Petition for HD-DVD

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Slick5150
You don't see them because no studio feels the need for the additional space, which makes the point moot about Blu-Ray's size "advantage". They generally just use up the extra space with an "uncompressed" audio track, which is pointless considering Dolby HD is lossless anyways, so you're getting no advantage from a quality perspective.

Explain Alexander Revisited.

WB, being dual-format at the time, used the lowest common denominator for the release. The feature was split onto two 30GB HD DVD discs, and two 25GB Blu-Ray discs.

WB could have easily fit the whole 214 minute movie onto a single 50GB Blu-Ray disc, thus offering a significant advantage (not having to change discs halfway through the movie) for Blu-Ray owners.

With New Line Blu-Ray exclusive, at least LOTR won't suffer the same fate.

I'm pretty sure 51GB HD-DVD discs weren't official yet. And why wouldn't WB just put the HD-DVD on 2 disc and put the Blu-Ray version on a single disc? Production costs? If so, why did WB spend the extra money on the production of 300 on HD-DVD than Blu-Ray?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Blu-Ray supporters are just pissed they lost the "high capacity" bullet item in their argument against HD-DVD.

Saying Blu-Ray has lost anything against HD DVD is laughable at this juncture.

You're right, the best standard lost. I'll admit that.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I'm pretty sure 51GB HD-DVD discs weren't official yet. And why wouldn't WB just put the HD-DVD on 2 disc and put the Blu-Ray version on a single disc? Production costs? If so, why did WB spend the extra money on the production of 300 on HD-DVD than Blu-Ray?

In my opinion, WB heavily favored HD DVD in the format war. Just look at the big exclusives (Batman Begins, The Matrix Trilogy, etc.) that were only released on HD DVD. I think they honestly didn't want to give their Blu-Ray releases any advantage over their HD DVD releases.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I'm pretty sure 51GB HD-DVD discs weren't official yet. And why wouldn't WB just put the HD-DVD on 2 disc and put the Blu-Ray version on a single disc? Production costs? If so, why did WB spend the extra money on the production of 300 on HD-DVD than Blu-Ray?

In my opinion, WB heavily favored HD DVD in the format war. Just look at the big exclusives (Batman Begins, The Matrix Trilogy, etc.) that were only released on HD DVD. I think they honestly didn't want to give their Blu-Ray releases any advantage over their HD DVD releases.

Interesting. So you admit WB just did a 180 all of a sudden? Weird. I wonder why they did that. Oh yeah, per their press release, "they believed Blu-Ray is what the people wanted." Yeah, sure, I believe that. :roll:

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I'm pretty sure 51GB HD-DVD discs weren't official yet. And why wouldn't WB just put the HD-DVD on 2 disc and put the Blu-Ray version on a single disc? Production costs? If so, why did WB spend the extra money on the production of 300 on HD-DVD than Blu-Ray?

In my opinion, WB heavily favored HD DVD in the format war. Just look at the big exclusives (Batman Begins, The Matrix Trilogy, etc.) that were only released on HD DVD. I think they honestly didn't want to give their Blu-Ray releases any advantage over their HD DVD releases.

Interesting. So you admit WB just did a 180 all of a sudden? Weird. I wonder why they did that. Oh yeah, per their press release, "they believed Blu-Ray is what the people wanted." Yeah, sure, I believe that. :roll:

It was probably due to:

1) Lack of any major Blu-Ray studios going neutral
2) Lack of HD DVD gaining significant ground on Blu-Ray (Toshiba even admitted that Blu-Ray stand alone players outsold their own in Q4 2007)
3) $xxx million incentives from Sony
4) Realization that going HD DVD exclusive would split the studio support 50/50 between formats, prolonging the war.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I'm pretty sure 51GB HD-DVD discs weren't official yet. And why wouldn't WB just put the HD-DVD on 2 disc and put the Blu-Ray version on a single disc? Production costs? If so, why did WB spend the extra money on the production of 300 on HD-DVD than Blu-Ray?

In my opinion, WB heavily favored HD DVD in the format war. Just look at the big exclusives (Batman Begins, The Matrix Trilogy, etc.) that were only released on HD DVD. I think they honestly didn't want to give their Blu-Ray releases any advantage over their HD DVD releases.

Interesting. So you admit WB just did a 180 all of a sudden? Weird. I wonder why they did that. Oh yeah, per their press release, "they believed Blu-Ray is what the people wanted." Yeah, sure, I believe that. :roll:

It was probably due to:

1) Lack of any major Blu-Ray studios going neutral
2) Lack of HD DVD gaining significant ground on Blu-Ray (Toshiba even admitted that Blu-Ray stand alone players outsold their own in Q4 2007)
3) $xxx million incentives from Sony
4) Realization that going HD DVD exclusive would split the studio support 50/50 between formats, prolonging the war.

I agree with that.

 

[Pepsei]

please, no more arguing which is better. i've read 1000's of back and forth bickering from AVS already.

in the end content is king...

 

[palladium]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: JackBurton
I'm pretty sure 51GB HD-DVD discs weren't official yet. And why wouldn't WB just put the HD-DVD on 2 disc and put the Blu-Ray version on a single disc? Production costs? If so, why did WB spend the extra money on the production of 300 on HD-DVD than Blu-Ray?

In my opinion, WB heavily favored HD DVD in the format war. Just look at the big exclusives (Batman Begins, The Matrix Trilogy, etc.) that were only released on HD DVD. I think they honestly didn't want to give their Blu-Ray releases any advantage over their HD DVD releases.

Interesting. So you admit WB just did a 180 all of a sudden? Weird. I wonder why they did that. Oh yeah, per their press release, "they believed Blu-Ray is what the people wanted." Yeah, sure, I believe that. :roll:

It was probably due to:

1) Lack of any major Blu-Ray studios going neutral
2) Lack of HD DVD gaining significant ground on Blu-Ray (Toshiba even admitted that Blu-Ray stand alone players outsold their own in Q4 2007)
3) $xxx million incentives from Sony
4) Realization that going HD DVD exclusive would split the studio support 50/50 between formats, prolonging the war.

I agree with that.

Seconded. Why else would you take sides and lose the HD DVD customer base?

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
please, no more arguing which is better. i've read 1000's of back and forth bickering from AVS already.

in the end content is king...

Agreed. This is pointless.

 

[Genx87]

Why do people argue about the capacity of these discs? About the only use it will serve is to cram more episodes of a tv show onto less discs. Otherwise what commercial application does a 50GB BluRay or HD-DVD disc serve?