HD DVD better than Blu - HOW?

[Mikeblu]

now i know from that title im sure your all pretty mad at me lol. but no my question is how is HD DVD better than blu in any way other than it been 2 quid cheaper. i honestly can't think of any at all if theres anybody on here that owns both player so they can compare the two tell us how you think that HD DVD is better if there is anything. (though I doubt it.)

[CAB]

I looked and looked and looked but still couldn't find a period anywhere. I had to stop reading when I went cross-eyed.

[thrlride]

I've seen both and I will say price is the ONLY way it's better. PQ to me is the same and for me that's all it is really about. Special features are better on HD-DVD but I don't care about that at all.

[SS316SRV]

...crickets...

[Whytewash]

Originally Posted by Mikeblu

now i know from that title im sure your all pretty mad at me lol but no my question is how is HD DVD better than blu in any way other than it been 2 quid cheaper i honestly can't think of any at all if theres anybody on here that owns both player so they can compare the two tell us how you think that HD DVD is better if there is anythin (though I doubt it)

They have Uni and Paramount. They are the remaining two studios I wish blu had... Also they have HDi if you dig that sort of thing.

(Noticed how I used punctuation? I used extra periods to make up for the lack of ones that you didnt use!)

[Blu-Style]

One good thing about HDDVD....

"No region code"


And that´s it.... ok, maybe price for the players,

(The software is on the same Level)

but good Quality like Blu-ray has their price

[HDBlu]

You are asking what makes HD DVD better than Blu-ray...on a Blu-ray forum?

I suppose you are just trying to make a point, but what purpose could even a rhetorical question like this serve in a forum for people that have already made up their minds which format is better.

[Mikeblu]

well im not part of the hd dvd forum as i don't like that format and at least 25 % of the people on here are nuetral.

[w_tanoto]

Originally Posted by Blu-Style

One good thing about HDDVD....

"No region code"


And that´s it.... ok, maybe price for the players,

(The software is on the same Level)

but good Quality like Blu-ray has their price

no region code, but you got some titles from new line delayed

[BTBuck1]

Originally Posted by Mikeblu

now i know from that title im sure your all pretty mad at me lol. but no my question is how is HD DVD better than blu in any way other than it been 2 quid cheaper. i honestly can't think of any at all if theres anybody on here that owns both player so they can compare the two tell us how you think that HD DVD is better if there is anything. (though I doubt it.)

Better is all perception. IMO Blu-ray is Better beause it offers More disc space & Bandwidth for greater potential. Blu-ray offers more studio's and IMO better PQ over all from movies in my collections. I enjoy being able to pick from a plethora of brands for a player. And lastly the fact that the majority of my BD collection contains lossless audio as the rule rather than the exception. 1080p output available on all players.

I can see some people's perception as to why HDDVD is better.

1) Cost of entry the most obvious
2) Every player is capable of conecting to the internet to recieve fw updates and web enabled content
3) Required DD+ & TrueHD decoding in player. (although only 2ch is required all but the 360 can and do decode TrueHD 5.1)
4)PiP available on all players from day 1
5)A belief the cheaper replication will lead to cheaper cost and therefore mass adoption
6)Combo Format allows for playback of discs in portable dvd players, cars and in rooms you only have a legacy player. Which in turn is suppossed to fuel adoption by fence sitting consumers.
7) Region coding not implimented, though i feel this has hurt them more than helped (see New Line)

^^
these things are not important to me, but since you asked this is what i hear the most.

[thrlride]

Originally Posted by HDBlu

You are asking what makes HD DVD better than Blu-ray...on a Blu-ray forum?

I suppose you are just trying to make a point, but what purpose could even a rhetorical question like this serve in a forum for people that have already made up their minds which format is better.

I guess in the hopes of an intelligent conversation about an opposing format.

[kjack]

Originally Posted by BTBuck1

1) Cost of entry the most obvious

True, but this has had a detrimental effect on the number of companies willing to make HD DVD players due to the low margins already. At my count, more China companies are becoming involved in BD players than HD DVD. BTW, knowing how Walmart likes to remove everyone's profit but theirs, their selling price is probably close to the player cost.

2) Every player is capable of conecting to the internet to recieve fw updates and web enabled content

Double-edged sword. How many average users will hook up their player to the internet, especially if it's not wireless? HD DVD burdens every player with this cost, while BD lets users decide if they want to pay for the additional feature or not.

3) Required DD+ & TrueHD decoding in player. (although only 2ch is required all but the 360 can and do decode TrueHD 5.1)

While not mandatory, most BD players will (and do) support decoding of the new audio codecs. For someone wanting to build a really low cost player, the new audio codecs are optional. Again, it's up to the consumer to decide if that is important to them from the BD viewpoint.

4)PiP available on all players from day 1

HD DVD had the advantage here by not going with SoC solutions day 1. Disadvantage is the continual redesign, and changing suppliers, each generation to lower cost.

[radagast]

Better for whom? Toshiba? Microsoft?

It's better for Paramount and Universal in that they have less income taxes to pay.

[BTBuck1]

Originally Posted by kjack

True, but this has had a detrimental effect on the number of companies willing to make HD DVD players due to the low margins already. At my count, more China companies are becoming involved in BD players than HD DVD. BTW, knowing how Walmart likes to remove everyone's profit but theirs, their selling price is probably close to the player cost.

this i feel will be the straw that ultimately breaks the camels back carrying HDDVD.

Double-edged sword. How many average users will hook up their player to the internet, especially if it's not wireless? HD DVD burdens every player with this cost, while BD lets users decide if they want to pay for the additional feature or not.

While not mandatory, most BD players will (and do) support decoding of the new audio codecs. For someone wanting to build a really low cost player, the new audio codecs are optional. Again, it's up to the consumer to decide if that is important to them from the BD viewpoint.

HD DVD had the advantage here by not going with SoC solutions day 1. Disadvantage is the continual redesign, and changing suppliers, each generation to lower cost.

You mention cost cost cost but these costs are not affecting consumers, so I have to ask (like we do with disc replication costs)...why should we care?

Just playing Devils Advocate btw, i agree and understand...but would like to hear from others how this affects us? the consumer.

[thrlride]

Saying toshiba has to be losing money on all of this sounds exactly the same as the pricing for the ps3. Perhaps they are copying sony and taking a loss on each unit sold. It's risky since they are banking on a media format whereas the ps3 still has the games division to eventually make money.

[GTP]

In my experience with two different hd dvd players, three different BD players and a PS3.

hd dvd players are all defective to one extent or another with all three BD players being far less buggy andf the PS3 being bug free.

I also feel that BD picture quality is on average better than hd dvd.
Audio is far ahead on BD with all of its big exclusive studios offering uncompressed or lossless audio on every single release.

I am not interested in extras like pip ect.

I now only support Blu-ray, and have sold all of my hd dvd's.
I found absolutely nothing better about hd dvd through all of this.

[bootman]

The only thing better is if they have a movie you want but can't get otherwise.
You say to yourself, I got to own <insert exclusive movie here> in HD.
If there are more than say 10 titles you can insert, then seriously think about going format neutral.
If not, then you have your format of choice and don't worry about the other guys.

(btw. this advice is valid for both sides)

The movie studios really decide if there is a war or not, not the CEs.

[sj001]

Originally Posted by w_tanoto

no region code, but you got some titles from new line delayed

...and if you are a pirate, it's really easy to rip their movies, I mean Transformers is all over the web already. What a F&*$% joke...

[Anthony P]

You mention cost cost cost but these costs are not affecting consumers, so I have to ask (like we do with disc replication costs)...why should we care?

Just playing Devils Advocate btw, i agree and understand...but would like to hear from others how this affects us? the consumer.

I think the differences are

1) disk replication is minimal WRT ultimate cost. What I mean is that the actual replication is usualy around 25-30 cents/disk (just doing a search of DVD replication, could be even less for real studios) that is why sometimes two disk sets are much less then 1 disk and why sometimes you can buy movies on sale for ridiculously low prices (under 5$) and why pirates can sell movies <1$

2) we all agree that right now there are few people that will buy HD players (war, prices too high....) but if it goes mainstream ten most people need to buy (d'uh). So price will become extremely important when it is time to get the masses. A 20-30$ could be the determining factor for someone going "do I stick with DVD or go HD"

[BTBuck1]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I think the differences are

1) disk replication is minimal WRT ultimate cost. What I mean is that the actual replication is usualy around 25-30 cents/disk (just doing a search of DVD replication, could be even less for real studios) that is why sometimes two disk sets are much less then 1 disk and why sometimes you can buy movies on sale for ridiculously low prices (under 5$) and why pirates can sell movies <1$

2) we all agree that right now there are few people that will buy HD players (war, prices too high....) but if it goes mainstream ten most people need to buy (d'uh). So price will become extremely important when it is time to get the masses. A 20-30$ could be the determining factor for someone going "do I stick with DVD or go HD"

but like i said, cost aren't affectin consumers... Disc pricing is the same between the formats (save combo's) And Toshiba is offering an Entry level HD player at $200

So I ask again, who cares about "Cost to manufacture" when it isn't affecting the consumer. Why should we care when it hasn't made a difference in what we pay?