Post by: PS3Scene on August 08, 2007, 05:05:00 PM
Blu-ray continues to outpace HD DVD with '300' release Posted by XanTium | 8-8-2007 18:29 EST |
| From usatoday.com: Quote
Full Story: usatoday.com |
Post by: epsilon72 on August 08, 2007, 05:01:00 PM
Still, they should also include the sales figures for the DVD version of 300 to show how small high def disk sales are right now.
Post by: Jase Winter on August 08, 2007, 05:11:00 PM
Post by: tummybanana on August 08, 2007, 05:53:00 PM
QUOTE(Jase Winter @ Aug 9 2007, 12:47 AM) 
I bought the hd-dvd version myself, had a hd-dvd exclusive extra i believe.
i got the dvd/hd dvd of it from play......fantastic print.....
beats me why blu ray fans want a crippled disc that doesnt have the features on it tho....so much for a superior format
Post by: twistedsymphony on August 08, 2007, 09:56:00 PM
QUOTE(tummybanana @ Aug 8 2007, 07:53 PM) 
i got the dvd/hd dvd of it from play......fantastic print.....
beats me why blu ray fans want a crippled disc that doesnt have the features on it tho....so much for a superior format
haven't we learned... market perception is the new truth.
Post by: Ninja Sniper X on August 08, 2007, 10:32:00 PM
Post by: Thraxen on August 08, 2007, 11:39:00 PM
Post by: lmaolmao on August 09, 2007, 02:53:00 AM
To me 50gb of space allows for the longer films (LOTR, etc.) to fit on one disc. plus allows plenty more space for uncrompressed sound. Most HD-DVD films are ~25gb and those are 2 hour films.
and blu-ray is slightly cheaper.
plus the boxes are blue, and not red. and everyone knows blue is the better colour.
Post by: tummybanana on August 09, 2007, 05:35:00 AM
QUOTE(lmaolmao @ Aug 9 2007, 10:29 AM)
i cant see how hd-dvd is the "superior format". both discs use the same codecs, so essentially the same file. But blu-ray has more space. manufacturing costs, access times, and special features (p.s. most extras are in SD and no-one watches them) dont interest me whatsoever, if extras we're such a big thing, they would show them in theatres.
To me 50gb of space allows for the longer films (LOTR, etc.) to fit on one disc. plus allows plenty more space for uncrompressed sound. Most HD-DVD films are ~25gb and those are 2 hour films.
and blu-ray is slightly cheaper.
plus the boxes are blue, and not red. and everyone knows blue is the better colour.
you like it just coz of the colour?..those long winter nights must just fly by
Post by: Mr Invader on August 09, 2007, 08:30:00 AM
QUOTE(lmaolmao @ Aug 9 2007, 04:29 AM)
To me 50gb of space allows for the longer films (LOTR, etc.) to fit on one disc. plus allows plenty more space for uncrompressed sound. Most HD-DVD films are ~25gb and those are 2 hour films.
HD-DVD with MPEG-2= 3.3 hours
Blu-ray with MPEG-2= 5.6
HD-DVD with VC-1= 5.1 hours
Blu-ray with VC-1= 8.5 hours
all easily big enough for long 3 hour movies
QUOTE
and blu-ray is slightly cheaper.
Except for their players. And for the most part, their movies are the same prices for the same amount of features.
QUOTE
plus the boxes are blue, and not red. and everyone knows blue is the better colour.
The red color with HD-DVD goes well with the blood splatter on the 300 case; but then again, who gives a crap?
Post by: Kamasutra318 on August 09, 2007, 09:49:00 AM
QUOTE(Ninja Sniper X @ Aug 9 2007, 01:08 AM)
Well I think I must have had my head in my ass for the last half a year. the Blu-ray version doesnt have any special features? I'm glad I got the HD-DVD version now lol.
It has all the special features that the DVD has. It just doesn't have certain exclusive special features like PiP, web-enabled content, and some lame game.Maybe some people didn't want to pay extra for those extra features. I know that's not the reason it costs more, but who really cares about having a DVD side? Also, the Blu-ray comes with PCM audio. More importantly, I wouldn't want a movie on a dying format; this story in itself is evidence of that. This is not the first time Warner has done something like this, but they did announce that there would likely be a re-release with those extras.
QUOTE(Mr Invader @ Aug 9 2007, 11:06 AM)
HD-DVD with MPEG-2= 3.3 hours
Blu-ray with MPEG-2= 5.6
HD-DVD with VC-1= 5.1 hours
Blu-ray with VC-1= 8.5 hours
This post has been edited by Kamasutra318: Aug 9 2007, 05:00 PM
Post by: throwingks on August 09, 2007, 09:38:00 AM
QUOTE(Kamasutra318 @ Aug 9 2007, 11:49 AM)
That's pretty arbitrary. The length of the movie depends on the bitrate of the video and what kind of audio they put on there. If they want a PiP feature that would need to go on the same disc too. Unrelated, but H.264 is my preferred codec.
That isn't arbitrary. That is the amount of video at a constant max bitrate. That is the threshold.
Post by: Kamasutra318 on August 09, 2007, 01:17:00 PM
If you wanted purely video at those lengths, the average bit rates would be:
HD DVD for 3.3hrs = 20.2 Mbps
Blu-ray for 5.6hrs = 19.9 Mbps
HD DVD for 5.1hrs = 13.1 Mbps
Blu-ray for 8.5hrs = 13.1 Mbps
This post has been edited by Kamasutra318: Aug 9 2007, 08:36 PM
Post by: tummybanana on August 09, 2007, 05:17:00 PM
QUOTE(Kamasutra318 @ Aug 9 2007, 04:49 PM)
Maybe some people didn't want to pay extra for those extra features. I know that's not the reason it costs more, but who really cares about having a DVD side?
those that want to watch it in the bedroom of other place maybe?.....and rip it to hdd too.....why buy 2 discs when you can have it on one flipper?
and for the vast amount of times both discs are the same price, here in the uk at any rate....
Post by: colt45joe on August 09, 2007, 09:01:00 PM
This post has been edited by colt45joe: Aug 10 2007, 04:02 AM
Post by: Mr Invader on August 09, 2007, 10:48:00 PM
QUOTE(colt45joe @ Aug 9 2007, 10:01 PM)
300 on Blu-ray actually sounds better than the hd-dvd release because of the extra space.
So you're glad that 300 on Blu-ray had the potential to be better but instead it passed up the chance? I don't get it. Someone please explain.
Post by: Achtung on August 10, 2007, 05:55:00 AM
QUOTE(colt45joe @ Aug 10 2007, 04:01 AM)
300 on Blu-ray actually sounds better than the hd-dvd release because of the extra space.
You should get a job at sony
Post by: Ninja Sniper X on August 10, 2007, 05:04:00 PM
Later in the day I watched it on my Toshiba A2 (my god it was gorgeous!!!). Two days later I watched it at a friends house on his dvd player, DVD use #2. Then when I got home I ripped it onto my xbox, DVD use #3.
I'm now very glad that they have these dual format disks.
Post by: tummybanana on August 11, 2007, 04:16:00 AM
QUOTE(Ninja Sniper X @ Aug 11 2007, 12:40 AM)
I admit I was at first skeptical about the usefulness of having HD-DVD and DVD on one disk but when the UPS guy delivered 300 another family member was on the big screen. I was eager so I watched it on my computer, DVD use #1.
Later in the day I watched it on my Toshiba A2 (my god it was gorgeous!!!). Two days later I watched it at a friends house on his dvd player, DVD use #2. Then when I got home I ripped it onto my xbox, DVD use #3.
I'm now very glad that they have these dual format disks.
there you go.....kinda what i was trying to say
