-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hi-Def Media Lovefest: The war is over and we can all go home.
- Thread starter HyperionX
- Start date
- Status
Basch said:
I dont see the full list, nor do we know who actually was doing the voting.
StoOgE said:
This help? Not a complete list, but you can get the HD DVD winners off the other link I posted. Read the introductory paragraph of the article as for who voted.
Never mind; scratch that. I don't know who voted, but it lists organizations involved with the sponsoring.
Ignatz Mouse said:
I definetely was not talking about you. I can have a lot of fun with a movie like the Rock or even Armageddon for their cheesy nature, but calling him one of most respected action film makers and defending films like Pearl Harbor which is a travesty on so many levels is going a bit overboard.
VanMardigan said:
I respectfully disagree. There has been no comparison done. We are talking about small differences after all. However I think directors can tell the difference if you want me to name a group and probably AV enthusiasts too. I doubt most people could tell the difference unless they have >50" 1080p sets.
Still I'm guessing, right? I don't know what would happen. Would you be able to tell the difference between at BD-50 Transformers encode and the HD-DVD encode? Till they do it, you can't say there is no difference! Anything else is lying to yourself.
Why does it matter? Well it matters in the sense that consumers should be informed regarding the quality that both formats could produce. It likely isn't the same. Will that be a key factor in the war? Who knows?
I've said before this has been HD-DVD's biggest success so far in the PR war, managing to negate the quality advantage that Blu-ray could potentially(not a certainty!) deliver.
AlteredBeast said:
Technically, BD can produce a better picture due higher bitrates (both sustained, and especially for 'burst').
As for Bay's comments, I think we'd need more background to know what he's referring to. For example, most HD DVD titles use VC-1, while many BD use AVC. I'd rather not open the can of worms as to which is 'better', but they do do things a bit differently. Its possible he is referring to that (or a combination of that and bitrates).
Here we go. This will answer everyone's questions: full list of awards and people who voted at the Conference. Took me long enough.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
C4, virtually everybody in the thread is putting him down, and there are people of both camps commenting on how popular it is. I think you're reading into things.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
avaya said:
I have me one of those, and I sincerely doubt I would be able to tell a difference. I can't even tell a difference between well done encodes in VC1, MPEG, etc.
So you say that the AV enthusiasts/movie insiders would be the ones to notice the difference. So wouldn't those folks be the ones that ALREADY know about the bitrate/GB Blu Ray advantage? Who would the BDA be advertising to?
Time and time again, professional reviewers have said that PQ is not a factor when looking at the differentiators. You can have OTHER advantages related to disc size, such as more special features or more sound options. There is also the studio/CE blu ray advantage. THOSE are the areas the BDA is and should be focusing on. Not PQ.
And you mentioned Paramount earlier, but you say the comparison wasn't fair because it wasn't the same compression codec, but is that admitting that VC1 is superior in that it negates the extra 20GB advantage on the blu ray disc? Also, do you know who was handling the encodes for Paramount while they were publishing the blu ray discs? You know they didn't do those encodes themselves, right?
If the size advantage has not and likely will not (by your own admission) translate into an appreciable PQ difference, why do you think the BDA should focus their efforts on that non-factor?
Basch said:Here we go. This will answer everyone's questions: full list of awards and people who voted at the Conference. Took me long enough.
still not sure who voted ('bloggers' scares me. Could mean Hunt or Enderle)..
but I think its hilarious Transformers got best audio with its lowly DD+. :lol
Naked Snake
Member
Cosmic Bus said:
It says Sold Out Online.
I'm so buying that set.
This will be my last point on the subject, I don't really want to make a big fuss over this.
I agree, I doubt anyone can differentiate codecs between differing films, but of the same film?
Not for one second do I believe the difference would be big. It is small.
Well going by the number of HD-DVD buyers across the enthusiast market, they haven't done a good job at all. The BBC's weekly electronics programme last Sunday said that quality (PQ+AQ) between the two are the same.
The Paramount BD-50s I was referring to were amongst the first batch of botched Blu-ray releases during the failed launch. VC-1 being superior to MPEG-2 is irrelevant to my point, which was: Is 40Mbit VC-1 better or indistinguishable from 30Mb VC-1?
I don't even know the answer. This is why reviewers haven't focused on PQ, there has been nothing to compare like for like (i.e. bitrate vs. bitrate).
I don't think they should focus their efforts on it! Quite the contrary, the advantages you mentioned are greater for most people to grasp. However they should do better in terms of conveying that the quality of their product could potentially be better. It's another point that they should have intrinsic to their format but are failing to capitalise on it.
VanMardigan said:
I agree, I doubt anyone can differentiate codecs between differing films, but of the same film?
Not for one second do I believe the difference would be big. It is small.
Well going by the number of HD-DVD buyers across the enthusiast market, they haven't done a good job at all. The BBC's weekly electronics programme last Sunday said that quality (PQ+AQ) between the two are the same.
The Paramount BD-50s I was referring to were amongst the first batch of botched Blu-ray releases during the failed launch. VC-1 being superior to MPEG-2 is irrelevant to my point, which was: Is 40Mbit VC-1 better or indistinguishable from 30Mb VC-1?
I don't even know the answer. This is why reviewers haven't focused on PQ, there has been nothing to compare like for like (i.e. bitrate vs. bitrate).
I don't think they should focus their efforts on it! Quite the contrary, the advantages you mentioned are greater for most people to grasp. However they should do better in terms of conveying that the quality of their product could potentially be better. It's another point that they should have intrinsic to their format but are failing to capitalise on it.
krypt0nian
Banned
So why is Rob Enderle on watch this time? I seemed to have missed this one.
OokieSpookie
Banned
Typical Enderle stupidity.krypt0nian said:
(This time comparing the format war for Sony to Iraq)
OokieSpookie
Banned
Very much so, I think it is quoted a few pages back.Basch said:
Complete jackassery
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
Argyle said:
Did they at any point have AVC encodes for neutral titles? I ask because Sony did the encode for Paramount titles, so they wouldn't (and couldn't) use the same encode for the HD DVD version.
OokieSpookie
Banned
Looks like Star Trek season two is being pushed back a little until "summer 2008"
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Cosmic Bus said:
What's the regular price supposed to be?
Also, how much is the cheapest Blu-Ray player?
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
orio7 said:
Four hundred dollars is the cheapest Blu-Ray player available? And how much is Lost s3 like a hundred or so?
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
Okay, Amazonk has a few on sale in the $340s but fuck that. Sorry, Lost. Maybe next year.
InterMoniker
Member
I really don't understand how Bay's comments are "fanboyish" Blu-ray has a higher bitrate for audio and video giving it a better picture quality and audio not to mention the extra space.
Obviously Blu-ray is superior the only reason his movies can't come out on BR is because Paramount and Dreamworks took the 100 million dollars in an exclusive HD-Dvd only agreement.
The movies cost the same anyways Fuck HD-DVD. Fuck the bribes too, it's such bullshit he wants his movies on Blu-ray but can't because the studios got money hatted. Fuck Hd-Dvd.
Die HD-DVD. Die
Obviously Blu-ray is superior the only reason his movies can't come out on BR is because Paramount and Dreamworks took the 100 million dollars in an exclusive HD-Dvd only agreement.
The movies cost the same anyways Fuck HD-DVD. Fuck the bribes too, it's such bullshit he wants his movies on Blu-ray but can't because the studios got money hatted. Fuck Hd-Dvd.
Wow this shit is getting ridiculous.OokieSpookie said:
Die HD-DVD. Die
Kabuki Waq
Member
InterMoniker said:
:lol :lol
But i have to say agree with certain aspects of your post. I feel that HD DVD has a way better software lineup right now but it would be foolish to buy it right now as it is getting destroyed in sales by Blu Ray. It sucks for me but its the way it is.
Even the Pramount and Dreamworks exclusives didnt seem to matter. (someone can correct me on that)
A very Dreamcast-ish vibe coming from HD DVD IMO.
InterMoniker
Member
Hasn't he been flip flopping on the whole thing? Like at first he said it was the best format then he mysteriously removed his comments and changed hi$ point of view.theBishop said:
You can clearly tell he favors Blu-ray but when he changes his opinion so much it's hard to take him seriously.
Chiggs
Gold Member
InterMoniker said:
You're getting a little angsty, but yeah, I have to agree with you.
To me it just boiled down to this:
1. The tech is inferior.
People can make all the arguments they want, like "closed spec" and "complete format" or "HDi" or what have you, but I think most people who have a clue tech-wise will acknowledge that Blu-ray is the superior format.
InterMoniker
Member
Well fuck the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies cost the same right? Why wouldn't you go for Blu-ray since it looks and sound better?Kabuki Waq said:
The only reason I could come up with as to why I would get an HD-DVD is what you just said. Because of the exclusive. Thats it.
It's fucking bullshit. Blu-ray is technically superior on all fronts. The last thing standing in it's way to major success are the moneyhats.
I just wish everyone would stop playing dumb and beating around the bush.
Thanks Chiggs.Chiggs said:
Also I just got an HDTV so Blu-ray here I come!!!
Kabuki Waq
Member
Chiggs said:
to tell you the truth I have seen both formats running and i was not able to tell the difference. But i dont know about tech mumbo jumbo in these things.
But what i did notice is that the COM HD DVD had this one awesome interactive features that i have yet to see on blu ray. Also the damn software is better on HD DVD. That sucks for me because i only have ps3 and i am not wasting $200 for a 360 HD DVD player.
Also: its really hard to justify backing a format that is trailing so badly right now.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
If "rampant asshattery" claimed snah and kolgar, I fear for our new friend in this thread.
Then how about $129 with six free movies?
And chiggs, I wouldn't brush aside the "complete spec" part. Blu Ray simply isn't ready for prime time if the vast majority of its standalones lack functionality that most movies next year will have. Asking folks to buy a gaming system instead isn't the best solution. There are a lot of folks who have no ties nor care to have any ties to a gaming system. Which is dumb, I know.
Then how about $129 with six free movies?
And chiggs, I wouldn't brush aside the "complete spec" part. Blu Ray simply isn't ready for prime time if the vast majority of its standalones lack functionality that most movies next year will have. Asking folks to buy a gaming system instead isn't the best solution. There are a lot of folks who have no ties nor care to have any ties to a gaming system. Which is dumb, I know.
OokieSpookie
Banned
theBishop said:
Better Michael Bay who has some insight into the movie business rather than random blogger with delusions of self importance which is usually the case.
I mean hell Spielberg and Bay are both supporters and that has to at least count for something.
I still can not say that I have seen anyone in the industry actually come out and say that they prefer hd-dvd.
I know in the grand scheme of things it means nothing, but it is still interesting.
BenjaminBirdie
Banned
orio7 said:
Oh dear lord. You opened this can of worms, not me, but there was a lot more than Lost S3 compelling me to buy a 360.
If there was a Blu Ray player for like $200, I'd have considered it. $270 isn't an insane price to pay for Hi Def Lost and entry into HD Movies. $470 is.
InterMoniker
Member
HAHaha ok I'll chill.VanMardigan said:
Chiggs said:
The closed spec issue is huge though. I can't believe that the BD fellas thought that releasing gimped players like that was ok. Seriously, it's a terrible, terrible thing to do to consumers. Also, HD-DVD is just as capable for HD movies as Blu-ray.
I didn't have a preference toward either format really (maybe slightly leaning Blu) when the war was starting to shape up, but the incomplete spec launch for BD made me really want HD-DVD to come out on top as a sort of punishment or example to Sony and pals that you just can't do that to the market.
OokieSpookie
Banned
Kabuki Waq said:
I keep seeing this "software is better on hd-dvd" but no matter how hard I look at the release lists I just don't see it.
But everyone has their own tastes.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
InterMoniker said:HAHaha ok I'll chill.
No, please don't. Do that angry blu ray fanboy routine at least until a mod notices.
Does that surprise you? It didn't surprise me. Even if I flipped the release schedules and you made that same comment, it wouldn't surprise me.
Chiggs
Gold Member
Kabuki Waq said:
And that's a fair point. I'm just referring to the greater bandwidth and storage size (not bringing up the durability thing for a variety of reasons).
And I'm hoping nobody decides to bring that triple layer crap into this discussion, because lets face it, once you start adding more than 3 layers, compatibility issues become a huge concern, and I believe that to be the case for BOTH formats.
Jeff-DSA said:
How closed can the spec be if they're announcing 51gb triple layer discs? Do you really think they'll play just fine on older players? Or do you not care because you think it's a PR stunt?
Chiggs said:
:lol :lol :lol
Oh, the irony.
VanMardigan
has calmed down a bit.
Just about every statement about the TL51 discs has seemed to indicate that they would be compatible with existing hardware. If they are, then it's all good. Otherwise, I'll be as adamant as I am about the pathetic state of blu ray standalone devices and the garbage that is blu ray profiles.
- Status