Which is More Consumer Friendly: HD DVD or Blu-ray?
-
miller
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:07 am
-
free2speak
- Member
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:43 am
I was fortunate to be one of the lucky Walmart customers that purchased the Toshiba HD-A2 for $98.87 during the recent sales. I am very happy and I would definately purchase it again. I was watching the HD DVD VS Blu-Ray for way too long. The whole business is about greed; not because someone wanted to deliver a superior format. Blu-Ray's biggest advantage is the additional storage, but it has a high price to go with it. HD DVD does not seem to be limited in capability since long 3 plus hour movies fit on it without a problem. I was watching the HD-A2 at around $249, and it was getting the largest number of good user reviews of any player. When Walmart had the secret sale I decided it was time to buy. I looked at it from the perspective that I can enhance my HD experience for the price of a cheap DVD player. I am not usually a bargain hunter when it comes to my AV equipment. The HD-A2 is the least expensive component in my system, and it works great. I will rent the bulk of my movies from Netflix, and buy the few that I really like. I have upgraded the firmware twice on my HD-A2 it was a breeze. The only problem with HD DVD is now I don't want to watch my old DVD's.
Last edited by free2speak on Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
free2speak
- Member
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:43 am
I have watched quite a few movies on my Toshiba HD-A2 with no playback issues at all. I rent from Netflix also. I was horrified when I received my first rental HD DVD from Netflix because the surface of the disk looked so poor. I wiped the disk with one of the anti-static wipes that you use for monitors and the disk still looked rough. I was pleasantly surprised that the disk played flawlessly. The Combo disks have been known to cause some playback issues on someplayers. I have two Combo, and they work fine on the HD-A2. I still don't like combo because I have no use for the DVD side, and the extra cost associated with it.
-
cohominous
- Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:26 am
Miller, I realize what I wrote. It's interesting you read the post and instead of thinking, "yeah, that's true, the HD-DVD spec is the one that mandates a way to connect to the internet and many blu-ray owners can't have the machine constantly hooked up" you looked at it and thought, "AHA! I'll ignore the point and focus on his choice of wording!" Yes, I said "internet connection" rather than "way to connect to the internet". I also went on to say later, you do not need a internet access subscription. You know, an internet connection ... oops, sorry, a way to connect to the internet, is a good thing -not something to make excuses for. But, whatever.
As far as load times... I realize Shane wasn't comparing the two. Does that invalidate my question? The only answer I keep getting (oddly enough, even when I read it slowly) is "the article wasn't talking about that..." Great. Well I was. How about this... Bluray players are absolutely, definitely, unquestionably hampered by excessive DRM that significantly and unbearably slows them down. Now that I've appeased you, why do HD-DVD players without excessive DRM load more slowly (or even at the same speed)? All things being equal, they should load lightning fast without this burden and always beat blu ray players in startup comparisons. If you don't know, fine. Just don't repeat "The article wasn't talking about that..." Or could it be that DRM is simply something for HD-DVD proponents to crow about? Because unless you're authoring those discs, what do you care? Obviously the industry doesn't because 170 companies are backing blu ray. You didn't dump HD-DVD when they had the combo disc problem or the 1st generation of slow starters. As I said BD+ is experiencing some problems but does anyone truly believe the problem won't be fixed?
I can see you will never admit HD-DVD may sometimes load more slowly, even with recent comparisons. I even went so far as to say this may not be the norm.
I'm not trying to point out HD-DVD's flaws just to make it look bad. I believe that both formats are actually pretty exciting and roughly on par -both good and bad (remember my six of one half dozed of another reference?). Format proponents tend to have a short memory on their problems. I'm just tired of this thing being dragged out and slowing adoption. 170 companies back blu ray. A majority of studios (yes, I know... but your thiiis close) back bluray. And if rumors are right, Warner Brothers may be siding with Blu Ray next month. Blu Ray disc sales are 3 to 1. The rest of the world is also adopting blu ray as the standard. We're halfway to the goal with Blu Ray while HD-DVD is constantly playing catch-up. Do you truly, honestly believe HD-DVD to be so superior that we should ignore all this?
As far as load times... I realize Shane wasn't comparing the two. Does that invalidate my question? The only answer I keep getting (oddly enough, even when I read it slowly) is "the article wasn't talking about that..." Great. Well I was. How about this... Bluray players are absolutely, definitely, unquestionably hampered by excessive DRM that significantly and unbearably slows them down. Now that I've appeased you, why do HD-DVD players without excessive DRM load more slowly (or even at the same speed)? All things being equal, they should load lightning fast without this burden and always beat blu ray players in startup comparisons. If you don't know, fine. Just don't repeat "The article wasn't talking about that..." Or could it be that DRM is simply something for HD-DVD proponents to crow about? Because unless you're authoring those discs, what do you care? Obviously the industry doesn't because 170 companies are backing blu ray. You didn't dump HD-DVD when they had the combo disc problem or the 1st generation of slow starters. As I said BD+ is experiencing some problems but does anyone truly believe the problem won't be fixed?
I can see you will never admit HD-DVD may sometimes load more slowly, even with recent comparisons. I even went so far as to say this may not be the norm.
I'm not trying to point out HD-DVD's flaws just to make it look bad. I believe that both formats are actually pretty exciting and roughly on par -both good and bad (remember my six of one half dozed of another reference?). Format proponents tend to have a short memory on their problems. I'm just tired of this thing being dragged out and slowing adoption. 170 companies back blu ray. A majority of studios (yes, I know... but your thiiis close) back bluray. And if rumors are right, Warner Brothers may be siding with Blu Ray next month. Blu Ray disc sales are 3 to 1. The rest of the world is also adopting blu ray as the standard. We're halfway to the goal with Blu Ray while HD-DVD is constantly playing catch-up. Do you truly, honestly believe HD-DVD to be so superior that we should ignore all this?
-
miller
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:07 am
-
free2speak
- Member
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:43 am
Well we agree on one thing. I am tired of the "slow adoption".cohominous -I'm just tired of this thing being dragged out and slowing adoption. 170 companies back blu ray. A majority of studios (yes, I know... but your thiiis close) back bluray. And if rumors are right, Warner Brothers may be siding with Blu Ray next month. Blu Ray disc sales are 3 to 1. The rest of the world is also adopting blu ray as the standard. We're halfway to the goal with Blu Ray while HD-DVD is constantly playing catch-up. Do you truly, honestly believe HD-DVD to be so superior that we should ignore all this?
I would say overall both Blu-Ray and HD DVD are rougly equal. Performance being the same I will take the less expensive player which is of course HD DVD. Your "170 companies" mean that Blu-Ray has maybe 50 movies more than HD DVD now. Do you know how fast these studios could make 50 movies in either format? I am thinking less than a day. It really doesn't matter if the "The rest of the world is also adopting blu ray as the standard". If enough HD DVD players sell in the USA then the manufacturers will be forced to make HD DVD's whether they want to or not because the market is that big. Right now HD DVD players are selling fast because of the special sales going on. As for Warner Brothers they are still committed to making movies for both formats, and there will be no doomsday scenario for HD DVD next month like you imply. The Christmas sales have probably extended the format wars another year.
-
cohominous
- Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:26 am
-
dabhome
- Member
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:22 am
I went for HD DVD and here is why
I went for HD DVD for a number of reasons. I believe both formats have advantages and disadvantages, so whichever way somebody decides is okay. However, these are my reasons.
1. COST!! - I already had an XBOX 360 so I could get into the game for $199.00. This was probably the biggest reason, but not the only one. If I had a PS3 I probably would have gone Blu-Ray.
2. Interactivty - HD DVD had interactivity today. Not next week, not a year from now, today! I am not interested in making sure I buy a product that will still be good a year from now. If I was I would not buy anything since there is no guarentee. Also, basically, I rent everything I watch anyways. So who cares which format will be the winner a year or two from now.
3. DRM - I choose HD DVD because I am not in favor of Blu-Ray DRM. I like that you can buy an HD DVD from any place in the world and it will work in my player. Also, DRM on Blu-Ray hurts the small shops who have small disk presses. Therefore, I voted with my dollars.
4. Content availability - I looked at what was available on HD DVD and Blu-Ray and decided there was more stuff on HD DVD that I wanted to see then on Blu-Ray. This of course is highly subjective and is just due to my own personal tastes. There are movies on Blu-Ray that I wish I could get. Some of them I can import from Europe. But, that does require buying instead of renting.
5. Reviews - At the time I was looking HD DVD movies were getting better reviews. This was because Blu-Ray was using MPEG2 encoding. This has been fixed and basically the reviews indicate the movie quality is about the same. Despite all the hoopla about the better specs Blu-Ray has it has not seemed to help it were it counts (I.e. delivered product!).
Bottom line once Blu-Ray finally releases a Level 2.0 box at a reasonable price I may consider buying it. Or if I can get one for $200 I may consider buying it. Until then I am HD DVD all the way!
By the way, I have had no problem playing any disk I have rented from BlockBuster (that's right I rent HD DVDs from BlockBuster).
1. COST!! - I already had an XBOX 360 so I could get into the game for $199.00. This was probably the biggest reason, but not the only one. If I had a PS3 I probably would have gone Blu-Ray.
2. Interactivty - HD DVD had interactivity today. Not next week, not a year from now, today! I am not interested in making sure I buy a product that will still be good a year from now. If I was I would not buy anything since there is no guarentee. Also, basically, I rent everything I watch anyways. So who cares which format will be the winner a year or two from now.
3. DRM - I choose HD DVD because I am not in favor of Blu-Ray DRM. I like that you can buy an HD DVD from any place in the world and it will work in my player. Also, DRM on Blu-Ray hurts the small shops who have small disk presses. Therefore, I voted with my dollars.
4. Content availability - I looked at what was available on HD DVD and Blu-Ray and decided there was more stuff on HD DVD that I wanted to see then on Blu-Ray. This of course is highly subjective and is just due to my own personal tastes. There are movies on Blu-Ray that I wish I could get. Some of them I can import from Europe. But, that does require buying instead of renting.
5. Reviews - At the time I was looking HD DVD movies were getting better reviews. This was because Blu-Ray was using MPEG2 encoding. This has been fixed and basically the reviews indicate the movie quality is about the same. Despite all the hoopla about the better specs Blu-Ray has it has not seemed to help it were it counts (I.e. delivered product!).
Bottom line once Blu-Ray finally releases a Level 2.0 box at a reasonable price I may consider buying it. Or if I can get one for $200 I may consider buying it. Until then I am HD DVD all the way!
By the way, I have had no problem playing any disk I have rented from BlockBuster (that's right I rent HD DVDs from BlockBuster).
-
andrewleblanccox
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:28 am
Who Decides Which Movies Get released in HD?
So much attention is devoted in these forums to the technical aspects of Blu-Ray and HD, but doesn't the quality of what is released
concern the renting/buying public? I am beginning to wonder. It seems that very few people really care about movies that merit
repeated viewings and which are worth collecting or investing in. So few really classic titles, representing all decades from the "Golden
Age Of Hollywood" to the recent past are out there. Ultimately, my home theatre is centered around the movies worth seeing, not the
equipment to watch them on, which becomes outdated every 6 months by newer technologies. Is this forum mainly for those who
want to show off explosions with their home theatres? Are there any serious cinemaphiles out there who demand the best video possible?
I couldn't believe a recent listing from Universal studios, in the HD format, of two very mediocre Bob Hope-Bing Crosby "Road" movie musicals.
Doesn't Universal have an inkling that titles such as "Sweet Charity", or even "The Wiz", would be eminently more collectible as their first "HD"outings over the "Road" films? And Warner Bros. issues the 3 "That's Entertainment" docu's before releasing a single classic musical
such as "The Wizard Of Oz", "Singing In The Rain", "West Side Story" or "Cabaret"? Who are the lame decision makers for
these companies? When will we ever see the maginficant 70mm road show classics from the past, such as "Dr. Zhivago" and "Lawrence
Of Arabia" which beg to be seen in hd? "Close Encounters" and "2001" are starters, but the decision makers for both HD and Blu-Ray
need to seriously catch up on the void of really collectible films, not just more mega-plex garbage, which no one will want to watch
a couple of years down the pike. Why do we see practically nothing in hd from the 20th Century Fox vaults - from the Rodgers & Hammerstein musicals to the "Star Wars" series? There is a real imbalance with this studio, which will release the 21 [standard] DVD
box of "Ford At Fox", yet not a single 20th CF movie classic in hd.
concern the renting/buying public? I am beginning to wonder. It seems that very few people really care about movies that merit
repeated viewings and which are worth collecting or investing in. So few really classic titles, representing all decades from the "Golden
Age Of Hollywood" to the recent past are out there. Ultimately, my home theatre is centered around the movies worth seeing, not the
equipment to watch them on, which becomes outdated every 6 months by newer technologies. Is this forum mainly for those who
want to show off explosions with their home theatres? Are there any serious cinemaphiles out there who demand the best video possible?
I couldn't believe a recent listing from Universal studios, in the HD format, of two very mediocre Bob Hope-Bing Crosby "Road" movie musicals.
Doesn't Universal have an inkling that titles such as "Sweet Charity", or even "The Wiz", would be eminently more collectible as their first "HD"outings over the "Road" films? And Warner Bros. issues the 3 "That's Entertainment" docu's before releasing a single classic musical
such as "The Wizard Of Oz", "Singing In The Rain", "West Side Story" or "Cabaret"? Who are the lame decision makers for
these companies? When will we ever see the maginficant 70mm road show classics from the past, such as "Dr. Zhivago" and "Lawrence
Of Arabia" which beg to be seen in hd? "Close Encounters" and "2001" are starters, but the decision makers for both HD and Blu-Ray
need to seriously catch up on the void of really collectible films, not just more mega-plex garbage, which no one will want to watch
a couple of years down the pike. Why do we see practically nothing in hd from the 20th Century Fox vaults - from the Rodgers & Hammerstein musicals to the "Star Wars" series? There is a real imbalance with this studio, which will release the 21 [standard] DVD
box of "Ford At Fox", yet not a single 20th CF movie classic in hd.