backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 183 comment(s) - last by INeedCache.. on Aug 24 at 11:21 PM

"For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!"  (Source: michaelbay.com)
"I miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark, When he made Pearl Harbor."

Yesterday, Paramount and DreamWorks made an announcement that shook the tech community -- just when everyone was getting used to the idea that Blu-ray was gaining considerable traction in the high definition format war. The two companies decided to reverse their support for both HD DVD and Blu-ray in exchange for exclusive support for the former.

The news sparked quite a stir from both sides of the aisle. Supporters of the HD DVD standard declared that the move meant that the war is still on. Blu-ray supporters on the other hand saw the move as nothing more than a multi-million dollar payoff for Paramount and DreamWorks.

One high-profile member of the film community decided to make his feeling known about the decision to go HD DVD only. Michael Bay -- known for action blockbusters like "Bad Boys" and "The Rock" as well as critical disappointments like "Pearl Harbor" and "The Island" -- expressed outrage after hearing that "Transformers" would become an HD DVD exclusive title upon its release for high definition players.

"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," exclaimed Bay on his official site.

“Transformers” has racked up nearly $303 million USD in ticket sales in the U.S. alone since its July release. The release of the DVD and HD DVD versions of the movie this fall are sure to bring in considerable dollars to Paramount.

The question remains, however, if Bay has enough clout to reverse Paramount's decision on an HD DVD exclusive HD release for "Transformers" or risk Bay bolting altogether for "Transformers 2."

Updated 8/21/2007:
Thanks to Dane for letting us know that Michael Bay has cooled off a bit following his earlier statement. Bay made the following post this evening on his official site:
Last night at dinner I was having dinner with three blu-ray owners, they were pissed about no Transformers Blu-ray and I drank the kool aid hook line and sinker. So at 1:30 in the morning I posted - nothing good ever comes out of early am posts mind you - I over reacted. 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.

As a director, I'm all about people seeing films in the best quality possible, and I saw and heard firsthand people upset about a corporate decision.

So today I saw 300 on HD, it rocks!

So I think I might be back on to do Transformers 2!

Michael Bay

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
the island
By siberus on 8/21/2007 9:00:18 AM , Rating: 5
I kind of liked the island. *blushes*




RE: the island
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 8/21/2007 9:03:56 AM , Rating: 3
Even Scarlett Johansson couldn't save that flick... ;-)


RE: the island
By Spivonious on 8/21/2007 9:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
But she sure made it more entertaining :P


RE: the island
By togaman5000 on 8/22/2007 7:16:04 AM , Rating: 2
i fully agree with ya there buddy!


RE: the island
By retrospooty on 8/21/2007 9:36:50 AM , Rating: 4
"Even Scarlett Johansson couldn't save that flick... ;-)"

But her tight white jumpsuit did :D


RE: the island
By deeznuts on 8/21/2007 12:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well. That means I must finally watch my copy then shoot white jumpsuit don't have to tell me twice.


RE: the island
By leidegre on 8/22/2007 3:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
I thought The Island was great (didn't think Pearl Harbor was bad either). And obviously Scarlett makes anything worth watching better. She just so damn pretty.

I do think however, that it's a matter of opinion more than anything else, because if you don't like the type of movies Michael Bay directs you’re not going to like any of the movies he's been involved with. I am a big fan, and love nothing more than to see big explosions and mutli-million action.

Also, if Bay won't return for Transformers 2, I'm going to cry, because I loved the first one, and I'm going to love the second and third, just because (but only if Michael is there to direct).

My point is this, why do you expect a movie to contain depth and story from a directory whom primarily makes action? It's like, buying vanilla instead of chocolate even though you prefer chocolate.


RE: the island
By Pitbull0669 on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By Moishe on 8/21/2007 9:44:19 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
No Transformers 2 for me," exclaimed Bay on his official site.

I bet if they ask him in 3 years to do another Transformers movie and promise another fat paycheck he'll do it without a second thought.

I agree with the concept of not limiting the market for the movie, but I also don't think he cares at all about which format wins. He just wants it to sell well (and who can blame him).


RE: the island
By tallguywithglasseson on 8/21/2007 10:26:06 AM , Rating: 5
"No Transformers 2 for me"

Please please please please please let him keep his word on that.

Give someone else a shot at a Transformers movie.

I've gotta say though, unfortunately it's a virtual lock that he's going to go back on that statement.


RE: the island
By erikejw on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 10:42:08 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
He probably gets percentage of what how the movie sells.
I'm no mathematician but do the math, 2/3 of 1% is not a reason to publicly disagree against the company that hired you. DVD's are still where the sales are at, he will make most of the money off of that. I think he just knows that transformers is a movie made for HD, just like 300, and the BD people will truly miss out on a great release. Either that or hes just trying to be the good guy like Steven Spielberg, then again, he may think he is Steven Spielburg, has anyone told him hes not yet?


RE: the island
By cyclingco on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By Shadowmaster625 on 8/21/2007 2:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
most will buy the dvd anyway


RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 2:51:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
either way I'm right...

Yawn, i really doubt mr Bay is doing this out of the goodness of his heart so that people will appreciate his movies. People appreciate movies because they are good, not because they are available on a certain format, or because a certain director says so.

As for you whole money theory, it does not make sense either, HD-DVD/BD is not DVD, there was an immidiate step up in technology no matter what your system is from VHS to DVD. HighDef movies require an HDTV as you probably know, and with maybe 15% of the market having hdtvs, no highdef movie is going to make the impact the matrix did when the DVD was first introduced.
quote:
and then you're talking millions more for bay
How do you figure, being very nice if you believe transformers will sell 30 million copies whether it be HD-DVD/BD or DVD, with only 1% of those copies being of the high def format, that leaves you with 300,000 high def movies sold. So lets do some math, 300k x 25$ per movie = 7.5 million.

Now how much of that do you think goes to the director? Even if he were to receive 10% (and thats being very generous, as i have no idea what the real number would be) he would only receive 750,000 dollars. Now lets take off 1/3 because he would already be receiving HD-DVD sales as its an exclusive, which leave you with 500k over what he would have got if it was just an HD-DVD release.
So to think Mr Bay made all of this fuss over 500k is ridiculous, he obviously has interior motives in mind, whether it to pretend he is Spielberg, or if he just wants the publicity, either way it has nothing to do with either of your reasons.

Of course all of these numbers are really pure B.S, I just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt so i inflated all the numbers to benefit what you are saying.. sorry it just does not fit.

so..
either way, your wrong...


RE: the island
By The Sword 88 on 8/22/2007 9:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
I'd be pissed about 500K. I dont make that in 10 years


RE: the island
By bldckstark on 8/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By JonnyDough on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By Oregonian2 on 8/21/2007 3:31:54 PM , Rating: 2
Not hardly. HD + BluRay probably total 0.1% of the total sales. Big deal. Now if they were to drop VHS copies, THAT might be significant!

Keep in mind the vast majority of sales (recorded version sales, which doesn't include TV Network or cable network or theater ticket sales) will be plain-DVD. BluRay (or HD) will be a tiny percentage of total sales, so saying that they're losing 66% of sales isn't anywhere near the truth. They lose 66% of a microspec subset of total sales, and even then probably not the full percentage because folk will go out and buy an HD player along with an HD copy of the movie -- HD players are cheap (although I'm waiting for 'em to get under $100 first, maybe next spring).


RE: the island
By npoe1 on 8/21/2007 7:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don’t think that someone is going to buy the movie because it is going to be BD or HD-DVD. If someone has a BD player, he is just going to buy the DVD version; instead of not buying anything just because is not HD.


RE: the island
By Farfignewton on 8/21/2007 8:44:41 PM , Rating: 1
Can't speak for every blu-ray owner, obviously, but Paramount can stick their DVDs in N.B.E.1's chest right next to the allspark. I might buy an old action flick on DVD for $5 at Wal-Mart or whatever, but not a new release.


RE: the island
By erikejw on 8/22/2007 5:32:10 PM , Rating: 3
Seems as I was right.
150M$ and I play VHS for the rest of my life, promise.


RE: the island
By Praze on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 12:17:01 PM , Rating: 4
I have no idea how movie studios work, but does not paramount now own the rights to transformers the movie? I dont see how being the director, gives him ownership of the movie. I really doubt he will be able to go to another studio with an idea/movie thats not his. He only directed it after all, its not like he wrote the screenplay, which even then i doubt would give him any rights to the movie.


RE: the island
By elegault on 8/21/2007 1:24:51 PM , Rating: 3
Paramount owns the movie rights and hires director(s) to film it. There are much better directors than Bay, I don't think Paramount will care.

DVD's where the money's at. Bay's just making a scene.


RE: the island
By cjb110 on 8/22/2007 8:32:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but Paramount would care, Bay's a known bankable director. He has a substantial fan base, and therefore will bring in an almost guarnteed amount of cash.


RE: the island
By therealnickdanger on 8/21/2007 9:25:15 AM , Rating: 3
The Island was a good flick, I'm sorry, but it was. I didn't watch it until just two months ago and the only excuse I had was that I was being a film snob and avoided it because of Bay's style. Then after a great deal of consideration, I realized that I really don't care about exceptional cinematography. I watch movies to be entertained, for some escapism, not for enlightenment.

That being said, he should shut it. I'm not saying he's wrong, but it's not his place to say. The studio has the right to do what they will and make the best choice for their share-holders. Also, they could easily get another director just as qualified to do a sequel to Transformers. You know how many directors would leap at the chance to follow up a blockbuster like that?


RE: the island
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 9:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, it was a pretty good movie to watch on HBO on my couch. But i wouldnt have paid to see it in a theater or buy it on DVD. Perhaps thats what they are referring to as being a dissapointment.


RE: the island
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2007 9:38:03 AM , Rating: 3
They tried for Ingmar Bergman, but he had other commitments at the time.


RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By spindoc on 8/21/2007 12:53:07 PM , Rating: 1
Isn't the writer to blame for that?


RE: the island
By gyranthir on 8/21/2007 9:41:07 AM , Rating: 2
So why shouldn't he have his say as to what formats he would like to see his movies in?

Spielberg and a couple of others at Dreamworks/Paramount have had theirs.


RE: the island
By jacarte8 on 8/21/2007 9:51:45 AM , Rating: 5
Obviously... Because Michael Bay is no Steven Spielberg...


RE: the island
By Moishe on 8/21/2007 9:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
I thought it was entertaining, and that is precisely why I watched it. I'm no snob.

The Island is not a great movie, but there is a huge difference between "average" and "sucks". Just watch "Solaris" to see a movie that "sucks".


RE: the island
By aos007 on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 12:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hes not just showing his opinion, hes boycotting a second movie, if they choose to make one. Hes not just expressing his 'private opinion', he is trying to dictate how the movie studio does business. Well if he was in any other sector he would be packing his bags as we speak.


RE: the island
By theapparition on 8/22/2007 7:56:06 AM , Rating: 2
Studio's and directors do NOT have an employee-employer relationship. It's a contract relationship. You try working a contract, finishing, and then publicly de-grading the company that hired you. See if they contract you again.

He has every right to say what he wants. He also must accept responsibility if the studio doesn't like his opinion and decides to go in a different direction.


RE: the island
By Martimus on 8/21/2007 9:37:51 AM , Rating: 2
I never saw The Island, but I liked Pearl Harbor; which was the other bomb he meantioned.

The Island looked interesting though, so I may go out and rent it.


RE: the island
By Desslok on 8/21/2007 10:02:20 AM , Rating: 5
How could anyone like Bay's Pearl Harbor? It was so full of historical errors it was clear that Bay just wanted to make a movie where stuff blew up and use the 40's as a time frame.

That love story was so inane I can't believe someone thought it was a good idea to film.

/rant


RE: the island
By cyclingco on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: the island
By Desslok on 8/22/2007 9:38:44 AM , Rating: 1
I am sorry my post made you so angry. "Less stupid", wow your momma and daddy are really proud of you!


RE: the island
By Martimus on 8/21/2007 3:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't remember the movie very well, but I remember that it was somewhat entertaining. It had enough plot twists to keep me interested, but I couldn't care less about any historical inaccuracies, honestly. I remember one of the brothers crashed, and the other brother married his girlfriend or something, but I really don't remember much of the movie.


RE: the island
By arazok on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: the island
By PAPutzback on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: the island
By StevoLincolnite on 8/21/2007 10:47:21 AM , Rating: 1
Homo? So what is he is, He shouldn't be given crap for it.

I also enjoyed the Special effects in Pearl Harbor.


RE: the island
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 11:00:58 AM , Rating: 4
Stop it guys, Ben Affleck is so dreamy!


RE: the island
By tdawg on 8/21/2007 12:44:33 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, he is a Homosapien, just like you!


RE: the island
By BillyBatson on 8/21/2007 10:06:03 AM , Rating: 2
ummmmmmmm??? I am very critical of movies but I loved The Island. It wasn't the best movie in the world but it was very entertaining and I know a lot of people who like the movie.


RE: the island
By gigahertz20 on 8/21/2007 10:18:44 AM , Rating: 3
What was wrong with "The Island?" I enjoyed it, it wasn't super awesome but it was a decent movie.


RE: the island
By ryedizzel on 8/21/2007 12:46:13 PM , Rating: 2
I am also very critical of movies and I enjoyed The Island. Granted I am not an avid book reader so I don't know how much justice it did for the real story. But then again we all know movies are never as good as the books.


RE: the island
By Crowbar77 on 8/21/2007 1:39:22 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the island was good to. Not the greatest story, but it was entertaining.


RE: the island
By FastLaneTX on 8/21/2007 3:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
Ditto; I liked it enough to buy it. The directing wasn't so good, but the plot was thought-provoking (if simplistic) and it had good eye candy for both guys and gals. That's what I like in a movie. Who cares what the critics think?


RE: the island
By Silver2k7 on 8/21/2007 1:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
I loved the Island !!
And yes I own Pearl Harbour on dvd :)

Transformers was very good too.. you got to remember its a kids movie based on toys. I didn't have very high expectations but I did like it alot!


RE: the island
By plonk420 on 8/21/2007 2:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
i liked The Island, too...

i was pretty pissed, tho, after hearing this announcement. i guess i know how HD DVD owners feel about Disney (and other studio) exclusivity... and it sucks!


RE: the island
By The Jedi on 8/21/2007 8:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
If anybody's seen (or started and bailed on) George Lucas' first movie, THX 1138, watching The Island is sort of like getting that wasted hour and so many minutes back. Personally I loved The Island, and it's worth watching in HD.


RE: the island
By Samus on 8/22/2007 2:48:09 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, the movie wasn't 'great' but the story was fantastic. Everyone I've recommended the island too has liked it. The story is original (albeit based on a book) but it's definately a movie you see and think about for a long time. That's what makes a movie good!

On another note, I didn't like transformers, the script was fundementally flawed, especially in regards to location. For example, why did they go into the city at the end just to put millions of civilians at risk. It didn't make any sense, there was no reason?

I don't think much of Michael Bay anyway. Having a Grandpa who was in WWII as a paratrooper fighting the Japanese, and being told more war stories than you could imagine as a kid, I thought the lack of explaining Japan's motives in Pearl Harbor was an oversight that ruined the movies integrity.


RE: the island
By Miggle on 8/24/2007 7:19:45 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with you. It was one of those movies back in (2005?) that made me jump off my seat.


Totally agree.
By RMSe17 on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By Homerboy on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 10:01:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why should we be forced to pay for second grade technology? If we are united, their decision will be reversed.

I believe the term you were looking for was "Second Rate" and that is FUD. HD DVD is in the same technology branch as Blu-Ray. One just has higher capacity per layer with the caveat that it's also more expensive to produce and print.

The choice to go HD DVD saves them money in the short term and the long term for the company producing the movies.


RE: Totally agree.
By michal1980 on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Totally agree.
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 9:43:56 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
(by that argument we should never have faster cpu's, or more cores. Why go quad core when dual is cheaper. like the quad core wont be cheaper 6 months from now).


No one should buy a dual core cpu right now for $100 because for only $300, you can get a quad core that the average user will never notice the difference! woohoo!

Nonesense analogy. You pretty much just contridict yourself. New technology is great - but facts are facts - and the consumers are COST CONCIOUS. They buy based on price:performance, and affordability. If HD & BD are 99% the same, but one is hundreds of dollars cheaper, why should the consumer pay several hundred dollars more for a BD player - when they will be watching the SAME EXACT MOVIE?

When it comes to PC usage, the argument is different. But people buying these to watch movies dont care about its storage.


RE: Totally agree.
By michal1980 on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Totally agree.
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 10:04:56 AM , Rating: 4
So everyone should over pay for BD right now, because it will be cheaper two years from now?


RE: Totally agree.
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2007 10:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
So everyone should over pay for BD right now, because it will be cheaper two years from now? With BD, your stuck at 50gb no matter what. You dont think in two years that they'll be able to put 100, 200, 300 gb on a disc? Its non stop evolution.


RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 3:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
damn the truth hurts!


RE: Totally agree.
By michal1980 on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By P4blo on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 12:32:18 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
HD-DVD actually has BETTER picture quality due to it's codec. Oh and unlike BD it has picture in picture features (GREAT for commentary tracks) and doesn't cost a bomb for the player.
No... no it doesnt. Except in the beginning when some movies were encoded in Mpeg2, any dual release movie now is encoded with the same VC1 codec, at the same bitrate. Some high defs like NIN:Beside you in Time actually have a higher bitrate for the BD version. Although its debatable if it even makes a difference at that point.

I'm an HD-DVD fan not a BD fan either, i just want people to know the real facts, not all the b.s pr rumors that float around the net. They are both essentially the same in my books, i just dont like the sound of sony having any market to themselves, thats not good for anyone except sony.


RE: Totally agree.
By P4blo on 8/22/2007 11:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
Fine, thanks for clearing that up but the main point I wanted to make was why should he get upset about companies joining the HD-DVD camp exclusively when some have already done it for BD! It's double standards (if you pardon the pun :). That's why I think he should wind his neck back in.


RE: Totally agree.
By Dharl on 8/21/2007 10:06:38 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. There are only two things that seperate these technologies, other than storage capacity. #1 The cost of production. #2 The programmed capabilities of the disk for movie extras IE: Java.

When I first heard of Blu-Ray and the fact that it was going to be 50GB on disk, technically two disks together. That is when I decided to support it and only it. When you think of computers... everyone wants a larger capacity. Hard drives at 1TB now, RAID for even more space, Thumb drives slowly increasing in storage space, CD -> DVD -> DL DVD etc.

Heck I'd love to have a burner and a few of these disks to back up a large portion of my media. Not that it would prevent my backups to an external hard drive, but it would certainly be nice to have an alternate means of storage.

As far as movie production on these disks goes... I could care less about extra features. I just want to see the movie in as high quality as possible on my HDTV! The only exception to this rule are movies that have stood the test of time. Star Wars, Jaws, etc... Movies that people have seen thousands of times and never tire of them. These movies and others I'd like to see some documentary, commentary, and special features on.


RE: Totally agree.
By PAPutzback on 8/21/2007 10:44:32 AM , Rating: 1
Everyone wants large capacity? I bet the majority of pcs out there use less than 40 gig even though OEMs are pushing larger drives. I'd say 1 out of 10 users use a pc for large scale media storage. The other 9 use it to play warcraft or just get on the internet to check their myspace account or look at pictures of the grandkids. If Windows and IE wasn't so bloated these people would still be fine with a P3 and dial up.


RE: Totally agree.
By Dharl on 8/21/2007 11:30:18 AM , Rating: 2
Currently my system uses a 40GB harddrive. Heck my overall computer specs are over 8 years old. It holds everything I need it to. Programs for editing photos, webpages, documents, etc. The only game I have stored on it right now is FFXI. Other than that I use it for media. I have an external drive for storage of all my extra media or whatever I'm not watching/playing at that time. It would be nice though to have some means other than multiple DL DVD's to store extra periodic backups of my computer's media.

Overall you are correct in computer usage, but things are changing.

quote:
or look at pictures of the grandkids.


The majority of people you are referring to are people of an older generation. The generations that are growing up now and have used computers all their lives will use it constantly. Not only that, but more and more are using it to store all kinds of media. Games, movies, music, etc

For years people doubted storage needs for both business and consumers. A floppy disk use to be "too much". Companies like Google are always needing more storage, and it's starting to become neccessary with consumers.


RE: Totally agree.
By Silver2k7 on 8/21/2007 2:06:36 PM , Rating: 2
"Currently my system uses a 40GB harddrive. Heck my overall computer specs are over 8 years old. It holds everything I need it to."

Ok fine your good with an 8 year old computer that does not mean that everybody else is.. ive added about 40 Gb to my photo folder in the last 4 months, and im shooting jpeg, would I shoot raw or jpeg + raw then the storage would have got to 132 of 172 Gb.

For people doing video editing its probably worse =)

Then try to install a fairly recent game like Everquest II, thats 10 Gb right there.. but it will probably not run on your computer if its 8 years old.


RE: Totally agree.
By Silver2k7 on 8/21/2007 2:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
Also 600 CD's on computer in FLAC format will take about 300 Gb.. so your 40 Gb is not very useful.

Using a 10 MP digital camera I could never live with only 40 Gb.. only the Windows Vista folder takes 10 Gb.. so then only 30 Gb to the rest of the apps and saved files.. no thank you very much ill pass =)


RE: Totally agree.
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2007 12:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If Windows and IE wasn't so bloated these people would still be fine with a P3 and dial up.


Really? So you could download a 500MB file faster with dial up if it weren't for Windows and IE? Or encode video faster on a P3 if it weren't for Windows? Or run Warcraft faster?

I have a dual 1.1GHz P3 system with 1.25GB of SDRAM running XP. It has a hard time even running some flash content on web pages. It can't playback HD video trailers either. And forget about trying to encode a TV episode ripped off a DVD in a reasonable amount of time.

Windows has nothing to do with it.

I'll agree that most people don't even use what they have though.


RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 1:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a dual 1.1GHz P3 system with 1.25GB of SDRAM running XP. It has a hard time even running some flash content on web pages. It can't playback HD video trailers either. And forget about trying to encode a TV episode ripped off a DVD in a reasonable amount of time.


Even my barton2500 struggles at some of the things you named. DVD's take a while to encode no matter how good your computer is, especially if you do 2pass VBR. Back in the day i used to rip music videos for a group, and a 4 minute video took 30 minutes too encode into regular mpeg, and that seemed normal to me, so compared to now, sure those things take a while, but its nothing a 1.1ghz cpu cant handle ;).

And with HD content no matter what computer you have, unless your videocard supports hardware decoding, or its offloaded it the gpu (nvidia) your cpu has to do all the work. My 2500 and my 3200 struggle when watching HD content, i can not be touching anything else or the video skips.


RE: Totally agree.
By piroroadkill on 8/22/2007 5:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
If you can care less about extra features, why don't you? That clearly means you do care


RE: Totally agree.
By spindoc on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 1:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
What are you 15 trying to lose your virginity? the point of DT is not about how much you 'score'. He made a comment which makes fun of both sides which is why he was downrated, but in reality is hes right, they are the same except for the difference of space, which i think is irrelevant in the movie world anyways, as video does not require that amount of extra space, and i have no need for an extra set of lossless audio codecs (LPCM+TrueHD(if added) standard for sony, should be TrueHD like HD-DVD)


RE: Totally agree.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 2:44:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's not always what you say, but how you say it.


RE: Totally agree.
By spindoc on 8/22/2007 1:01:59 PM , Rating: 1
No, I'm 16 and I just climbed down off your mom so I guess that answers your question.

STFU and stop defending your girlfriend.


RE: Totally agree.
By Griswold on 8/21/2007 9:40:35 AM , Rating: 1
Get over it, kid.


RE: Totally agree.
By DingieM on 8/21/2007 10:09:58 AM , Rating: 2
Existence of HD-DVD is really important, because without it prices of Blu-Ray players would remain sky-high except for the PS3. They would eventually drop in price but much much slower than it is happening this year.

Technology wise they are almost identical (Blu-Ray 50GB version), i.e. for a 3-hour HD movie they BOTH have PLENTY of storage and have the EXACTLY same quality of video AND audio, because all will fit nicely on the disk.
Eventually, if all the space would be used than Blu-Ray has advantage over HD-DVD having 9 hours of HD material and HD-DVD "only" 8.
Interactive elements of HD-DVD are more advanced/efficient.

Blu-Ray is not the ideal solution for video because the technology provided by HD-DVD is clearly enough with still some headroom left. Also is a giant step-up from the DVD.
And then Blu-Ray is unnecessarily expensive.

Actually, I think Blu-Ray is ONLY useful for backups when they bring the 200+ GB discs on the market. Such amounts of storage is utterly inefficient for only watching video.

So, in the end, there is absolutely NO reason to have Blu-Ray as the winner for consumer electronics, because the storage space requirements are not high enough.
However Blu-Ray is useful for the industry with backups etc.

HD-DVD is very good technoloy and far from second grade. In that respect Blu-Ray in its current form is even third grade technology.
If you ask me, both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are not on the forefront of technology. I call holographic storage REAL technology not some fanboy reclamation of Blu-Ray being 1st grade technology only because $ony says so.


RE: Totally agree.
By michal1980 on 8/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Totally agree.
By Shadowmaster625 on 8/21/2007 2:34:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Existence of HD-DVD is really important, because without it prices of Blu-Ray players would remain sky-high except for the PS3.


That is not true. With just one format, you'd have plenty of competition to drive down prices. And with only one format, you'd have more people buying the product because there isn't so much confusion and obfuscation that makes buyers hesitate. Don't just blindly believe in axioms such as "competition leads to lower prices." It is not true all the time. There should be one format, and that format should be hd dvd, because it is cheaper. Sony is just too stupid to win anyway.


RE: Totally agree.
By FITCamaro on 8/21/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally agree.
By omnicronx on 8/21/2007 2:14:36 PM , Rating: 2
Bingo, i think BD discs have a no scratch protective layering on them though, does HD-DVD have the same? I know this was one of the reasons DVD playback is not in the spec, so i wonder if HD-DVD has this feature, being able to have dual format discs and all.


RE: Totally agree.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 8/21/2007 2:49:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yes. Infact the HD DVD spec required a better no scratch protection during the initial design phase. This is relatively moot now as most manufacturers are using the same scratch protection on both lines (Makes Logistics easier I would imagine). The only real difference right now is maximum storage space per layer 15/25 and the cost that goes with it. Now, HD DVD wins the cookie in the manufacturing race because the assembly lines to make DVD's are 95% ready, just need to add a small change in the middle of the assembly line and it makes HD DVD's instead of regular DVD's, this makes bulk manufacturing of the HD DVD media cheaper. Blu Ray has more differences which attributes it to the higher density per layer, but that raises the raw cost of producing the media for printing.

That is the only real difference at this point.


RE: Totally agree.
By theapparition on 8/22/2007 8:22:32 AM , Rating: 1
FIT Camaro raises good points.

When I first heard of Blu-ray, I was right on the bandwagon, thinking it was better. After all, 50>30Gb, right? Then I saw some of the things that the BD camp was doing and it really changed my mind. Lack of Mandatory managed copy was a big one. This feature alone was why Intel and Microsoft support HD-DVD, to support the VIIV initiative (pretty much failed, but you get the point).

Keep in mind, I'm not partial to either format. I have both players, and close to 100 disks (combined HD-DVD and Blu-ray) now. I just want to be able to put a movie in and watch it. Blu-ray, with it's more DRM infested system, may potentially make it more difficult in the future. And that I don't like at all.


bad movies
By whickywhickyjim on 8/21/2007 9:15:36 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure how much credibility you have when it's mentioned that your finer works are trivial action movies like "Bad Boys" and "The Rock."




RE: bad movies
By Flunk on 8/21/2007 9:26:17 AM , Rating: 2
Hey, I liked the Rock!

But seriously, Transformers probably would have been a better movie if they had picked a director who focuses more on story and characters than blowing things up.


RE: bad movies
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2007 9:37:43 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know about you, but in a movie involving conflict between giant, fighting robots, I expect things to blow up. I'd hardly say the movie focused on blowing things up either. I thought the movie was excellent. Not just because of the combination of giant, fighting robots, awesome vehicles, and a hot chick either. The story was also excellent.


RE: bad movies
By Spivonious on 8/21/2007 10:31:56 AM , Rating: 1
I would rate this to a 6 if I could.


RE: bad movies
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2007 11:01:35 AM , Rating: 2
Heh glad some people have common sense. A Transformers movie that doesn't have lots of explosions would be like a movie with Paris Hilton in it as the main character not sucking.

The two just go together.

Giant fighting robots with some bent of destroying the human race = lots of explosions

Paris Hilton as an actor = lots of sucking. Both in her acting ability and her methods of getting into the movie.


RE: bad movies