HD-DVD vs Blu Ray contest is over.

[Hammerskjold]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../?query=Toshiba



Personally, for me it's like hearing who won the race for the fastest single seat three wheeled car.

It's interesting sort of, but ultimately of no big consequence for me since if they really want to talk turkey, the real champ in my eyes is still the standard DVD.

The technology itself might see more widespread use now that the 'war' is settled, but I don't see a lot of people rushing out to dump their DVD player and DVD collection just yet.

[DeeBye]

I just bought a 42" Panasonic 1080p plasma a few days ago, so this really does interest me. I don't yet have a high def player, so it's nice to know which one NOT to buy.

I'll probably just upgrade my trusty old Philips 642 DVD player into something that can upscale standard definition DVDs to 1080p for now and then wait until Blu-Ray players (or the PS3 I guess) get cheap enough for my tastes.

The Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD "format war" wasn't much of a contest when Disney sided with Blu-Ray.

[Hammerskjold]

>I just bought a 42" Panasonic 1080p plasma a few days ago, so this really does interest me. I don't yet have a high def player, so it's nice to know which one NOT to buy.

A family member of mine was in this situation a year ago. Their old player malfunctioned, and they decided to look at the options for HD vs Blu ray, vs replacing it with another regular player. For this situation, it makes sense especially if high def compatible TVs are in the mix.


>I'll probably just upgrade my trusty old Philips 642 DVD player into something that can upscale standard definition DVDs to 1080p for now and then wait until Blu-Ray players (or the PS3 I guess) get cheap enough
for my tastes.

This is what I'm saying as well. I should clarify while I do find it interesting tech wise, it's not enough at this point for me, when I'm satisfied with standard DVDs. When it does reach the point of 50-100$ range, the way regular DVD players are at the time of this writing, then my interest will probably perk up.

Though if some of the big name stores are involved as much as they say, that might be sooner than later.


>The Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD "format war" wasn't much of a contest when Disney sided with Blu-Ray.

Also porn. Can't forget pr0n.

http://www.macworld.com/article/50627/20...ornhd.html

And the potential peril that high def can bring.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/21/b...s/porn.php

[[wcip]Angel]

Having a single format is good for consumers and publishers alike. Consumers won't have to pony up for two expensive systems, and publishers can focus their attention on a single format. Also, now that Blue-Ray has won the format war, we'll most likely see a surge of decent titles appearing in stores. This may not be a problem for the lucky americans, but here on the other side of the Blue-Ray divide, selection is sparse, bordering on laughable.

I just recently bought myself a shiny new PS3, a move which was inevitable with titles such as Gran Turismo, Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Silent Hill and Rock Band appearing within the year. The decision to get a PS3 now was also bolstered by the fact that Sony's game catalogue has been shaping up for a while now with games like Assassin's Creed and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune. The clincher for me, however, was Blue-Ray's triumph over HD-DVD. My heart does go out to those who invested hundreds of dollars in HD-DVD hardware, but I'm still happy for Sony, as it will only help bolster their gaming platform and ultimately provide consumers with a bigger range of games and Blue-Ray movies.

[Drasca]

Yes, because I picked up on the sale coming from HD-DVD's end.

http://www.dailytech.com/Best+Buy+Offers+X...rticle10850.htm

For 50$, I'm getting 6 HD-DVD movies due to the promotional offer still being good. Yee haw! 6 movies for less than 10 bucks total each, at high-definition, and the player to boot! Plus, the rest of the HD-DVD media stock is only going to get lower in price.

[LavCat]

For me it was Pirates of the Caribbean. And no, I don't have a television, I am quite content to watch Blu-ray on my computer monitor using PowerDVD. What I don't understand is the argument that "DVD's are just as good." How could anyone watch (and listen to) a movie on DVD followed by the same movie on Blu-ray, and then believe DVD was just as good? It isn't.

[Hammerskjold]

>For me it was Pirates of the Caribbean. And no, I don't have a television, I am quite content to watch Blu-ray on my computer monitor using PowerDVD.

I actually do most of my viewing on my monitor as well. Simply because it's more of a convenience for me. The people that Sony is really interested in though, my guess is will not use a monitor as their main display.


>What I don't understand is the argument that "DVD's are just as good."

I think for me the argument is not only about the audio-video improvement. It is noticeable, but depending on people's setup and other factors it could be a matter of incremental degrees. For some it's a big degree, for some it's not.

By that I mean the jump from VHS to DVD could be argued as exponential. The jump from DVD to high def DVD, can be argued as incremental. I have seen various high def setup on a computer setup, and in LCD and Plasma. They're all quite nice. The real question to me at this point though, is how much are most people willing to pay for that improvement. For some folks it's worth the whole shebang, some want to wait for their price point, or to leapfrog into a new tech altogether. And some decides they don't need high def and thousand dollars speakers systems.

So when someone says 'DVDs are just as good', they probably don't mean that in the direct video\audio quality comparison. Most likely what is meant is, this is good enough for my own standards. At least that's what I mean when I say DVD's are good enough for me right now.

> How could anyone watch (and listen to) a movie on DVD followed by the same movie on Blu-ray, and then believe DVD was just as good? It isn't.

The same could be said for people like you and me, some videophiles and movie buffs would look at our setup and ask, how could anyone be content watching a movie (especially something that looks great on a really large screen like 'Pirates...') on a monitor?

It will never be as good as seeing it on a high end projector in a dedicated, purpose built home theatre room. Complete with this http://www.amazon.com/Popcorn-Machine-Orig...r/dp/B0002113XU to really um, complete the movie watching experience.

But since this is a high tech consumer area we're talking about, it might be a moot discussion when the next big thing arrives. Then I might have to buy yet another copy of Peter Seller's 'The Party', now on Holocron.

[Concillian]

I have an HDTV and I still don't care.

Why? Well, to be truthful, DVD --> Blu-ray or HD-DVD is not a very significant progression. Honestly, I believe there would be better results by going 540p or 720p and having more than 256 colors.

But for the most part, DVDs are high enough quality on my 720p display that if the plot is engrossing, I don't care about the video quality. To me, that's all that really matters. The only real reason to get Blu-ray in my mind is if you plan on watching movies terrible enough that you WANT ignore the plot and "watch" the video quality.

Honestly I think the main reason they went 1080p is for having marketing numbers. It's annoying. Not quite as annoying though as all of the the commercials pushing 1080p displays specifically for the super bowl, which was broadcast in 720p...

[Jarulf]

>HD-DVD vs Blu Ray contest is over., Do you care?

Not really, I stick with DVD, a format not completely drowned in DRM extending out to not only the discs and players but almost all hardware used.

[Mithrandir]

The only reason I care is that it is a huge pain to replace my DVD collection. I guess it is more of a reason to buy a PS3... but honestly I can wait until the new MGS comes out to buy one, at the very earliest.

TBH, DVDs look good enough that I really feel no pressing need to run out and grab a Blu-Ray player and spend another $500+ to rebuy movies I want to watch in high def.

[Quark]

I didn't really care until I got a PS3. Then I cared a lot.

If you're setup right, it really is a nice improvement. Nice enough to replace my collection? No, though my collection isn't that impressive to begin with. There are a few titles (Fifth Element!) that transferred really well and were worth a second purchase.

It is, however, nice enough that I won't buy regular DVDs from now on.

[WarLocke]

Why? Well, to be truthful, DVD --> Blu-ray or HD-DVD is not a very significant progression.

This is me. Maybe my eyesight is just going bad or something, but I don't notice all that much of a visual difference between regular DVDs and HD/Blu-Ray. And almost no difference at all with the sound, but I have some ear damage so that's probably a wash.

Plus, those horrible transparent blue Blu-Ray boxes (hurr, blue Blu-Ray boxes how neat) really annoy me for some reason. :angry:

[Guest]

bLUE rAY

[Tal]

bLUE rAY

I realize you're only posting so you can create a new topic to advert your band but you couldn't at least add something to the conversation?

[LavCat]

>HD-DVD vs Blu Ray contest is over., Do you care?

Not really, I stick with DVD, a format not completely drowned in DRM extending out to not only the discs and players but almost all hardware used.

I don't like the idea of DRM either, but movie companies are not going to release movies in high definition without DRM any time soon, at least until Higher Definition comes out. And you can't get that much higher until movies start to be shot in higher resolution. As I understand it audio tracks are already at the quality of the studio master.

Fortunately, for me at least, the Blu-ray DRM does not interfere with use. The same could not always be said for, as an example, Diablo II. The only Blu-ray DRM issue that I have noticed is that it gets upset when I switch the monitor to another computer while the movie is playing. But then if I have the monitor switched to another computer I am not watching the movie anyhow.

[LavCat]

>For me it was Pirates of the Caribbean. And no, I don't have a television, I am quite content to watch Blu-ray on my computer monitor using PowerDVD.

I actually do most of my viewing on my monitor as well. Simply because it's more of a convenience for me. The people that Sony is really interested in though, my guess is will not use a monitor as their main display.
>What I don't understand is the argument that "DVD's are just as good."

I think for me the argument is not only about the audio-video improvement. It is noticeable, but depending on people's setup and other factors it could be a matter of incremental degrees. For some it's a big degree, for some it's not.

By that I mean the jump from VHS to DVD could be argued as exponential. The jump from DVD to high def DVD, can be argued as incremental. I have seen various high def setup on a computer setup, and in LCD and Plasma. They're all quite nice. The real question to me at this point though, is how much are most people willing to pay for that improvement. For some folks it's worth the whole shebang, some want to wait for their price point, or to leapfrog into a new tech altogether. And some decides they don't need high def and thousand dollars speakers systems.

So when someone says 'DVDs are just as good', they probably don't mean that in the direct video\audio quality comparison. Most likely what is meant is, this is good enough for my own standards. At least that's what I mean when I say DVD's are good enough for me right now.

> How could anyone watch (and listen to) a movie on DVD followed by the same movie on Blu-ray, and then believe DVD was just as good? It isn't.

The same could be said for people like you and me, some videophiles and movie buffs would look at our setup and ask, how could anyone be content watching a movie (especially something that looks great on a really large screen like 'Pirates...') on a monitor?

It will never be as good as seeing it on a high end projector in a dedicated, purpose built home theatre room. Complete with this http://www.amazon.com/Popcorn-Machine-Orig...r/dp/B0002113XU to really um, complete the movie watching experience.

But since this is a high tech consumer area we're talking about, it might be a moot discussion when the next big thing arrives. Then I might have to buy yet another copy of Peter Seller's 'The Party', now on Holocron.

I too am a fan of Sellers, even if satire was intended. I saw many of his films when they were current, starting with The Mouse That Roared, ending with Being There. I never saw The Party though. The DVD of A Shot in the Dark is particularly poor quality, even for a DVD.

Most of the DVD's in my collection are older films such as The Passion of Joan of Arc. I would not be immediately tempted to replace these with Blu-ray, particularly since in the case of Joan, the director specified the film was to be watched in total silence, thereby negating much of the benefit of an uncompressed sound track.

I am pretty satisfied with my monitor for watching movies (except for black level where it is hard to beat a CRT). I am nearsighted in one eye and farsighted in the other, but fortunately both eyes focus more or less at about two to three feet. For me, a 27" monitor viewed from two feet compares favorably to the experience in a movie theater. And except for an occasional cat, no one is blocking my view. For sound I listen with good headphones, using Dolby Headphone, though it is hard to get enough volume with my setup. If I used speakers the police would come. (I have had the police come while playing World of Warcraft -- a neighbor reported domestic violence.)

Popcorn is an issue though. My solution when viewing movies is to abstain from food. I watch movies in as close as I can come to total darkness. PoC 3 is a long movie and I allowed myself some milk and peanuts. While reaching in the jar of peanuts I put my hand in the glass of milk.

[Tsunami]

Well, in Germany, a HD-TV is near-worthless for anything but watching HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray discs. There is Pay-TV (duh!) in 720p, and some channels broadcast in 720p (but less than 10% of their program, and about 1% of the movies), but NOT to the cable network , so about 30% of the population are straight out. So you need a digital receiver for satellite TV, and that opens the can of worms that is poor sound quality, pixel-ish and laggy pictures etc.

Most of the TVs and DVD-players are terrible at upscaling, so it's neccessary to have a PC to do that, if you want to watch a regular DVD. (Sometimes even if you want to watch something in 720p!) Motion blur is a real problem, as is contrast and the dreaded black value. Watching the credits of "Miami Vice" made my eyes bleed, because the letters were so blurry.

So for me, it really does not matter, since the technology is not as advanced as the marketing teams want us to believe. I'll give it another four years; maybe it is ready for the masses then AND the discs do not cost more than thrice as much as the old DVDs now.:)

(That's not to say "Serenity" is not impressive in full-HD!:))

[Concillian]

Most of the TVs and DVD-players are terrible at upscaling, so it's neccessary to have a PC to do that, if you want to watch a regular DVD.

My experience with this was that my HDTV did a MUCH better job than I expected. If I set my DVD player do 'progressive scan' output, the quality was notably worse than when I fed the TV an interlaced signal and let it do the de-interlacing.

When using the PC feeding the TV, I was able to get equivalent quality, but it took some time playing with the settings in xine. Eventually I got something slightly better than the TV itself, but not what I would call noticeable. You can only really tell if you screenshot the PC and pause the DVD on a similar frame and go back and forth between the two inputs on the TV. There is a limit to what you can do to "upscale" with the compression level DVDs are at.

[DeeBye]

My experience with this was that my HDTV did a MUCH better job than I expected. If I set my DVD player do 'progressive scan' output, the quality was notably worse than when I fed the TV an interlaced signal and let it do the de-interlacing.

My new 42" Panasonic 1080p plasma was just delivered yesterday and I just got a chance to hook it up. I haven't had a chance to get some component cables so I just have it hooked up to a Philips 5.1 DVD home theatre using composite cables.

I wasn't expecting much, but watching my son's Cars DVD blew me away. It looks absolutely stunning, even at 480i. Granted, my Panasonic unit is one of the better HDTVs out there but holy smokes.

I can't wait to get a PS3 and watch some true 1080p stuff :wub:

[Hammerskjold]

>Most of the DVD's in my collection are older films such as The Passion of Joan of Arc. I would not be immediately tempted to replace these with Blu-ray, particularly since in the case of Joan, the director specified the film was to be watched in total silence, thereby negating much of the benefit of an uncompressed sound track.

That is a great point, with some films the technology simply does not apply. On a side note, I belong to the camp that believes in digital restoration and clean up, but not things like Turner colorization or guns being digitally replaced with walkie talkies.

I'm all for director's edition etc, but the movie buff historian (and completist) side of me always wants a theatrical version available. It has nothing to do with which one is 'better', but more to do with preservation of context. (Even if I think the 'Blade Runner' theatrical version with the voice over is inferior to the director's cut, I still defend it's existence if nothing else for historical reasons.)

>I am pretty satisfied with my monitor for watching movies (except for black level where it is hard to beat a CRT).

It sounds like we have very similar setup. Though I still use a CRT monitor because of it's price and it's colour fidelity. But I for one can't wait until LCD or something else finally matches and surpasses those qualities, because I hate CRT's for it's bulky footprint, lower efficiency, and less than green components.

Having some time to think some more regarding monitors vs televisions though, I'm wondering if we're approaching the stage where we're just splitting hairs. Most TVs that are made nowadays are more computerized, and has less differences from a computer monitor. And the reverse seems to be true as well, though not as common. Monitors are still optimized for more frequent text use, but even this difference is beginning to become less clear, with tv's text rendering being improved.

It wouldn't surprise me if in the not so distant future people will just buy a 'display'. It can certainly lower the cost of manufacturing if it's streamlined in that sense.

>Popcorn is an issue though. My solution when viewing movies is to abstain from food.

When I go out to the theatres, I do the same thing, mainly because I hate missing out if I have to go the bathroom. (Though if it's a boring flick, I have no hesitation to do so.) When at home or I can pause the movie, that's less of an issue.