My dislike for certain forum members has nothing to do with this format war. And considering what the forum member in question said about me on AVS, he could kiss my ass.

As I stated, I probably own less HD DVD's than most of the people on this board. I just find the news interesting. ;)

And can you blame me? I read his post quoted. Somehow he changes Sony going from VC-1 to Universal switching. Delusional, at best.

Kind of premature don't you think?

I mean, all the momentum is in HD DVDs favor at this point (has been since launch, as a matter of fact).

Why would Universal switch over to a format that has bumbled and stumbled along and doesn't sell as well as HD DVD by at least a factor of 3?

Even the momentum as far as studio support is going in HD DVDs favor at this point with LG expected to switch to neutral as well as rumors of Disney doing the same.

What exactly has Sony done right that would persuade Universal to do the same? Did I miss something and Universal is going neutral as well?

EDIT: Oh, I see what you mean now... You think that BD finally equaling the PQ of HD DVD finishes the war and Universal will cave. I see.

I'm sure Universal would be thrilled to go to a "welcoming party" thrown by someone who can't even play their discs... ;)

A little, maybe. We need to see what this will all equate to. A Universal neutral stance is just one explanation.

No arguing that.

VC-1 encoding are far from impossible on Blu-Ray, but I don't believe that Sony themselves are supporting pressing these discs (AFAIK, they are only working with MPEG-2). One would think that a switch to VC-1 means they could subsidize the pressing of VC-1 disc. Increasing the profits for Universal could be something they are interested in.

Well, doesn't this rumor get a new twist? Lionsgate says they are delaying. The rumor is so that they could switch to VC-1. The thought then comes to, if they are making HD DVD encodes of VC-1, then processing to BD, then why would they leave the HD DVD encodes on the floor? Well, what if these encodes are purely Blu-Ray (now that Sony is doing VC-1)? Now that HD DVD is removed from the equation, does this neutral talk have a foot to stand on?

Place their entire future on Blu-Ray.

so does this mean the train is finally on the right set of tracks? ;)

Choo-choo, baby.

Too little, too late...possibly...IF it's true.

This isn't aimed at one user in particular, but even though this is a quasi-free-for-all thread, the blatant baiting is getting old.

Wait a minute. The rumor is Sony switching to VC1 (someone we all said they should do months ago) and not Universal coming to HD DVD?

Where the fuck did the Universal coming to HD DVD stuff come from and what Moderator at AVS is making a guarantee that its going to happen?

Yes, that's the rumor. The rest Josh is making up in his head.

The Mod is guaranteeing that the VC1 switch is going to happen.

Universal coming over is just one explanation. Another could be that New Line required it, or that Sony/Disney/Fox/LG have titles that have so much extra stuff that they need the space. Sony isn't going to switch to VC-1 just for fun.

I think there's a 0% chance of Universal going to BD. They have made NO mention whatsoever of even thinking of BD. I believe they along with Toshiba and Microsoft are in it for the long haul.

I can't wait to throw a Welcoming Party for Fox. See, I can do it too.

serious question for the die hard HD-DVD guys here.

if Blu-Ray starts kicking out discs that are in great quality(equal to HD-DVD) would you buy into it or just hold out on the chance that the studios would eventually release on HD?

I know alot of this comes down to price so lets say a Blu-Ray player is released at say, $400.00, would you bite?

What about the possiblity that they need VC-1 to better match HD DVD PQ?

Haven't we seen empirically that VC-1 trounces MPEG-2? Even if you argue that (given enough bandwidth/disc space) MPEG-2 could theoretically match VC-1, it sill is inferior because it simply takes more resources than VC-1. VC-1 simply provides far better compression than MPEG-2. By using VC-1 you effectively give yourself more disc space. And on a BD25 that becomes rather important. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

The simplist explanation is usually the best.

I'm holding out. There are already way too many HD DVD discs coming out that I want to drop a grand on a player. No need to rush... I'll wait and see where the studios go.

Same answer if the BD players are $400. They certainly have to do better than match HD DVD, too.

I'd probably bite, yes. What has made me such a big HD DVD supporter is the fact that we've not been jerked around by those involved. We've been given quality material, and that's what's important to me; that's why I'm paying the dinero. Sony and Blu Ray have been sitting on the sidelines, contributing very little. Basically, it's because of Sony that I support HD DVD.

I completely agree with Vipper and Awmurray, except I'm not buying it until/if HD DVD is dead. Buying both, IMHO, just makes this format war go on longer.

If the future is combo players, then I'd consider it depending on price and BR actually delivering WITH extras.

This argument is getting really tired.

Paramount titles were released as VC-1 on HD DVD and MPEG-2 on Blu-Ray. They have been reviewed as looking exactly the same. So where is the great advantage of VC-1 there?

Well, we completly, completely agree then. I actually had that typed but edited it out of my post before sumitting it. I think it would certainly prolong the format war. The only votes that count are the ones we're making with our dollar bills. No use cancelling out my HD DVD votes.

Jeez...and who would've thought THAT 7 months ago ;)

So, you're doing exactly what I said: theoretically MPEG-2 can look exactly like VC-1. I'll give you that for argument's sake, but MPEG-2 is still inferior because it took more disc space to MATCH VC-1. I don't see anyone claiming MPEG-2 is superior.

And actions speak louder than words. Who exactly is switching from VC-1 to MPEG-2? Anyone?

Adding to that ...

Guys, and this is aimed primarily at digi & joshd but applies to everyone here:
I realize that it's hard to announce news or cast doubts on news without baiting the other side or without responding personally to each other, but you guys really need to chill.

Until something is official, everything is speculation. If you want to discuss one speculation, then we'll probably allow the speculation of the opposite as well. And let's try to do this without getting too ugly.

namja
Moderator, DVD Talk Forums

One reviewer commenting on one set of titles from one studio does not a definitive conclusion make.

Even assuming the picture quality is identical, there are plenty of other possibilities:

1) A comparable quality MPEG-2 encode doesn't leave room for lots of extras on more lavish special editions than these.

2) MPEG-2 encodes can look comparable to VC-1 but require a lot of 'hand-tuning' to get them to that point.

3) Studios are crying out for VC-1 even if it's not absolutely necessary, and Sony is just trying to placate them.

We can fanwank whatever explanations we want, but we don't "know" anything. It's all speculation either way.

If the hardware were reasonably priced and fully capable, and if there were a good selection of exclusive software, I'd dive right in.

And yet, your initial question implied that BD needed VC-1 to match PQ. Now that we both agree that they can look equal (as has been shown through execution by both Warner and Paramount), let's move on to the size.

BD50 is plenty of space for a movie, lossless audio, and HD extras (as Sony has shown). If, for some reason, they have so much extra stuff for a release that they can't fit it all on one disc, why not release two (as so many HD DVD fans are quick to point out)? I believe that this move is purely politcal.

1) BD50 (ref: Black Hawk Down)
2) VC-1 takes longer to encode
3) We have a winner. Though, existing BD studios could already do VC-1 encodes (ref: Warner), unless they wanted to use the added bandwidth of Blu-Ray...

And yes, its all speculation, but that is what this thread is living on! Plus, what happens to the greatest speculation-treated-as-fact? Lionsgate going neutral? Seems to me that if Sony is doing their VC-1 treatments, they aren't going neutral at all.

If you can have a BD-25 with VC-1 or a BD-50 with MPEG-2, and MPEG-2 itself offers little-to-no-advantage, why would you opt for the latter?

There's just a tendency in this thread to treat speculation as more than it is.

I'd be happy to see Lionsgate publish on both formats, but I can't imagine that that's the "greatest speculation-treated-as-fact".