Slashdot Mirror
Media Fight - PS3 Blu-ray vs. 360 HD DVD Add-On
An anonymous reader sent a link suggesting we might enjoy High Def Digest's next-gen console media comparison. They take a look at the PlayStation 3's Blu-ray playback capabilities, and compare it to the performance of the Xbox 360's HD DVD add-on. The article offers a number of technical details for the movie, audio, and gaming buff. As you might expect, given the companies involved, both products basically perform their functions very well. From the article: "That doesn't mean both aren't without their drawbacks. The Xbox 360 add-on suffers from a lack of HDMI and analog outputs, though it still delivers excellent results despite those limitations. The PS3, meanwhile, also lacks analog outs, but it does have HDMI 1.3 support and can decode Dolby TrueHD. The lack of 1080 upconversion of 720p sources on the PS3 is a huge issue, though, so unless you have a 1080p-capable HDTV, you may suffer buyer's remorse."
An anonymous reader sent a link suggesting we might enjoy High Def Digest's next-gen console media comparison. They take a look at the PlayStation 3's Blu-ray playback capabilities, and compare it to the performance of the Xbox 360's HD DVD add-on.
A comparison of the actual games might be a bit more relevant. To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone buys a gaming console BASED ON THE FUCKING PERFORMANCE OF THE OPTICAL DRIVE. They buy it because it has the games they want to play.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
This will probably be the first time a large number of customers begins to "get it" in regards to having DRM force-fed down our throats.
In addition, this will probably be the first time that the lack of a analog hole will actually result in a large number of people being screwed.
(its a joke)
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
... usually end in failure.
-Sega CD, 32X, etc.
No one wants to buy extra hardware to play games and these add-ons better be dirt cheap if they expect anyone to pick them up for HD-DVD playback. That and why is there even a need to replace DVD as it stands for most people?
I understand the benefits of blue-ray and HD-DVD for computer storage for applications like games, archiving, etc. But console history is filled with failed peripherals.
It's all about the money
Where are the PC Bluray drives that go for $200?
Seriously, what is up with this HD format war? The first HD format that becomes affordable (and actually works) on the PC platform is the HD format I'll be adopting. I'm not alone. This *is* a race, but somehow it seems like both sides *want* to lose.
It seems probable to me that the primary motivation for the PS3, is to put a blu-ray drive under every expensive TV. Perhaps that is why there is no 720p downsampler, they want people to look at blu-ray disks and say wow. Rather than creating a cheap console that will do the job, they went overkill (I want one, by the way, even if I may never get one). With high prices, and low cost alternatives, you can expect that the early owners of PS3s are going to have their displays up to date as well. Demand for blu-ray grows, more studios sign on, Sony Pictures can put out more movies in Blu-ray, and pretty soon the profits destroy the losses on the PS3. More of an "investment" than a "terrible blunder" if you consider not just game sales, but blu-ray proliferation.
I have freaks! I did something right...
Look.. the formats are stillborn.
they were announced months ago, and despite being advertised everywhere sales are lack luster to non-existent.
everyone on slashdot got it right.. it didn't offer anything substantially different to dvd.. was much more expensive, and imposes incredibly confusing, draconian, and prohibitively expensive DRM schemes.
heck.. in my local area theyre running ads trying to get people interested by directing them to a website where they explain the rediculously complicated HDTV crap.. (why your component won't play at full 1080 p---probably lying about it too to gloss over the whole DRM point like all the ad nazis do)
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
"The first HD format that becomes affordable (and actually works) on the PC platform is the HD format I'll be adopting. I'm not alone." You are not alone! If I was not so lazy I might have said it first. The first blue lasered drive with cheap media will win! Who buys HD movies? I have the 1080p big LCD in the living room, but I do not even own any DVDs. I am waiting for the UHD where I can see the grain in the film and know there is no higher quality to sell me later.
As someone who works in this world of too many video standards I have found that almost no one gets it. As for this artical, all it proves is that Sony did it right, while microsoft did it wrong. You DO NOT want upconverstion ever!!! If your source is 720p thne you want it delieved to your TV as 720p, if your source is 1080i, you DO NOT want it delivered to your tv as 1080P. You also do no want HD source delieved though component video 4:2:2 to your TV. While it does do the job, it will not supress future HDCP protection. So in closing... Sony did it right, and microsoft blew it. I should know, I was on the iHD HDDVD side of the wall for a long time. It might be a better Disc spec, but microsoft basicly did everything in their power to make the format fail, and sony learned a importaint lesson from the PS2 making the DVD #1 10 years ago.
If the biggest downside can be be fixed in firmware... that's really kind of an upside.
This reminds me of when DVD came out and there was a backlash among fans of laserdiscs. In both cases, the format doesn't offer anything hugely different (still just movies on a disc) and in both cases there are some drawbacks to adopting the newer technology, but ultimately, the new technology will be adopted because of two things: (1) more advantages than drawbacks and (2) once the new format has been around for a while the cost difference becomes insignificant -- if the difference in cost is next to nothing, people (both consumers and producers) will go with the newer standard.
Possibly almost all of the Xbox 360 games will be DVD only, hence gamers won't be inclined to buy the HD-DVD. Plus, for the new customer who is into HDTV and movies, XBOX+HDDVD is not really a better solution than PS3.
On the other hand, there will be at least as much Blu-Ray players as PS3s.
At the end, the war is not about technology but numbers.
The 360's HDDVD drive already works on PC... I'm not sure how well it works, but I'm waiting for some more info because I'm seriously considering buying one. I've already watched some of the 1080p content available over at apple.com and needless to say, I'm spoiled against DVD's and DVD rips.
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
I've been saying this from the beginning, but Blu-Ray will be the winner of the HD format war simply because it has a cooler name. HDDVD is hard to say and sounds like obscure computer nerd bullshit. Blu-ray on the other hand sounds like a devastating weapon that has fallen into enemy hands, putting the world at risk and now needs to be saved by a commando soldier who was recently kicked out of the army for disobeying orders and saving a village of orphans, but now is the world's only hope to avoid sure destruction. Coming to theaters near you, this July 4th.
I think the choice is obvious.
More FUD from the Sony bashers. PS3 does 1080p just fine. What it doesn't do is upscale 720p content up to 1080i if the TV only doesn't do 1080p. So what it does is feed the 720p content directly to the TV to do what it can with it, provided it supports 720p. If it doesn't, the PS3 downscales the content to 480p.
So in order to suffer the downscaling, you need a really crappy HDTV which doesn't support 1080p AND 720p.
Personally, I'd be more frustrated at a lack of HDMI on my HD content player as any moderately decent HDTV support either of those two modes fine.
The difference is that there were about four people in that backlash watching eight films between them. The real dominant format was VHS; laserdisc was just a museum piece to most people.
Now almost everyone has a DVD player and a pile of movies and are not sitting in front of their TV going "Jesus, this is crap quality. I wish there was something better", which was what a lot of people WERE saying about VHS.
I think the comparison is still valid because right now, the people that are switching from DVD to an HD format are not normal people, they're the same type of people who were using laser discs back then.
Anyways, you do raise a good point, to the normal consumer Bluray/HDDVD do not offer the nearly as great advantages over DVD as DVD did over VHS. That said, I still pretty confident that an HD format will overtake DVDs. While I doubt many normal consumers will be buying HD formats for the next few years, there are definitely enough of the "afficianados", the people who have HDTVs and care about the better picture quality, to support it as a format and that is the key part. As that market develops it will bring down the cost of the equipment for playing (and manufacturing) the discs. Once HD players get down to the point where they're not considered expensive by most consumers (say under $100) then "normal" consumers will start buying. If a consumer is looking to buy a player and a regular player is $50 and a player which plays both DVD and Bluray (or HDDVD) is $80 then it becomes very easy for that person to say "Hey, why not get the combo player? It's about the same price and I'll be able to rent both types of discs and I can borrow movies from my home theater nerd friend who only buys Bluray discs now."
The other thing to keep in mind is that even before consumers actually start buying HD players, they're likely to have some device that uses them -- soon enough it will be standard for computers to come with drives for HD discs just like a DVD-ROM is standard now.
My bloody RSS feed had an ad for HD DVD right below this article.
Ha.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
The format that first/most conviniently gets ripped and XvidD'ed.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I don't even know where to begin... It of course takes some time for the sales of HD-DVD and BluRay to get some momentum. Look at the sales of DVD when it arrived in 1996. I would say that it was only by 2000 that it was beginning to be very common and much later than that before DVD was more common than VHS. Slowly, as more and more people get displays capable of true 1080p, the need for better picture quality will be evident to everyone. Even the best DVDs look like crap on a large high-resolution display compared to a true HD source. The low resolution and compression artifacts of DVD are all too evident. Then slowly HD-DVD and BluRay players will get as cheap as DVD players are now, all the while more and more titles will be released on the two formats. We are still in the very early phase. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already more early adopters of HD-DVD and BluRay than there were early DVD adopters shortly after its release. And the early players are even cheaper than the first DVD players. The formats are not stillborn, they are just in their infancy. Do you expect them to replace DVD overnight? Do you think that replacing DVD overnight is a criterion of success for the parties supporting and developing the formats?
That is not true (see below). Sure gaming is one reason to compare, but I believe you are sticking to a single dimensional analysis rather than seeing the media convergence device Microsoft and Sony are fighting to get into your living room. The article does not mention the Wii because it's audience cares about hi def movies -- not games! For this audience, the Playstation3 gaming platform is a secondary consideration to its BluRay, HDMI 1.3, and 1080p HDTV capabilites.
I'll use the US retail prices from now on... The PS3 ($499 or $599 version) is the cheapest BluRay player, by a margin of hundreds of dollars today. Recent price check on BluRay players: Sony Samsung BDP1000 ($1000), Pioneer's player ($1000+), and I think I've heard of a Philips player as well ($?).
The core XBOX 360 ($299) + HD DVD ($199) add on (which is a 2nd generation Toshiba drive) add to $498, which is roughly equal to the retail price of the base, first generation model Toshiba HD-A1 HD-DVD player ($499). The street price has started to drop on the first generation players, so you are correct in your assessment if price was the only consideration for HD-DVD movie playback.
But I think you can see that Sony and Microsoft are discounting hardware in order to gain market acceptance and market share for a new gaming platform and for a new high definition DVD playback device.
Why would Microsoft release the HD-DVD add on and why would Sony cripple it's lauch to bundle BluRay for their consoles if gaming was the only way to evaluate them? Because there is more to consider.
The next generation consoles are a converged business platform. They represent a war involving video, audio, and game content delivered via online and software media. Each platform drives hardware, software, codec, and network components for sales, licensing, and royalties.
Expect the consoles to clash and potentially partner with iTV, iTunes, cable, satellite, and other media providers. I don't know how soon or how successful they will be, but be prepared for people to evaluate them not on games, but on: "can I get or rent (this movie, my music, my pictures, etc.) on my XBOX 360 or Playstation3?"
My opinions are my own, but you may share them!
The reason being that form the name alone, most people know what it is. Everyone knows that DVD = movies. That's what their movies are currently. Most people also know that HD = high def. High def TVs are called HDTVs, cable and satellite companies talk about HD channels and so on. Thus HD-DVD = high def DVD. Easy to understand. Even if you go to a store, knowing you want high def movies but not knowing what they are called, HD DVD is likely to make sense.
Blu-ray, however, nobody knows what it is. Sony actually has been doing a good deal of advertising to that end, to try and get people familiar with the concept that Blueray and the abbreviation BD = movies. They realise that it will not be automatic.
So I'd say HD-DVD is the better name, marketing wise.
But aren't those people exactly the ones that bought laserdiscs? They weren't enough to move that format into the mainstream even against VHS.
However, you are right to point out the importance of price and at the end of the day computers and consoles will play a big part in reducing this; something laserdiscs did not have on their side.
We'll see. I've yet to actually see HD running on an HD TV so I've no idea if the hype is accurate (er..., in which case it's not hype) but I do know that I don't actually feel any need to improve on my DVD player or digital TV broadcasts for that matter.
What do you mean the PS3 doesn't have proper 1080p playback? The PS3 will play back BD movies at any resolution. The only playback issue with BD movies is that you need HDMI for 1080p for some reason. That's it. The scaling limitation of the PS3 is limited to games that only support 720p. As laughably stupid that is in its own right, it does not affect movie playback.
Where can you get a Samsung BD player for under $600/500?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=samsung+bd+p10 00&btnG=Search+Froogle
The two models of the PS3 are $500 and $600. $700 - $800 is not less than $600.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I think the main reason we haven't seen any substantial use of the new formats is because it's just too soon. We've just recently reached the point where DVDs are ubiquitous. Everybody has a player, the price of the media is fairly reasonable, and the average person has a fairly substantial DVD collection going.
Even if the difference were substantial, I wouldn't buy them right now. I'm too far invested in DVDs and that investment has been over too short of a time, in my opinion, to essentially scrap the project. I could run both, of course, but that's irritating in a lot of ways (taking up space, some movies in hypothetically substantially different qualities, etc).
The fact that the difference isn't that substantial only adds to the inertia.
As for the DRM, let's face it: Few people outside of sites like this know or care about it.
I do not agree that the formats are "stillborn." I think they will be picked up, but anybody expecting a huge and immediate uptake was being delusional.
The difference _is_ substantial. Not on a 20" CRT tv but on larger high resolution displays like big LCD and plasma screens and most notably a 100" picture from even a cheap 1280x720 front projector. The flaws of DVD are all too evident in these cases. And likewise the superiority of the new formats.
"Rhetoric": The only bloody weapon in an intellectual's inventory, and consequently intellectuals hold nothing above it.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
the problem with all this bullshit, is i can't go down to the local video store and rent a movie in 1080p. until i can, no one is going to give a flying fuck about 1080p. there's no significant catalog of movies at that resolution.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"but it really is remarkable."
At any realistic distance? Having done some rip/encode of my own DVD's, I fairly quickly found out that I could barely tell the difference between DVD resolution and half that rescaled and reencoded. I mean, sure, 5 inches away, on a still picture I could, but on a moving picture at ordinary viewing distance? I'd have to have a damn good reason to imagine I saw any appreciative difference.
Heck, I can recall reading a survey they did on HDTV owners a few years ago. Most were very impressed with the much better image quality; however, it turned out not even half had actually tuned to the HD channels...
I suspect that most people would get a much larger improvement in actual picture quality by getting new prescription lenses than a higher resolution TV. Or even better, an eye upgrade.
When I see the HD solutions for Xbox360 vs PS3. I never see anyone saying. "I would prefer to have one box under my TV than two", because I would. I can't see the add-on being anything more than a novelty if its not a standard.
The HDTV's I have seen in shops all had a miserable picture quality. (much lower than my good old CRT TV)
Very bad colors, tons of artifacts,...
From my point of view HDTV is a step down. (until true digital HD broadcasts are available)
I think the biggest problem with laserdisks was their huge size.
Where can I acquire this eye upgrade you speak of?
HD-DVD, Blu-Ray? Plastic discs? Within a couple of years we will be streaming HD content, just like mp3's. Physical media is dying, if not already stillborn in the case of HD. The debate is not really about HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray at this point. It's when will streaming content be ready for primetime.
There's a huge difference.
I'm sitting in from of my 62" LCD (sadly, 720p only). I'm flipping back and forth between Starz and Starz-HD, as they are simulcasting Chronicles of Narnia. There's a vast difference.
It helps that I have good vision (I don't wear/need glasses); but even my friends, girlfriends, etc . . . notice the difference.
We were watching Grey's anatomy in HD the other day, and one of my friends who knows nothing about HD or electronics in general noted that, "Your TV is so big that I can see all the pimples and stuff in their faces. Grey isn't 1/2 as sexy as I thought she was."
As I flip back and forth between Narnia HD and no-HD, I notice:
A) The wood grains, which I can't see in normal resolution.
B) The wrinkles in skin and fabric.
C) The details in water ripples and carpet patterns.
D) Fine hairs rising from woolen sweaters.
E) The grainy texture of snow, rather than white stuff on the ground.
Actor's faces look more realistic. Detail doesn't fade into the background. It's a huge difference.
This is seated ~8 feet from the TV.
I don't have a 1080p capable set, but there's a huge difference in 720p and 480i for me, and for everyone I've tested on, without telling them whether they are currently watching HD or non-HD content.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I'm very, very confused.
Let me see if I get it:
The PS3 _can_ do the following conversions:
A) 720p->1080p
B) 720p->480p
C) 1080p->1080i
D) 1080p->720p
Basically, what I want to know is if I get a PS3 for my HDTV capable of 1080i/720p/480p, will it convert 1080p to either 1080i or 720p, or will I be stuck with 480p?
This is a brand new set, with HDMI and evertything, just no 1080p. I'll be quite miffed if the PS3 can't output properly to it.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
So you are cool with paying hundreds of dollars more to only downcovert to the same video resolution as the WII / standard DVD?
This is really anti-PS3 FUD, the problem is not as bad as it first appears.
Basically this is only a problem when the SOURCE of the content is 720P - basically that means 720p games. Movies are all 1080p, and many games are 1080i/p, so they would display normally.
Secondly, this is only a probem at all if your video device does not support 720p but does support 1080i/p and 480p. That is actually not as many devices as you might think; I bought the Infocus X1 projector many years ago and it supports 720p (and 1080i) just fine.
And to answer your question - for the remaining things that did have problems, yet I'd be fine with the problem at hand until a firmware update fixes the issue or I got a more modern display. After all, it only affects games and there I am looking for gameplay...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Basically, what I want to know is if I get a PS3 for my HDTV capable of 1080i/720p/480p, will it convert 1080p to either 1080i or 720p, or will I be stuck with 480p?
Because your tv does not support 1080p, the PS3 would feed it a 720p picture, and rely on the tv to upscale it to 1080i. If the tv can not do the upscaling to 1080i, then it would display the 720p picture. The 480p problem comes from tvs that can do 1080i, but not 720p.
And microserf's too!
http://malfy.org/
You can take Europe and shove it up your ass, no one cares.
It is a fact that many HDTVs (NON CRTS) were sold that only support 1080i, mainly Sony TVs ironically. My parents happen to own one of these, it just does 1080i/480p and only have component. To say that this TV isn't "HDTV" because it doesn't do 720p is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard lately. GTFOI. I also have a 30" CRT that doesn't do 720p, so I suppose thats no HDTV either?
Go play with your PS3, oh wait, you don't have one.
HD format: an Xvid file on a DVD-8.5 .
Or is having such discs for sale at your local Blockbuster also a criterion?
There are several firmware updates coming for Playstation 3 very soon. Here is a translation of recent interview with Sony engineers;
1 88
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36
There are several substancial features coming. These include YCrCb and 1080/24 modes support !!! Also so called "deep color" will supported for DVD upscaling. After all, PS3 has HDMI 1.3 connection.
First update should be available at 7th of December.
Blu-ray was never designed for these next gen audio formats and it is stupid to put them on blu-ray movies. From the article I get the impression that the author has not used or fully understands the format. Most blu-rays have either dolby digital, dts, dts-es, or uncompressed PCM audio. The PS3 supports the uncompressed PCM audio and it sounds much better then any TrueHD track on my hd-dvd player. Also uncompressed PCM does not require any special new hardware to work. TruHD and DTS-HD only exist to band aid high quality audio tracks onto a low capacity disk (hd-dvd). Blu-ray wins the audio way outright because of the ridiculous amount of space it has available to it and its use of uncompressed PCM audio tracks.
of course it will convert 1080p to 1080i... Only "problem" PS3 has is that it doesnt upconvert 480p to higher resolution, but since this is technically upconversion, you dont really gain much. It seems that Sony haters dont like to actually read articles they are writing about.
Actually, High Definition magazines have rated PS3 as currently the best Blu-Ray player, in comparison to Samsung, Panasonic and Pioneer players... so, it really is THAT good. Even without Sony's pledged support to make it even better.
On the other hand, xbox player is a lot simpler and doesnt support advanced sound nor 1080p (actually no current HD player supports 1080p), nor it has HDMI. Unless you have xbox and you want cheap HD-DVD playback, it is simply not an hi-def option.
Lots of FUD floating around this response thread. I happen to own both a PS3 and an XBox 360 with HD-DVD add-on, along with a television that does them both justice. Here's some facts:
1. The difference in picture and sound quality between HD-DVD / Blu-Ray and DVD is roughly the same as the jump in quality from VHS/LD to DVD. I've run numerous side-by-side comparison tests using the King Kong DVD & HD-DVD, as well as older films like Casablanca and Blazing Saddles. Much depends on the master & source material, but the difference is undeniable.
Now, that might not be enough to save either format. Most people didn't buy DVD for the increased quality, they bought it for the convenience of random access, and the decreased physical size / increased durability of the media vs. VHS tapes. HD-DVD / Blu-Ray don't offer any of these increases over the standard DVD.
2. The formats are almost identical in many key areas. Both play back the same video codecs (MPEG2, VC1, H.264), so when it comes down to it the films available on both formats are often identical. It all comes down to how the source material was mastered. Early blu-ray releases (5th Element) took a lot of knocks because the films are still mastered in the older MPEG2 format. Most newer films are encoded in the nicer Microsoft VC-1 standard, and look absolutely stunning.
3. The Playstation 3 absolutely does 1080p playback for blu-ray movies, when equipped with an HDMI cable. (Get a quality one for http://www.thedvdwars.com/index.cfm for both formats. While $20-35 / movie is too steep for my blood, Netflix carries both, and prices are similar to first-gen DVD.
Pure speculation: Combo players are probably going to show up in '07, and once this blue laser shortage horseshit gets resolved, I'd expect prices to fall by 100% in '07, and the $100 combo player will probably arrive in '08. By '09 or '10 you won't even be able to buy a standard DVD player anymore. By this time it won't matter because they'll have been cracked as thoroughly as DVD before them.
Any other questions, I'll be happy to answer.
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
I would be interested to see that ad site. Got a link?
The problem listed for the PS3 is not as bad as it first appears, and in fact does not even apply to movies which are the topic of discussion.
Basically this is only a problem when the SOURCE of the content is 720P - basically that means 720p games. Movies are all 1080p, and many games are 1080i/p, so they would display normally.
Secondly, this is only a probem at all if your video device does not support 720p but does support 1080i/p and 480p. That is actually not as many devices as you might think; I bought the Infocus X1 projector many years ago and it supports 720p (and 1080i) just fine.
I'm pretty sure this will be fixed in a firmware update - it's not that the console can't scale, it's just a programming error where if a device is not found to support the level of currently required display, it trie downward instead of up - the programmer probably never considered there would be deivces that supported 1080i and 480p but not 720p. I had never heard of anything like that, and the only report I've seen of one is a TV at IGN.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How odd that the only quote picked from the article was negative as to the PS3's ability. To my mind, this was a far more interesting quote as far as movie watching goes:
Though not obtrusive during moderate to loud scenes in a movie, the 360's noisy fan was audible when the volume is low or silent. That's not the case with the PlayStation 3, which, with movie playback is about as quiet as any other Blu-ray or HD DVD player on the market that I've heard. Though the Xbox 360's noise level is not a deal-breaker for me, it very well could be for you.
Or what about the sound capabilities of the 360?
The add-on's audio is more complicated. In one sense, Microsoft's claims that the add-on can deliver Dolby TrueHD audio is somewhat misleading. Yes, the device did decode the Dolby TrueHD soundtracks on such discs as 'Batman Begins' and 'The Perfect Storm,' but because the Xbox 360 can only output Dolby Digital via its optical out, it downconverts any Dolby TrueHD track to a core 1.5mbps DD track. So until Microsoft decides to release a new generation Xbox 360 with HDMI and/or analog audio outputs, Dolby Digital is the best audio you are going to get out of the add-on.
Things are also a bit tricky with DTS soundtracks as well. Though the add-on offers no support for DTS-HD Lossless Master Audio, it should properly decode standard DTS audio. However, I still had problems. I tried about a half dozen different standard-def DVDs, including Paramount's 'Sahara,' Warner's 'Lethal Weapon' and my old Superbit 'Hook' and 'Panic Room,' and the add-on outputted DTS every time. However, on all of my HD DVD discs with DTS tracks, all came out as Dolby Digital.
And then finally on getting either as a media player:
That said, with most stand-alone Blu-ray decks still retailing for about $1000, the PS3 is truly a terrific value by comparison -- even the steeper $600 60Gb model. While Microsoft is heavily touting the Xbox 360's HD DVD add-on price of $199, remember that you still have to buy the console, too. So you're still looking at about $500, which is the same price as the entry-level PS3.
That would have made a fine quote as well. For Zonks never ending effort to see the bad side of the PS3 regardless of the article submitted, apply the 'zonked' tag.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"...for some reason."
Hmm... Analog hole, maybe? I mean, I know Sony promised not to downgrade the analog signal for at least a few years after the launch of Blu-ray, but they didn't say a word about not-upscaling the analog signal to full res. Sneaky bastards!
An analog 1080p signal would lead every PS3 owner directly to a life of crime, helplessly pirating perfect digital copies of a bunch of crap movies. That's what the MPAA tells me anyway...
blog
THere is no way simple cables can convert analog to digital or vice versa. It's done on the board/graphics card and changing cable changes output from the card/board.
Hmmm... Pie...
This is the difference though. You only notice the difference with HD DVD and Blu-Ray if you have a $2000 TV, and quality surround sound. That means, to really get any advantage from the new formats, you need to spend over $3000 (player, sound, and TV). It wasn't this way when DVD came out. You could hook up your $500 dvd player to your old TV with low end sound system, and still get a significant number of advantages. No rewind, no tape wear, better sound, better picture, all with only upgrading the player. This is why HD TV isn't catching on either, because you can't just buy the new TV and get a better picture. You have to get more expensive cable (over the air isn't everywhere), and buy new HD-DVDs, . So, upgrading to HD can't be compared to upgrading to DVD because there's more than just buying the player. You have to get a new expensive TV, just to see the difference, and for that TV to make a difference with TV shows, you have to pay even more for cable.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
There are in fact more PS3s being sold, there's still a slow trickle of them being shipped. A friend of mine is camping out sometime this weekend to get one. I'm not sure what retailers are getting them though, and I don't care, as I am waiting till next year to buy whatever I end up getting.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
On the other hand, xbox player is a lot simpler and doesnt support advanced sound nor 1080p (actually no current HD player supports 1080p)
Actually, the 360 does support 1080p output with HD-DVD. I've got it.
As far as needing the 360 for it... it's sort of a 'no kidding' argument. Of course you're gonna need the Xbox 360 to use the Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive. You also need an Xbox 360 to play an Xbox 360 game.
If you don't have a 360, then the cheaper option is to get a stand-alone HD-DVD player. The only thing the HD-DVD drive is (and will ever be) good for is playing movies.
If you insert an Xbox game into the HD-DVD drive, you end up with the same result as if you put the disc into a stand-alone DVD player (a single video frame with a multilingual error message saying the disc will only play in an Xbox 360.)
Unlike what some would want you to believe:
1.) You don't need HDMI for 1080p. The 360 outputs analog 1080p over VGA just fine, as well as output 1080p over component video. (The caveat there is that HD-DVD is 1080i over Component, verses 1080p over vga. Games are 1080p either way).
2.) With none of the movie studios asserting the HDCP DRM (and having stated that they don't intend to for the forseeable future), there's no danger of DRM-related downconversion because you don't have HDMI.
3.) The only place 1080i vs 1080p is going to make any difference is on a CRT TV. Interlacing is a trick used on CRT displays to provide higher resolution with less expensive hardware; it only matters to a CRT. None of Plasma, LCD, DLP, and LCOS care about interlacing, as they don't have a scanning electron beam. Internal circuitry de-interlaces the output; you never get interlaced output, regardless of the input signal.
4.) The HD-DVD add-on will never be used for games. It's for movies and movies alone, and has no effect whatsoever on the gameplay experience.
So, *if* you're a 360 owner, and *if* you want to play HD movies easily, the 360's add-on drive is a big win. It costs $150 less than the next option (a stand-alone HD-DVD player). This is a significant win to the 10 million 360 owners.
If you *don't* have the 360, then you end up with a pretty level playing field filled with fanboys on both sides.
The 360 with the HD-DVD addon costs about the same as the cheaper PS3. Most of the game programmers I know (as well as notes from those who are making supercomputers using the Cell processor) say the Cell's performance isn't up to the hype, and it's a pain to develop on. One quote from an IBM engineer was "There are only about 5 guys on the planet who can really program the Cell." (IBM co-developed the Cell).
The 360 and PS3 are on more or less equal footing in terms of horsepower (with the PS3 having a small edge, although most developers say it's not significant enough to be noticible).
So overall, I see the HD-DVD add-on as Microsoft's way to bring the 360 up to par with the PS3's capabilities (One PS3 model has a larger hard drive... but the 360's HD is as swapable as a memory card... Six one, half a dozen the other...) As I've already stated: you don't need HDMI for 1080p output.
The HDMI buzzword Sony keeps hawking is just that -- a buzzword. HDMI's advantage is that it's a single connector, compared to several for Component video. HDMI is all-digital, compared to the analog Component. And a good analog feed is indistinguishable from a digital feed.
Since my TV has both HDMI and component, and I have devices that use both, I can plug them both in and look at the difference. So far, my opinion is simple: HDMI is less of a spaghetti bowl behind the TV. But as I don't spend much time behind my TV, it's a non-issue. From the front of the TV, things look identical; the same levels of brightness, contrast & saturation.
In other words: If you put marketing hype in its place, the 360 and PS3 are in the same league. Both output 1080p, both c
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
That is simply not true. First of all, when DVD came out, the players didn't cost $500. It cost at lot more than the first HD-DVD and BluRay players cost now. Also, at least here in Denmark, a _lot_ of people are getting cheap HD ready flat screens anyway. Soon there will be more people with a (cheap) high definiton flat screen than people with old, small CRT tvs. And they will want a worthy signal source to go with that tv. The existing HD-DVD and BluRay players don't cost more than the cheapest high-end DVD-players. Also, film studios, tv networks etc. are making big investments in HD. They will put out and broadcast HD whether people think they need it or not. At the same time, more and more titles will be released and prices will drop. With HD-DVD coming to the 360 and BluRay in PS3 (even with all their shortcomings (PS2 was a crappy DVD player as well)), many people will have hardware for these formats in the house anyway. When they go by a movie, they might as well get it in the superior format instead of DVD. Even if they can't utilize the advantages of the format. Video enthusiast might be a rare breed, but many homes will have a 360 with HD-DVD or a PS3 with BluRay whether they think they need it or not. These formats are not stillborn, and they will not go away anytime soon. Which one wins, I don't know.
Does anybody really want this violating the sanctity of their home, and scaring the children?
... and then they built the supercollider.
This isn't an issue of signal quality, it's an issue of DRM. HDMI has DRM, component does not. The fact that the Xbox 360 does not have HDMI out makes it the high-definition playback device I've been waiting for to hook up to my projector. Sony on the other hand makes it difficult to use the PS3 without using HDMI.
Nowhere. But the XBOX 360 HD-DVD drive ($200)
works just fine with a PC!
Looks like you'll be buying HD-DVD.
Remember that in "HD vs not HD," resolution isn't the only factor in video quality.
Anyone can release a good DVD or a really bad DVD of the same content. It's not a difference of resolution, but in compression and other factors. Cable and satellite feeds that are Standard Def are commonly compressed to the point of being blocky, just so they can force as many channels as possible through the pipe. They might be the same nominal resolution as DVD, but that doesn't mean they deliver the same (or the potential) video quality of that resolution.
HD obviously has higher potential quality, but a poorly mastered Blu-ray could easily be no better than DVD; consider the source quality and the technical expertise dedicated to it (shovelware) as potential factors.
Since broadcast is heavily compressed, the low-end of Standard Def programming can approach VHS quality. Since those same opperators want to sell HD, they can make the difference look far more dramatically different by providing decent HD and poor SD feeds. Conversely, until there is a huge demand for BR or HD-DVD, they won't necessarily offer some huge leap in quality over DVD, particularly since the majority of TV watchers don't have high end HD capacity anyway.
The market also has a reputation for settling on "good enough." Standards fixated on overshooting good enough have a long history of going nowhere.
BetaMax was technically and mechanically superior in certain ways to VHS.
LaserDisc was clearly and obviously superior to VHS.
CD offered outstandingly superior sound over cassette tape, but didn't catch on for many years (82-89)
SACD, DVD audio, and DAT offered various advantages that were overwhelmed by excessive DRM and a general disinterest in the high end.
The Danger of DRM
5 Success Factors for Next Generation Game Consoles
iPod vs Zune: A Buyer's Guide
Either deliberately (perhaps you're an xbox fan?) or you're just uninformed, but the Samsung is *not* cheaper than a PS3, and the PS3 *does* do 1080p output.
Here's the NexTag price list where the best-value price is $737.88, although there's a "refurb" (ie: not new) option at $573.95. It's not fair to compare new prices with refurb ones. If you can come up with a lower price for a new unit, I'd like to see it...
And the article clearly states that it *does* do 1080p - there may be an issue if you only have a 1080i display and try to play non-1080i movies (eg: DVD) because the PS3 won't upscale from 720p/480p to 1080i/p, but any 1080p *source* will work just fine, outputting 1080p video.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Few points:
:-). While 30,000 HD-DVD players sold since introduction, and then 100,000 xbox addons sold is quite an large number, PS3 outsold those numbers by factor of 3 since it was launched (only 3 weeks ago).
1. 1080i and 1080p are not the same or similar. You can not do 1080p over component, period. Fact that you can do 1080i means almost nothing. With 1080i, you dont get same picture as 1080p, even if your TV output it as such, it actually makes up those pixels that are missing from the source and obviously that never looks as good. You are simply missing half of the pixels from 1080p.
2. Most TV's dont output through VGA correctly (since it was meant for computer input, not movie, most TVs dont show it as full screen), nor will you receive proper and clean signal through VGA. Yes, thats why we all pay more for DVI based LCD's which is common knowledge by now.
3. While HDCP is not used right now, you can be assured that it will be used later on. That means that, to watch full resoultion HD movies, you will need to upgrade to "real" HD player in the future (3-4 years?).
4. Adding HD-DVD drive to the xbox does not make it same as PS3. If you want to have xbox with options same as PS3, you have to shell more than $800, and you are still left with 20 GB hard drive, and you have to pay for live.
But I am not discussing that - simply put, saying that quality hi-def components in xbox and ps3 is the same, when it comes to hi-def experience, is as if you were comparing $50 DVD Home theater system from korean no-name manufacturer to Pioneer $800 system and saying that you cant notice the difference, on your $3,000 TV set. PS3 is hi-def player, while xbox is cheap way to play HD-DVDs. There is an reason that PS3 costs $400 more to manufacture than xbox 360. Home theater crowd is estatic with PS3 (check avsforums.com) while nobody is giving an 2nd thought to xbox as an true HD-DVD player.
It is clear choice for Xbox 360 owners, that I agree completly with you. It is no brainer really. However, when you consider that 111 million buyers purchased PS2, and 7 million buyers purchased xbox 360, statistically there are hundreds of millions of buyers who have yet to get next gen console
I also agree on having both formats is great - it sure is. And who cares if HD-DVD, as an movie format, dies in 2-3 years? It was only $199 right? And by then, you probably got your moneys worth out of it. Main problem with survival of HD-DVD is that most of the film studios are backing Blu-Ray, so 2-3 years from now, if PS3 sales place a lot more Blu-Ray players on the market (and remember - it is hi-def), it is questionable if those same movie studios will feel incentive to spend money of HD-DVD releases...
It is all about future proof technology, which is why PS3 costs so much. We will see if this camble pays off better for Sony...
No where to be found! Even if they do start making HD-DVD and Blueray drives for the PC's you KNOW for SURE that they won't let them play HD movies. Why? Because the companies like to shoot themselves in the foot. They think that as soon as they release the devices as add ons for PC's, people are going to start h4x0ring them. Have they ever thought about expanding their market to the hundreds of millions of PC's that already have HD capability? Guess not, they are too worried about piracy at this point.
I've only seen HD-DVD drives on laptops, which is patently ridiculous. Who wants to watch a movie on such a small screen and pay a premium for the pleasure of doing so? Blueray drives are available, but costly, and they won't play blueray movies! And this is only because of the DRM issue, no performance/technical issues are involved here.
Sony, Toshiba, you both suck.
The PS3 has HDMI v1.3 with twice the bandwidth of the older version (that is currently in 99.5% of the equipment in peoples homes). You'll need HDMI v1.3 compatible video and audio equipment to do full 1920x1080 with billions of colour @60 fps and the latest high definition 8 channel surround sound audio tracks ...
(on adam snadlers skin) Does anybody really want this violating the sanctity of their home, and scaring the children?
I solved that problem long ago by not buying, renting, or watching anything with Adam Sandler in it.
Really even before HD the imperfections of his mind were just as readily apparent as the imperfections of his skin you can see now - and more frightening.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The PS3 is for games.
:-)
No it isn't.
If your HDTV 1080 pixel (there is no I in LCD) can only show 1080p, then why deliver 720p via a signal and DEPEND on the hardware of the tv
to upscale properly which it probably wont because its a cheap-ass box, with crappy scaling hardware $5 chips. I know some tvs cheat doing
720p to 1080p conversion by downscaling to 520p then doubling the pixels, oh that is such a cheap code trick!!! lame!
I guess the question is do we have more image scaling hardware in TVs or inside players.
On the xbox, well it will eventually have hdmi onboard, but not now. So big deal if current people miss out, they
can sell the xbox on ebay, and get a new one.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
You can already play HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movies on PCs. Where have you been? The XBox 360 HD-DVD drive works just fine on a PC.
According to the article:
"...But perhaps even more significant is that aforementioned late-breaking issue surrounding the PS3's resolution upconvert/downconvert problems. Sony has confirmed that the PS3 has no internal scaler as part of its hardware that can upconvert 480p/i or 720p content (whether a standard-def DVD or a PlayStation game) to 1080p/i."
There are a lot of CRT-based HDTVs out there which do not accept 720p input.