Video Formats

[nintendodork]

I just started thinking about HD-DVDs.  What the hell?  Where did they go?  Why is Blu-Ray better?  I looked on Google, and most reports on the subject I found were from '06 and '07.  I know that Blu-Ray has more space, but I mean, come on.  When you get right down to it, if the actual movie looks good, then that's all you need.  I don't care one bit about the special features on a DVD except for the occasional cast interview or something, but they don't have to be in high-definition.  I think the battle between HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray is sort of like Betamax against VHS tapes.

Thoughts?

[UglyJoe]

Blu-Ray is better because the major movie studios decided to side with Blu-Ray.  It's kind of hard to be the best movie distribution technology when nobody puts their movies on it.  Blu-Ray "won" because of purely political reasons.

I don't think that this is the same as VHS v. Betamax.  Both of those formats were relevant, such that people wanted a good video format.  Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are both irrelevant because

• not enough people own the equipment needed to make use of them (ie, less people have hd tvs than most seem to think)


• anyone who *does* have the equipment or can afford the equipment can just stream HD movies from a number of different services (ie, digital distribution is the future)


• you need a resolution around four times greater than 1080p in order to match 35mm film (ie, bigger tvs and new video formats are coming out anyway)

[manuel]

I don't care one bit about the special features on a DVD except for the occasional cast interview or something, but they don't have to be in high-definition. 

In many cases the special features, especially interviews are in SD and not in high-definition. The makers also know that this would be a waste of space.

As for which system won... it's not always the better system that comes out on top.
In this case I'm not even sure one's "better" than the other. I think they were pretty much the same with only minor differences. Studios decided to concentrate on 1 format and that format won.
I don't especially care, though.
I have a PS3 with which I can watch DVDs and Blu-Rays. That's good enough for me.

What I like about Blu-Ray is, though, how good "Enter the Dragon" looks on it. Absolutely no comparison to all those old and grainy DVD transfers.

[Rogles]

The PS3 probably had some effect on it.

[nintendodork]

Seriously.  With PS3s, I have no idea why they make Blu-Ray players as a stand-alone device.  They cost more, and they don't do anything else.  I'm not even sure if they play DVDs.

[manuel]

All Blu-Ray players play DVDs. I'm pretty sure of that.

And a dedicated Blu-Ray player often (not always!) delivers better picture and/or sound.

I myself am perfectly OK with the PS3.

[UglyJoe]

With PS3s, I have no idea why they make Blu-Ray players as a stand-alone device.  They cost more, and they don't do anything else.

When they first came out that was true, but now players are half the price of a PS3 (if not cheaper).

[son_ov_hades]

Seriously.  With PS3s, I have no idea why they make Blu-Ray players as a stand-alone device.  They cost more, and they don't do anything else.  I'm not even sure if they play DVDs.

I saw a Blu Ray player at Wal Mart for 35 bucks. Granted it was most definitely shit, but Blu Ray players have dropped in price dramatically in the past 3 or so years.

[nintendodork]

Oh.  I need to get with the times then!   I would agree with Manuel though and say that if I ever did want to play Blu-Ray discs, I'd spend the extra money on a PS3.