Printable View
Outside of the next-gen consoles that are coming out that are backing one format over another. I am wondering which format y'all would throw your money behind if you went to the movie store to get a movie. Each format of course has it's benefits and downfalls but what will you choose when it comes down to it?
Information for Blu-ray - Here
Information for HD-DVD -Here
I pick whichever format will have the higher market penetration.
Probably not the most useful response, but really thats what matters most to me. I read an article once that implied that history has dictated that the better medium isn't always the medium that will hit mainstream (a good example of which being beta vs vhs).
I picked Blu-ray because I think it might have better potential and it will probably be more popular and used too. Since I am about to get PS3 soon it will be perfect for me so I don't need to go buy a whole new different player.
There's no neither? I'm more than happy with regular dvds, and after seeing even those on my friend's hdtv, I'm inclined to agree with the many who say we don't need a new format at all. If you want to see all the pimples, wrinkles, and freckles on your favorite actors, that's fine, but I'm more than content with what we've already got.
I liked this Opinion article from theinquirer.com last month. HD disk format wars are over
That, and I don't believe in "paying for potential." The functionality is either already there or it isn't.
I agree with you I don't think I will be buying either right now but will give Blu-ray a try first.
It will be just easier for me to give Blu-ray a try since I can try it on my PS3 when I get it. I have already collected a lot of movies and shows on regular dvd's and I'm happy with them too so I don't care that much right now about the new formats. I can see your point and completely agree but if I had to choose one of these new formats it would be Blu-ray over HD-DVD for now.
Edit : Forgot about the Total HD format which I think is a nice idea.
Full StoryQuote:
Well, it thankfully didn't take long, but Warner Bros. is coming out with Total HD, a new type of high-definition DVD that can be played on either Blu-ray or HD-DVD players.
Hopefully the studios will just start using this, and make everyone's life easier. In theory anyway.
both, but i prefer HD-DVD. (the porn industry choosed that format, no? *whistle*)
So, Total HD would be the best solution.
To me, they are both the same crap, it is just that the blu ray is, supossedly, capable of having more data on it.
What will they come out with next? movies on sd-card like?
i would choose blu ray no reason to it....
As far as I am currently concerned, neither. I don't have the need or money for either, but especially not the blu-ray. At this point it is impossible to decide which one will ultimately win, perhaps they will both flop. If I had to choose however, I would go with HD-DVD.
This site is an interesting read.
I voted HD DVD why you say? Well older people know what an DVD is, if they own a HD tv then they know what HD stands for, combine the two and you have an instantly recognizable name.
Blue Ray, hmm, they have no idea. Unless you knew what it was before you entered the store good luck.
HD DVD i think will win for this very very simple fact. The majority of users are not informed hence why Spiegel had to include links to both. People understand what HD DVD is and blue ray is just to ambiguous.
Blu-Ray, strictly because I bought a PS3 last week.
I think you're under the false impression that older people feel the same urge to follow trends. Your uncle doesn't know terms like "rumble", "IRC" or "torrent" because it doesn't affect his life. The battle for shelf space will have already had to be decided well before the "old people" catch on.Quote:
Originally Posted by woofcat
By your reasoning, Blu-Ray will win, because all you have to do is tell old people that they can have every Starsky & Hutch episode on one disc.
Blu-ray because it has a cooler name. HD-DVD just sounds some kind of protein or enzyme or some shit like that. Blu-ray sounds like fucking awesome space-ship or some kind of weapon of mass fucking shit up.
"They've got us cornered... start up the Blu-ray of hell from infinite doom!!!"
I never thought of it that way... Makes me think of Star Trek and wish I had a "Blu-ray of hell from infinite doom!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by el_boss
By the way I personally voted for Blu-ray because I like the prospect of the extra storage on it which means best video format for longer time period, Because of its lovely 54Mbit/s data transfer rate, and I like Blue. The price for the player is a little more which I can understand. The Blu-ray disks also cost more, but you are also getting more storage out of the disk therefore cost per GB is lower than that of the HD-DVD. I think the comparison page said that for a single layer disk of each brand cost $17.99 for the 25Gb blu-ray and $14.99 for the 15Gb HD-DVD. That works out to be $0.71 per GB for Blu-ray and $0.99 per GB for HD-DVD.
If you have not looked there is also an article comparing the formats side by side Here.
I picked Blu-ray, my reason is the same as the reason said already..
Why isn't there an "I don't care at all" option?
I didn't vote. Both are completely irrelevant to me until either:
(1) I can affordably burn them and use them on a wide variety of computers (at which point, the data capacity, speed, cost and compatibility are all that matter)
or
(2) I have an High Definition display to watch HD-media on.
Neither is forthcoming in the next year of my habits and finances. Thus, I don't care about HD-DVD or Blu-ray at all.
Assert is absolutely right - it doesn't matter in the end which format is "better", but which one has more movies out. If the new Die-Hard is only out on Blu-Ray, guess which one I'm gonna buy? I'll probably wait and see which format gets more support before I start buying, though. I know someone who was absolutely screwed in the betamax vs. VHS debacle - she ended up with dozens of tapes that were completely worthless. Although I hear you can still sell obsolete formats on E-bay :DQuote:
Originally Posted by AssertnFailure
Blu-Ray because I actually intend to buy a PlayStation 3 at some point.
... If I weren't, I'd say neither.
Blu-ray since I have a PS3.
Chances are, if people can't figure out HD-DVD, they're going to walk into the place thinking the blu-ray is like a fucking x-ray...which of course, they have heard all these horrible things about x-ray radiations...ooo, so to stay away from blu-ray radiation they'll flee for the enzymes...Quote:
Originally Posted by el_boss
I would vouch for Blu-Ray. It's just so much bigger. Now if only they can create faster burners for Blu-Ray. I heard it takes like 4-6 hours to fully code an entire BluDisc.
The potential for storing 2 times the quantity in a single disc and price difference poses it's problems. If Blu-Ray Discs were competitively priced (which it soon be with over-production especially by our friends in Taiwan). The question is what the heck do you store on them?
You can store a standard quality tv show of 23 hours. Thats watching how many movies? 7 movies in one Blu-Ray. 9 Hours high definition. And if a movie's only 2-3 hours, you kinda feel cheated about the rest of the 6 hours. Unless it's competitively priced like a hd-dvd and you don't mind having alot of redundant space on it.
Which would make it interesting for things either than movies however. I think I can store my entire Naruto & One Piece collection on 1 Blu-Ray.
http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/blur...won-023974.php
Blue-ray is my pick not only is it a larger size but it will have far better penetration into the average household due to the PS3 using the disks and having a built in player.
On the other hand its optional on the X-box 360 and its a useless option unless you intend to buy HD-DVD.
So overall I would say Blue-ray has the edge as long as the PS3 is a sucess.
** ruh roh! **Quote:
Originally Posted by DDBen
I stopped reading when I saw Xbox 360 Community BlogcastQuote:
Originally Posted by AssertnFailure
I won't be getting an HD tv any time in the next three years, so it doesn't matter to me.
Still, just for fun, I'll guess HDDVD based on history. Currently, HDDVD players are cheaper to produce. RCA's video record players never sold because the player was too damn expensive.
Blu-Ray is being championed (primarily) by Sony, right? Let's take a look at Sony's other formats: Betamax, Video8, MMCD, Mini-CD, SDDS 7.1, Memory Stick, ATRAC encoding, and UMD. Let's also not forget those lovely CDs with a free rootkit installed. Aside from 3.25 floppies Sony has not had many sucessful formats. I'm guessing that Blu-Ray will go the same way.
Well, I wasn't going to post at all in this thread, but after Samson's post I guess I'll post just to join the not concerned chorus. Maybe after two or three years I'll have a look at this. Right now I haven't even upgraded my single layer dvd burner to a double layer one, because doudle layer DVDs still have a too bad price / capacity ratio compared to single layer ones. Who knows how long it will take for Bluray and HDDVD to reach a good enough ratio. And besides, I don't think burners will be plentiful enough to get cheap in the immediate future.
I simply can't choose either with the info and facts now available. But like el_boss said, Bluray does have a cooler name. HDDVD was just invented by some computer algorithm... No human would come up with a name that unimaginative.
4 years, give or take. 8 years ago, burning cds was a bit extravagant (burners >>$100, media >$1/disk), 4 years ago burning cds was cheap ($30 burners, $0.25 media) and burning dvds was expensive (>$100 burners, >$2.00 media). Now burning dvds is cheap ($0.25/disc, $30-$35 burners) and Blu-ray is ... umm ... not really there ($600-$800 burners, $13ish/disc). I'm predicting a 4 year cycle ... by 2010, blu-ray and hd-dvd will be viable storage solutions for normal, economically conscious consumers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraco
But right now, I'd rather have LTO4 :p.
Haha that's fine.....but from my understanding the writer of that article also owns a PS3 himself....and none of it seemed very biased, but rather is merely observations not unlike the ones I've seen firsthand. But it's cool, turn a blind eye if you must.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeon
I had no clue what the heck that was so i went to Wikipedia (Mans Best Friend) and I would love that too, But then again I am also one to say I wish the 1TB florescent multi-layer disk actually worked as just wasn't a Flop. The FMD is now known as a DMD though. the articles for both are as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by complich8
FMD: Here
DMD: Here
I have to admit that the price of the PS3 has severely biased me against Blu-ray. It's even pushed me back to Nintendo, after years and years of being a hardcore playstation girl. As a result, Blu-ray annoys me for reminding me that Sony is being dumb and making their new system so far out of my price range. It might as well be a million dollars, for all that I can afford it. Well, not that I'd be buying any sort of new electronics in the near future at all, but still, if I was, I'd shake my fist full of money at Blu-ray. *shakes empty fist*
Well, the porn industry claims to be backing HD-DVD. If that ends up being the case, I think it's a no-brainer.
Looks like more trouble for PS3/Blu-ray fans.
That artical covers a very small amount of time assuming it was done on december 28th then the statement the units had been there sense Saturday would mean that on Christmas eve they had 5 in the store ready to buy. I don't exactly believe the artical for that reason alone. Also I'm in the Northeast and at this time have not seen a PS3 for sale in a store period. Given I'm not searching daily and I have no interest in paying $600 for the machine at this time. In the end it comes down to the site is biased, the information is NOT complete and The writer has no credability to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by AssertnFailure
If this is a actual widespread issue it would be over all the major tech news sites not just a random ProXbox 360 blog.
Ok so they have made a tripple layer disk. Now before that matters in the slightest tell me cost and burn times. If a tripple layer disk takes 3X the time and cost of a single layer disk and a double layer takes only 2X chances are that tripple layer is not viable at all right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by xDarkMaster
I stopped by a few Gamestops in Michigan before new years and have seen firsthand several PS3s that, as the employee stated, had been sitting there for at least 5 days. Not only that, but more systems were returning to the store because they kept breaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDBen
Want a more credible source? Be my guest.Quote:
In the end it comes down to the site is biased, the information is NOT complete and The writer has no credability to me.
I just took the first result of a quick google search, but there's plenty of other sources out there.
Even if they do cost more, the important thing is you (theoretically) wouldn't need a new piece of hardware to read them if you already own an HDDVD player.Quote:
Ok so they have made a tripple layer disk. Now before that matters in the slightest tell me cost and burn times. If a tripple layer disk takes 3X the time and cost of a single layer disk and a double layer takes only 2X chances are that tripple layer is not viable at all right now.
Also, lolz at burn times. Obviously you are not looking at the HD war the same way 95% of everyone else is.
My mistake the artical does say its from someone in Dallas. Reguardless none of the google articals are from anyone who has done actual research. A sure fire way to find out iif Bestbuy is really having a issue selling them or if Sony is just properly supplying them is going to www.bestbuy.com. As they are sold out online I highly doubt that stores are having any issues moving them. Its a $600 console system I agree thats quite high and I've never been handed anything that expensive as a gift. Its not something grandma is going to pick up for her 9 grandkids and at the same time either is a $400 X-box.Quote:
Originally Posted by AssertnFailure
Also Note Walmart.com only has $700 20gb bundles and $900+ 20GB ($1000+ 60GB) bundles available online. www.Newegg.com has some of the 60GB systems at retail online (note they are ONLY online). www.amazon.com only has scalpers. www.nextag.com can't find any from various sites. I'd say overall sony has pretty steady sales.
As far as burn times go for a tripple layer HD-DVD vs a Double layer Blue-ray disk goes. Its a fact if the disks take longer to make they cost more to make and thats a serious issue for anyone trying to make and sell those disks. Currently Blu-ray and HD-DVD disks cost about the same at retail a average of $30 a disk. Also the double layer disks for both cost about the same to make. So I can only assume a Tripple layer disk is less cost effective then a Dual-layer if both are the same size.
Done any research? What more research needs to be done than to walk into a Best buy to see a pile of ps3s lying there, and maybe asking an employee how long they've been there? Some of the articles were even written by best buy employees and they took pictures of amusing things they've done with all the boxes of ps3s lying around. I also found articles of people talking about the fact that they aren't being sold online. Spend a few minutes and do some actual research yourself if you want to actually argue something, otherwise you just make yourself sound like a raving fanboy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDBen
Wups, no actual research done here :oQuote:
I'd say overall sony has pretty steady sales.
Sure it's a fact that taking longer costs more money, but you're assuming triple layer takes noticeably longer. Ever wonder why software, music, and movies you buy off the shelf looks different on the read side than a disc you burn off your own computer? It's because the data is baked into those discs when they're manufactured, rather than afterwards. The time-consuming process of converting digital to microscopic trenches may be longer, but manufacturers only have to do that once to create the blueprints. Afterwards its just a simple task of stamping duplicated layers of those microscopic trenches. You don't honestly think they sit there with thousands dvd burners, converting the same digital data to hardware the whole time, do you?Quote:
As far as burn times go for a tripple layer HD-DVD vs a Double layer Blue-ray disk goes. Its a fact if the disks take longer to make they cost more to make and thats a serious issue for anyone trying to make and sell those disks.
PS3 sales data as of jan 13th 2007.
http://www.latimes.com/technology/la...nes-technology
Sony's PlayStation 2 came in second, still running strong six years after its release. It sold 1.4 million units during December amid shortages of its successor, the PS3, which sold 490,700 units in December and 687,300 since its November launch.
So thats about 700,000 blu-ray players in the last 2 months that people own or atleast Sony considers sold. I highly doubt HD-DVD players are selling at near that rate. The fact they arn't selling out before hitting shelves post Christmas is normal. Reguardless the X-box 360 does not come with a built in HD-DVD drive and its not used for any of the content its purely for the movies. As such they are far less likely to get people to buy a $200 accessory that has nothing to do with gameplay.
So there you go some research based on actual data rather then random people posting online. Also note I don't think the PS3 is currently worth the asking price nor do I think its the best overall system at this time. I do think in a year it will be but this topic is about the Blu-ray player vs HD-DVD and the point remains that every PS3 sold is another Blu-Ray player in someones house.
Also Yes AssertnFailure I do realise how commercial disks are made vs ones you burn at home. No they don't look that differn't usually its just color. That aside its going to take longer to make a multilayer disk and cost more then for one with a single layer. I'm assuming the same cost problem holds true for dual vs tripple layer disks. This is pretty clear being that when buying a DVD for home use they tend to use single layer media and provide multiple disks rather then use multilayer media on one disk. Now given I don't have all the data on the tripple layer HD-DVD's nor do I care enough to keep digging.
Finally any HD-DVD players out now likely can't read tripple layer disks. Not all DVD players can read dual layer disks either. So if they change the standard in HD-DVD and invalidate currently existing players they are just shooting themself in the foot. Given HD-DVD could be differn't in this respect and not have that problem but unless I see a statement saying thats the case I'll assume the worst with Microsoft.
I doubt a DVD player that can't read dual layer has ever been manufactured, unless the very earliest ones. Dual layer DVDs are the standard for movies. Some HK versions might prefer single layer. But they are hardly concerned about video quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDBen
You mean the part that says "amid shortages of its successor"?Quote:
Originally Posted by DDBen
Ya dewd, sweet fax :rolleyes:
Of course there's no value in the random postings of people online. It's not like Time dedicated the cover of their "Person of 06" to random posters or anything. Oh wait.....they did..... Ah well, screw archived conversations depicting mountains of unsold consoles, this more credible site wrote a single line informing me that the PS2's successor had "experienced shortages."
I lost the energy and motivation to participate in console wars years ago. Anyone else want to switch hit this?
What on earth are you trying to prove here AssertnFailure none of my posts are purely about console wars they are about Blu-ray players in american homes VS HD-TV players.Quote:
Originally Posted by AssertnFailure
Just because you have a anti-PS3 hardon for whatever reason doesn't mean you need to keep spamming a topic that isn't about them. Sure stores might have some in stock now but certainly not doomsday numbers. Sony was chartering private Jets to get as many into the US for Christmas as possible and sooner or later a $600 device hits saturation.
Reguardless the point that your ignoring for whatever reason is that about 700,000 PS3's which are Blu-Ray players are in American homes right now and I highly doubt HD-DVD is even close to that number at the moment.
Also enough with the trolling and worthless comments either post facts and actual data or stop wasting everyone time posting. Your a mod and comments where your rolling your eye's and adding nothing to the conversation make you look like a fool.
Kraco Several early DVD players had issues playing DVD's like "The Matrix" upon its release. Its far from unheard of for new tech not to be backwards compatable and being that most people who have HD-DVD players likely didn't just buy them there is a very good chance it isn't fully backwards compatable. Its entirely possible it is and feel free to research it and post anything where that claim is made.
Uhh what? You're being a hypocritical idiot, dude.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDBen
Nintendo's been making just as much effort to saturate the market as Sony has, yet nobody ever says wiis are in stock. I spent 2 minutes composing a response to your first post in this topic that expressed the personal observation I've made even from a casual trip to a game store, never having anticipated that people would go through the effort to challenge it so bluntly. Sooner or later, you're going to have to accept that the PS3 simply isn't carrying the momentum that was initially anticipated.
What does this have to do with video formats? EVERYTHING
If the PS3 flops, then Sony'll be suffering both their game and movie divisions. You said that that "Blue ray has the edge as long as the PS3 succeeds." Well I say that the Blue ray will fail unless the PS3 succeeds.
Your constant reiteration of requiring me to compound exact figures complete with footnotes to credible sources makes you sound like someone who's trying to be told that their puppy died but, being at the denial stage, they refuse to accept the stone dead corpse to be their's without a DNA test. Please, show me a chart depicting PS3's contribution to the format war if you insist on operating this topic at that level. (And don't forget to cite your references) :rolleyes:
*References to how Sony is screwing over their game and movie divisions:
http://enterpriseinnovator.com/index...§ionID=269
http://www.technologypundits.com/ind...article_id=370
*Reference to (gasp) a PS3 available for purchase online:
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Sony-...cm_cat=1528250
*Reference to Wii (bundled, no less) at the same online store...not available:
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/Wii/s...gorySpecial.do
It's available in one store in Holyoke, and out of stock at others...and does anyone else (unless you live there) actually know of Holyoke?Quote:
Originally Posted by AssertnFailure
Assertn, you can't argue the fact that you are 100% biased in your reviews of the PS3 without owning one to say the least.
For whatever reason it may be, you have an undying hate for the PS3. You keep insisting the PS3 will fail, yet the only way to tell is to wait maybe a year and a half and then see.
Those (however many it may be, I'll use DBBen's figures for now) 700,000 people who own a PS3 obviously aren't going to go buy a HD-DVD player when they already own a blu ray player. And most people probably won't buy either (for the time being). Let's think, if the PS3 is a blu ray player...that means if PS3 sales are greater than a HD-DVD player then...ding? blu ray is winning.
There is a Holyoke near me about a hour away in Massachusetts right next to Springfield. Thats assuming its the same one.
That Said at this point PS3 has shipped more units then XBox 360 did at launch by around 400,000 units. Thats units shipped I believe and at the same point the XBox 360 shipped only 600,000 units at this time. Please note it appears the data used for the following artical was taken from Sony Press releases. Also note the previous artical I posted from the LA Times stated about 700,000 units have been sold at this point.
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/top/ps3...nch-226742.php
Now AssertnFailure as far as your proof goes you showed two links that refered to production issues not sales issues. You did provide a link to Circuit city who appears to have 2 available for me but thats only listing ones that are currently in stores. Simply put they have a better system set up and are allowing you to buy them from stores and thats why they have some available. Still right now its the post Christmas break from sales I don't know a lot of people that have $600 laying around post christmas and despite the PS3 having backwards compatability the games are not out right now to sell the system it takes time after launch for that.
The underlying fact hear is more homes currently have Blu-ray players then HD-DVD players and its unlikely for that number to go anywhere but up.
Is that going to matter all that much when standalone players are down in the ~$100 range?Quote:
Originally Posted by DDBen
Further, that portion of people who watch movies at home is much larger than that portion of people who play video games.
In other words, the foot-in-the-door of ps3 owners having blu-ray players already doesn't really keep the door very far open. It's a foothold, but it's not a compelling one.
I'm looking forward to the introduction of format-agnostic all-in-one players that can do blu-ray, hd-dvd, and normal dvd, and can do it all for in the neighborhood of $100. That's when Joe Average will make up his mind about what to get: he'll get it all and not worry about it.
Kinda funny that you persist in making this a console war thread, despite you're own protests. In either case, I'll be happy to play along.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDBen
Microsoft 2006 fiscal year 2nd quarter earnings conference call (Jan 27, 2006) It's a ways down so I'll just quote it.
That's half a million more than Sony was claiming to have sold by Dec 31 at CES early last week. That's a big difference from your LA times article. Who will I believe? A Microsoft quarterly report to their investors, or Sony's Senior Vice President of Marketing? Launch-smaunch, most of the launch PS3s went right to eBay, and several stayed there, still waiting to get sold, unused as Blu-Ray player (or anything else for that matter). Market penetration is key. Which is where the standalone players come in.Quote:
Our previous challenge in the quarter was meeting the high consumer demand for the console. We sold 1.5 million XBOX 360 consoles in the 2nd quarter, with 900,000 consoles in North America, 500,000 consoles in Europe and the remainder in Japan. This is lower than we expected due to component charges stemming from challenges in ramping supply of a complex product like XBOX 360.
Joe Average Consumer (non-gamer) is not going to buy a $600 gaming console to watch movies on. It'll be the $500 Toshiba HD DVD player against the $800 Samsung Blu-Ray player. Which one is more appealing? (prices courtesy of BestBuy.com). That's not even counting if they don't have an HDtv in their doublewide trailer or condo.
And Chaoskiddo drops the ultimatum: Anyone who doesn't own a PS3 is 100% biased against PS3s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaoskiddo
While it's true that I've only actually enjoyed 2 or 3 sony-exclusive titles so far from any platform, the only reason I even mentioned anything about the PS3 was its entire relevance to this topic. And I speak from personal experience when I SEE store employees show me units not selling and TELL me that customers have only been returning more units as a result of hardware failures.
But it's cool if you want to base your posts on assumptions though. Those can be fun to reply to.
EDIT: Lolz, we should have a "pos rep Assertnfailure or neg rep him?" poll. So far it appears to be even! :D