Social Feed

Superior to me meansto have the movie itself presented at its very best. 50gb allows for the movie in the higher bit rates, can handle all of the extras, and an uncompressed soundtrack. hd-dvd does not have the space, plain and simple, note the releases of Shrek and Transformers, which Paramount itself said they didn't have the room for a lossless track on either film (see high def digest). That's why Paramount has one title with lossless sound, only 21% of Universal's movies have lossless (see Formatwars.com). On the other hand, every single exclusive blu-ray supporting studio has lossless soundtracks on every single title they have issued. That's hundreds of lossless tracks compared to dozens. That includes Fox, Disney, MGM, Sony/Columbia, Lionsgate, Anchor Bay and Starz Home Entertainment. Every single release, uncompressed PCM, DTS Master or Dolby True. Now that's what I have been waiting for and so has everyone else, but defenders of hd-dvd will never admit it.

That's what I care about, getting my money's worth and watching the movie at its very best, and hd-dvd cannot provide that on many of the titles released. I could care less about 1.1 and 2.0 bdj...give me my money's woirth in quality of the movie and I will be very happy, and that's what blu provides for. Picture in picture during the movie is nothing to me, if I am watchig the film, I could care less about having another picture, I've never used it on Dish Network either. As for the connecting online to the studios, mark my words, this will be mainly used for selling you products, and I don't care for advertisements, there are enough.

Blu is for people who want the best quality, period. You can have your $98.00 cheapie 1080i players, I spent plenty on my projector and want 1080p thanks, and to those who say it's just as good as 1080p (1080i), it's bogus information. Anything in progressive format is much better, and if the tv does the de-interlacing from 1080i, you have another step in the signal to screen, and every step degrades quality.

No hd-dvd fanboy will ever convince me the quality of hd-dvd is better than blu-ray, because it isn't. perhaps when they get a 50gb disc, and they can add higher bit rates and lossless sound, I will agree, but until then, I am blu, blu, blu. Besides, Disney, Columbia, Fox and MGM (MGM and United Artists films) are a large percentage of films from Hollywood. That's 4 big exclusives compared to 2 for hd-dvd, I guess I like the selection better. If you look at the history of video, no format ever took off big until Disney hit the scene, and they are blu too.

So it looks like you found your holy grail: you know what you want and blu delivers exactly that... Congrats!
But why are you so defensive? Just enjoy the movies...

Diogen.

diogen said:

So it looks like you found your holy grail: you know what you want and blu delivers exactly that... Congrats!
But why are you so defensive? Just enjoy the movies...

Diogen.

Click to expand...

I don't have anything against hd-dvd. In fact, the player I am strongly considering is the Samsung bdp-u5000 combi player coming out in December. This will have full interactivity for both formats, will have analog pcm 7.1 analog outputs, support the new sound formats, the HQV Reon upscaler(which I think a very important feature for my current dvd collection), ect. This player is listed on some sites at $799, not a bad deal considering you get the 7.1 outs and the Reon HQV as well as everything else. I agree with you, I just want to enjoy the movies. I do feel blu has an advantage with the space, and it's a fact that there are a few hundred more blu's that have uncompressed sound than hd-dvd, and I am really into soundtracks, as much as I am with the picture. I agree that hd-dvd has some advantages too. The player price is great, they already have full interactivity. I don't think blu-ray was near ready for the market, but I understand that they had to release players close to the time Toshiba did, Sony had spent alot of money on development. I know I don't want a 1080i player, I just spent $2700 on my Epson 1080P projector, so why skimp on the player. But I do understand alot of people have 1080i televisions and those players are perfect for them.

I am a big movie fan, but I am tired of the fanboys trying to convince. The fact is we have to live with 2 formats and I think that's going to be for some time. I just want to sit back and enjoy the movies in the best sound and picture quality available. With blu-ray studios releasing every single title with uncompressed, it's just my opinion that those films are worth spending 30.00 on over ones that don't have uncompressed, and on that issue, blu-ray has really delivered much better, I think probably due to the extra 20gb. But there are others who could care less about the soundtracks, I happen to care a great deal.

2008 will bring cheaper blu-ray players, possibly $199 during the year, and hd-dvd can't go much lower than it is. So price will be equal soon. 2008 will also bring full interactivity, along with supported releases, for blu-ray, and supposedly 51gb discs for hd-dvd, so maybe they will finally be able to add uncompressed to every release like blu ray (except for Warner who continues to release in both formats many titles without uncompressed sound), but there is a big question as to whether the 51gb discs for hd-dvd will play in current players. From what I have read so far, this is a hardware issue that cannot be corrected with firmware, but it remains to be seen. I havn't heard anything about the 51gb disc for a few months.

In summary, give me the movies, I don't care which format, but I want the uncomprsssed sound and best picture quality for each movie. Extras and internet connectivity and picture-in-picture are all much less important to me compared to that. Both formats can handle the best, and I wish they would do it on every title. We are living in the days of availability of DTS Master, PCM 5.1 and Dolby True. I just don't feel we should have to settle for less after living with DVD dolby digital compressed for so long. Once people hear what these soundtracks can sound like, even those rich Cinemascope, 70mm, Todd-AO stereo soundtracks of the classics, the richness, separation, tonal quality, they will hear the difference. My good friend is a projectionist, he started doing this in 1953, just around the time of stereo movies. He recorded some of the soundtracks on 4 track reel to reel tape at the theater and months ago,m played them for me. We compared them to the dvd soundtracks, and all I could say is wow, there is a huge difference. And I mean huge. Soundstage was 100% better with the diurect reel to reel recordings, as well as all other qualities.

The worst part of all of this is.....when dvd became huge, all of us were on these forums that existed at the time, having a grand and exciting time, we all were thrilled with the jump from VHS tape (and even those who had laserdisc). It's really sad to see people getting so angry and intense when we should be enjoying these breakthroughs. So, there are 2 formats now, it's sad for the consumer, really sad and may make these formats become niche formats for years until one gives up, which I don't think is going to happen. All the talk about price of players I think has no baring, because when dvd went to a price where all families could afford one, all studios were supporting the one format. This is a very different story, I don't think comparisons work.

As for Bill Hunt, I see nothing wrong with choosing a side based on his personal opinion. It's his web site, and I have enjoyed his commentary...and I don't always agree but I respect other people's opinions.

Amen...

Diogen.

Sensible post.

Glad to read some people are looking at this thing reasonably and more out of love of movies than corporate affiliations...