Quality-wise, they are virtually identical. The major difference right now is which side has which studios in their back pocket for exclusive releases which is unfair for consumers (unless you splurge for a combo player). I know HD-DVD has Universal and Blu-Ray has MGM, Fox and Disney... there's probably a few others in there somewhere.

The major technical advantages HD-DVD has over Blu-Ray right now:

All HD-DVD players must come standard with an ethernet connection, capability to decode dual video streams (picture-in-picture), Dolby Digital Plus and TrueHD soundtrack decoding, and "persistent storage" (onboard flash memory). Blu-Ray players have none of these requirements. So basically, you will get a lot more special features and extras with HD-DVD releases. Also, many of the newer HD-DVD releases feature a standard DVD version on the back of the disc... which my roommates love when I rent from Netflix, because they don't have HD-DVD players.

I went with the HD-DVD add-on for my 360 because it was only $199. There's no real clear 'winner' right now, but I couldn't wait and it was a small investment. 300 comes out next Tuesday! For SPARTA!

*edit* The 360 add-on player also works with a PC or Mac. :shhh:

 

I'd personally wait a while to see which one develops market dominance for exactly the reasons Fry said.

 

Blu Ray seems to have everything going for it from a technical standpoint, but when I look at the list of titles for both formats there are a lot more HD DVD titles that I'd rather own.

Sony seems intent on pushing out crap like Ghost Rider to Blu Ray before they release the decent titles, with the exception of Casino Royale and a couple of others, none of the Blu Ray titles really grab me.

The HDDVD line up was a lot more attractive to me a while back, so I bought an Xbox with the HD add on and a good dozen titles including the Matrix Trilogy.

I'll probably end up with both platforms, since I'm a big gamer, I don't mind buying both the PS3 and the 360, but until the games library and blu ray catalog start impressing me, I'm in no rush to buy the Playstation.

 

I'd personally wait a while to see which one develops market dominance for exactly the reasons Fry said.

Exactly. Wait for all the companies to waste money trying to establish dominance, instead of you wasting money on the potential loser.

Anyone have a BetaMax laying around anymore?

Personally, I see nothign wrong with DVDs the way they are. I am not really sure why there needs to be a new format. Well, other then they can sell all those movies again.

 

Personally, I see nothign wrong with DVDs the way they are. I am not really sure why there needs to be a new format. Well, other then they can sell all those movies again.

If you have a regular sized tv, there's nothing wrong with DVD, if you have a silly tv like me, DVDs are just too low res

 

Exactly. Wait for all the companies to waste money trying to establish dominance, instead of you wasting money on the potential loser.

Anyone have a BetaMax laying around anymore?

Personally, I see nothign wrong with DVDs the way they are. I am not really sure why there needs to be a new format. Well, other then they can sell all those movies again.

The good thing is that DVD's are backwards-compatible with both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players and can be upscaled in resolution so there's no real reason to re-buy everything (except epic-cool stuff like The Matrix, Terminator 2 and Aliens). Standard DVD resolution is only 1/3 of what HD-DVD can do. It's practically a requirement if you own an HDTV. Roll over the pics in the link to see the difference:

http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

Granted a lot of older films aren't going to come out looking or sounding nearly as good on the other end of the transfer process as a movie which was shot in the last year or so.

 

If you have a regular sized tv, there's nothing wrong with DVD, if you have a silly tv like me, DVDs are just too low res

I see no reason to be silly.

I just bought a new TV, since my old one was losing channels on me. More importantly, it was losing my Sox games when I could stand to watch them. A 27" screen is all I need. I was not going to replace the darn entertainment center as well.

 

http://www.cornbread.org/FOTRCompare/index.html

At this point it's worth mentioning that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is by New Line Cinema, who are committed solely to HD DVD at this point.

I forsee major Blu Ray pwnage when the rings trilogy comes out

I just bought a new TV, since my old one was losing channels on me. More importantly, it was losing my Sox games when I could stand to watch them. A 27" screen is all I need. I was not going to replace the darn entertainment center as well.

Wait until you see baseball in HD, it looks so good even I watch it, hell, even my girlfriend watches it

 

Wait until you see baseball in HD, it looks so good even I watch it, hell, even my girlfriend watches it

The TV is HD. However, I am not paying Comcast's ridiculous rates to get HD baseball. I will watch the Sox in HD on WGN and WCIU, when they play there. That is free.

 

which is unfair for consumers (unless you splurge for a combo player)

One thing worth saying is that the combo units can not display the special features from the hd-dvd discs. Another thing is that for the price of the combo unit, you can buy a PS3 and an XBOX 360 w/ HD-DVD player, and still have money left over.

 

blockbuster is offering blu-ray discs only as well

 

blockbuster is offering blu-ray discs only as well

Only in about 75% of their stores. I get a two-day turnaround on my Netflix movies anyway. Screw rental chains. :rantscream:

Interesting note about the combo players... I wasn't aware of that. That would definitely piss me off. The HD-DVD release of 300 is going to have a 'bluescreen' version with PiP of the director... the movie will play normally but without all the CGI dropped in.

 

Quality-wise, they are virtually identical. The major difference right now is which side has which studios in their back pocket for exclusive releases which is unfair for consumers (unless you splurge for a combo player). I know HD-DVD has Universal and Blu-Ray has MGM, Fox and Disney... there's probably a few others in there somewhere.

The major technical advantages HD-DVD has over Blu-Ray right now:

All HD-DVD players must come standard with an ethernet connection, capability to decode dual video streams (picture-in-picture), Dolby Digital Plus and TrueHD soundtrack decoding, and "persistent storage" (onboard flash memory). Blu-Ray players have none of these requirements. So basically, you will get a lot more special features and extras with HD-DVD releases. Also, many of the newer HD-DVD releases feature a standard DVD version on the back of the disc... which my roommates love when I rent from Netflix, because they don't have HD-DVD players.

I went with the HD-DVD add-on for my 360 because it was only $199. There's no real clear 'winner' right now, but I couldn't wait and it was a small investment. 300 comes out next Tuesday! For SPARTA!

*edit* The 360 add-on player also works with a PC or Mac. :shhh:

ive had 300 for over a month now. i think ive watched it 7 or 8 times. and no its not a crappy bootleg

 

I have an HD-DVD player with an HD T.V and when it worked it was amazing but my little brother left on over a long vacation and it hasn't worked right snce.
P.S I think we should save this kind of talk for dinner parties.

 

I'm gonna wait it out till one has more dominance. Untill then, I'll keep buying regular DVD's to put in my up-converting DVD player

 

are there any HD or Blu-ray porn out yet? the one that gets on board with that will be the winner.

 

the real problem with HD over BlueRay is the simple fact BlueRay can hold double the information on the disk over HD .BlueRay is supposedly going to be update able as well so it can burn multiple lays not just dual layering.so in the furture BlueRay has the possibility of fitting as much as 200gig on a single disk.

Samsung is also coming out with a dual player that is supposed to be really good at both plus it is supposed to amplify a regular DVD to look better on an HD tv.

 

are there any HD or Blu-ray porn out yet? the one that gets on board with that will be the winner.

There are HD DVD porn titles out right now (Pirates), not sure about Blu Ray, the porn industry was all set to go with Blu Ray until Sony decided that they wouldn't release porn content on Blu Ray. They reversed their decision, but I think that it annoyed the industry to the point where they'd rather go with HD DVD now.

the real problem with HD over BlueRay is the simple fact BlueRay can hold double the information on the disk over HD .BlueRay is supposedly going to be update able as well so it can burn multiple lays not just dual layering.so in the furture BlueRay has the possibility of fitting as much as 200gig on a single disk.

Blu Ray is technologically superior, but then so was BetaMax, it can definitely hold more data, but data isn't a principle constraint when it comes to movies these days and God help any studio that can fill a 45 gig (HD DVD's max size) disc with a game So basically the only real use for a 200 gig disc is data backup.

From what I understand, HD DVD is easier to author than Blu Ray which is why we're seeing a lot of titles on HD before BRD, even if they're from a studio that supports both formats (the Matrix trilogy for example).

In other words, it's still too early to decide on a true winner

 

the real problem with HD over BlueRay is the simple fact BlueRay can hold double the information on the disk over HD .BlueRay is supposedly going to be update able as well so it can burn multiple lays not just dual layering.so in the furture BlueRay has the possibility of fitting as much as 200gig on a single disk.

Samsung is also coming out with a dual player that is supposed to be really good at both plus it is supposed to amplify a regular DVD to look better on an HD tv.

That's not really a problem. How is it HD-DVD can have more special features and extras on thier discs than Blu-Ray (which skimps in comparison) and still contain the same amount of data for the video and audio due to the identical transfers? Even if a Blu-Ray disc had a special transfer where all 50GB were used just for the movie, you wouldn't notice the difference over a standard 15GB HD-DVD transfer.

The problem with all that capacity is that the data layer on Blu-Ray discs is much closer to the protective surface making it more susceptible to damage by scratches, moisture, heat, etc.

 

The good thing is that DVD's are backwards-compatible with both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players...

Incorrect. HD DVD out of the box has backwards compatibility - BluRay does not. This means if you buy an HD DVD player, you can watch your existing DVD movie library as well as new HD DVD titles. A BluRay player can only play BluRay DVDs which means you'll have to re-purchase your favorite movies on BR (exactly what happened when VHS switched to DVD). Perhaps BluRay will offer some sort of technology that will have the capability to read standard DVDs...

Personally, I believe HD DVD will win this battle.

In the 80s, between the battle of Betamax and VHS, the winner was dictated by the porn industry - who decided to utilize VHS as their platform. With the internet, this is not the case now. Porn is easily downloadable.

And although Blockbuster has announced that they will only carry BluRay titles henceforth, I believe this will have little effect for the Videophile because true audio/video enthusiasts would rather own their music/movies than rent. Besides, nowadays, how often is your local Blockbuster, or any video rental establishment for that matter - packed with avid movie watchers?

Affordability and backwards technology - pros for HD DVD.
More disc information resulting in superior video/audio quality - pros for BluRay.
However, this is only discernible when you have both players side by side on two HD TVs on a showroom floor. Having said that, I defy anyone to distinguish between the two when separated.

 

I've got an HD-DVD player. I bought it cause it was slightly cheaper than Blu-Ray. I just think Blu-Ray is going to win out, though. There's more stuff out on Blu-Rau than HD-DVD.

That being said, The Dirty Dozen and Goodfellas, both of them older movies by any means, look absolutely awesome in HD. The quality is unbelievable. I really need to buy a newer movie to see how that looks. Is 300 going to be HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?

 

I have a PS/3, which plays BluRay, has an Ethernet connection, AND plays games. It is wired to a Sony 46" 1080p television and the pictures are AMAZING.

Between the two, HDDVD or BR, we obviously chose bluray, but we wanted the PS/3, as it can also play PS/2 games as well. And it is cheaper than a regular bluray player.

We have an X360 in the other room that we use as well, but don't have the HDDVD attachment.

 

Is 300 going to be HD-DVD or Blu-Ray?

all three.....SD, HD, and BR. they are going for the knockout with this one.

 

I have not cruised the HD world for about 5 or 6 months but the last time I looked BluRay was yet to produce a 50 gig disc. Which means they actually had less storage than a HD disc. Though I have not seen w/ my own eyes, there were many that said the HD had a better picture quality, but that was early in the game. I did read a few months ago that Bluray did have 75-80% of the market already, which is why Blockbuster went w/ them. I am going to wait it out, even though I have a 1080p TV. I don't like sony and think HD should win out at the current price point. Sony always fails to follow through on what they promise.

 

I can't see how the picture quality from HD DVD or Blu Ray can be substantially different, both are digital formats and they both use largely the same codecs.

Maybe in the early days they had to squeeze the HD DVD content a little more because the disc was smaller, but these days I can't see that the two formats would have substantially different compression so the image you see should be identical?