Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media Entertainment

Big Releases Heat Up High-Def Format War 247

Posted by kdawson from the still-a-dead-heat dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Choosing sides in the high-def format war becomes that much harder today, as two powerhouse movie franchises hit store shelves on opposing formats. Exclusive to Blu-ray are the first two 'Pirates of the Caribbean' flicks, while exclusive to HD DVD are two different configurations of the 'Matrix' Trilogy. So which format wins this battle? According to High-Def Digest, this one's a draw. The article has capsule reviews of the four releases ('The Ultimate Matrix Collection' & 'The Complete Matrix Trilogy' on HD DVD, and 'POTC: Curse of the Black Pearl' & 'POTC: Dead Man's Chest' on Blu-ray) with links to excruciatingly in-depth reviews. In the end the site says both sets of releases boast benchmark video and audio, but a preponderance of standard-def supplements prevent all of the above from being the perfect high-def package."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Big Releases Heat Up High-Def Format War More

Big Releases Heat Up High-Def Format War

Comments Filter:

  • A draw? Really? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:17PM (#19225755) Journal
    Exclusive to Blu-ray are the first two 'Pirates of the Caribbean' flicks, while exclusive to HD DVD are two different configurations of the 'Matrix' Trilogy. So which format wins this battle? According to High-Def Digest, this one's a draw.

    I guess they didn't watch the second and third Matrix movies.

    Rob

  • Blu-ray the winner? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jshriverWVU ( 810740 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:18PM (#19225759)
    I'm not in favor of one over the other, but from everything I see blu-ray seems to be the winner. I have only seen once place sell HDDVD, everyplace has at least a few blu-ray, even the mom-pop store down the road has some blu-ray movies for rent.

    Several PS3's out there, plus isnt walmart even going to be selling a bluray player for under $600? I've seen bluray blanks and burners at Best Buy and a couple other places, yet I have never seen even a regular HDDVD player.

    They're just ahead, and sales seem to agree.

    Just my $0.02

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SQLGuru ( 980662 )
      My local Target has both....side by side....with a little cardboard divider between them. The red side is HD-DVD, the blue side is (shock!) Blue-Ray.

      Layne

    • Re:Blu-ray the winner? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:37PM (#19226089)
      HD-DVD has two big advantages--it's a lot cheaper (you can get HD-DVD players for almost half the price of Blu-ray players, and HD-DVD discs run about $5-$10 cheaper than Blu-ray) and it's not a Sony format (does anyone really want those control-freak DRM fanatics to gain a monopoly of the next-gen home video market?).

      • Re:Blu-ray the winner? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jshriverWVU ( 810740 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:51PM (#19226307)
        Very good point. My main concern is either going to eliminate regular DVD? For me I'm perfectly happy with the quality and price for regular DVD's. I was an early adopter of DVD's spending $500 for an Sony player around 95. But I dont feel like it's worth it to upgrade to bluray or HDDVD.

        VHS to DVD was a huge step. You no longer have to rewind, quality is a LOT better, assuming no scratches no signal degradation, multiple audio tracks, deleted scenes, smaller form factor, digital, just a ton of reason.

        DVD to BR/HDDVD? What's really the big difference, that justifies spending $500-600/player and a lot more per movie?

        • It makes no difference on my crappy 300x200 TV with ugly dead purple pixels in the middle, but one of my friends has a 65" plasma TV in his entertainment room and those DVDs look pretty effin crappy that big.

          In general, the upgrade is worth it to those that have bigger HD TVs. The difference is at least as big as the VHS -> DVD path was back then.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by GrayCalx ( 597428 )
          I'm kind of surprised that since you were an early adapter for dvd that you're so down on those that are early adapters for hd-dvd and blu-ray. But really, its one of those things, either you're into it or you're not, so I'm not blaming or calling you out or anything. The bottom line is, if you don't have a HD tv, theres zero reason to switch. If you have a 720p or 1080i tv (thats me) theres a slight advantage to switching. If you have a 1080p tv, i could see a real reason to switch.

          Its interesting t
          • Nice post :) I thought HDDVD/BR was really just a resolution change but had the same specs as DVD (in terms of menus, etc, etc). So to find out HDDVD has the in-video menu system is pretty cool. In that case, I agree it would be worth it. I can't justify the money if it's just a DVD + higher resolution, but if it's a higher resolution and more features that change the interaction with how you view the film then that is pretty sweet.

            I'm not going to get one anytime soon I still have an SDTV. But hopefully

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Ucklak ( 755284 )
            I think it's the DVD player you're using.
            I've never had to stop a movie to change subtitles or audio for SD DVD.

            That being said, WTF is up with El Labertino del Fauno with the 6.1 audio being the default audio choice? (I guess the audio is only digital as I get no sound on that selection the analog out)
          • If you have a 1080p tv, i could see a real reason to switch.

            You should qualify that with "1080p tv but was not an early adopter of HD television", because those of us that were don't have TVs that support the DRM required in either HD disc format.

            I have a beautiful Sony plasma HD TV that cannot play Sony HD videos. Needless to say my next TV won't be a Sony.
        • Yes, VHS to DVD was a huge step. . . But LD (LaserDisc) to DVD wasn't a huge step. DVD really offers very little -- aside from a smaller disc -- that LD hadn't already offered for years. So why did everyone abandon the excellent and long-established LD format for something minimally better? For that matter, why didn't LD ever really take off and displace VHS for pre-recorded content years before DVD even came along? There's no logic.

          I do think LD was ahead of its time. People were beginning to apprec

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by aztracker1 ( 702135 )
            Well, laserdisc over VHS had a really limited title selection, almost no rental options, and simply didn't have broad availability in general... DVD over VHS, well my biggest nod to DVD is not having to fast-forward/rewind over tape. Also, size is a big factor. Laserdisc was about the size of an LP record. DVD has the height of VHS, for cases, and about the width of a CD case. It allows at standard case size for two dvd's to fit into one VHS holder's slot, or certain CD case slots... That is mainly the

        • Re:Blu-ray the winner? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by daBass ( 56811 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @06:50PM (#19230075)
          I agree. If they wanted to make DVD better and support HD, they could have kept the exact same cheap disk and simply switch to h.264/AVC; 9gb would have been ample for 3 hours of 1080p content. There is no need for 50GB discs...

          While it wouldn't have been backwards compatible with existing DVD players, every new player after the introduction would simply have support for the codec too. That and an HDMI output would make good players only slightly more expensive, not over a thousand.

          Blu-ray wastes it expensive space by most movies using sledge-hammer high-mbit MPEG2 anyway. At least most HDDVD use MPEG4. (M$ codec)
        • Friend of mine bought the 360 add-on player, and I've got to admit I really like the overlay disc menu's and stuff, much nicer system. and it is noticeably higher quality footage on his LCD TV.

          Daft as hell blu-ray was faking video overlay content by having 2 copies of the film on disc originally though, but I've heard a new firmware updates the players so new discs can have real overlays now.

      • Red-ray vs. Blu-ray (Score:4, Funny)

        by LunaticTippy ( 872397 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @03:28PM (#19226897)
        HD-DVD doesn't have enough repetitive letters in its name to be successful. I'm going to wait for HHD-DVVDD-BVD. Or Red-ray.

      • it's not a Sony format (does anyone really want those control-freak DRM fanatics to gain a monopoly of the next-gen home video market?).
        Isn't HD-DVD the Microsoft-backed format? If I'm chosing between evils, DRM or otherwise, I'll take Sony over Microsoft any day.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Stripe7 ( 571267 )
      The story I heard was that walmart bought 2 Million HD-DVD players to be sold around $300. http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/wal+ mart-makes-the-push-for-299-hd-dvd-machines-253950 .php [gizmodo.com]

      • Re:Blu-ray the winner? (Score:5, Informative)

        by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:46PM (#19226233)
        The story I heard was that walmart bought 2 Million HD-DVD players to be sold around $300.

        Yeah, apparently you missed the debunking [physorg.com] of that rumor.

        Fuh Yuan, who originated the rumor, also issued their own retraction. This was not even a "no comment" by either side, it was a full on "this story is not true" by both Wal-Mart and Fuh Yuan.

        Don't believe everything you read on the internet, guys.

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by billiam247 ( 1105777 )
          I don't believe a word of what you just said.
    • RIght now it looks like blu-ray is a bit more popular with the "ive got more money than god" crowd. We're not seeing cheap blue-ray players yet. HD players are cheaper, almost half the price, but still too expensive for everyday people. The first player to sell for 150 or so will probably win. I wouldnt count HD-DVD out yet. Not to mention there's a lot of love lost with Sony in various industries. This may hurt them in the long run.

      Things look at lot like the xbox360 vs ps3 war going on right now. One

    • but from everything I see blu-ray seems to be the winner. I have only seen once place sell HDDVD, everyplace has at least a few blu-ray, even the mom-pop store down the road has some blu-ray movies for rent.

      I think it's too early to declare a winner when hardly anybody is buying those Blu-ray (or HD DVD) movies. Did you know that a popular new standard-definition DVD release will sell way more DVDs in one week (e.g. 4 million for Happy Feet) than all Blu-ray and HD DVD titles combined since the launch of the two formats (less than 2.5 million)?
      http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070423-why- early-high-def-disc-adoption-rates-dont-really-mat ter.html [arstechnica.com]

      Yes, Blu-ray is ahead for now. But the current number

    • I'm not in favor of one over the other, but from everything I see blu-ray seems to be the winner.

      I'm not in favour of either, but from everything I see DVD still seems to be winning pretty decisively! When people moved from VHS to DVD, there were clear differences, and most people I knew were jumping on the bandwagon as soon as they could (or at least realising that what they had was significantly worse than what others had). This time around, all I'm seeing is a wave of "Huh?", with occasional "What's

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sl3xd ( 111641 ) *
      Well, the obvious past format war (VHS/Betamax) has the following lesson:

      * Betamax was introduced in 1975.
      * Betamax was the most popular format in 1983 -- almost 10 years of dominance.
      * By 1985, the market turned sharply to VHS.

      Things can change over time, and it's still way too early to declare victory. (Sony declared victory in Betamax, BTW...)

      I've seen as many stand-alone HD DVD players in stores as Blu-ray (More HD DVD, actually, but not by much).

      Sony is hoping the PS3 will boost Blu-ray, and PS3 fanbo
  • hopefully all this will be sorted out by the time i buy a hi-def tv. then again, i'm constantly teetering on the edge of ditching my tv anyway - maybe if this kind of nonsense is going on when my current tv dies, i'll just junk it and not replace it.

  • 'The Ultimate Matrix Collection' (Score:5, Funny)

    by Megaweapon ( 25185 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:25PM (#19225903) Homepage
    So just the first movie then?

  • Powerfull Summary (Score:5, Funny)

    by GreggBz ( 777373 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:26PM (#19225917) Homepage

    "Choosing sides in the high-def format war becomes that much harder today, as two powerhouse movie franchises hit store shelves on opposing formats. Exclusive to Blu-ray are the first two 'Pirates of the Caribbean' flicks, while exclusive to HD DVD are two different configurations of the 'Matrix' Trilogy. So which format wins this battle? According to High-Def Digest, this one's a draw. The article has capsule reviews of the four releases ('The Ultimate Matrix Collection' & 'The Complete Matrix Trilogy' on HD DVD, and 'POTC: Curse of the Black Pearl' & 'POTC: Dead Man's Chest' on Blu-ray) with links to excruciatingly in-depth reviews. In the end the site says both sets of releases boast benchmark video and audio, but a preponderance of standard-def supplements prevent all of the above from being the perfect high-def package."
    Imagine movie trailer voice guy reading this. Cripes I almost drove my workstation through a cinder block wall of flames at 95MPH.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by LMacG ( 118321 )

      Imagine movie trailer voice guy reading this. Cripes I almost drove my workstation through a cinder block wall of flames at 95MPH.


      OK:

      "Imagine a world, where two powerhouse movie franchises hit store shelves in opposing formats. Exclusive to Blu-ray are the first two 'Pirates of the Caribbean' flicks, while exclusive to HD DVD are two different configurations of the 'Matrix' Trilogy.

      Which format will survive to release another disc?"

  • How about NONE! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CyberLord Seven ( 525173 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:26PM (#19225925)
    I have a High Definition TV and access to some HD channels.

    Last year I compared my DVD versions of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Bladerunner, and a couple of other movies to the HiDef versions on HDNet Movies. While the HD versions did have more detail and brighter colors it wasn't enough to convince me to buy a PS3. It still isn't enough.

    The big problem I see with HD formats is...

    there's nothing there that I don't already have!

    Yes, the visuals are better, but the sound is the exact same from what I can tell. Understand that I had to watch the movies on HDNet and then the DVD later, or first, to make my comparisons. I only have one large screen HD TV with surround sound.

    As many here at Slashdot have already noted; DVDs are just as compact as HD disks, allow for menus and quick chapter selection, and have had their anti-consumer Digital Restrictions Management CRIPPLED! >8^D

    WTF do I need HD disks for?

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know someone is going to say that we don't have to watch the commercials on HD disks now. Just wait, sucker, until they become common place. After that you'll be dropping your shorts and grabbing your ankles again.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jfengel ( 409917 )
      Perhaps it's just because I look at things differently, but for me "more details" is sufficient reason. I find standard-definition movies blurry, especially after they've been letterboxed down to the point where I'm looking at 200-something vertical scan lines. I keep trying to clean my glasses, because I just can't see anything.

      I gather that if I had the right TV and the right player and the right movie I could still score that whopping 486 NTSC scanlines. But I'm a late-adopter when it comes to TV, and

      • I find standard-definition movies blurry, especially after they've been letterboxed down to the point where I'm looking at 200-something vertical scan lines.

        Ever heard of anamorphic widescreen? Only crappy widescreen DVD releases do not make use of it. Granted, that's most of them, but the point is that it doesn't have to be that way :P

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jfengel ( 409917 )
          Anamorphic widescreen is still less than 500 scan lines. It's vastly better than the really crummy ones, but I am looking forward to 1080.

          But I'm not buying a TV that supports that many scan lines while they still cost so much money, and so I don't have a dog in the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD fight. By the time I buy a TV that'll actually display those releases properly, this fight will probably be settled.
          • Well, I'm right there with you. My next TV will be a projector from the DIY guys, they have one for $500 that has $30 lamps that last over 5,000 hours. Only about 800x480 res, but that will hold me. It's got component inputs, what more do I need? (It has VGA too, but I don't see much use for that with such low res.)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NSIM ( 953498 )

      Yes, the visuals are better, but the sound is the exact same from what I can tell. Understand that I had to watch the movies on HDNet and then the DVD later, or first, to make my comparisons. I only have one large screen HD TV with surround sound.

      Actually, both BluRay and HD DVD do support substantially better sound options with higher bitrates all the way up to uncompressed, of course you need a receiver designed to handle them or one that has seperate 6-channel analog-in. The reason why the sound seeme

      • I can believe this.

        I recently called DISH network to let them know that I am interested in DirecTV's announcement that they will have more than 100 HD channels by the end of the year. Right now I get only SIX stinkin' channels from DISH.

        Well, their argument was that the DirecTV channels would mostly be less than HD quality and that I could replace my existing MPEG-2 receiver with an brand spankin' new MPEG-4 receiver for a mere EIGHTEEN MONTH CONTRACT!

        WTF? I've been using garbage for the last three ye

    • Re:How about NONE! (Score:5, Informative)

      by llZENll ( 545605 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @03:05PM (#19226519)
      Using HDNET, or any cable channel, is a poor source of HD material compared to a disc. Video and audio will be much better from either HDDVD or Bluray. Discs typically carry 30-60 Mbit/s of information, while ATSC (over the air HD) is 19.2 Mbit/s and cable is probably less than that. Probably around 15-20 Mbit/s for cable. BTW standard DVD is around 11 Mbit/s. To add to that providers commonly crop, resize, stretch, and modify the original HD signal further for formatting to their liking, degrading the quality even further.

      So Bluray and HDDVD discs have around double to triple the information compared to a broadcast HD signal.

      Sources:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc [wikipedia.org]
      http://www.filmbug.com/dictionary/hdtv.php [filmbug.com]
      • Just wanted to chime in and support your post. I own a hd-dvd player and have had the chance to compare a hd-dvd movie I own to its counterpart playing on HD-Net. The difference there was noticable. I wouldn't say it blew me away, but you could easily see a crisper, prettier picture. Don't even get me started on comparing them to a standard DVD (even with up-conversion). The difference on my 720p tv is like the difference between a HD channel and a SD channel. Theres just no going back once you've mad

      • Re:How about NONE! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by CyberLord Seven ( 525173 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @04:49PM (#19228425)
        Totally agree with you about the image quality, but I still don't see a reason to buy into HD disks. Yes, they are superior to standard definition (SD), but so is DVD, to my eyes.

        I have a HUGE library of DVD movies that I have no intention of re-buying.

        The real question is what does HD-DVD/BluRay bring to the table that DVD does not?

        DVD had incredible advantages over tape. Menus with quick access to scenes in movies. No more rewinding. Small format. Easily backed up once you grabbed a copy of DVD-Decrypter, IFOEdit, and ImgTool.

        So, we all agree, HD has the most beautiful images and those images are superior to SD and DVD, but does it bring anything else to the table to justify the markup in price?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by llZENll ( 545605 )
          "but does it bring anything else to the table to justify the markup in price?"

          Probably not, at least nothing that a lot of people are going to use. The biggest difference is video and audio quality, which is a huge bonus for me personally. The reason for such a huge markup is because it is a new technology, which is the case with everything, when DVDs came out they were much more than VHS, you have to remember how old DVDs are. In another 5-10 years HD discs will be the same price as DVDs, and then a new

      • DVD 11 mbit (Score:3, Informative)

        by daBass ( 56811 )
        DVD's maximum bitrate is 11 Mbit, but you'd run out of disc in about two hours if you did that - with no room for extras. Most DVDs actually run at 3-5 Mbit. (it is variable)

        The problem with most HD systems is that they were designed with the crappy old MPEG2 codec in mind. This means ATSC *needs* almost 20Mbit to broadcast 1080p - a serious waste of bandwidth and it also makes for a less stable signal. Cable and sat broadcasters have switched to MPEG4/h.264 for their HD content so they can look better at l

  • That is easy (Score:3, Funny)

    by rimcrazy ( 146022 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:26PM (#19225929)
    Which ever format the majority of Porn distributors pick will win.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by CyberLord Seven ( 525173 )
      I don't know about this. I was watching a program about a month back. I don't remember the title, but it dealt with the Pron industries reaction to HD. The directors and producers had more enthusiasm but even they were concerned with the greater detail turning some people off. The actresses were really worried about how much pressure would be on them to maintain, or even improve to the level of detail HD will show.

      • The actresses were really worried about how much pressure would be on them to maintain, or even improve to the level of detail HD will show.

        Sooner or later HD porn will be post-processed for pimple removal.

        With all the amazing shit that goes on at say siggraph, I'm amazed it hasn't happened already.

        • I suspect it hasn't happened because most everyone can spot Computer Graphics. Even if you don't recognize a shot as computer generated imagery, you will probably "feel" something wrong with the shot. That's probably taboo for pron. Besides, it would only increase their costs and diminish their margins. I don't expect to see that happen anytime soon.

      • ...concerned with the greater detail turning some people off.

        True, nobody wants to see Stud and Barbie revealed in HD as Dick Cheney and Madeleine Albright. The smart producers will embrace this change and get ahead of the pack with CGI enhancements. Disruptive technology rocks another industry.

    • I thought Sony said there would be absolutely no porn on Blu-Ray. Did I hear this wrong?

    • Re:That is easy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jandrese ( 485 ) <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @04:12PM (#19227743) Homepage Journal
      Who actually buys porn on disc anymore? That's what the internet is for.
  • for the next format that's going to supersede all these and allow me to burn at least a TB on a disk.

    And - No - I'm needing it for backup of data not for downloading and burning movies.

  • Matrix exlusive to HD-DVD...for now (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kherr ( 602366 ) <kevin&puppethead,com> on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:34PM (#19226039) Homepage
    The Matrix collection is exclusive to HD-DVD only for the time being, it will be released on Blu-ray [engadgethd.com] eventually. If you know it's coming to Blu-ray is there a reason to get all bunched up over which format to go with? And how many of us are still waiting for this whole nonsense to end?

  • Moot point? (Score:2, Redundant)

    by RobertM1968 ( 951074 )

    This may all become a moot point if the multi-format drives (by Samsung and LG) mentioned earlier on /. (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/13/1933 2 01 [slashdot.org]) become a reality, thus allowing end-users to buy content on HD-DVD or BluRay or regular DVD and run any of them on their drives/players. This would also allow the studios to release in whatever format they are geared up for instead of in both formats - or instead of hoping the format they selected "wins the war" (as the war would essentially end in a

  • Blu-ray, HD-DVD, who wins?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nozsd ( 1080965 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:37PM (#19226093)
    One thing is certain; we lose.
    • Why was this marked insightful?

      All it was is an opinion without anything backing it up. If it had mentioned at all that it was driving costs up by dividing the market or something, it'd be really insightful. As it is now, that was just a soundbite with no substance.

  • Must-miss (Score:3, Informative)

    by u-bend ( 1095729 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @02:38PM (#19226113) Homepage Journal
    Incomplete trilogy with a strong first movie and a sucky sequel vs. a full trilogy that should have been one movie and whose sequels are largely regarded as plain old bad. This goes in the "must-miss" category for me. I'd buy either of the first movies, but not the collections. This will probably happen with a six-movie Star Wars Hi-Def set that cannot be purchased separately as well.
    • Also, who cares about re-releases of movies that came out years ago. If you like the movies, then you likely already have them on DVD, and most people aren't going to run out and buy them again. I often wonder why they try to push old movies that most fans probably already own, while simultaneously not releasing new movies in HD formats. The same thing happened with DVD. I'm not saying it garauntees them to fail or anything like that, but as a consumer it's just play annoying to have this new technology,
      • I ran out and rebought Batman Begins, V for Vendetta, Casino and Goodfellas when I got my cheap HD-DVD player. Soo... not sure what I'm trying to say. I also make fun of people who run out and bought the first LotR release. Then the extended release, and then the super-dooper extended release. So, there must be a difference, in my mind at least.

        But seriously the difference in quality is amazing. Its the difference between SD and HD broadcast channels. It doesn't alter your perception or make you or
  • All POTC has is a buch of special effects!
  • ...they are equally unimpressive. All five are available on DVD- In fact, I already own 2 of them.

  • cat (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BlueParrot ( 965239 ) on Tuesday May 22, 2007 @03:47PM (#19227321)
    I'll tell you what will win cat5e, cat6, cat7, fiber and wireless. Seriously, if you have to wait X days for the movies you ordered to arrive in the mail you might just as well download them overnight. The hard drive space needed will be available before either blue-ray or HD-DVD becomes mainstream. Of course, the movie industry will shoot itself in the foot and cripple the whole thing with DRM and whatnot, so it will be done over file-sharing networks and then we will hear how the HD formats lose sales "because of piracy", and there will be more draconian copyright laws. Blue-ray will lose, HD-DVD will lose, consumers will lose, the movie industry will lose, the artists will lose, ISPs will lose as they have to deal with DMCA notices, even the lawyers will lose as they have will have to deal with bullshit like this instead of something worthwhile. Orwellian governments will win as they get another excuse to implement more privacy infringing legislation. Welcome to the the digital millennium.
  • Exclusive to Blu-ray are the first two 'Pirates of the Caribbean' flicks, while exclusive to HD DVD are two different configurations of the 'Matrix' Trilogy

    "Exclusive"? All five of these movies are already available on standard DVD as well.

    I'm ready to declare a winner in the format war.
  • Are classical movies getting released and does HD make a difference in that area? Any HD release search function that lets you search for the movie's production year? With most modern movies, I just don't seem to care enough to buy a DVD, let alone one of the more expensive HD versions.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell

Close