Hd-dvd Or Blue Ray

[BURTON88]

WHICH ONE IS BETTER I HEAR SO MUCH ABOUT THE TWO BUT I DONT KNOW WHICH ONE IS BETTER?

[buhweet]

Re: Hd-dvd Or Blue Ray

Blu-Ray cetainly has a lot more publicity, the Sony PS3 have a blu Ray drive
( the BRD is from Sony) and you have to buy a seperate unit to play HD DVD's on the 360 (Hd DVD's are from microsoft) I assume that the xbox doesnt play Hd disks b/c of the cost and the fact that is was made a year ago. But I can tell you that the two will never merge, they were concidering it but have since said no.

[Yawgm0th]

Re: Hd-dvd Or Blue Ray

Better? Neither have any market penetration whatsoever. We're talking less than 500,000 players for each world-wide, with only PS3 publishers and a few specific movie titles being produced for them. Commercial Blu-Ray burners cost $500-$1000 and discs cost $10-20 each. Blu-Ray duplicators cost $5000+ and there are no HD-DVD duplicators. Replicators costs tens of millions of dollars. HD-DVD burners aren't even available.

So from a consumer standpoint, the question is simply irrelevant. There is no single application that sees any benefit from using Blu-Ray (HD-DVD isn't even an option) at a reasonable price except maybe archiving, which is cheaper, faster, and more reliable with other media anyway. So how can one useless technology be better than another useless technology? Is it better at not doing anything for you? Unless you have $5000 USD to blow on an entire HD media center and haven't the technical aptitude to get HD video from a DVR or computer, there's no use for either. That said, I don't know that you don't fall under those qualifications. There are probably less than 10,000,000 people in the entire world that do, though.

From a technical standpoint, Blu-Ray is better. The media will theoretically cost less in the long run, and the current capacity as well as the theoretical capacity are much higher. HD-DVD, however, currently provides the same or better quality video playback, and will continue to do so until HD formats improve to the point of HD-DVD capacity being insufficient for a two-hour movie (by which time optical media may obsolete). HD-DVD is also considerably cheaper to convert existing replicators to as well as manufacturing centers for media and players alike because it shares more in common with DVDs. HD-DVD gives movie studios, media manufacturers, and/or drive/player manufacturers higher profit margins than Blu-Ray (that, or it gives consumers lower prices; more likely a combination of the two).

When it comes down to it, both have merits, and both have enough market penetration and industry support that both will survive. I work as phone tech support rep at a company that makes CD/DVD duplicators, and people will occasionally ask "So, what's going to happen with Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD? Is one going to be like Beta?" And I say now what I say to them.

It's not a good analogy, and it's not going to go like that. Both are doing fine, and both are going to be around a while. Betamax virtually died out and saw no consumer use (though it saw other uses). VHS took over the entire consumer market, but VHS wasn't a proprietary Sony technology. Sony learned from that, and although it is heavily Sony-backed, Blu-Ray has other major industry supporters, including the big one: Movie production studios. More importantly, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are not video playback standards; they're optical disc standards. The use of optical discs in non-video applications greatly exceeds the use of optical discs in video applications, and both technologies have merits in both areas. Not only that, but since they're optical discs and are the same diameter, hybrid players are not only possible, but already exist. VHS and Betamax were competing standards for a very specific market, but they both use the same basic technology, which is still in use today (and in many ways will always be superior to optical and magnetic media) both in broadcasting applications and in more computer-centric applications.

When it comes down to it, the more appropriate analogy is DVD-R and DVD+R. Both have some slight differences, and different industry backers, but ultimately there was no winner and both have huge market share. There's no difference in capacity or playback quality. It's not quite the same thing, but no one won. No one will win with Blu-Ray and HD-DVD.

[buhweet]

Re: Hd-dvd Or Blue Ray

Wow, I didnt know that about HD DVD, theyve got nothing out. I was also surprised to see the $$$ of the Blu Ray burner, I saw an ad for one and I assumed it was a replicator or something. I say that DVD's are much better in terms of price, but maybe they want be later (in like 5 years)

[Yawgm0th]

Re: Hd-dvd Or Blue Ray

Both formats should have reasonable prices within two years. It will take another two or so after that to reach DVD-like prices. Remember, six or so years ago DVD players cost over $1000. PS2 and Xbox both had DVD drives and video playback as major selling points, since DVD players were still considered expensive luxuries. PS3 is doing the same thing with Blu-Ray (in fact the retail prices makes it by far the cheapest Blu-Ray player out there) to the point that it's more about pushing Blu-Ray than selling the PS3.

[buhweet]

Re: Hd-dvd Or Blue Ray

Well I'm not gonna go blu-ray till its at DVD prices.... I'll probably be in college .

[AMDATHLONFX]

Re: Hd-dvd Or Blue Ray

LG's BH100 hybrid Blu-ray & HD DVD player priced at $1,199
-------------------------------------------------------------

Player :-




Remote :-



Back Side :-

[wayout44]

Re: Hd-dvd Or Blue Ray

LG's BH100 hybrid Blu-ray & HD DVD player priced at $1,199
-------------------------------------------------------------

Player :-




Remote :-



Back Side :-

Really that post is wasted space on an old thread but come back in 2 or 3 years and try again (sorry but a lot of your posts seem to be about at the same level).