They're not, but it's very close. I upconvert to 1080i via my Oppo player which does a great job, and the projected image is very very good (depending on the source, of course). To my eyes, HD is better, obviously, but not by too much. It's not night and day.

Maybe they're blind idiots?

Maybe I should get the SD suitcase after all...then, if I ever upgrade to HD, I'll still have the suitcase when I get the 5-disc version in HD.

Okay, did they have the "one studio supports VHS, another supports beta"-kind of BS going on even back then? Also, don't forget that back then, there was no home video market of any kind whatsoever - this wasn't an upgrade from a widely accepted format to a whole new one from which only a portion of populace can actually benefit. This was the first time people could watch movies at home.

DVD vs DivX, DVD vs VHS and DVD vs LD hardly count as format wars. DivX lost by a wide margin and in both VHS and LD case DVD is more of an upgrade, that's like calling DVD vs HD a "format war".

I'd liken SD vs HD to VHS vs. LD, only that in the end, the differences are even lesser - pan&scan was the mainstream option for VHS, nor was there anything else on the tape than the film, well, except maybe for ads for other films from the studio. Of course, there were videotapes with a short making of stuck in, but those are about as rare as widescreen videotapes. The only thing HD offers against DVD is higher picture resolution - something that many people don't seem to consider a worthwhile reason for upgrade. Of course, HD formats do offer different audio options as well, but seeing more and more releases dfon't even bother including the original audio mix for older movies, what's the point?

I also have the Oppo and I agree - HD is better but the difference isn't that great, especially if you have a 50" screen or less.

That's probably your best option, since the regular HD releases aren't limited like the suitcase set is.

I'm a bit young to clearly remember, but in the beginning most studios released on both formats. It was only when Beta started losing significant market share that studios "picked sides." Mind you, this was before Sony owned a movie or TV studio.

http://tafkac.org/products/beta_vs_vhs.html
http://groups.google.com/group/net.v...5aafe4aec02cdf

People had been watching movies at home for decades before consumer video tape; they just watched it live off of TV. And Betamax wasn't even the first consumer video tape format; both Sony's U-Matic and Phillips's VCR format predate Betamax by a few years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videocassette_recorder

Betamax lost by a wide margin too...eventually. Are you arguing against it being a format war just because it didn't last 10 years?

In some ways, DVD vs. HD discs is a format war. Not in terms of manufacturer or studio support, since they all support both DVD and some form of HD, but in terms of consumer support. Many people are choosing not to upgrade to HD discs yet at least in part because they feel that DVD is "good enough," at least for now.

And while DVD had a clear advantage technologically speaking in VHS vs. DVD, with LD vs. DVD there really was as little an "upgrade" as you claim there is from DVD to HD.

For example, let's list the advantages DVD had over VHS:

1. Films in OAR - LD had this for decades.
2. Digital Audio - LD had DD and DTS 5.1 soundtracks and 2.0 PCM soundtracks, which often were technologically superior to DVD's more common DD 2.0 soundtracks.
3. Alternate soundtracks/commentary - LD pioneered this idea.
4. No rewind - LD had this.
5. Fast scan or skip to chapters - Again, LD had this.
6. No degradation of video quality over time - LD again.
7. Extras - LD had these.
8. Anamorphic enhancement - Some LDs had this as well.

Really, the main advantage DVD had over LD was that an entire movie, and even some extras, could fit on one side of a CD-sized disc, compared to the multiple double-sided platter-sized discs required for quality LD. However, the size advantage came at the cost of digital compression, which created artifacts not seen on LD, which as an analogue signal could theoretically be better.

The other advantage DVD had over LD was price, in both hardware and software, since manufacturers and studios aimed to sell this new format to the mainstream in a way that they had given up hope of doing with LD a long time ago.

So, technically speaking, DVD offered over LD just about as much as HD discs offer over DVD, if not less. It's cost and convenience where DVD really won out, and HD discs don't have either advantage over DVD at the moment, although as costs come down, the improved video quality of the HD formats is going to draw more and more consumers to them.

Why would you have to double-dip even if BD wins? It's not like your HD DVD player will stop functioning on the day BD gets a vast majority of the market share. And the BD and HD DVD sets are less than $30 for just the discs, which will probably cost even less in the 4-10 years it will take to declare a "winner," if at all.

I don't have the room, or tolerance for clutter to have 2 DVD players, so whichever format wins, that's the format I'm going to have. And it won't be 4-10 years. Within 2 years, a winner will be clear. Probably sooner. And I don't have the income to plan to have to re-buy discs because they are "just" $30. Kudos to the people who have the space and money for multiple players and triple dips on every movie, but at the moment that isn't me.

Since when did this thread into a discussion on Blue Ray vs HD DVD? There are plenty of other threads to talk about this.

So, is anyone here going to go cheap and only purchase the 2-disc edition?

Is $20 a good deal for the 5 disc HD DVD set? I have a coupon for 30% off the $27 price at Borders.

Considering it is a slight challenge to get a normal (single disc) HD title for

[QUOTE=Numes]Considering it is a slight challenge to get a normal (single disc) HD title for

OK, how about discussion of "The Final Cut" itself?

I've just seen it here in Minneapolis in an old cinema.
The first thing is that the opening titles look great. And the soundtrack is LOUD.
Overall it looked great, but grainy. I'm guessing that, as the restoration was done in the digital realm, that a digital exhibition looks better. Has anyone seen one?
I'll be curious to read SD/HD reviews in a few weeks.
The changes or additions are subtle. I noticed them because I've seen this film so many damn times. The dubbing of Deckard talking to the snake salesman is fixed! And I am taking back my pooh-pooh of digitally mucking about with Zhora - the crashing through the glass scene looked fucking great! Excellent work.
And if there was digital mucking about with the visual effects it went unnoticed. Trumball's brilliance is allowed to shine.

I was hoping the Holden-hospital scene would be put in, but alas, no. (I think the audio track is a problem, or something)

I would say that I could live with just The Final Cut and not the previous versions.

It was considered a redundant scene so it wasn't put back in, it should be a deleted scene on the dvd, though.

You didn't mention the father/fucker line. I myself perfer father in that situation.

There's been discussion of the Final Cut and it's theatrical showings in the Movie Forum:
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=508029
http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=515717

I know that they've said they've removed wires from the spinners, and I think they might've corrected some matte lines and such. I think this version of the film shows how "digital mucking about," along with the other audio and video changes, should be done: only fixing noticeable errors, and doing do in a way that's transparent to the movie. If someone who'd never seen the film before saw this edit, they wouldn't be able to point out any scene, dialogue, or effect that doesn't look like it was part of the original film.

The Final Cut surely completely supplants the previous Director's Cut, since it's really a refinement of that cut. Whether one wants one of the other cuts depends largely on a matter of personal preference and a desire to compare and contrast, or just completeness.

Does anyone know how limited the SD briefcase will be? I am asking it for Christmas but I am worried that if my parents don't pre-order it soon I won't be able to get one.

Ah, how could I forget?! Of course I miss the "fucker", it's more menacing. But, what the hell. It seemed to fit Hauer's mouth better. I dunno.

I'm also wondering how limited the briefcase is.

I agree with Takeshi357. Pre-VHS/Beta or video disc there was no home movie "market". Watching a movie on commercial television is not a marketplace. Back then you couldn't choose what movie you wanted to see or when, much less buy one. I remember when VHS & Beta came out and you could actually BUY a movie. I mean, what a concept ! I could watch a movie as many times as I wanted, when I wanted !

Takeshi357 said "this was the first time people could watch movies at home." It's that statement that I was challenging with the line you quoted. He also claimed that "there was no home video market of any kind whatsoever," for which I provided Sony's U-Matic and Phillips's VCR format as examples to the contrary.

Yes, I admit that I did phrase myself wrong: I was referring to any kind of mainstream video market. I mean, sure, people could probably buy their movies to view them with home projectors but those weren't exactly a common household sight, and I've never even heard of U-Matic or Philips' VCR before.

Laserdisc never landed in the shores of Finland except for karaoke bars, which I bet was because of our stupidly strict video censorship laws...K-18 movies could be distributed in theatres and, get this, television but not commercial videotapes! With the high prices of laserdiscs I guess they simply didn't consider it worthwhile to sell them domestically, leaving the format's use in Finland to import aficionados.

U-Matic was (as far as I can tell) only used in TV studios and newsrooms and was not available to the public. I couldn't really find any in-depth information about the Philips' VCR except that it seems to have been sold in Europe and was very expensive. If I have any of this information wrong, please let me know. (How a thread about Blade Runner turned into this, I don't know)