Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Big Releases Heat Up High-Def Format War

Posted by kdawson on from the still-a-dead-heat dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Choosing sides in the high-def format war becomes that much harder today, as two powerhouse movie franchises hit store shelves on opposing formats. Exclusive to Blu-ray are the first two 'Pirates of the Caribbean' flicks, while exclusive to HD DVD are two different configurations of the 'Matrix' Trilogy. So which format wins this battle? According to High-Def Digest, this one's a draw. The article has capsule reviews of the four releases ('The Ultimate Matrix Collection' & 'The Complete Matrix Trilogy' on HD DVD, and 'POTC: Curse of the Black Pearl' & 'POTC: Dead Man's Chest' on Blu-ray) with links to excruciatingly in-depth reviews. In the end the site says both sets of releases boast benchmark video and audio, but a preponderance of standard-def supplements prevent all of the above from being the perfect high-def package."

16 of 247 comments (clear)

  1. A draw? Really? by Pluvius · · Score: 3, Funny

    Exclusive to Blu-ray are the first two 'Pirates of the Caribbean' flicks, while exclusive to HD DVD are two different configurations of the 'Matrix' Trilogy. So which format wins this battle? According to High-Def Digest, this one's a draw.

    I guess they didn't watch the second and third Matrix movies.

    Rob

  2. Blu-ray the winner? by jshriverWVU · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm not in favor of one over the other, but from everything I see blu-ray seems to be the winner. I have only seen once place sell HDDVD, everyplace has at least a few blu-ray, even the mom-pop store down the road has some blu-ray movies for rent.

    Several PS3's out there, plus isnt walmart even going to be selling a bluray player for under $600? I've seen bluray blanks and burners at Best Buy and a couple other places, yet I have never seen even a regular HDDVD player.

    They're just ahead, and sales seem to agree.

    Just my $0.02

    1. Re:Blu-ray the winner? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      HD-DVD has two big advantages--it's a lot cheaper (you can get HD-DVD players for almost half the price of Blu-ray players, and HD-DVD discs run about $5-$10 cheaper than Blu-ray) and it's not a Sony format (does anyone really want those control-freak DRM fanatics to gain a monopoly of the next-gen home video market?).

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Blu-ray the winner? by badasscat · · Score: 4, Informative

      The story I heard was that walmart bought 2 Million HD-DVD players to be sold around $300.

      Yeah, apparently you missed the debunking of that rumor.

      Fuh Yuan, who originated the rumor, also issued their own retraction. This was not even a "no comment" by either side, it was a full on "this story is not true" by both Wal-Mart and Fuh Yuan.

      Don't believe everything you read on the internet, guys.

    3. Re:Blu-ray the winner? by jshriverWVU · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Very good point. My main concern is either going to eliminate regular DVD? For me I'm perfectly happy with the quality and price for regular DVD's. I was an early adopter of DVD's spending $500 for an Sony player around 95. But I dont feel like it's worth it to upgrade to bluray or HDDVD.

      VHS to DVD was a huge step. You no longer have to rewind, quality is a LOT better, assuming no scratches no signal degradation, multiple audio tracks, deleted scenes, smaller form factor, digital, just a ton of reason.

      DVD to BR/HDDVD? What's really the big difference, that justifies spending $500-600/player and a lot more per movie?

    4. Re:Blu-ray the winner? by daBass · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. If they wanted to make DVD better and support HD, they could have kept the exact same cheap disk and simply switch to h.264/AVC; 9gb would have been ample for 3 hours of 1080p content. There is no need for 50GB discs...

      While it wouldn't have been backwards compatible with existing DVD players, every new player after the introduction would simply have support for the codec too. That and an HDMI output would make good players only slightly more expensive, not over a thousand.

      Blu-ray wastes it expensive space by most movies using sledge-hammer high-mbit MPEG2 anyway. At least most HDDVD use MPEG4. (M$ codec)

  3. 'The Ultimate Matrix Collection' by Megaweapon · · Score: 5, Funny

    So just the first movie then?

    --
    I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
  4. Powerfull Summary by GreggBz · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Choosing sides in the high-def format war becomes that much harder today, as two powerhouse movie franchises hit store shelves on opposing formats. Exclusive to Blu-ray are the first two 'Pirates of the Caribbean' flicks, while exclusive to HD DVD are two different configurations of the 'Matrix' Trilogy. So which format wins this battle? According to High-Def Digest, this one's a draw. The article has capsule reviews of the four releases ('The Ultimate Matrix Collection' & 'The Complete Matrix Trilogy' on HD DVD, and 'POTC: Curse of the Black Pearl' & 'POTC: Dead Man's Chest' on Blu-ray) with links to excruciatingly in-depth reviews. In the end the site says both sets of releases boast benchmark video and audio, but a preponderance of standard-def supplements prevent all of the above from being the perfect high-def package."
    Imagine movie trailer voice guy reading this. Cripes I almost drove my workstation through a cinder block wall of flames at 95MPH.
  5. How about NONE! by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I have a High Definition TV and access to some HD channels.

    Last year I compared my DVD versions of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Bladerunner, and a couple of other movies to the HiDef versions on HDNet Movies. While the HD versions did have more detail and brighter colors it wasn't enough to convince me to buy a PS3. It still isn't enough.

    The big problem I see with HD formats is...

    there's nothing there that I don't already have!

    Yes, the visuals are better, but the sound is the exact same from what I can tell. Understand that I had to watch the movies on HDNet and then the DVD later, or first, to make my comparisons. I only have one large screen HD TV with surround sound.

    As many here at Slashdot have already noted; DVDs are just as compact as HD disks, allow for menus and quick chapter selection, and have had their anti-consumer Digital Restrictions Management CRIPPLED! >8^D

    WTF do I need HD disks for?

    Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know someone is going to say that we don't have to watch the commercials on HD disks now. Just wait, sucker, until they become common place. After that you'll be dropping your shorts and grabbing your ankles again.

    --
    We have always been at war with Eurasia!
    1. Re:How about NONE! by llZENll · · Score: 5, Informative

      Using HDNET, or any cable channel, is a poor source of HD material compared to a disc. Video and audio will be much better from either HDDVD or Bluray. Discs typically carry 30-60 Mbit/s of information, while ATSC (over the air HD) is 19.2 Mbit/s and cable is probably less than that. Probably around 15-20 Mbit/s for cable. BTW standard DVD is around 11 Mbit/s. To add to that providers commonly crop, resize, stretch, and modify the original HD signal further for formatting to their liking, degrading the quality even further.

      So Bluray and HDDVD discs have around double to triple the information compared to a broadcast HD signal.

      Sources:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
      http://www.filmbug.com/dictionary/hdtv.php

    2. Re:How about NONE! by CyberLord+Seven · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Totally agree with you about the image quality, but I still don't see a reason to buy into HD disks. Yes, they are superior to standard definition (SD), but so is DVD, to my eyes.

      I have a HUGE library of DVD movies that I have no intention of re-buying.

      The real question is what does HD-DVD/BluRay bring to the table that DVD does not?

      DVD had incredible advantages over tape. Menus with quick access to scenes in movies. No more rewinding. Small format. Easily backed up once you grabbed a copy of DVD-Decrypter, IFOEdit, and ImgTool.

      So, we all agree, HD has the most beautiful images and those images are superior to SD and DVD, but does it bring anything else to the table to justify the markup in price?

      --
      We have always been at war with Eurasia!
  6. Matrix exlusive to HD-DVD...for now by kherr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Matrix collection is exclusive to HD-DVD only for the time being, it will be released on Blu-ray eventually. If you know it's coming to Blu-ray is there a reason to get all bunched up over which format to go with? And how many of us are still waiting for this whole nonsense to end?

  7. Re:Did you know? by jandrese · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's because you have to get the last two movies if you pick up the Trilogy box. They're reimbursing you for the time and effort of throwing away those discs.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  8. Blu-ray, HD-DVD, who wins?! by Nozsd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One thing is certain; we lose.

    --
    When you have finished this cup of coffee your adventure will begin again.
  9. Red-ray vs. Blu-ray by LunaticTippy · · Score: 3, Funny

    HD-DVD doesn't have enough repetitive letters in its name to be successful. I'm going to wait for HHD-DVVDD-BVD. Or Red-ray.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  10. Re:That is easy by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who actually buys porn on disc anymore? That's what the internet is for.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.