So is anyone actually going to buy an HD-DVD player this coming Tuesday?

[otispunkmeyer]

Originally posted by: miri
No, ill just wait til the playstation 3 comes out with a blu ray player.

thats what im gonna do....

i want a PS3 anyway, so blu ray is like an extra.....if the format as far as movies go doesnt take off, ill still be able to use the PS3 for games.

i wouldnt mind having blu ray for my PC either

50Gb dual layer discs sounds good, but i hope its not gonna be like curretn DVDR's.....i cant do multi sessions on DVD's because everything except the computer i burn it on can see all the sessions. everything else just sees the first session.

 

[0roo0roo]

i just think dual layer is more viable for hddvd. look at plain dvd dual layer. we are barely adopting that now..it costs too much. imagine bluray dual layer costs😛 eek

 

[arod]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i just think dual layer is more viable for hddvd. look at plain dvd dual layer. we are barely adopting that now..it costs too much. imagine bluray dual layer costs😛 eek

that is a big thing to me.... i never have seen definitive proof that current hd-dvd are dual layered now. if they are the space issue is more or less moot imo because of the added costs (and i expect it to be similar to single vs dual layer dvdr's in that they are so expensive they arent worth it)

but if its a dual layer hd-dvd (and thats the standard) vs a single layer blueray (with the addition of a dual layer blueray vs a dual layer hd-dvd or even the rumored trilayer ones) it will be pretty much moot.

but if its single vs single then blueray does have the advantage.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: arod

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i just think dual layer is more viable for hddvd. look at plain dvd dual layer. we are barely adopting that now..it costs too much. imagine bluray dual layer costs😛 eek

that is a big thing to me.... i never have seen definitive proof that current hd-dvd are dual layered now. if they are the space issue is more or less moot imo because of the added costs (and i expect it to be similar to single vs dual layer dvdr's in that they are so expensive they arent worth it)

but if its a dual layer hd-dvd (and thats the standard) vs a single layer blueray (with the addition of a dual layer blueray vs a dual layer hd-dvd or even the rumored trilayer ones) it will be pretty much moot.

but if its single vs single then blueray does have the advantage.

The initial HD-DVD titles are in fact dual layer. This is how to check

 

[Queasy]

Interesting - Even though the intial HD-DVD players don't support 1080p, all the HD-DVD releases are produced in the 1080p format.

 

[arod]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: arod

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i just think dual layer is more viable for hddvd. look at plain dvd dual layer. we are barely adopting that now..it costs too much. imagine bluray dual layer costs😛 eek

that is a big thing to me.... i never have seen definitive proof that current hd-dvd are dual layered now. if they are the space issue is more or less moot imo because of the added costs (and i expect it to be similar to single vs dual layer dvdr's in that they are so expensive they arent worth it)

but if its a dual layer hd-dvd (and thats the standard) vs a single layer blueray (with the addition of a dual layer blueray vs a dual layer hd-dvd or even the rumored trilayer ones) it will be pretty much moot.

but if its single vs single then blueray does have the advantage.

The initial HD-DVD titles are in fact dual layer. This is how to check

thats good to know.... and really that really makes hd-dvd technically may have more space because from what i have read the initial bluerays are single layer and later they would introduce dual layered stuff. I know this doesnt mean much in terms of r/rw discs but if dual layer is the "standard" then hd-dvd technically would be a better format for movies. Granted this is all assuming bluerays are single layer.

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: otispunkmeyer

Originally posted by: miri
No, ill just wait til the playstation 3 comes out with a blu ray player.

thats what im gonna do....

i want a PS3 anyway, so blu ray is like an extra.....if the format as far as movies go doesnt take off, ill still be able to use the PS3 for games.

i wouldnt mind having blu ray for my PC either

50Gb dual layer discs sounds good, but i hope its not gonna be like curretn DVDR's.....i cant do multi sessions on DVD's because everything except the computer i burn it on can see all the sessions. everything else just sees the first session.

I'm with you guys. Unless Sony does something off the wall, I know I'll be getting a PS3. Even if it doesn't come until 2007, I can wait.

 

[arod]

also one last addendum (just came across this info). blockbuster online now has hd-dvd's listed in their store (along with netflix). Very cool to know both services will support next gen dvd formats from the start.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Interesting - Even though the intial HD-DVD players don't support 1080p, all the HD-DVD releases are produced in the 1080p format.

qhich is exactly why most people wil stay far far away until the dust settles and we find out which one of the two got the shot off first....

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: arod
thats good to know.... and really that really makes hd-dvd technically may have more space because from what i have read the initial bluerays are single layer and later they would introduce dual layered stuff. I know this doesnt mean much in terms of r/rw discs but if dual layer is the "standard" then hd-dvd technically would be a better format for movies. Granted this is all assuming bluerays are single layer.

1. All Blu-ray players from day one will support playback for dual-layer movies.

2. From what I understand, the first wave(s) of Blu-ray titles will be single layer, with dual-layer movies trickling in through the summer/fall. I read that Blackhawk Down will be Sony Pictures first dual layer flick. A first generation player will read these later movies just fine.

Rest assured dual layer media for Blu-ray is coming, just not at launch. The players are not the problem, it's the discs.

 

[zanieladie]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
I'll wait until they are reasonably priced.

:thumbsup:

 

[arod]

Originally posted by: KnightBreed

Originally posted by: arod
thats good to know.... and really that really makes hd-dvd technically may have more space because from what i have read the initial bluerays are single layer and later they would introduce dual layered stuff. I know this doesnt mean much in terms of r/rw discs but if dual layer is the "standard" then hd-dvd technically would be a better format for movies. Granted this is all assuming bluerays are single layer.

1. All Blu-ray players from day one will support playback for dual-layer movies.

2. From what I understand, the first wave(s) of Blu-ray titles will be single layer, with dual-layer movies trickling in through the summer/fall. I read that Blackhawk Down will be Sony Pictures first dual layer flick. A first generation player will read these later movies just fine.

Rest assured dual layer media for Blu-ray is coming, just not at launch. The players are not the problem, it's the discs.

I have no doubt they will come.... my point was they will most likely cost more to produce and thus cost more at retail. Like dual layer DVD-R/RW now it not a big seller compared to SL because of the price. Granted the price isnt as big of a difference with stamped dvd's but it still will cost more.

I could see DL blurays be like the "criterion collection" dvd's and they charge more for those.

 

[Triumph]

No, absolutely not. The step from LP, to tape, to cd, and from nothing, to VHS, to LD, and to DVD, were each big steps in their own right. HD or Blu Ray offer nothing to me other than a bit better picture. I (and 99% of people) won't be able to hear a difference in sound quality. So why be an early adopter of something that offers little benefit over what we have now? Why even become a late adopter?

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: arod
also one last addendum (just came across this info). blockbuster online now has hd-dvd's listed in their store (along with netflix). Very cool to know both services will support next gen dvd formats from the start.

Sounds like Blockbuster learned their lesson from back in the early days of DVD.

 

[EyeMWing]

I know someone who actually got theirs on FRIDAY at Best Buy. They stocked them out by accident - and grabbed one and paid before they pulled it. He even got his picture taken in the friggin' parking lot with him holding the HD-DVD unit and the two movies (but I can't find the damn pic right now)

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: Triumph
No, absolutely not. The step from LP, to tape, to cd, and from nothing, to VHS, to LD, and to DVD, were each big steps in their own right. HD or Blu Ray offer nothing to me other than a bit better picture. I (and 99% of people) won't be able to hear a difference in sound quality. So why be an early adopter of something that offers little benefit over what we have now? Why even become a late adopter?

Why did you go from VHS to DVD then?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Muadib

Originally posted by: Triumph
No, absolutely not. The step from LP, to tape, to cd, and from nothing, to VHS, to LD, and to DVD, were each big steps in their own right. HD or Blu Ray offer nothing to me other than a bit better picture. I (and 99% of people) won't be able to hear a difference in sound quality. So why be an early adopter of something that offers little benefit over what we have now? Why even become a late adopter?

Why did you go from VHS to DVD then?

uhhh, because of the clear and significant advantages? i don't have to explain them, do i?

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: Muadib

Originally posted by: Triumph
No, absolutely not. The step from LP, to tape, to cd, and from nothing, to VHS, to LD, and to DVD, were each big steps in their own right. HD or Blu Ray offer nothing to me other than a bit better picture. I (and 99% of people) won't be able to hear a difference in sound quality. So why be an early adopter of something that offers little benefit over what we have now? Why even become a late adopter?

Why did you go from VHS to DVD then?

uhhh, because of the clear and significant advantages? i don't have to explain them, do i?

Yeah, I think you do, especlially since you went from VHS to LD, and then to DVD. What was there then, that's superior to what the change from DVD to HD-DVD will bring? Heck, from what LD players cost, this HD-DVD player is quite the deal.

 

[Triumph]

What the hell? Ok let's see. Ability to quickly jump between tracks, ability to pause frames without shake, no need to rewind, smaller media, much better picture, 6 channel audio, less worry about degradation of the media... Why the hell am I even explaining it? If you're arguing that the jump from VHS to DVD is equivalent to DVD to HD-DVD, then I have a psychiatrist that I can recommend to you.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: DPmaster
Well it looks like HD-DVD is finally launching come Tuesday (04/18/06). There's supposed to be 2 Toshiba HD-DVD players available for $499 and $799. Only 3 movies I'm aware of are going to be released the first week though - "The Last Samura", Million Dollar Baby", and "The Phantom of the Opera".

Think I'm going to wait awhile until there are more movies available (as well as to see how the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray fiasco goes). You would think they would try to release some bigger name movies in high-def to draw some attention...none of the movies being released really intrigue me so far.

..I'll wait till there in their 3 or 4th gen. 49.95 at costco and the movies are < 20.00 each. or less and in the rental ckt.

 

[JackBurton]

$500 and only support up to 1080i is a no go.

 

[Muadib]

My question was more on your switch from LD to DVD, that's why I wanted an answer.

 

[Quasmo]

If you think about it HD-DVD will win based solely on price. Consider this, if both are Digital meaning there is no difference in picture and sound quality, then why would you pay $500 more for something that does the exact same thing? OH BOY, IT CAN HOLD MORE! Once more dumb dumb consume will be none the wiser.

 

[Muadib]

Originally posted by: Quasmo
If you think about it HD-DVD will win based solely on price. Consider this, if both are Digital meaning there is no difference in picture and sound quality, then why would you pay $500 more for something that does the exact same thing? OH BOY, IT CAN HOLD MORE! Once more dumb dumb consume will be none the wiser.

You are forgetting the PS3 though. I don't know anyone interested in the HD-DVD, but I know at least 20 people waiting to put in a pre order on the PS3. Half of them plan on getting HDTV set to go along with it, the other half already have one.

 

[Jmman]

The thing that pisses me off about this format is that as an early adopter of HDTV, I get screwed since I only have compnenent video inputs on my main tv. I do have a plasma with hdmi, but still it doesn't make me happy. I am going to wait for blu-ray since I believe that hdmi inputs are not required to get true 1080 resolution......