backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 75 comment(s) - last by 9nails.. on Dec 18 at 12:51 PM
It's time to put that HDTV to good use with HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc

As both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc round up their first "real" year of sales, it is slightly disparaging to see that the situation on either high-definition format is no clearer now than it was in 2006.

As neither side about to just roll over and die, the high-definition format war is one without a clear end in sight. For consumers without high-definition displays, the ongoing battle between HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc is meaningless. For those who have recently made the investment in a new HDTV, however, every additional day spent on the HD DVD/Blu-ray Disc fence is a glorious, high-definition moment wasted (with the exception of gaming on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 or use of an HTPC).

Properly upconverted standard definition material can look respectable, but even the best looking DVD will crumble when pitted against even the average HD DVD or Blu-ray Disc. Rather than waiting for a resolution that may never come, current HDTV owners will have to take the plunge if they’re interested in using their displays for what they are meant for. With the new low prices of high-definition hardware, there’s little reason now to hold back.

This DailyTech High-Def Buyer’s Guide is for those with HDTVs looking for a relatively painless and economical way to make the jump to 1080, with special consideration given to value. For those without a high-definition display yet, the choice of television technology and model are beyond the scope of this guide, but it’s generally desirable to buy the largest quality display within your budget. Big name companies such as Sony, Samsung, Panasonic and Pioneer make very good product, but value-oriented brands such as Vizio and Westinghouse provide acceptable levels of performance at a considerably lower price point.

After acquiring a high-definition display, the next step is to choose a player. The biggest barrier for those pondering high-definition is the uncertainty presented by the ongoing HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc battle. Thus, the best solution for many is to minimize the initial investment.

HD DVD Players
The recent string of $99 deals made for the perfect time for anyone to jump into HD DVD, but the current street price of the Toshiba HD-A3 at around $200 makes it an affordable solution. The newly introduced Venturer SHD7000 also brings similar features of the Toshiba hardware at the same prices (though without the pack-in movies).

Owners of Xbox 360 consoles or HTPC should consider the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on drive as an economical way into HD DVD. Not only is the $129 drive cheaper than ever, but it will work on a PC too thanks to its USB interface. The downsides of using the add-on drive are that the Xbox 360 itself generates more noise than standalone players, and that the console is incapable of outputting high-definition audio streams.

Blu-ray Disc Players
While not a dedicated Blu-ray Disc player by definition, the PlayStation 3 is the safest choice for consumers today looking for a future-proofed machine. The powerful hardware inside the console along with Sony’s regular firmware updates ensures a steam of improvements and new feature support. Full Blu-ray Disc profile (1.1) support should be available soon, and DTS-HD Master Audio is likely in the works. The only downside is that true movie watchers will have to invest in buying Bluetooth remote control, which can be found for around $20.

For the absolute cheapest way into Blu-ray Disc, the Samsung BD-P1400 can be found for under $300 – stepping clearly into HD DVD hardware pricing territory. Besides price, the Samsung BD-P1400 is also one of the few players with the ability to pass on a DTS-HD Master Audio steam.

HD DVD/Blu-ray Disc Combo Players
Although having one machine instead of two presents a space savings, the added cost (around $1000 for the LG BH200 Super Blu) makes a combo player a rather uneconomical high-definition solution.

Movies
Any collection of hardware is useless without good software, and this point is never more true than with HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc. Want Transformers and the Bourne Ultimatum? It’ll have to be on an HD DVD player. Want Spider-Man and Ratatouille? Only on Blu-ray Disc. 300 and Harry Potter? Thankfully available on both due to Warner’s format neutrality.

Only on HD DVD

  • Transformers
    Despite director Michael Bay’s much recorded discontent with Paramount’s decision to release exclusively on one high-definition format, Transformers on HD DVD is a roaring success. Transformers features so much eye-candy that 1080 lines of resolution seems like a requirement rather than a luxury. Transformers was also named at the High-Def Disc Awards as having the best audio quality, despite not having an uncompressed or Dolby TrueHD track.

  • Hot Fuzz
    From the creators of Shaun of the Dead come Hot Fuzz, which also pays homage to while poking fun at a popular Hollywood genre. The team of Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright give their take on the “buddy cop” action movie genre that was popular throughout the 80s and 90s. What truly makes Hot Fuzz stand out on HD DVD is its enormous pile of extra features. With an estimated 18 hours of bonus content (including commentaries), there’s nearly a case of too-much-information with this HD DVD. It was awarded as the best live-action film on HD DVD of 2007.

  • The Matrix Trilogy
    Regardless of how some may feel about the Matrix sequels, the trilogy is expertly crafted for HD DVD. Due to Warner’s use of picture-in-picture features, the Matrix Trilogy is a current HD DVD exclusive – but that will all change when Warner releases the set on Blu-ray Disc sometime next year.

  • The Bourne Trilogy
    Universal’s unwavering faith to the HD DVD format also ties down the excellent Bourne Trilogy as a format exclusive. The three movies (Bourne Identity, Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum) experience a significant upgrade over their standard-definition versions thanks in part to well-produced picture-in-picture commentary and documentaries.

Only on Blu-ray Disc

  • Ratatouille
    Due to Disney’s allegiance with Blu-ray Disc, Pixar’s films will be released only on Blu-ray Disc. All previous Pixar movies have been reference-level releases for DVD, and Ratatouille carries the trend to high-definition. Perhaps even more outstanding than its picture and sound quality is the level of storytelling skill exhibited by the makers of the film.

  • Casino Royale
    Although the latest Bond picture doesn’t achieve any new levels of technical proficiency in high-definition, Casino Royale was awarded as the best live-action Blu-ray Disc movie of the year and was the biggest exclusive for the format of 2007.

  • Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy
    Like the Matrix Trilogy, the films following the first one lost a bit of focus. Unlike the Matrix set, however, buyers have the option of picking up the films individually, giving a choice to pick up only the favorites. Those getting the Curse of the Black Pearl should be aware that Disney is now sending replacement discs to fix the framing issue.

  • Spider-Man Trilogy
    Many new PlayStation 3 owners will be viewing Spider-Man 3 as their first Blu-ray Disc movie thanks to Sony’s pack-in choice with the 40GB model. Sadly, the only way to get the first two movies from the series is to purchase the Spider-Man Trilogy boxset, which could leave some new PS3 owners to a duplicate copy of Spider-Man 3.

Available on both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc

  • 300
    The stylized comic book adaptation of 300 set new standards – and sales records – for high-definition. 300 took home top honors at the High-Def Disc Awards as the best high-def title of the year along with best special features. The HD DVD version of 300 is particularly outstanding due to its use of picture-in-picture, giving viewers a complete look at the film without the CGI enhancement.

  • Planet Earth: The Complete BBC Series
    One of the most ambitious documentaries by the BBC resulted in truly stunning demo material to sell the virtues of high-definition. The clarity afforded by the 1080p VC-1 encode gives every nature scene an increased sense of realism that makes it nearly impossible to go back to standard definition DVD.

  • Harry Potter Series
    Thanks to Warner’s format neutrality, the Harry Potter high-def explosion hit both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc on December 11. While the first four movies are presented on rather equal terms Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is better on HD DVD thanks to Warner’s continuing expertise in its use of picture-in-picture and web-enabled content.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
why should anyone bother?
By GeorgeOrwell on 12/16/2007 3:07:19 PM , Rating: 5
For all we know, the war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray will end up just like the war between DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD (SACD). That is, it will result in mutual destruction.

The fact that both formats depend on game machines for substantial portions of their installed base tells us that these are niche formats, of no or marginal value to the mainstream.

And then there is the "new and improved" DRM that comes with both formats. This only makes the consumer's life that much more of a living hell.

Whereas a DVD is standard, works with no problem in most PCs, a well-understood DRM model with many reliable workarounds, and is universally available at a reasonable price.

If we apply the lessons learned from DVD-Audio vs. SACD and how the "standard" for high-def audio became downloadable files, then the path for the consumer is clear: avoid both HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

Sooner or later the industry will be forced to supply content at more reasonable prices, reduce/eliminate the DRM, and reduce player prices to the same as DVD players (all the time, not just B-stock holiday blowouts).

Furthermore, the players will have evolved and the risk of ending up with a non-compatible player will be much lower.

Maybe by then the debacle that is called "HDTV" will be properly sorted. But probably not. Leading to further market paralysis.

And we always have the opportunity for an alternative system, based on broadcast HD to become the DIVX of high-def. Microsoft certainly wants an outcome along these lines as do many other high-tech companies.

In short, for many reasons, the time for the mainstream to buy into HD-DVD/Blu-Ray is not today.




By The Boston Dangler on 12/16/2007 4:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
finally, the voice of reason. thank you.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Flunk on 12/16/2007 4:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
You also forgot to mention that the Internet is quickly making physical content formats such as Blueray and HD DVD obsolete. If the public waits to buy into these formats they will be obsolete before the average Joe buys one.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By jonrem on 12/16/2007 5:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed but... Bandwith is holding too many people back. These formats will be viable so long as there is inadequate bandwith to those living outside of major metro areas. Heck, I live 20 miles outside of Chicago and have been waiting for DSL on a list since 1999. Since that hasn't been an option I went with 8 MBPS Cable at $60/mo., which I don't think would be adequate for HD streaming. I can't wait for that day to come, but there will always be troglidites who won't pay for this type of service.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By heffeque on 12/16/2007 9:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think that he was referring to P2P ;-) Good thing sharing media via P2P is legal in quite a few countries in the world :-)


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Oregonian2 on 12/17/2007 2:23:41 PM , Rating: 3
HD quality still would be pretty monstrous files for P2P transfer, streaming, as well as storage (would need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disks to hold the file(s) which makes doing that kind of pointless). Those countries where everybody has high throughput connections and both ends have OC3 or faster links on both ends of a P2P link might work, but many places may not have that speed (OC3 is 155 Mbps). And even with that transport speed, it'll still take twenty minutes for an HD movie to tranfer (quickie in-the-head calculation so hopefully is at least "about right" :-). Personally, I've still DSL which is at best 0.768 Mbps in the "fast" direction and I won't even bother trying to calculate how fast a HD movie would go across that (while probably blowing away all other internet uses unless QoS can be set up properly (doubtful)). Useless.

But as far as HD streaming distribution by MPEG4, that's certainly going on now by both DishTV and DirecTV for some of their channels. And with TiVO or klones (where DirecTV just bought ReplayTV assets, so their offering may improve) one NOW has downloaded, hard disk recorded HD video available (and those satellite recorder boxes can use external hard disks). I've been reading up, may sign up for HD service soon.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Pandamonium on 12/17/2007 3:46:17 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is that the studios don't trust people to buy digital downloads. I think they mentioned something about piracy and lost sales in their argument. I'll always go for the pressed CD so that I can rip my own high bitrate MP3s and burn as many mix CDs as I want. Video, however, is an entirely different beast.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Mitch101 on 12/16/2007 4:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's why when I build my new PC in Jan/Feb my previous one is going in the living room. When the price comes down to a reasonable level for the Hybrid HD-DVD/Blu-Ray player for the PC it will get that. With a PC the format wont matter any more for me.

Im even going to let the PC upscale stuff like my VCR and Direct TV standard definiton items.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By amanojaku on 12/16/2007 4:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
When describing the outcome of SACD vs. DVD-Audio I would disagree. Neither format has succeed because there is no incentive to change to a higher resolution format. Most people have crappy sound systems because it costs too much money for something with decent quality, and as a result the higher quality formats don't sound any better. In fact, they often sound worse.

I spent $3,000 on my tower speakers and receiver and realize it's not even on par with a separate audio decoder ($2,000 and up) and amplifier ($3,000 and up.) A sub woofer should handle the bass and would easily run for $1,500. And if you want surround sound (this IS hi-def audio, after all) you will need five speakers at $2,000 a piece. The grand total is $16,500, which is just for average AUDIO gear!

Blu-ray and HD-DVD run into the same problem. Basically, your 720p or 1080i set won't cut it. You need a 1080p display to truly see the benefits, and those aren't cheap. Most people haven't gotten as far as buying a display of that quality, so a hi-def format won't even bring any benefits.

As for the Blu-ray/HD-DVD format war being mutually destructive I also have to disagree. Remember that Betamax and VHS were in a format war for nearly 10 years. VHS won and never suffered any setbacks, while Betamax slowly and silently went the way of the dodo. The reason VHS never suffered was that there was no format for home recording and playback beforehand. Blu-ray and HD-DVD have the same problem as DVD-Audio and SACD: a predecessor that exists everywhere.

I'm willing to bet that in 15 years we'll see a clear victor, because that's about how long it will take for the next set of consumers bred on hi-def to grow up. By then, universal players will probably be common, or digital downloads will finally be mainstream. All in all, I think the outcome of this format war is moot.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By jonrem on 12/16/2007 5:09:42 PM , Rating: 3
Some good points, but many folks just can't perceive the difference between a Vizio and a Pioneer set, or a JVC 5.1 HTIB or a set of high end Mirage speakers coupled with a nice receiver. I'm gonna shut up now and enjoy the smell of my own farts for a while.......


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Spivonious on 12/17/2007 9:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
A properly set-up Vizio looks identical to a higher end set. The problem is that the defaults are pretty bad, so in the store the Vizio doesn't look as good. Of course, this probably results in the store selling more of the name brand sets, so they don't bother setting up the Vizios.

As far as sound systems, yes there is potential for a huge increase in sound quality. But for watching movies? It's all compressed anyway, so why bother? And as good as SA-CD/DVD-A are, vinyl on a good tube amp still blows them all away.

Going from VHS to DVD was a huge leap. You got digital picture and sound, a picture quality that wouldn't degrade over time, and no more rewinding when the movie finished.

Going from DVD to HD-DVD/Blu-Ray is a tiny step. You get twice the resolution and *maybe* uncompressed audio. Is this worth a hefty investment? No. I agree with the OP: these two formats will eternally remain in the realm of the enthusiast.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By marvdmartian on 12/17/2007 10:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. While a standard definition dvd can be played on the newer players, they can also be played on the newer upconverting players, which are a fraction of the cost of the blu-ray or hd-dvd sets.

There might be plenty of people out there that can tell the difference (or even CARE) between 1080p and 1080i, but I'm not one of them. Meanwhile, I'm picking up my new movies for less, and enjoying them on my widescreen tv monitor, at a resolution that's great for me. Guess that's one of the advantages of getting older, especially for those of us that remember the static-ky days of 3 channels on rabbit ears! LOL

Besides which, I'm firmly convinced that about the time we have a clear "winner" in the format war, someone else will come out with a new format that will blow both of them away!


RE: why should anyone bother?
By omnicronx on 12/17/2007 11:37:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There might be plenty of people out there that can tell the difference (or even CARE) between 1080p and 1080i, but I'm not one of them.
Just because you don't care, does not mean there is no difference. With LCD/Plasmas, there is no such thing as a 1080i TV, they can accept the 1080i signal, but they usually have a resolution of around 720p.

Even when standing 10 feet away, there is a noticeable difference between 720p and 1080p. Next time you go to a big box store, you will notice that 720p sets will look great, but are much more grainy than 1080p sets, and things do not seems nearly as smooth.

Now if you were to stand 4 feet away, anyone should be able to notice the difference between the two.

1080p is better than 720p with a noticeable difference, the only times I would recommend 720p over 1080p is if price really matters to you, or you sit 15-20+ feet away from the TV, at that distance your eyes can not perceive the difference between the two resolutions, regardless what you think.(based on 20:20 vision, for those with corrective eye surgery or heavy duty glasses, 720 will not do you justice;) )


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 11:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how plasma's work, but I know most other 1080P sets will deinterlace a 1080i signal making it effectivly 1080P, if you start with a video that was 1080P to begin with the results are virtually identical to a true 1080P signal (i.e. in the case of playing an HD DVD on an HD-A2/3).

As far as 720P v. 1080P... Yes obviously 1080P is nicer... However you don't need to sit 10/15' away to appriciate a 720P picture. I own a 50" 720P toshiba set, and to be perfectly honest the video quality is far more than acceptable (with good video source, ie HD signal) from 5/6' away. Yes, 1080P is more enjoyable but at least at the time I was getting my set, my toshiba ran $1199.00, smaller (i.e. 40" v. 50") 1080P sets were starting at $1599.99... I would have loved 1080P, but not at a scrafice of 10" and $600 more!

I am noticing now that there are much better deals on 1080P project sets though, BBuy has a 50" Sony for $1299.99, though you lose an HDMI port (my toshiba has 3, this one has 2).


RE: why should anyone bother?
By omnicronx on 12/17/2007 12:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However you don't need to sit 10/15' away to appriciate a 720P picture. I own a 50" 720P toshiba set, and to be perfectly honest the video quality is far more than acceptable (with good video source, ie HD signal) from 5/6' away.
I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying. Never did i say that 720p at any distance is 'bad', what I was saying is that at more than 15-20 feet based on 20:20 vision, your eyes can physically not perceive the difference between the two.

Its really a double edged sword, 1080p is only as good as the distance you sit from your set. If you sit really far back, paying an extra thousand dollars may not be the best idea for you, especially if you have a hard time noticing the difference at a close range.

I personally have exceptional vision (better than 20/20), I do notice a difference unless I stand 20+ feet away. It really is up to the eye of the beholder ;)


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 1:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, ok... Perhaps I was misinterpeting... There have been serveral posts (some here) stating that your wasting your money with a 720P set up and that it's not worth getting HD for such a set... This is not the case in any way shape or form, and people making such statements seriously need to do a little research before posting that kind of misinformation to groups like these were people do go to get the opionions of "experts".

Sorry about that, and actually I do agree with what you're saying. 1080P is better in most home setups, I just like adding that just because 1080P is better, that doesn't make 720P un-enjoyable or worthless in anyway. You're still getting a *MUCH* better experience than you ever will with SD content, and HD DVD/Blu-Ray *WILL* enhance your HD experience over upscaled DVDs (even really good upscales).


RE: why should anyone bother?
By 9nails on 12/18/2007 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
This is one of the reasons why I refuse to buy HD TV at the moment. Both of you are clearly intelligent individuals and have articulated your opinions well and even come to an agreement. But crux of the matter is that there are two standards as to what a High Definition signal is. Mixed into the confusion are two competing media formats, among many other factors…

Television set decisions were pretty easy back in the rabbit-ears days; you either had color or black & white. Once you made up your mind on how you wanted to view the world, only size was the next factor.

Now factors such as cable vs. satellite, studio broadcast signals, 720 vs 1080, Blu Ray vs HD vs DVD upsample, HDMI vs DVI vs Component, and not to mention size all need to be weighed before one considers a new TV. Once the size of a set could be easily calculated as a ratio, as in for every foot of distance you should add a certain number of inches to your screen. That ratio doesn’t apply to HD, and it’s now some formula based on screen width at given distances. At today’s cost of a TV set, consumers just can't throw a few grand out the window on a set that is destined to fail on competing formats. A great man once said something to the effect of, "The problem with standards is that there are so many of them." In High Definition video's case, that really rings true. A clear and individual standard needs to emerge which is both fair in price and friendly for the consumer to use.

Under normal circumstances, competition between businesses is healthy for the consumer. In this situation, competition is destructive.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By BMFPitt on 12/16/2007 6:21:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm willing to bet that in 15 years we'll see a clear victor, because that's about how long it will take for the next set of consumers bred on hi-def to grow up.
In 3 years you'll be able to get a combo player for $50, so it won't matter.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Oregonian2 on 12/17/2007 2:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The reason VHS never suffered was that there was no format for home recording and playback beforehand. Blu-ray and HD-DVD have the same problem as DVD-Audio and SACD: a predecessor that exists everywhere.


Very good point. Those things weren't just competing with each other, they were competing with pre-existing technology as well. Things like DVD-Audio compete against iPods and iTunes, guess which one wins.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/16/2007 4:52:38 PM , Rating: 2
The DRM format on HD DVD is relatively easy to deal with. It's also region free which is good.

HD DVD does not depend on gaming machines, the Addon for the X360 has enjoyed lackluster sales, with the bulk being stand alone players. Sony on the other hand......


RE: why should anyone bother?
By 8steve8 on 12/16/2007 5:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
well, aren't 1/3rd of all hd-dvd players xbox units?

i bet ps3 makes up a higher peice of the blu-ray pie....
but still, 1/3 is very significant.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Spivonious on 12/17/2007 9:29:53 AM , Rating: 2
PS3 represents over 2/3 of the Blu-Ray players. FYI.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By mcnabney on 12/17/2007 4:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
3/4


RE: why should anyone bother?
By 9nails on 12/18/2007 12:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
From what I recall, the Xbox 360 HD player add-on units wern't tracked. When HD quoted figures, they were quoting stand-alone players. Sony would quote the Blu-Ray laser diodes as a figure, and didn't differentiate that between stand-alone or PS3 units.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By lopri on 12/16/2007 5:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whereas a DVD is standard, works with no problem in most PCs, a well-understood DRM model with many reliable workarounds , and is universally available at a reasonable price.

LOL sorry but that line was quite funny. :) Saying that it's not time for BD-DVD/HD-DVD, is saying that it's not time for high-definition TVs. If you truly believe so, I suggest you take a look at your local Best Buy or Circuit City, et al. If all those 1080p displays are one of the most desired items in holiday shopping lists, it's very likely that many would wish to mate the TVs with HD-capable players. I myself don't want to purchase SD DVDs any more because with Blu-Ray/HD-DVD you get a video/audio quality that is leaps and bound above. Even at ~$10 difference in price, I feel like it's a waste to spend any more on SD DVD.

Yes, DRM comes with both formats and I hate DRM with enthusiasm. But what makes you think that digital downloads will be void of DRM? If anything, I hate the kind of DRM that comes with digital downloads even more than copy-protection on physical media.

Also, did DVD become popular only after it's easily hackable? I don't think so. As much fun as it was to rip DVDs for me, it grew tiresome quite quickly. Now I'd just rather pop-in a disk and spend my time more wisely (productively).

Don't get me wrong. Someday, someday maybe, we may be able to download a full length movie in its high-def glory in a RAR file with no copy-protection and TVs will be able to play those movies right off of a hard disk. But until then, the convenience of physical medium is just too precious to abandon for some.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Locutus465 on 12/16/2007 7:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Many of us (particularly those with large movie collections) prefer having physical meida. It solves a storage situation that can only get worse with time as your movie collection increases. For those of us who also like to do things legally, we see physical media as a protection against greedy companies trying to introduce a rentals only business model when it comes to movies...

As far as DRM, personally the only aspect of that equation I care about is region codes... I like the idea of being able to import movies, per the HD DVD standard, region codes will never be a problem with that format. If you're the type that likes to copy movies, then I"m sure you can rest assured knowing that neither format has perfect DRM the winnner will have it's DRM cracked (completly) shortly after becoming the heir apparent to DVD.

As far as upscaled DVD, I'm also running a 720P TV... I can tell you right now that DVD upcoversion is not consitant, performance varys greatly upon the title. Also, even the best upcoversion can't match the quality you get from true HD content.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Enoch2001 on 12/16/2007 8:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
why should anyone bother?


Because High Def video looks incredible on my 50" High Def plasma screen. Do you even own an HD TV? If not, then you have no room to spout off. If you do, then why did you get one? To enjoy standard def television?

quote:
In short, for many reasons, the time for the mainstream to buy into HD-DVD/Blu-Ray is not today.


This is complete rubbish. Every Best Buy/Circuit City has High Def TV's all over their shelves and it's still a top demand gift for the holiday season. In fact, the time for High Def is way overdue. Yeah it sucks that there's a format war going on but big deal - pick your poison and when a clear format winner is clear, pick that poison then.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By GeorgeOrwell on 12/17/2007 3:14:01 AM , Rating: 1
You are ignoring economics. The fact that a store has something for sale doesn't mean it is the right time for the mainstream to buy in.

Today HD carries a price premium across the board -- more expensive display, more expensive disc player, more expensive cable/sat, more expensive discs, more expensive cables, etc.

Yeah, HD can be pretty. But quite frankly, at today's prices it does not offer the "WOW!" that the price warrants. And even then, the mainstream buys primarily on price, not on "WOW!".

For most people, the availability of affordable content drives entertainment value far more than having the latest/greatest system.

When HD has achieved price parity with SD, then the time will be right for the mainstream to buy in. The bugs will be worked out, most channels will be available in standard high-def without a price premium, there will be many high-def disc titles out at reasonable prices, there will be a greater chance of readily available DRM workarounds (this is how a lot of people afford content), etc.

P.S. BTW, unless you have a super expensive and super rare 1920x1080p plasma, you don't even have full HD. There is absolutely no reason for someone to buy HDjr like you have today. It is foolish to buy yesterday's HDjr technology when you can wait a bit and get full HD for the same or lower price.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 9:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
With HD prices steadily falling, it's not going to be very long until you have no choice but to buy HD, heck you already are starting to run out of analoge TV choices.

A quick scan of BestBuy.com shows prices starting at $449.00 for a 1080i tube TV. To be perfectly honest, this isn't completely out of line with "normal" TV pricing. I'll give you it's not the cheapest of the cheap, and there deffinently is still some market left for 480i at the very low end, but that's just it. That's the very low end, these days if you want to upgrade from low end you're pretty much already in HD territory, where not to long ago HD was strictly reserved only for the very high end.

Your comments would have made a lot of sense this time last year, they do still make some sense now (as not everyone can afford to upgrade from lowend), but that time is quickly fading. Pretty soon 720P/1080i are going to be the lowest resolution TVs you can find, perhaps before the year is out!

At the same time on both the HD DVD and Blu Ray camps prices are falling fast (faster on HD DVD than BD, but still). Blu Ray camp has already had their first sub $300 fire sale, HD DVD has already had their first sub $100 fire sale. Expect prices to quickly decline over the year.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 9:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
What are you talking about with super expensive super rare plamsa's being the only full HD TV's on the market? There's a large selection of 1080P (Full HD!) TVs on the market in every form factor (other than tube), and these TVs are neither rare nor super expensive (though yes, still out of any sort of low end price range).

Of course you don't need full HD to benifit from these playes. I see the difference between HD DVD/Blu-Ray and SD-DVD on my 50" 720P DLP Projection. The difference is as clear as night and day.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Oregonian2 on 12/17/2007 2:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
P.S. BTW, unless you have a super expensive and super rare 1920x1080p plasma, you don't even have full HD. There is absolutely no reason for someone to buy HDjr like you have today. It is foolish to buy yesterday's HDjr technology when you can wait a bit and get full HD for the same or lower price.


Panasonic just announced (and I think they are now available) an extension of their line of 1080p "true HD" plasmas that are going for a lot less than their current high end ones (..z700U and ...z750U ones). I think the new ones are ...x77 or some such.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Oregonian2 on 12/17/2007 2:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are ignoring economics. The fact that a store has something for sale doesn't mean it is the right time for the mainstream to buy in.


Going to need to "buy in" to digital sets (one COULD perhaps get a SD digital set, but why bother?) or get converters within the next year or so in the US. Analog broadcast is supposed to go away in about another year that I recall.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By AlexWade on 12/16/2007 10:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
I transfer some HDTV games and TV shows from my cable box to my computer. A 1 hour 1080i CSI episode sans commercials is about 5 GB. A 720p basketball game without the commercials and halftime is about 15 GB. Obviously, VC-1 is more efficient than MPEG-2 (about 50% more efficient when I encoded in it), nevertheless, the fact remains, the files are big.

That is 720p and 1080i at a lower bandwidth. If we deliver movies at the HD DVD bandwidth -- which is enough for the best picture and sound -- we are looking at a required down speed 36 MBPS. My cable company gives me 8 MBPS down. I would need 4 times that for most movies. Otherwise you will have to store the movies and you still would have to wait a while for the download. [P.S. I may be wrong about some of this stuff.]

While digital downloads is the future, it isn't now. The infrastructure isn't here, yet. There are many people in the rural areas that can't get any reasonably priced high speed internet. Michael Bay was wrong, digital downloads are still years off.

Also, some people like the warm and fuzzy feeling you get by having a disc right in front of you. People are cultured that way. You'll be hard pressed to change people habits of putting a medium in a player.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Locutus465 on 12/16/2007 11:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
The problem I see with digital downloads is the business models it opens up for studios... Sure, back in the VHS/DVD days you had to sell a disc and that was it, you lost future sales to that customer for that film short of them destroying their copy (assuming they don't make their own copies).

The problem I see with digital downloads, is the extra DRM it will introduce not seen with physical media. I like the idea of being able to own a copy of a movie, not having to rent it. I see a rental model becoming significantly more popular with a download paradim. Heck, it's already been tried with physical media, anyone remeber the original divx?


RE: why should anyone bother?
By omnicronx on 12/17/2007 11:29:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
For all we know, the war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray will end up just like the war between DVD-Audio and Super Audio CD (SACD)
SACD and DVD-audio failed because there is no point. PCM audio is noncompressed bit for bit audio, you cant get much better.

Not only that, most music is not meant to be heard in 5.1. (NIN is the exception for me, Reznor actually spent the time to master the tracks into 5.1, something very few artists have done, if at all).

Just go to any good audio store and they will tell you the same. Heck the good places around here would tell you to forgo a sub all together for music use.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By tedrodai on 12/17/2007 11:48:22 AM , Rating: 2
This is the reason I haven't YET bothered: they're both too expensive for what they provide.

The HD-DVD players may be reasonably priced pretty soon--the $99 deals were right around the sweet spot for me. But here's the reason I will continue to not bother: platform specific movies. I'm sorry, but even if I want to get a High Definition movie player, I'd be buying it for the MOVIES, not the player. HD-DVD does not thrill me with their exclusive Transformers and The Matrix, because dammit I want to watch Casino Royale and Pirates too. And vice versa.

I suppose they have to do the exclusive movie deals until (and if) one format wins, but it just adds to the laundry list of reasons NOT to get a high-def movie player right now.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By grampaw on 12/17/2007 12:24:09 PM , Rating: 3
"For those who have recently made the investment in a new HDTV, however, every additional day spent on the HD DVD/Blu-ray Disc fence is a glorious, high-definition moment wasted (with the exception of gaming on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 or use of an HTPC)."

I like that quote - it's the very reason I bought a Toshiba A20 and Sony PS3 at the same time as the 1080p LCD TV. No sense having a Ferrari if you can't drive it to it's fullest capabilities.

As for mutual destruction, that'll take a few years, if it happens at all. I see mutual coexistence as the more likely outcome. But then who cares? The players are functional obsolete after about 5 years anyway, if they haven't physically failed by then anyway.

The DRM problem is very real - the latest Harry Potter DVD in HD-DVD will not play on my Toshiba player even with the most recent Firmware. I assume that's because of that nonsensical "community sharing" feature introduced with this DVD title. Pretty pathetic when the player won't play the DVD because of some new DRM bells & Whistles feature you don't even want...

And you'd have to be nuts to "buy" a Hi-Def format DVD currently. I just rent them. But then again, I generally only rent standard DVDs also, since I seldom see a movie twice.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 1:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The DRM problem is very real - the latest Harry Potter DVD in HD-DVD will not play on my Toshiba player even with the most recent Firmware. I assume that's because of that nonsensical "community sharing" feature introduced with this DVD title. Pretty pathetic when the player won't play the DVD because of some new DRM bells & Whistles feature you don't even want...


This probably is not a DRM issue, nor is it an issue with community screening... Did you check to see if your disc was scratched up? That can cause issues, regardless I might consider exchanging your copy, there well might be something wrong with it. I haven't seen any reports of widespread issues such as your having with any HD DVD player, so I can only assume there is something wrong with your disc.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By gaakf on 12/17/2007 8:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see mutual coexistence as the more likely outcome.


I have to call you on that one. In the long run mutual coexistence is NOT an option.

One format will ultimately win, and the other will slowly die off. That's life in the movie industry.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By TTLKurtis on 12/17/2007 4:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
Am I in the minority owning both an Xbox 360 w/ HD DVD add-on and PS3 so that I can watch both formats? If we can afford an HDTV, why must we pick one or the other? With no winner in sight, I didn't want to sit around and wait to see who wins. I don't see that battle ending any time soon, and HDTVs are here to stay so I have a feeling we're just always going to have 2 formats, at least for a long time. One day hybrid players will probably just be the norm... which sucks... but that's what I see happening.


RE: why should anyone bother?
By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 5:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
Those specifically, IDK... But I'm dual format as well, a good number of people on HDD are as well. My combo is toshiba HD-A2 + Samsung BD-P1400... I do own and XBox but perfer not using it for my high def movie watching.


By SiliconAddict on 12/16/2007 1:28:29 PM , Rating: 1
Battlestar Galactica: Season 1 and Star Trek: TOS Season 1 both on HD DVD




By StevoLincolnite on 12/16/2007 2:59:24 PM , Rating: 2
What about StarGate SG1 or Atlantis? Either one of those come out on one format will be the format I am jumping onto.
If it comes out on both formats, I'll scream, or Jump the HD DVD bandwagon because of Transformers (And thus maybe Transformers 2?) Or... Aliens vs Predator 2.


By Locutus465 on 12/16/2007 11:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
Stargates are going to be blu-ray as MGM owns the rights to the series. The movie is already available on BD. So I guess if the SG series is what you'll buy into, then you should be investigating your options for blu.

Personally I own both because both has exclusives I love, including all programs posted here. As far as end uers experience, I like HD DVD more than BD, but that's just me.


By StevoLincolnite on 12/17/2007 10:37:34 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for that, looks like Blue ray it is.
What would be cool though is if the Xbpx 360 HD DVD drive was compatible with the PS3 - The PS3 would become the ultimate HTPC thanks to Linux.


By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 11:14:16 AM , Rating: 2
In theory it could be compatible since it's a standard USB optical drive, the question is whether or not you can A). load proper drivers for it and B). find compatiable HD DVD playing software. Point A) may well be acheivable, but I'm not sure what the chances are with point B). To be perfectly honest I'm pretty sure studio's aren't very intersted in supporting Linux as I'm sure they don't want to open source the DRM source code, and even if they can release a non-open version the FOSS crowd is highly motivated to cracking the DRM. In short, for making money with meida, Windows is the best bet for studios :P


By StevoLincolnite on 12/17/2007 3:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
Even if you could run it by inserting the HD DVD movie and opening something like VLC media player in Linux I would be happy, I'm not fussy when it comes to HD Movies, they all look great to me, doesnt matter what resolution.


By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 4:01:50 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt it would work, but I won't tell you not to give it a try! At $130 (returnable) what do you have to lose? ;)


By cplusplus on 12/16/2007 6:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
But you know what's really going to tip the scales?

Hannah Montana on Blu-Ray (Disney exclusive).


By raphd on 12/16/2007 6:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. Hilarious, but probably true.


UNTRUE
By 16nm on 12/17/2007 10:09:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
For those who have recently made the investment in a new HDTV, however, every additional day spent on the HD DVD/Blu-ray Disc fence is a glorious, high-definition moment wasted (with the exception of gaming on the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 or use of an HTPC).


Sorry, Marcus, that statement is false. Excellent High-Def 1080i/720p content is broadcast all over the USA everyday and at any given moment. There are no direct costs to the consumer and almost all HDTV's have built-in HD tuners that recieve it. Infact, I would think the majority of people today are buying HDTV's to watch this content than to play video games.

I am sitting on the fence WRT the HD format war. I'm not happy about it, but I am happy watching sports and 30 Rock in HD. I can wait for the KO round to pick Blu-ray or HD-DVD. It really does suck though that these companies have learned nothing from the past. I probably hate Sony for this more than anything else, rootkit fiasco included.




RE: UNTRUE
By omnicronx on 12/17/2007 12:42:01 PM , Rating: 1
You make it out as though everyone uses OTA-HD. Of the 15-20% of americans that own an HDTV, how many people do you think actually use this feature? I know I do, but none of my friends or family do. Most people think the only way to get HD channels is to order from your cable or sattelite company.. It's too bad as OTA HD can be much better than sat/cable transmissions. As there is no need to save bandwidth, most channels add little if any compression to their video stream.

On a sidenote, the maximum allowable resolution by the FCC for ATSC transmissions is 1080i. At this time, broadcast 1080i can't touch BD/HD-DVD at 1080p.(although discovery HD does look damn amazing ;) )


RE: UNTRUE
By Oregonian2 on 12/17/2007 2:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
For a lot of people that satellite/cable may indeed be the only way. Only until last year when sets were required to have ATSC tuners were people even able to get OTA HD reception because most sets (in my observation anyway) didn't have tuners. Even now some don't (now called "monitors" officially even if taken as TV sets in stores). So I'm not sure what percentage of the HD already bought was bougth within the last couple years, but a lot can't do OTA HD, and indeed those who bought before tuners were included probably are spreading the word about cable/satellite being the only way.

P.S. - Even when the law went into effect (talking USA here, btw) I noticed most sets still didn't have tuners for some months afterwards (inventory pipeline, I assume).


RE: UNTRUE
By 16nm on 12/17/2007 8:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
By definition, HDTV has some kind of HD/ATSC Tuner. HD monitors do not. If it doesn't have a tuner, it can not "TELEVISE" an image. If it is not a Hi Def Tuner, it can not be HI DEF. That's "HD TV." If your HD TV requires that you have a separate HD tuner box that you hook up through HDMI or whatever then you have a HD Monitor.

I have seen many Low Def flat panel televisions (LDTV?) with only NTSC tuner, but never a true HDTV. They look awful btw. Perhaps somewhere a manufacturer thought it would be a nice idea to design and manufacture a Hi Def Monitor with only the NTSC (Analog, Low Res) tuner, but I have never seen it. I am open to this possibility if you want to point it out. I'm sure there cannot be many.

I don't know what percentage of Americans with HDTV use OTA HD, but I do know that it is superior to HD Cable and HD Sat. Or so I have heard watching the news on my HDTV. If you are not near a broadcast tower, you must install an outdoor antenna to pickup the HD signal, but you need an external device (a Dish) for HD Sat., anyway. HD Sat. is not supposed to be TOO bad. I have heard that HD Cable is so poor that it is not worth the effort. Appearantly, cable is severely bandwidth limited when it comes to HD. I've even read that HD cable has been known to cut certain channels during primetime to make more bandwidth available to the more watched channels.

So I'm sure there are gamers that bought their HDTV just for gaming, but let's be honest, we know that a very small percentage of the population are gamers. And don't forget, there are plenty of gamers still happy with their 27" and 32" tube television from the last century so it's not like ALL gamers feel they must run out and buy High Def gear to be happy. And, yes, while it is true that HD Cable and Sat. will not give you a full HD experience, as Marcus seems to point out, OTA HD sure will. Blu-ray and HD-DVD are not the sole choices for Full HD Enjoyment.

I would love to buy a HD Video Disc player tomorrow, but not if it is going to be obsolete in a year or two. I also don't agree with this idea to limit certain movies to certain formats. I will be on the fence until either players are dirt cheap or dual format, or there is a clear format winner. Dang it! I hate to think how long this will take. News is always coming out about one format gaining over the other. There's no clear winner insight as far as I can see. I bet players would be much cheaper already if only a single format existed. It is frustrating.


RE: UNTRUE
By Oregonian2 on 12/17/2007 9:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By definition, HDTV has some kind of HD/ATSC Tuner. HD monitors do not. If it doesn't have a tuner, it can not "TELEVISE" an image. If it is not a Hi Def Tuner, it can not be HI DEF. That's "HD TV." If your HD TV requires that you have a separate HD tuner box that you hook up through HDMI or whatever then you have a HD Monitor.


Yes, this is the sales definition used now (and the technical definition even previously). Before early 2006 sets did not need to include an ATSC tuner, and so they didn't. Such a tuner needed to be external. My walking down the rows and rows of TVs at Costco up until around spring 2006 yielded a strong lack of HD tuners. Doesn't matter if they're technically called "gorillas", they still weren't there, at least when I looked. I cared not about the name, just whether they were there or not.

quote:
I don't know what percentage of Americans with HDTV use OTA HD, but I do know that it is superior to HD Cable and HD Sat. Or so I have heard watching the news on my HDTV.


Well, maybe, but there's probably quality improvements watching the National Geographic Channel in Satellite HD as compared to watching OTA McDonald's commercials. OTA has its limitations. :-)

quote:
If you are not near a broadcast tower, you must install an outdoor antenna to pickup the HD signal, but you need an external device (a Dish) for HD Sat., anyway. HD Sat. is not supposed to be TOO bad.


Been investigating DishTV vs DirecTV vs FIOS for HD (we have used SD DirecTV for a very very long time). Most reports on AVSforum has DirecTV HD looking very good, even on very large sized screens. My sister-in-law is very happy with DishTV's HD.

quote:
I would love to buy a HD Video Disc player tomorrow, but not if it is going to be obsolete in a year or two. I also don't agree with this idea to limit certain movies to certain formats. I will be on the fence until either players are dirt cheap or dual format, or there is a clear format winner.


I agree, but I'm not anguishing about it. Not too worried at this point. I'll lag behind with plain DVDs for a while. Got an inexpensive but tidy (HDMI) OPPO 981HD plain-DVD player to help make them last longer (so to speak) until things change. My personal camcorder is SD, so my vacation DVDs will be SD anyway for the time being.


Average Joe
By gus6464 on 12/17/2007 2:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
I have a Mirage Omni 5.1 system with both a PS3 and an A3 with a 50" Panasonic plasma and I am in high-def heaven. In both sound and picture and honestly it wasn't as expensive as some of you guys make it out to be. You would be surprised at what the average joe can afford these days.

Only thing I don't like about HD DVD is that some movies only have DD+ (Transformers) and honestly it sounds like crap on my system compared to Uncompressed PCM and TrueHD.




RE: Average Joe
By mcnabney on 12/17/2007 4:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
Sure it does.

Tell yourself whatever you like about uncompressed formats being superior, but it is most likely that your ears can't tell the difference.

There have been plenty of studies showing that people can't tell the difference between a 256k sampled MP3 and the original signal. Add all the 'processing' that A/V receivers do and I doubt you could get past a simple A/B test. Let me guess, the Dolby HD is louder than regular DTS?


RE: Average Joe
By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 5:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't testetd so much, but isn't the oppisite supposed to be true (DTS preset louder than TrueHD). But yes, excellent results can be obtained with DD+, transformers is proof of this... I think most people decide it sucks when they read DD+ and refuse to get the disc a fair shake.... That's the only way to explain anyone complaining about transformers audio.


RE: Average Joe
By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 5:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
On average I do perfer HD audio, but with Transformers I have to agree with all the reviewers out there and saying they put together one hell of a mix... I think it really deserved to best every other disc (at least that I've heard) in the HD Disc awards audio competition. My list includes Pirates 2 and various other BD movies with PCM audio, also several TrueHD HD DVD discs (Goblet of Fire, Prisoner of Askaban, Constantine, Blood Diamond, etc.)


Question about Matrix Trilogy...
By daftrok on 12/16/2007 2:01:08 PM , Rating: 5
You don't have to buy all three do you? Because I only want the first one.




RE: Question about Matrix Trilogy...
By BMFPitt on 12/16/2007 6:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't have to buy all three do you? Because I only want the first one.
Yes, at least for now. I guess they figure they can get enough people to buy all 3 just to get the first that it will make up for holdouts like me.


Best of both worlds for hundreds less
By R Nilla on 12/16/2007 10:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
Considering this is a tech site I'm surprised the LG combo drive was not mentioned. Granted, it requires a capable machine, but for enthusiasts who already have beefy enough machines, compatibility with both formats can be had for as little as $299 (sometimes less). This is cheaper than an Xbox 360 or PS3 and is certainly worth mentioning.




By Esquire on 12/16/2007 11:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
ok i got my dad hd-DVD with 12 free got him bourne & transformers (for me) look the line is drawn, get on a side pick it. High Def is great we know this so lets decided the future now, ready, set, gone.

in the end both will crack, we'll have combo readers to rip them, and my dad will be up converting my dvd's in the mean time.

HD-DVD 4 me
www.askacapper.com


By Golgatha on 12/17/2007 11:31:58 AM , Rating: 2
I'll mention it. I love my LG combo drive and I pair it up with AnyDVD HD to get the raw files on a hard drive. Share the ripped movie folder over my GbE network and output via DVI to a HDTV via a HTPC. Easy to do with these $500 Dell's having Core 2 Duo CPUs and 7.1 audio output standard. Just add an easily available 8500GT to do the decoding and you're setup pretty nicely.


More importantly...
By puckalicious on 12/17/2007 3:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
Who is that hot chick in the caption?




RE: More importantly...
By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 3:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
Megan fox, the main reason to pick up transformers in HD ;)


RE: More importantly...
By ChipDude on 12/18/2007 12:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
And that is why mom and dad were so proud of their son when they found her hiding in his bedroom!


buy player now, discs later
By tcunning on 12/16/2007 9:09:43 PM , Rating: 2
I've been a fairly early adopter on certain things (I paid $400 for a middle of the road Sony DVD player...), but my first instinct is to hold back here. However, if you could get an HD-DVD player (or Blu-Ray, for that matter, which I think is superior) for a pittance, like the $100 deals before Thanksgiving, you could rent discs through Netflix or Blockbuster (which carries both formats through their mail in service), have a superior viewing experience for the time being, and just hold back on building your own library until the format wars are settled. Also, a lot of the early DVD releases really look terrible when you look at them now, and I wonder if the same thing will occur with high def formats. I am not holding my breath for internet distribution. I think we are many years from videophile quality distribution, particularly with the crappy bandwidth we have on broadband networks in the US.




RE: buy player now, discs later
By nerdye on 12/16/2007 9:16:11 PM , Rating: 1
well said my friend...


RE: buy player now, discs later
By jevans64 on 12/17/2007 6:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I was originally going to wait for the Samsung BD/HD-DVD combo player to be released before making the jump to HD. The free disc deals are pretty hard to pass up on the Toshiba players, so I ended up getting the Toshiba A30 and 10 free movies. I just figured that the player cost me $50 and I can get the combo player later if BD wins.

Getting BD or HD-DVD is pointless unless you have the necessary equipment to support 1080p. Most folks, including myself, will have to upgrade their entire setup in order to enjoy HD properly.

I think the time is just about right to pick up a 1080p TV set as the prices are unlikely to move much lower than they have moved in the last two years. Most of the new features ( low black levels, high contrast, 1080p 24, 120 Hz, HDMI 1.3a, etc. ) are already available in mid-range sets.

IMHO. DLP is the king of size vs cost ratio. Having a set that hangs on the wall is kind of pointless if your equipment and speakers are going to be of any quality. Bose sucks and big sound requires big speakers and a big, powerful receiver or pre/pro, which are going to be 19" deep anyway. All of my stuff is tucked neatly under my DLP set which is only 17" deep. My receiver even hangs off the edge of the stand a little bit. If a LCD or Plasma starts to dim, you are going to throw it away. If my DLP starts to dim, I'll just go out and buy a $190 bulb.

My setup:

Mitsubishi WD-65833 1080p 65" DLP
Denon AVR-5803 receiver ( 170w x 7 @ 0.05% THD )
Definitive Technology BP-7000SC ( front - 1000w + 1800w sub ), CLR 3000 ( center - 450w + 150w sub )
JBL L7 4-way ( surrounds - 400w using only the top section )
EoSone 350 ( back surrounds - 250w 2-way
Denon 2930ci DVD/MPEG4 player
Toshiba A30 HD-DVD player
Monster Power HTS-5100mk2 line conditioner

I'm waiting on the specs for the Denon AVR-5308ci but will probably upgrade my receiver within the next month or two.


did everyone forget??
By xbbdc on 12/17/2007 12:38:40 PM , Rating: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile...

Holographic Versatile Disc (HVD) is an optical disc technology which would hold up to 3.9 terabytes (TB) of information.

Optware was expected to release a 200 GB disc in early June 2006, and Maxell in September 2006 with a capacity of 300 GB and transfer rate of 20 MB/s.[2] Since the announcement, there have been no further news or products on market.

hmm.. is the transfer rate to slow? i think so... the major companies are probably going to milk the shit out of hd and blu-ray until movie companies and nitpick directors need or want the extra space. plus what a pain in the ass it would be to the consumer.. finally getting hd and br down to $200 prices and out comes a new and better format... people would maybe hate themselves and the companies for doing this to them. now that i know about that LG combo drive for the PC, thats what im buying to settle this damn war and going with blockbuster for movies. why pay, when u can rip?




RE: did everyone forget??
By omnicronx on 12/17/2007 12:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
You really think there will be another successful disc oriented video player? I mean companies are having a hard enough time trying to convince people 1080p is better than 720p/480p. When the time comes, whom besides enthusiasts are going to demand something better than 1080p? The FCC is only moving to HD only OTA next year, considering the last spec lasted for what 70 years, I think we may be in this for the long haul.

Atleast until some form of ON-DEMAND service takes form and takes over the market.. (something microsoft can not wait for)


RE: did everyone forget??
By Oregonian2 on 12/17/2007 3:01:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think those super-disks were intended for data storage and things like enterprise backups of huge datasets. The media was to be very expensive so only applications that REALLY need the storage density would be targeted at first (only they could justify the cost).


Upconverting using PC
By pomaikai on 12/17/2007 10:28:37 AM , Rating: 2
This is a first, HD-DVD vs Blu Ray without a 1080i vs 1080p war. For those that insist 1080p and will not settle for 1080i, be sure you check the back of the Blu Ray or HD-DVD discs because I know for a fact that Blu Ray Pirates of the Carribean says it is 1080i not 1080p. Most seemed to be 1080p, but not all.

For me I am satisfied with upconverting my DVDs using AVISynth and encoding them to WMV to stream to my 360. A PC can upconvert better than any DVD player because you are not limited to on-the-fly conversion. It takes about 3-4 hours to upconvert with the filters I use and I have a Core 2 Duo overclocked to 3GHz.




RE: Upconverting using PC
By Locutus465 on 12/17/2007 11:52:25 AM , Rating: 2
You're correct that early At Worlds End discs state "1080i" rather than P. This is a misprint, the source is actually 1080P and the issue has been corrected for future Pirates releases, please see http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news/show/1226 for details...

There are 1080i HD DVD / Blu Ray releases, these are usually nature or sports programs not movies. Upscaled DVD's can produce a great picture, but non will ever equal actual HD content.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki