Now that Blu-Ray has won, can BD fans admit the following?

HiramAbiff · 02-24-2008, 10:12 PM

It's okay, it won't hurt your format anymore. I wouldn't expect to make any headway on blu-ray.com, because those people simply don't have their facts straight (and anybody who does gets banned), but you peeps are generally more educated.

BD's size advantage was irrelevant for movies given the superior compression codecs available, and trivial for extras/double-discing.
Hmm? And if you're going to come back with "why a 51GB HD DVD then?" instead of admitting the truth, then I'll retort "to satisfy the ignoramuses who run studios and to appease the recording medium crowd." (once again showing how non-movie concerns affected who won the movie format war)

BD didn't have a chance without the PS3
I know some of you gleefully admit this, but others of you try to sweep the PS3 effect under the rug. BD didn't win on any of its strengths as a format, but rather due to the PS3 effect.

The PS3 didn't have a chance without Sony taking a $300-$500 hit on each console during its early days
It's a hole they still haven't climbed out of. The format can survive without Sony, just as LD survived without RCA helming it (cuz Pioneer took over the reins), but it's worth mentioning because Sony's "brilliant business decision" has not been proven yet.

There's little to no audible difference between DD+, DTS-HD, and lossless audio
Even studio engineers can't hear a difference on reference equipment, so don't say you can. Now, with the hi-fi world being replete with people who swear there is a difference when they put green ink on their CDs or elevate their speaker cables off the floor, I'm not expecting much concession with this one.

The differing profiles are a substantive issue
Player manufacturers themselves (not Sony of course) have talked about the potential compatibility problems with even basic movie playback with 1.1 on 1.0 players.

The DVD Forum and the BDA could have unified if Sony had been willing to give an inch to Microsoft by accepting the use of HDi instead of BD-Java on discs
Yeah, I said it. :-P They won't even let the official X-Box magazine give *good* reviews to their tvs, so strong is their hatred of all things X-Box-related!

hatt · 02-24-2008, 10:15 PM

Can you admit that nothing in the OP matters now?

ssjLancer · 02-24-2008, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiramAbiff

BD didn't have a chance without the PS3

Ill agree with this one, just like HDDVD wouldnt have stood a chance without being a third of the price of BD players.

kamspy · 02-24-2008, 10:32 PM

I'm fan of both.

I can agree with the first one.

As for the audio, a very well done DD+ track can sound fine when mixed with care, but I see no need for a new lossy codec when disc space is plentiful now.

TrueHD is inferior to DTS-MA. TrueHD still has tools for studios to dither away bit depth, which many studios abuse, and for some stupid reason the engineer can fool with the dial-norm and other sound shaping tools. I guess Dolby thinks it is still lossless if you add things to it. Not me. If there is a 24 bit source, I want it. And I don't want it to be fooled around with whatsoever.

DTS-MA does not change the original PCM at all. Not many decoders now, but I'm not on my death bed so it's not a big concern for me. I don't expect to keep my AVR for the rest of my life.

LPCM is preferred IMO since we now have 50GB to work with, and 30 has been proven to be enough for a stellar picture. Why not have the uncompressed source PCM when space is abundant? No need for decoders! Also guaranteed not to be fooled around with.

The only thing with profiles is they need to be common knowledge. I would be happy with a 1.0 player so long as the studios agree not to press any discs that will not play the feature movie and regular special features. So far there has yet to be a single problem with 1.1 and 2.0 releases playing in 1.0 players. Funny thing is we still have a few 1.0 releases that can't play in all 1.0 players. This is why BD has so many delays. The R&D is finding it takes longer to ensure a BD-J heavy disc will work in all players. This will shorten with time and experience with the platform.

The most important thing about the profiles is the least talked about on this forum. 1.0 players are playing all 1.1 and 2.0 discs. Why would that trend change? Studios have already found a way to make it work. Period. Denon was worried a couple years ago. Whoop-tee-doo. Funai makes most of Denons optical players. What do they know. Someone took a single quote and ran with it.

Toshiba never had the support or motivation to beat BD. If they did, they would have. The studios had price tags. Toshiba didn't want to pay them. End of story. Interesting thread. Buy a BD player. They work fine.

As for the HDi thing, that's just wrong. Toshiba started this war. Every other CE wanted Blu-Ray. Pioneer, Panasonic, Sony, Phillips etc. All were integral in the birth of DVD. They wanted Blu-Ray. Toshiba started the war.

HiramAbiff · 02-24-2008, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatt

Can you admit that nothing in the OP matters now?

So ya can't, huh? :-P

HiramAbiff · 02-24-2008, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssjLancer

Ill agree with this one, just like HDDVD wouldnt have stood a chance without being a third of the price of BD players.

Well, that is kind of the point, BD could not have competed with HD DVD in terms of price or anything, they had to get their foot in the door the non-video format way.

iDarren · 02-24-2008, 10:46 PM

BD's size advantage was irrelevant for movies given the superior compression codecs available, and trivial for extras/double-discing.

I was a HD DVD fan, but to me there was some weakness in the above. Some HD DVD supporters here tried to say there wasn't, but for a veeeery long film it had it's limitations. I think in some cases a 2 disk HD DVD set would have been needed.

ssjLancer · 02-24-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiramAbiff

Well, that is kind of the point, BD could not have competed with HD DVD in terms of price or anything, they had to get their foot in the door the non-video format way.

I think sony using the PS3 was better for the industry than Toshiba artificially lowering prices(which messed up retailer profit margins and prevented other CE companies from joining)

HiramAbiff · 02-24-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kamspy

As for the HDi thing, that's just wrong. Toshiba started this war. Every other CE wanted Blu-Ray. Pioneer, Panasonic, Sony, Phillips etc. All were integral in the birth of DVD. They wanted Blu-Ray. Toshiba started the war.

Strictly speaking Warner Bros. started the war by making the motion (that the DVD forum approved of) to just use standard DVDs with HD video on them. Toshiba and NEC then introduced AOD.

Starting the war wasn't what I was talking about, since any new format will involve a war. That's the nature of markets, competitors will try to squeeze in. But, like DVD, it could have been resolved before it went to market. But videogame console considerations kept that from happening.

Dare · 02-24-2008, 10:57 PM

I can't find a single thing in the OP that I disagree with.

kamspy · 02-24-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiramAbiff

Strictly speaking Warner Bros. started the war by making the motion (that the DVD forum approved of) to just use standard DVDs with HD video on them. Toshiba and NEC then introduced AOD.

Starting the war wasn't what I was talking about, since any new format will involve a war. That's the nature of markets, competitors will try to squeeze in. But, like DVD, it could have been resolved before it went to market. But videogame console considerations kept that from happening.

What interest do Pioneer and Phillips have in video gaming?

Panasonic might make one or two small chips in the PS3, but I don't think they have any major interest in it.

HD DVD was a better format and lost because it did not have enough support. The CEMs chose Blu-Ray before the war even started in retail.

ssjLancer · 02-24-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iDarren

BD's size advantage was irrelevant for movies given the superior compression codecs available, and trivial for extras/double-discing.

I was a HD DVD fan, but to me there was some weakness in the above. Some HD DVD supporters here tried to say there wasn't, but for a veeeery long film it had it's limitations. I think in some cases a 2 disk HD DVD set would have been needed.

If the rumors are true, there was absolutely no way that LotR EE could fit on a 30gb disc.

As for DD+ vs lossless.
Its like 2 people of equal size racing.. while one person(lossless) has a car and the other one(DD+) is running on foot. With really good training(a talented compressionist) theres a chance DD+ could stand a chance, but it'll take alot more work and most of the time it wont keep up.

IdahoPhil63 · 02-24-2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

As for the HDi thing, that's just wrong. Toshiba started this war. Every other CE wanted Blu-Ray. Pioneer, Panasonic, Sony, Phillips etc. All were integral in the birth of DVD. They wanted Blu-Ray. Toshiba started the war.

Oh Kamspy...ignorance is bliss huh?
Fact; 2005 when Toshiba and Sony were trying to hammer out the formats, and come up with something better than dvd, they both came up with something. Toshiba with the HD and Sony with the Blu. Both figured they had the answer, but Sony went and forged ahead. Sony wasn't gonna back down because they had already invested to much in the development of the BR PS3. So why push the development back even further? It was never said right out but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
As far as all the extra enabled crap on either format, who cares. Just give me the outtakes and I'm good.

hatt · 02-24-2008, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HiramAbiff

So ya can't, huh? :-P

It's not because I don't want to! I'm in a heated debate over on another forum right now discussing why I am still pissed at the British for burning the White House. I'll try and get back to answer this later when time allows.

kamspy · 02-24-2008, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IdahoPhil63

Oh Kamspy...ignorance is bliss huh?
Fact; 2005 when Toshiba and Sony were trying to hammer out the formats, and come up with something better than dvd, they both came up with something. Toshiba with the HD and Sony with the Blu. Both figured they had the answer, but Sony went and forged ahead. Sony wasn't gonna back down because they had already invested to much in the development of the BR PS3. So why push the development back even further? It was never said right out but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
As far as all the extra enabled crap on either format, who cares. Just give me the outtakes and I'm good.

Not sure I follow. Are you under the impression that Blu-Ray media didn't exist before the PS3?

You seem confused. It was a storage medium first. Sony wanted to put the newest tech in the PS3, hence the hated BT remote, and Blu-Ray was one thing they decided to rest their laurels on with the PS3. Smart move. Non gamers are buying it as a player. Most game devs are loving the space. Many are still trying to work around the read speed, but the proof is in the pudding. Some multi-platform outfits had issues with the first wave of releases, but the newer games have been tremendous.

Never mind. You've got monster cable all around and a Toshiba LCD. You're right.

02-24-2008, 10:12 PM	#1
HiramAbiff HD-DVD--for movie lovers Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Age: 30 Posts: 1,390	Now that Blu-Ray has won, can BD fans admit the following? It's okay, it won't hurt your format anymore. I wouldn't expect to make any headway on blu-ray.com, because those people simply don't have their facts straight (and anybody who does gets banned), but you peeps are generally more educated. BD's size advantage was irrelevant for movies given the superior compression codecs available, and trivial for extras/double-discing. Hmm? And if you're going to come back with "why a 51GB HD DVD then?" instead of admitting the truth, then I'll retort "to satisfy the ignoramuses who run studios and to appease the recording medium crowd." (once again showing how non-movie concerns affected who won the movie format war) BD didn't have a chance without the PS3 I know some of you gleefully admit this, but others of you try to sweep the PS3 effect under the rug. BD didn't win on any of its strengths as a format, but rather due to the PS3 effect. The PS3 didn't have a chance without Sony taking a $300-$500 hit on each console during its early days It's a hole they still haven't climbed out of. The format can survive without Sony, just as LD survived without RCA helming it (cuz Pioneer took over the reins), but it's worth mentioning because Sony's "brilliant business decision" has not been proven yet. There's little to no audible difference between DD+, DTS-HD, and lossless audio Even studio engineers can't hear a difference on reference equipment, so don't say you can. Now, with the hi-fi world being replete with people who swear there is a difference when they put green ink on their CDs or elevate their speaker cables off the floor, I'm not expecting much concession with this one. *The differing profiles are* a substantive issue Player manufacturers themselves (not Sony of course) have talked about the potential compatibility problems with even basic movie playback with 1.1 on 1.0 players. The DVD Forum and the BDA could have unified if Sony had been willing to give an inch to Microsoft by accepting the use of HDi instead of BD-Java on discs** Yeah, I said it. :-P They won't even let the official X-Box magazine give good reviews to their tvs, so strong is their hatred of all things X-Box-related! __________________ My HD DVD and DVD collection. My favorite movies. Mitsubishi WS-55315

02-24-2008, 10:32 PM	#4
kamspy Brewers lol Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 21,932	I'm fan of both. I can agree with the first one. As for the audio, a very well done DD+ track can sound fine when mixed with care, but I see no need for a new lossy codec when disc space is plentiful now. TrueHD is inferior to DTS-MA. TrueHD still has tools for studios to dither away bit depth, which many studios abuse, and for some stupid reason the engineer can fool with the dial-norm and other sound shaping tools. I guess Dolby thinks it is still lossless if you add things to it. Not me. If there is a 24 bit source, I want it. And I don't want it to be fooled around with whatsoever. DTS-MA does not change the original PCM at all. Not many decoders now, but I'm not on my death bed so it's not a big concern for me. I don't expect to keep my AVR for the rest of my life. LPCM is preferred IMO since we now have 50GB to work with, and 30 has been proven to be enough for a stellar picture. Why not have the uncompressed source PCM when space is abundant? No need for decoders! Also guaranteed not to be fooled around with. The only thing with profiles is they need to be common knowledge. I would be happy with a 1.0 player so long as the studios agree not to press any discs that will not play the feature movie and regular special features. So far there has yet to be a single problem with 1.1 and 2.0 releases playing in 1.0 players. Funny thing is we still have a few 1.0 releases that can't play in all 1.0 players. This is why BD has so many delays. The R&D is finding it takes longer to ensure a BD-J heavy disc will work in all players. This will shorten with time and experience with the platform. The most important thing about the profiles is the least talked about on this forum. 1.0 players are playing all 1.1 and 2.0 discs. Why would that trend change? Studios have already found a way to make it work. Period. Denon was worried a couple years ago. Whoop-tee-doo. Funai makes most of Denons optical players. What do they know. Someone took a single quote and ran with it. Toshiba never had the support or motivation to beat BD. If they did, they would have. The studios had price tags. Toshiba didn't want to pay them. End of story. Interesting thread. Buy a BD player. They work fine. As for the HDi thing, that's just wrong. Toshiba started this war. Every other CE wanted Blu-Ray. Pioneer, Panasonic, Sony, Phillips etc. All were integral in the birth of DVD. They wanted Blu-Ray. Toshiba started the war. Last edited by kamspy; 02-24-2008 at 10:36 PM.

02-24-2008, 10:46 PM	#7
iDarren Hi-Def Junkie Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,227	BD's size advantage was irrelevant for movies given the superior compression codecs available, and trivial for extras/double-discing. I was a HD DVD fan, but to me there was some weakness in the above. Some HD DVD supporters here tried to say there wasn't, but for a veeeery long film it had it's limitations. I think in some cases a 2 disk HD DVD set would have been needed. __________________ www.bogieonline.com www.mcqueenonline.com

02-24-2008, 10:57 PM	#10
Dare I moon you. Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 4,523	I can't find a single thing in the OP that I disagree with. __________________ LG GGC-H20L Super Multi Blue Blu-ray & HD DVD ROM Drive 58 Lost count

Similar Threads to Now that Blu-Ray has won, can BD fans admit the following?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
CNet's Top Five Most Wanted Gadgets	kamspy	High Definition Media	171	04-05-2008 01:11 AM
Paramount and Dreamworks Go HD DVD Exclusive!	Lee Stewart	High Definition Media	698	03-13-2008 07:01 PM
Analyst says consumers didn't end Hi Def format war	Super XP	High Definition Media	41	02-28-2008 05:35 AM
Blu-ray Sales Slide Following Warner Backing	MidnightWatche	High Definition Media	42	02-13-2008 11:26 PM
Perhaps I will buy blu-ray in 2009...Warner classics set for that year...	preFUR	High Definition Media	100	02-09-2008 04:18 AM
So what was it like here when Warner went Blu..?	VHSHD	High Definition Media	25	01-27-2008 06:41 AM
Blu-Ray Bill Hunt - At It Again - Part 3	Lee Stewart	High Definition Media	48	06-13-2007 07:32 AM

02-24-2008, 10:15 PM	#2
hatt HD Elitist Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: FL Age: 37 Posts: 6,294	Can you admit that nothing in the OP matters now?