backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 70 comment(s) - last by Mitch101.. on Oct 15 at 1:03 PM
HD DVD more than twice as popular than Blu-ray Disc at Netflix

One often overlooked statistic when comparing the two main high-definition optical formats is rentals. While Blu-ray Disc movies have consistently sold more units than HD DVD at retail, the popularity of the formats appear to be reversed in the rental market.

According to Netflix data gathered by Compete’s online traffic metrics, HD DVD is the preferred high-def format for customers of the largest online rental firm in the U.S. Netflix users that deliberately set a particular format as preferred chose HD DVD by a factor of 2.4:1 when compared to Blu-ray Disc favorers.

Strangely, the Blu-ray Disc section had 1.8 times more browsers of the selection than the HD DVD section. But of those consumers who looked at high-def discs, browsers of HD DVD were 4.4 times more likely to set it as their preferred format as compared to Blu-ray Disc. Furthermore, the HD DVD format saw greater growth numbers than Blu-ray Disc over the June to August period observed.

Before any conclusions are drawn about what this may mean in the ongoing high-definition format war, both HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc combined are barely a blip on the home video radar. Of the 14 million monthly visitors to Netflix, only 0.3 percent viewed either of the high-def formats.

The Netflix data runs contrary to the other major rental powerhouse in the U.S. In June, Blockbuster chose to stock only Blu-ray Disc movies for rental across 1,450 stores nationwide. At the time of the announcement, Blockbuster said that its customers were choosing Blu-ray Disc over HD DVD 70 percent of the time.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Plus
By michal1980 on 10/10/2007 12:36:04 PM , Rating: 5
netflix got alot of hd-dvd people from blockbuster when blockbuster switched their instore rentals to be mainly blu-ray




RE: Plus
By PAPutzback on 10/10/2007 1:22:14 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. I can't believe no one figured this out or made this point in the article.

Hmmm. I have a HD-DVD player that I just dropped 500 bucks on and now I can't go to BB to rent my flicks. Hello netflix.

Or the people who are already netflix customers knowing that they can have the best of both worlds should they end up with both players. I imagine they would grab the cheaper of the two players.

What a no brainer. How many stupid theories were posted before and after your thread.


RE: Plus
By MADAOO7 on 10/10/2007 1:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't have said it better, it's truly a "no brainer"


RE: Plus
By R Nilla on 10/10/2007 1:34:04 PM , Rating: 3
Why would that matter? You can still rent HD-DVDs through Blockbuster Online, they just don't carry them in the store. If anything, it may have caused the in-store exchange whores who also have an HD-DVD player to switch to Netflix, but I doubt it.

And even then, Netflix does not have anything to offer over Blockbuster in terms of HD-DVD, since they both carry this format via their mail service. Blockbuster only lost the in-store exchange edge with regards to HD-DVD, but Netflix does not have B&M stores so no biggie.


RE: Plus
By R Nilla on 10/10/2007 1:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I see your point now. I was only thinking in terms of their online services, but people who liked to rent HD-DVD from the store, and didn't have BBO, probably did switch to Netflix.


By Awax on 10/10/2007 1:58:15 PM , Rating: 3
Those numbers must be taken with a grain of salt.
Those are not rental nor sell numbers. This is just a poll result saying that people answered : "I prefer HD-DVD over BlueRay". But I don't care about what you say. Anyone can stuff any ballot.
The real important thing here are :
* how many HD format playing device have beensold ? (standalone player AND gaming console included)
* how many HD format are being rented/sold ?

We want solid facts, no online poll anyone can game.




By grampaw on 10/10/2007 3:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
I learned 35 years ago in graduate business school how to "Lie with Statistics." Could have been a separate course - I don't remember.

Anyway, I have both Blu-ray and HD-DVD players. I own zero Hi Def DVDs - in other words I only rent, and only from Blockbuster and Netflix. I have this theory: "Why would anyone want to own a movie if you can rent?"

If I have a choice between formats, and that increasing is not an option, I always choose the HD-DVD format. Reason has nothing to do with picture quality - it's because the Toshiba HD-DVD player runs much cooler than the PS3, a regular room heater.

Blockbuster lets you add to your queue the same title in as many formats as you want, so you effectively double your chance to get a new Hi Def release. With Netflix you get this down arrow next to the title, which you have to click and select one unique format.

Looking at my Blockbuster and Netflix queues, For Blockbuster I have 8 Blu-rays and 4 HD-DVDs in queue, and for Netflix, I have 11 Blu-rays and 6 HD-DVDs in queue.

So now you can lie with statistics and draw any conclusions you want. My only observation is I'm running 2-1 Blu-ray over HD-DVD in my rental queues.


By bplewis24 on 10/10/2007 3:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for this real-world example of what I said in my post above. A person with an "HD-DVD preference" on Netflix is still renting more Blu-rays than HD-DVDs, so this "more popular" thing, while technically justified, has nearly no relevance to actual data, rendering it a pretty hollow statement.

Brandon


Explanation?
By Kougar on 10/10/2007 12:36:35 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The Netflix data runs contrary to the other major rental powerhouse in the U.S. In June, Blockbuster chose to stock only Blu-ray Disc movies for rental across 1,450 stores nationwide. At the time of the announcement, Blockbuster said that its customers were choosing Blu-ray Disc over HD DVD 70 percent of the time.


Could this be part of the reason why right here? HD-DVD availability is not as prevalent in brick&mortar locations?

I don't pay attention to these store sections so I don't know, but I recall reading a few articles regarding some HD-DVD users not finding much of a selection at BB or other stores on either DT or Ars...




Some weird numbers here
By killerroach on 10/10/2007 1:43:32 PM , Rating: 2
Although this article doesn't break down the specific numbers, another article on this at Ars Technica noted that more people had selected HD-DVD as their favorite format than there were page views of HD-DVD discs on Netflix's site. This doesn't exactly pass the smell test to me.

That being said, the numbers still seem to show that the winner of the format war is DVD. Neither of these hi-def formats seems to be gaining any traction...




RE: Some weird numbers here
By rikulus on 10/10/2007 1:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
I definitely agree that the numbers are a little strange. If the report were actually from Netflix (rather than compete.com) and contained information related to total number of rentals or total number of current customers set for either preference, that would be interesting.

But to grab a 3 month snapshot, and look only at the number clicking to set a preference is pretty weak to headline as "Netflix statistics show HD-DVD more popular than Blu-ray disc." Especially when the number of people viewing the BD catalog was nearly twice that viewing the HD-DVD catalog... which seems at least as good an indicator to disk popularity. Probably a better indicator to overall popularity in fact, rather than just new users.


Players
By Branger on 10/10/2007 12:43:19 PM , Rating: 2
What about the difference between the Xbox HD DVD player on the market? It's an interesting effect because gamers represent a completely differently behaving market than the "typical" renter....




Its hard to say
By AlphaVirus on 10/11/2007 10:33:15 AM , Rating: 2
Polls dont mean much of anything because why? Well my vote was not in the poll and alot of times they survey less than 1,000 people and call it relevant.

BluRay is honestly a better performer and spec-wise is better than HD-DVD. If you ask the public which would they buy, most would probably say HD-DVD because it has "DVD" in it. They are familiar with the term "DVD" and I am sure the majority dont know what it means but they know its a disc that holds movies.

This whole format war is bogus and will never get anywhere for a long time, in which by that time they will become obsolete and a new technology will come about.

Price wars make a difference also, just look at the Game Console war. Wii has made a stand at #1 because the average person can say "Well they all play games but this one is cheaper...I will take 1 Wii please"




Sony Spinning Wheels with Deals?
By Mitch101 on 10/15/2007 1:03:42 PM , Rating: 2
More rumor but you will like this.

HD-DVD sales were closing in on Blue-Ray sales at Amazon.com and with a few exclusive releases coming soon for HD-DVD someone made a deal with Amazon to allow a 2 for 1 sale on Blue Ray titles hoping that they could show Blue Ray sales as growing/Mailtaining their ground against HD-DVD.

We all know that free movies are considered sales to the people who make up the charts. Interesting to see the Blue Ray coming up with this to try and offset the charts that HD-DVD might surpass Blue-Ray sales this month.




Just wonder...
By Tom Milhauz on 10/10/07, Rating: 0
and tomorrow...
By Gul Westfale on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: and tomorrow...
By Polynikes on 10/10/2007 1:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, first I see an article saying HDDVD is more popular, then another article says BD is selling better, now this. I wonder what the real numbers are.


RE: and tomorrow...
By PAPutzback on 10/10/2007 1:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think you are serious. This is one company renting both formats. Given, Netflix is huge but they are renting the discs and not selling them.

It is not a war people. It is French Toast and Pancakes, neither is going anywhere until the Ultimate Omellete arrives.

My Guess is that DVD is still out selling both.


RE: and tomorrow...
By mcnabney on 10/11/2007 6:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
DVD is outselling the new formats by about 500 to 1. Really.


RE: and tomorrow...
By Awax on 10/10/2007 2:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
you got it right :
* HD-DVD is POPULAR (= result from a poll)
* BluRay is selling better (= result from real $$$)

So, according to you, which article might be based on made up numbers no one will ever be able to double check ?


RE: and tomorrow...
By bhieb on 10/10/2007 3:28:14 PM , Rating: 1
The more important thing is...

NO ONE CARES!
(Well I guess the .3% of you do, but the other 99.7% of netflix customers are smart enough not to buy into this crap until prices come WAY down or there is a clear victor)


RE: and tomorrow...
By Gul Westfale on 10/10/2007 10:41:03 PM , Rating: 1
i'm not on either side of this ridiculous format war. my post was intended to be sarcastic, but i guess that is lost on some of you people. i find it dumb that every other day yet another "credible" source claims that one format is outselling the other; i'm still not buying a bluray or HD DVD drive until i can get a combo drive at a decent price. i also don't give a damn about which format wins, and there are three reasons for that:

1. both are better than DVD, but the jump in quality from DVD and the HD formats isn't nearly as big as the jump from VHS to DVD

2. in two years every player will be a combo player capable of playing every format. so who cares about what movie comes out on which format?

3. at some point they will just replace all this HD stuff with "ultra HD" and then there will be yet another format war... yawn. it is the movies that matter people, not the piece of plastic they come on.


It all makes sense
By gtrinku on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: It all makes sense
By DCstewieG on 10/10/2007 1:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly! In fact, you just described me. If I couldn't have gotten the 360 player for $200 and rent for no additional cost from NetFlix, I would still be watching DVDs.

Well, maybe I'd own a PS3. Maybe.


RE: It all makes sense
By JackBurton on 10/10/2007 1:21:46 PM , Rating: 5
If HD-DVD attracts the "cheap crowd", Blu-Ray obviously attracts the dumb uninformed crowd. Why would you pay $1000 for a player when you can get a top of the line HD-DVD player for half the cost and performs the same of better than the Blu-Ray counterpart. I wouldn't say the HD-DVD buyers are "cheap," I'd say they're smarter.

Oh yeah, us "cheap" people are going to be watching Transformers on our "cheap" HD players when it comes out on Oct 16th. What is the Blu-Ray crowd going to do if they want to watch it? Oh yeah, their Blu-ray players will become an overpriced DVD player since the DVD is all they'll be able to use. Nice. :)


RE: It all makes sense
By mars777 on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: It all makes sense
By JackBurton on 10/10/2007 2:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
Na, I didn't like Shrek, but I haven't seen Transformers yet. However, since I do have an HD-DVD player, I'll get a chance to watch it. I can't say the same for Blu-Ray owners.


RE: It all makes sense
By rockyct on 10/10/2007 3:28:49 PM , Rating: 2
Transformers would pretty much be at the bottom of the list of movies that would make me decide which HD player to buy. The movie was one long car commercial. I probably wouldn't watch it even if it came to both formats. Now movies like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars would influence my decision.


RE: It all makes sense
By Awax on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: It all makes sense
By Mitch101 on 10/10/2007 2:19:33 PM , Rating: 5
With only one exclusive game "Fall of Man" making the top games list that isnt enough to sell me on a PS3.

A friend of mine with his PS3 even says that the exclusive games for the PS3 fail to live up to the hype. If it werent for EA sports he would have sold it on e-bay by now.


RE: It all makes sense
By T4RTER S4UCE on 10/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: It all makes sense
By Mitch101 on 10/10/2007 4:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
Thats exactly what I think is keeping the PS3 sales down they need some good exclusive games that people can play and rave about. The problem is even that last one they overhyped the heck out of with the dragons turned into a flop.

Halo 3 caused a 55% console sales increase when it was released. A good Quality game for the PS3 could do the same but nothing really spectacular has arrived in a while.

I dont know what happened between the PS2 and PS3 but you can even see it with the Sony PSP. Good Gameplay is just missing from the Sony camp. Its not all about the high price of admission and the difficulty in programming.

The MGS series to me has always been lackluster. Looks great but never felt it was great gaming.

Cant count on UT3 as a PS3 saver. I think thats going to be on the 360 a few months later and I like FPS with the mouse so I will PC that one personally.

That leaves Killzone 2, Uncharted, R&C Future. They need more. Come on SONY where is the Magic? If they spend the rest of 2007 and 2008 like this they might as well start desinging the PS4 for an early launch. As of late I havent seen many PS3 commercials which is maybe a sign from the Sony camp.

Its so bad that I think everyone says the PS3 is a Cheap Blue Ray Player and it can play games. That means even PS3 owners think of the console as a Blue Ray machine first and a gaming console second. If you look at the 360 its a great gaming console and it can play HD-DVD's with an Add-On. Sounds like the 360 got gaming right and has the power to do other neat things.

I think this round goes to Microsoft and the Wii. Its ok to lose a round. Its not the end of the world as the PS2 was a tremendous game system and Microsoft and Nintedo were the runner ups there.


RE: It all makes sense
By BansheeX on 10/10/2007 8:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're emphasizing exclusives far too much. Most games are not exclusives, and 360 exclusives like Halo 3 are not going to dissuade me from getting a PS3 over it. Most great games are not exclusives: Oblivion, Orange Box, UT3, etc. Even though the games I'm interested in are indeed on the 360 as well, I then have to compare other aspects of the consoles to decide which is going to give me the best experience for non-exclusives and as a home entertainment center. The 360 is $100 cheaper, but it's also less reliable, noisier, costs more for netplay, has no linux for emulation, no replaceable hard drive, and comes with no built-in HD movie playback. For people like me who don't even have time to play 10% of the games I really want to, I'm not going to base my decision based on hyped up exclusives. But feel free to keep spelling doomsday for the PS3 when there are plenty of people like me who think before they buy and find the PS3 to be well worth buying even without these few exclusives you hold so dear.


RE: It all makes sense
By bplewis24 on 10/11/2007 2:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
Great post.

Brandon


RE: It all makes sense
By BladeVenom on 10/10/2007 6:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
Those games aren't out yet, so you can't really be sure how good they are going to be. All the PS3 owners told me Lair was the game that would make everyone on the fence go buy a PS3. We now see how that turned out.


RE: It all makes sense
By BansheeX on 10/11/2007 9:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
Oblivion is out already and performs better with less load times than the 360. And yeah, I'm really concerned that HL2 and UT3 are going to be flops because of Lair... And for every game that doesn't live up to the hype, there is one that comes out of nowhere and takes its place (Folklore).


RE: It all makes sense
By JackBurton on 10/10/2007 2:19:50 PM , Rating: 2
You're being "cheap" if you get a PS3 as your Blu-Ray player. The $1000 players offer a little sharper image than the PS3. Even the $500 Sony Blu-Ray player showed a slight PQ improvement over the PS3. So don't be so "cheap," get a real Blu-Ray player.


RE: It all makes sense
By michal1980 on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: It all makes sense
By JackBurton on 10/10/2007 4:54:30 PM , Rating: 5
Ok, first off, no, the PS3 is not one of the best Blu-Ray players out. If all I wanted to do was watch Blu-Ray movies, I wouldn't be picking up a PS3. Even the low end Sony BDP-S300 achieves a better picture than the PS3:

http://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2007/06...

The ONLY people that should be picking up a PS3, are the people that want to play PS3 games AND watch Blu-Ray movies, or college kids that just want the cheapest possible solution to play Blu-Ray movies. People seriously into getting the best picture quality from their Blu-Ray player will most likely buy a nice dedicated Blu-Ray player.

And LOL at your statement on the HD-A2's boot up time. You obviously haven't used one, and you obviously don't know what you're talking about. It's pretty quick.


RE: It all makes sense
By bplewis24 on 10/10/2007 6:54:22 PM , Rating: 4
I'm not at all surprised that you got rated UP(!) for spreading pure bull. Go over to AVS forums (where hi-end audio and videophiles have been buying the PS3 as their main blu-ray player for some time) and please learn something.

Brandon


RE: It all makes sense
By theapparition on 10/11/2007 8:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
I'll jump in here and say that the PS3 is a fine BR player. It is certainly not the very best, and it does get panned sometimes over at AVS forums for PQ versus high end units. I think some are just being overly critical, though. I doubt most people could notice any difference in PQ. There are also some who really think its the best. The PS3 definately gets the nod as best value for a BR player. For many, the PS3 is a great choice, even just for playing BR.

Now, for using the PS3 in a complete integrated home theater........it's totally unacceptable (my opinion). Lack of IR limits its usefullness in integrating it with other components. You should not have to pick up multiple remotes. This is exactly why I have separate standalone BR and HD-DVD players.

This HDMI 1.2 vs. 1.3 debate has to stop. Most at AVS forums can't tell the difference, and even if you have it, it doesn't mean it's going to be implemented. If you have an HDTV now, you have less than 1% chance that your TV supports 1.3 anyway. Your TV is likely to last far longer than your choice of player.

Is it best to pick up a better BR player that supports 1.3 vs. one that supports 1.2, of course it is, but not if it costs signifigantly more and you don't have any way to display it. In a year, all players will have HDMI 1.3, and cost half what they do now. The PS3 has 1.3, but that wouldn't sway me the least to buy it. It is somewhat upgradable, but who cares. By the time upgrades are available, there will be much better players at much cheaper prices.

Do you see where I'm going. You are all arguing about the lowest cog in the system. My 100" home theater projection setup cost 10X what my pioneer elite BR player cost. In a few years hybrid players will be sold on a pallete in the center isle of Wal-mart for a song, while my HDTV setup will last for many, many years. I'll probably go through 10 different players on the same system. If the player was the top component in the HomeTheater setup, I could understand such rabid dedication. But I consider such components as disposable, to upgrade when necessary.


RE: It all makes sense
By michal1980 on 10/10/2007 8:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
lol. did you even read that article? if thats your support, i'm sorry, i'll keep my negative post ratings because that article provide nothing, and if anything didn't make the low end sony blu-ray player sound good.

Hows this. ps3 has hdmi 1.3. that low end doesnt. almost everyone on avsforums that gets a ps3/ reviews one says its one of the best blu-ray players. Its the only one on the market that has the specs needed to be upgraded to future blu-ray profiles. (both profile 1.1 and above).

So when I say this. I mean it.

you are stupid, or just a sony basher because its cool, ethier way, your posts are worthless now


RE: It all makes sense
By JackBurton on 10/10/2007 9:23:20 PM , Rating: 1
Hey geniuses, I frequent avsforum, and I think BOTH of you guys need to go back and do the reading. Sony BDP-300 owners express the same thing I did, the Sony's BDP-300 has the better PQ compared to the PS3.

And I like how your willing to trade picture quality for future features (HDMI 1.3, BD-J). Jeez, what a bunch of morons. I never said the low end Sony Blu-Ray player was the best Blu-Ray player and had every feature. Why do you think it's the LOW end Blu-Ray player? My point was, even a LOW end dedicated Blu-Ray player matches or exceeds the PS3's Blu-Ray picture quality. So please quit with this, but, but, but, it doesn't have HDMI 1.3 or BD-J. What you're saying is, I'd rather have future supported features (which you most likely won't be using anyway since you probably won't have a compatible HDTV (HDMI 1.3) ) and sacrifice picture quality. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea. Like I said, if I wanted a quality Blu-Ray player that matches my QUALITY HDTV, I'd get a dedicated Blu-Ray player that could do it all. The best picture quality with the best features. In the Blu-Ray world, that will cost you quite a bit (the Pioneer Elite BDP-HD1 is ~$1500). In the HD-DVD world, it will cost you $505, TOPS.

And the only posts that are worthless here are yours. :P


RE: It all makes sense
By bplewis24 on 10/11/2007 5:11:41 AM , Rating: 2
I find it hard to fathom that you actually believe what you're typing. You are now trying to say a person is sacrificing picture quality if they buy the PS3. Not only that, but saying that the only blu-ray player that matches a quality TV is $1,500.00.

Your completely clueless remarks don't even justify responses anymore. The fact that you are resorting to flat out lying makes me regret even responding in the first place.

Good day,

Brandon


RE: It all makes sense
By JackBurton on 10/11/2007 10:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
You see what you want to see in my post. Yes, I did say you are sacrificing PQ when you go with a PS3 over a high end Blu-Ray player (take your own advise and go read up at avsforum). Is it significant enough for you to pay the extra money, well that is up to the person buying the player. But if I'm buying a Pioneer Elite 150FD and DON'T play games, I'm not buying a PS3. I'll buy a dedicated Blu-Ray player which most likely will cost more than the PS3. Why? Because I want the best possible PQ. And no, I didn't say the ONLY high end Blu-Ray player is the Pioneer Elite. I'll be getting the one that offers the best PQ, and supports updates for future features. It's as simple as that. And no, the PS3 is not one of them.

The only one clueless here is you. And you apparently have a reading comprehension problem. I'd work on that if I were you. Maybe you won't get confused as much in the future.


RE: It all makes sense
By michal1980 on 10/11/2007 6:58:35 AM , Rating: 1
Jack heres a line from Cnet. Probably one of the better review sourches: on your beloved cheap sony player

"To emphasize, the BDP-S300 isn't a better performer than other Blu-ray players, it's just that almost all high-def disc players perform very well when playing high-def discs. "

http://reviews.cnet.com/video-players-and-recorder...

So if the picture is the same. Then why would you not take all the other features of the ps3? including the speed of menus and features. The fact that its nearly future proof when it comes to blu-ray?

unless you need analog out for audio.. the ps3 is still one of the best players, and at its price, it is the best.


RE: It all makes sense
By JackBurton on 10/11/2007 10:45:10 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, I love this. First you tell me to go visit avsforum, and when I tell you they said the same thing I'm saying, you tell me to go read CNET. Now you're saying the PS3 is the best...in its price range (which I would agree with you).

Give it up man.


RE: It all makes sense
By BansheeX on 10/11/2007 10:10:39 AM , Rating: 3
If you think about this, it doesn't even make sense. This is not the DVD era where the motion and PQ quality of the movie is largely dependent on the quality of the deinterlacer chip in the player. HD MOVIES AREN'T INTERLACED. THEY'RE PROGRESSIVE. The PS3 is going to be perform virtually identically with any stand-alone, and any differences this idiot detected are subjective placebo induced hallucinations from his desire to believe that something which costs more must therefor perform better. Just like the dummies who go around saying gold, diamond-encrusted HDMI cable gives better PQ than a $5 one from China. If there is a disparity, it's probably performing some kind of superficial post-processing enhancement, not doing a better job at decoding.


RE: It all makes sense
By JackBurton on 10/11/2007 10:52:53 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, I guess the guys at avsforum that did a side by side comparison AND the link I posted all suffered from the same delusion. There are even picture quality improvement from a second gen HD-DVD player to the new third gen HD-DVD player. Hey, they should both produce the same PQ, they're both "PROGRESSIVE." What a moron.


RE: It all makes sense
By bplewis24 on 10/11/2007 2:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for infusing some sense into this discussion. I am on avs forum every single day, multiple times a day, and this gentleman is trying to state his opinion as generally accepted over there, something I KNOW is not true.

Also, your comments are dead on. The PQ in almost all of these current gen BD players are virtually identical. Many guys over at AVS are hardcore AV enthusiasts who are willing to buy many comparable products and then keep the one they like the most. And the opinion is usually the same: the PQ is identical with other features and convenience items (boot time, ir remote, etc) being the deciding factors.

I'm glad not everybody here is a moron.

Brandon


RE: It all makes sense
By bplewis24 on 10/10/2007 6:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
That is complete and utter hogwash. There are some other better blu-ray players out on the market NOW (a recent development) but it is still not because of a better picture, it's because of things like 5 channel analog outs and DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD bitstream output. Get your facts straight, please.

Brandon


RE: It all makes sense
By Awax on 10/11/2007 12:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
For HD source, I haven't verify the PS3 PQ against other BR players but for SD upscaling from DVD, the PS3 is the BEST player money can buy, how cheap the PS3 might be.
All people who bought the Denon 3930, a 1500€ piece of hardware playing DVDs only and also owning a PS3 have ALL sold their Denon.

The only downside people are talking about it the lack of 5.1 analog connection ... but anyway, we're living in an all digital world and your receiver is doing the decoding.


RE: It all makes sense
By Awax on 10/10/2007 2:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
bam ! you lose ! This is not a rental number but the result from an online poll.


RE: It all makes sense
By Locutus465 on 10/10/2007 5:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
I hope you're not trying to put down HD-DVD owners (like me) for being price contious... Because really, blueray has zero technical advantage over hd-dvd.... We're not talking beta v. vhs here, in that case beta was a better (but pricier) product and cheap just happend to win... In this case, as far as the movie going consumer is conserned, there is absolutly zero difference other than cost...

Perhaps if it was your intent to put down HD consumers for buying an equally as good product at a significantly better price point, you should consider finding other ways to try an prop up your ego... Become a PC home builder enthusiest or something...


RE: It all makes sense
By gtrinku on 10/10/2007 7:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry if you felt offended by my previous post, it's just that since HD-DVD backers always use price point as an argument, that's the first thing that came to my mind as a plausible explanation.


RE: It all makes sense
By Locutus465 on 10/10/2007 10:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yes price is important... It doesn't mean that HD-DVD owners are cheap, just that we're not stupid... Why am would anyone spend more money on a product which isn't any better than the HD-DVD option? I mean really, there's being willing to pay a premium for a better product, and then there's just plain old stupidity. The only reason to by BD over HD is if it just so happens that BD exlusive movies are that much more appealing to you than HD-DVD available/exclusive movies. It just so happens for me that besides Pirates, HD has most of what I want.


RE: It all makes sense
By BansheeX on 10/10/2007 9:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhhh, the outcome of beta vs vhs has no correlation here. If anything, bringing that up supports the blu-ray camp because betamax lost due to lower recording time (today's capacity).

Blu-ray's technological advantages over HD-DVD are there. It is more robust and stores 50% more data per layer, very important for when burning these becomes affordable, and it will. Higher capacity also means more disc space for extras, higher bitrates, less disc swappage for TV shows, etc. For what is supposed to be the format that will last us the next 20 years, you may want to realize how losing all of that will not be worth buying into the temporary price advantage that HD-DVD holds.


RE: It all makes sense
By Locutus465 on 10/10/2007 10:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
Intersting post... Since I specifically stated this is not beta v. vhs... Beta was technically superior, recording times where not the only reason Sony lost... A major reason (which is at least one thing sony has seemingly corrected this time) was a desire to completly control the format, yet another was price. The one (major) problem BD shares with betamax is price, it's expensive... People just don't want to be forced into paying that much of a premium to watch a movie...

Thus far the cheapest BD player I've seen is just the tinyest smidge under $500 (standalone). And honestly I'm not sure if that was a normal or closeout price (I didn't investigate much since $500 is still too expensive). Normal price of the Toshiba A2 DVD player is $250.

Honestly, I hate to have to say it but there really isn't a whole lot of anything you can do with a BD system that an HD system can't do. Yes BD holds more data, but that isn't going to mean much for movies... Already you have HD-DVD titles coming out with better speacial features for no reason other than Sony was unable to finalize the specs for equivilent BD features (eventually this advantage will go away, but it's there now for the HD camp).


RE: It all makes sense
By theapparition on 10/11/2007 8:19:29 AM , Rating: 2
Beta didn't lose because of lower recording time. It lost because you couldn't record a whole 2hr movie on 1 tape. People saw this as unacceptable. Some may think that's splitting hairs, but its not. What matters in the end is the "task" and cost.

People want to be able to watch/record an entire movie on 1 disc (the task) and they want it to be cheap. Actual specifications being better here or there don't matter. It's the end result that matters. Both formats are very competitive in this reguard.


Hmmm ....
By deeznuts on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: Hmmm ....
By aGreenAgent on 10/10/2007 12:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
At my local B&M blockbuster, they have a pretty decent size HD-DVD section, and almost no Blu-Ray discs. Works for me, since there are no online HD-DVD rentals.


RE: Hmmm ....
By deeznuts on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: Hmmm ....
By mikeyD95125 on 10/10/2007 10:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. Ratings should be based on the intelligence on the post and whether the poster is using truthful well researched info, not whether you agree with post. People often spout non-sense numbers and get a away with.


RE: Hmmm ....
By erikejw on 10/11/2007 5:09:34 AM , Rating: 3
Come on.
All HDDVD and XBOX fanboys rate down everyone who says something about PS3 or Bluray no matter what it is.

It has been like this for a long long time.
No news here, oh and to confirm this this post will be -1 very soon.


RE: Hmmm ....
By Awax on 10/10/2007 2:05:26 PM , Rating: 4
"Online rentals at Netflix HD DVD wins"

They never said that : they said that HD-DVD was more POPULAR, as in a poll.


RE: Hmmm ....
By bplewis24 on 10/10/2007 3:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely correct. In fact, I think very few people actually read the original source of this information. People should, because this DailyTech article would (mis)lead you to believe that rental statistics show that HD DVD is out-renting BDs by a 2:1 clip. By specifically referencing the trend for BD sales to be higher at retail and then saying that "trend is reversed" at the rental outlets, it makes it appear that the data suggests HD DVD has a higher volume of rentals (which wouldn't be all that far-fetched if you consider the Blockbuster situation).

But that data is nowhere to be found. The data on the chart in the source article merely states that of people who have browsed the HD DVD/Blu-ray section, more of those people have set their High Definition rental preference to HD DVD as opposed to Blu-ray.

While that does justify saying that it is "more popular" that still tells us absolutely nothing about the actual volume of HD DVD vs Blu-ray rentals. It is just as possible that a person with an HD DVD preference is renting out more Blu-rays than HD DVDs as it is that he's renting out all HD DVDs and no Blu-rays at all.

The sad thing about this "war" is that whenever statistics are shown to "prove" one side is winning--and it's usually the HD DVD Promotional Group--the statistics are mere manipulations of data and nothing more.

Brandon


RE: Hmmm ....
By Oregonian2 on 10/10/2007 3:39:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It is just as possible that a person with an HD DVD preference is renting out more Blu-rays than HD DVDs as it is that he's renting out all HD DVDs and no Blu-rays at all.


I think that's pretty unlikely. Picking one's preference in Netflix isn't completely random and without meaning as you suggest.


RE: Hmmm ....
By bplewis24 on 10/10/2007 7:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
You may think it's unlikely, but see a comment just a few places below from a real-world example:

http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=9202&...

Do you still think it's unlikely? I never ever said it is completely random. I said it is hollow. Think about it, how many people are there out there with both HD DVD players and Blu ray players? This article is the equivalent of asking "hey, since you have both, which format would you prefer to rent your movies in?" If a person says "I'd rent the HD DVD version," then it logs in the HD DVD tally. If movies don't come in both formats, that information is completely irrelevant. If that person coincidentally is interested in movies that aren't available in HD DVD, that information is completely irrelevant. And lastly, if that person isn't interested in BUYING the HD DVD version, then the information is pretty hollow.

Once again, I never said the information on preference was random, and if you see the real life example below and still think it's unlikely, more power to you.

Brandon


RE: Hmmm ....
By Oregonian2 on 10/10/2007 7:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, I still think you are wrong. You had said:

quote:
It is just as possible that a person with an HD DVD preference is renting out more Blu-rays than HD DVDs as it is that he's renting out all HD DVDs and no Blu-rays at all.


Had you said that it "is possible that..." I'd say fine. But you said that it's "just as possible" and that I think is incorrect. I don't think those two situations are equally possible. You are saying that the choice between the two formats on Netflix has no statistical correlation whatsoever to format preference. I find that hard to believe. Given my presumption that the majority of current high-def player owners don't own the ability to play both formats (this hopefully will change in time) that the selection within Netflix will be the format of choice substantially more often than it's not.

P.S. - And yes, I've been a Netflix customer for years but haven't chosen because I don't care yet.

P.P.S. - And yes, w/o actual rental numbers it's a poll of sorts. But what's wrong with a poll of active DVD renting persons (which is what Netflix customers are) ? Seems like the perfect focussed group to do a poll on!


RE: Hmmm ....
By bplewis24 on 10/11/2007 5:31:08 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think there's anything wrong with a poll, per se. Polls are only harmless when people try and use them to mislead other folks by making them out to be more significant than they are.

Anyhow, yes, I do think it is just as possible as my original statement indicated. I know a lot of folks who buy both formats. Some who originally supported HD DVD exclusively and now buy Blu-ray as well, and vice versa.

So I fully believe that there are just as many people who buy both, yet buy more Blu-rays as their are people who only buy HD-DVD exclusively. In fact in almost every case I know of personally this is true. How else do you explain the YTD stats? I have no reason to believe renting is any different, especially when you factor in the component that Netflix forces people to select a default value.

Now, we already have one example that posted a comment on this very article. So I can only assume that you are suggesting that that person--and that situation--is in the minority. Would that be a fair assumption? Obviously there's no real way to prove one way or the other, but the fact that multi format releases have continually favored Blu-ray while attach rate favors HD-DVD keeps me pretty confident that my original statement can hold true.

Brandon


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









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