3

1/16/2007 12:49:03 PM

Um, the leap from physical media to downloaded isn't near the leap from driven to flying cars you dipshit.

1/16/2007 12:52:56 PM

Yeah, cuz pretty soon, EVERYONE is going to be wanting to download 45GB worth of data to watch a single movie. Keep digging.

1/16/2007 12:56:14 PM

Fiber to the home isn't that far away.

1/16/2007 1:09:23 PM

arent there large scale (single city) tests running in a few areas for fiber?

1/16/2007 1:10:41 PM

they have been for a couple years now...


I'm still waiting.

1/16/2007 1:12:12 PM

Prince Georges county, MD already has fiber. Montgomery County, where I live, will by the end of the year. Comcast will give everyone speeds around 18Mbs. Also, Verizon is moving in and will offer FiOS TV and internet speeds up to 30Mbs.



http://tinyurl.com/w9qtk

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 1:53 PM. Reason : sorry bout the first link]

1/16/2007 1:52:20 PM

Quote :

"learn to think for yourselves people."

Does that include choosing one of two options the industry is trying to force on an unwilling consumer base? Cause I'd rather think for myself and chose neither.

$10 more per movie than I'm already paying with little to no perceived benefit unless I upgrade my TV to the tune of a grand. I'll do what everyone else I know is doing... I'll just wait.

1/16/2007 2:23:35 PM

$10 more per movie if you're a dipshit that pays retail.


The most expensive Blu-Ray I've bought has cost me $15. I own 13.


oh, and I'm completely willing. I like HD. It's glorious.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 2:46 PM. Reason : df]

1/16/2007 2:45:52 PM

Quote :

"The most expensive Blu-Ray I've bought has cost me $15. I own 13"

Something tells me that you can buy DVDs for $5 as well, which still makes HD-DVD/Blu-ray $10 more/disk.

1/16/2007 3:00:01 PM

one thing the general consumer is going to pay attention to, which is obvious, is price. the winner of this battle is going to be who can supply the cheaper players amongst multiple companies. if people have options on lower priced players, consumers will support that. right now that is HD dvd. plus onkyo announced that they will release a player sometime this year, that will help hd dvd (assumming its not going to be super expensive, unlike the meridian player coming out for $3k)

the cheapest blu-ray player is the samsung for $800 which plays video up to 1080p. toshiba just came out with a 1080p for $600, the HD-A20 i think it was.

price of dvd's doesnt matter really cause they seem to be about the same right now.

check out this video comparison between blu-ray, hd dvd, and dvd upconversion. interesting.
http://tinyurl.com/ym2xzp

also i honestly think this whole war is really only for the rich people, who dont care which format wins cause they have money, and the people who are into home theater. most of the general public is thinking "shit, a new technology thats ridiculously expensive, i'll just continue buying current dvds and wait until all the prices drop"

1/16/2007 3:09:06 PM

A $550 blu-ray player: http://www.pricegrabber.com/user_sales_getprod.php/masterid=29440533/lot_id=4166525/mode=googleff/

1/16/2007 3:16:59 PM

Quote :

"Something tells me that you can buy DVDs for $5 as well, which still makes HD-DVD/Blu-ray $10 more/disk."

Holy internet burns, Batman!

1/16/2007 3:17:16 PM

After glancing at those pics for about 5 minutes, I don't think I'll be buying HD or BD anytime in the near future. I didn't realize an upconverted DVD looked so good.

1/16/2007 3:19:37 PM

^maybe because it doesn't.

1/16/2007 3:26:06 PM

here's the thing about upconverted DVD screenshots:


(STILL) screenshots look great, but in motion it doesn't even come close to a proper HD movie. The large sweeping panoramic shots are always the ones that make you think "wow, this HD shit kicks ass".

1/16/2007 3:33:13 PM

the cheapest, and best, Blu-Ray player out right now is the PS3 according to most

HD-DVD just released a triple-layer 51GB version recently so they are back to being pretty even

Blu-Ray has 8-layer 200GB disks planned for later this year though so who knows how it'll turn out

1/16/2007 4:35:00 PM

ok, question for those that would know more than me about this, which would probably be most people here...my friend got a ps3 a few days ago and got stargate on blu-ray. put it in and the intro stuff that were made for the blu-ray disc looked fantastic, the colors were very vibrant and the picture was sharp, but the movie looked like a normal DVD in an upconvert DVD player. the colors were not very sharp or clear, and there was some obvious grainyness in the picture, especially in darker areas. he said he thought it was because it was an older movie that wasn't shot digitally, but should older movies look like that?

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 4:40 PM. Reason : *]

1/16/2007 4:39:12 PM

depends on how much digital postprocessing they do before shoving it on the disk

1/16/2007 4:43:30 PM

^^graininess is inherent in a lot of transfers... as in, it is INTENDED.

also, with blu-ray / hd-dvd you really need to check reviews before you buy. The quality of the transfers ranges from spectacular to craptastic.

1/16/2007 4:46:49 PM

compare anything to the corpse bride on hd-dvd...that's the most flawless transfer i've ever seen (check the reviews)

1/16/2007 5:11:24 PM

in addition to spending a shitload of money for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, now you have to keep abreast of the reviews of the quality of the transfer as well?

Between that and the shit ton of competing display technologies, cabling types, connectors, and the various overabundance of "choice" entertainment has become a lot of fucking work./]]

1/16/2007 6:04:00 PM

yeah because clicking the review tab on amazon or whatever vendor you use is REALLY time consuming

1/16/2007 6:17:01 PM

every time i want to buy a DVD?

no thanks.

1/16/2007 6:46:06 PM

i usually check reviews anyway...i don't check for every movie though...i think most (savvy) consumers take advantage of what knowledge is out there (reviews, lowest price, etc)

1/16/2007 7:02:07 PM

Quote :

"^^graininess is inherent in a lot of transfers... as in, it is INTENDED."

You're aware that the words "inherent" and "intended" do not mean the same thing, right?

Quote :

"i usually check reviews anyway...i don't check for every movie though...i think most (savvy) consumers take advantage of what knowledge is out there (reviews, lowest price, etc)"

Yes, but with normal DVDs, it's fairly rare that one is going to risk throwing down $30 on a shitty transfer of a movie when that transfer is far and away the reason for the price point.

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 7:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 7:04:19 PM

Quote :

"Fiber to the home isn't that far away."

It is available in many places just unfortunatly not raleigh. I long for the day i see a product ive helped design on a house in raleigh for the faster downloading of porn / hd movies.

Why is it again that this fanatik dipshit cant fathom the streaming of 45GB over 3 hours?

[Edited on January 16, 2007 at 7:28 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2007 7:25:51 PM

thanks for the reply...gotta say, i'm a little dissapointed that you can spend all that money for a HD player, only to have movies look no better than an upconverted DVD because of a shitty transfer. i hope that most of the crappy transfers have more to do with trying to get movies on the shelf quickly and do not indicate how the movies will be once a medium is more mainstream.

1/16/2007 9:07:03 PM

Quote :

"yeah because clicking the review tab on amazon or whatever vendor you use is REALLY time consuming"

when i want to buy a movie, all i want to need to know is whether it's a good movie. i don't want to have to review the quality of the media i buy the movie on.

so until more classic movies are shot on digital film that will transfer natively to an HD-caliber format? no sir, not worth it [to me].

1/17/2007 12:58:34 AM

personally i think dvd's are all anyone should need

1/17/2007 9:09:41 AM

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=pcmcat110300050004&type=category&ref=39&loc=01

1/17/2007 12:47:45 PM

i have 8 or so hd dvds and all are great pq and sound...even blazing saddles

1/17/2007 1:36:19 PM

it's cute how a couple of you tech talk nerds have such a hard on for me.

1/18/2007 12:05:40 PM

No one has a "hard on" for you. You just make yourself an easy target.

1/18/2007 12:19:24 PM

i think i'm going to have both so i don't really care...
hd-dvd in the xbox blu-ray in the ps3 (once the new grand tourismo comes out) and a blu-ray recorder in the htpc.

1/18/2007 12:22:04 PM

Quote :

"personally i think dvd's are all anyone should need"

i feel the same way about 640k of memory.

1/18/2007 12:47:34 PM

my 2nd computer had 4 gigs of hd... and i thought "i will never fill this up"

1/18/2007 1:17:08 PM

Quote :

"yeah, since when does the general public actually buy the "best" product?"

For real. I'd much rather have the cheapest product than the best. Such as Nintendo gamecube, which made more money than the PS2 and XBox. Also, this Christmas, the PS2 had more sales than the PS3 and Xbox360 combined.

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 1:38 PM. Reason : ?]

1/18/2007 1:26:26 PM

^just quit tww now

NINTENDO DREAMCAST come on man...

1/18/2007 1:29:42 PM

I have HD-DVD with my 360 and a Blu Ray in my PS3.

I must say, I like HD-DVD better so far. But, I think Blu Ray could eventually be better.

I have the following titles though, so maybe im pickin the wrong movies:

HD-DVD:

Casino
Happy Gilmore
Batman Begins
King Kong
The Thing
Apollo 13
Poseidon


Blu-Ray:

Rocky
Training Day
Talladega Nights
Terminator 2
World Trade Center

1/18/2007 1:33:01 PM

Why did you buy Happy Gilmore in HD?

Don't get me wrong, I like the movie and I'm sure it looks great, but I don't understand the appeal of owning comedies (which I'm going to guess you already owned) in an expensive format.

1/18/2007 2:07:02 PM

i'm kind of surprised no one has said more about the 51gb hd-dvd BigMan157 mentioned...as mentioned before, the quality of the individual movies depends mainly on transfer, not on capacity...as both hd-dvd and blu-ray can have crappy transfer, then the only difference is capacity...since the 51gb hd-dvd has already been released (as opposed to promises of a 3-layer 75gb blu-ray later this year), doesn't that trump a 50gb blu-ray?

ritek says they've developed a 10-layer for both hd-dvd and blu-ray (150gb/250gb), but that the current lasers aren't powerful enough to do all 10 layers

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Toshiba-Presents-the-Three-Layer-HD-DVD-44273.shtml

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 2:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2007 2:21:43 PM

^^the whole movie is pretty much outdoor. It is one of the best-looking HD titles.

1/18/2007 2:28:23 PM

^^That sounds eerily like the battle between gillette and shick as to who can put the most blades on a razor.

[Edited on January 18, 2007 at 2:29 PM. Reason : asdg]

1/18/2007 2:28:43 PM

I dunno why thay are trumpeting layers. They did the same thing with DVD and you'll still can't get an inexpensive dual layer disk to burn.

1/18/2007 2:31:10 PM

as someone said earlier if ps3 butchers blu-ray like ps2 did dvd...
i wouldn't be supprised if dvds looked better on an upconverting dvd player

1/18/2007 2:49:12 PM

^incorrect. My dvds look better on my ps3 than on my hdmi dvd player. Also, the blu ray player in the ps3 is a good one.

1/18/2007 3:04:32 PM

^The DVD players is what MADE the PS2 successful in Japan. Or was it that it fueled a new industry in Japan? Eh, can't remember. Either way, the DVD player was huge.

Bad comparison.

1/18/2007 3:25:42 PM

You've been drinking the Sony kool aid. DVD was well on it way before Sony started putting them in PS2s.

1/18/2007 3:27:04 PM

Quote :

"^incorrect. My dvds look better on my ps3 than on my hdmi dvd player. Also, the blu ray player in the ps3 is a good one."

no shit.. its setup to handle the bandwidth of 1080p i sure hope your ps3 can play a dvd well.
but side by side ps2 playing a dvd vs a progressive scan dvd player... the ps2 looked like hell.
but indeed it would play them and it did look better than vhs.

1/18/2007 4:09:14 PM