Re: Dead format outsells Blu-Ray!!

If you read my post, Skyhawk, you'd see that I based this on the forums. There are a substantial number of HD DVD owners on here who were posting prior to and after the big announcements, and it certainly seems that my argument holds. Obviously, since it has only been a couple of weeks, there can't be a study to back that up, so the best evidence currently in existence is what HD DVD owners are saying in places like this. I would very much like to see such a study in a couple of months. Obviously there is no way to predict the outcome, but it would be absurd to say that even a majority of HD DVD owners will immediately switch and buy Blu. People made an investment, and they "lost", and it would seem that the majority of owners, at least around here, are keen on adding to their HD DVD collections and buying other titles on SD, rather than rushing out to buy Blu. I think, considering neither format has a very large consumer base right now, this is as good a place as any to find out how people are reacting. The HD disc market is mainly made up of the kind of people who post on sites like this, not Joe Public.

As for majortom, can someone tell Sony and the Blu camp that they won, so they can stop sending people to places like this to tell us the theoretical specs of Blu-Ray. Yeah, yeah, Blu has more storage capacity and the scratch-resistant coating should make me wet my pants. I get it. Go away. Blu has always had more potential, but has always had trouble reaching it. When you don't acknowledge that, and you say HD DVD is the same as SD, you advertise that you are yet another Blu troll, which is kind of pointless now, isn't it? I, like many informed customers who don't want a PS3, will buy Blu one day, but not until a reliable player with all of the same interactivity and web enabled features as HD DVD work. I know it's coming.

(BTW, this is your cue now to say that no one cares about features, so it doesn't matter that Blu doesn't have them. Then you say how great PS3's are. Then you say that you can get a profile 1.1 player that works very well, despite the fact that it can't be upgraded for BD-Live, but you follow that by saying it doesn't matter, though when BD-Live players do come out, you will I'm sure be posting about what an important feature it is. Then you call HD DVD owners "whiners", and you say that any intelligent person would ignore the above and buy Blu immediately. Just thought I'd remind you, in case you forgot any of the necessary steps.)

[Post edited by interplanetaryspy on Mar 2, 2008]

Quote:
People made an investment, and they "lost", and it would seem that the majority of owners, at least around here, are keen on adding to their HD DVD collections and buying other titles on SD, rather than rushing out to buy Blu. I think, considering neither format has a very large consumer base right now, this is as good a place as any to find out how people are reacting. The HD disc market is mainly made up of the kind of people who post on sites like this, not Joe Public.

This is very true. Most people on this forum tend to be very well informed, no matter what their choice of format. What I find interesting lately is that there appears to be a growing tendency among early HD DVD adoptors to not going BD in the near future, in my case, certainly not until BD gets their profile act and prices straightened out and down to reasonable levels. Personally, I don't feel as if I "lost" anything. I'm very happy with my A-35, and I'm sure it will last for years to come. I'll get a BD when time is right ad I'm good and ready. In the immediate future, I seriously doubt if BD is going to experience a a stampede of forelorn and dejceted HD DVD enthuasists rushing to buy an expensive PS5 or stand alone. Joe Public still doesn't have a clue. There will be no spike from that market segment either until the BD format becomes affordable.

Quote:
As for majortom, can someone tell Sony and the Blu camp that they won, so they can stop sending people to places like this to tell us the theoretical specs of Blu-Ray.

I am not talking about theoretical specs, but actual differences. Blu-ray's higher bit rates and higher capacity discs have been available since the format launched.

Quote:
Yeah, yeah, Blu has more storage capacity and the scratch-resistant coating should make me wet my pants. I get it. Go away.

Nope, I was not arguing that you should care at all about these differences, but simply that to do optimized releases for both formats requires that one duplicate almost all work. Until now, Warner used HD DVD's specs as the limiting factor. To produce the highest quality on both formats requires separate encodes taking advantage of each formats features.

Quote:
Blu has always had more potential, but has always had trouble reaching it. When you don't acknowledge that, and you say HD DVD is the same as SD, you advertise that you are yet another Blu troll, which is kind of pointless now, isn't it?

Please explain show me where I say that HD DVD is the same as SD? For that matter, please show me where I compare HD DVD and Blu-ray quality? You stated that the costs for supporting both format would not be close to double. I talk about the different specifications simply to show why supporting both is much more expensive.

Quote:
I, like many informed customers who don't want a PS3, will buy Blu one day, but not until a reliable player with all of the same interactivity and web enabled features as HD DVD work. I know it's coming.

Again, please show me where I suggested that you should get a Playstation 3. In fact, please show me where I suggest you should buy any product manufactured by Sony at all? I quite clearly stated that if one is concerned about BD Live, one has to wait until this summer.

Quote:
(BTW, this is your cue now to say that no one cares about features, so it doesn't matter that Blu doesn't have them.

I have no intention of saying no one cares about features. I have seen some of the interactive content on both platforms. My point again, is that supporting this on both requires almost double the work for a small and shrinking population. BonusView players are available today from every major Blu-ray manufacturer. By the time that Warner ceases to produce HD DVD discs, BD Live players will be available as well. What does fascinate me is your attitude that the only feature that matters is interactivity (as that is the only feature HD DVD currently offers that Blu-ray has not shipped). You seem to completely discount the greater availability of lossless audio on Blu-ray discs (as an example), something made possible both by the higher bandwidth and larger disc capacity.

Quote:
Then you say how great PS3's are.

Sorry, but I do not feel that Playstation 3 consoles have anything to do with the points you raised about the differences between these formats.

Quote:
Then you say that you can get a profile 1.1 player that works very well, despite the fact that it can't be upgraded for BD-Live,

Actually, as you can see in my original post, I already explained that if felt BD Live was important one should wait until summer to buy a BD Live compliant player.

Quote:
but you follow that by saying it doesn't matter, though when BD-Live players do come out, you will I'm sure be posting about what an important feature it is.

Some people may find it compelling some will not.

Again, what matters is that it is different than HD DVD's interactive layer and as such requires twice the work to support both.

Quote:
Then you call HD DVD owners "whiners", and you say that any intelligent person would ignore the above and buy Blu immediately. Just thought I'd remind you, in case you forgot any of the necessary steps.)

Nice that you can read my mind. Funny how what you predict I will say directly contradicts what I had already previously posted. Guess you do not want to let facts get in the way of your argument.

/carmi

Quote:
If you read my post, Skyhawk, you'd see that I based this on the forums. There are a substantial number of HD DVD owners on here who were posting prior to and after the big announcements, and it certainly seems that my argument holds.

Oh I see. What argument holds? You said it as fact. I should have known you'd base this "fact" on your anecdotal observation of a handful of HD DVD fanatics that spell the "S" in Sony with a "$". I can't wait until you provide the basis for the "fact" that this somehow is representative of the "real world".

This may come as a huge surprise to you, but many people in the "real world" are more concerned with continuing to watch movies in HD, and aren't fanatically married to any silly format. Heck, it's possible that such individuals represent the majority in the "real world". Sites like this tend to attract the extreme nutters. Using such nutters to somehow project what the majority of people in the real world will do over the following months or years is haphazard at best, and no predication by yourself or anyone else can be stated as "fact" on this basis.

Skyhawk - please quote where I said the word "fact". It is observation, and if you want to talk about the feelings of the population as a whole on HD DVD and Blu, then, based on sales, I think the response is, "Who cares?".

This is such an old argument but I have to chime in for a sec. All this talk about bluray having higher bandwidth is futile don't ya think? Bluray probably is capable of higher bandwidth for video and audio theoretically but in the real world where is it? Nobody seems to be able to see it or hear it. The movies that were available on BOTH formats look the same. Both formats offer Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD and I think there is 1 title on bluray that has DTS HD MA (Master Audio). Bluray does have LPCM on some disks but how many, and how much of a difference in sound do you hear over a Dolby True HD or DTS HD audio track?

Anyone of you guys that has both formats in your home go ahead and play 2001: A Space Odessey since it's available on both try your hardest to see if one looks better than the other. Same with the Harry Potter movies, Blade Runner, etc.

What I'm saying is for all the talk of blurays potential nobody seems to see it. When movies are encoded with the same codec they look the same on both formats. Bluray has been out for more than a year and we have yet to see a movie available on both formats look better on bluray. Get over it. It's like a broken record with some of you guys trying the same sales pitch over and over and over and over...

Quote:
More HD DVD owners are going back to SD than are switching to Blu.

Looks as if the above was certainly stated as "fact". I've searched for the words "opinion" or "I believe" or "I think" in the statement, and have had no luck so far. I didn't even find the disclaimer "Of course I'm only talking out my ass". So I take it we can now evaluate the statement based upon your correction of its worth. Thanks (I think?).

Anyway, it comes down to studios not really caring about those who bought AG on HD DVD to bring down Blu-rays win to only 77%. 23% of a minuscule market as a whole right now in pretty inconsequential going forward, especially considering a lot of "purple" people like myself have bought AG, and have Beowulf on preorder. I doubt the numbers of AG sold on HD DVD mean much profit at this point for any studio. They really don't care!

Quote:
Anyone of you guys that has both formats in your home go ahead and play 2001: A Space Odessey since it's available on both try your hardest to see if one looks better than the other. Same with the Harry Potter movies, Blade Runner, etc.

pssst... by posting these titles you're actually reaffirming majortom's point.

Warner decided to save $ by creating identical codecs for these titles regardless of formats, and used standard content authoring that Senarist supported without duplicating authoring effort.

I don't know if studios care or not but I would say the sales for American Gangster on HD DVD are an eye opener at least. Considering HD DVD has been "dead" since the Warner announcement in January there is obviously still a demand for the product. Whether it's dwindling or not is another story. If I Am Legend does get released on HD DVD (as it seems to be) we'll see how those sales look also.

Quote:
Warner decided to save $ by creating identical codecs for these titles regardless of formats, and used standard content authoring that Senarist supported without duplicating authoring effort.

So again I ask, where's this bluray advantage of higher bandwidth? Nobody has seen a single title look better on bluray that is available on both formats. Why is that? Are they waiting for the format to mature? Bluray has been out since 2006.

You can't tell me every movie that was released on both formats is using the exact same encode and that the companies used HD DVD as the "limiting factor". That's halirious. I would love to see a reputable link confirming this.

[Post edited by Falcon01 on Mar 2, 2008]