i believe simpsons has been confirmed for a late november release on blu-ray the productions costs are just from things i have read from various digital news outlets as one of the major reasons why smaller studios tend to be more exclusive to hd dvd and why paramount/dw moved over. how much of that is true is unsure there are new reports going around all the time. saw something today saying how some of the blu-ray sales are actually lower than what is being said by sony. my biggest beef with blu-ray is the interactive features which i tend to use a lot on my hd dvd player. also finally fox/mgm getting into gear and actually putting out movies. right now the format is in its infacy and not too many must have movies new and old have been released. one thing that had me jumping for joy today was that i found out that the original transformers cartoon movie is being released on blu-ray in the uk in the next month i am so getting that hopefully its region free
I don't think there has been a press release about that yet, unless it was recently and I just missed it. I did see a post by one of the "insiders" at AVS saying that it would release 11/27 (and he's usually right IIRC). Not sure if that has actually been confirmed though. In fact, I saw that the DVD release seems scheduled for late-December in the following link (posted 2 days after the post by the AVS poster FWIW): http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=7943 Not sure how legit the info is, but the fact that they posted info about the deleted scenes, promos, etc., makes it seem true. I'm assuming that Fox wouldn't release the Blu-ray version almost a month before the DVD version. If anything, it would be switched, although I think Fox is trying to put movies on both formats on the same day. I can definitely understand what you're saying. Up until a few days ago, I thought there was a bigger gap in the productions costs of both discs than what the numbers I provided earlier showed. I think some people exaggerated the gap, but I didn't necessarily find it hard to believe that some companies would prefer HD DVD over Blu-ray due to cheaper disc production (although more so as a second or third reason to do so, not necessarily the one and only reason since it could easily be dealt with). There's a lot of misleading info in some of these reports (especially reports from the BDA or HD DVD group, or companies exclusively supporting either format). Out of curiosity, do you have a link? Might have an idea of what you're talking about, but I want to make sure.
I'm set either way I got the PS3 for playing games on, its just a bonus it handles bluray now all I got to do is get a HD-DVD stand alone (they are cheaper than a SA BR player) and I can handle it no matter which way it turns out. Couldnt do the same thing back in the day, I chose Beta (for its superior AV) but unfortunately in that case the better format did not win. Really....ignoring as much of the PR spin as we can, what is the general unbiased consensus on which format is TECHNOLOGICALLY superior between BR and HDDVD? also....I do agree that as far as name recognition, BR is "sexier" and its too easy for non-techies to confuse HD-DVD with all the other "HD" products being marketed. If it was left up to regular folks to decide which one wins, and considering how shallow our sociiety is in general, I do think BR would win based on name alone. sad but true
When it comes to specs, Blu-ray is the superior format. It offers more storage space (25GB/50GB compared to 15GB/30GB), and it also offers a higher theoretical bitrate (54Mbps compared to 36Mbps IIRC) allowing for higher quality audio and video (theoretically). The codec support for both is about the same, although Blu-ray movies can also use the AVC codec for encoding movies, and I think theoretically it is the best of the video codecs available on both formats (studios need more time to work out the kinks though...sound familiar?). HD DVD has had the superior technology when it come to interactivity features. The HDi format has allowed for better games and better interactive features in movies (kind of hard to explain, you have to check it out if you haven't seen this stuff). There was an update to its counterpart, BD-J, that should theoretically allow Blu-ray movies to offer the same (or even better IIRC) features, although there are concerns about how this may be implemented since not all players support the updated profile IIRC. Another advantage for HD DVD that would have been useful in this case is that I believe all HD DVD players are required to have an Internet connection (for firmware updates and even the ability to update features in movies). I'm not sure how big of a deal this will be until it gets used more though. Keep in mind that this was mostly based on paper specs. In the real-world, things can change. 6-12 months ago, only 25GB Blu-ray discs were being produced, and most/all movies were using MPEG-2. HD DVD movies, on the other hand, were using 30GB discs and more advanced codecs, such as VC-1. So even though Blu-ray had the better specs, HD DVD had the better picture (and sound?) quality when it came to movies out on the market at the time. Things have since changed a bit, as more and more (maybe even all by now) Blu-ray studios are transitioning to 50GB discs and more advanced codecs (usually VC-1 or AVC), but you get the idea.
The scariest part for me (I'm rooting for blu-ray) is that HD-DVD is winning the marketing war. And whoever wins the marketing war will win the war all-out. Smart marketing moves by HD-DVD: 1) Get large company backing to battle Sony's large company backing 2) Go to market much sooner than blu-ray 3) Deliver more movies to market sooner than blu-ray 4) Drop price of players to combat blu-ray 5) bring "extra-features" to market sooner than blu-ray 6) deliver better picture quality sooner than blu-ray 7) Pay movie companies to stop manufacturing movies in both HD-DVD and blu-ray Blu-rays smart marketing moves: 1) promise larger storage capacity than HD-DVD (in the future) 2) promise better image quality (through bitrate) than HD-DVD 3) Bundle blu-ray with PS3 But blu-ray has also gotten some negative publicity: 1) the "don't support the p*rn industry" fiasco (true or not) was bad publicity. 2) the movie studios getting paid to drop blu-ray was bad publicity
As of right now, I neither have a PS3 (or standalone Blue Ray Player) nor a XBox360 (or standalone HD-DVD Player). I can afford to get both, but based on pure principle (and redundancy is one of my pet peeves), I refuse to Like RC said, natively Blue Ray is the superior format...so I'm in the Blue Ray camp simply based on wanting the best format for my dollar value.
I had a BetaMax growing up. It was a piece of crap. Every VCR I've ever owned was better. I just got an upconverting Toshiba dvd player. It upconverts to 1080i. Good enough for me. But, I'm not big into special effects type movies. I'm guessing in 2 or 3 years, cds and dvds will be about as useful as 8-track players and vcrs anyway.
Yep, looks like they're going the 300 route: http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...s_Blu-ray,_HD_DVD_Date_Years_1-5_Also_Due/946
ah sweet looks like i'll pick up the box set, hopefully if its included in a large box to hold the discs they make room for the future 2 movies to fit into the box. and of course i'll get the hd-dvd version for the IME stuff.
regardless if your beta player was crap or not, the facts are that the betamax format was the superior product. there is a reason why professional broadcast and production companies have used Betamax ever since....tho I would imagine that is starting to trail off with better digital options available now.
Didn't the Betamax format offer less recording time than VHS? Thought I read that it offered half (or even less) of what VHS could do, resulting in only 1hr of playback IIRC. Since this was all before my time, I might be getting some facts mixed up, so please correct me if I'm wrong. If that is true, I'm not sure it was easily the superior of the two formats. Basically better quality vs better recording time (which might lead to being cheaper as well, all else equal).
no, that is basically right in the beginning of the format war. the wiki article strikes true with me, some of it was a refresher for me since alot of the details have been lost in the mists of time in my head. it turns out the industry standard version of beta I spoke of is actually an offshoot of the original Beta...not the same exactly. when we had a beta was in the late 70s- early 80s...by then the recording times had increased (to the detriment of the quality) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betamax
