Josh, still waiting for your declaration of the PS3 as a substandard BD player because it won't support the full HDMI 1.3 spec. After all, as you've said, HDMI 1.3 is a requirement for you to buy a player, right?

No, sorry, Microsoft reps on AVS have confirmed that VC-1 has to be encoded for HD DVD first and then ported to Blu-ray. The current VC-1 tools support translation of HD DVD encodes to Blu-ray but not straight Blu-ray encoding (yet).

Given that Warner Bros is the only studio using VC-1 on Blu-ray now, that hasn't been an issue. But Lionsgate has publicly committed to using VC-1 in the near future, and they're not an HD DVD studio currently, which is why they're expected to go format neutral.

Actually no, because the pieces of the spec I require (passing TrueHD and DTS MA over HDMI and higher color space) are included.

Ok, a few things:

First, the BDA needs permission to sell prepackaged DVDs from the DVDforum. That is what QGJim was reffering to. The players play them, but they can't advertise and sell dvds without permission.

Secondly, the "most of whom(CE companies) prefer BD" statement has very little weight, because they are not a majority of voters on the board. The majority of the DVD Forum voted AOD over Blu-Ray as their format of choice.

Isn't the PS3 able to decode TrueHD and DTS MA? There wouldn't be much of a reason to pass them through then.

I compare the lack of extras to the SD DVD counterparts, but you already knew that.

So you're willing to buy barebones BD releases. I'm glad you're happy with them. I don't want an HD version of a movie that doesn't port over all the extras from the SD version. That's why I'll wait for the next version of Army of Darkness. This allows me to retire the SD version.

As far as PQ goes, the best Blu-ray has managed is to be "on par with HD DVD" on a few select releases. They've got to do better than that.

This is like quicksand. I've already seen plenty of back and forth on this one. Bottom line is every indicator is that HD DVD is outselling Blu-ray. The 10th ranked HD DVD disc outsells the top ranked Blu-ray disc on Amazon.com (consistently, too). People who work at Fry's and BB have said that the HD DVD players and software move more units than Blu-ray. I've seen reports of a growing HD DVD advantage of 11:1 (source was a Videoscan report). I tend to believe it because it fits with the rest of the indicators. Who knows just how bad Blu-ray is doing? Bottom line is they're not selling as well. Which is all that really matters: sales.

And without the much promised and hyped BD50, I don't think BD can save itself.

My only point is BD lives or dies with BD50. I think you under estimate the importance widespread BD50s.

I was firmly on the BD side until hype didn't match up with reality.

I like passing audio to the receiver. Its a personally preference, but I find they handle it better.

Also, the first comparison of the Paramount titles is out:

Damn, would you look at that. Equal PQ. Rumor is, its MPEG-2 as well. Oh the horror!

Edit: http://www.dvdtown.com/article/param...titlesre/4091/

Awmurray,

Last i looked...the top THIRTY HD DVD's outranked the #1 BD.

And 5 of the top 10 BD's were already available on HD DVD.

What the hell does that tell studios??

I'm going to really doubt Paramount took the time to encode in MPEG-2 again, after they have switched to VC-1. The whole idea for the format neutral studios is saving money and time by doing one encode. I can understand small differences when it comes time to author the discs but the encodes should be the same.

Other than that, no Dolby Digital Plus on titles I have had sitting on my shelf for a while now. Nothing to get excited about .... wake me up when Paramount decides to grace us with something(anything) new.

Actually, I remember Amir stating that MI3 on BD will be MPEG2. Or something about their being a 95% chance that it will be.

That would suck. I'll be buying it on HD-dvd though. I really don't see the purpose of two encodes when the release date is even the same, unless the MPEG-2 version was done a long time ago.

Wow! Believe it or not, I do try to give Blu-ray the benefit of the doubt. I don't try to inflate any HD DVD advantage I see... I just say what I think based on everything I've read (and I try to read a lot).

The only advantage I can see for Blu-ray (the actual product in stores) is that they have more titles with lossless soundtracks... unfortunately they're not compressed... Who needs compression when you have 50 gig discs, though???

We BOTH were strong BD supporters before these formats launched. What does that tell studios??

You and i were hardcore.

I'd love to dig out some of the obnoxious posts I probably made before April of this year. Might remind me of some people...

But I do definitely remember the turn. Seeing HD DVD on the promo tour. I came home that night and posted all about it here. I honestly was damn impressed and I really couldn't criticize it. It was a really good move on their part. That was the beginning of the end for BD, in my mind.

And I don't think i'm inflating anything. I just check thedvdwars.com every few days and see what's up. The last time I checked, those were accurate.

That apparently does not matter

True, sales is what ultimately will matter. To look at current sales, though, is not a fair comparison. The more fair comparison will be BD sales figure now versus HD DVD sales figure from six months* ago, since HD DVD had about a six months* head start.

Anyway, since sales is what will ultimately matter, the movie titles will have the most effect on sales in the long term (for the MASSES). PQ and AQ will be a distant second. Extras will be a distant, distant third (almost negligible). That's how most people buy movies. Only movie buffs (anyone who even lurks here count as buffs, and we represent <1% of movie buyers) care about these things.

I hope all studios go neutral on format support. While this isn't too likely, I think that this is a lot more likely than having just one format.


<small>* Six months is my estimate of the head start. I'm sure HD DVD camp will think it's less and BD camp will think it's more.</small>

Funny, thats exactly what all PSP users say about the DS selling so many units. DS came out first therefore it would obviously sell more units...blah blah blah. Just excuses. But if anyone wants to try and get data on this im sure most would be interested.

I dunno, on one of the other forums I read, it was the other way around -- HD DVD enthusiasts were claiming a longer headstart and Blu-ray enthusiasts were generally pointing out how closely together they were released.

The first HD DVD players and titles were released in mid-April. The first Blu-ray player and titles were released in mid-June.

For HD DVD to have a six month headstart, Blu-ray still couldn't be on store shelves.

I wasn't buying either format until the HD DVD/Blu-ray demo. I had convinced myself that SD was good enough upconverted, blah blah. After seeing both formats with my own eyes I was sold. Also after seeing that HD DVD was in every way equal to Blu-ray in quality, but half the hardware buy in I was sold on that as well.

Given the fact that Blu-ray was a slam dunk to win the format war you have to give HD DVD a ton of credit. It has overacheived in every way possible and that combined with Blu-ray stumbling out of the gate and falling on its face has turned a slam dunk into a format war that will go on for years.

I still love the logic that HD DVD should go away just because Sony has the better format on paper and more support. Blu-ray could have killed HD DVD long ago if it simply delivered on what it promised. I have heard Sony reps go on and on about BD50 and these high bit rates needed to give transfers transparent to the master, but at the end of the day they are not going to give us anything better than HD DVD and in most cases worse in either PQ or extras. In return they want us to pay double the hardware cost or use a half assed gaming machine to anchor our home theater. Is it any wonder so many of us have told Blu-ray to fuck off?

No offense meant, but when I read that I see that BD has less space, when it has touted that space was a major issue, BD is finally maybe equal on PQ, and has slightly worse audio. That doesn't seem like a real strong review to get me to go out and spend $1,300 instead of $500. It just seems off to be able to say, "we're finally nearly as good as the guys who cost a third as much" and think that is positive.

That's okay kvrdave, no offense taken. You just have to realize the situation this forum is currently in. If I were to bring up a point like how Sony and Disney titles all used lossless audio, it would fall on deaf ears, because people here are very visual-minded. They don't care about lossless audio (like I do), they just want the best picture. In fact, most would put extras (in SD no less) above audio.

But it does go to show, that the HD DVD claim of superior PQ over Blu-Ray is false. Warner and Paramount titles look identical on both formats, meaning the only thing left to claim would be that Universal titles look better on HD DVD. But until Universal starts putting out Blu-Ray discs, we'll never know.

If your budget is only $500 for a player, then pick up a PS3. If you can spend more, then there are plenty of choices coming out within the next month or so. If your real question is why would someone willingly pay more for a Panasonic when they could see the exact same image on a Toshiba, I just have to point out that its been a few days since people have recieved their players, and no discussion about bugs or crashes as of yet.

In other news, the local Target has their Blu-Ray/Hd-dvd display up and I finally got Batman and Polar Express. Better late than never!

Because HD DVD has about 25 titles that I'd want to own, and they all look great. And BD has about 4-5 titles that I'd want to own (that aren't also on HD DVD), and about half of them look terrible and the others look radically similar to upconverted SDs. And *NONE* of them include the extras from the SD sets. For me, that's more than enough reason to support HD DVD.

All this talk of 'superior support' means shit at this early stage. Who cares that Disney is BD-only *right now*, if they're releasing stuff like Jay & Silent Bob. We're not getting Toy Story, Pirates, and Sleeping Beauty. We're getting Eight Below and Dark Water.


This really has nothing to do with HD/BD... it has to do with early, niche formats. We're only a few months in. I'd love to have all studios on board with HD DVD, but when studios like Fox and Disney are just dipping their toes in the water and putting out (mostly) crap, I'd not going to rush to buy into BD until I see how things shake out. If they announce HD DVD support tomorrow, I'm going to feel like an ass. And ass with a $1000 BD paperweight in my HT.

Looks like I was wrong. Kris D was stating that the Paramount titles are in fact all MPEG-2. I can only imagine why they are using two different codecs for two formats if its true. It certainly doesn't make sense to me but considering Paramount is only releasing a few titles for both maybe they are just testing the waters.

I believe they are using Sony to press the discs, and as of right now, they only do MPEG-2. Too delicious.

Fixed.

MOD NOTE: you're one step closing to getting suspended. -namja