Majority Of Customers Prefer Blu-Ray

bonch writes "A poll shows Blu-ray as the preferred choice, as conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates. Customers were given a side-by-side comparison of HD-DVD and Blu-ray. The results were that 58 percent of the 1,200 polled chose Blu-ray, and 26 percent were undecided. Generally speaking, HD-DVD is preferred by those seeking to reduce manufacturing costs while Blu-ray is preferred by those more interested in features and data storage." Sony's PS3 is to use the Blu-Ray format.

Comments

Re:But what do the pornmongers think?`

[jurt1235]

Small error there: What does Sony (biggest backer of blu-ray)allow? is the better question. Philips (the inventors of Beta) did not allow porn to be published on their format. The VHS people did allow this, thus the public nicely bought the VHS (sex sells).

So if Sony allows porn on the blu-ray, they are at least equal in competition (on that level).

The price will come down with volume, and ps3 will mean volume enough to be competitive

Re:HD-DVD is retarded

[DarkEdgeX]

I already covered the capacity argument here. As far as the video CODEC's go, check out this from the FAQ at www.blu-ray.com--

The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) is still in the process of finalizing the BD-ROM specification, but they have stated that MPEG-4 AVC High Profile (previously called FRExt) and Microsoft's VC-1 video codec (the proposed SMPTE standard based on WMV9) will be mandatory. They will also include MPEG-2 support for playback of HDTV recordings and DVDs. Please note that this simply means that all Blu-ray players and recorders will have to support playback of these video codecs, it will still be up to the movie studios to decide which video codec(s) they use for their releases. The BDA expects the BD-ROM specification to be finished some time in the beginning of 2005.

Also of interest is the H.264 article on Wikipedia, specifically the Applications section--

Both of the major candidate next-generation DVD rival formats planned for product deployment in late 2005 include the H.264/AVC High Profile as a mandatory player feature -- specifically:

• The HD-DVD format of the DVD Forum
• The Blu-ray Disc format of the Blu-Ray Disc Association (BDA)

All things being equal again, that leaves capacity as the only thing seperating the two formats as far as I can tell.

Re:Maybe true, but the capacity is important

[benwaggoner]

And how the heck would you know that? The Blu-ray camp has made that assertion, but it simply isn't born out in real-world testing.

Last week, for a test, I put a 123 minute movie on a DVD-9 using MPEG-2, using the HD DVD format (via Apple's DVD Studio Pro 4). Average of around 8.5 Mbps. Looked pretty darn good at 1920x1080.

HD-DVD gives you 30 GB, and the use of H.264 and VC-1 for codecs. No problem AT ALL sticking "Return of the King Extended Edition" on a single side of HD-DVD. So using codecs that are 2x better and 3x more capacity, yeah, HD-DVD is just fine. Single layer HD-DVD will be fine for the vast majority of films, and even offers more minutes per disc at HD than DVD gives us minutes of SD today.