HD DVD versus Blu-Ray

[alkemyst]

man lots of flames here....anyway.

It's far too early to call this. I am betting Sony dug their own grave saying no licensing to porn. Yes, it's available online now, but so is just about every movie if you want to hunt it down. Most want to watch high quality on their 'big tv' that are into movies of any kind.

Also most of the people driving the market still, the baby boomers, aren't so tech saavy yet and many still have VCR's running.

The videocam format war is still ongoing...beta/vhs was a 10 year war.

I think the playstation has built a decent market in itself for BR discs, but there is also a lot of HD players out there. I foresee a dual format player being the solution.

Still I really don't understand those going tooth and nail over this as if it was their product.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
man lots of flames here....anyway.

It's far too early to call this. I am betting Sony dug their own grave saying no licensing to porn. Yes, it's available online now, but so is just about every movie if you want to hunt it down. Most want to watch high quality on their 'big tv' that are into movies of any kind.

Also most of the people driving the market still, the baby boomers, aren't so tech saavy yet and many still have VCR's running.

The videocam format war is still ongoing...beta/vhs was a 10 year war.

I think the playstation has built a decent market in itself for BR discs, but there is also a lot of HD players out there. I foresee a dual format player being the solution.

Still I really don't understand those going tooth and nail over this as if it was their product.

Personally I am supporting both. I have both Blu-Ray and HD DVD. I buy whatever movies I want regardless of format. The problem I have is deciding which to buy given the same film on both formats at the same price.

I got both because while Transformers for instance is HD DVD exclusive. Spiderman is Blu-Ray. Gotta have both to have all my movies.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: JC86
I tend to agree with destrekor on this one, I have about 15-20 BD titles, one of the big reasons I got the PS3 was the BD player in it since buying a stand alone is just as expensive, if not more expensive. From what I understand, firmware updates from Sony will keep the PS3 as a relevant BD player for awhile. The games are great too but I only play a few sports games. I'm waiting for Ratatouille (for my gf), and the Die Hard BD collection to add to my collection. Ratatouille should be amazing in BD. I wonder if Sony will come out with their version of the Xbox arcade, a stripped PS3 with a small or no HD and no wifi but still work as a BD player for $199?

When it comes to Audio the PS3 seriously lacks. It cannot bitstream TrueHD or DTS-HD through it's HDMI. This limits it's usefulness as a true Blu-Ray player for those who want it for this purpose (it is the cheapest Blu-Ray player right now outside using your current PC and getting a drive). Whether or not this is a limit on the system, the software, the audio format, or because of some HDCP that Sony locks out I'm not sure.

This is one reason that I am using my PC for both Blu-Ray and HD DVD playback. I can do both from one system out to my HT setup. Using the analog outs from my soundcard I get the TrueHD and other uncompressed audio formats (although not the full 24/96 quality but still much better than normal DD+) by allowing PowerDVD to decode the audio for me.

bitstreaming really is far from necessary. The PS3 can decode the formats and send the data out as uncompressed PCM. Since you already have to use HDMI for the new formats anyway, what is the difference? Sure, you can argue that is should be there as a feature, but it's not necessary. Unless you really need that feature to make you feel better about buying an HDMI v1.3 receiver and having the display read Dolby Digital TrueHD, it's not necessary. It will sound the exact same no matter what.
now, true the PS3 does not currently even touch DTS HD-MA, but according to highdefdigest, DTS is working with Sony to get a patch to allow the PS3 to internally decode the format. Hopefully that comes soon (the source stated holiday season as the goal), since Fox insists on using DTS HD-MA.

DTS Master Audio will never be a reality on the PS3. The decoder simply won't do it. If they can get it to bitstream the sigal through software then perhaps there is a chance if a receiver has the decoder. Also Uncompressed PCM is not the same as bitstreaming the audio to my higher quality decoder. It does not sound the same. A quality receiver and amp will always have better quality than one of lower quality even given the same format. So allowing the PS3 to decode it is lower quality.

It's the reason people buy higher quality components in the first place.

your logic is hella flawed.
for one, decoding of audio merely requires horsepower. no digital circuit is going to change the quality of code. it's either going to be full pcm audio (code), or compressed audio (code form as well).
the receiver's high quality components are going to change how the code is presented and sounds to the listener, but is NOT going to be a better device as merely decoding an audio format.
two, you seriously think the PS3 will never see DTS HD-MA? Why? What is so special about it that a full on PC cannot tackle? The Cell has proven to be the most capable processor in terms of BD playback, and has quite a bit more room left to tackle other things. Just throw a little more muscle at it, and DTS HD-MA will be able to be decoded.

edit:
sure, I admit now, I do not know everything there is no know about audio decoding and its translation to actual audio from the code form. however, I challenge you to do a simple test: run bitstream for regular dolby digital to your receiver, listen, and then have the ps3 decode it and send it as pcm. tell me you honestly hear a difference. the decoding and transcoding of audio is not where the difference in receivers lies, it's how that code is processed and converted to actual analog audio. receivers shine in their ability to go from audio information, to actual analog waves out to the speakers to be played as audio.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: JC86
I tend to agree with destrekor on this one, I have about 15-20 BD titles, one of the big reasons I got the PS3 was the BD player in it since buying a stand alone is just as expensive, if not more expensive. From what I understand, firmware updates from Sony will keep the PS3 as a relevant BD player for awhile. The games are great too but I only play a few sports games. I'm waiting for Ratatouille (for my gf), and the Die Hard BD collection to add to my collection. Ratatouille should be amazing in BD. I wonder if Sony will come out with their version of the Xbox arcade, a stripped PS3 with a small or no HD and no wifi but still work as a BD player for $199?

When it comes to Audio the PS3 seriously lacks. It cannot bitstream TrueHD or DTS-HD through it's HDMI. This limits it's usefulness as a true Blu-Ray player for those who want it for this purpose (it is the cheapest Blu-Ray player right now outside using your current PC and getting a drive). Whether or not this is a limit on the system, the software, the audio format, or because of some HDCP that Sony locks out I'm not sure.

This is one reason that I am using my PC for both Blu-Ray and HD DVD playback. I can do both from one system out to my HT setup. Using the analog outs from my soundcard I get the TrueHD and other uncompressed audio formats (although not the full 24/96 quality but still much better than normal DD+) by allowing PowerDVD to decode the audio for me.

bitstreaming really is far from necessary. The PS3 can decode the formats and send the data out as uncompressed PCM. Since you already have to use HDMI for the new formats anyway, what is the difference? Sure, you can argue that is should be there as a feature, but it's not necessary. Unless you really need that feature to make you feel better about buying an HDMI v1.3 receiver and having the display read Dolby Digital TrueHD, it's not necessary. It will sound the exact same no matter what.
now, true the PS3 does not currently even touch DTS HD-MA, but according to highdefdigest, DTS is working with Sony to get a patch to allow the PS3 to internally decode the format. Hopefully that comes soon (the source stated holiday season as the goal), since Fox insists on using DTS HD-MA.

DTS Master Audio will never be a reality on the PS3. The decoder simply won't do it. If they can get it to bitstream the sigal through software then perhaps there is a chance if a receiver has the decoder. Also Uncompressed PCM is not the same as bitstreaming the audio to my higher quality decoder. It does not sound the same. A quality receiver and amp will always have better quality than one of lower quality even given the same format. So allowing the PS3 to decode it is lower quality.

It's the reason people buy higher quality components in the first place.

your logic is hella flawed.
for one, decoding of audio merely requires horsepower. no digital circuit is going to change the quality of code. it's either going to be full pcm audio (code), or compressed audio (code form as well).
the receiver's high quality components are going to change how the code is presented and sounds to the listener, but is NOT going to be a better device as merely decoding an audio format.
two, you seriously think the PS3 will never see DTS HD-MA? Why? What is so special about it that a full on PC cannot tackle? The Cell has proven to be the most capable processor in terms of BD playback, and has quite a bit more room left to tackle other things. Just throw a little more muscle at it, and DTS HD-MA will be able to be decoded.

Because there is a little issue with HDCP and how it may be possible for people to use the PS3 to rip the audio stream right out as it's decoded. We will see.

It's not flawed either. Why do you think they sell decoders without amps in them at all? For thousands of dollars even...

Because there is a difference. I don't care if average jo blow from down on hickville road can hear the difference on his $500 receiver. There are people with more than that invested into a system. I am not one of them, but to say that a $1k decoder is the same as 10 year old Billy's $399 PS3 is rediculous. I can tell the difference I just cannot afford it which is why I went cheap and use my gaming PC with my HD videos.