I agree, that whoever can flood the market with cheap players first (HD is trying that very thing this season with the $200 players) will make great strides. Sony was smart to take a hit profit-wise to get the BluRay standard in every PS3, now they need to put an affordable player in every Costco and Walmart they can.
Is Trek only gonna be on HD-DVD?
- Thread starter Spookshow
- Start date
I agree, that whoever can flood the market with cheap players first (HD is trying that very thing this season with the $200 players) will make great strides. Sony was smart to take a hit profit-wise to get the BluRay standard in every PS3, now they need to put an affordable player in every Costco and Walmart they can.
I too (already have a Blu-Ray/upconverting player and 73" DLP HDTV) - and the actual Blu-Ray stufff is NOTICABLY better than even an pcoverted DVD. You won't see it until you try it yourself. I too am hoping after yje 18 month agreement ends, we'll see Blu-Ray versions of TOS.
The other thing I couldn't stand about HD-DVDs is the stupid double format - DVD on one side HD-DVD on the other. Regardless of what they may try to say, they charge for the production of BOTH - and if you have a HD-DVD player, why in the hell would you EVER want to flip to the regular DVD? Again just stupid (sounds like a Steve balmer market ploy to 'entice' people to buy an HD Disc for the DVD compatability' but have the HD version for when they are finally forced to buy a set in 2015 - thus assuring a 'built in customer base). Just stupid.
But honestly, I do hope Blu-Ray wins because it is the better viewing format (and I've seen and compared both closely). That doesn't mean it will as Betacam WAS better than VHS - but Sony charging a big lecensing fee for duplication killed it (it's why the porn industry went VHS at the time too). I know they are doing something similar here; but the fee isn't as bad; and a lot of people dislike the 'dual' format of HSD-DVDs.
Time will tell; and IF a good combo player hits the market the debate will be moot; but for now, I would let availability dictate my coice. I already paid a lot to go HD, and I'd rather use the crisper format to view Hi-Def DVD content. With Disney Blu-Ray only and the Porn industry doing both formats - and the new lower priced PS3 - Blu-Ray has a better shot at 'winning'; but we'll see. It'll be a few more years before a clear winner emerges, one way or the other.
Having both formats on HD-DVD is actually quite useful. Say your HD-DVD player is in your living room but one of your kids wants to watch the new movie you bought in his bedroom? Or you want to watch it on your minivan DVD player? Blu-ray doesn't allow you to do any of this.
I don't get why the HD-DVD crowd doesn't push this? It's their one real advantage and most people don't know about it. A few educational commerials about how you can buy HD-DVD discs now, even if you don't have a player, and watch them on your DVD player. Then you can get the HD player later when they get cheap.
I don't get why the HD-DVD crowd doesn't push this? It's their one real advantage and most people don't know about it. A few educational commerials about how you can buy HD-DVD discs now, even if you don't have a player, and watch them on your DVD player. Then you can get the HD player later when they get cheap.
DrunkenSanta said:
^ Now there is a statement of fact.
Matt, you may be right. Who knows? I have certainly been on the losing end of a lot of format wars. Fuck, I still buy vinyl (both the new Foo Fighters and the Alison Krause/Robert Plant records sound excellent). Any time you want to come over and watch a Beta tape or a LaserDisc, Matt, I'm your guy.
LaserDisc had superior video and audio to VHS and early DVDs even. Though the resolution was limited, since LaserDisc was analog, it TECHNICALLY could have been made to be many times more clear than DVD. The downfall of LaserDisc had nothing to do with the technology, though. It was all about the format and price. LaserDiscs were huge and pricey. VHS tapes were compact and cheap.
BetaMax was superior to VHS as well, but VHS was smaller still, and eventually the price wars made it much more affordable and therefor the presence grew.
As far as the technology is concerned, you chose wisely. As far as marketing and sales go, not so much.
BluRay Discs and BluRay players hold an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY in the HD market. A HUGE majority. They're also the same price as HD-DVDs, and since most first-gen HD-DVD players and/or discs are 1080i, BluRay being 1080p, the majority of BluRay players and titles hold supremacy over their lesser known, lesser owned counter-part.
Technologically, BluRay is a superior format. The best video, best sound, highest capacity available. With 4 layer 100GB BluRay Discs playable in ALL BluRay players, we'll soon have entire TV series' on one or two discs.
Think about what an awesome space saver that would be? Every episode of M*A*S*H in DVD quality on two discs.
Every Star Trek movie in 1080P HD on a single BluRay disc.
HD-DVD, where ya at?
You've been misinformed. There are BluRay/DVD hybrid discs as well, and all BluRay players play standard DVDs and most will even upscale them to 1080p.
...
Folks, there is a lot of talk that the only way HD-DVD is staying afloat is because companies like Microsoft are pouring tons of cash into the format just to keep it alive long enough so BluRay won't have 100% victory. See, companies like Microsoft don't want discs, they want streaming video. That's all fine and dandy, but you know it's gonna be pay per view, and full of DRM crap. You won't really own a copy of the movie you paid for, you'll own a viewing of it. You won't be able to lend it to your friends if they want to check it out. The key to total victory is killing HD-DVD and embracing BluRay. Then Microsoft and other companies like them will be forced to fold their hand and lose the game.
"BluRay Discs and BluRay players hold an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY in the HD market."
But how many of those players are embedded in PS3s? I know at least 5 hard core gamers that own a ps3 and have no desire to play movies on it. Just sayin'.
I'm not aligned with either format yet. My eyes, at the distance I sit, on the 42" screen, just can't see that much difference between the HD images and upconverted DVD's.
Now if I had two sets sitting side by side, I could probably see the difference. But who watches 2 sets at once?
I've ran both HD formats, along with the same movies on an upcoverted DVD player, through my system and I just can't justify the HD purchase...yet.
Maybe if my screen were larger or if I had to sit close closer to the screen I could see $300 worth of difference. But the way I'm set up now, I can't.
But how many of those players are embedded in PS3s? I know at least 5 hard core gamers that own a ps3 and have no desire to play movies on it. Just sayin'.
I'm not aligned with either format yet. My eyes, at the distance I sit, on the 42" screen, just can't see that much difference between the HD images and upconverted DVD's.
Now if I had two sets sitting side by side, I could probably see the difference. But who watches 2 sets at once?
I've ran both HD formats, along with the same movies on an upcoverted DVD player, through my system and I just can't justify the HD purchase...yet. Maybe if my screen were larger or if I had to sit close closer to the screen I could see $300 worth of difference. But the way I'm set up now, I can't.
No. Beta tapes are smaller than VHS tapes. Unless you mean that VHS players began to appear in smaller cabinets earlier in the war.
That's what I meant. VHS players vs. BetaMax players, which were huge a lot of times compared to their VHS counterparts.
That does bring up a question, though... What the heck was the LARGE VHS style tape??? I remember you could play VHS tapes in it if you had an adapter tape, which was large and held the smaller standard size VHS in it.
I remember renting Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure on VHS and having to put it in a large adapter to get it to play. The size of the adapter was like the size difference between BetaMax tapes and VHS tapes.
@igrokbok Your 42 inch (Plasma I'm assuming) screen, are you sure you have all the settings right, and sure the discs you're playing are 1080P and the cables are all correct? I've read that a lot of people, even techy people, don't have the settings appropriately set for optimal performance, or even correct performance.
I can't wait until I have a 70 inch OLED screen, as thin as a Hershey bar, showing the inevitable Star Trek TNG Remastered HD that is sure to happen in the next few decades. That'll be a blast.
That does bring up a question, though... What the heck was the LARGE VHS style tape??? I remember you could play VHS tapes in it if you had an adapter tape, which was large and held the smaller standard size VHS in it.
I remember renting Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure on VHS and having to put it in a large adapter to get it to play. The size of the adapter was like the size difference between BetaMax tapes and VHS tapes.
@igrokbok Your 42 inch (Plasma I'm assuming) screen, are you sure you have all the settings right, and sure the discs you're playing are 1080P and the cables are all correct? I've read that a lot of people, even techy people, don't have the settings appropriately set for optimal performance, or even correct performance.
I can't wait until I have a 70 inch OLED screen, as thin as a Hershey bar, showing the inevitable Star Trek TNG Remastered HD that is sure to happen in the next few decades. That'll be a blast.
You got it backwards. There were two sizes of VHS tapes, VHS and VHS-C, with the C standing for compact, but VHS-C was strictly for camcorders. You'd never get a whole movie on it. The smaller tape obviously fit much better into a camcorder. You'd put a VHS-C tape into an adapter that was the size of a regular VHS tape so that you could play it back on your normal VHS deck. All movie rentals were on the regular sized VHS tapes. A VHS-C tape was only 20 minutes long.
Betamaxes could be small. My current one is the size of any old VCR but yes, Sony did tend to make them huge. The very first one was built into a console TV. Talk about huge.
You had be buy a big wooden box that had a TV in it just to record a program. And the tape only lasted an hour. Yet people bought it. This was well before VHS existed and if you wanted to record a show at home, this is what you had to go through.My how things have changed!
If Blu-Ray/DVD combo discs exist they are sure keeping it quiet. I just checked DVD.com and all the Blu-ray disc on their front page had warnings on how they will not work in a standard DVD player. Also their comparison of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray features indicated that hybrid Blu-ray discs are not available.
Blu-ray specs may be a tad better, but not so much that it makes the choice obvious. I would argue it would be horrible for consumers to be restricted to a Sony licensed format, with Sony being so anti-consumer in their business practices.
I was in Costco today: Season One of TOS remastered is going for $125 a set and they had tons of them (i.e., two full display boxes). I asked a guy working in the department how sales were doing and he said "I don't think we've sold one copy. I have 3 unopened cases in the back!"
K
ktanner3
Guest
No shit. I can't believe anyone with decent eye sight would say there's no difference between DVD and Blueray.
Go by a best buy or circuit city and watch a blue ray movie on a good HD T.V. It's almost like being there right on the set. The picture is way more clear and sharp, the sound is way better..It's just a whole new experience. I saw the last Pirates of the Carribean movie at the movie theater and then I saw it again on Blu ray. Blue ray w/ HDTV blows the movie theater experience out of the ball park.
Wow, I that price I bet not. I really don't see where it is worth that price, especially since the majority of people who would but it probably already have the DVDs. I've never undstood why all of the Trek DVDs have been so expensive, when they first came out they were probably some of the most expensive DVD set I saw on the shelves. In fact, the price was the whole reason I never got them and I have a feeling that I'm probably not the only one.
Of course Blu-ray (along with HD-DVD) is better than DVDs. But it isn't that much better that people feel an urgent need to convert to a HD format.
It's a tough sell for HD formats to begin with and the electronics companies and studios made it harder by failing to agree on one HD standard. They are going to loose piles of money for being greedy, and that makes me smile.
It's a tough sell for HD formats to begin with and the electronics companies and studios made it harder by failing to agree on one HD standard. They are going to loose piles of money for being greedy, and that makes me smile.
Similar threads
