Just wait until people will plop down $50 for an HDMI cable from Sony or $45 from BestBuy. Not everyone knows of monoprice and thinks spending that much on a $6 cable is normal. I could only imagine the bundle deals going on, ugh.

The Blu-ray is MPEG2.

I have both versions in my queue, but won't be receiving them until the end of the week.

Glad to hear they aren't alterting the approved masters with encoding.

I believe that bestprices.com charges shipping, so don't cancel that Amazon order until you know what your total Google/bestprices.com cost would be. If you ordered it from Amazon when the price was lower, you are paying only $50 or so. If you ordered it at the current Amazon price then bestprices.com is probably much better.

Interesting interview. I haven't seen Blu-ray myself, so I can't call bullshit on quite a bit of what they're saying, but it seems to contradict what even many of the most staunch Blu-ray supporters have been saying. Intriguing that no one else -- no one on any message boards and no amateur or professional reviewers -- are seeing these amoeba-like artifacts crawling all over backgrounds on HD DVD titles.

Gotta give it up to Peter for asking the questions HD enthusiasts would most want to hear. It reads more like a real journalistic piece instead of the usual fluffy backpatting you see on a lot of website interviews.

I got it for 49.97 shipped from Bestprices

This is what I have been waiting for. Sony's claim that Mpeg2 at high bitrates is superior to VC-1 at HD DVD bit rates can finally be tested.

Sorry, but the bullshit in that article was too deep for me. They are the ones responsible for most of the really horrible HD transfers and they act like we all can't calibrate a monitor. I would hate to even try and separate the half truths from the out right lies in that interview.

My favorite is Eklund's assertion that MPEG-2 is better (or as good as) VC-1 for the consumer because it doesn't allow Microsoft to circumvent patents. I actually had to read that line twice.

I loved this:

"DE: And if it looks like it will help the product, we'll even crank the bitrate [of the video and/or audio] to the sky.

Why?

DE: Because some of upcoming Blu-ray players will have bitrate meters, and some people out there are going to be really infatuated with bitrate numbers."

They know the increased bitrate won't do anything to improve the video/audio quality and will jack them up just so that those looking at the rates can say theirs is higher? :lol:

Are you sure you want to spend $600 on an hd-dvd player when you can just get a PS3 for the same price???

;)

Are you sure you'll be able to -get- a PS3? They'll be pretty scarce for the next few months.

D

Hey, if you paid $1,300 for a player, wouldn't you want to see the highest bitrates possible?

You know what I can't wait for? All the reports from people saying that the super high bitrate BD titles look so much better than the lower bitrate HD DVD titles, even though they'll look the same.

I am in awe of Eklund's ability to appear as though he is answering a question without actually saying anything substantive.

Where do you get $600 for an HD-DVD player. Try $400, or $199 for the 360 add-on.
Back to the movie review. Highdef digest just released their review for both the blu-ray and HD-DVD release. The picture is equal on both. The only difference seems to be the IME on HD-DVD. I think what is playing out here is this: the picture quality on both formats will be equal. 30gb vs 50gb vs 200gb....doesn't matter. 30gb is enough. I just wish Universal, Disney, Fox, etc would release on both formats.

I don't think I'll ever understand the infatuation with bitrate. Does it really make *that* much of a difference? After seeing the crock that was Superbit, I sure as hell wouldn't think so.

I've read numerous interviews with people from Sony and bitrate is what they all hang their hat on. The level it was taken to in the interview above was the most extreme example, but Sony has continued to claim that high bit rate MPEG 2 is the only way to get a transfer transparent to the master with all the original film grain. The continue to claim that VC-1 is inferior and that it doesn't represent the true way the film should look. That is the whole reason they claim BD50 so important and why it was shocking they would release so many movies on BD25 with low bit rate MPEG2.

That is my problem with Sony during all of this. The spend all this time saying that BD50 and high bit rate is the only way HD video should be presented, but when BD50 was unavailable they went ahead with low bitrate BD25 and tried to claim it was good enough as well. They want it both ways.

The problem with their claims is people reviewing these discs are not finding all the flaws with VC1 that Sony keeps harping on and that is very troubling. At this point I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle and I'm betting high bit rate BD50 is the best looking transfer, but the difference is so slight it might take a 100" 1080p projector to actually be able to spot the differences.

At this point I doubt there is ever going to be any real advantage for BD50 over HD30. There will probably be a rare instance where one of the other has a messed up transfer, but I think all things being equal the HD DVDs and Blu-ray discs are going to be pretty much identical to 99% of us. It will be about exclusives and for the time being that is still an advantage for Blu-ray.

Do we know what the bit rate for these titles is? I would like to see a comparison between ABR and PBR.

The whole bitrate and codec war is more propaganda than anything. Batman Begins was like 15.5 VABR and Tears of the Sun was like 17 VABR. Big freakin' difference! Both are considered reference titles for their respected formats.

Same here. Best price around and was worth it IMO.

Thanks to the OP

Greg

Personally, I think the reason for the single layer version of the "Taladega Nights" with the PS3, instead of the Dual layer version, is strictly due to the cost of production - don't forget, they'll be giving away 500,000 of these puppies...

Just another indication, IMO, that Dual Layer production is not economical.

Ragrading the delay of the Sony player, I've said it befoe, and I'll repeat it now, I "believe" that they might actually be trying to get it to play CDs before they release it. I think someone has convinced management that it would look REALLY stupid for Sony's own flagship model to NOT be able to play CDs...

I don't think I'd feel too bad about giving away a movie if I knew someone was giving me $500-$600 in order to get it.

I was just being facetious. :p

Here's the only meter they need:

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h1...ay/bsguage.jpg

Well, not everyone saw the add-on discussion and may miss the reference. -wink-

The player is being manufactured by Pioneer, so who knows why they decided to delay it.

From AVS:

It seems like many places are apparently sold-out of their initial orders. Even Robert at Value Electronics has sold more than he expected.

Oh no....I hope I'm able to get a 360 Add-on when it launches in retail stores. I really thought they would not be that tough to find....Oh well, here's hoping come November 7th (I think)

Well, color me surprised. I really didn't expect it to sell.

That's GOT to put a bunch in Sony's panties.

Well, now I'm really interested in bitrate for this title. I wonder if they had to crank up the VC-1 to match the (supposively) high MPEG-2 encoding?

How many was in the initial distribution? 10K? Of course, when the source says there will only be 250K PS3s in the US for launch already has their facts mixed up.

I doubt it....they probably just found the optimal level for the VC-1 encode.

As Cjplay said, he doesnt think that the increased bandwidth for BD would really help much.

Maybe we will see for World Trade Center since its BD50.

I obviously dont know the encoding tools, but I wonder if the IME feature caused them to have to do a completely separate encode for the BD feature and then they just chose MPEG2??

Yeah, I'm curious how many 360 HD-DVD units will be shipped at launch? Hopefully enough to cover demand.

Yeah, but wasnt it this week that Sony was going to provide allocation numbers?? Maybe it changed.

According to sspears (on MI:3):

Here's what one reviewer had to say about the BD vs. HD DVD version link:


Why use MPEG-2, again?

I guess it is to get rid of those annoying "jellyfish" artifacts that Don Eklund the Sr. VP of Advanced Technologies, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment sees:

He's been right about his inside information more than other members on this board so I tend to trust him over ANYTHING Sony is saying: officially or unofficially.

Considering Sony has given us no official numbers as far as what they're definitely sending out AND their player has been delayed, it's entirely possible that even less than the projected 400k will go out.

Being that the general consensus is that these titles look exactly the same, why even bring up MPEG-2? I'd still like to see the data. If the VC-1 encode is averaging above 20, there is something wrong.

What's wrong with this picture?