG Time. IIRC the only reason they are working on them is for storage. and I though SED was pretty much a dead technology because the one company that owns hte patent will only let Canon develop it, which they are having problems iwth it and that is why SED TV's keep getting delayed. and yes, on a 100'' projector that would make a difference, but THey are already working on digital cameras that can do more than 1080p resolution. Either way, digital > Film IMO.

And Gizmo, http://www.hidefpreview.com/Spiderman Trilogy.html reviewed all three films and gave Spider-man 1 a 4.25 stars out of 5. I haven't heard anything such as that it's barely better than upconverted SD
 
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3idbe743c6b1307f6dae7c87180fcf6017

Plans are in the works for 4k restorations of a number of films from the Warner Bros. vault, including "Blade Runner," "Bonnie and Clyde," "Cool Hand Luke" and the Dirty Harry films "Magnum Force" and "Sudden Impact."

While launch dates have not been announced, the studio has an eye toward offering the restored titles on the two high-definition DVD formats, Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD, as well as standard-definition DVD. The "Blade Runner" release is being planned for this year, coinciding with the 25th anniversary of the film's release.

What 4k resolution offers is more picture information -- four times the amount found in today's commonly used 2k resolution.

Chris Cookson, president of Warner Bros. Technical Operations and chief technology officer of the Warner Bros. Entertainment Group, believes 4k is an important goal.

"When you are doing restoration, you want to re-create a new element to support the title for years to come," he said. "It is critical that you retain as much of the original information that the filmmaker created as possible. Unless you are willing to work at 4k, it is inevitable that you will lose a great deal of the information that was created and included in the (original) finished film.
CM8ShowAd("Middle2");

"The 2k master has less information than the original film did," he added. "We really need to push for 4k tools in order to protect what goes into our vault for archiving."
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']But mpeg2 is not compressed as much, I guess that's what I should have said.[/quote]
It can't be compressed as much because the codec isn't as efficient. A VC-1 or AVC encode at, say 16Mbps, could look the same as an MPEG-2 encode at 28Mbps (numbers pulled out of my ass, but they're in the right ballpark). A VC-1 or AVC encode at the same bitrate as an MPEG-2 encode will blow it away every time.

[quote name='H.Cornerstone']I have no doubt that older movies can look awesome, but as good as a newer movie such as Transformers, Hot Fuzz, spider-man, crank or POTC? I doubt it. [/quote]
Depends on your frame of reference, I guess. Older films will tend not to have the 3D-type effects of newer films because they don't have CGI. But they can look just as good from the standpoint that they perfectly recreate the experience you would have had if you went to the very first showing at the finest theater in the country, using the very first print made from the camera negative. High-Def isn't only about whiz-bang action and effects (though that is certainly a part), it's also about transparency to the master. Or more simply, "does this look exactly the same as it would in a perfect cinema environment?" In that respect, age is not a factor.

My experience with HDM has been that a well-done disc, regardless of the age of the source, gives me a better movie experience (both video and audio) at home than I could get at any theater. In that respect, yes older films CAN look just as good as new ones. It's just easier to do with newer films because they're often already available in D5 or DI format, and they don't have film elements that need to be cleaned up before being scanned.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']You're format has 10x the amount of players in homes and can barley muster a better then 60/40 most weeks. Sad.[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Who cares about profits when attach rates are on our side?

Spin, Spin, Spin.
LOVE IT!
 
POTC is sammiching HD DVD Transformers on the Amazon sales rankings:

POTC2: #5
Transformers: #6
POTC: #7

ZOMG! Amazon sales rankings matter SO MUCH that HD DVD is finished! :lol: :roll:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']POTC is sammiching HD DVD Transformers on the Amazon sales rankings:

POTC2: #5
Transformers: #6
POTC: #7

ZOMG! Amazon sales rankings matter SO MUCH that HD DVD is finished! :lol: :roll:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, who'd a thunk a $10 Movie that appeals to the PS3 crowd would be killing a $28 movie. Shocker! :roll:

I really am loving these UMD Blu-ray sales. Ive purchased 4 movies already and would have gotten more had CC stocked Robocop or The Fly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top