backtop


Print 166 comment(s) - last by P4blo.. on Nov 1 at 10:18 AM


Megan Fox fills up high-definition displays in crystal clarity
Transformers is best-selling movie on both standard and high-definition

Transformers is undoubtedly one of this year’s biggest films, so it should come to no one’s surprise that its release on the home video market quickly rose to the of the charts. Paramount Pictures today informed the media that Transformers is the top selling day one high-definition release ever.

Transformers on HD DVD sold 100,000 copies on October 16, making it biggest home video high-definition day yet. The release eventually gathering 190,000 sold over the first week, leading Paramount to boast Transformers as, “the fastest and best-selling week one release on either high definitionformat as well as the best selling HD DVD ever.”

“The performance of the Transformers DVD and HD DVD has demonstrated the phenomenal success of this global franchise,” said Kelley Avery, president, Worldwide Home Entertainment, Paramount Pictures. “We’re happy to be kicking off the fourth quarter with a title that clearly shows home entertainment releases are still an event that drives consumers into stores — which is a win for both content providers and retailers.”

While no one will argue that Transformers is a title that all high-definition owners would like to have in their collection, the sales crown may still be undecided with Warner Bros.’ 300 release on both HD DVD andBlu-ray Disc. Warner announced a week after release that 300 sold over 250,000 copies, setting new sales records. It was later revealed that more than half of 300 sold on high-definition were on Blu-ray Disc.

One should wonder how much better Transformers may have sold if it were available on Blu-ray Disc, but as Paramount and Dream Works signed an exclusive deal, the robotic battle-filled film currently graces only HD DVD in 1080p.

Owners of only Blu-ray Disc players are likely jealously staring across the line at HD DVD owners – a feeling that Transformers director Michael Bay understands. Bay initially threw a fit after learning that his film would be released in high-definition only on HD DVD, threatening to not return for a sequel. Bay later posted on his blog in a different tune, praising HD DVD’s hardware pricing and said that he might indeed be back to direct Transformers 2.

With home video companies boasting about their record-setting high-definition sales, regular standard-definition DVD continues to cast a mammoth shadow both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc combined. Day one sales of Transformers on DVD hit 4.5 million, with the first week collecting 8.3 million – also setting records for DVD sales this year.



Comments     Threshold


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

Sorta off topic
By bravacentauri83 on 10/22/2007 10:20:42 PM , Rating: 3
but is that picture of Fox a capture from the HD-DVD movie?




RE: Sorta off topic
By NainoKami on 10/23/2007 3:10:50 PM , Rating: 3
It's more than 1080 lines, so my guess is no... But she'll probably look fine in 1080p all the same! Just wish they would release the Blu-Ray so I could actually get it! :(


RE: Sorta off topic
By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 3:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunetly that is the whole idea of exclusives... To get you to want to buy in to the desired HD format, in this case HD-DVD... Blueray does the same thing in conjunction with Disney (i.e. Pirates)... One day there will be just one format...


RE: Sorta off topic
By NainoKami on 10/23/2007 3:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
True... I just wish it wasn't so. They are not doing the consumers any favors these days!


RE: Sorta off topic
By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 3:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone wants the Royalties... Best consumers can do is choose the format that meets their needs re: exclusives/price/features.... Unless you're lucky/rich enough to be able to afford both kinds of players or a nifty dual format player (not me so I'm HD-DVD only... :P)


RE: Sorta off topic
By leexgx on 10/25/2007 2:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
all that happen is just get converted to fit on an Blu-ray disk (as it easly fit onto Single layer disk will for BR) There loss thay sould of provided it to both camps, as i am not planning on getting an HD-dvd player


RE: Sorta off topic
By Haltech on 10/23/2007 7:57:23 PM , Rating: 2
or everyone will buy a combo player, but I'm just dreaming


RE: Sorta off topic
By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 9:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
I would love a combo player my self, Pirates would be nice to have in HD... However those seem to run anywhere between $800 and $1,200 :(

For $169 my 360 HD-DVD upgrade works wounderously...


RE: Sorta off topic
By NainoKami on 10/23/2007 3:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
I just took a look at the meta-data and though it might have been edited it implies aCanon EOS-1D Mark II N has been used to take the picture. Meaning it's a still, and it was taken by (or at least credited to) Robert Zuckerman.

Geek out!


RE: Sorta off topic
By othercents on 10/23/2007 5:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
He is the camera man for many movies including transformers.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0958446/


Thank you
By dgingeri on 10/22/2007 9:07:53 PM , Rating: 4
I just want to say thank you for the picture that accompanied the story. she is so hot!




RE: Thank you
By Captain Orgazmo on 10/23/2007 12:29:10 AM , Rating: 5
Surgeon General's warning: Engaging in such activities may result in vision problems including but not limited to crossed-eyes, and eventual blindness; peripheral muscular imbalance; abnormal hair growth, especially in the palmar region of the hand; and eternal damnation in the fires of Hades.


yeah...
By Hyperlite on 10/22/2007 9:52:52 PM , Rating: 2
pic saved. thanks.




RE: yeah...
By jelifah on 10/23/2007 8:33:10 AM , Rating: 2
So since you saved the pic are you a pirate?

Protected by copyright blah blah blah...


RE: yeah...
By jelifah on 10/23/2007 8:38:07 AM , Rating: 2
At the risk of people not getting the humor, I was trying to be sarcastic. Clarification ftw!


Megan Fox
By MagicSquid on 10/23/2007 4:45:34 AM , Rating: 4
That picture of Megan Fox is the single greatest argument for switching to the overpriced HD formats that I have ever seen.




RE: Megan Fox
By PitViper007 on 10/23/2007 8:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. OUCH!


So pirating is ruining movie sales.
By DASQ on 10/22/2007 10:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see the RIAA bitching about the sales of Transformers.

Oh wait, they only step in when their half-assed garbage in disc format fails to sell. Predictable.




RE: So pirating is ruining movie sales.
By DASQ on 10/22/2007 10:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
^I mean MPAA. Whoops.


Don't even think about prices until the war is over
By Sylar on 10/23/2007 6:36:37 AM , Rating: 1
I'm more concerned about how prices will be affected once a format wins if that ever even happens. Consider what Sony will do with prices if they win, then consider the latter. MS is fairly new to this arena so I don't know what they will do but based on what I've read to date on Sony's history with proprietary formats, it hasn't been all that great and will be fairly expensive should they take the crown. Isn't that why many of their formats failed? It seems like for every format that are available to us in various mediums, Sony likes to create one of their own and attempt to shove it down our throats(pro duos come to mind, that was so unnecessary).




By Murst on 10/23/2007 1:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well, don't be concerned.

Sony does not own the blu-ray standard anymore than Matsushita, Pioneer, Philips, Thomson, LG Electronics, Hitachi, Sharp, or Samsung.

MS has nothing to do with ownership of HD DVD. It was developed by Toshiba and NEC.


190k not a bad number
By Jimmybones on 10/23/2007 9:40:19 AM , Rating: 2
But from the subject, I thought it was setting a record for the number of different versions available.

One at Wal-Mart, one at Target, One at Costco, One at random jims hick shop.

Good showing, I wonder how many they could have sold if Blu-Ray was included.




300 DVD vs. HD-DVD
By casket on 10/22/2007 10:36:09 PM , Rating: 1
I saw both versions, since the hd-dvd is a combo disc.

The movie is intentionally grainy, I guess to create a sense of myth and legend and age.

On the 300 DVD, it is too grainy, and annoying. On the HD-DVD, the grainyness is cut in half, and improves the visual quality alot.

Of course, I'd rather see a non-grainy dvd than a grainy hd-dvd.




just imagine if it was on blu-ray
By michal1980 on 10/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: just imagine if it was on blu-ray
By leexgx on 10/25/2007 2:46:11 PM , Rating: 1
lol why rated down dono (HD-DVD fan boys in here?) why as its very ture Blu-ray sells 2:1 ratio every time an movie has been put on HD-DVD and BD


No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By bplewis24 on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By bplewis24 on 10/22/2007 9:03:29 PM , Rating: 1
I just realized that the "190,000" are the figures for "week 1." So how can Paramount boast that it's the highest week one release when "300" says they sold 250,000???

Brandon


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By mdogs444 on 10/22/2007 9:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
They are stating that the 190,000 is the highest single format HD sales for 1 week to date. The 250,000 was split between two formats.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By bplewis24 on 10/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By XtremeM3 on 10/23/2007 2:58:25 AM , Rating: 4
But it wasn't released on one format. It was released on 2 and sold 250,000 on 2 formats. To make an assumption that if it was only released on 1 format it would sell just as many is ludicrous.

The quote you used..

quote:

“the fastest and best-selling week one release on either high definitionformat as well as the best selling HD DVD ever.”


I see the word "either" in there. Allow me to clarify, as perhaps english is not your first language since I know there are plenty of posters on DT that enlish is a second or possibly third language for and I don't want to make assumptions. "Either" as defined by Websters is "the one or the other". Thus the word "either" in the quote YOU provided could be written as:

"the fastest and best-selling week one release on one or the other high definition format as well as the best selling HD DVD ever."

Although it does sound much cleaner with the word "either" as opposed to the lengthier version above, the statement holds true.

Class dismissed.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Chaser on 10/23/2007 9:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
And for your assignment, detention hall. Spell the word English correctly 100 times on the blackboard.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By XtremeM3 on 10/24/2007 2:49:28 AM , Rating: 2
oops...


By NoSoftwarePatents on 10/23/2007 10:17:22 AM , Rating: 2
Go get Firefox 2 and install it, which has a built in spell checker optimized for web forms, and get your words spelled correctly before you post.

Class dismissed.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By bplewis24 on 10/23/2007 2:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To make an assumption that if it was only released on 1 format it would sell just as many is ludicrous.


It is absolutely not ludicrous and very valid.

quote:
I see the word "either" in there. Allow me to clarify, as perhaps english is not your first language since I know there are plenty of posters on DT that enlish is a second or possibly third language for and I don't want to make assumptions. "Either" as defined by Websters is "the one or the other".


The quote I mentioned is ambiguous and the word "either" is no more or less mutually exclusive than it is all-inclusive. So, while it's apparent you think you schooled me on something and that I can't grasp the English language as well as you do, you haven't proven anything. The fact is it is NOT the best-selling week one release because the subject of that sentence is the movie itself, not the format it was released on.

"High definition format"

And if you fail to see that a movie like "300", if exclusive to HD-DVD, would have sold a lot more HD-DVD copies, or if exclusive to BD, would've sold a lot more Blu-ray copies, then I fail to see why you've taken such a high brow tone in your response.

Brandon


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 6:57:26 AM , Rating: 1
I dont know what you are not understanding.

The 250,000 for 300 could amount to a week sales of something like 130,000 for BD, 120,000 for HD to get 250,000 for total high definition dvd format.

Since Transformers sold 190,000, they are saying that it is the highest selling movie for a single high definition format to date, not the highest selling movie for all high defintion formats combined to date.

Perhaps if Transformers was released on BD, the numbers could be something like 380,000 total sold, with each format getting 190,000 - as an example.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By bplewis24 on 10/23/2007 3:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
There isn't anything that I am not understanding. But I can see that the MS/HD DVD fans are out in full force, rating everything that isn't overly positive or subjective as far down as they possibly can, so if it pleases the masses to assume I don't understand English or can't comprehend the unfounded statements, then so be it. Carry on,

Brandon


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 5:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
I dont see how this anything to do with being an HD or BD fan. I dont have either, and dont plan on buying either, so i could really care less.

In fact, im going out on a limb to say in my post, that the 300 sold more BD than HD did.

All this article states is that transformers on the HD exclusive format sold more copies than 300 did in HD or BD, but not both together.

Its really is a subjective section of the article. I dont see how its giving props to either format. Seeing as how its a transformers article, which was only released on HD, i dont see how the BD format has any relevance.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By SunAngel on 10/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By OblivionMage on 10/22/2007 10:08:27 PM , Rating: 5
The multiple adaptions and overall usefulness of the line "This...is... SPARTA! ", for example, "This...is... DTech! "


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By SunAngel on 10/22/2007 10:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I like phrases that massage my vocal cords too, but "This is Sparta!!!!" was ridiculously overused.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By P4blo on 11/1/2007 10:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
While on the subject of 'ridiculously over used' in 300...

Why is it that every Spartan had to snarl continuously under their helmets like the wind had changed at the wrong moment and they had stayed like that?


By AmbroseAthan on 10/23/2007 9:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the trailer remixes with different movies, or in this case... LoLCats:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1779898/context/...


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Gnoad on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By FITCamaro on 10/22/2007 10:44:37 PM , Rating: 3
While yes it did happen, the movie was anything but a historical documentary. I actually had thought it was going to be since I didn't realize the movie was based off a comic.

So unless I missed that the Immortals were actually greyish monkey men and Persia had a Jabba the Hutt looking creature with swords for arms, the movie is an entertainment production, nothing more.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Locutus465 on 10/22/2007 11:30:52 PM , Rating: 3
The battle really happend, that's about the extent of the historical accuracy... Beyond that, just about everything was wrong... From the hunch back of notredame, to turning Emperor Xerxes into a fruit, not to mention the exclusion of Themistocles who truely master minded the entire defence (having prepared Athens and proded sparta into action knowing the persions would return after Marathon) and the convinent exclusion of the fact that the Thesbians fought with the spartans durring the last stand....


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Zurtex on 10/23/2007 12:51:43 AM , Rating: 3
I would really like to believe that Emperor Xerxes was a Goa'uld though, it makes sense (in Stargate and seemingly this film).


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Polynikes on 10/23/2007 2:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
If you really liked the story and would like a much more realistic account, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Gates-Fire-Novel-Battle-Ther...

It's an amazing novel. It does have its own fair share of fiction thrown in, but unlike 300 it strives to realistically portray the Spartans' lifestyle, training, culture and of course the famous battle. There was talk of a movie being made of this book, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. After reading this book I thought 300 was utterly disappointing. (The "This is Sparta!" quote came off to me as cheesy, which was only compounded when everyone and their mother felt the need to repeat it.) Gates of Fire was an even more powerful retelling of that story.

Oh, and it wasn't just 300 Spartans alone against the Persians; there were also a few thousand warriors from other city-states there who fought as well.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By wordsworm on 10/23/2007 2:18:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Was it that 98lb weaklings can now have faith they won't be 98lb weaklings all their lives?
I think Fedor Emelianenko and Mike Tyson already did that. But it wasn't by faith. They had to work pretty hard to become champions.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Felofasofa on 10/23/2007 3:44:35 AM , Rating: 2
The Production Design of 300 was awesome. The way they lit and graded it, bringing out the whites of the eyes, and using a limited palette was beautifully art-house. The digitally enlarged and enhanced Xerxes with his fabulous costume, make-up and Jewellery looked incredible, truly surreal. I didn't even mind the UK accent of Leonides, for me it all worked. The whole look of the film was stunning. I've watched it many times and still enjoy it.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 8:17:55 AM , Rating: 1
Aside from the "look" which by the way was 100% historically inaccurate. It was a lame movie at best. The only people who express the kind of visual experience you are describing are people with a degree in art or fashion, and well we just won't get into what I think about that.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Spivonious on 10/23/2007 8:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
Totally agree. And the "look" was all CG, which makes it even lamer. My wife thought the whole thing was very homoerotic, what with all the men in black panties.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 8:55:27 AM , Rating: 2
So Master - are you saying you aren't a stylish man? lol

But yes, the entire movie was filmed in blue screen, and made everything just look animated. Besides the historical inaccuracies, everything was just overdone it was ridiculous. Kind of made me think about that Hummer scene in Bad Boys II when they went crashing through the city in Cuba, tearing down 100's of houses and come out unscratched.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 9:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
Stylish? No, I don't have the time to worry about the latest fashion trends. Besides, it's business casual or better at work each day :(


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Felofasofa on 10/23/2007 8:59:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
which by the way was 100% historically inaccurate.

There is no way you can be sure about that, as Ancient History should more correctly be called "Ancient Conjecture" There are just to few sources for it to ever be called reliable "history" let alone fact. So your 100% remark is glib at best.
quote:
The only people who express the kind of visual experience you are describing are people with a degree in art or fashion, and well we just won't get into what I think about that.

Well thank God it wasn't made by a computer Tech-head, it would have really looked fucking awful. Your comments merely disqualify your opinion. Stick to Computers Master K that's what you're best at.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 9:07:58 AM , Rating: 2
I dont think he is referring to the base of the story being 100% inaccurate - 300 spartans defending their civilization against the Persian nation. I think he is referring to how far the movie was stretched - mythical characters and stuff like that.

quote:
Well thank God it wasn't made by a computer Tech-head, it would have really looked fucking awful


Well in a way, you contradict yourself because the movie was pretty much made by Techheads. The entire movie was shot in blue screen and uses CGI for all the backgrounds.

Im not trying to start a war here people - but lets face facts. The base of the story was true, but the way it was portrayed was very exaggerated and mythical. The movie itself was action packed, no doubt, but it was CGI and very "techy".


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Felofasofa on 10/23/2007 9:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well in a way, you contradict yourself because the movie was pretty much made by Techheads. The entire movie was shot in blue screen and uses CGI for all the backgrounds.

No I don't, the backgrounds were Matte paintings, very much artistic work not CG. Chromakeying and Compositing is very much Artists at work, if you knew something about how these films are made you would know that, but you don't. BTW I am a 3D Artist and Editor, so I do have some knowledge about how these things are put together. There wasn't that much 3D in it, more compositing and keying.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 10:12:35 AM , Rating: 2
The backgrounds were added afterwards, it was filmed using a blue screen. The low budget CGI they used to add those backgrounds made the movie look very animated, rather than realistic.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Felofasofa on 10/23/2007 10:30:34 AM , Rating: 1
Actually the keys were very good.
quote:
The backgrounds were added afterwards,
Of course they were, it's called compositing, it's all done in post, you don't know shit about this. There was nothing low budget about the CGI, we are all using the same gear these days with a bit of custom stuff on top, including ILM, and believe me those guys consider themselves artists not techs.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 12:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
I would have to say they were not very good. I've seen better backdrops in many other movies. Let me grab a title like 300, and a title like say Transformers, or even an older title like Star Wars EP3. The use of green screen by ILM makes 300 look like a kid did it on a tight budget. Regardless of what you want to believe about "the same gear", having the same equipment is only half the battle, your mileage may vary because you don't have the skills to make full use of it. If it was simply a matter of having the best equipment then anyone could produce spectacular effects and visuals as long as you had the cash to throw down, however this is not the case as some studios are better, period.

Show me visuals in a movie that surpass the tech heads at ILM. They are tech heads, like it or not. Artistry they may do, but they designed, programmed and built all of their wizardry tools from scratch over the years and that takes technical skill, not artistic.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Spuke on 10/23/2007 3:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are tech heads, like it or not. Artistry they may do, but they designed, programmed and built all of their wizardry tools from scratch over the years and that takes technical skill, not artistic.
It takes both dude! A tech head that can't imagine Yoda bouncing off a wall while fighting Darth What's His Nuts. That takes some creativity, hence an artist is needed. An artist can't program or write code, hence a tech geek is needed.

These people are both artists and geeks.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Felofasofa on 10/23/2007 7:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
Rick Rische a Matte artist on 300 also worked on all the Star Wars films.
quote:
but they designed, programmed and built all of their wizardry tools from scratch over the years and that takes technical skill, not artistic.

Absolute rubbish! they have been using off the shelf software like 'Softimage', 'Maya' for 3D, with their own custom Shaders, like everybody else. The guys that write the custom stuff aren't the guys that use it. If you want to talk about Wizardry than think Weta Digital. Cranking on about ILM reveals your total ignorance about Post-Production these days. All the top Digital Artists move from Production to Production and aren't fixed to any one Post House, be it ILM, Weta, Digital Domain etc. Each company has standing staff but the significant people are bought in for every job, that's just the way it is, period!
quote:
The use of green screen by ILM makes 300 look like a kid did it on a tight budget.
Oh you make me laugh, keying out "digital green" or "Chromakey blue" is both entirely valid. In some instances losing digital green is easier, but Lucas still shoots loads in front of backlit blue Perspex to get a flat even RGB value, to enable keying. Friends of mine worked on all the latest Star Wars films, they were all shot (studio work) in Sydney.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 9:07:58 AM , Rating: 2
I dont think he is referring to the base of the story being 100% inaccurate - 300 spartans defending their civilization against the Persian nation. I think he is referring to how far the movie was stretched - mythical characters and stuff like that.

quote:
Well thank God it wasn't made by a computer Tech-head, it would have really looked fucking awful


Well in a way, you contradict yourself because the movie was pretty much made by Techheads. The entire movie was shot in blue screen and uses CGI for all the backgrounds.

Im not trying to start a war here people - but lets face facts. The base of the story was true, but the way it was portrayed was very exaggerated and mythical. The movie itself was action packed, no doubt, but it was CGI and very "techy".


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 9:09:36 AM , Rating: 2
Can someone explain how I sometimes get these double posts? I only press the "Post Comment" button once, so I dont understand it.

Please dont rate down, because its not intentional.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 10:07:32 AM , Rating: 2
The CMS sometimes goes on the frits, its constantly being updated though so it comes and goes.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 9:09:54 AM , Rating: 3
There is more than enough historical evidence available for that time period for me to state its completely inaccurate. If you can provide supporting evidence that historically this film's visuals and whatnot were accurate, I'm all ears. If it was made by a Tech-head we likely would end up with something like Transformers, which looks absolutely phenominal. Kudos to my Tech-headed bretheren at Industrial Light and Magic, they really know how to make something that is visually appealing and realistic looking.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Blight AC on 10/23/2007 9:23:57 AM , Rating: 3
That's just silly.. first of all, expecting historical accuracy from Hollywood.. LOL! Yes, they have such a good reputation for that. If you want historical accuracy watch the History channel.

Secondly, the movie is based off of a comic book and was trying to replicate that with it's art direction. Here's a good site showing the similarities:
http://blogs.ign.com/VMike311/2006/10/11/33371/

That your expecting historical accuracy from a hollywood movie based on a comic book is beyond absurd.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 9:50:55 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
That your expecting historical accuracy from a hollywood movie based on a comic book is beyond absurd.

I also expect people not to take such movies seriously in any way, yet people do it anyways.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Felofasofa on 10/23/2007 9:30:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is more than enough historical evidence available for that time period for me to state its completely inaccurate.

No there's not, a few books by Lycurgis, Herodotus and a couple of others, plus a few pieces of Pottery and what not, and that's about it. The Roman Republic is the same, two sources Livy and Polybuis, yet everybody takes it as solid fact, or in your case "evidence" It aint anything that would stack up any court room today.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 9:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Roman Republic is the same, two sources Livy and Polybuis, yet everybody takes it as solid fact, or in your case "evidence" It aint anything that would stack up any court room today.

Hmm, the roman roads, forts, Rome (The city) and its various large structures, yea none of that provides any credible evidence to that which was done during the era of the Roman Republic. The Romans documented their exploits quite well.

As for the Battle of Thermopylae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae there are quite a few references cited, and archeologists have conducted numerous digs in the area to unearth plenty of hard evidence.

Your argument would be more likely to hold water against the Bible or other religious text rather than ancient civilizations.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Felofasofa on 10/23/2007 10:13:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hmm, the roman roads, forts, Rome (The city) and its various large structures, yea none of that provides any credible evidence to that which was done during the era of the Roman Republic.
Well no it doesn't tell us about the Punic Wars or the Politicial goings on etc, these came from Livy and Polybuis. You maybe thinking of the later Empire. As for Themopylae, did you read your own link? It's all mainly from Herodotus. Historians can't even agree on the size of Xerxes army, let alone whether the Spartans wore Cod pieces. The point I am making is that much is written as fact in ancient history when it's no more than guess work or conjecture, based upon far less evidence than people presume. As for "Biblical Archaeology" that's a total misnomer as far as the old Testament is concerned, not a shred of physical evidence exists, and people have been looking hard for a couple of hundred years. Absolute fairy tales, yet you grow up attending Sunday School etc and David & Goliath, Moses etc is all implied as fact, - see what I mean.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 10:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Absolute fairy tales, yet you grow up attending Sunday School etc and David & Goliath, Moses etc is all implied as fact, - see what I mean.

Oh I agree, but yet 2/3 of the planet believes in such things. Evidence that would hold up in court is not a necesity for people to believe in something. In all honesty I find the 300 vs 1,000,000 to be exaggeration. That might work if it was fully automatic machine guns and assault rifles against someone with clubs and spears, but given the technical level at the time its highly unlikely.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Blight AC on 10/23/2007 9:12:18 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I also like the artsy feel of the movie, and have no such degrees, but hey, way to sterotype people who have a different opinion then you. I'm sure that makes you a better person.

I feel it captured the gritty look of the comic book it was inspired from quite well, although I've not actually seen the comic myself, I could tell it was trying to replicate that look. I believe the art direction in the movie was fantastic and it's why I wanted it on HD-DVD.

But the kid in me just enjoys the pure gore and awesomeness of the underdog fight.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 9:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, I also like the artsy feel of the movie, and have no such degrees, but hey, way to sterotype people who have a different opinion then you.

Actually making a factual assumption based on the fact that the only people I personally know that are messing themselves over the movie were people with art/fashion degrees. No other person I know first hand thought it was all that great aside from that one group.


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By Blight AC on 10/23/2007 9:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
Then perhaps what you should of said was: The only people I know who express the kind of visual experience you are describing are people with a degree in art or fashion...

If you wanted to be 100% historically accurate.. ;)


RE: No Valid "300" Comparison Yet
By SmokeRngs on 10/23/2007 2:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually making a factual assumption based on the fact that the only people I personally know that are messing themselves over the movie were people with art/fashion degrees.


I believe you mean observational assumption from your own experiences. Sorry to nitpick, but your personal observations and experiences do not constitute fact until such a time as they have been scrutinized and determined to be fact.

Anyway, I didn't cream myself over the movie but I did enjoy it. It's a Hollywood movie and therefore cannot be taken to be historical fact. My recollection of Greek history is rather rusty at this time but I saw many historical errors in the movie compared to what is generally considered fact about the battle and circumstances surrounding it. This did not take away from my enjoyment of the movie. I sat down to watch it as a movie and not a historical documentary.

I'm definitely not the artsy or fashionable type either. I have no artistic talent whatsoever outside of being able to write a decent short story on occasion and my idea of fashion is cowboy boots, blue jeans, a t-shirt and either a ball cap or a cowboy hat. Yet, I still liked the movie.

Were the battle scenes "overdone"? Yes. They were supposed to be though. Therefore, the movie accomplished it's purpose. The first thing I thought when seeing the first battle scene was Homer's The Iliad. If you have not done so, pick it up and read through it. The epic fights and battles in it makes the battle scenes in 300 look somewhat dull and not very gory.

Both 300 and The Iliad serve their purpose as entertainment. The movie 300 was never meant to be a historically accurate depiction of the battle and the events surrounding it. I don't believe The Iliad was meant to be a historically accurate depiction of the battle for and sack of Troy. Until more recent times, there really was never any credible evidence that anything like the battle for Troy ever happened. Either way, I still doubt The Iliad was ever supposed to be a historically accurate depiction; it was meant to be an entertaining story and it succeeded in its purpose.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 3:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
Touche.


By sweetsauce on 10/22/2007 9:37:19 PM , Rating: 1
Nope, there was a clause in those statistics that prevented your idiot sister from being counted in the numbers. Ass


By mWMA on 10/22/2007 11:33:17 PM , Rating: 1
how in the world can she increase "HD-DVD players" stats by buying a "HD-DVD addon". She would help "HD-DVD addon" stats by buying that. Buying a standalone "HD-DVD player" will give more help to HD-DVD than a addon as the market tends to use those numbers instead of addons or PS3.


By VoodooChicken on 10/23/2007 9:38:13 AM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry but how could your sister come to that conclusion? Please tell me she wasn't looking for a nonexistent slot/tray on the HDTV.

I double dipped already; I got the gift set from Best Buy w/ "lithograph" and "action figures" (hah!) from Mom, but I bought the HD DVD version myself. Now I can bring the regular DVD into work.

As far as the "format war," I have both HD DVD and Blu-Ray I run off a computer. I have a limited selection of each, but I find the HD DVDs better crafted. I find HDi farther along than BD-J, at least on the movies I have. In both formats, reds and blacks are vastly superior to standard def DVDs. Specifically to Transformers, I do like the PiP commentaries, something that still wasn't standard on Blu-Ray at the time of release.

I'm the kind of person that actually enjoys supplemental materials, at least the well-made ones. I like having the OPTION to switch between audio/video tracks depending on my mood and company. That's what sold me on DVD over VHS; NOT the superior picture/sound quality. That was just "bonus"

So take my opinion however you will; if you're just looking for improved video/audio, either format delivers PROVIDED the disc producer takes advantage of the technology at hand. But for "special feature" delivery, HD DVD is the CURRENT superior format. Maybe Blu-Ray will take the lead once BD-J is properly implemented, but that's not today.


By Blight AC on 10/23/2007 10:29:32 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I have to agree that HD-DVD has the upper hand currently as far as content goes.

I also really like the fact that I can get to the menu options without interrupting the movie playback. It was useful when watching Jet Li's Fearless, and I wanted to switch to English audio and turn off the subtitles (although the dubbing was pretty bad, I wanted to watch the movie though, great action). It's also nice when watching the special features, as I can check out the other features while listening to a commentary or interview. I'm not sure if this is available for Blu-Ray or not, but a definite usability improvement over the classic DVD menu system.


By ChronoReverse on 10/23/2007 11:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, why would you need to go to the menu to turn off subtitles when there's a subtitles button?


By Blight AC on 10/23/2007 12:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
Because I can.


By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 12:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Blueray doesn't continue playback while you're in the menu? I thought I saw the bestbuy demo doing that.... I agree that continued playback while fiddling around in the menus is great... Honestly it makes me wish more HD-DVDs would just throw you right into the movie and let you fiddle around with the menu if you wish... I'm loving that feature with HD-DVD!


By Blight AC on 10/23/2007 12:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if Blu-Ray does or not, I just know I couldn't do it on classic DVD's.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 12:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
I believe with Blu Ray it depends on how they wrote the menu. It's possible to do it, but I have seen most Blu Ray movies use the traditional DVD style menu. You are correct though, Blu Ray can do it, but it seems to differ from movie to movie.


By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 2:10:52 PM , Rating: 2
It really gets me how blueray supporters keep going on about the supposed superiority of the format, then I come to find out how out of whack the whole thing is... To the point that menu behaviour isn't even standardized (referring to capability of the movie to play while in menu).

Could blueray group at least standaridize this kind of thing before going on about how superior they are? And while they're at it do more to encourage VC-1 adoption in the format? All that would be great...


By softwiz on 10/23/2007 2:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
It may have more to do with whether the Blu-ray player being used even supports BD-Java correctly if at all. The implementation of this technology would seem inconsistently implemented across players at present.


Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Blu ray
By sweetsauce on 10/22/2007 9:35:40 PM , Rating: 5
I'll do you one better. We should just get rid of blu-ray already and give all those morons that bought a ps3 their money back. This will allow them all to buy a real gaming machine, the xbox360. With the money left over, they can buy an hd-dvd add-on drive and get the best of both worlds. This is the real answer to the format wars. Thank you for showing me how easy it is to spew your own personal point of view and sound like an idiot doing it.


RE: Blu ray
By Alexstarfire on 10/22/2007 9:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
The cheapest one will win, and HD-DVD is cheaper. I also believe that the Adult Entertainment Industry is backing HD-DVD. It's like set in stone already if that's the case.


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: Blu ray
By Scrogneugneu on 10/22/2007 11:51:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Also Debbie Does Dallas 2 is on Blu ray


OK, I might be really off the mark here, but did you really quote an upcoming adult film in high definition format?

Seriously, get a girlfriend.


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: Blu ray
By Scott66 on 10/22/2007 11:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, let us support the cheapest format. That is the North American consumer at its finest, "Screw quality, give me the cheapest." That is why after choosing VHS, many discerning viewers decided that they needed S-VHS which suprisingly was not much better than the original BetaMax. Unfortunately S-VHS was an expensive upgrade.

This will soon happen with HD-DVD as supporters expect true Bit streaming of 7.1 Audio and full-colour video at 1080P. The bit rate requirements of these technologies will strain HD-DVD's capacity. Of course it is not presently supported in either of the HD formats but Blu-Ray can handle it without changes in production techniques.


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 1:06:03 AM , Rating: 5
HD-DVD v. Blueray != VHS v. Beta... HD-DVD and Blueray offer the same moving going experience... One just does it cheaper... I seriously don't get why people seem to want to just throw money into a technology that while it has it's merits, is simply overly expenseive to make... With HD-DVD we have the same movie experience at a better price point...


RE: Blu ray
By wordsworm on 10/23/07, Rating: -1
RE: Blu ray
By BansheeX on 10/23/07, Rating: 0
RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 9:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
1). HD-DVD has better price points *NOW*, and will likely reach current DVD levels much more quickly than Blueray will... HD-DVD is also totally region unlocked, which is nice!!! (Currently Harry Potter is Europe Only)

2). At least for me, the "best storage option" argument really just isn't that important at all... Already they have HD-DVD disks that can match anything on the market with blueray, this tech will filter down to cosumer writables once people actually care.

3). See reason 2, there are already HD-DVD formats matching blueray.

4). Are you forgetting Blueray disks need this because they are that much more sesitive to scratching? It may be harder to get the scratch there (don't fool your self, it's not impossible), but once it is your disc is more likely to be dead as a result of it.

5). How is Blueray a more future proof/durable platform than HD-DVD?


RE: Blu ray
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 11:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
I would argue that looking for "future storage capacities" you would be better suited to looking at Holographic storage rather than HD DVD/Blu Ray. By the time Blu Ray can effectively produce their "quad and octal layer" Disks that hold 100-200GB, there will be holographic moving into the market from a storage stand point which will quickly out do them.


RE: Blu ray
By Spuke on 10/23/2007 11:51:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would argue that looking for "future storage capacities" you would be better suited to looking at Holographic storage rather than HD DVD/Blu Ray.
Then I'll buy a Bluray recorder for storage and a HD DVD player for movies because storage is much less of a priority than movie playback. Let's see:

1. One Bluray player, or
2. A HD DVD player AND a decent receiver.

You guys go spend your money on Bluray. Mine is ALWAYS going to be spent on the best bang for the buck and HD DVD wins that hands down.


RE: Blu ray
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 12:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
No argument from me, proud owner of an HD-A20 and Transformers in HD DVD.


RE: Blu ray
By Spuke on 10/23/2007 3:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No argument from me, proud owner of an HD-A20 and Transformers in HD DVD.
I missed that deal totally and I suck because of it.


RE: Blu ray
By BansheeX on 10/23/2007 12:26:33 PM , Rating: 1
1) Doesn't matter to some people. A lot of people don't think that narrowly and find a $100 disparity that continues to decrease over time a paltry incentive compared to blu-ray's technological ones.

2)I guarantee you that people already care about getting as much storage on one layer as possible. Multi-layer recordables, unlike pressed discs, have serious cost and longevity issues compared to their single layer counterparts. If blu-ray wins, we get a far better storage format for the next fifteen years. The below contention that holographic storage is around the corner and will be widely adopted before anyone will care is positively ludicrous.

3)Really? All I ever see is HD-DVD adds a layer, blu-ray adds a layer. HD-DVD can't surmount or match blu-ray's capacity at the same cost by adding layers, and the more layers you add to a disc, the more potent a scratch will be towards making the disc unreadable. Sony knew this and pushed for it in the consortium and no one listened.

4)Absolutely true that blu-ray needed slightly more protection to match HD-DVD, but this advancement went beyond that and offers even greater protection than lesser capacity disc formats before it. This is cool tech that deserves to be used, not shunned in favor of the cheap minimum. Anyone with kids will be eternally grateful.

5)In all of tech, a higher capacity or performance is going to be more future proof. The question comes down to feasibility and cost tradeoffs. Is blu-ray worth the slightly added cost? In many people's minds, absolutely it is.


RE: Blu ray
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 12:37:12 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The below contention that holographic storage is around the corner and will be widely adopted before anyone will care is positively ludicrous.

Has nothing to do with widespread adoption. Blu Ray does not offer an effective storage solution. Holographic does, its already in use by some high end storage data centers, and will likely filter down in the next 4-5 years. Blu Ray doesn't offer backup sizes that impress. 25 gigs? So I would need roughly 10 of these disks for the average hard drive, wait no 12 because NTFS compresses better than the RAW formatting of Optical media. At $13 per single layer BRD thats burn once you can see where I have the problem. I might as well image to another hard disk, stick it in a static bag and put it on the damn shelf for the cost of using Blu Ray as a backup/storage medium.

Holographic isn't there yet but its promised storage size per disk is in the hungreds of gigabytes range and thats a much more promising medium over Blu Ray.

For movies, who cares? HD DVD, Blu Ray, it looks the same, just one is cheaper to produce.


RE: Blu ray
By BansheeX on 10/24/2007 12:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
Considering how unstable the industry is even for promising formats like SED and OLED, you've got sparkles in your eyes to forecast HVD as being available to consumers in 4-5 years (and affordable 4 years later? Sorry, you didn't mention that), let alone emerging as the victor when larger companies are developing competing 3D optical formats as we speak. And it's hilarious to see you subjectively dump on blu-ray's worth as a storage solution simply because you can't use them to copy everything on your 300GB hard drive to one disc. Guess what most people do for that? They back up to another hard drive. Believe it or not, people in general aren't as patient or demanding as you with regards to their media storage needs. A blu-ray disc can still house an HD movie, a copy of a game, thousands of roms, thousands of music files, and I gaurantee you that people will see it as an effective storage solution for the next ten years. I also love how you whip out current costs on BD-R, as if DVD-R wasn't similarly prohibitive when it was new.


RE: Blu ray
By leexgx on 10/25/2007 3:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
the Extra 10gb (15GB/25GB) or 20GB (30gb/50gb)that BD offers over HD-dvd is far better

more so when TV programs start comming out in HD, you will need more hd-dvd disks or to work around that thay Compress the HD more to fit on the disk, where as BD disks at 50GB you should be able to fit alot more TV and need need as many disks


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 12:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
6). This seriously supprised me... But according to data posted in this forum it seems as if Blueray group is opting to continue using MPEG-2 rather than VC-1 resulting in a lower quality picture :(

God knows why MPEG2 would be so prevelent for blueray, it makes no sense, but apparnetly HD-DVD group is doing a much better job promoting a better codec (and customer expereince).


RE: Blu ray
By BansheeX on 10/24/2007 1:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
As far as I know, blu-ray has the same decoding capabilities as HD-DVD. It's up to the studio releasing the disc to do VC-1 or MPEG2.

Here's an interesting tidbit for you from the recent review of Transformers on highdefdigest.com:

"Indeed, I had the opportunity to attend a special 'Transformers' media event with Paramount late last week, and the question was asked almost immediately -- why no Dolby TrueHD or uncompressed PCM? The studio's answer was that due to space limitations on the disc, the decision was made to limit the audio to Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround only (here at 1.5mbps). Unfortunately, this confirms the long-held theory that the 30Gb capacity of an HD-30 dual-layer HD DVD disc has forced studios to choose between offering a robust supplements package (as they've done here) and the very best in audio quality."

Without supplements, I'm sure HD-DVD would be capable of matching blu-ray for audio and delivering the same experience, but special features throws a wrench into that idea. HD-DVD supporters always said "Oh, they can always just release multiple discs then and make the features separate." Being able to get that and getting it, however, are two different things. Blu-ray has so much space that it doesn't allow for companies to chance to make such a compromise.


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/24/2007 1:37:47 AM , Rating: 2
Finish the quote....

quote:
That said, it is hard to imagine any film taking a Dolby Digital-Plus 5.1 Surround track to its zenith better than 'Transformers.' This is one highly-aggressive experience. Discrete effects are constant and pounding, but the lack of subtlety here is exactly what fans want. Directionality, imaging, accuracy of localized effects, and the sheer depth of the soundfield are all fantastic stuff. Even the front soundstage is a stunner -- stereo effects are quite pronounced, and when the sounds ping-pong (as they do just about any time a robot transforms), it's just as cool as the first time you heard that lightsaber effect in 'Star Wars.' If I had had this disc when I was a twelve year-old kid, I don't I would have stopped playing it for months.


highdefdigest.com was clearly not dissapointed by the auido quality of Transformers on HD-DVD... Then consider 51GB HD-DVD movie discs will be available in the near future, HD-DVD storage "issues" aren't really an issue at all.

You are correct to state that Blueray and HD-DVD have the same video decoding capabilities, I never stated otherwise... What I was getting at is why the heck is MPEG2 so prevelant in Blueray? Are they sacraficing video quality just to make the statement that Blueray at launch has more storage capasity?


RE: Blu ray
By BansheeX on 10/24/2007 5:19:00 AM , Rating: 2
K, now I'll finish up the quote:

"Note that although I'm giving this audio mix five stars, that doesn't mean I agree with Paramount's decision to forgo high-res audio on this title. Without a TrueHD or PCM mix to compare this one to, there's no way of telling how much better such a track might have been, but based on the upgrade I've seen with other titles, I'm guessing a high-res mix could well have trounced this one. That's not to take anything away from this truly exceptional mix, but this is one case where I think you truly can improve upon perfection."

And regarding MPEG2, this has already fallen into disfavor and you will rarely see this being used in the future for blu-ray. You will also see several of these mistakes being promptly reissued (Full Metal Jacket, Fifth Element) due to consumer backlash. Don't expect this to be a problem in the future. Many studios had MPEG2 masters that they recycled on blu-ray out of sheer cheapness. It was stupid and they paid for it. HD-DVD's first two players were initially 1080i. That was also a newb mistake that was eventually rectified.


RE: Blu ray
By softwiz on 10/23/2007 1:01:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
4)Absolutely true that blu-ray needed slightly more protection to match HD-DVD, but this advancement went beyond that and offers even greater protection than lesser capacity disc formats before it. This is cool tech that deserves to be used, not shunned in favor of the cheap minimum. Anyone with kids will be eternally grateful.


Yes, I am certainly happy to have that hardcoat to protect my discs. Sadly, I've noticed that use of the DSkins product doesn't work with Blu-ray discs. So that hardcoat (which hopefully won't degrade like with "The Prestige", etc) will have to be enough.

In my experience it the inability to use DSkins would seem to have something to do with the hardcoat because Blu-ray discs are the only media I'm unable to protect with this product. I'm far less inclined to believe it's the laser causing the problem since they seem to work fine with my HD DVDs.

Before you write this product off as unnecessary, remember how much you paid for your movies & games. Then when you realize how cheap this extra protection is you might wish you could make use of it. If not, so be it.

If you haven't heard of D Skins, look here...

http://www.amazon.com/Disc-Skin-Bulk-Pack-100/dp/B...


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 2:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
Never heard of it, I'll have to look into it for my games/hd-dvd collection.


RE: Blu ray
By leexgx on 10/25/2007 2:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
allso the Blu-ray disks Native single layer format is 25GB and 50GB for dual layer

HD-dvd is only 15gb single and 30gb dual

in an PC i not use HD-dvd Burner as it does not offer Much more then an DVD size disk (dual layer tho) soon as BD hits about 100 for an Burner i up for it

(he did state that in 2.)

i do not realy care if you do not like HD-dvd or BD , Blu-ray has Bigger disks then HD-dvd and HD-dvd cant change that now

and you cant even Buy HD-dvd burners yet where as i can for BD


RE: Blu ray
By softwiz on 10/23/2007 5:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, let us support the cheapest format. That is the North American consumer at its finest, "Screw quality, give me the cheapest."


Are you implying that the HD DVD format is of a lesser quality than Blu-ray ? If so, I'd like to hear your reasoning on that.


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/22/2007 11:13:20 PM , Rating: 1
You misunderstood me. The reason why I said PS3 is because it was the cheapest Blu ray player out there. Microsoft is open to the fact of having a Blu ray add-on. At first they were fully supporting HD DVD solely because Sony was backing Blu ray. However after the sales came in and that because the PS3 implemented Blu ray in their consoles, more Blu ray players are out there and HD DVD are lagging in sales (OVERALL). I'm not saying this in a console sense, I am saying this in a general sense.


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/22/2007 11:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
If you're going to state something like MS is switching to blueray could you please provide a link to a crediable source? Perhaps you missed it, but Microsoft is currently working with Toshiba to make not only a 360 with built in HD-DVD support, but a Toshiba branded set top box which is capable of play 360 games... So, proof of your statements?


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/22/2007 11:47:12 PM , Rating: 2
Certainly:
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=523573

http://www.xb360info.com/xbox/news/260

I realize that Peter Moore is no longer a part of the company and it was an option. Also I realize that Microsoft is backing HD DVD much much more than Blu ray. But either way I wasn't talking about consoles in the first place. It doesn't really matter to Microsoft anyways, and it really doesn't matter for the PS3 because even if it "loses" you can still play PS3 games and hundreds of Blu ray movies. Gamecube's discs were solely used for consoles and though it didn't do so well, it still lasted. You can't win every generation.


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/22/2007 11:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, interesting... But it's hard to denie microsofts recent actions.... Clearly Blueray is not en-vouge in Redmond currently even if Peter Moore was considering it at some point...


RE: Blu ray
By Hase0 on 10/23/2007 12:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and it really doesn't matter for the PS3 because even if it "loses" you can still play PS3 games and hundreds of Blu ray movies.


I disagree because:

1) the difference is PS3 which is owned by the people(SONY) who sunk a lot of money and man hours into the R&D of blu-ray, while Microsoft hasn't really spent a lot of money on R&D of HD-DVD, if any. Meaning Sony has a lot more to loose then Microsoft if its format dies since they are one of the creators of that format.

2) PS3 has its Blu-Ray built in so if they stop making movies for Blu-Ray then they well loose all advantage they had with its dvd player, considering whats the point in buying something that has a definite amount of movies that can be viewed, where as Microsoft's 360 has no built in HD-DVD atm, and has the option to add a external player which means they could easily switch formats, or use both if they wanted giving them regardlessly the maximum amount of movies for this generation, without having to redesign their entire console.

In summary PS3 has a lot more to loose $ wise. If its format dies no one well want to buy it as a movie player, which is maybe the only reason as of now to buy one IMO since there aren't a lot of games that would justify its current price tag in comparison to a 360. Also it would be boned in the scalability aspect.

quote:
Gamecube's discs were solely used for consoles and though it didn't do so well, it still lasted.


It only lasted because it was the cheapest console, and had many games that made it worth buying, which is probably the opposite of PS3's current position.


RE: Blu ray
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 12:12:04 PM , Rating: 2
Gamecube used standard Mini-CD's. They also work on the Wii.


RE: Blu ray
By Hase0 on 10/23/2007 12:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm also pretty sure you can use mini-CD's for more then just consoles.


RE: Blu ray
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 12:53:56 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, why not. Thats why most CD drives have that little depressed spot in the middle. Any normal computer CD drive can handle a mini CD, except the slot loaders. I use a mini CD as a utility disk and boot from it when things go south on people's machines.


RE: Blu ray
By retrospooty on 10/22/2007 10:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
"I really wish that HD DVD loses solely for the reason so that movie companies that supported inferior hardware get what they deserve"

You are very misguided.


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Blu ray
By Spazmodian on 10/23/2007 12:16:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Imagine if all of them supported Blu ray, and it was made region free .


What, you mean what HD DVD is already doing? I somehow doubt the Blu-Ray Consortium is going to just drop region coding. This reason alone is why I went HD DVD.


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/23/2007 1:16:09 AM , Rating: 1
At some point i'll just buy the Blu ray/HD DVD reader when the price drops to around 100-150 bucks. HP offers it on their desktop but its 250 bucks extra :(. But if they make all the HD DVDs available on Blu ray I'm hitting up amazon and getting the 20 GB PS3 for 300.


RE: Blu ray
By softwiz on 10/23/2007 10:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
The extra DRM Blu-ray has over HD DVD as well as the mandatory region coding that HD DVD doesn't have is precisely why certain movie studios chose to back Blu-ray.

While I own both players, to me Blu-ray seems like a pro-studio format while HD DVD seems like a pro-consumer format.

Not being an audiophile, the audio difference between formats isn't a big to me especially if I think the space could better used for other things.

However, PQ on Blu-ray is my least favorite and it would seem to be because the majority of discs (not all) available for sale still use an outdated codec (MPEG2) that produces sub-par video and uses far too much space (hence the need for 50 GB, etc). Unforntunately, I still see recent 2007 Blu-ray releases using MPEG2. To be fair though, the AVC and VC-1 encodes look good but there simply aren't enough of them yet.

Here is pie chart showing Blu-ray discs by codec...

http://www.blu-raystats.com/codecpie.php?a=0

Here is pie chart showing HD DVD discs by codec...

http://www.hddvdstats.com/codecpie.php?a=0

Regardless of which format wins (if any), I'll continue to buy what I like and what looks best to me. The above explains why my collection contains more HD DVDs.


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 11:02:30 AM , Rating: 2
This data really supprises me to be perfectly honest... I really would have thought BD Group would push studios hard to adopt a better codec, paticularly since they're trying to claim (mythical) technical superiority over HD-DVD.

As a consumer, I really hope to see HD-DVD win out... I like my region free HD-DVDs (already got Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire from england), with better video codecs...


RE: Blu ray
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 9:40:37 AM , Rating: 3
Why would companies support HD DVD? To screw the consumer. - Because it is superior and cheaper. Sony's BR has more storage, but because of the lousy copy protection scheme and lousy encryption, the space saved is minimal.


Imagine if all of them supported Blu ray, and it was made region free.
But they don't, and it isnt. It they did and it were it would be different.

We would have Toshiba, Sony, Samsung, Pioneer, and others competing with just one player. Imagine the savings us consumers would have gotten. Blu ray movies would have been 20-30 dollars rather than 30-40 dollars. Why? Because the entire industry rather than 2/3 the industry pushing the next format and making it cheaper for the consumer. But because of HD DVD, movies in both formats are staying comfortably between 30-40 because neither are backing down. Consumers with a Blu ray player can't get HD DVD movies and consumers with an HD DVD player can't get Blu ray movies. The movie industry wants to screw the consumers over and make them pick a side and get 1/2 the experience.

This last portion is a valid argument, except for one thing that you don't seem to understand... The fact that Sony is the one throwing the wrench into the works. The industry got together and created a format, called HD-DVD. Sony, in their typical proprietary way, made a separate and more expensive platform and slowed the whole process down. If it was not for Sony and BR, we would all have cheap HD-DVD players in our homes now because it would have been released much earlier while the industry and Sony's "coalition of the willing" asses, gummed up the approval process.


RE: Blu ray
By erikejw on 10/23/2007 4:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
Well.
It is the other way around.
Sony wanted a HD format but Toshiba and DVD makers did not so
Sony created Bluray and all players who supported HD except Toshiba went with Bluray and then Toshiba had to respond and created HDDVD. No Bluray means we would still run with DVD.

HDDVD is the less supported format.


RE: Blu ray
By retrospooty on 10/23/2007 5:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
Thats an interesting take on the situation, quite the opposite of everything I have read for years...

The DVD forum approved HD-DVD as the successor to DVD on Nov 19th 2003

Ten companies founded the organization:

* Hitachi, Ltd.
* Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.
* Mitsubishi Electric Corporation
* Pioneer Electronic Corporation
* Royal Philips Electronics N.V.
* Sony Corporation
* Thomson
* Time Warner Inc.
* Toshiba Corporation
* Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (JVC)

Sony had their own financial aspirations in mind and wanted (as usual) thier own standard and wouldn't agree with the descision of the group they helped form.


RE: Blu ray
By Accord99 on 10/23/2007 8:42:59 PM , Rating: 1
You'll also find that most of the above companies are founders of the Blu-ray Disc Association too, which occurred before 2003. Plus it took three votes, new members and changed voting rules before the DVD-Forum accepted HD DVD, and that was after the DVD Forum initially went with a red laser DVD based HD format.

Plus Blu-ray is primarily a Sony/Matsushita development, later including Philips. It's not just Sony vs the rest of the industry, its Sony/Matsushita/Philips vs Toshiba/Sanyo/NEC.


RE: Blu ray
By BansheeX on 10/24/2007 5:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely true on the initial consideration of a red laser HD disc. The consortium was incompetent and it took Sony to stop these idiots from undercutting the next-gen format out of greed. They were all fixated on petty short-term cost grievances and wanted to modify ancient previous-gen equipment to create the new discs instead of buy new stuff and push the true potential of blue laser capacity. Sony called them on it and several other companies jumped on board with them.


RE: Blu ray
By mdogs444 on 10/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: Blu ray
By Bluestealth on 10/22/2007 11:26:37 PM , Rating: 1
Well superior technologies don't win without industry support. This is just an example that actually affects people in some way. Usually one just dies off from from premium cost because the alternative is cheaper and good enough.

I would use Firewire-800 as an example here, while it is not dead, it might as well be for the majority of consumers, USB2 has won.


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/22/2007 11:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
That's a different, though somewhat similar analogy. The reason why Firewire lost' was because of the patents. According to Wikipedia: ...the royalty that Apple Inc. and other patent holders have initially demanded from users of FireWire (US$0.25 per end-user system) and the more expensive hardware needed to implement it (US$1–$2) has prevented FireWire from displacing USB in low-end mass-market computer peripherals where cost of product is a major constraint" I say its different because Blu ray has generally more industry support and that the patents are generally the same as HD DVD.


RE: Blu ray
By Bluestealth on 10/22/2007 11:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
I was being more general because you were very general in your first post :) Politics also kill superior technologies, I mean look at Intel. They have to rename everything they implement from AMD, and never admit that they were wrong.

I think this has to be more about Consumer Electronics vs Media Vendors. Both have industry support but they want their fight.


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/22/2007 11:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
Sad face. It'll end when PS4 and Xbox 720 come out.


RE: Blu ray
By johnsonx on 10/23/2007 2:44:13 AM , Rating: 1
Given the primary target demographic, wouldn't Xbox 420 be a the more likely name for the next Xbox?


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/23/2007 2:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
Haha if it is that would be awesome, but they'd have to make it into the shape of a pot leaf and have 420 GB of storage and 420 games at launch and sell it for 420 dollars, for consistency.


RE: Blu ray
By tmouse on 10/23/2007 8:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
Sony has a MUCH higher licensing fee on the BD mastering presses, this is the major reason for the higher costs for production houses and it will not be going down soon if Sony follows their history. These costs are passed along to the consumer. The few format successes Sony has had were, in general, shared with other companies which set the license fees. Sony is one of the few companies that can make Apple look generous.


RE: Blu ray
By erikejw on 10/23/2007 1:16:06 AM , Rating: 2
Who cares if the disc costs 30 or 35 cent to produce in 3 years time when the movies will cost 20$ anyway.

Cheaper my as.


RE: Blu ray
By Synastar on 10/22/2007 11:30:57 PM , Rating: 3
You understand that HD-DVD is the format choice of the DVD Forum and that Sony is the renegade in this war?


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/22/2007 11:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
Good for them.


RE: Blu ray
By bplewis24 on 10/23/2007 1:49:09 AM , Rating: 1
People really need to quit it with this misleading and inaccurate argument. But, nobody will...because it pleases more of the huddled masses for Sony to be the evil company :)

Brandon


RE: Blu ray
By Synastar on 10/23/2007 7:15:07 AM , Rating: 2
Really? Do you see Blu-ray on this page?

http://www.dvdforum.com/forum.shtml


RE: Blu ray
By bplewis24 on 10/23/2007 2:57:50 PM , Rating: 2
And that proves absolutely nothing. Like I said, the argument is misleading. "Misleading" is not the same as factually wrong.

quote:
But people tend to forget one thing about Sony. Back when it was time to negotiate the details of the DVD format between all the industry players, there were also two competing candidate formats. But Philips and Sony caved and abandoned their MultiMedia Compact Disc, and agreed to go along with Toshiba's SuperDensity Disc. The result was DVD - a single unified format from which we've all benefitted. What was the result of that? Toshiba made millions off the patents for the DVD disc structure, which Sony lost out on. At an industry conference last year, Warren Lieberfarb revealed during a panel that, right after standard DVD launched, Sony approached him about the need to start working on the high-def version (understandable given that HDTV broadcasting was already taking off in Japan and Europe), but the DVD Forum felt it was too early and wasn't interested. So Sony started working on their own high-def format. It's hard for us to fault Sony for not wanting to lose out on such massive royalty profits a second time. Certainly, Toshiba had no interest in sharing some of those royalty fees during the attempts to negotiate a single high-def standard.


http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/soapbox/soa...

If people knew their history a bit better instead of listening to revisionists who prefer to sell FUD over accurate depictions there would be a lot less confusion. I know, I know...I'm wrong, you're right. Sony is the devil and Toshiba is David to Sony's goliath.

Carry on.

Brandon


RE: Blu ray
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 3:36:55 PM , Rating: 2
I would point out that Sony never put Blu Ray up for review to the DVD Forum. Toshiba did with HD DVD, and they got their format endorsed because Sony chose not to put their format up there.


RE: Blu ray
By Synastar on 10/23/2007 6:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, I own a PS3 and the Xbox 360 HD add-on. I have movies on both formats. The war doesn't really affect me right now. Facts are just facts. All companies only care about their bottom line. It's not about a big evil company and an underdog. It's about a standard. Since HD-DVD is the official standard of the DVD Forum, SONY is causing the format war. That's just the way it is. Honestly, both of these formats were released too early. There isn't enough HDTV penetration yet in the U.S.


RE: Blu ray
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 6:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on all counts.

An argument could be made that Sony pushed BD out too early in order to help push out HDTV as well. Whether true or successful is another story. But just an idea.


RE: Blu ray
By mdogs444 on 10/23/2007 8:49:18 AM , Rating: 2
"Technical Superiority" only matters if its something that is of use in the industry. Is more storage effective in terms of personal computer storage? Yes. Is that much more storage effective when two different medias are placing the same quality data on different discs? No.

But leaving aside that one has the ability to store more data (and that doesnt make it "technically superior" by any means), why dont you enlighten all of us on your assessment of BD being superior.

This is only proving that the extra storage on discs are not driving the demand for the product. Very simple economics are that demand is driven from price. If there are two comprable products, there is a better chance of the cheaper one selling more units. Thats what is happening. The target audience for both Blue Ray and HD-DVD have decided that price is more important than extra storage.

No one is keeping you from buying Blue Ray. Go ahead and buy it if you want.


RE: Blu ray
By leexgx on 10/25/2007 3:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
in the PC market there no point buying an HD-dvd burner if the BD buner (that you can buy now) stores more data for 1 disk


RE: Blu ray
By softwiz on 10/23/2007 10:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
What (superior) Blu-ray technology or technologies are you speaking of ? The Player, the disc or both ?

Perhaps you can also explain why you take the position you do. This is because I wonder sometimes if people are just blind followers of particular group and can't articulate why they follow(ed) a particular path.


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/22/2007 11:33:24 PM , Rating: 3
The fact that HD-DVD offers the exact same movie quality as blueray at half the cost to consumers some how makes it inferiour? Please explain that one :P


RE: Blu ray
By daftrok on 10/23/2007 1:11:31 AM , Rating: 1
Physically its inferior because its 15-17 GB per layer where as Blu ray is 25-27 GB per layer. Also though HD DVD readers are cheap, the HD DVD players, HD DVD blanks and HD DVD movies cost the same as Blu ray.


RE: Blu ray
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/23/2007 7:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
The blank media is actually cheaper to produce, its just the companies like Verbatim that are price fixing the blank media. There is also the small detail that Sony is intentionally selling at a loss to get Blu Ray into everyones home. Should sue Sony for dumping that would be quite interesting.


RE: Blu ray
By DFranch on 10/23/2007 12:03:13 PM , Rating: 1
Sorry, I have to root for HD DVD for one reason. Sony chose to put Blue Ray into the PS3 to help them win the HD DVD war. They did not care that most people would rather have a cheaper PS3 and no blue ray. They could have come out with the PS3 much earlier and much cheaper. For that reason I hope both the PS3 and Blue Ray fails.


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/23/2007 3:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
Exclusives/features/quality/price don't matter to you?


RE: Blu ray
By DFranch on 10/24/2007 12:40:13 AM , Rating: 2
Exclusives (Halo, Gears of War, Bioshock)
Features (Xbox Live, Actual Games to Play)
Quality (ok, rrod sucks, but 3 year warranty)
Price $350 vs $500 ($400 version does not play PS2 games)

I'll pick the Xbox every time. I have no interest in spending an extra $150 - $200 to help Sony Control the HD DVD market. Have you ever noticed that Sony tries to corner the market with its own format. Betamax, memory stick, atrac (a Proprietary MP3 alternative) are just a couple that I can remember. I'm sure there are more. It almost always fails, but they keep trying. So to assure the success of Blue Ray they put it into the PS3. Not because it needed it for any functionality, but because they figured they were guaranteed to sell 100 million like the PS2 did. If Sony had not tried to leverage the PS3 to gain a foothold in the HD DVD market it would have cost like $200 less at launch and they probably would be kicking xbox's a$$ by now. They would have been able to make many more because the initial production problems were because of the blue ray laser. I hope it falls flat on it's face, and so far so good.


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/24/2007 1:24:03 AM , Rating: 2
I won't argue with you over your choice of gaming consoles.. But wanting blueray to fail because you don't like PS3 is like trying to connect some disjointed dots...


RE: Blu ray
By BansheeX on 10/24/2007 6:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
Bioshock is likely a timed exclusive. Then you go on to say that the 360 has "actual games to play", yet you know darn well that any game not an exclusive (most games) are likely on the PS3 to PLAY as well. Your $400 figure was correct since that model is most comparable to the 360's BC attributes. So you've got a $50 lower price for something that doesn't come with HD playback, can't have it's hard drive upgraded, is extremely noisy, nickle/dimes you for internet, and might melt at any time. UT3 developers have already come out and said that blu-ray's extra storage allows them to fit more maps and material on the disc, and do some reading on media format history besides pro-360 forums. In fact, there are several posts on this thread that do a good job of explaining the real motivations behind Blu-Ray and how it came to have so many industry and consumer backers. By the way, Blu-Ray is doing quite well, so indeed, so far so good.


RE: Blu ray
By Locutus465 on 10/24/2007 9:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it can have it's hard drive upgrade, to 120GB in fact... But I still don't get why he's anti-blueray movie because he likes x-box better... Just because you like x-box and don't like Sony's stradegy with the PS3 doesn't mean you have to hate blueray as a whole...


RE: Blu ray
By DFranch on 10/25/2007 3:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
Sony is using it's dominance in 1 market to gain dominance in another and that bugs me. I actually don't have a problem with the PS3 as a game machine. I respect it's folding performance. If the PS3 came out at a $400 price point without the Blue Ray player I would have thought long and hard about buying one. I have a problem having Blue Ray shoved down my throat. If I buy a game machine I want it to play games. And while 1 game developer may have found a use for the extra space Blue Ray allows, it does not necessarily mean that it was worth the extra cost in both time and the extra $200 + that each PS3 costs due to the inclusion of Blue Ray. I think that a majority of people do not even care that the PS3 has Blue Ray, but they still had to shell out the money for it. If I had to buy MS Office in order to play x-box I would have the same attitude toward the X-box.


“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














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