Quoting twojayz:

Quote:
I'm not arguing that one product is better than the other, I think they both are fully capable of delivering a truly amazing experience...

Yup.

But, the argument/discussion is which one do we choose? Which one will dominate the market? Will neither?

None of the viewpoints expressed here so far are convincing enough to make an investment.

Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
I agree, but that's a big "if".

No, this is a big if:

if

Sorry, couldn't resist... 

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan:

Quote:
You didn't say "rumored" Warner deal.  You said Warner deal.  Either way the link I posted squashes that.

I figured, since you stuck you nose into the conversation I was having with pplchamp, that you had actually read the posts.  I guess I gave you far too much credit. 

And, again, you completely missed the point.  We weren't talking about whether or not the rumor was true, we were talking about the fairness of the deal if it were true.

Reading is fundamental. 

P.S. that was for you Mark. 

Quoting twojayz:

Quote:
PS3 is a BD player, but it's a gaming console first and I'm not arguing the capability of the machine. I'm simply stating that if the main purpose of the PS3 is in fact to play games then maybe it should be viewed as a gaming console, not a DB player (although it has the capability). I don't know about you but I don't count every device in my home that has the capability of playing a disc a player. If I were, then I'd have 7 players (including PC and laptop and drives). The purpose of the device should be considered as the main category to which the sales figures are viewed. My microwave doesn't count asa popcorn machine either...

I understand what you are saying.  I just would like to know why it's SO important to categorize the PS3?  Is it a gaming console?  Yes.  Is it a BD player?  Yes.  Is it a media center?  Yes.  Is it a DVD player?  Yes.  Is it a print server?  Yes, etc etc.  Do ALL those features perform equally as well?  Yes.  So, why are we trying to separate it?  Is it so it won't count as much in the eyes of consumers?  I just don't see a reason to shift the focus off the fact that it is a great BD player.  Maybe you can convince me otherwise.

Quote:
The new compression technologies are highly efficient at doing the job and outperform MPEG-2 in nearly every case. Bandwidth can be a somewhat misleading concept, similar to contrast ratio specs on a display. If HD is capable of ouputting the same quality within the constraints of bandwidth limitations then the argument becomes moot. The same argument applies to any two competing products, whether it be BD vs. HD or anything else. In a way it's similar to gas mileage in vehicles where some models are more efficient at using the same amount of product than others. If my vehicle gets 30 miles per gallon and another gets 15 then I don't need the extra gas (bandwidth) to get to where I'm going.

www.doom9.net

AVC and VC-1 seems to be just more efficient from what the data suggests.  When MPEG-2 is allowed proper headroom (above 37Mbps), I haven't seen any data that would suggest there is a visual difference.  Blu-ray's video bandwidth limit alone allows for bit rates above 37Mbps.  HD DVD does NOT allow anything of the sort.

If you look a couple pages back, you will see a PQ (picture quality) and SQ (sound quality) chart from 5 different HD movie reviewer sites.  The PQ and SQ are clearly in Blu-ray's favor from EVERY single one of them.  So, it would seem that HD DVD is not providing the same PQ and SQ that Blu-ray is providing.  One of the reasons is bandwidth.

Titles are shoe-horned onto the HD DVD's bandwidth limit.  The sound is the first thing to suffer when that is done, because a compromise has to be made...PQ or SQ.  Example: Even if a title is encoded at an overall bit rate of 14Mbps, it doesn't mean you have room for a TrueHD track.  If at any point the bit rate spikes to 28Mbps during an action scene and the TrueHD track hits 3Mbps, that is beyond HD DVD's bandwidth limit.  That means you can't have a lossless soundtrack anymore unless you compromise on the PQ.  I paid good money for an HD format.  I don't want to compromise on my PQ or SQ if there is a consumer technology around that keeps me from doing that.

The gas analogy you used would work if Blu-ray ONLY used MPEG-2 (which is uses real-time encoding BTW...the others can not).  Blu-ray uses ALL of the codecs in it's specs (AVC, VC-1, and MPEG-2).

Quote:
I looked at Amazon sales figures for players and they seem to demonstrate that BD players are not selling nearly as well as HD players. I fact, all three second gen HD players are in the top 50 in overall consumer electronics sales, while the first BD player comes in at around 60. In DVD player sales alone it was a HD machine that ranked #1.

Amazon is one online only dealer.  HD DVD sales seem to center around online purchases.  That's about all I can say on that one.

Quote:
Additionally, according to your own statement, if it weren't for PS3, where would BD be right now? Specifically on dedicated hardware sales, which will then lead to software sales... Or, in comparison where does HD stand with the inclusion of the player add-on for the X360?

If you took out the HD DVD add-on and the PS3 sales, I believe HD DVD would be on top.  But, the PS3 was ALWAYS a part of BDA's plan.  Therefore, it can't be discounted.  I thought about it when I first started reading up on HD in July 2006.  That's when HD DVD supporters (and the head of Time Warner) said that the PS3 would change nothing.  Other's saw the impact it would have.  In the end, the PS3 changed EVERYTHING and quite quickly.  The same thing happened all over the world.

Quote:
I'm not arguing that one product is better than the other, I think they both are fully capable of delivering a truly amazing experience...

I'm saying that, right now,
their are pluses and minus for both sides.  HD DVD has more interactivity and their lowest end product is cheaper than Blu-ray's lowest end product.  Blu-ray has better overall PQ and SQ than HD DVD (refer to the reviewer chart a couple pages back), more player selection, more studio support, and better software sales.  In the near future, Blu-ray will have even more interactivity than HD DVD and the low end player prices should be near the same.  Retail prices for 1080p HD DVD and Blu-ray players are the same prices or Blu-ray is cheaper.  I posted some links to prices of similarly equiped players from both sides.  I can do that again if you would like.  I would have to post that one from my PC (I'm using my PS3 for this post).

Quoting VibroCount:

Quote:
Quoting twojayz:

Quote:
I'm not arguing that one product is better than the other, I think they both are fully capable of delivering a truly amazing experience...

Yup.

But, the argument/discussion is which one do we choose? Which one will dominate the market? Will neither?

None of the viewpoints expressed here so far are convincing enough to make an investment.

Of course there is not absolute way of telling which one WILL dominate the market for sure.  However, I can let you know which HD format is dominating the market NOW at greater than 2:1 in EVERY market around the world.  That is Blu-ray.

I know you like to throw DVD in the mix with the HD format war.  There is no way of knowing if DVD will continue to hold on to it's dominance.  I think that mainly has to do with how quickly this format war will end.

In reference to the PS3, I find that there needs to be a distinction between what the primary purpose of a product is versus all the different capabilities that product has. The PS3 is in fact a gaming console that utilizes BD technology. I would be foolish to argue that. The problem I have is that when numbers are thrown out that BD players have vastly outsold HD players, because of PS3, it is highly misleading to the average consumer.

On stand-alone players there isn't nearly that type of margin. The reason to seperate it is because it is in fact a gaming unit which also serves as a BD player. It is not a BD player that also serves as a gaming console. When someone asks if you have a PS3 you say yes and there is no need to elaborate. If someone asks if you have a BD player and you say yes, they ask what kind. Do you simply say Sony or do you qualify it by saying it's a PS3? Most people will say it's a PS3. If you simply say a Sony, why not elaborate and say PS3? The distinction is there.

If you shop online or in a retail outlet the PS3 is included in the gaming section. You won't find it with a/v equipment. You won't find a BD player in the gaming section. The distinction is there and there is a reason for it. I won't argue that it is a great BD player, there is no shifting of focus. The focus for this particular product however should remain with what the primary function of the product is, a gaming console.

It has nothing to do with " so it won't count as much in the eyes of consumers". It's entirely about being truthful and letting consumers make accurate decisions. To use your same argument, a primary reason to use PS3 sales is to pad the numbers and make it seem as if BD players are doing much better than they actually are. Also, by your own comments, HD DVD players are probably outselling BD players if you were to include the X360 add-on. I have yet to see a report on player sales that includes that number. I'm sure the statistics are out there, I just haven't seen them.

In order to have a valid leg to stand on either the HD add-ons must be included in sales figures or the PS3 needs to be disregarded in the BD player sales figures. That is the only way that sales numbers can be reasonably compared. I for one say comparisons should stick with stand alone players and exclude all other devices, PS3 and X360 add-ons. To include the gaming devices inflates sales numbers on both sides. However, at least the sole purpose of the X360 add-on is to watch movies. If the X360 had a built in HD drive then I wouldn't consider it a HD player either, it would be a gaming console, just like the PS3.

As for title reviews and the quality of experience I will say this; the level of quality is and has always been a highly subjective thing. Every revfiew I have read (industry guides and magazines) put the quality at either identical or slightly in the HD advantage as far as picture quality is concerned. I have yet to see a mention that the soundtracks themselves differ, with the exception of a Dolby vs. DTS track. If you were trying to say that HD discs at times do not use a truly lossless audio track then I would like to think that Dolby and DTS would have a major problem with that. The possible legal ramifications of doing so simply wouldn't be worth the risk. I don't see that is truly the case. I trust the reviews I read as they are all done in controlled environments that use fully calibrated equipment and say there is very little, if any, real difference.

The gas analogy was used to say that the bandwidth specs are great but if one technology uses a scheme that reduces the amount needed to give identical or nearly identical performance then it's a non issue. That's more of a M2 vs. M4 thing and not BD vs. HD. The capacity of the discs themselves won't need to be as high if the information on the disc doesn't require it. With M4 in particular, the storage requirements don't reach anywhere near the massive capability of BD for most titles.

I realize that Amazon is only one retailer but they are a massive one. The numbers will change hourly and I myself don't take full stock in what they mean. I do believe however that they are a relatively good indiciator. Not dead-on but that wasn't the point. I can make it look as if though BD players aren't selling by quoting the sales stats.

The low end BD player, which will be sellling for what, $499? Third gen HD player will be 2, 3 and $499. Two of them including 1080p/24 fps support. HD still gets the price advantage on that one. I have yet to see any BD player anywhere that is selling for less than any HD player.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting twojayz:

Quote:

I looked at Amazon sales figures for players and they seem to demonstrate that BD players are not selling nearly as well as HD players. I fact, all three second gen HD players are in the top 50 in overall consumer electronics sales, while the first BD player comes in at around 60. In DVD player sales alone it was a HD machine that ranked #1.

A_S probably won't admit it but, this is the reason they want the PS3 classified as a Blu-ray player.  Without those numbers, HD DVD has the edge in stand alone player sales.

I have looked into HiDef players at my local electronics stores...Best Buy, Circuit City, Target, etc...not a single sales person has pointed me towards a PS3.

If you read A_S reply, he said what you said he probably would not admit.

Quoting Ascended_Saiyan

Quote:
If you took out the HD DVD add-on and the PS3 sales, I believe HD DVD would be on top.