 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
12.146.151.254
In Reply to: Samsung to make dual player posted by Jack G on April 13, 2007 at 05:04:20:
When that changes, there will be absolutely no reason to have an HD-DVD player.Wouldn't be surprised if Universal goes "neutral" around the end of the year.
-------------"I have found that if you love life, life will love you back." -Arthur Rubinstein (1887-1982)
Follow Ups:
Universal has no reason to switch right now, especially since sales of HD DVDs has picked up after Q1. The last Neilson/videoscan numbers show BR's lead is dropping-weekly ratio of 4.5:1 down to 1.66:1. Perhaps its because Fox yanked most of their titles.Bear in mind, that the 20 Gig PS3 is no longer being made, so the price of admission into Blu-Ray has just gone up $100. OTOH, HD DVD players are getting cheaper, and there will be $200 MSRP players by the end of the year. When that happens, more studios will go neutral.
Its interesting that a member of the BDA would suddenly go neutral, and they wouldn't do that unless they are following the money, or at least thought there was money to be made.
Regardless, what is important, is that new consumers won't have to choose, they can just pick up a dual player, and have the best of both worlds-everyone wins.
I don't think HD will be adopted by the masses unless there are more dual players out there. LG will supposedly put out a G2 dual player. It just makes sense. Dual players may be Sony's worst nightmare, but without them, HD DVD and Blu-Ray will end up being niche formats.
Jack
The greater storage capacity means higher bitrate video and audio tracks, hence better video and audio quality, everything else being equal. May not mean anything to Joe Six pack but those who have large investments in HT will want the best.I've just started this game, but so far, Blu-Ray whacks HD-DVD based on all three (3) HD-DVDs I have had the chance to view. I'm sure it's merely an accident of which titles I've picked up to date.
I suspect the only thing holding back more title releases is lack of Blu-Ray manufacturing capabilities.
That's a lot of crap. The extra space isn't needed unless one wishes to use MPEG2, which seems to be Sony's preference. Newer, more efficient codecs like VC-1 or AMV use much less space and require less of a bitrate. For all of BD's technical "superiority", they can't produce a picture better than HD DVD. At best they can equal it. As far as space goes, Universal got Jackson's king kong,3 hrs. 8 mins, on a disc, and it is considered by many to be reference quality.> > > I've just started this game, but so far, Blu-Ray whacks HD-DVD based on all three (3) HD-DVDs < < <
Then do your homework. The only way to compare them is with the same movie-Warner's movies look the same on both formats. Same codec and transfer for both.
Most people who own both consider them comperable, or prefer HD DVD for PQ and BD for AQ.
In the mean time, BDA still hasn't even finalized the specs for Blu-ray. It was supposed to be done by June, but they pushed it back until October 31. That's why BD isn't getting all of Warner's movies. BTW, this may also mean that many/ most BD players will be obsolete by Oct. 31.
enjoy,
Jack
King Kong is considered a reference for video quality (though I have seen a few posts at AVS pointing out problems with the video), but DD+ is not reference audio. Granted, King Kong is a long movie, but it pretty much maxes out HD DVD's capacity and doesn't allow for a reference quality audio track to go along with the video. What happens when we get into 7.1 channels of audio instead of just 5.1? As it is, most of the Dolby TrueHD lossless tracks -- which there aren't too many of on HD DVD -- are 16/48 (not 20/48 or 24/48), because even the lossless audio codecs push the bitrate of HD DVD into the red zone if other features are included (PiP, commentaries, interactive features, etc) along with the movie.And, yes, I realize that many Blu-ray titles with uncompressed LPCM are 16/48 (mostly Sony, but they will be using Dolby TrueHD in the near future and it will be 20/48 or 24/48 encoded). But at least they are uncompressed, not lossy.
I'm not sure HDMI will support it, but maybe a player with good DACs would be suitable.Pat Metheny on Blu-ray was good start: it's got something called a "DTS HD" 5.1 sound track with indeterminate bit rates. Maybe doesn't sound as good as a decent DVD-A or SACD MC track, but full motion HD video is a HUGE plus.
True, its not reerence audio, but Universal titles rarely are. Do you know for a fact they couldn't fit lossless audio on, or just didn't bother? Regardless, with most movies, its a non-issue, they have plenty of room for lossless audio if they wish to use it. Beleive it or not, some studios are all that interested in lossless sound. Universal isn't, and Warner is, but apparently not for BD. I find that amusing.
While you and many people here give Aq a high priority-I appreciate it, but its not as high a priority-I don't think it will be a deal maker or breaker in the long run. Remember, your average smhmoe thinks MP3s sound good.
Back to the original topic, I still think Samsung making a dual player is good for HD in general. They are even willing to make an HD DVd player if there is demand.
Not bad for a dead format.:-)
enjoy,
Jack
Do you know for a fact they couldn't fit lossless audio on, or just didn't bother?"Kong came in at 27.4GB total, so no lossless.
I have to disagree/agree with the "...and Warner is, but apparently not for BD." comment. I disagree that audio quality is a high priority at WB: their use of analog watermarking for DVD-A and insistance on Dolby Digital (instead of DTS) for DVD-V pretty much cements that issue in my opinion.
And as for WB audio on Blu-ray, I agree 100% with you on that one. Several of their 50GB releases have done no better than 640kb/s Dolby Digital, as opposed to an uncompressed LPCM soundtrack or a lossless codec (which we all know would be Dolby TrueHD due to the fact that the two have been in a virtual software/codec 69 suck-off for the last decade... eeewww!). It really makes no sense because providing an uncompressed LPCM soundtrack would cost them absolutely nothing to use! And that same LPCM soundtrack could be used for the Dolby TrueHD encoding for an HD DVD lossless soundtrack. Of course, they'd have to give Dolby some head... er, royalties for using it.
Remember, your average smhmoe thinks MP3s sound good.
Yes, so true and so sad.
Warner does some TrueHD, but not on all movies. Universal does none. It doesn't seem to be a high priority with the HD DVD group. Oddly, I hear Wienstein/Genius does a better job.> > > Kong came in at 27.4GB total, so no lossless. < < <
Well, yes that's ture, and this comes up alot, but according to Amir in the AVS insider's thread :
"The video part is not a fixed number. One can fine tune it more and squeeze it down as needed. Remember that the quality curve for VC-1 is highly exponential and approaches a very horizontal asymptote quickly. So looking at the file size for video doesn’t tell you anything about what else you could put in there.Put another way, when the bit budget is allocated for the various parts of the title, the data rate for video is dialed in and then encoding begins. Any trouble spots are then optimized. Given this process, you can’t say that the file size had to be the number that was picked. A smaller number could be picked with potentially more hand tuning needed without degradation to the movie. "
I don't know if this would work though.
Of course, since its Universal the point is moot.:-(
Jack
The available video codecs might be the same (with some being more space efficient (better ?) than others, but Blu-Ray is more likely to be able to shoehorn in the uncompressed 24/48 or 24/96 PCM tracks than their HD-DVD counterparts. Heck, maybe there won't be a need for studios to pay for lossless compression licenses for DTS HD MA or TrueHD if they simply use 50G Blu-Ray discs for movies uncompressed PCM tracks.True, Blu-ray has some growing pains, perhaps more so than HD-DVD, but there's also a much bigger upside. I expect to want to replace my first generation player (or relegate to 2nd room) with a more capable player within a couple of years. Until then, I can enjoy Hi def movies NOW.
It really isn't being used. BR discs aren't famous for having much in the way of extras, or any for that matter, and the audio doesn't take up that much space really.> > > I expect to want to replace my first generation player (or relegate to 2nd room) with a more capable player within a couple of years. < < <
Or next fall/winter, when/if the BD-video 1.1 and 2.0 specs get finalized, and current players may or may not work with new movies. Untill then, BD won't get many of Waner's movies like Batman Begins, V for vendetta, The Matrix trilogy etc., that require interactive features.
Enjoy,
Jack
And I don't give two hoots about the extras/internet capabilities/etc provided with the movies. I just want to watch the movies and with the best audio and video quality possible. At the present, Blu-Ray provides the best audio/video experience (though that may just be an accident of selected source material). That could change down the road. In the meantime I'll continue to support whichever format supports the movies I want to watch with the best PQ/AQ.
Its unknown if BR movies with new encoding for BD-J (1.1 and up)will be playable on old machines. maybe, maybe not-perhaps a firmware upgrade will do the trick. But, since BDA has not been able to impliment it yet, we just don't know.
> > > At the present, Blu-Ray provides the best audio/video experience < < <
No, it doesn't, at best its equal to HD DVD.
Jack
Just think about all the (space consuming) neat-o features Blu-Ray will be able to support better than HD-DVD when the new BD-J features become mandatory for Blu-Ray players....Also, what I was stating was the Blu-Ray movies I have watched have given ME a better audio/video experience than the HD-DVD movies I have experienced. I would not jump to the conclusion that there aren't better HD-DVD movies out there to experience. Nevertheless, there is no refuting the fact that Blu-Ray provides higher storage capacity to support higher video bitrates, higher audio bit rates, and BTW, more capacity for all those neat extras, trailers, alternate directors cuts/endings, PIP, commentaries, etc....
Why so defensive about HD-DVD. Afraid it's about to die ? :0)
Parsons is the guy who already claimed HD DVD was dead.:-) We'll see how acurate he is here...
> > > Just think about all the (space consuming) neat-o features Blu-Ray will be able to support better than HD-DVD when the new BD-J features become mandatory for Blu-Ray players.... < < <
Not on current players, kind of makes that extra space a waste doesn't it?I don't refute the high storage or bitrate, just the need. Not too many non-MPEG2 movies need or use it.
Oh, and good luck with the interactive PiP, both Universal and Warner are rather insistant on it. Without it, Warner will leave the BDA. Its a pity that the BDA didn't get their specs finalized *before* they hit the market.> > > Why so defensive about HD-DVD. Afraid it's about to die ? :0) < < <
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Not defensive, I just didn't drink the blue Kool-aid. I've said before that both fomats will be around for while, and I'll probably get a BD player when they put out enough movies to justify it. That may be a while though.
Enjoy,
Jack
...that builds stuff no better and often worse than the competition. After my Sony 23" computer monitor died the 3rd time, just out of warranty, I put Sony on my shit list.Oh ya...Circuit City, too, is on that list, after they and the group of Hollywood lawyers spent hundred$ of million$ attempting to foist the pay-per-view DVD format DIVX on us.
With apologies to Joyce Kilmer, "I know that I shall never see a Circuit City worthy of me."
-------------------------------------------------------
Tin-eared audiofool and obsessed landscape fotografer.
http://community.webshots.com/user/jeffreybehr
I don't know about Sony computers, but Sony TVs have been wonderful in my household. And most stuff running Microshaft crap, seems to have lower reliabiity and up-time than Macs running MacOS X so you might consider alternate computer platforms.Sony's no different than any other large company wanting to dominate everyone else. If they have a good technology to sell (E.g. Blu-Ray), than maybe the consumer benefits.
Those of us with an association with Stanford got the original Macs at deep discount, and I've been a Mac user ever since, now on the new 20" Intel iMac that looks a bit like a flat panel TV. I ask you MS bashers what you use for a spreadsheet if it's not the venerable Excel or for word processing if not Word. These programs have been around for years and have served us well. Don't confuse those with the various MS OS that have tried to emulate the Macintosh graphical user interface (GUI) over the years. I used a GUI and mouse contraption at SRI before the group went to ZEROX PARC where Steve Jobs saw an implementtion of a GUI. That stuff ran on a maxed out DEC PDP-11 at SRI. I used it to edit my papers; it seemed miraculous compared to editing in TICO, or cutting, pasting, and retyping.Sure Steve Jobs may be an innovative artist compared to business entrepreneur Bill Gates, but so what? MS has done some fine software, just as Sony makes some fine video equiment.
db
I'm one of the last holdouts in an increasingly Windoze dominated world. I've been forced to use Windows apps more and more, and have had to learn to put up with the occasional application (or OS) crash when using Windows, specifically LookOut (or it Outlook?); Something I almost never experienced with Unix apps. Fortunately, I'm still able to justify use of a Desktop publishing package other than Word and Powerpointless because I can create content more efficiently with it.And yes, I have used Excel; it's one of the few MS tools I find halfway useful.
Oh yeah, I use a Mac at home; I have never paid attention to virii or virus protection programs. I'm sure I should be paying attention but I've yet to get burned.
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
