Brian's Brain

EDN Senior Technical Editor Brian Dipert exposes, analyzes and
opines on diverse topics in technology.

Profile

About Me

RSS Feed

Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

By Category

Consumer Electronics Design Articles

Blog

Brian's Brain

« Your Complimentary Blu-ray and... | Main | Living With Apple’s MacB... »

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

'300': A HD DVD Case Study and Format Future Prediction

I've just finished auditioning 300, the richest-featured HD DVD title to date (with The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift its notably adorned predecessor). The HD DVD disc costs roughly $5 more than its Blu-ray and two-disc DVD set counterparts, for which you incur the following incremental capabilities:

Dual-format (DVD and HD DVD on a single disc) obsolescence protection, which also enables you to watch HD DVD at home and DVD elsewhere.
An interactive game called Vengeance and Valor, implemented using Microsoft's HDi format
A bluescreen picture-in-picture version of the movie, comparing the pre- and post-CGI-versions of the film with director commentary
Internet connectivity that enables you to purchase 300-themed ringtones and wallpaper, and to share your favorite movie scenes with others in the registered user community.

300 is an odd high-definition title to evaluate. As Ben Kuchera points out, the director's intentional use of special effects such as added grain and high contrast 'crush' make for a presentation that, versus most HD DVD (and Blu-ray) titles, isn't dramatically better than the red laser DVD alternative. Which is not to say that there wasn't an improvement with the HD DVD version, even on my less-than-optimal plasma display. To date, I've auditioned the disc on my first-generation Toshiba HD-A1; when I get back to Sacramento, I'll try it out on my even more resolution- and quality-accurate LCD TV and companion Xbox 360 with HD DVD drive. I also plan to quality- and feature-compare the optical disc-based versions of the movie with their SD and HD downloadable counterparts.

I focused my attention on the HD DVD-unique capabilities, which uniformly worked well with the exception of one glitch. One of the first few times I accessed the extras menu, the player locked up and required a power cord yank in order to revive it. Numerous other subsequent menu navigation cycles were problem-free. The Internet connectivity features worked well, although (as is the case with the Microsoft Zune's music 'squirting' feature) the collaborative scene-sharing capabilities will only be meaningful when a critical mass of HD DVD players exists.

I'm a bit surprised that Warner didn't do a Java-based version of the Vengeance and Valor game for the Blu-ray version of the disc, although many of the currently-shipping Blu-ray players don't support BD-J, and Warner also may have wanted to avoid embarrassing potential compatibility issues. And I thought the bluescreen picture-in-picture presentation was outstanding. Admittedly, having just come from SIGGRAPH where I attended presentations of some of 300's CGI effects (albeit not in such exacting detail) may have heightened my enthusiasm a bit!

Unfortunately, unless Warner ramps up its promotion of the HD DVD version of the title (doubtful given that the studio is format-agnostic), many potential customers will never get beyond a limited price-only comparison between the various formats, which will unfairly disadvantage the HD DVD variant. In my scans of various retailers' 300 promotions, rarely was it even mentioned that the HD DVD disc also supported conventional DVD. The added HD DVD features were completely omitted from the advertisements. Look, for example, at Amazon's listings; the Blu-ray entry mentions the disc's 'extras', while the HD DVD entry mentions none of the extras, far from the unique ones!

Some supposed pundits are claiming that HD DVD's days are numbered. I'm not of that mindset, although I admit that Blockbuster's decision to forego (at least for now) stocking HD DVD in most stores in favour of Blu-ray was a momentum-shifting event. After all, the high resolution optical disc market is still extremely immature. HD DVD's key strength, which I've long pointed out, is its inherent cost advantage both for media and players. Toshiba's next-generation player prices begin at $299 and the highest-end version costs less than the lowest-end Blu-ray player. Current-generation Toshiba models sell new for as low as $200 and can be found refurbished for even less; if I was in the market for a replacement DVD player, I'd be sorely tempted to buy a slightly more expensive unit that upscales DVDs and handles next-generation HD DVD. And, if you've got an Xbox 360, a HD DVD upgrade will cost you as little as $150.

HD DVD also has supported from the very beginning features that Blu-ray won't begin to support until the October 31 v1.1 profile release date; secondary audio and video channels, software applications (Java-based in Blu-ray's case, versus HDi-based with HD DVD), and additional on-board memory. Current-generation Blu-ray players (with the likely exception of the PS3) won't be upgradeable to the v1.1 feature set. There's also no 'sunset' cutoff date beyond which manufacturers must stop making v1.0 players. And network connectivity remains an optional, not required, part of the v1.x feature set. If you were an executive at a schedule-, resource- and cash-strapped studio, would you add incremental features to a Blu-ray disc that most players won't even support? I didn't think so. Therefore, I predict that Blu-ray media's feature set deficiencies compared to HD DVD will endure for a very long time.

We'll know a lot more post-Christmas about how this format war may play out. Assuming Toshiba and its partners keep driving player prices down, how long can Blu-ray-only studios ignore the resultant installed base expansion? How are you handicapping the high definition race?

Reader Comments

(Add your comments)

at 8/15/2007 1:32:29 AM, Rob said:
"many of the currently-shipping Blu-ray players don't support BD-J" Why are you posting lies?

at 8/15/2007 1:46:34 AM, Anonymous1 said:
50 Gb - 30 Gb = 20 Gb. That''''s still more than a single layer HD DVD. The additional features that HD DVD have vs Blu ray is not really essential, you can live without it... and Blu ray will support it later anyway. But the 20 Gb that HD DVD misses is irrepairable. Imagine fitting an Extended Edition of The Return of the Kings in HD DVD with all those audio commentaries in one disc. Even discounting the fact that the majority of hollywood studios support Blu-ray, storage capacity is enough to say that it is the next gen optical format.

at 8/15/2007 1:54:58 AM, Anonymous1 said:
This is how it will be: CD was succeeded by DVD. DVD will be succeeded by Blu-ray Disc (BD).

at 8/15/2007 5:27:23 AM, Brian Dipert said:
Dear Rob, I don't post lies, and to the best of my knowledge I'm not posting inaccuracies. BD-J support is not mandatory until the upcoming October 31 v1.1 profile. As I currently understand the situation, therefore, some of today's Blu-ray players do not support BD-J and have not (at least yet) been provided with firmware upgrades to support BD-J. Do you have information to the contrary that you'd care to share?

at 8/15/2007 5:47:03 AM, Craig Iversen said:
Rob rightly pointed out that in your article you said "If you were an executive at a schedule-, resource- and cash-strapped studio, would you add incremental features to a Blu-ray disc that most players won't even support? I didn't think so. Therefore, I predict that Blu-ray media's feature set deficiencies compared to HD DVD will endure for a very long time." Most players? Then in your reply to Rob you say "As I currently understand the situation, some of today's Blu-ray players do not support BD-J and are not upgradeable to support BD-J." Most and some are two words that make a big difference to context. Rob's right.

at 8/15/2007 5:59:01 AM, Joe Mama said:
Oh right the PS3 again. Ok guys perhaps what he meant to say was "most of the shipping BR players that are actually used as a BR player"?

at 8/15/2007 6:43:13 AM, Brian Dipert said:
Dear Craig Iverson, Rob was actually referring to my comments earlier in the writeup, when I pointed out that BD-J support is not univeral in today's Blu-ray players. Nonetheless, when I said 'most players' later in the piece, I wasn't just referring to BD-J. I was also referring to secondary audio and video (i.e. PIP) capability, to features enabled by profile v1.1's increased mandatory memory, and features enabled by a player's Internet-connected capability (which remains optional in v1.1). Go back and re-read what I said. Comprende? Also, as Joe Mama implies in his comments, I suggest that the Blu-ray camp not singlehandedly focus so much of its hopes on the PS3. The console currently doesn't have a lot of compelling game content, but that situation will inevitably change, and as folks focus more on playing GAMES on the console in the future, there'll be less time available to play Blu-ray movies on that same console. You can't do both things at once.

at 8/15/2007 9:00:40 AM, Commen Sense said:
Brian, this is the lamest argument I've ever heard. Yes the next gen movie war will be won due to HDi being out now, and BD-J not being finalized yet. Talk about grasping at straws. The people who purchase these disks right now, do their research since they are early adopters. I'm sure they are aware of the pro's/con's of each format prior to dropping that kind of bank. 99.99999% of people buy a movie for the sole purpose of, guess what, watching the movie. Once I watch the special features I rarely/never return to them again. Unless you are an obsessed fan of a particular movie, you will do the same. As for your PS3 games taking time away from watching/buying Blurays, that arguement is even weaker. Using that logic, anyone who bought a PS2/Xbox last gen wouldn't go and buy DVD movies anymore. That statement sounds rediculous doesn't it, just like yours did. Considering 110+ million PS2's have been sold and DVD's have sold very well....I'd say your argument doesn't hold any water.

at 8/15/2007 9:13:05 AM, Another case study said:
Bluray outsold HDDVD 2 to 1. Study complete. The only thing Brian exposes in these articles is his biased love for the HDDVD format.

at 8/15/2007 9:17:34 AM, Brian Dipert said:
Dear Commen Sense, what I'm suggesting is that folks that are using PS3s for Blu-ray playback now are eventually going to have to buy a dedicated Blu-ray player (at $500 or more, given today's prices), because the PS3 will eventually become a more dedicated game-only piece of equipment as the game content situation improves. Same thing happened with the PS2; folks who initially bought them for DVD playback ended up also buying dedicated DVD players. That's why the dedicated HD DVD player price advantage over dedicated Blu-ray players has particularly caught my eye.

at 8/15/2007 12:20:13 PM, I don''t get you said:
I have a PS3. I play movies and games. I do want a dedicated Blu Ray player as well. I''m not sure what you are trying to imply here Brian. By your saying once people start playing games then they will want to get a dedicated player. Well then if a PS3 owner already has Blu Ray movies once they start playing games won''t they just buy a dedicated Blu ray player and not an HD DVD one?

at 8/15/2007 12:32:01 PM, Brian Dipert said:
Dear I Don't Get You, I'd argue that you have more disposable income than most folks do! Yes, folks who've already made a PS3 investment are more likely to go the route you suggest (although I'd argue that for someone who's only got free-promotion movies, or who has only purchased one or two movies and is therefore only slightly invested in the format, the $300+ price disparity between HD DVD and Blu-ray players will still tempt a format switch). However, in a year from now, when the PS3 game content situation is in better shape, the Blu-ray camp can't count on first-time potential customers going the PS3 route to satisfy their Blu-ray playback needs

at 8/15/2007 12:34:23 PM, JMR said:
History has proven that this contest will be decided based on three key factors: which players can get under $100.00 quicker, which discs can get "throw away" priced, and which format will have the most open license for recording. Sony has shot itself in the foot before (betamax) and Toshiba and NEC learned a hard lesson.

at 8/15/2007 12:45:57 PM, Jonathan Gibson said:
To quote, "50 Gb - 30 Gb = 20 Gb. That''''s still more than a single layer HD DVD." That would be true, if all things considered were equal. However what you did not take into account is the compression technology used when compressing movie film down to HD-DVD and Blu-Ray sizes (yes all films are compressed even when put on high-def formats). Blu-Ray uses standard compression software (MPEG 4) to reduce the file size of a movie to get it to fit on its discs. MPEG 4 is the same compression technology used on all standard definition DVDs as well. HD-DVD uses a new more effective and efficient compression technology called VC-1. VC-1 compression can squeeze more data down to a smaller size while still retaining the original quality - something MPEG 4 technology cannot do. Taking this into account, the added space on a Blu-Ray disc is needed because their compression software is not a good as VC-1. HD-DVD requires less storage capacity to hold the same amount of data. If we know consider the costs of manufacturing a HD-DVD disc are much less than that of a Blu-Ray disc and take into account that HD-DVD uses more effective compression technology it is hard to decide which format will win the high-def war.

at 8/15/2007 12:50:16 PM, Brian Dipert said:
Dear JMR, well put. See the CES coverage link (www.edn.com/article/CA6405883.html) within my other high resolution optical disc writeup published last night (www.edn.com/blog/400000040/post/1140013114.html) for some survey results of consumers' enthusiasm at various price points. This is ultimately about patent portfolios...Sony and Philips got rich off the CD, Toshiba garnered the lion's share of the patent royalty revenue for DVD, and it's no surprise that the two camps are fighting over the next-generation format. If they're not careful, NEITHER will win (witness DVD-Audio vs SACD)

at 8/15/2007 1:31:39 PM, kirbalo said:
TO Jonathon Gibson: You are incorrect in your statements regarding MPEG-4 and VC-1. First of all, MPEG-4, Part 10, or AVC, or H.264 is what you should be referencing when comparing to VC-1. MPEG-4 is a large spec. with many parts, and you are specifically discussing "Part 10". Secondly, DVD uses MPEG-2, Not any part of MPEG-4. Thirdly, Both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are able to use either VC-1 or H.264 for encoding. It's up to the studio, not the spec. Early Blu-Ray releases were done with HD rate MPEG-2 due to Sony not having enough experience with H.264. I'm on the sidelines watching this whole format war, and have pretty much decided to be agnostic and buy a dual format player.

at 8/15/2007 1:38:48 PM, Mike said:
The lay person on the street will buy what is the cheapest Player they can afford. They dont care whether ita a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray format as the average person cannot differentiate in the picture quality between the two standards. The bottom line is a person will part with his cash for what they believe to be a goood deal for them. The HD-DVD and the Blu-Ray formats clearly have staunch supporters in there respective camps echewing each formats technical capability compared to the other. But as history has shown us people buy consumer products on price and not on there technical merits. Why do people buy from WalMart $19 DVD players?

at 8/15/2007 1:40:20 PM, I don"t get you said:
Well have you overlooked the fact that people like to buy big movies and all the biggest movies are on Blu Ray with some being exclusive. Spiderman 3 and Pirates 3 will be Blu Ray only. Transformers and Harry Potter 5 will be on both. This years biggest movies will be on Blu Ray more than on HD DVD. Customers see the movies they want and they just want to buy them on the format they can get them all. The things that can get this war to end is if Walmart chooses a side or if Universal starts making Blu Ray. Right now HD DVD is losing but very very slowly

at 8/15/2007 1:47:00 PM, Brian Dipert said:
Dear I Don't Get You, see my other writeup from last night, where I made your exact point: www.edn.com/blog/400000040/post/1140013114.html

at 8/15/2007 2:30:29 PM, Chris said:
Great story, that''s exactly how I see it. Don''t let these Blu-ray fans bother you!

at 8/15/2007 4:25:19 PM, Krusty said:
I had owned a PS3 once before and sold it (as I had little use with it as only Fall Of Man interested me) but I never bought any overpriced BlueRay movie titles to watch on it. I did rent a couple of films to see what the fuss was about, but again I wasn't eager to spend that kind of money to update my film collection. I still own a Wii and XBOX360, but I am also not inclined to buy the HD-DVD player for it. I agree with the other posters who indicate cost will be a big factor in the future. I would rather buy a Blue-Ray/HD-DVD compatible player than stick with one format. What I would really like to see is a flash memory player (once those pocket USB drives get cheaper and larger) that I can record and playback HD video with (much like the old VHS). Then what would be the point of having an optical drive and paying extra for proprietary technology? Of course studios would have to support the format, but if enough players were sold on the market they would probably come.

at 8/15/2007 8:35:57 PM, Jonathan Gibson said:
To Kirbalo, thanks for the clarification. Do you have a link for that information so I can study up? I do my best to stay on top of this format war........ "never be to proud to admit you were wrong"

at 8/16/2007 8:09:29 AM, Anonymous1 said:
In terms of compression technology MPEG-4 AVC (or MPEG-4 Part 10) is in the same league as the VC-1. They have different compromises in terms of video quality but their compression efficiency is pretty much the same. Jonathan Gibson, I think what you are referring to is the MPEG-2 that is currently used by all DVDs and some of the old Blu-ray - NOT MPEG-4 AVC, which is MUCH MORE EFFICIENT THAN MPEG-2.

at 8/16/2007 8:14:45 AM, Anonymous1 said:
But to be fair, I really think that HD DVD's iHD is better than Blu-ray's BD-J (which is up until now is still incomplete). I just wish that Sony and Toshiba settled into this from the very beginning.

at 8/16/2007 8:19:54 AM, Anonymous1 said:
Wouldn't it be better if the Blu-ray discs uses the HD DVD's interactive iHD which HP was proposing from the very beginning? If it were the case, then that format would have been better than today's Blu-ray in terms of interactivity and HD DVD in terms of capacity.

at 8/16/2007 1:05:34 PM, anotheraviator said:
In regards to the 'extra 20GB' on BD -- Unless that extra 20GB is required to fit the movie on the disc, it's a moot point. The companies will just make '2 disc sets' for movies that have that many extras. Just like regular DVD. Hardly a reason to scrap the format. In regards to the 'more blockbusters come out on BD than HD-DVD' arguement -- this is a relative point based on what the consumers favorite Blockbusters are. But, regardless, do you really think Ma and Pop pushing their cart in the electronics section are going to look at the $199 HD-DVD player vs. the $299 BD player (30% more expensive) and say "Hey. Let's check out what movies are available first!" .. NOPE. That's not how electronic consumers work. They buy the cheapest hardware first, maybe a movie, and then head home to check it out. The next week they go back to the store and look for another movie. "Hey! Spiderman 3 isn't available for HD-DVD -- we'll I guess I won't be watching that movie then.. Bourne Ultimatum looks good!" Cha-ching $$$$" 1 sale for Universal 0 sale for Sony Now multiply this situation by say.. 250,000 HD holiday shoppers. If you're a movie production house (that's not Sony) you will be saying "We are losing money -- let's put our movie out on HD-DVD faaaaaaaast"

at 8/16/2007 4:14:42 PM, Jonathan Gibson said:
If you have a few minutes on your hands, read this comparison of VC-1 and MPEG 4 AVC. It is a bit technical but helps alleviate a lot of myths about each codec format. At the end of the long post, the "gist" is that VC-1 is a better codec for high-def high and bit rate applications. However, VC-1 is used by both HD-DVD AND BD. On the downside, I believe (correct me if I''m wrong) BD also has some moveies that use MPEG 4 AVC (H.264) whereas HD-DVD does not. Could someone comment on this?

at 8/16/2007 4:16:09 PM, Jonathan Gibson said:
www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9931723&&#post9931723 this is the link for the last post, sorry!

at 8/16/2007 10:18:03 PM, Larry said:
I owned both a Playstation 2 and a Xbox last gen and NEVER watched a dvd movie on either one. A stand alone player is MUCH more convenient and feature-rich than a game console. Besides, try getting your wife to learn how to use a GAME machine to play a movie- they don't want to fool with it.

at 8/17/2007 4:25:22 AM, Anonymous1 said:
Dear anotheraviator, what you've said is just like saying: what's the point of having 6.5 Gb more storage space in a single layer HD DVD compared to a dual layer DVD? - weak argument... and sadly, what you've said is not the case presently. Just look at the facts, Blu-ray is winning. It has the momentum and standalone Blu-ray players are catching up fast (even neglecting PS3). And remember, Blu-ray players' price are dropping too. I just wonder what will happen to HD DVD this Christmas Holiday.

at 8/17/2007 9:23:18 AM, Anonymous1 said:
Let me give you a good example regarding storage capacity: If Planet Earth (which uses 4 25Gb Single-layer BD) maximized the Blu-ray's capability, they should have chosen to put the equivalent 2-single layer into 1-dual layer disc and come up with a 2 disc set not 4 which is equivalent to its HD DVD counterpart (using 4 30Gb dual layer disc). If they have done that, I guess Blu-ray's version would have been cheaper. To be honest, I think it's quite unfair from Warner not to have done that...

at 8/17/2007 9:46:49 AM, Anonymous1 said:
These are the advantages HD DVD has against Blu-ray: 1. Its iHD is (presently) better than Blu-ray's BD-J (version 1.0). 2. HD DVD is exclusively supported by Universal Studios. 3. HD DVD players are cheaper. Those are the only reasons why people would want to buy HD DVD.

at 8/17/2007 9:47:33 AM, anotheraviator said:
Why don't all the computer manufacturers release everything exclusively on DVDR now instead of still using CDRs? Why haven't CDR's completely stopped selling? Why go overboard with storage when it's unnecessary. You also fail to point out that currently high capacity BD are almost twice as expensive as HD-DVD discs. They also have higher associated production fees and licensing costs. To save 2 discs vs 4 discs is likely not a great financial concern.

at 8/17/2007 9:51:24 AM, anotheraviator said:
With the current release of 300, the BD camps and the media touted 2:1 or 2.5:1 ratios of BD vs. HD-DVD sales of the title. -- "It's the end of HD-DVD as we know it" the BD supporters/media proclaimed. Obviouslly nobody has taken an economics course. How is it great news for BD when even 3:1 sale ratio for the same title occurs when there is a 10:1 ratio of player adoption? That means 70%+ BD owners AREN'T BUYING MOVIES! That would be a cause for concern if I was a movie production house without vested interest in selling Hardware (aka Sony & Toshiba). I'd be asking myself, "what will happen when they finally get that player down to the price point of $199. WE ARE DOOMED!"

at 8/17/2007 10:32:44 AM, Anonymous1 said:
Comparing DVD and CD is just like comparing BD and DVD. They are not in the same generation. CDs are still widely used because it has been adopted for so many years now. I admit that there are instances where storage capacity is not of great importance (for instance, when storing a 250Mb installer, I would rather use a CDR than a DVDR) - but the topic here is not file storage (which varies from a few kilobytes to some gigabytes), but movie content. Just like what I've illustrated earlier, when you viewing a very long movie (e.g. LOTR Return of the Kings EE - 250mins), wouldn't it be better to put it in a single disc where you can watch it uninterrupted than store it on two discs where you have to put the 2nd disc after a while? Now talking about storage, don’t you think that extra 20Gb matter? How about those bonus contents and the multiple audio commentaries for instance? The point here is: storage size matters.

at 8/17/2007 10:37:02 AM, Anonymous1 said:
Just what I've said, the reason why anyone would buy HD DVD is only because of those three points I've mentioned earlier.

at 8/17/2007 11:04:28 AM, Anonymous1 said:
We don't really need to have a format war (stupid Universal Studios execs keeping this format war alive!). Blu-ray will take the crown. I just hope it'll be fast so that consumers will not suffer. Universal must support Blu-ray. Warner should stop thinking about producing Total HD - it will just confuse consumers.

at 8/18/2007 8:12:11 PM, Michael said:
Hmmm, if I follow the "we don''t need a format war" logic, then let''s eliminate PS3 or XBOX and just have one. And let''s get up in arms over the fact that VHS is STILL selling!! Let''s get rid of the Apple MAC while we''re at it. And why don''t we go ahead and hope all the other car companies, except Toyota, with their unique engines, transmissions, and other features go by the wayside. I''ve never seen an issue like this where folks are urging no competition and ideas. Jeez, folks. Take a breath. We lived with CD''s and cassettes and VHS and DVD''s for years without hyperventilating. Get a life and let the market decide (and I don''t mean let PS3 gamers decide!).

at 8/18/2007 10:57:52 PM, Anonymous1 said:
What I'm referring to is the format war in the same generation (e.g. VHS vs Betamax, DVD-R vs DVD+R, etc.). Having a format war of this kind will confuse consumers. Definitely we always need a next generation format that will replace the current format - that has always been and will always be the case.

at 8/19/2007 4:12:27 PM, puig90 said:
The format war will be over as soon as Universal decides to go Blu ray, but for the time being, it''s not gonna happen. The only way I see for them to decide to go blu is for poeple to start pirating HD DVD movies into blu ray, I can see asian markets exploring this venue, and it''s just a matter of time and cost for recordable blu ray disc to go down, then, game''s over

at 10/11/2007 6:12:09 PM, ADX said:
There are no VC-1 encoded Blu-ray movies on blu-ray. Blu-ray movies are encoded in MPEG4 AVC. HD-DVD Movies are encoded in VC-1. VC-1 is the superior format for compresed HD video, and is why it was chosen as the High Definition Standard for the next gen broadcasting and distribution industry. Some Blu-ray movies are encoded in MPEG-2 which is terrible for High Definition Video. All os that extra storage capacity on blu-ray will be needed to store the inferior MPEG-2, as it requiers more space for HD video. Example would be "the fifth element" on blu-ray. HD-DVD will win because it cheaper and has better quality.

at 10/30/2007 9:36:28 PM, yountmj said:
Sorry, but there are many Blu-ray titles that are encoded with MPEG-2... still. Also, there are a handful of VC-1 encodes as well.

at 12/4/2007 3:51:45 AM, justLookAtTheNumbers said:
This isn''t a contest any more. Blue Ray has been winning from the start and really hasn''t lost any ground in sales, and the top 3 movies of the year box office are BR exclusives. I was pulling for HD-DVD to win b/c I have a 360, but I''m not stupid enough to disregard numbers. Just encase anyone forgot why many studios joined sony in the first place is because the BR disk is harder to copy than an HD-DVD. Even though I might hate that, studios don''t. And anyone who thinks BR can''t use VC-1 is not doing their research. In regards to regular people buying the cheapest system that is absurd. With the internet people aren''t as ignorant as they were during the VHS betamax competition. Another point is that people who buy a HD system already has an HD TV which means that they''ve already invested more than likely over 1000 dollars into their entertainment and for most Americans it was to watch sports in HD. Most people just don''t care enough to buy a new technology until it''s reasonable ie: 50 dollars or less.

at 4/2/2008 12:23:52 PM, MostOfYouWereWrong said:
BD IS DOOMED!!! It doesn''t have HDi or good compression and its too expensive! Those extra 20 Gb are useless! Even when it is as widely used on computers as DVDRW no one who burns data will want or need 20 extra GB. Useless! Hail HD-DVD

Brian's Brain

Profile

RSS Feed

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives