Jace Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 As with every other battle like this (beta vs vhs), there will eventually only be one winner with the loser being phased out completely. Betamax still exists and is used extensively in television production. That could also be the fate of Blu-Ray, given its greater storage capacity.
Guest Posted October 18, 2006 Posted October 18, 2006 Betamax still exists and is used extensively in television production. That could also be the fate of Blu-Ray, given its greater storage capacity. So long as we're talking general television production as in world-wide, as even here in Oz our broadcasters seem to enjoy using the lowest availabel bandwidth etc etc
Raja Posted October 23, 2006 Posted October 23, 2006 Sony Blu-ray player delayed again http://www.electronichouse.com/columns/products/16151.html
The_Preacher1973 Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 Sony Blu-ray player delayed againhttp://www.electronichouse.com/columns/products/16151.html Ouch. And just to add another kick to the format, check out the reults of the Ipsos-Vantis survey: Consumers were asked to repond to the question twice, answer (a) refers to what they would do if all the studios supported both formats and answer ( refers to what they would do if there was split studio support (as there is now). In response to the question, "Which statement best describes how likely you would be to buy an HD-DVD/Blu Ray player" the results were as follows: (a) 57% would definitely or probably buy an HD DVD player versus 8% for Blu Ray. ( 25% would definitely or probably buy an HD DVD player versus 2% for Blu Ray. While the results look promising for HD-DVD, you can still see that the format war is costing both sides dearly. Who would have predicted that?
djOS Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 I read somewhere today (sorry cant remember where) that in the US HD-DVD movies are out-selling BluRay titles 3:1 atm.
Mike Kakay Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 You know what, Joe Schmoe is always going to say; huh , when you mention Blu-Ray (why omit the 'e' in 'blue', anyway? ) Mention HD-DVD and he will instantly recognise 'High Definition DVD'. Go figure Sony.
TommyGNR Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 Ouch. And just to add another kick to the format, check out the reults of the Ipsos-Vantis survey:Consumers were asked to repond to the question twice, answer (a) refers to what they would do if all the studios supported both formats and answer ( refers to what they would do if there was split studio support (as there is now). In response to the question, "Which statement best describes how likely you would be to buy an HD-DVD/Blu Ray player" the results were as follows: (a) 57% would definitely or probably buy an HD DVD player versus 8% for Blu Ray. ( 25% would definitely or probably buy an HD DVD player versus 2% for Blu Ray. While the results look promising for HD-DVD, you can still see that the format war is costing both sides dearly. Who would have predicted that? Take that survey with a grain of salt. It was conducted in late June/ early July and the data given to respondents was guesstimated with regards to title availability/price and player availability/price. A far more helpful survey would be one conducted over late November/ early December, just before the big Christmas retail boom and with much more up to date information. You know what, Joe Schmoe is always going to say; huh , when you mention Blu-Ray (why omit the 'e' in 'blue', anyway? ) Mention HD-DVD and he will instantly recognise 'High Definition DVD'.Go figure Sony. What did Joe Schmoe say to DVD when he had been watching VHS for 15 years. "Here sir, buy this new fangled DVD player, it's better than VHS on your curved screen 15 year old TV being fed signal over RF because it CAN'T record TV, unlike your trusty old VCR. Oh, and it's 3 times the price"
Guest Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 "Here sir, buy this new fangled DVD player, it's better than VHS on your curved screen 15 year old TV running being fed signal over RF because it CAN'T record TV, unlike your trusty old VCR. Oh, and it's 3 times the price" Very true, only this time HD-DVD is hardly even close to 3 times the price. Cheaper than some mid-priced DVD players. Here is a product that has evolved from DVD at a realistic price point.
momaw Posted October 25, 2006 Posted October 25, 2006 Take that survey with a grain of salt. It was conducted in late June/ early July and the data given to respondents was guesstimated with regards to title availability/price and player availability/price. A far more helpful survey would be one conducted over late November/ early December, just before the big Christmas retail boom and with much more up to date information. I think you'll get that wish, only instead of a survey it will be called sales statistics.
franin Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 I went to Harvey Norman today to see the blu-ray in action, I have to admit the samsung lcd they displayed it on did not give the blu-ray any justice at all.It was grainy and very untidy.Now I know it was not the blu ray player but the lcd itself.Very bad picture, they should of used a high end dlp projecter( has to be calibrated) and then they would shown what blu-ray is really about.
betty boop Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 I went to Harvey Norman today to see the blu-ray in action, I have to admit the samsung lcd they displayed it on did not give the blu-ray any justice at all.It was grainy and very untidy.Now I know it was not the blu ray player but the lcd itself.Very bad picture, they should of used a high end dlp projecter( has to be calibrated) and then they would shown what blu-ray is really about. yeah franin, I pretty much think so too, either the poxy display, or its settings or perhaps maybe even source material. could be quite liekly the source material is a bit scratchy. I mean I know what the tosh hd-dvd can achive on my hitachi panel I wouldnt be accepting any less wiht another panel twice the price and with a full 1920x1080i/p? capability
betty boop Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 hmm pana blu-ray vs ps3 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=755377 nice speakers & sub ! hehehe doesnt really seem too complemetary of the pana ! the guy also has a tosh hd-ax1 I notice in the background. interestingly says hd-dvd PQ is better than blu-ray via pana but blu-ray audio is better. interesting too says ps3 is a good blu-ray player as good as the pana but average on games ? not sure if another valid user review but another one it is...
franin Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 yeah franin, I pretty much think so too, either the poxy display, or its settings or perhaps maybe even source material. could be quite liekly the source material is a bit scratchy. I mean I know what the tosh hd-dvd can achive on my hitachi panel I wouldnt be accepting any less wiht another panel twice the price and with a full 1920x1080i/p? capability the guy reckons (which I think not) it was playing on a 1080p lcd panel using the full 1080p.Most of these guys at these shops don't know what there talking about.I askesd if it had a decoder and he replied" yes it can play mp3 and WMA". I took my daughter and left.Do you own a Blu-ray alebonau?
betty boop Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 the guy reckons (which I think not) it was playing on a 1080p lcd panel using the full 1080p.Most of these guys at these shops don't know what there talking about.I askesd if it had a decoder and he replied" yes it can play mp3 and WMA". I took my daughter and left.Do you own a Blu-ray alebonau? yeah the retailer knowledge on these new things is pathetic really. nah I've got a tosh hd-ax1 franin
franin Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 yeah the retailer knowledge on these new things is pathetic really.nah I've got a tosh hd-ax1 franin Is Blu-ray audio is better than HD audio?
betty boop Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 Is Blu-ray audio is better than HD audio? what do you mean by HD-audio, presume you mean hd-dvd audio ? wouldnt have a clue havent compared both, I see no reason why theyd be different given the audio cpabilities. at present more hd-dvd discs with ddplus and solby truehd whereas last time I looked apart from two blu-rays most others were jsut pcm 5.1 which reportedly can be very low bit rate and probably no different than whats on dvd. Dont think therye fully utilising the audio capabilities of either format. as time goes on things might change, well hopefully they do.
RodN Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 last time I looked apart from two blu-rays most others were jsut pcm 5.1 All too soon memory fades.... http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?s=&...st&p=529495
cwt Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 All too soon memory fades.... http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?s=&...st&p=529495 Good discs nobby; Its too bad the dts hd/ dd true hd arent mandatory on blu ray .It will be interesting if the panasonic dts hd upgrade includes the master codec. In any case 8 channel sound is what Al and I want to hear.I get the idea that the bit rate on the compressed lossless codecs is so high you wouldnt tell the difference from an uncompressed lpcm bitstream.Not to mention the disc space saved by using dts hd/dd true. Until bluray gets its 5o gig discs out the 25 versus 30 for hd dvd is 5 gigs hd dvd can use for better sound and/or picture - Dont know which
betty boop Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 All too soon memory fades.... http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?s=&...st&p=529495 memory fades ? ? What I posted nobby in regards the present ! . what you posted is 'coming soon' and it is still 'coming soon' as far as I know. if theyre out already great ! and yeah I for one sure would like to see more titles 'coming soon' on both formats utilising the full audio capabilities of either format. still nothing even on the horizon with truehd or dts-HD master in 7.1 not that any of hte players either format have that cpability anyways Good discs nobby; Its too bad the dts hd/ dd true hd arent mandatory on blu ray .It will be interesting if the panasonic dts hd upgrade includes the master codec. In any case 8 channel sound is what Al and I want to hear.I get the idea that the bit rate on the compressed lossless codecs is so high you wouldnt tell the difference from an uncompressed lpcm bitstream.Not to mention the disc space saved by using dts hd/dd true.Until bluray gets its 5o gig discs out the 25 versus 30 for hd dvd is 5 gigs hd dvd can use for better sound and/or picture - Dont know which exactly got it in one !
Jace Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 what do you mean by HD-audio, presume you mean hd-dvd audio ?wouldnt have a clue havent compared both, I see no reason why theyd be different given the audio cpabilities. at present more hd-dvd discs with ddplus and solby truehd whereas last time I looked apart from two blu-rays most others were jsut pcm 5.1 which reportedly can be very low bit rate and probably no different than whats on dvd. Dont think therye fully utilising the audio capabilities of either format. as time goes on things might change, well hopefully they do. "Just PCM 5.1"? PCM 5.1 on Blu-Ray is uncompressed. Easily the equal of Dolby TrueHD on my system. And there are far more Blu-Ray titles with uncompressed 5.1 than HD DVDs with TrueHD. All my Sony and Disney titles have an uncompressed PCM track, whereas only a few Warners titles have TrueHD.
betty boop Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 "Just PCM 5.1"? PCM 5.1 on Blu-Ray is uncompressed. Easily the equal of Dolby TrueHD on my system. And there are far more Blu-Ray titles with uncompressed 5.1 than HD DVDs with TrueHD. All my Sony and Disney titles have an uncompressed PCM track, whereas only a few Warners titles have TrueHD. I think you'll find if you go and read the hi-def digest reviews the so called pcm 5.1 tracks have been reported as just 16-32bit 48khz ! no better than what dvd is able of unfortunately. perhaps the space restriction on blu-ray initially is an issue to make sure enough space to fit adequate picture ?. no doubt somethign that will improve in time. as nobby posted too a lot more titles coming out with dts-HD master in blu-ray which is encouraging. Heaps of HD-DVDs actually with dolby digital plus which is quite a jump up from dvd in capability. though yeah on neither format seen nothing with 7.1 which is very dissapointing.
Jace Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 I think you'll find if you go and read the hi-def digest reviews the so called pcm 5.1 tracks have been reported as just 16-32bit 48khz ! no better than what dvd is able of unfortunately. perhaps the space restriction on blu-ray initially is an issue to make sure enough space to fit adequate picture ?. no doubt somethign that will improve in time. as nobby posted too a lot more titles coming out with dts-HD master in blu-ray which is encouraging. Heaps of HD-DVDs actually with dolby digital plus which is quite a jump up from dvd in capability. though yeah on neither format seen nothing with 7.1 which is very dissapointing. I actually have a Blu-Ray player and an HD DVD and I know what my ears hear. The reviews of Blu-Ray titles with PCM tracks bear this out if you remain sceptical. These tracks are uncompressed and are easily the equal of the True HD tracks I have listened to on V fro Vendetta and Batman Begins. Both are far superior to standard DD tracks. And whilst ALL HD DVDs have DD Plus tracks (it is a required standard of HD DVD), these are not the same as uncompressed PCM or True HD or DTS HD.
Guest Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 I actually have a Blu-Ray player and an HD DVD and I know what my ears hear. It may sound good, but as AL says, they are still 16-32bit 48khz.
Jace Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 It may sound good, but as AL says, they are still 16-32bit 48khz. And? If that's all it takes for an uncompressed PCM track to sound as good as it does, then that's fine by me. True HD sounds no better, so it's either using the same bitrate or is less efficient than PCM. Until you actually hear the PCM track, you're really not in a position to pass judgement on it, certainly not to say "it's no better than DVD".
betty boop Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 And? If that's all it takes for an uncompressed PCM track to sound as good as it does, then that's fine by me. True HD sounds no better, so it's either using the same bitrate or is less efficient than PCM. Until you actually hear the PCM track, you're really not in a position to pass judgement on it, certainly not to say "it's no better than DVD". thats interesting jace. what discs and what formats did you compare on either machine that you noticed this on ? you are comparing trueHD track on which disc vs the 5.1 pcm track on which disc ?. have you compared it with the DVD ? what aspects are better ? and fair enough 16-32bit 48khz might be 'fine by you' and no problems with that, the new hidef formats are certainly capable of a lot more though. I am keenly interested in the SQ benefits of the new formats.
Recommended Posts