BR/HD-DVD Thread
- Thread starter Deepak
- Start date
- Status
So, what are you trying to prove :?PC-Engine said:
DVD-Alliance and HD-DVD declared the DD+ and MPL Lossless as mandatory then,
and Blu-Ray declared the current Dolby Digital as mandatory then (Sept 2004).
Now Blu-Ray are declaring DD+ and MPL Lossless as optional.
Where's the "coatailing" BIATCHEEE!!!!!!!!
rabidrabbit said:So, what are you trying to prove :?PC-Engine said:
DVD-Alliance and HD-DVD declared the DD+ and MPL Lossless as mandatory then,
and Blu-Ray declared the current Dolby Digital as mandatory then (Sept 2004).
Now Blu-Ray are declaring DD+ and MPL Lossless as optional.
Where's the "coatailing" BIATCHEEE!!!!!!!!
Doesn't matter if it's optional or mandatory, fact is it was added AFTER biaaatch. DTS-HD wasn't added after it was added at the same time as HD DVD. In other words AC3 was the original plan for Blu-ray then they went back and added DD+ and MLP. Why didn't they just add it when they added AC3 back in Sept?
It does, just as much as whether it was first or after.
BITCHBITCHBITCH!!!!!*SLAP YOU WITH MY HANDBAG*BITCHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
You really believe they weren't originally open to any other formats than just plain old Dolby Digital, not even DTS
It's all about different companies and different timeframes and schedules, but of course you can't se eit 'cos you loose your mind when you see "SONY" anywhere and become a lunatic BIIITCCCHHH!
BITCHBITCHBITCH!!!!!*SLAP YOU WITH MY HANDBAG*BITCHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
You really believe they weren't originally open to any other formats than just plain old Dolby Digital, not even DTS
Because they haven't physically still added them? They're just announcing things, why should they have been in a hurry to announce it added as soon as HD-DVD did so?
It's all about different companies and different timeframes and schedules, but of course you can't se eit 'cos you loose your mind when you see "SONY" anywhere and become a lunatic BIIITCCCHHH!
-tkf- said:
What's the matter struck a nerve hahahahahaha. Sept04-Apr05, know what those dates are? That's how long it took for the backpedaling to take place ahahahahahha. Oh btw they don't need another 20GB since they didn't claim "50GB is enough using MPEG2 which is better" I guess MPEG2 isn't better afterall.
Backpedalling???
They weren't substracting from the format, they were adding to the format.
You have some weird thing with this "backpedalling" you need to twist into anything Sony, do you
They weren't substracting from the format, they were adding to the format.
You have some weird thing with this "backpedalling" you need to twist into anything Sony, do you
Good god you people are SO BORING!!!
You've spent 38 (THIRTY EIGHT) pages bitching about the same thing over and over again. HDDVD iz beddah dan BluPay yaddah yaddah yaddah... No BlueTray iz da bomb itz gonnah kill da HDDVD forevvah!!!
Give it up already!
You've spent 38 (THIRTY EIGHT) pages bitching about the same thing over and over again. HDDVD iz beddah dan BluPay yaddah yaddah yaddah... No BlueTray iz da bomb itz gonnah kill da HDDVD forevvah!!!
Give it up already!
Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are new formats, they had to set some initial specs which were bound to change as the market and the requirements change.
HD-DVD might have been quicker to adopt to these changes as it is backed by DVD-Alliance which must speed things up a bit.
Also HD-DVD is closer techically to current DVD's so they've possibly not had as much technical hurdles to overcome as Blu-ray.
The wording in the first Blu-ray specs might have been something like "Blu ray uses MPEG2 codec", so it's true they've had to change the specs along the way, adding and substracting to it as film studio's and developers have had their say and as the market has evolved and new competitors appeared.
That's just normal in any product, not just Sony and Blu-ray.
HD-DVD might have been quicker to adopt to these changes as it is backed by DVD-Alliance which must speed things up a bit.
Also HD-DVD is closer techically to current DVD's so they've possibly not had as much technical hurdles to overcome as Blu-ray.
The wording in the first Blu-ray specs might have been something like "Blu ray uses MPEG2 codec", so it's true they've had to change the specs along the way, adding and substracting to it as film studio's and developers have had their say and as the market has evolved and new competitors appeared.
That's just normal in any product, not just Sony and Blu-ray.
rabidrabbit said:Backpedalling???
They weren't substracting from the format, they were adding to the format.
You have some weird thing with this "backpedalling" you need to twist into anything Sony, do you
F student copies A student during exam. A student erases answer, F student erases answer. A student picks first answer, F student picks first answer. Teacher FAILS F student for cheating.
Uh the fact HD DVD physical format being closer to DVD have nothing to do with VC-1 and MPEG4AVC being easier to implement. Those are codecs and have no relation to the physical media. Implementing those codecs require equal amounts of work whether it's DVD, HD DVD, or BRD.
-tkf- said:PC-Engine said:
Nope, i think it's only in your little private world that any of your arguments work
It all boils down to one thing 50GB > 30GB
Yes that's why 80+ movies will be released on HD DVD this year.
Thanks but you can keep your 50GB while I'll be watching HD DVDs.
F student goes home to watch movies on his BETAMAX VCR and play games on is PSX.
Another failing lousy analogy, just like your car analogies. You should stop using them
It isn't an "exam", it's a race. There arent any "answers" only goalposts.
It isn't a straight 100m race, it's a marathon on a twisty road with crossroads. There isn't a "teacher" there's the judges, audience and sponsors.
Ok, my analogy has faults too
It isn't an "exam", it's a race. There arent any "answers" only goalposts.
It isn't a straight 100m race, it's a marathon on a twisty road with crossroads. There isn't a "teacher" there's the judges, audience and sponsors.
Ok, my analogy has faults too
PC-Engine said:-tkf- said:PC-Engine said:
Nope, i think it's only in your little private world that any of your arguments work
It all boils down to one thing 50GB > 30GB
Yes that's why 80+ movies will be released on HD DVD this year.
Thanks but you can keep your 50GB while I'll be watching HD DVDs.
F student goes home to watch movies on his BETAMAX VCR and play games on is PSX.
I'm sure that 80 movies on HD-DVD makes up for the 50GB>30GB gap! (?)
I'll watch how HD-DVD actually looks, then i will decided, i only have a Semi HD projector now (720p), still waiting for a full blown HD PJ from Panasonic to show up. 80 movies on single layer HD-DVD really doesn't get me excited, my 650+ DVD collection doesn't cry for an update. The HD content i have sampled (MPEG2 and MPEG4 based) was a very mixed bag from "wow" to "wtf".
Was that last line an insult? Since you added it to your original post?
No that last line wasn't an insult it's part of the story posted above.
If 50GB>30GB is all that matters then WB, Universal, and Paramout must be sh*tin bricks as well as consumers since DVD is 8.5GB.
Do you actually believe Hollywood would allow horrible quality HD movies to be sold? When was the last time Hollywood allowed horrible quality music or videos to be sold?
Edit: I meant audio/video quality.
If 50GB>30GB is all that matters then WB, Universal, and Paramout must be sh*tin bricks as well as consumers since DVD is 8.5GB.
Do you actually believe Hollywood would allow horrible quality HD movies to be sold? When was the last time Hollywood allowed horrible quality music or videos to be sold?
Edit: I meant audio/video quality.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
randycat99
Veteran
KnightBreed said:Using Terminator 2 in high definition as the benchmark for HD movies is setting the bar awfully low. If you are satisfied with that then why bother with any HD format.
Fwiw, if anybody is interested, you can view a short sample of this T2EE in wmv-HD (1080i) if you check out the HD section on MS's website...gonna need a pretty well-spec'd PC to view something more than a slideshow, though.
Upon study of individual frames throughout the sample on a computer monitor (the "true" HD devices of this age ), I wasn't exactly impressed with the "extra detail". It still had a fairly soft look (though surely better than the average DVD, but not as much as you would expect, imo). I have mixed feelings about this particular movie as an HD posterchild. Yeah, I know it is the blood, sweat, and tears of utterly quality-obsessed JC, but you got to also remember this is a movie shot in the early 90's using early 90's equipment or even earlier (granted, the best from that era).
DuckThor Evil
Legend
randycat99 said:
It's actually 1080p, that version is included in the Extreme Edition of the movie which is on sale, sadly it can only be viewed in North-America, which sucks.
edit: fixed the quote
- Status
