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

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='gizmogc']I believe the studios still have faith in the 'Playstation' name and seem to think the PS3 will be just like the PS2 was last generation with an 80% (give it take) market share. Obviously the PS3 is not since the Wii is killing the PS3, and the 360 continues to sell and even put out a new model with an HDMI port for the video enthusiasts. [/QUOTE]

I would hope that the studios backing blu-ray were not dumb enough to believe the PS3 would have PS2-like success. I knew it would not have PS2-like success. I would hope the owners of multi-billion dollar companies would have better business foresight than me. I'm pretty sure even if PS3 lost the console war, it would've sold a helluva lot more players than HD would be able to sell in the same amount of time (even with the $299 player). PS3 winning would've been much better, but even if it loses, it gets blu-ray into homes, and studios know this.

[quote name='gizmogc']When this HD player hits Wal-Mart, and if they sell, studios may in fact become Neutral.[/QUOTE]

Of course, I've been saying it all along. So, again, why are attach rates important?
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']And then there's Sony/Columbia which will remain blu-ray exclusive (for obvious reasons) forever...[/QUOTE]

Yes, of course. Unless Sony goes neutral.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']What that .33 attach rate does show though is that their blu-ray installed user base isn't nearly what they try make it out to be. Quite obviously there's PS3 owners that will never buy blu-ray.

Studios like to see the attach rates, player manufacturers could care less.[/QUOTE]

When you say 'what THEY try to make it out to be'. I assume you are talking about Sony claiming blu-ray would be in 80% of PS3 owners houses. If so, I've already said that I find it hard to believe a company would invest so much on baseless speculation. If they honestly believed that the attach rate would be extremely high and PS3 owners would be jumping on BD (when the majority of them don't even have HDTVs), then that is really their fault. I could've told that would not be the case. Maybe 5-6 years down the line the 80% figure may be a LITTLE more accurate, but 6 months after launch? Doubtful. I would hope that companies, who are obviously pretty business savvy as they have got successful companies, would know this as well, and not just put all their faith in what 'Sony said'.
 
[quote name='dpatel']


Of course, I've been saying it all along. So, again, why are attach rates important?[/QUOTE]

The number of players that have been sold are ultimately the most important numbers HOWEVER attach rates give a good measure of the buying habits of each side which are also important for studios to know.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']Yes, of course. Unless Sony goes neutral.[/QUOTE]

Sony will be on of the last to go, but if it does end up being a dual-format war, or a HD victory, they will go. No sense in missing out on money just because their format failed. They've done it in the past, and this is no different.
 
[quote name='dpatel']I would hope that the studios backing blu-ray were not dumb enough to believe the PS3 would have PS2-like success. I knew it would not have PS2-like success. I would hope the owners of multi-billion dollar companies would have better business foresight than me. I'm pretty sure even if PS3 lost the console war, it would've sold a helluva lot more players than HD would be able to sell in the same amount of time (even with the $299 player). PS3 winning would've been much better, but even if it loses, it gets blu-ray into homes, and studios know this.[/QUOTE]

You would think, but even then, all these studios backed UMD and we all know how that went over (Including Universal).

I'm all for things being neutral. Warner see's this with there TotalHD, even though thats a poor concept for it. Wonder what happened to that? We were suppose to get releases in June yet Ive heard nothing about it.
 
[quote name='dpatel']When you say 'what THEY try to make it out to be'. I assume you are talking about Sony claiming blu-ray would be in 80% of PS3 owners houses. If so, I've already said that I find it hard to believe a company would invest so much on baseless speculation. If they honestly believed that the attach rate would be extremely high and PS3 owners would be jumping on BD (when the majority of them don't even have HDTVs), then that is really their fault. I could've told that would not be the case. Maybe 5-6 years down the line the 80% figure may be a LITTLE more accurate, but 6 months after launch? Doubtful. I would hope that companies, who are obviously pretty business savvy as they have got successful companies, would know this as well, and not just put all their faith in what 'Sony said'.[/QUOTE]

Most people don't see a point in spending an extra $10+ for their movies right now. If the prices come down ps3/blu-ray attach rates WILL go up, unquestionably. With the expense of manufacturing blu-ray discs though, can they afford to drop the price any further though?
 
[quote name='dpatel']Sony will be on of the last to go, but if it does end up being a dual-format war, or a HD victory, they will go. No sense in missing out on money just because their format failed. They've done it in the past, and this is no different.[/QUOTE]

Yes, if it happened Sony would be the last to go, no question about it. Even then, I don't think they would just neglect all the PS3 owners out there which is why I think everyone will go neutral. Universal would make a killing if it sold Blu-Rays just like Sony would selling HD DVD.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']The number of players that have been sold are ultimately the most important numbers HOWEVER attach rates give a good measure of the buying habits of each side which are also important for studios to know.[/QUOTE]

I know the definition of it, I just wanted to know the significance. Gizmogc seems to think that a dismal attach rate vs an outstanding HD attach rate has a lot of significance in this 'war'. It does have some relevance, but studios know the PS3 is a major factor in this dismal attach rate. If attach rates were really that significant, I think the huge difference between Hd and BD attach rates would've ended the war a while ago.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Most people don't see a point in spending an extra $10+ for their movies right now. If the prices come down ps3/blu-ray attach rates WILL go up, unquestionably. With the expense of manufacturing blu-ray discs though, can they afford to drop the price any further though?[/QUOTE]

I just got a free Blu-Ray disc at Best Buy...wonder how many Sony made? How much money to spent? Wonder what movie(s) got delayed so we could get a free Spider-Man promo disc. I'd be pissed if this was the reason Meatballs got delayed!!!!
 
[quote name='gizmogc']Yes, if it happened Sony would be the last to go, no question about it. Even then, I don't think they would just neglect all the PS3 owners out there which is why I think everyone will go neutral. Universal would make a killing if it sold Blu-Rays just like Sony would selling HD DVD.[/QUOTE]

Well, neither format will 'win' within the PS3s lifespan, so Sony doesn't have to worry about abandoning the PS3.
 
[quote name='dpatel']I know the definition of it, I just wanted to know the significance. Gizmogc seems to think that a dismal attach rate vs an outstanding HD attach rate has a lot of significance in this 'war'. It does have some relevance, but studios know the PS3 is a major factor in this dismal attach rate. If attach rates were really that significant, I think the huge difference between Hd and BD attach rates would've ended the war a while ago.[/QUOTE]

Right now, the attach rates only tell us one important thing, the PS3 largely isn't being used as a blu-ray player. I can't imagine every studio is happy about that given that it was most certainly one of their selling points for the blu-ray format.
 
[quote name='dpatel']I know the definition of it, I just wanted to know the significance. Gizmogc seems to think that a dismal attach rate vs an outstanding HD attach rate has a lot of significance in this 'war'. It does have some relevance, but studios know the PS3 is a major factor in this dismal attach rate. If attach rates were really that significant, I think the huge difference between Hd and BD attach rates would've ended the war a while ago.[/QUOTE]

How many people who currently buy Blu-Rays would have if not for the PS3? Not me. Not you. I would have never spent $800+ for a Blu-Ray player PERIOD. $600 was a cheap investment, and when a better solution comes by I will gladly dump my PS3 for at least most of what I paid for it. Can't say the same for Blu-Ray players which are available for $400 now that were $1000 7 months ago.

Attach rate means something when a format with 10% of players sold can hold close to the same amount of disc sales. Double the player sales, and the attach rates may double. That would mean 2 Million HD sold vs. 1 Million BR sold. BIG difference there.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Most people don't see a point in spending an extra $10+ for their movies right now. If the prices come down ps3/blu-ray attach rates WILL go up, unquestionably. With the expense of manufacturing blu-ray discs though, can they afford to drop the price any further though?[/QUOTE]

Not at the time, no. They can't and don't need to. With the few HDTVs out there, a huge price drop won't help too much, unless it is also on HDTVs, hardware and software.

But prices will, inevitably, go down. When they do, like you said, more people will jump on Hi Def. PS3 owners, if the format is still around at the time, are more likely to go with BD as it requires no up front investment on their part. So, while PS3 might not be selling movies at this point, it does act as a 'trojan horse' and puts the format into millions of homes. Even if the PS3 fails, it will sell a significant amount of blu-ray players, which is what attracted many studios. I highly doubt, and hope, they did not expect PS3 owners to be jumping over BD initially. If they did, that is really their own fault, as I am sure I am not the only one who knew the PS3 would not sell BDs like crazy, initially.
 
[quote name='daroga']Not an actual DVD, but 1080 content on a DVD disc or a file on the computer. With some slightly shady software, a person can rip a Blu-Ray or an HD DVD disc to their computer and throw it on a different computer without Blu-Ray or HD DVD drive and play it at full resolution. You could burn that ripped file to a DVD (or heck, even a CD if it was really short) and play it just like it was originally.[/quote]

Ah, didn't think about that!
You're right.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']How many people who currently buy Blu-Rays would have if not for the PS3? Not me. Not you. I would have never spent $800+ for a Blu-Ray player PERIOD. $600 was a cheap investment, and when a better solution comes by I will gladly dump my PS3 for at least most of what I paid for it. Can't say the same for Blu-Ray players which are available for $400 now that were $1000 7 months ago.

Attach rate means something when a format with 10% of players sold can hold close to the same amount of disc sales. Double the player sales, and the attach rates may double. That would mean 2 Million HD sold vs. 1 Million BR sold. BIG difference there.[/QUOTE]

You keep reiterating this, but have not really explained to me why YOU are the only one who finds this dismal attach rate a concern. I will admit BD has an awful attach rate, and HD, an outstanding one. Yet, nothing major has happened as a result of that. Surely such a HUGE difference would result in some shift in the war, but it hasn't. You even said the 'huge shift' would occur with the $299 player, and made no mention of the attach rate affecting studios.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']I just got a free Blu-Ray disc at Best Buy...wonder how many Sony made? How much money to spent? Wonder what movie(s) got delayed so we could get a free Spider-Man promo disc. I'd be pissed if this was the reason Meatballs got delayed!!!![/QUOTE]

I really have no idea what point you're making here and whether your agreeing or disagreeing with what I said...
 
[quote name='dpatel']You keep reiterating this, but have not really explained to me why YOU are the only one who finds this dismal attach rate a concern. I will admit BD has an awful attach rate, and HD, an outstanding one. Yet, nothing major has happened as a result of that. Surely such a HUGE difference would result in some shift in the war, but it hasn't. You even said the 'huge shift' would occur with the $299 player, and made no mention of the attach rate affecting studios.[/QUOTE]

Nothing major will happen for a while. There is no reason for any studio to switch side or go neutral with such a low penetration rate. Thats why these Wal-Mart players mean something. If they can sell 300k a year, and maintain the same attach rates, disc sales go up. If this continues it may in fact change some studios minds.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']Nothing major will happen for a while. There is no reason for any studio to switch side or go neutral with such a low penetration rate. Thats why these Wal-Mart players mean something. If they can sell 300k a year, and maintain the same attach rates, disc sales go up. If this continues it may in fact change some studios minds.[/QUOTE]

Haha, you said
With the expense of manufacturing blu-ray discs though, can they afford to drop the price any further though?
Click to expand...

I simply wanted to say that Sony much has spent a ton of money to provide these Spider-Man discs for free.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']Haha, you said


I simply wanted to say that Sony much has spent a ton of money to provide these Spider-Man discs for free.[/QUOTE]

Ahh gotchya.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']Nothing major will happen for a while. There is no reason for any studio to switch side or go neutral with such a low penetration rate. Thats why these Wal-Mart players mean something. If they can sell 300k a year, and maintain the same attach rates, disc sales go up. If this continues it may in fact change some studios minds.[/QUOTE]

Well, I agree that if attach rates continue, which they probably wont, then it will mean something. I highly doubt attach rates will stay the same. I can't see someone who is only spending $300 on a player, spend as much money on movies as someone who bought a $500 player at launch. Obviously the latter is more of an enthusiast and will spend accordingly. I'm just citing general examples though.

But, like I have been saying all along, attach rates don't much. IF they do remain the same (which I find hard to believe), then they will in the future, although I still think overall sales and hardware sales would still be of more importance than attach rate (this same thing was true with the PS2: attach rates weren't great, but the overall sales and hardware sales were astonishing).
 
[quote name='dpatel']Well, I agree that if attach rates continue, which they probably wont, then it will mean something. I highly doubt attach rates will stay the same. I can't see someone who is only spending $300 on a player, spend as much money on movies as someone who bought a $500 player at launch. Obviously the latter is more of an enthusiast and will spend accordingly. I'm just citing general examples though.

But, like I have been saying all along, attach rates don't much. IF they do remain the same (which I find hard to believe), then they will in the future, although I still think overall sales and hardware sales would still be of more importance than attach rate (this same thing was true with the PS2: attach rates weren't great, but the overall sales and hardware sales were astonishing).[/QUOTE]

I don't expect the attach rates to stay the same once a $300 player hits. We all hope for it, but it wont. However, with 200+ titles to choose from someone spend ing $200 (or $300, price still unknown) on the Wal-Mart player may in fact buy a handful of titles right away. Same can't be said for someone spending $600 on a PS3.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']I don't expect the attach rates to stay the same once a $300 player hits. We all hope for it, but it wont. However, with 200+ titles to choose from someone spend ing $200 (or $300, price still unknown) on the Wal-Mart player may in fact buy a handful of titles right away. Same can't be said for someone spending $600 on a PS3.[/QUOTE]

You're assuming everyone has the same income, and allocates an equal amount of that income for movie spending. Just because someone spends more on a player, doesn't mean they necessarily have less than someone else who spent $300 on a player. Too many factors come into play, but the bottom line is that attach rates don't matter now, and won't be of much concern in the future either (when they will change quite a bit too). Software and hardware sales are of more importance, as the PS2 demonstrated.

PS2 had some terrible attach rates for games like GTA and Madden when compared to the Xbox, but developers still favored it. I don't see why the movie industry would be any different. What good is it if the attach rate is high, when you are still selling less than the opposing format? All it means is that you will have penetrated more of the market, but will still end up with less of a profit.
 
As a studio, attach rate would be the last thing I would look at, to be honest. A low attach rate and higher sales just means I am able to profit more, and still have quite a bit of the market left to gain future sales off of (PS3 owners who have not yet made the jump).
 
How much was your HD DVD player Giz?

Oh, and thanks for the heads up on the BD Spiderman thing, I had to google that to see what was going on.
Looks like they're selling it for $5.99 on the BB website as well.
 
[quote name='dallow']How much was your HD DVD player Giz?[/QUOTE]

Ive had a few. The 360 one was $200, my A1 was $380 with a free movie, my A2 was $400 with 2 free movies (+5 by mail).
 
[quote name='gizmogc']Ive had a few. The 360 one was $200, my A1 was $380 with a free movie, my A2 was $400 with 2 free movies (+5 by mail).[/quote]
Some good deals there! (minus the add-on)

whats up dallow. I accepted your invite. What games do you have?
Click to expand...
Yeah, thanks man.
Online? I just have Resistance and CoD3. I may pick up Motorstorm soon. Oh, and MKII.

I noticed you had a pathetic Blast Factor score of 0!
What's up with that? :)
 
[quote name='gizmogc']Ive had a few. The 360 one was $200, my A1 was $380 with a free movie, my A2 was $400 with 2 free movies (+5 by mail).[/QUOTE]

Has the A2 improved that much over the A1? Or did you just want more than one for a different TV or something?
 
[quote name='dallow']Online? I just have Resistance and CoD3. I may pick up Motorstorm soon. Oh, and MKII.

I noticed you had pathetic Blast Factor score of 0!
What's up with that? :)[/QUOTE]

:lol:

I've got resisatance and NBA. Haven't really been gaming much lately though. Been thinking about MK2, and will definitely get calling all cars. If I ever decide to play Resistance again, maybe ill see ya there.
 
Gizmogc shows what you know, I have a 360. What the heck does that have to do with the format war? Am I a BR fanboy just cause I own a PS3? I prefer BR right now just because it has most the movies I want to see. And if BR fails that doesn't mean the PS3 will. I think the PS3 is going to be around for a long time. Just read a interesting article that people see $ony as one of the most trusted product names. I don't always see that, I prefer RCA, but no one asked me.
 
[quote name='dallow']Some good deals there! (minus the add-on)[/QUOTE]

An HD Player for $200 is a steal. I already have a 360 so $200 to add a new format is a great price. I only paid $70 or so for it since I had crap to trade-in though.
 
[quote name='dpatel']Has the A2 improved that much over the A1? Or did you just want more than one for a different TV or something?[/QUOTE]

I improved the load time. Everything else the A1 did better (up-conversion, more audio outputs etc). I prefer the new remote, smaller size, less noise, and the load time of the A2. Sold my A1.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']An HD Player for $200 is a steal. I already have a 360 so $200 to add a new format is a great price. I only paid $70 or so for it since I had crap to trade-in though.[/quote]

It's alright if you don't care about the HD audio.
I remember you saying you don't have a surround set up though.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']I improved the load time. Everything else the A1 did better (up-conversion, more audio outputs etc). I prefer the new remote, smaller size, less noise, and the load time of the A2. Sold my A1.[/QUOTE]

Ah ok. Thought you still owned the A1. That's cool.

I wonder how good these first gen combo players are going to be. The first HD and BD players had quite a few problems. Combo players shouldn't have these, since the technology isn't new any more, but im not sure yet.
 
[quote name='millrat1030']Gizmogc shows what you know, I have a 360. What the heck does that have to do with the format war? Am I a BR fanboy just cause I own a PS3? I prefer BR right now just because it has most the movies I want to see. And if BR fails that doesn't mean the PS3 will. I think the PS3 is going to be around for a long time. Just read a interesting article that people see $ony as one of the most trusted product names. I don't always see that, I prefer RCA, but no one asked me.[/QUOTE]

Congrats, you have a 360. Looking at your post history you have nothing good to say about. Figured you were a typical fanboy bashing a system who launched a revision 1.5 years after it was released. Not like Sony has ever done that (thinking of the 7 revision that went through). But lets save that for the appropriate threads. This is HD vs. BR. Anything to add to this discussion besides 'br is so awesome!'?
 
[quote name='dallow']It's alright if you don't care about the HD audio.
I remember you saying you don't have a surround set up though.[/QUOTE]

I don't care about the audio. Living in an apartment I would never be able to actually take advantage of it so I could careless about TrueHD etc. audio tracks.
 
[quote name='dpatel']Ah ok. Thought you still owned the A1. That's cool.

I wonder how good these first gen combo players are going to be. The first HD and BD players had quite a few problems. Combo players shouldn't have these, since the technology isn't new any more, but im not sure yet.[/QUOTE]

Nope, sold the A1 and purchased the A2. I plan on getting an XA2 soon though.

Combo players should get better. LG crippled the HD on its 1st player but claims they will not on there 2nd. However the Oct. 31st deadline still scares me as far as Blu-Java is concerned. All the current Samsung, Pioneer, Sony (except PS3) will be SOL. Thats what you get for being an early adopter I suppose. Hopefully Samsung will implement the Blu-Java in there dual player (and be $600 or so).
 
:lol: we can only hope for $600 dual player. I'm expecting a $800 or $900.

EDIT: and by 'we', I don't really mean me. I hate the thought of a two format gen. Either BD or HD should win, not coexist.
 
[quote name='dpatel']:lol: we can only hope for $600 dual player. I'm expecting a $800 or $900.

EDIT: and by 'we', I don't really mean me. I hate the thought of a two format gen. Either BD or HD should win, not coexist.[/QUOTE]

I read somewhere that Samsung plans on releasing this at only 10% more then there current BR player. While that is currently $800 new, it WILL go down by Christmas. $500/$600 is wishful hoping.

I don't see either format going away. They will co-exist for a long time.
 
Don't think I ever said that "BR so awesome". Both have their pros and cons. I think HD was clearly the winner all last year. Just seems to me that regardless of the prices of the players, the movies control the war. I do think one of the pros HD still has over BR is combo discs. I like the idea of being able to play the movies in my DVD players. My only two problems with HD are movie selection and starting this format war ( which is one of the problems I also have with BR). As I've said before I just would like one format to end the confusion.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']I read somewhere that Samsung plans on releasing this at only 10% more then there current BR player. While that is currently $800 new, it WILL go down by Christmas. $500/$600 is wishful hoping.

I don't see either format going away. They will co-exist for a long time.[/QUOTE]

Oh ok. I guess $600 is possible, although, like you said, is more like wishful hoping. I guess we'll see this xmas.

And yea, both HD and BD have made a name for themselves, and neither looks like they are going anywhere any time soon.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']I don't care about the audio. Living in an apartment I would never be able to actually take advantage of it so I could careless about TrueHD etc. audio tracks.[/quote]

You gotta have at least Dolby Digital 5.1 though!
I'm in an apartment too, so I can't 'rock the house' or anything.

But the immersive experience of just having different sounds going on all around you is worth more to me than my actual HDTV display.
I'd sooner sell the TV than the audio set up.

Great for movies, perfection for games. Invest in a small system, just don't crank the volume.
 
[quote name='millrat1030'] My only two problems with HD are movie selection and starting this format war ( which is one of the problems I also have with BR). As I've said before I just would like one format to end the confusion.[/QUOTE]

HD did not start this war, Blu-Ray did. HD was the chosen successor to DVD and the BDA group decided that Blu-Ray should be. That's why you won't see Combo discs with Blu-Ray on one side and DVD on the other.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']HD did not start this war, Blu-Ray did. HD was the chosen successor to DVD and the BDA group decided that Blu-Ray should be. That's why you won't see Combo discs with Blu-Ray on one side and DVD on the other.[/QUOTE]

I don't see why DVD should be able to choose who the successor is. Consumers are the ones stuck with the format, and studios are the ones stuck making the movies for the formats. So far, both have chosen BD.

And both sides had numerous chances to unify, but both were extremely stubborn. Hence why we have the war. Saying 'he started it' is a bit childish, both are equally responsible. You can't have a war going if it's only one sides fault, they are both at fault.
 
I havn't been reading this thread, but I would like to throw in my 2 cents -

I thought Sony was making a HORRIBLE move by including the Blu-Ray player with the Ps3. I can probably be quoted as one of those "Sony is forcing this unwanted format down my throat" people at some point in the past. I wanted an HD-DVD player but never actually got around to buying the 360 add-on.

However, I bought a PS3, and now I have a BR player. I will be buying BR movies; It's really as simple as that. I have currently defaulted into the BR camp because, guess what? I have a Blu Ray Player. Do I have an HD-DVD player? No, because I would have had to specifically go to buy one. Sure, it is a bummer there is a "war" but I think HD-DVD will not succeed for the reason I have detailed above.
 
[quote name='captmurphy']I havn't been reading this thread, but I would like to throw in my 2 cents -

I thought Sony was making a HORRIBLE move by including the Blu-Ray player with the Ps3. I can probably be quoted as one of those "Sony is forcing this unwanted format down my throat" people at some point in the past. I wanted an HD-DVD player but never actually got around to buying the 360 add-on.

However, I bought a PS3, and now I have a BR player. I will be buying BR movies; It's really as simple as that. I have currently defaulted into the BR camp because, guess what? I have a Blu Ray Player. Do I have an HD-DVD player? No, because I would have had to specifically go to buy one. Sure, it is a bummer there is a "war" but I think HD-DVD will not succeed for the reason I have detailed above.[/QUOTE]

Alot of Blu-Ray fans assumed that too but thats obviously wrong. HD is still selling regardless of Blu-Ray being in 3 Million+ homes.
 
[quote name='gizmogc']Alot of Blu-Ray fans assumed that too but thats obviously wrong. HD is still selling regardless of Blu-Ray being in 3 Million+ homes.[/QUOTE]

It's not like those 3mill people not buying BD movies at this time are going to jump on HD. A lot of PS3 owners don't have HDTVs, or think BD is too expensive. Those people, in the future, may change their mind when one or both of those things change. When it does, it would be more logical to think that they would go with BD, since it doesn't really require any additional hardware.
 
[quote name='daroga']I feel like I'm swatting a bees' nest with a giant stick, but here we go.

Is there any consensus on which format looks/sounds/play better at this point? Or is it simply a mixed bag right now, depending on how much a given studio is willing to do to make the transfer and exectuion work out properly?[/quote]

[quote name='RedvsBlue']They're mostly equal, if anyone tells you differently its because they're the proud owner of fanboy-glasses.[/quote]
WRONG


HD DVD has for the most part almost all VC-1 encodes

Blu-Ray has for the most part (barring warner) almost all MPEG-2 encodes

MPEG-2 is being used because sony owns the rights and is basically letting studios use it free.

MPEG-2 also happens to be VERY outdated (debuting in 1994, 13 years ago)
VC-1 is currently held to be the best version of the MPEG-4 codec (less than 2 years old)

so in general if you have the choice between a movie on HD DVD or Blu-Ray, unless its a warner title, it will look better on HD DVD. that's a fact.

and before you start w/ the "they only used MPEG-2 in the begining, now they use VC-1" mumbo jumbo i always hear when i try to correct people. here's an example of a future title

May 22, 2007

Flags of Our Fathers (DreamWorks) HD DVD VC-1

Flags of Our Fathers (DreamWorks) Blu-Ray MPEG-2
 
I might be completely wrong with this statement but I would assume that something such as an inferior codec would be much easier to fix in the future than something like having less disc space. That is a pretty big disadvantage for BD, but at least it is something that can be fixed over time, whereas HD will always be hindered by the slightly less disc space.

EDIT: This is probably incorrect too, but I was under the impression that both codecs can yield equal PQ but MPEG2 requires more space to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top