Blue-ray?

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

That price won't come down. You're paying 60 bucks for a 24 hour movie basically. I really wouldn't complain about that.

Unless I'm mistaken, the cost of producing a movie is much higher then a season seires. So therefore, it's not really a 24 hr movie, but a 24 hr cheeper product and the price could go down.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

That price won't come down. You're paying 60 bucks for a 24 hour movie basically. I really wouldn't complain about that.

I paid 30 bucks for season 1..30 bucks for season 2.

I'm hoping the price will come down...eventually. I'm not complaining either...60 bucks is well worth the money.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

I think the Microsoft backing HDDVD is a little misleading. From what I've heard, they like blue-ray but didn't back it up because they don't think it a good financial move at this time.
It's not because they think HDDVD is a better product then blueray

Right. Sony, Apple et all belong to the DVD Forum as well who support HDDVD so either way things go, they have their asses covered.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Unless I'm mistaken, the cost of producing a movie is much higher then a season seires. So therefore, it's not really a 24 hr movie, but a 24 hr cheeper product and the price could go down.

Obviously it isn't a real movie, no sh*t, it's a TV show. Thanks for that heads up.

60 bucks for 24 hours of entertainment isn't that bad though. It's when you get the 90 bucks for 13 Soprano episodes that it's hard to swallow.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Azure

I paid 30 bucks for season 1..30 bucks for season 2.

.

Obviously bargains are always to be found. I paid 15 bucks for the first season of Futurama, 30 bucks for the FireFly series.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

I really hope that Blue-ray wins out over HD-DVD, for a few reasons:

1) It holds almost twice as much data.
- Companies that have huge databases will be able to store more in a disk, making backup and archival easier. With the rate data is being stored and transfered a smaller size will become a problem sooner rather than later.
- Applications like computer games can start to put in better textures with a disk. This is one of the reasons Sony went with the Blue-ray in the PS3.
- Who doesn't need more space? My personal backups can probably top 100 GB easily, and thats without extra media like movies and music.

2) HD-DVD is backed by Microsoft.

However, the cost of converting existing plants to use Blue-ray may be prohibative; HD-DVD can use current technology.

Actually they're using the PS3 as a medium to try to promote the use of Blu-ray discs. Sony is one of the primary companies pushing for the blu-ray disc in the new format war. That's why I hope the PS3 AND Blu-ray fail.

[fredr123]

Why put an entire season of 24 on a single disk when you could have an entire season in high def (especially if the 5 disk set costs the same as the blu-ray/HD-DVD single disk set)? I'm sure there would be plenty of people out there that would be upset to find their $500+ fancy-pants state-of-the-art DVD player wasn't being used to show HD content. There would like be a few vitriol-filled rants in the OT forum too...

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Obviously it isn't a real movie, no sh*t, it's a TV show. Thanks for that heads up.

Clearly you needed it since you think $60 is a good deal and the price can't come down.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by fredr123

Why put an entire season of 24 on a single disk when you could have an entire season in high def

Why wouldn't it be in high def if it's on 1 disk?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Why wouldn't it be in high def if it's on 1 disk?

No way you'll fit 24 high def episodes on one disk. Depending upon what the final disc capacities are, you'll get 2-5 hours HD content/disk

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

Clearly you needed it since you think $60 is a good deal and the price can't come down.

When did I say it couldn't come down? I'm just saying it wouldn't because of the format switch.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Actually they're using the PS3 as a medium to try to promote the use of Blu-ray discs. Sony is one of the primary companies pushing for the blu-ray disc in the new format war. That's why I hope the PS3 AND Blu-ray fail.

Meh. Some interviews I've seen say the opposite, that they included it because of the data capacity. The fact that it also promotes it is a good marketing move.

As a developer, I would definitely prefer the higher capacity and data transfer speeds of the Blu-ray format. I haven't seen anything unique from the HD-DVD specs that would make me lean towards that one instead.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

Meh. Some interviews I've seen say the opposite, that they included it because of the data capacity. The fact that it also promotes it is a good marketing move.

As a developer, I would definitely prefer the higher capacity and data transfer speeds of the Blu-ray format. I haven't seen anything unique from the HD-DVD specs that would make me lean towards that one instead.

PS3 gives the option to copy the textures to the hard drive to speed up gameplay, so it doesn't sound like the transfer rate is that much greater than DVD.

[Hakan]

Sony claimed Resistance was one of the first games to show the importance of having HD technology saying that it just wouldn't fit on a regular DVD.

Turns out there was 17 gigs of padding files on the disc that served no purpose at all.

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

PS3 gives the option to copy the textures to the hard drive to speed up gameplay, so it doesn't sound like the transfer rate is that much greater than DVD.

It isn't, but it is there, because the Blu-ray disks pack the bits closer together, meaning that the disk has to move less distance to get the same amount of data. However, to get textures and other data to the hard drive, it must get to the unit, hence needing more space on the Blu-ray disk.

I have a question for those willing to answer, because I'm curious. If both HD-DVD and Blu-ray format came out at the same time and from the same company (no pre-existing bias), and had equal support from hardware makers, which one would be your prefered format?

[Kerplunk]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Sony claimed Resistance was one of the first games to show the importance of having HD technology saying that it just wouldn't fit on a regular DVD.

Turns out there was 17 gigs of padding files on the disc that served no purpose at all.

Well, that means there was still at least 3 GB of information that wouldn't fit on a regular DVD. I really want to see what some development companies can do with the extra space, regardless of what platform it's for.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

It isn't, but it is there, because the Blu-ray disks pack the bits closer together, meaning that the disk has to move less distance to get the same amount of data. However, to get textures and other data to the hard drive, it must get to the unit, hence needing more space on the Blu-ray disk.

I have a question for those willing to answer, because I'm curious. If both HD-DVD and Blu-ray format came out at the same time and from the same company (no pre-existing bias), and had equal support from hardware makers, which one would be your prefered format?

HD-DVD because it has less DRM.

If DRM schemes were identical; Blu-ray: greater potential storage and faster potential write speeds.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

I have a question for those willing to answer, because I'm curious. If both HD-DVD and Blu-ray format came out at the same time and from the same company (no pre-existing bias), and had equal support from hardware makers, which one would be your prefered format?

I think support from the studios might be a decisive factor for me. With the exception of a few movies, it seems like most new releases are either available on HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disk but rarely both. There's no way I could convince my wife that having two separate players would be a good idea. If there was a good player that supported both formats and would let me get away without choosing one format or the other, that would be the way to go. So to answer your question... that didn't really answer your question...

[TurnedTheCorner]

I have a feeling both formats will not go past a niche market status, and will both fall to a newer, better format when mass market consumers are convinced the move to HD is worth it.

These are going to be the laserdisc players of the 21st century IMO.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by TurnedTheCorner

I have a feeling both formats will not go past a niche market status, and will both fall to a newer, better format when mass market consumers are convinced the move to HD is worth it.

These are going to be the laserdisc players of the 21st century IMO.

These are the only formats for the near future. Pick a side already