Keep in mind that CES is going on today and Sony and Microsoft have their keynotes. Curious to see if either of them talk about the Warner merger and the HD formats.

HD-DVD reached 750,000 players sold. The State Of HD DVD: The State of HD DVD

HD-DVD standalone players outsold Blu. HD DVD players lead in HD sales - DVDTOWN.com

And there was a LOT of rumormongering that at CES, Warner was gonna go HD exclusive and Fox was gonna go neutral. Thank goodness Sony swooped in with their moneyhats and put a stop to all that nonsense.

And I certainly don't hate Sony. I have over 100 PS2 titles, more than I own for any other system. I just feel kinda kicked in the balls when they seem to claim that all those titles I bought earlier aren't worth playing in their precious PS3, as evidenced by the slow removal of backwards compatibility from their consoles.

(BTW, the word is that Warner costed over $600 million to grab for Blu. So yeah, that's one hell of a moneyhat.)

Fuck! I knew I was falling for a trick. Extrapolating from an argument makes an extra out of you, and lating out of me. Or something.

It think it started at the very beginning. Read again carefully what he wrote. If he's into movies, he doesn't have to buy a PS3. And yet he had to mention it. So who's really to blame here?

Blu-ray standalones cost just as much as a damn PS3. It simply would be STUPID to not buy one.

And I just found this tidbit (Spider-Man 3 swings strong sales - 11/2/2007 - Video Business)

Transformers BROKE SALES RECORDS FOR HD (HDDVD.com - Your HD DVD Resource » Blog Archive » Transformers Sets HD Sales Record) and still beat Spider-Man 3 two weeks later (Spider-Man 3 swings strong sales - 11/2/2007 - Video Business)

Roll-fucking-eyes. It's clear that you hold a bias against either Blu-ray or Sony, or probably both. I mean, look at the reasons you listed for 'hating' an information storage medium. Dumb name? Dumb packaging? Hate the PS3? Holy shit, could you find something more irrelevant? The only semi-valid reason you listed is region protection, though even that is not going to affect more a tiny fraction of customers.

And please stop using the word 'moneyhats' to criticise a corporation if you want anyone to take you seriously.

If your spin cycle is set to "desperation"...I think you better quit while you're ahead.

Please tell me I don't need to explain to you the concept of one movie vs all movies in terms of sales. Please.

Um, having crappy player requirements isn't a reason to dislike Blu-Ray? And most of that was a rant I wrote at 3 in the morning after the internet declares a winner is Blu-ray.

So in conclusion, JasonTerminator, as an HD-DVD owner, enjoys anal sex.

Did anyone mention that New Line also became Blu-ray exclusive?

Lots of misinformation in this thread. How many of you have actually had experience with both formats, with real HD equipment? Doesn't sound like too many.

Although I have plenty of releases from both parties, I prefer HD-DVD.

http://isaf.sitesled.com/CIMG0683.JPG

Let me correct some of the misconceptions regarding Blu-ray.

1. Blu-ray is better because it has a higher peak bitrate.

Incorrect. This is only relevant in regards to MPEG-2 transfers, which require a high bitrate for quality transfers. The main reason why Blu-ray has a higher peak bitrate is that the media was originally designed for MPEG-2, so it was mandatory for the spec. However, in light of advanced and highly efficient codecs such as VC-1 and AVC, this peak bitrate is unnecessary. Some releases such as F4: ROTSS have video bitrates that peak higher than the HD-DVD spec, so theoretically, the BD version would look superior. However, my opinion is that BD's bitrate simply allows the studios to encode their transfers in a more relaxed fashion, meaning less effort and reliance on advanced compression techniques to ensure a top quality transfer...but ultimately, you would get a transfer that would look identical on both formats due to how flexible the next-generation codecs are.

Also, let's keep in mind that a majority of films released in both formats have been far superior on the HD-DVD format. One particular example is Silent Hill, which was a considerable disaster in light of the superior transfer offered by the overseas German release on HD-DVD. Silent Hill on Blu-ray was encoded in MPEG-2, while the HD-DVD version was encoded in VC-1. Even with BD's high bitrate, Silent Hill's transfer was dissapointing, with some very obvious noise in scenes. The German release was far superior, with no such deficiencies. So ultimately, it's really all about the efficiency of the codec, not the bitrate capability. And the HD-DVD format has used the best codecs since day one.

2. The audio on Blu-ray is always better because there is usually some form of lossless track.

Incorrect. Although most titles have PCM tracks, few of the tracks represent the original masters. This is because a large percentage of these tracks have been downgraded from 24-bit to 16-bit, which is arguably much more damaging than creating a lossy version of a 24-bit track. When you degrade the bit-depth of a track, we're talking about losses not only in dynamic range (which is the most noticeable side effect of basic compression), but changes in the actual fidelity of the audio...bass that isn't as tight, highs that aren't as clean...etc. So when you look at the back of a Blu-ray case and it says "lossless" it isn't lying to you...but keep in mind that it isn't the best audio track possible either. I guess you could consider most of the PCM tracks on Blu-ray to be .wav files compressed into a high-quality .mpc, then re-encoded back into a lossless format...but that would be a gross exaggeration, since let's face it...the PCM tracks still sound very good. However, only a small percentage of them are indeed the cream of the crop...which are only on a handful of titles, most of them by Disney, such as the POTC discs, which are all 24-bit/48kHz, and are identical to the original masters. Although a 16-bit master sometimes is the best you will get, since the master was originally 16-bit to begin with, such as Spider-Man 1.

Also, it is inappropriate to call audio on releases such as Transformers to be a dissapointment, just because it isn't a lossless track. There's what I said before, about how a 24-bit/48kHz track compressed into 1.5mbps would sound potentially better than a lossless track created from a 16-bit version. But you simply don't know unless you are the actual person doing the sound mix. In many cases, 1.5mbps is absolutely indistinguishable from the original master, which is why many releases simply do not bother with a lossless track. Although in Transformer's case, I think it could have been an excuse for them to release another version with a lossless track whenever the sequel rolls around. Ultimately, anything at or over 1.5mbps should be considered "HD" audio...although the correct term should be high-fidelity, since HD is more of a video term. It is, afterall, more than twice the bitrate of the standard DD peak of 640kbps.

I actually just came back from Joke Buy with three BDs for $27:

http://isaf.sitesled.com/CIMG0684.JPG

I'm not sure if I want to keep them, since the blue cases really do seem juvenile, especially for catalog releases.

Who said receiving, buddy?

Doesn't HD-DVD use a superior video codec? I heard much talk (several months ago) about how the Blu-ray was inferior in video quality because of this. Has this changed?

Additional Spam:
Shit, I posted before Megalith's post appeared here. What he said.

Uh, well, you just did.

Meanwhile, back in casual land, those people could care less about those specs you mentioned. It's what movies go to where that will get noticed along with large amount of advertisements that go with it. "Only on Blu Ray". It's better this way weither you like one format or the other. With studios going over to to one format, it adds less to the confusion and more price drops for future investments. By April we'll be seeing stand alone Blu Ray players as low as $349. By the end of May we just might be seeing Paramount and Universal switch over to Blu Ray.

Additional Spam:
This should help you out between the two.

Blu-ray vs HD DVD: State of the Division - Engadget

The difference is the support from studios. There are less studios supporting HD DVD. Warner being the latest to switch over along with New Line.

I forgot...HD-DVD still has this to be excited about:

YouTube Video

Alright, HD-DVD wins the internet.

I've been on the line for a while now about whether or not I'm going to purchase a PS3 or 360 once money magically falls out of the sky, but it seems that Warner has finally made the decision for me (Well, that and the fact that the whole PSP connectivity thing seems pretty sweet). I jumped into the HD fray last November when Walmart had the $99 Toshiba sale. Since then, I have built up a collection of fifteen HD DVDs through Christmas gifts and my own purchases (I'm still waiting on my five free movies Toshiba :argh:.) Twelve of these are Warner Brothers releases.

I've grown to detest the Blu Ray camp over the last year or so due to their unbridled arrogance and the fact that most PS3 owners seem to think the type of DVD you watch sets the stage for some sort of dick-slapping contest. It's seems I'm not really going to have much of a choice though if I want to continue enjoying my movies in glorious 720p with stereo sound (I'm a bottom of the line HD consumer, shut up.)

Also, why is Megalith the only person in the world besides me who thinks HD DVD cases look sleek and professional while Blu Ray cases look like ass. Yeah yeah it's the movie that matters and all that. SHIT LOOKS LIKE ASS.

Um, I said that in the first post of the thread.

Yeah, WTF Blu-Ray.

So the look of a case should justifty a consumers purchase? :rolleyes: Thank god you're the minority.

It's weird, but the Flyboys case is royal blue, unlike every other release:

http://era-hd.ru/upimg/large/1162.jpg

Much more tolerable than the standard bright blue BD case. Hopefully someone will start selling the darker ones seperately.

Hey, XBox games are bright green (look at the bottom rung of Megalith's shelf). Building up a tolerance should be a piece of cake.

why the fuck does he persist in posting all of this technical information on a forum that is clearly uninterested in AV discussions? gamingforce is simply not an AV forum. honestly, no ones here gives two shits, and quite frankly, it's embarrassing to watch him continually humiliate himself by spewing such technical mumbo-jumbo. it's akin to pissing in the wind, or discussing quantum string theory with the fuckin' amish.

therefore, i can logically deduce he's already been banned from AVS forums? typical.

anyway, warner choosing to support blu-ray is unfortunate, but i, like many others, are ready for the format war to be over. ultimately, future blu-ray releases will be bit-for-bit identical in A/V to their hd-dvd counterparts -- considering sony has finally wised up and adopted the next-gen codecs -- so the entire discussion of the superiority of one format over the other is really a moot point.

both mediums are more or less identical, and so are the players. the exact same blue spectrum technology is utilized in hd-dvd and blu-ray. same technology, different brand names. now that the codecs are in place, all that's relevant at this point is stuido support, as someone with a brain already pointed out in this thread. and based on the latest developments, blu-ray WILL win now.

call it.

What the fucking Christ people? you're arguing about case color? You make my balls hurt. seriously.