Any difference between these two releases?

I notice the HD DVD one seems to have higher number of preorders on Amazon.ca and amazon.com.

It's #3 on the bestsellers list on amazon.ca which I thought was pretty impressive! The standard def is #1 and the Blu ray is #12. If you were to tally those all up, this series is selling pretty huge for a documentary!

Anyways, I'm just trying to decide which one I should get... Any thoughts?

I think HD-DVD has True HD. Dont know about the Bluray. So I would recommend HD-DVD

When I have a choice between the two I pick HD DVD. This is really a set where the bookmarking ability of HD DVD could come in real handy.

Going with the Blu-Ray myself. Been doing this on pretty much any dual release.

As do I...solely because the sound on the PS3 is so much better than on the 360 add on. Been considering a stand alone HD DVD player but not ready to do so quite yet...

If they both have the exact same audio, features, price, I go with HD DVD. Why? Because IMO, red looks better.

I've been looking for a compelling reason to choose one over the other, but haven't found it yet.

Yep, looks like a potato, po-ta-to situation here. For those who are format-neutral, go with whatever format you think will be around for the long haul. It's really a coin toss on this one.

Do both have the David Attenborough narration?

But blue is more of an earth color. Is there any reliable source for specs?

I go with Blu-Ray when given a choice. Why would I want to wait 45 seconds for my A1 to boot when the PS3 will do it almost instantly? Plus, I think the blue box goes better with the cover art on this release.

The only verifiable info came from someone who works with Discovery Channel and posted on AVSForum said that the BD/HD versions will have only Sir David for narration, other than that, we know nothing.

True blue. Inside your body, your blood is blue. Blood turns red only when it mixes with oxygen, which is what occurs when you cut yourself and bleed.

Another poor soul who gets his scientific knowledge from Nigel Tufnel:

Nigel Tufnel: This is my exact inner structure, done in a tee shirt. Exactly medically accurate. See?
Marty DiBergi: So in other words if we were to take all your flesh and blood...
Nigel Tufnel: Take them off. This is what you'd see.
Marty DiBergi: It wouldn't be green though.
[Nigel points at Marty]
Nigel Tufnel: It is green. You see how your blood looks blue.
Marty DiBergi: Yeah, well that's just the vein. That's the color of the vein. The blood is actually red.
Nigel Tufnel: Oh then, maybe it's not green. Anyway this is what I sleep in sometimes.


This information is a bit more accurate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood

"Color:
In humans and other hemoglobin-using creatures, oxygenated blood is bright red. This is due to oxygenated iron in the red blood cells. Deoxygenated blood is a darker shade of red, which can be seen during blood donation and when venous blood samples are taken. However, due to skin pigments, blood vessel coverings and an optical effect caused by the way in which light penetrates through the skin, veins typically appear blue in color. This has led to a common misconception that venous blood is blue before it is exposed to air. Another reason for this misconception is that medical charts always show venous blood as blue in order to distinguish it from arterial blood which is depicted as red on the same chart."


Unless you are talking about horseshoe crabs. If so, carry on:

"The blood of horseshoe crabs is blue, which is a result of its high content in copper-based hemocyanin instead of the iron-based hemoglobin found, for example, in humans."

If blood were really blue until it hit oxygen, any time you cut yourself you'd be able to see the blood turning from blue to red as it poured out of the wound. I think I can safely claim that's never happened to me.

You guys misunderstood him. THEEK meant to say he comes from a well-known, wealthy and established family.

I wonder why the HD DVD version is selling more. More documentary lovers on HD DVD side perhaps?

More mature owners on the HD DVD side maybe. Blu-ray is supported mostly by PS3 owners and while there are some like myself that bought PS3s for Blu-ray movies the vast majority are gamers. That crowd will buy Casino Royale, but you really can't count on them to buy things like documentaries. With something like Planet Earth that 10 to 1 hardware advantage is pretty meaningless.

Judging by the sales figures exposed a few weeks ago by Sony, it seems to be a rare occurance for BD to outsell HD DVD for a dual format release -- the major exception being when the HD DVD release is a Combo. On those rare instances when the BD outperforms HD DVD, consider the title and the demographic to which it's been marketed.

Another factor, I think, is availability. Obviously, in this case -- where both formats are equally available -- this point is moot. However, one dual format title I remember which sold higher numbers of BD units than HD DVD was "Nacho Libre".* I believe the HD DVD is available from Amazon now, but for a long time -- even after its release -- it was not. It wasn't even listed. A number of B&M stores in my area didn't stock it for a long time, either, and I was actually surprised to find the HD DVD in my local Best Buy when it appeared there a couple months after its initial release.

As for the folks who are "format neutral", I would be most interested to know how they make their decisions on dual format releases when the following criteria are met:

1. Both formats contain identical specifications, including special features.
2. Both have identical MSRPs.
3. The HD DVD is NOT a Combo.

Is it a color preference thing?


*It occurs to me that "Nacho Libre" may not be the best example for the "availability" argument, as I can easily imagine the demographic factor as having been an issue in its sales as well.

I would recommend HD-DVD. I just purchased the pre-order on Amazon earlier this week.

FYI: There is no guarantee this will not be a DL 50GB release as Warner has started to use the format more frequently. Considering the latest specs list lossless audio for both, it would be a tight squeeze on 25Gb discs.

I will buy the HD DVD. HD DVD supports bookmarking which will be very useful on a series like this and HD DVD was the format I picked first. I'm going to try and help them as much as possible.

Not to be rude pal, but dont assume all Blu-Ray supporters to be 15 year old PS3 owners.. I know plenty of BR supporters who plan on buying this title.. the fact is the HD-DVD version seems to be selliong so well due to AVS's buyathon.

is it confirmed that these discs support bookmarking on hd dd?

I doubt that a buyathon at AVS would skew the numbers very much. And they don't buy from Amazon, which is the source of the sales number, I believe. If anything, you would have fewer HD-DVD sales on Amazon because of the buyathon.

I think the point about the majority of BD players being PS3s is a valid point.

But I'm still trying to decide which version to buy.

edit: Why is there an ad in my post?