backtop


Print 132 comment(s) - last by PitViper007.. on Sep 11 at 12:02 PM


Megan Fox will be crystal-clear on the "Transformers" HD DVD this October
"Transformers" will be on high-definition only on HD DVD this October

Hollywood popcorn flick director Michael Bay was one of the most outspoken upon the announcement that Paramount and Dreamworks would be dropping all support for Blu-ray Disc movies to align itself exclusively with HD DVD.

The director of summer blockbuster film Transformers cried out initially on his website, “I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks! They were progressive by having two formats. No Transformers 2 for me.”

Hours later, Bay posted a follow-up message with a different tune: “I heard where Paramount is coming from and the future of HD and players that will be close to the $200 mark which is the magic number. I like what I heard... So I think I might be back on to do Transformers 2!”

Regardless of what Bay’s plans are for the sequel to this summer’s biggest action movie, HD DVD owners will get to experience Transformers in full 1080p high-definition this fall. Paramount announced this week the release of Transformers on HD DVD (as well as DVD) on October 16.

The HD DVD version will contain all the extra features found on the packed two-disc DVD set – all of which in high-definition – plus several HD-exclusive bonuses. In fact, Paramount may have found all the content too much to fit on a 30GB dual-layer HD DVD, and will be shipping it also as a two-disc set.

HD DVD-exclusive features include an “Intelligence Mode” in which an on-screen dashboard over the film provides information about the robots and weapons, their strength levels, character updates and more. HD DVD’s web connectivity capabilities will reveal additional exclusive features at street date and at various time periods in the future.

The HD DVD also includes a running text commentary while watching the film and view relevant behind-the-scenes footage in a picture-in-picture window. For more details, see the official press release.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Wow
By FITCamaro on 9/7/2007 8:01:41 AM , Rating: 2
It only came out three and a half months ago and its already gonna be on DVD. Nice.




RE: Wow
By FITCamaro on 9/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Wow
By Hypernova on 9/7/2007 8:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
Rather stark contrast to where some films are released months apart between regions.


RE: Wow
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 8:16:19 AM , Rating: 5
Thats why HD DVD's Region Free disk system is for the god damn win. I hate that Sony's Blu-Ray still uses a god damn Region Code. HD DVD got it right, Region Coding is bullshit.


RE: Wow
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 8:18:28 AM , Rating: 3
My frustration on this subject comes from not being able to purchase the Battlefield Series 1, 2 and 3 on DVD for my North American player.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battlefield-1/dp/B0007VXZI...

This show was so freaking awesome. Good history lesson for the uninformed.


RE: Wow
By DingieM on 9/7/2007 9:03:31 AM , Rating: 2
I downloaded season 1 - 3, when will season 4 come out? They haven't found earth yet!


RE: Wow
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 9:21:58 AM , Rating: 2
Not battlestar galactica, I think you need to read up on the link I attached.


RE: Wow
By lufoxe on 9/7/2007 10:45:36 AM , Rating: 2
wow, that actually looks awesome, I'm totally with you on the region hating, it has no use except to restrict sales over seas. ($$$, 'nuff said) If I'm wrong though, let me know.


RE: Wow
By alce11 on 9/7/2007 10:05:30 AM , Rating: 2
What about a region free dvd player? It's not that difficult to find one for $50.


RE: Wow
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 10:57:57 AM , Rating: 2
I just bought an HD-A20 HD DVD Player. Not really in the mood to buy an old region free DVD player just because.


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/7/2007 11:02:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'm considering an A1 off of Amazon... Only $130 plus shipping!


RE: Wow
By mdogs444 on 9/7/2007 11:14:39 AM , Rating: 3
Link? Im seeing cheapest at $160+shipping.

But didnt the A1's have the really really slow load times and lots of problems? Isn't the A2 1080i what we would want for regular 1080i LCD tv's?


RE: Wow
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 11:23:04 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, Yes, and Yes.


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/7/2007 1:10:16 PM , Rating: 2
http://cgi.ebay.com/Toshiba-HD-A1-HD-DVD-Player-SA...

I'm also bidding $100 on an x-box DVD upgrade, but I'm sure I'll lose that one... Thus I'm probably just going to let this buy it now offer just slip by :(


RE: Wow
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 11:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
I wanted my 1080p :'( Otherwise woulda rolled with the A-2 I think.


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/7/2007 1:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the A-20 actually output 1080i then deinterlace prior to sending the singnal to your TV? If that's the case doesn't seem like it's that huge an improvement over the A-2, perhaps an A-30 would better?


RE: Wow
By Shawn on 9/9/2007 2:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
The A2 sends all the information needed to correctly deinterlace the picture to the TV. I extremely doubt that you would be able to tell the difference. I saw an HD-A2 hooked up to a nice Samsung 1080p display at bestbuy and it looked amazing.


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/7/2007 2:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
Actually one question here... I remember there being something about a non-full res limiting "feature" in HD (and BR) if you run the video over analog cables to your TV (misguided anti-piracy attempt). Anyone know what the resolution max is for this? I'm not sure I would immediately switch my x-box over to HDMI (assuming by some miracle I win) immediately after hooking the drive up. My TV maxes at 720P anyway, so I figure if that was the limit then I would probably not feel a need to rush to HDMI (considering how good HD video downloads from market place look).


RE: Wow
By jkresh on 9/7/2007 5:18:52 PM , Rating: 2
There is talk of limiting analog to 540p but no one has implemented yet (and I believe everyone has said they will not implement before 2010 or 2011 (after that ...))


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/9/2007 10:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome, I'll be keeping my componet cables a bit longer then unless I happen across a cheap x-box audio dongle


RE: Wow
By 16nm on 9/7/2007 9:39:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Blu-Ray still uses a god damn Region Code. HD DVD got it right, Region Coding is bullshit.

Wow. You are VERY passionate about regioning.

Recap: Sony = Bluray = Regioning = Evil


RE: Wow
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: Wow
By killerroach on 9/7/2007 9:48:11 AM , Rating: 2
That is a definite advantage right there. Too bad Blu-Ray didn't see through to having Western Europe and Australia in our region as well... I can understand the region coding to a small extent, but having Western Europe and Australia (which both have large English-speaking populations) in with the United States (which has a large number of people who speak non-English European languages) does seem rather odd.

That aside, the inclusion of Japan and South Korea was a plus, but it makes the oversights just that much more frustrating...


RE: Wow
By dl429 on 9/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Wow
By mdogs444 on 9/7/2007 3:34:54 PM , Rating: 2
Seeing as how its NOT EVEN OUT YET, how do you know its not 56, 58 or 59 GB of space required?

You dont. So please refrain from blowing smoke just becuase you are on the BD bandwagon.


RE: Wow
By masher2 (blog) on 9/7/2007 3:49:13 PM , Rating: 1
> "how do you know its not 56, 58 or 59 GB of space required?"

Logically, since current releases already out encode into 15-25GB, its unreasonable to think this one would take so much more space.


RE: Wow
By mdogs444 on 9/7/2007 5:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
I understand that part. But what im saying is that there should be room to fit on 1 HD disc if needed. But since there are so many extra features that have to be put on two HD discs, whos to say that it would even fit on a single BD. Not saying it wont, just saying that no one knows until its released.

Just because they are putting so much data for 1 HD, doesnt mean they cant include so much for 1 BD as well.


RE: Wow
By dl429 on 9/7/2007 7:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's unlikely that they would have special features longer than the actual movie itself. I'm not a BD fanboy but only an HD-DVD fanboy would argue that the extra 20gb on a BD-ROM isn't useful and an advantage now that we are seeing studios eclipse the 30gb limit of HD-DVD.


RE: Wow
By KamiXkaze on 9/7/2007 7:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yep due to its high capacity bluray wins on the space issue.

KxK


RE: Wow
By Shawn on 9/9/2007 5:16:11 PM , Rating: 3
DVD Forum approves 'bigger than Blu-ray' HD DVD
07 Sep 07
The DVD Forum, the international DVD standards authority, has approved a 51 GB single-sided triple-layer HD DVD disc for production. Extension to the HD DVD standard, which was submitted by Toshiba in April, received approval on 31 August 2007.


RE: Wow
By PitViper007 on 9/11/2007 11:56:40 AM , Rating: 2
Link to source please????


RE: Wow
By PitViper007 on 9/11/2007 12:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
Never mind....Found one myself.

http://www.n4g.com/News-66322.aspx


RE: Wow
By Pitbull0669 on 9/7/2007 8:16:21 AM , Rating: 2
OMFG !al I can say is man they are going to pack the hell out of it if it has a 2 disc HD DVD!!!Ok if 300 dint make you go out and get one AND there was no other reson to buy one guys now there is.If you havent seen all the goodies on HD vs. Blu-Ray you are in for a treat!Peace.


RE: Wow
By therealnickdanger on 9/7/2007 8:22:40 AM , Rating: 3
I would rather they skip some of the extras on this Transformers release and give me a Dolby TrueHD track instead. It's not a complete loss, mind you, but considering how many other Paramount releases have had and will have THD, it's a tragedy that a movie like this is denied the best sound to go with it.


RE: Wow
By acer905 on 9/7/2007 9:38:15 AM , Rating: 2
While it is tempting to get an HD DVD player for the sole purpose of seeing Prime in full HD... i still have no real need for it. DVD quality is still qute good when using a CRT television. In fact, i've seen supposed high def plasma's hooked up to blu-ray players at stores that look worse than the dvd quality i get. However, high def sound would be nice

As for "goodies" i don't care. I just wanna watch the movie the same way i saw it in the theaters. With the sole exception of being happy about any previously deleted scenes being added back in. But as i said... Prime in HD is tempting...


RE: Wow
By kyp275 on 9/7/2007 3:33:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
n fact, i've seen supposed high def plasma's hooked up to blu-ray players at stores that look worse than the dvd quality i get.


One should never judge a set by a store display, many of them are configured so badly it's not even funny.


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/7/2007 3:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
Which must have been the case for the OP, because I've never seen a Blueray or HD display that was anything less that stellar...


RE: Wow
By bhieb on 9/7/2007 9:50:17 AM , Rating: 3
Really? I am a huge Transformers fan, and I loved the movie. But I still won't by in to the 1080p BS. Yes more is better if it is the same price, but it just does not look that much better than DVD. DVD was sucessful because it was a vast improvement over VHS in every way. Yes HD is a vastly better pic quaility on paper, but in reality there is a point when it is good enough. It is like playing a game @ 1900X1600 on a 15" monitor, what is the point. Unless your screen is over 120" 720p or 1080i is fine.

FYI I have a 720 LCD on a 100" screen, HD looks Excellent DVD looks Great.

Just my 2 cents.


RE: Wow
By ajfink on 9/7/2007 10:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
That is your decision, but I personally see quite a difference between DVD-quality video and 1080p video. Often when I watch DVD's I'm left wishing it were on HD-DVD instead so it wouldn't be so grainy and full of poor color blending. Intentionally grainy movies like 300 actually get less of a quality boost in terms of appearance than a movie like Transformers would get, and I look forward to buying it.

Either way, sub-$200 dual-format players will win eventually.


RE: Wow
By acer905 on 9/7/2007 12:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
Might i ask what type of tv you have?


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/7/2007 3:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
I've had the same results, though it vary's greatly upon the disk. I'm currently playing through an RCA upconverting dvd player, on to a Toshiba 50" slim dlp (720p)

Kingdom of heaven - great no problems
Blood Diamond - Eh.. suck
StarWars (any) - So so, HD would be much better

goes on like that, so far I have yet to see a movie that matches Kingdom of heaven's upscalability...


RE: Wow
By therealnickdanger on 9/7/2007 10:54:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
in reality there is a point when it is good enough

And clearly "reality" to you isn't what it is to others, myself included. It's your perception that simply doesn't align with reality. I can clearly see the difference between my 42" 480p and 42" 1080p plasmas. The finer resolution carries with it a level of detail and color reproduction that is physically impossible with anything less than 1920x1080 pixels. That's reality.


RE: Wow
By bhieb on 9/7/2007 11:59:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying it is not beneficial, it is, but the "reality" is that the general public just does not need or seem to want it that badly. DVD sales still vastly outsell HD, and everyone seems to think $200 is the magic number. I personally don't. When the average joe can go to BB and buy a decent HD DVD player for <$100 then you will see a wide spread desire, but now and even at $200 the "need" is not there.

Thankfully I do quite well in life. Hell I have a 9TB media server in my house for my movies (about $10K counting the server and MCE PC's). And if you told me tommorrow that there was a $200 HD DVD player, I still would not buy it. Now a $150 combo drive to replace the ones on my HTPC's, maybe.

Again it is all my opinion, and obviously most people on this type of site want the best, but I think a good HTPC streaming from my server in 480p looks great for now. Once the price comes down and a clear standard wins, then sure, but not anytime in the near future. And it just amazes me that something with a mear 1% (DVD vs HD sales) market, gets so much attention when no one (in the grand scheme) is buying it.


RE: Wow
By therealnickdanger on 9/7/2007 12:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
Like you said, "people on this type of site". It's new technology, we're excited about it, that's what this site is about. It's all fine and good to not want to buy into HD-DVD or BD due to cost - no matter what your financial situation - but don't blur the facts with opinion or wallet size. Whether the player costs $100 or $1,000, the content is the same. VHS outsold DVD for a time before DVD took over, regardless of DVD being superior, neither pricing nor public opinion changed the facts. HD content is superior and it will take time, end of issue.


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/7/2007 3:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big difference between 480P and 720P on my 50" Toshiba...


RE: Wow
By ryedizzel on 9/7/2007 9:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
But is there a big difference between 720p and 1080p on a TV less than 50" in size? And that's assuming all HD movies are playing in 1080p, cause I think I read that most were 1080i (please correct me if I am wrong).


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/9/2007 10:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Probably not, but I was replying to the OP's comment that there isn't a difference between HD and regular DVD (480P), the fact is there is.

As far as the 720/1080 comparison goes... Honestly 720 is just fine for me (obviously as I was unwilling to pay $1000 more for a smaller TV at the higher res). I'm perfectly happy with 720 on my 50". Maybe if I win the lotto I'll upgrade, but short of that I'd say you'll have a great experience with even an entry level 720P screen up to 50".


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/9/2007 10:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, sorry missed the last part before.... Actually I think HD-DVD content is 1080P, so is blueray. I think early HD-DVD players only outputted 1080i as a compramise to get the technology out earlier. In fact the new Toshiba A-30 (and A-20 will be retrofitted) will output 1080P at 24FPS


RE: Wow
By Samus on 9/8/2007 6:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much everyone who saw Transformers saw it in the first few weeks. It wasn't like Titanic where people kept going to see it. So, it's time for them to get a DVD out and make some more money, especially in time for Christmas.


RE: Wow
By masher2 (blog) on 9/7/2007 9:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
> "It only came out three and a half months ago and its already gonna be on DVD."

I really think its a matter of time before most major motion pictures skip the theatre stage entirely, and simply release straight to disc. It won't happen soon obviously, but in 10+ years it seems inevitable.


RE: Wow
By acer905 on 9/7/2007 9:42:52 AM , Rating: 3
... I doubt that they will ever "skip" the theaters. Unless of course people by that time have theater size tv's in their house, which i doubt will happen. However the movies might end up being released at the same time. Plus, the theater is still where the movie gets a ton of its money from. That would be like if music artists stop going on tour.

(side note, i have long felt that if you go to see the movie in the theater, you have paid to see it. Thus you should be able to then see it whenever you want (of course outside the theater) So they should give you a download/dvd voucher. I'd even pay $5 more for a ticket if i got a copy of the movie afterward)


RE: Wow
By timmiser on 9/7/2007 9:47:46 AM , Rating: 2
I would be surprised if that ever happened. A DVD only release would mean a single $25 investment (per family) but the way it is now, I go to the theatre and spend $20-$40 per family to get in, $16 for coke and popcorn + the $25 HD-DVD 3 months later + if it was a real good movie, might even see it twice in the theatre. So the way it is now, I could spend over $100 with the theatre/DVD combo vs. a single $25 HD-dvd investment. Like I said, I just don't see that happening.


RE: Wow
By masher2 (blog) on 9/7/2007 10:49:17 AM , Rating: 3
The studio doesn't receive anything from your concessions purchases; they don't enter into the equation. As for ticket revenues, they get the vast majority of that, true...but only if people buy the tickets. They have to actually go to the theatre...and less and less people are doing that.

Now, consider the other side of an equation. When a movie is first released, there's a huge amount of hype...supported by tens of millions of advertising dollars. Releasing a film immediately on disc means higher sales there. The longer you wait, the less fresh the product is; the less you can charge for it, and the less people will want to buy it. There are hundreds of once-popular movies in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart for $5/each...and no one's buying them.

So its a classic tradeoff scenario. Right now, theatre attendance is still high enough to warrant the release...but attendance has been dropping for decades. What's it going to be like 15 years from now, when most of the country has a high-def big screen in their house?

If you read industry trade journals, you'll already hear this being talked about. 15 years ago, a film often spent a year or even two in the theatres before hitting VHS. Now, you can sometimes see one hitting DVD within 3 months...less, for films which didn't do well at the box office.


RE: Wow
By acer905 on 9/7/2007 12:36:35 PM , Rating: 1
50-100" TV vs 50-100 foot screen. I'll stick to the big screen


RE: Wow
By peritusONE on 9/7/2007 1:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
Crying kids, ringing cell phones, and insanely expensive snacks and drinks versus peace and quiet, your own choice of cheap snacks and drink, and complete control over your viewing environment.

Ummmm, ya......you don't have to be a brain scientist or rocket surgeon to figure out which one I'd choose..... :) :P


RE: Wow
By timmiser on 9/8/2007 2:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
Well we must not forget the social event of going to a movie. If you want to take a date to a movie, that would be pretty creepy if you said to come on over to your house to watch a DVD at home. That is a whole different invite!

Also true with taking the wife to a movie. She wants to go out into public. It's an event!


RE: Wow
By deeznuts on 9/7/2007 2:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for ticket revenues, they get the vast majority of that, true...but only if people buy the tickets. They have to actually go to the theatre...and less and less people are doing that.


Hollywood just had it's biggest revenue summer, and 6th biggest attendance numbers since the modern era. Yeah not as high as 2002, but for an industry considered dead in 2005, it was a huge turnaround. People are happy.


RE: Wow
By oab on 9/8/2007 9:33:55 AM , Rating: 2
They had the largest revenue, but the article I read said that they had lower theatre attendance, and that the numbers were made up by higher ticket prices.


RE: Wow
By Locutus465 on 9/7/2007 2:26:40 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on the film... Warner brothers has no problem waiting for a November Harry Potter DVD release...


RE: Wow
By timmiser on 9/8/2007 2:55:07 AM , Rating: 2
Less and less people are going to movies?? Where do you get that info? There are swings up and down from year to year, but overall, the movie going trend is a steady upward trend which can be seen by multiplex theatres being built every so often.


RE: Wow
By therealnickdanger on 9/7/2007 9:49:04 AM , Rating: 3
This is something that I can see being only partially true. I think we will see "straight to disc" or download or whatever, but I highly doubt we will stop going to theaters. People have been attending theaters of one kind or another for centuries. People like to go out on dates; the social interaction. People like the huge scale of theaters - both visually and aurally. They like overpaying for watered down soda and lukewarm popcorn. :P

I think the most realistic alternative will be movies being released on opening day in both theaters and media of some kind. Being able to purchase the HD-DVD (or IP-DVD 10+ years from now) will simply increase profits for the studio, but it won't kill off theaters. I see theaters becoming grander in design and features, perhaps more limited in number, but also more expensive - like more of a luxury. As good as my home theater is, it still can't compare to the Marcus Ultrascreen experience (most incredible sound system I've ever heard).


RE: Wow
By FITCamaro on 9/7/2007 10:19:31 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you, but I don't own a movie theater sized screen and have speakers built into my walls that pump out enough sound to make people hear me watching a movie down the block.

I love going to the movie theater.


RE: Wow
By masher2 (blog) on 9/7/2007 10:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
> "I don't know about you, but I don't own a movie theater sized screen "

I'd hazard a bet that in 10-15 years, you will though. Theatre attendance has been on a steady decline for decades. The writing is on the wall.

The only thing that will prevent it is the adoption of some new display technology far above what the home can offer (3D? 180-degree FOV, ultra-high res imaging?)


RE: Wow
By AmbroseAthan on 9/7/2007 12:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
While I would love to say I will have that set-up in 10-15 years, there is not a chance in hell. I am assuming FITCamaro is talking about a theatre like I am used to, 300+ seats, ridiculously large screens, and sound systems to rival a rock concert. Somehow, I don't think I will be coming close to this anytime soon.

And I disagree with the writing being on the wall. Going by the MPAA's statistics: http://www.mpaa.org/USEntertainmentIndustryMarketS...

Page 7: Since 1986 there has been a 42% rise since 1986, and while admissions did decline in the last few years, it is still doing very very well. I don't see how you could interpert this data as the beginning of the end.

Page 4: With regards to Box Office Gross, since 1986, there has been a 151% rise, as compared to only an 84% inflation rate. (inflation based on: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/... )

The sound systems and displays used in most theatres will always remain ahead of what the average consumer has. I don't see technology suddenly being able to give me a 30+ foot movie screen (Besides for possible VR-type glasses, but then where does the social aspect go?).


RE: Wow
By masher2 (blog) on 9/7/2007 12:54:09 PM , Rating: 3
> "there is not a chance in hell. ...300+ seats, ridiculously large screens, and sound systems to rival a rock concert..."

I have a 103" screen in my home, with in-wall 5.1 surround sound, subwoofer, and HD front projector. In 15 years, anyone with above a minimum wage job will be able to afford something that looks and sounds better than my setup.

Is that screen as big as a theatre's? Effectively, it is. It already occludes around 120 degrees of my field of view, which is a wider viewing angle than you'll get at the theatre unless you sit in the first few front rows.

> "The sound systems and displays used in most theatres will always remain ahead of what the average consumer has"

Of course. But its indisputable that the gap has narrowed. The video quality at the theatre has been essentially unchanged since the 1950s, a point at which "home theatre" meant a grainy black-and-white TV transmission.

> "Page 7: Since 1986 there has been a 42% rise "

Look at page 8. Tickets sold per capita (which removes the inflationary effect of increasing population) have been essentially flat since 1981. Now, look at the period since 2001, when DVD sales began to dominate. Per-capita ticket sales are sharply down.

Furthermore, the home video market is exploding. Theatre sales are an increasingly small piece of the overall pie.

Will the trend continue? Soothsaying is risky business, but I think the underlying factor here is the rise in home theatre technology. As more people can afford a home-viewing experience that very nearly matches the theatre, the rates are still going to delcine.


RE: Wow
By timmiser on 9/8/2007 3:16:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is that screen as big as a theatre's? Effectively, it is. It already occludes around 120 degrees of my field of view, which is a wider viewing angle than you'll get at the theatre unless you sit in the first few front rows.


Alright, you either work on the floor of the TV department of Best Buy or you've got just a tad too much butter on that popcorn! That is pretty funny, but that analogy means if you sit close enough, it will "effectively" be as big as movie theatre regardless of your home screen size.

:)

quote:
I think the underlying factor here is the rise in home theatre technology. As more people can afford a home-viewing experience that very nearly matches the theatre...


I dunno, hate to draw quality comparison between film and digital video but I don't think HDTV is nowhere near the quality of movie film.


RE: Wow
By theapparition on 9/10/2007 9:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a 103" screen in my home, with in-wall 5.1 surround sound, subwoofer, and HD front projector.

Get with the times man........7.1 has been around for years.
Get rid of the in-wall speakers too.


RE: Wow
By GoatMonkey on 9/10/2007 11:20:50 AM , Rating: 2
I'd like to know how rising ticket prices have effected these numbers. Last time I went to the theater it was $9.50. I worked in a theater 10 years ago and it was $5.50. I don't think that inflation has nearly doubled in those 10 years.


RE: Wow
By Spuke on 9/7/2007 3:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
There's more money being spent but the attendance , which is what Masher was talking about HAS gone down dramatically. The gross increase is more than likely due to increased ticket prices.

Also, I don't go to the movies for the social aspect. Since no one speaks or interacts, where's the social aspect of going to the movies? I go because of the HUGE sound and picture. I would stop going if I had a bad ass setup at home. But I don't so off to the movies I go.


RE: Wow
By theapparition on 9/10/2007 8:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's more money being spent but the attendance , which is what Masher was talking about HAS gone down dramatically.

Not true. Let's clear this up so everyone understands the truth without spin.

Attendance is up, and accounting for fluctuations year-to-year, increasing. However, the general population is also up. With more people around, you'd expect attendance to increase. The problem is, attendace is not increasing at the rate of population (or per capita). Theaters are bringing people in, but not as many as they expect to. That's the issue that some forcast as the beginning of a downward trend. Revenue has also increased, outpacing inflation, but once again not nearly as high as they forcasted. Part of that is ticket prices, part of that revenue is that studios are releasing more movies than ever. With more movies, even if they only last 2 weeks in the theaters, it's still increased revenue.

Purchaseable media (DVD,HD-DVD,BR) will NOT be the answer the movie studio's are looking for. The studios still make their largest profit from ticket sales. Remember, they sell 1 ticket for each person who pays admission. Some people may go to the same movie several times, paying each time. If they release strait to DVD, at current prices, they lose money if more than 2 people watch the feature. Don't forget, there's also overlap, meaning, many of the people who paid admission also purchase the DVD. I read somewhere that this was as high as 40%. They are not interested in losing that overlap.

One thing is certain, the industry is changing. I think it will take considerable time (25+years), but movie theaters as we know them now will not exist. Home systems have increased dramatically over a time where very little advances have been made in theater quality (yes, there are some, but minor). Lest we not forget that the mass consumer doesn't care about audio/videophile quality. I do think what we'll see is an on-demand pay-per-view service. It's an exciting time, and we (the consumer) can take an active stance to fight for what we want.


RE: Wow
By Spuke on 9/7/2007 12:15:54 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'd hazard a bet that in 10-15 years, you will though.
Considering he has the word "Camaro" in his name, 30 years is probably more accurate.


RE: Wow
By TomZ on 9/7/2007 10:15:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd hazard a bet that in 10-15 years, you will though. Theatre attendance has been on a steady decline for decades. The writing is on the wall.

Theaters will cease to exist once teenagers develop a preference for spending quality time with their parents and staying home instead of going out with their friends. In other words, never.

My wife and I went to the movies last weekend, and I would guess that 95% of the people there were "kids" age 15-20. The place was hopping - tons of people there.


Hmmm
By Polynikes on 9/7/2007 8:16:38 AM , Rating: 3
Sounds like Mr. Bay got paid off.




RE: Hmmm
By awer26 on 9/7/2007 8:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
Personally, I hate this exclusivity B$. Most hi-def video consumers have either a Blu-Ray system or an HD-DVD system and exclusive titles just ruin the experience for the end consumer and encourages pirating hi-def versions for those without the proper equipment. I really doubt that releasing Transformers on HD-DVD only will make many more people buy an HD-DVD player.


RE: Hmmm
By mdogs444 on 9/7/2007 8:54:23 AM , Rating: 3
Personally, I would agree that a single movie would not make me purchase a player.

However, I dont think its just a single exclusive movie that is attempting to buy consumers. Its not trying to prove that HD is great by releasing certain movies on only HD-DVD, but rather proving that BD is not the format to buy seeing how you cannot have these certain movies on it.

The price of the players are going to be what calls the consumers and challenges the makers. $200 vs $500 for the cheapest players is a no brainer in my book. Sure, the PS3 has a stated "Value" by some at $500 arguing that you get so much more than just a dvd player. However, most people in the world are NOT gamers and do NOT want a PS3. My parents, for example, would not purchase a PS3 because they have trouble enough trying to figure out the DVD player & cable box alone. They would just purchase a basic player to serve the purpose of watching movies. And looking at the shelf to see $299HD, $399HD, $499BD, $699BD, $999BD, $999+ Combo....i would say its same to assume which most people would pick.


RE: Hmmm
By Murst on 9/7/2007 11:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its not trying to prove that HD is great by releasing certain movies on only HD-DVD, but rather proving that BD is not the format to buy seeing how you cannot have these certain movies on it.


Although Transformers is a huge lift to HD DVD, it certainly doesn't prove that BD isn't the format to buy. In terms of public perception, I think the Transformers movie is rather quite insignificant when compared to the whole Disney library (whenever they get around to it).

Transformers2 will be out on BR anyways, unless Toshiba plans on paying off Paramount forever.


RE: Hmmm
By Locutus465 on 9/7/2007 1:16:35 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you say they paid of Paramount to begin with, and that HD will lose their support? From where I sit it looks like Paramounts execs agree with those who think that price will determain the victor in the format wars, as it has so many times in the past...


RE: Hmmm
By Murst on 9/7/2007 2:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
Its been talked about quite a bit actually.

Toshiba forked over $150 million to Paramount / Dreamworks for the exclusive. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB...

Also, I don't think that Paramount will drop HD DVD completely. After the deal is over (supposed to be 18 months of exclusivity), they'll probably go back to supporting both formats, unless there is a clear winner or HD players that support both formats are standard.


RE: Hmmm
By dl429 on 9/7/2007 3:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
Paramount might be the smartest studio in the room. They take the $150 million to go with HD-DVD and if it wins the format war great. If not they get to sell all their movies all over again to Blu-ray owners...


RE: Hmmm
By Locutus465 on 9/9/2007 10:36:02 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, apparently I missed that... I wonder how big an insentive that really is for them though, when you consider a really good film can generate that kind of cash, then take into account how many movies those studio's put out... Not that I'm saying $150m is chump change, but in the grand scheme of things.... Still, there are other good reasons to go HD exclusive, cheaper entry cost, particularly if the price stradegy for this christmas really does happen and we have $200 HD players out on the market.


RE: Hmmm
By FITCamaro on 9/7/2007 9:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
Unless there are exclusive titles the format war will never end and prices on movies will never come down further. There needs to be one format. Exclusive titles are the way to get there.


RE: Hmmm
By Dharl on 9/7/2007 8:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
That we'll never know.


RE: Hmmm
By Canizorro on 9/7/2007 9:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
To me it sounds more like an ego trip for Michael Bay that got smacked back down to reality. He was upset he didn't get the same treatment that Steven Spielberg got for his movies to be released on both formats. For which Paramount said, "Ummmm... yeah... your Michael Bay.... so no dual format for you. We can probably get Steven Spielberg to do Transformers 2, so do what you think you need to do." ........... "I heard where paramount is coming from and I like what I heard, so uhh I might be back on to do transformers 2!" I sure hope they didn't pay this guy extra money to stay on to do Transformers 2.


RE: Hmmm
By keitaro on 9/7/2007 9:35:05 AM , Rating: 2
It won't matter if he got paid more or less for the sequel. The first movie already profited enough to recover the production expenses. Worldwide it's racked up over 600 million USD and they greenlighted the sequel prior to the movie's worldwide debut.

The problem with Bay is that despite of his outspoken words of trying to support both sides, he flip-flopped just so that he can continue to rake in the dough. He probably got told of some financial numbers and was convinced by that just to stay on board.

I cannot stand these movie studios who sided with one format. And I'm still waiting for the dust to settle to see what side won. HD-DVD may be cheaper to get in terms of player price... but I still wanted to side with Blu-Ray due to its larger capacity and potentials.


RE: Hmmm
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmm
By Locutus465 on 9/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Hmmm
By dl429 on 9/7/2007 3:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
It has higher transfer rates, I can't remember the exact numbers off hand but they are available on the web. This is one of the reasons Disney "said" they went with Blu-ray.


no duh
By michal1980 on 9/7/2007 8:09:10 AM , Rating: 1
toshiba/m$ paid like 150 million bucks for this movie to be on hd-dvd.




RE: no duh
By StevoLincolnite on 9/7/2007 8:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
Actually Toshiba/NEC are the developers behind HD DVD.
So what does this have to do with Microsoft?
Nothing, except they are part of the AACS or Advanced Access Content System which is a consortium that includes Disney, Intel, Microsoft, Panasonic, Warner Brothers, IBM, Toshiba and Sony. (Yes it includes Sony).


RE: no duh
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 8:32:58 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft provided and developed the XML/Framework used to write the interface on HD DVD's.


RE: no duh
By KernD on 9/7/2007 8:49:51 AM , Rating: 2
Doing contract work for a company doesn't mean you back there product. That's like saying ATI/AMD payed millions for a XBox360 exclusive title.


RE: no duh
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 8:55:03 AM , Rating: 2
Xbox360 HD DVD Add-on, oh yea Microsoft doesnt care.....


RE: no duh
By KernD on 9/7/2007 10:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
They only have a HD-DVD addon because there against Sony in the console war, not because they care about HD-DVD, they care about Sony losing and MS winning the console war. Thats the only reason they have this addon, to be able to say we also have a HD disc format, but we don't force it on people.


RE: no duh
By oab on 9/8/2007 9:46:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that's a flamebait.

MS supports HD-DVD because HD-DVD requires that consumers should be able to get a backup copy of the disk (they may be forced to buy that backup by the publisher, but they can get one).

Blu-Ray has no such requirement.


RE: no duh
By ShapeGSX on 9/7/2007 11:08:08 AM , Rating: 2
MS also supplies VC-1, which is a video codec used on both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

MS is working both sides of this battle. They win no matter what.


RE: no duh
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 11:22:21 AM , Rating: 2
That's because Microsoft isn't stupid. They have contingency plans :)


RE: no duh
By plewis00 on 9/7/2007 8:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
There is also the irony that Sony and NEC have partnered to form the optical drive manufacturer Optiarc. On the plus side (also now that NEC have a dual-mode chip) perhaps we will see combo drives, and maybe even a peaceful co-existence of formats like DVD-R and DVD+R?


RE: no duh
By michal1980 on 9/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: no duh
By mdogs444 on 9/7/2007 9:04:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
plus they have paid virual marketers all over various a/v forums who claim they are just out to 'inform' people.


Id like to see you prove that. An educated guess, hearsay, and a "gut feeling" is just as bad as FUD.


RE: no duh
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: no duh
By zombiexl on 9/7/2007 10:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
From that we have the magical .Net Framework and C#, which as long as you aren't concerned too much with cross platform use, beats the pants off Java.


What happend to Mono and dotGNU? I used dotGNU years ago to run a server i wrote in c# in windows and compiled in windows on a linux box.

Plus silverlight is a good start at cross platform browser capabilities for .net/c#.


RE: no duh
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 11:20:51 AM , Rating: 1
Well you have valid points, I was just trying to cover my tracks against the Linux guys that typically flame me arguing that Java is "true cross platform". C# is fairly cross platform, some of the Interface features of .Net arent totally cross platform, but I agree they are moving in that direction.


RE: no duh
By TomZ on 9/7/2007 10:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
That cracks me up, that you got downrated for suggesting that C# and .NET are not really cross-platform. LOL.


Megan Fox
By 16nm on 9/7/2007 9:44:43 AM , Rating: 1
Megan Fox is a cute girl not a sexy woman like Catherine Zeta-Jones is. IMO of course




RE: Megan Fox
By mdogs444 on 9/7/2007 10:25:25 AM , Rating: 4
Doesnt your Girl vs. Woman already prove that they are in different leagues & classifications?

I think megan fox is more along the leagues of Elisha Cuthbert. While Catherine ZJ is more comprable to Selma Hyak, Penelope Cruz, etc.


RE: Megan Fox
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Megan Fox
By 16nm on 9/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Megan Fox
By Locutus465 on 9/7/2007 1:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, had never heard of her... But after doing some "research" I've found that I must agree with the OP's opinion, Elisha Cuthbert is better looking, though Megan Fox is also very very hot.


RE: Megan Fox
By Haltech on 9/7/2007 6:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
did any one but me watch The Girl Next Door, the movie not the TV Show.


RE: Megan Fox
By 16nm on 9/7/2007 11:31:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Doesnt your Girl vs. Woman already prove that they are in different leagues & classifications?


Well, maybe use of the word 'girl' is a bit demeaning in today's world of female empowerment. I should say she's more a cute woman than a sexy one. It seems she was chosen for this role to attract the younger male to the film.

quote:
I think megan fox is more along the leagues of Elisha Cuthbert. While Catherine ZJ is more comprable to Selma Hyak, Penelope Cruz, etc.


Yeah, Selma is sexy. Cruz is borderline. I've not seen her in a while but do you remember Rene Russo from the Thomas Crown Affair redo? I wish Hollywood would spend more time going after leading ladies like these than the newest, hottest young name they can. A little voice in my head is telling me that they are probably getting these young ladies on the cheap compared to the more mature ones.

I Wikipedia'd Elisha Cuthbert and I honestly have never heard of this woman before. She doesn't look too girlish in the photo.


RE: Megan Fox
By mdogs444 on 9/7/2007 11:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
Go rent the movie "Girl Next Door". You'll sing a different tune about Elisha....

She was also in House of Wax
:-)


2 DISC?
By dreddly on 9/7/2007 10:20:20 AM , Rating: 3
Am I the only one who finds it absurd that the next-gen format already requires 2 disc sets?

I personally believe the dual format readers are the way to go, but at least BD has the space to put on more content.

If HDDVD requires 2 discs it is really DVD+ rather than next gen.




RE: 2 DISC?
By Dharl on 9/7/2007 10:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
Not trying to defend HD-DVD in any way form or fashion here, but they could have easily put this movie on one disk.

The problem is they crammed so many pointless extras onto the disk that it now requires 2 HD-DVDs. Ridiculous if you ask me.


RE: 2 DISC?
By steven975 on 9/7/2007 11:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
even blu-ray has 2 disc sets.

Studios don't mind adding a second disc as consumers see it as a much higher valued product. That translates into more profit.

So, 2 discs isn't bad at all.


RE: 2 DISC?
By dl429 on 9/7/2007 3:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
Blu-ray only has 2 disc sets because BD-50's were not available yet or studio "x" didn't want to highlight the weakness of HD-DVD's 30gb limit.


RE: 2 DISC?
By mdogs444 on 9/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: 2 DISC?
By dl429 on 9/7/2007 7:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
What movie has been released on a 2 disc 50gb BD-ROM? We are not talking documentarys or series.


O' really?
By leidegre on 9/7/2007 8:49:13 AM , Rating: 2
I'm gonna build my own Blue-ray printing machine and sell copies of the HDDVD on Blue-ray discs for half the price. Muawhauhawh!




RE: O' really?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 8:53:03 AM , Rating: 2
Good luck with that. You will need to rewrite the menus and interface using BD-Java, as HD DVD uses the vastly different XML/.Net Framework.

You also need to make sure nobody finds out because the FBI will be knocking on your door.


RE: O' really?
By leidegre on 9/8/2007 2:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
I will overcome.


All I want is...
By cenobite9 on 9/7/2007 9:27:33 AM , Rating: 2
...for Unicron to make an appearance in Transformers 2 (as long as he isn't portrayed as a big storm cloud with arms).




RE: All I want is...
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 9/7/2007 11:13:51 AM , Rating: 1
I think ILM would relish the opportunity to make a planetsized munching machine / Transformer.........


RE: All I want is...
By acer905 on 9/7/2007 12:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
But would it really be right without Orson Welles doing the voice?


J.Q. Public has had enough of this nonsense
By kilkennycat on 9/7/2007 11:05:20 AM , Rating: 4
Figures released this week has shown that the general public has had enough of this HD format nonsense. Total cumulative sales of both formats have fallen off.

See:-

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070906-batt...

Also note the telling figure from this article:-

"the [standard-format]DVD of Happy Feet sold over 4 million copies during the last week of March, which is almost twice as much as the total next-gen disc format sales since their launch over a year ago"

As long as these juvenile battles rage between the formats, the High-def DVD market will continue to be niche OR until a manufacturer comes out with the sub-$200 dual-format, full-feature player.. and effectively thumbs noses at both camps.




By masher2 (blog) on 9/7/2007 11:12:31 AM , Rating: 1
> "Total cumulative sales of both formats have fallen off.
See: ..."


This was first reported here on DT. If you look at the graph in the Arstechnica article, its the same one from our earlier story:

http://www.dailytech.com/Sony+Inadvertently+Reveal...


Mehhhheeehhggaaannnnnnn
By B166ER on 9/7/2007 8:33:55 AM , Rating: 1
Me-Gan Fox. Bitch. I say God damn!




RE: Mehhhheeehhggaaannnnnnn
By Screwballl on 9/7/2007 11:05:24 AM , Rating: 2
I say shes VERY cute but thats my personal opinion...


format wars suck
By Screwballl on 9/7/2007 11:02:31 AM , Rating: 3
It is kinda neat seeing the companies beat each other to a pulp from a distance but for me personally, I usually wait until the dust settles (like VHS vs Beta) before investing my hard earned money into anything like this. For now I am happy with the standard DVD format that plays just fine on my 5.1 surround sound system.




Too much content
By Dharl on 9/7/2007 8:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, Paramount may have found all the content too much to fit on a 30GB dual-layer HD DVD, and will be shipping it also as a two-disc set.


I'm sorry but that just made me laugh. Sounds like they were trying too hard to give people a reason to buy the HD-DVD version. There is no difference, just pointless "fancy" extras like PiP commentaries.




What will sony do?
By Mitch101 on 9/7/2007 11:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder what kind of Sony BS marketing spin they are going to do on this day to sales of Blue Ray dont look so bad.

Either way I think this is what kills the movie industry. I still havent seen this and wanted to go to see it when the movie theater would be like my own personal theater. Now I have to wonder if I should just wait.

This also entices me to pick up a HD-DVD player too as HD-DVD movies would make for some nice stocking stuffers especially ones with the chick on them. :)




LOL!!! The FUD is atrocious here on DT
By SunAngel on 9/7/07, Rating: -1
"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki