HD DVD backers reeling as Blu-Ray shines at electronics show

[onehandle]

Source: AFP

LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AFP) - HD DVD backers are reeling at the world's top consumer electronics show in the wake of a major blow by rival Blu-Ray in the battle to be the reigning format for high density DVDs.

Warner Brothers studio pulled out of an alliance with Toshiba's HD DVD camp and switched sides, announcing on Friday that Hollywood's largest distributor of DVDs will do so exclusively in Sony's Blu-Ray format.

HD DVD Promotion Group cancelled a press conference it had planned for the eve of Monday's formal start of the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Warner Home Video executives were to have joined those from Toshiba, Microsoft, Intel, Universal Home Studios, and Paramount Home Entertainment at a press conference in the Wynn hotel and casino.

"Based on the timing of the Warner announcement, we decided to postpone our CES 2008 press conference" the promotion group said in an e-mail to news reporters. "We are discussing the potential impact of this announcement with the other HD DVD partner companies and evaluating next steps."

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080107/tc_afp/lifestyleusitelectronicsconsumerdvd

---

HD DVD is Dead! Long live Blu-Ray!

[hlthe2b]

1. Beta.... VHS! Beta! VHS!

Sony lost that one, as I recall.... I think I'll wait (a LONG time)

[Dr.Phool]

2. I saw a Beta Max at a garage sale on my street last week.

[flyingfysh]

3. sadly, beta was a better format

The only point in favor of VHS was that you could get more hours on a tape; but nobody I know took advantage of that.

[Roland99]

5. Isn't Beta still used by, say, TV stations?

[Technowitch]

8. No, they've gone DV

Digital Video, is where everybody's at these days.

The only places you'll fine BetaMax any more is technology museums, a few die-hard technophiles, and maybe somebody's Gramma's house.

[Kablooie]

19. Actually most use DigiBeta. Digital form of Betamax.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

69. I'm confused. Please tell me what I saw this fall.

I went to the Solar Decathlon on the Mall (the one betweem the U.S. Capitol and the Washington Monument). In one of the houses, an interview was being conducted. The three person crew consisted of an interviewer, a person holding a microphone on a boom, and a camera operator. This was a professional operation. I looked at the camera operator's shoulder-mounted camera and was surprised to see a turning reel of tape. I thought everything on the professional level was digital, but this was clearly not a disc drive recording, but a tape recording.

I couldn't ask the camera operator, so I'll ask here. Why was this recording going to tape?

[Andy Canuck]

15. VHS triumphed because Sony

kept Beta as their system but the developers of VHS sold their rights to VHS to other companies. Sony wnated to corner the market in video, but lost beacuase all the other technology companies were producer VHS VCRs. And the broad market bought up cheaper VHS models.

[dysfunctional press]

26. kinda like what apple did, and why pc's are everywhere.

nt

[Phx_Dem]

54. VHS won over Beta

because the VHS manufacturers dumped millions of units on the market below cost in order to gain market share. Sony won a multi billion dollar lawsuit against the VHS manufacturers because of this.

[Tesha]

75. VHS also won because a single VHS cassette could hold an entire movie sooner than with Beta.

Sony remedied this but it was too little, too late and
VHS had already become the dominant incumbent player in
the market.

Tesha

[Tesha]

23. The "Beta" used by the TV studios was a bit different than home Betamax. (NT)

[tinrobot]

38. Betacam, not Betamax.

Different format, and that's pretty much dead now, too.

These days, everything's digital and HD.

[happyslug]

64. And the best of the lot was Ampex, only by the Stations themselves.

Ampex videotape was first introduced in 1956, and dominated Television for the next 30-40 years till Disks took over.

In Collage, ia was told Ampex tried to sell its Video-tape technology to General Electric, GE instead took the proposed 20-30 million dollars and bought an insurance company instead (Which it sold at a substantial loss in the late 1970s or early 1980s). In 1982 Sony came out with its Beta-max as Ampex 1967 patents on its improved Video recorders ran out. The rest is History. Ampex did NOT have the network to make, sell and distribute machines and tapes to Consumers, but saw that the market existed. GE was quoted as saying NO one wanted to see programs that had already run, so no one would buy the machine.

Yes, another American Invention, "lost" to the Japanese do to corporate american's stupidity (and I do Not mean Ampex, it was and is a very small specialized company, I am taking about GE).

More on Ampex and its Video-Tape:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_tape

[jayfish]

72. Kinda-Sorta Correct.

Betamax and Betacam tapes could be interchanged for playback but the recording tech is/was different. Betacam is still frequently used in mobile production facilities. They are being replaced by digital tape and disk based systems like EVS but there are still a lot of them around. Once the heads on an old deck go though it's pretty much game over as Sony no longer mfgs or services them.

Jay

[dipsydoodle]

9. It had a far better lacing system for the tape

and was higher quality too. What happened in the UK was that the major tv rental companies were largely owned by one tv manufacturer. Their shops only stocked VHS videos for rental : hence Betamax died out here quite early on.

JVC <Japan Victor Company> developed the VHS system : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JVC

Prior to entries like the wiki one above I don't think many knew of the history of JVC. It was part of the Victor Company and after WW2 was considered to be an embassassment. As a result it was just left be in Japan as freebee I guess whicyh in retrospect may have been a mistake.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

6. I have a few Beta VCRs

and what has to be a lifetime's worth of tapes, both recorded and ready to record. They work just fine for timeshifting. As long as I'm compatible with myself, there's no problem.

Watch a video at home? That's what DVDs are for.

I'll wait out this battle.

[CarlWoodward]

24. I'll be waiting as well

I'm going to sit this one out as well, until the dust settles. My good ole' fashioned DVDs actually look great on my HD TV when I play them on my fairly cheap ($120 or so) upconverting DVD player.

[Roland99]

4. Woo hoo!! Good news, indeed!

Been waiting for Blu-Ray to establish itself as the standard.

[LiberalFighter]

7. How much more does Blu-Ray cost?

[sellitman]

10. blue Ray has more storage.

I always suspected it would win out.

[SpiralHawk]

11. Please throw away all your DVDs now, and grab your credit card

so you can Pay Pay Pay for a new player, and a new collection. Sorry for your troubles and shit, but you gots to pay the mammon...

[Lorien]

12. I have a friend who collects movies somewhat obsessivly

my heart sank when I saw this thread because of it. He has an enormous quantity of films on VHS, laserdisk, DVD, and now I'm sure he'll switch to Blu-ray and re-purchase everything. He's already in debt up to his ears, but he's a compulsive collector and can't seem to stop himself. :-(

[architect359]

13. Not really, you know... eom

[onehandle]

17. I haven't gone Blu-Ray yet. I have a $99 upscaling Sony DVD player that looks excellent on my HDTV.

I was waiting for Blu-Ray to start taking over. Players will be $200 or less within a year.

That's when I will switch formats.

[kineneb]

27. gee, and I finall got them to run on my linux box

oh, well, I still have a turntable, cassette recorder, VHS tape player and DVD player... I will simply wait for the DVDs to show up in the thrift stores for $1.00 each... just got some vintage LPs for $.80 (orig. Alice's Rest., Buffy St.Marie, soundtrack from Paint Your Wagon)

[CRF450]

43. Uh, if I'm not mistaken, blue-ray DVD players can also play regular DVD's

So an intire DVD wouldn't have to be thrown away.

I just bought one for my 56" Samsung DLP tv, even for $400 it was well worth the price for the beautiful picture quality!

[EnviroBat]

14. The one Blu-Ray player I looked at was $1,100 at Best Buy.

Didn't seem like Sony was trying too hard to intice me to their format. Really dumb price point.

[onehandle]

16. Best Buy has two Sony Blu-Ray players at the moment. One is $400 and one is $700.

You must have been standing at Best Buy a year ago before the prices dropped.

[EnviroBat]

18. Yeah, It was about a year ago.

I still think that they are expensive for what they are given that you can get a decent DVD player for about $150.

[onehandle]

20. Blu-Ray Players should be less than $200 in less than a year.

As I said elsewhere in this thread, I have a $99 upscaling DVD player that looks great on my HDTV.

I'm waiting a while longer for the sub-$200 players and the burial of HD DVD.

[nolabels]

25. We have a low cost upscale also

Got it last year after we found out bad the old DVD player looked on the new hi-def 60". This xmas we got the kids a Play-station#3 and tried one of new free blue ray movies that came with it in the promotion. We could tell a little difference between the blu-rays and the upscale but not hundreds of dollars worth. The one thing we did find out is that the hi-def 60" with the play-station was pretty killer for the kids :shrug:

[Chovexani]

48. It really depends on how the discs are authored

And the resolution capabilities of your set. (Not to mention your player...some upconvert better than others.) Older transfers are not going to see the same marked improvement in picture and sound quality due to the methods that were being used. New discs though? Fuggeddaboutit.

Happy Feet is a great example of this. I was at Best Buy the other day and wandered into the TV section. Two phenomenal TVs, the Sharp Aquos 32" 1080p model, right next to each other. One was playing Happy Feet on BD, the other was a standard def DVD in an upconverting player.

There really was no comparison. Everything was far sharper and clearer on the BD disc. You could see individual bits of fluff on the penguins' heads, the snow was bright and crisp...it was just no contest. I had the same experience with my mom when I went back home for xmas. She didn't believe there was a difference, etc. Well, I happened to bring my PS3 home with me along with my shiny new copy of Pirates 3 in BD. She had the same movie in standard. I played the maelstrom sequence first on the upconverting Sony player she had hooked up to her Sharp Aquos 42" D64U model TV (I have the exact same TV, I actually recommended it to her). Then, I popped in the BD version, and played the same scene.

If you've never seen Pirates 3, the maelstrom sequence is the climactic battle of the film. It's a dark film (and brights are where BD usually shines the most), but the fog and the water were so much more true to life in the BD version. Her jaw hit the floor and suddenly she knew what she wanted for Xmas. :rofl:

Standard DVDs look fine enough, but Blu-Ray blows them out of the water, and you really aren't getting the most out of your HDTV if you don't have a hi-def disc player. This is true particularly if you have a 1080p capable monitor (and most of the larger sizes are, these days). That's because, currently, the only way to get a 1080p picture on a 1080p TV is Blu-Ray or HD-DVD discs. Most HD channels available right now are broadcasting in 720p, with some of them going for 1080i (which is not quite as crisp as 1080p). Maybe it's just because I'm an A/V nerd but I will never understand how people can blow upwards of thousands on HD sets but then not bother to properly outfit them so they're getting the best picture and sound. It's not nearly as expensive as you might think, and it really brings out the best in your TV.

[nolabels]

49. Thanks for the information, i guess I will have to try it again

I remember that reason we paid the extra money to get that Sony SXRD KDS-60A3000 60" HDTV. The picture seemed so much better than them others when watching a clip of over the hedge on demo 1080i dvd in the store. I guess i will have to go back to bestbuy and see if they can show me the difference live. Really one of the biggest reasons to get the set was so we could watch Sunday-ticket and other sports in hi-def. The greatness of being able to watch sports in hi-def seems to me to have already been worth the money.

[Chovexani]

56. The reason I finally took the leap was for gaming

A lot of games are starting to be made in higher resolutions, and LCDs have finally caught up to plasmas in the motion blur area.

If you want a precise explanation of just why HD discs are going to be better for your TV, I explained it to another DUer in this post downthread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3127613&mesg_id=3129588

On a 60" especially, the difference is going to be phenomenal, even with the best upscaling player. You won't go back. :)

[nolabels]

60. Yea, I went to bestbuy this morning and then walking through the store..........

checking out the new sets, i saw what we missed right away. When we doing it my son had plugged the playstation with some standard a/v cables in front of the set when we compared. The problem was we should have been using the HDMI cables to run the PS#3. I had even forgotten that the HDMI made a big difference with just the upscale DVD play.
Guess i just be a :dunce:


Btw I took a look at one of those Sony 1200 mhz sets at the store, they really kick butt

[Bake]

52. What is an "upscaling DVD player"?

I admit, I'm not quite the technophile I used to be ... I sorta got left behind when my kids started college. I have a "progressive scan" DVD player and a regular old TV.

Bake

[Chovexani]

55. Sorry if I get jargony on you, but here's an answer

An upscaling or upconverting player enhances the picture you get from a plain ol' DVD when you watch it. Most HD-DVD and Blu-Ray disc players have upscaling capability built in, but there's a bunch of regular DVD players on the market now that also have upconverting capability.

It's all about the resolution. Your TV is a Standard Definition set, which means the signal is going to be 480i. The "i" stands for interlaced. I won't bore you with the technical details, but in a nutshell, the way an interlaced signal is displayed, it's 30 still frames per second, and each of those still frames is displayed line-by-line on the screen in two passes. Because it does it so quickly, it gives the illusion of continuous motion to the naked eye. Basically they did it this way because of technical limitations from back in the day. Standard Def is not necessarily bad if you've got a smaller set, it just starts looking worse the bigger your screen gets.

Your progressive scan player is Enhanced Definition, or 480p resolution (the p stands for progressive), and the way it shows a picture is like a computer monitor instead of a regular old tv. With ED, it displays each still frame in one pass instead of two interlaced fields. It doesn't sound like a huge difference but it really does make one in terms of picture quality, especially on larger tv screens. Watching a DVD on a progressive scan player (hopefully hooked up with a component cable instead of the standard Red/White/Yellow composite!) is going to be the best picture you see on a Standard Def TV, period. 480p is the best an SD set is capable of showing, so you don't have to worry about upscaling and stuff.

In comparison, the two common High Definition resolutions are 720p and 1080i. 1080p has been hyped as the next big thing, and the top-shelf HDTVs are capable of it even though no one's broadcasting in it yet. Most HD channels broadcast in 720p, with a few in 1080i (the Big Three networks are all in 1080i, and cable/satellite channels can vary). There are many more lines in the picture than with Standard or Enhanced Definition, so the picture looks better. In order to get the best picture possible on an HDTV, the signal has to converted to the native rate of the display. This can happen either externally at the video source, or internally in the TV itself. Every HDTV comes with basic conversion capabilities but the chipsets are not terribly sophisticated, and all they really do is just blow up the picture to fit the screen. Incidentally this is why Standard Definition channels look like ass on HDTVs, especially the bigger ones. The easiest way to handle this is to just pipe in a native HD signal to begin with. But this is where upscaling players come in--they convert your old DVD's picture to an HD signal for the TV. It's a complicated process involving algorithms to account for motion, etc. All upscaling players are not created equal, though; some of them do a much better job than others.

To give you an idea of just why Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, on the right screen, blows regular DVD out of the water: Blu-Ray and HD-DVD use 1080p. On a 1080p HDTV, your poor upscaling player has to crank a 1080p signal out of a 480p. Some of them do a very serviceable job of it, especially with the better authored DVDs (like the extended Lord of the Rings discs or The Matrix, for instance) but next to something that is natively 1080p? No contest. I always compare it to language. You can translate it, some translators being better than others, but something always gets lost in the translation. To have the best understanding, you need to speak the language.

Sorry, I've got diarrhea of the keyboard when it comes to a/v stuff. :blush:

[Bake]

62. Wow. That really helps! I had no idea what 1080i or any of that was

Until now. (But I totally want it ...)

Thanks!

Bake

[Chovexani]

70. My mom keeps telling me I should do this for a living

:D

[TroglodyteScholar]

37. Maybe you're not their target?

There are enough people who either make enough money that they don't even notice when $1,100 gets lost under a sofa cushion....or people who can't afford it, but will buy it on credit anyway...that Sony probably doesn't really give a damn about you.

[brentspeak]

21. I'm happy with just the plain ol' regular DVD

[Tesha]

22. One can only hope! Blu-Ray is clearly the superior format...

One can only hope! Blu-Ray is clearly the superior format
but few people will buy into either format while the format
wars rage on...

Tesha

[jayfish]

29. Care To Elaborate On The Superior Aspects Of BRD?

There shouldn't have even been a war. Studios should have distributed on both formats and let the consumer decide.

Jay

[Tesha]

32. Quite a bit more storage per disc. (NT)

[jayfish]

45. Try Again.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/15/dvd-forum-approves-51gb-triple-layer-hd-dvd-spec/

Not only that but no disc that I am aware of uses the full capacity of either format.

Jay

[Chovexani]

57. If they're both around long enough for authoring to catch up to capability

BD will show itself superior. HD-DVD is no slouch and does a lot with less (and tends to be better with audio than BD). But just like porn decided the VHS vs. Betamax war, computers are going to decide this one.

I've been saying for ages that BD will win the war simply on the basis of storage capacity. Not necessarily in terms of picture and sound quality for movie discs, but because of computer users. Computer users always want more storage capacity and with hard drive sizes ballooning, the prevalence of Bit Torrent and the like, not to mention legal movie downloads now being a reality, people are gonna want to store that shit somewhere. BD players and burners are going to eventually be standard issue in machines just like DVD combo drives are now, especially once the price of the blank media comes down.

[jayfish]

58. If You Look At The Link...

I provided (I know, I should have posted an excerpt)you'll see that HD-DVD has the ability to match BRD in capacity. Both formats are relative equals at their main tasks and the The whole "clearly superior" and "clearly inferior" marketing talk irks me to the point of distraction. It would have been nice if the consumer was actually given a chance to decide which format would survive. Better yet; what's wrong with two formats?

Jay

[Chovexani]

59. I'm aware of that

It's kind of a moot point though, the real reason BD is getting pushed so hardcore is because of the crazy DRM that's attached to it. This has never really been about the consumer. :(

Personally I don't see what's wrong with having two formats--competition is awesome!--except that historically the market just hasn't supported two mainstream formats. It's always been split between the mass-market consumer friendly one, and the one for videophiles. I think the reason for that is most people just don't give a shit about specs, they just want to stick something in the player and get a nice picture and sound with minimal effort. They don't want to have to worry about formats and equipment. These are the folks whose VCRs are still blinking "12:00" and pay exhorbitant amounts for other people to plug in cables because the thought of doing it themselves freaks them out. Just look in the thread going on in LBN right now for a perfect example--most people are content with the DVDs they have. I think there's no contest between HD discs and DVDs on large, 1080p monitors, but I'm a nerd, and "servicable" doesn't cut it for me--I want the best possible picture I can afford. What I've heard from most average folks is that because they don't think there's as big a jump in quality from DVD to BD/HD-DVD as there was from VHS to DVD, it's not worth it to shell out hundreds of dollars for a player. If I had a dollar for every person I've run into with an HDTV and no HD disc player because they don't want to get stuck with an orphaned format...I could actually afford my hobbies. :rofl:

[jayfish]

61. LOL, I Know What You Mean.

I gave my mother a killer Sony HD-CRT and can't even get her to call the cable company for an HD box. She's perfectly content running composite :wow: from her "digital" converter. I've got all of the in-the-clear QAM channels scanned though and whenever I'm over I make a point of swapping between the cable box and the QAM tuner for comparison. The best I've gotten is "that is a hell of picture".:banghead:

Jay

[customerserviceguy]

65. You've hit the crux of the issue there

All HD has to do is lower the price of blank media. It's not like buying a hard drive for your computer, the storage amounts in both types removable optical media is way more than the average consumer can handle.

You've admitted to being an A/V geek, but it was not video geeks who decided the VHS vs. Beta wars, it was the buying public. And nontechie people buy stuff for the wrong reason all the time. My guess as to why VHS won over Beta? "VHS" sounds more like "VCR". Yes, simple, stupid, whatever you want to call it, but everyday, ordinary people like easy labels for things.

I figure that HD will win over Blu-Ray, because people already are becoming accustomed to the term HD for better quality television. In retrospect, the meaningless name "Blu-Ray" will be seen as a huge marketing mistake.

[Tesha]

67. No need for me to try again; I was right the first time.

Blue-ray discs store 25 GB per layer; the current
spec allows for dual-layer discs with a total
capacity of 50 GB.

HD-DVD discs store 17 GB per layer. The *CURRENT
SPEC* allows for dual-layer discs with a total
capacity of 34 GB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD

Tesha

[jayfish]

68. What Part Of...

"the DVD Forum steering committee voted to approve the spec as part of the official HD DVD standard. The third 15GB layer bumps the total capacity of HD DVD up to 51GB, matching Blu-ray's 50GB disks" are you not getting?

Jay

[Tesha]

74. It's one thing to change the spec; it's another thing to actually use the capability.

> What Part Of "the DVD Forum steering committee voted to approve the spec as
> part of the official HD DVD standard. The third 15GB layer bumps the total
> capacity of HD DVD up to 51GB, matching Blu-ray's 50GB disks" are you not
> getting?

Wiki> A 51 GB triple-layer spec has been approved, however no movies are currently scheduled for this disc type.

It's one thing to change the spec; it's another thing to actually use the capability.

1. Layer-switches have always been a pain with DVD players handling
them "less-gracefully" than they might.

2. More layers makes for a more-complicated, less-reliable
manufacturing process, suggesting higher cost per disc.

3. Blu-ray still has more raw capacity per layer. The could probably
use the same triple-layer gambit and take discs to ~75 GB.

4. How many of the previously-purchased and currently-sold HD-DVD
players are capable of triple-layer playback?

Tesha

[Tesha]

77. You might also want to see...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_high_definition_optical_disc_formats

[MadHound]

28. Oh yippee.

Another marginally noticeable upgrade in performance and media that the corporations will now shove down consumers' throats and force them to buy another piece of electronic crap. Geez, when will the public ever learn?

[KansDem]

30. Tell me about it!

Just this past weekend I was sitting on the couch looking at my "entertainment tower" of (in order of top to bottom) turntable, VHS machine, CD player, tuner, DVD burner, DVD player, cassette player and recorder, and CD burner.

It's all about storage of information. That's all...

[NashVegas]

31. I Won't Be

If Blue Ray players ever go below $70, I'll think about it.

Otherwise, the DVD recorder I bought 3 years ago is here to stay.

[fujiyama]

33. The HD formats do look better

but you need a larger screen to discern the difference (32"+ I'd say).

As for forcing people to buy another format, I don't like the DRM limitations on the new HD formats, but this is how technology moves. Personally I am glad that DVDs replaced VHS, but then again in that case there was a major improvement in AV quality, as well as being a digital medium allowing extra features (personally I've never really got into those though). In this case, the quality to most consumers will be more marginal and will require an HD TV to get the most out of the new medium anyways.

Either way, I don't expect DVDs to be off the shelves anytime soon. Studios make more off them than actual movies now I believe. Plus, like most, I'm not going to throw 400 bucks at a new player any time soon. My $70 upconverting DVD player should do just fine.

[smalll]

63. Exactamente.

And what's particularly disheartening (see upthread) is that even at a place like DU, we have so many people so willing, so eager even, to fall for this long-running con.

[mikelgb]

34. I think discs are dead

by the time the dust settles on the blu/hd I think we will have moved on to just downloading onto dvrs...

sure they will have really nice super bonus criterion collection mega-box disc sets to sell everybody still

but discs are dead

[tinrobot]

39. I agree...

Physical media will be a thing of the past within a decade for almost all forms of media.

The only exception might be books.

[Clanfear]

41. Maybe in the future

But they must tackle the download times and storage capacitiy issues. No way am I going to wait around 4 hours for a movie to download.

[jayfish]

73. Ultra-Compressed Macroblocked Crap.

Not to mention bandwidth issues and nebulous service caps. I'd almost take unconverted DVD.

Jay

[Zech Marquis]

35. I've sold alot more Blu-ray players than HD-DVD

This past Christmas, I've sold a boatload of Blu-ray DVD players, mainly alot of Samsung and Sony standalone players. Also, we had a really good bundle with a 46 inch Sony lcd, an 80 GB PS3 an a home install for 1799 total. That was extremely popular! And I brought myself a 40GB PS3 with some movies and gams to boot.

HD-DVD is more affordable and has more interactive features since day 1, but for me I'll never forget that sick feeling when my 360 dies last year, as I was very close to buying the add on Hd-DVD player. And anytime I can kick M$ in the nuts is a bonus for me :evilgrin:

[Lautremont]

36. I'm holding out for Thought Cubes.

You get them in your head, then upload cubecasts wirelessly.

[pink-o]

40. The only thing I want...

...is for a format that allows us to buy DVDs from all over the world and play them in the device I have attached to my American TV...

But thanx to the artificial regional firewalls, that'll never happen. So I have no intention of shelling out another few hundred bucks on a marginally better technology than the one I have.

That said, tho: what other really, really cool things were unveiled @ the trade show? I'm a chick, but I have totally dude DNA when it comes to cool electronics! Never mind the jewelry, gimme gadgets!

[Feron]

71. You can always buy a regionless player.

One that allows you to play discs from all regions and convert from PAL to NTSC.

Also go to videohelp.com and see if your player has a regionless hack. Mine doesn't.

Since I'm a fan of British and Australian pop acts, I'm probably going to get a regionless player sometime this year. It sucks when your favorite artists release DVDs that you want, but there's no reason to buy because you can't watch them.

As for the format wars, high def is wasted with my eyesight. HD-TV and a clear DVD look the same to me. And I certainly won't rebuy my entire collection.

[ldf]

42. great!

for xmas i bought myself one of each, blu-ray and hd dvd. i'm really just interested in the truly visually spectacular movies for hi def. otherwise regular dvds are fine.

the hd dvds are usually 4 to 5 $ cheaper.

there is not a bit of difference in the visual experience. LAST xmas, i bought myself a 60in projection sony (and sony just stopped making projection teevees). with hi def, and a large screen, it really does change the viewing experience. as long as you are sitting where you should be, these projections have as much fine detail as an lcd or plasma. side viewing is not good, though.

so, now i should be able to buy lots of cheap hi def hd dvds. well worth the 279 i paid for the player.

[MilesColtrane]

44. Good.

Fuck that monopolist Bill Gates.

[merwin]

47. What does Bill Gates have to do with anything?

[MilesColtrane]

50. It was his call that MS should endorse the inferior format.

Every time there's a failed business decision at Microsoft an angel gets his wings.

[AnnieBW]

46. I'm at CES this week.

I haven't really heard that much about it. Of course, my focus isn't on DVD players, so I'm only marginally paying attention.

Oh, and EVERYBODY here that I've talked to who sees that I'm from Washington DC just LOATHES *. One of the cabbies that I spoke with, who emigrated here from Ethiopia, is for Hillary.

[Javaman]

51. This has been a forgone conclusion for a while, why?

because just from a marketing point of view, "blu-ray" sounds so much better than HD DVD. That's really what it all comes down to.

I have been seeing full Blu-ray isles in various stores with new movies on that medium. Not one on HD DVD.

The "war" has been over for a while.

[npincus]

53. Bummer for me- recently bought an HD-DVD player

[Clanfear]

80. Take it back.

You might be able to exchange it.

[DuaneBidoux]

66. My big dissapointment is that Blu-ray won't allow porn on their DVDs.

Sigh.

[nxylas]

76. There are already a couple of dual-format players on the market

Surely that renders the whole format war obsolete anyway?

[Tesha]

79. Only if you believe there will *ALWAYS* be dual-format players.

> There are already a couple of dual-format players on the market
> Surely that renders the whole format war obsolete anyway?

Only if you believe there will *ALWAYS* be dual-format
players. If one format wins big, the other will die and
the players will no longer be designed to support playback
of the dead format.

Tesha

[Deja Q]

78. Hillary backers have been saying the same thing about Obama recently too.

Or is it the other way around in reverse?

Oh well.