$99 HD-DVD Player Coming Soon?

Frank writes "Rumors of the high definition holy grail persist. The latest is that Toshiba will be offering their basic HD-A2 player at $99 for one week only, beginning July 22. An added bonus is three free HD-DVD's."

Comments

Thats nothing....

[streetphantom]

Blue Ray is being given away with Cornflakes soon.

Re:Thats nothing....

[Anonymous Coward]

So, it may well be an offer just for show attendees, although that would be most unusual... after all, if they're practically giving them away, they might as well actually give them away to influential people within the industry and the trade press.

There is no information about the offer on the show's registration pages or at Toshiba's site, so take this as a tantalizing tease (with however many grains of salt you deem appropriate).

Re:Thats nothing....

[Cctoide]

Is this "Blue Ray" related to Ray Charles?

Re:Thats nothing....

[Txiasaeia]

I'm wondering how a quote ripped straight from the article merits "+1 insightful."

Re:Thats nothing....

[Traxton1]

Are you new here?

Re:Thats nothing....

[XxtraLarGe]

Are you new here? Ahem, that's "You must be new here..."

Re:Thats nothing....

[Anonymous Coward]

Is cornflakes the new name for the PS3?

Nice loss-leader...

[Bob Gelumph]

but will there be enough units to give HD-DVD a good enough foot hold to claw back marketshare from bluray?

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[dunezone]

Marketshare? Ill be honest, I haven't seen one Blu-ray or HD-DVD player in someones house yet nor do I know anyone that owns one. Wait, I take that back Ive see one Blu-ray player and thats a PS3.

Is it just me? Is it the Chicago area and we just refuse to buy into it? Ive read countless articles on which one is better, which will win, and that the Blu-ray has already won. And I still haven't seen one outside a store yet.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[IL-CSIXTY4]

It might be a Chicago thing. I haven't heard of anyone taking the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray plunge here either.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[RoundSparrow]

Is it just me? Is it the Chicago area and we just refuse to buy into it? Ive read countless articles on which one is better, which will win, and that the Blu-ray has already won. And I still haven't seen one outside a store yet.

I think that doesn't prove anything other than Anecdotal evidence. For a "new product" and in a certain price range, a product can be a big hit... but still be on a small scale.

I drive around a Mercedes Benz Sprinter (or whatever brand you want to associate with it), and they have been in the North America now for 4 years. UPS and FedEx are driving them around town constantly. And people stills say to me at the gas station that they have never seen one before and ask all kinds of questions.

Doesn't mean they aren't selling well in their class/market.

in 3 years, the market for Blue Ray and HD DVD will be such that probably there won't be any non players. Does anyone still purchase CD-ROM drives are CD-RECORDERS? Not when you can get a DVD recorder with SATA for $30 (check ZipZoomFly).

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[timeOday]

It's probably a loss-leader, but I'm willing to bet the loss on each unit is less than on the leading Blu-Ray player. (Granted, that one is rumored to play video games as well, but it seems to have been an afterthought :)

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[Prof.Phreak]

Why loss-leader??? If somehow corps can make a profit selling DVD players (regular kind) players for under $30, why can't they make a profit selling HD-DVD players for $99???

Hardware is just about the same, except for some different (similarly cheaply mass-produced) components.

When they quote "oh, it costs us such and such to make these things, therefore we're selling them for such and such..." it's all bull shit. It doesn't cost them any more than it is to make regular DVD players.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[jridley]

Probably largely true, but the video decoding part is going to require a lot more horsepower. A DVD MPEG2 stream can be played by very lightweight parts these days, but last I heard the chips that play HD streams are powerful enough that they require cooling fans. According to the MythTV howtos I've read, playing HDs on PCs requires a hefty graphics card that costs probably $300+ and about a 3GHZ machine. By contrast, you can play regular DVDs on a 600 MHz machine with an 8-year-old graphics card that you pulled from a dumpster.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[PygmySurfer]

That doesn't sound right - the Intel GMA950 (crappy onboard graphics chipset) can decode two HD streams at once. It doesn't even require a fan.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[FuturePastNow]

Not by itself, it can't. It needs at least a moderately powerful processor attached to it. Integrated graphics still offload a lot of work to the CPU.

Note that the AppleTV, with a ULV 1GHz Pentium M, needs a Geforce 7300 chip in it to play 720p video. If Apple could run this thing with Intel integrated graphics, they would, to reduce heat and save money. However, to do HD video with GMA950, you'd need to move up to "budget laptop" specs, probably at least a modern 1.5GHz single-core processor. To play 1080p video with integrated graphics, a dual-core processor (or very powerful single-core) is necessary. (to continue with the Apple example, the now discontinued Core Solo Mac mini could not play 1080p without dropping frames, while the Core Duo mini has no problem with this)

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[wvmarle]

Don't you mix up decoding and encoding? The first is a quite easy and lightweight process, the second is where one needs the horsepower, and why indeed MythTV requires a 3GHz machine. I've been playing DVDs back like 10 years ago on basic hardware, nothing fancy, and that went at low processor use.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[naden]

What never seen an iPod/iPhone before ?

It decodes H2.64 HD streams in real time without a fan.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[Anonymous Coward]

iPod videos are very far from HD. They're not even SDTV.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[random0xff]

How many houses have you been in?

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[steve86-ed]

Maybe it doesn't have to (claw back market share from bluray), maybe this is Toshiba's way of dumping inventory before they cut and run from the whole HD Disc war fiasco. One can only hope, right?

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[yoasif]

HDDVD and Blu-ray require a lot more processing power than DVDs.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[robbiethefett]

The local yokels have never seen a dodge delivery van? That's kind of an odd little anecdote.

Anyway, I too, have never seen an HD-DVD or BluRay player in anyone's house. Actually, I have never seen a PS3, either. I've seen a plethora of really large, flat televisions hooked up to xbox 360's, some of which were acquired at great expense. I think this is testament to how superfluous the movie industry really is. College kids are willing to go through great lengths to get a huge screen and a console solely for Gears of War, but are unwilling to spend any amount of money to watch high-def movies at home.

The greatest movies ever made weren't filmed in HD, nor would it enhance the movie in the least.. Movies are about storytelling, not CGI. Would you buy "Clerks" in high def? What about the countless other movies that are awesome because of things like dialog and plot? HD-DVD and BlueRay were conjured up to help sell the new breed of pretty shit the movie industry is trying to ram down our throats. Sure, the new Die Hard flick was pretty fun and had a bunch of really neat explosions, but I for one could not suspend my disbelief. That movie, to me, basically said "Americans do not understand the simplest of physics concepts, and they think the internet and utilities work on magic."

No sir, I'm not willing to shell out buku dollars on what is essentially a non-interactive video game.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[JDevers]

Decoding a 320x240 H.264 stream is a LONG way from decoding a 1920x1080 H.264 stream. 76,800 versus 2,073,600 pixels per frame or 27 times the workload. Are Ipod videos full frame rate or reduced (I honestly don't know)? If reduced that further relieves the processor in it.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[WuphonsReach]

That sounds overstated. Even an old P3 1.8GHz w/ cruddy S3 Savage graphics can display HD content encoded in the various MPEG4 codecs. And that's a 5+ year old system. For a more modern system, an Athlon X2 3600+ with just about any video card made in the last 3 years (NVIDIA GeForce 6200 LE or the 6150 built into motherboards) can display high def content.

Re:Nice loss-leader...

[sidb]

iPhone is 480x320, with twice the pixel count of a video iPod at 320x240. Still not quite SD, though.

Free as in no one will pay to haul these away?

[magarity]

An added bonus is three free HD-DVD's
 
Pink Flamingos, Alone in the Dark, and The Star Wars Holiday Special.

Re:Free as in no one will pay to haul these away?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wouldn't pay to watch Divine eat dog shit? I mean, that just made the film!

Re:Free as in no one will pay to haul these away?

[vonmc]

The Star Wars Holiday Special alone would be worth the $99 to some!

I wouldn't buy it

[Durrok]

I might use it if they give it away. This player has numerous issues, highlighted here.

For those of you who don't like to click links:

The HD-A2 is the least capable of the current crop of HD-DVD players available from Toshiba. Both of the other two models, the HD-A20 (Buy now) and the HD-XA2 (Buy now), support 1080p video. In fact the HD-A20 is nearly identical to the HD-A2, it just adds 1080p for an extra $100 more on the MSRP. So the odds that a firmware upgrade will ever be available for the HD-A2 to allow 1080p are pretty slim. How would you explain that to someone who bought an HD-A20? The HD-XA2 also comes with HDMI 1.3, better video processing, and gold plated input jacks. But the HD-A2 is the one that's getting all the hot sale prices, so it appears to be the most popular right now. But if you shop around, you might find a great deal on the HD-A20. For example, right now it's only about $25 more than the HD-A2 at the HT Guys store (as of 6/22).

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[John Betonschaar]

So if you just have a 720p TV (like I do) and don't care about 'HDMI 1.3' (whatever benefit you might get from that) or gold-plated connectors (for *digital* signals??), it's actually at least a half-decent player?

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[CrtxReavr]

Those are valid concerns, but this may be an ideal opportunity for people in my position. I've already got an HDTV that I dumped $1200 a few years ago. . . a Toshiba 42H82 which only supports 480i/p, 720i/p, & 1080i, plus it only has component inputs, no HDMI.

The HD-A2 player supports 1080i output over component cables, so it will fully utilize my TV.

Looks like a great deal to me.

-CR

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think it's a fine price though, that would be the cheapest HD player and it's an upscaling DVD player too. I have a native 1080p display (as in, it really is 1920x1080 with progressive inputs), but it's a video projector, showing a very large image. There is a minimum distance to screen width ratio before it's worth going 1080p over 720p or 1080i. I think it's between 2.0 to 1 and 1.5 to 1. A person with a 42" diagonal screen would be OK with 720p unless they sit closer than 6ft from the screen, then there may be a clear difference.

I don't know if I would buy it though, as I said, I have a display arrangement where 1080i/p is clearly distinguisable from each other.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Durrok]

Sure, until you get a 1080p a year or two down the road. Just seems kinda shortsighted not to spend the extra $100 and to get a player that is going to support you for much longer.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[RoundSparrow]

I'm going to take the question mark at the end seriously.

Honestly, a regular def DVD looks pretty decent on a good quality 42" 720p display. HDDVD would probably look good on something much larger or very close in detail (like when you pause to want to read a name on a movie character's shirt).

Why would you WANT to watch HDDVD on 720p display? You really aren't getting much more than the much cheaper to rent or buy DVD disc. It isn't just the cost of the player, the cost of the movies!

And no, it probably isn't a half-decent player. It is first generation, they are slow to start, etc.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[timeOday]

Especialy since the cheap player does output 1080i (following the above link). Personally would not pay double to get the "p." There are hardly any 1080p movies out anyways, and I don't think the difference from 1080i would be noticeable. Paying double for a small degree of "future-proofing" is not a good value in my book.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[santakrooz]

1080p vs 1080i is a non-feature when it comes to HDDVD or BluRay that Sony has "invented" for marketing purposes. Here is why. Movies are filmed at 24 frames per second. They are displayed at 30frames or 60frames per second on high def DVD formats. All HDDVD and BluRay content is stored on disc in "1080p" meaning 1080x1920 full frame non-interlaced. Your 1080p display can take 1080i input from a 1080i source such as the A2 and will recombine fields to create full frame images. 1080p displays don't actually display anything interlaced. So when you're watching a 1080i source on a 1080p television you are actually effectively seeing 1080p 30frames per second instead of 1080p 60frames per second. You will not see a single bit of difference because the content is 24fps to begin with. Even 100% digitally filmed/produced movies such as CG cartoons (Nemo) or movies (Star Wars Prequels) are still mastered at 24fps...

1080p is good for displaying 1080 content that is higher than 30 frames per second - such as video games. Basically with 1080i you're limited to 30 frames per second at 1080 vs 60 frames for 1080p. Playstation has 1080p because it's a game machine and 1080p provides potential for higher framerates at 1080 for gaming which is advantageous. But for movies? the difference betweek i and p is meaningless.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Basehart]

"...spend the extra $100 and to get a player that is going to support you for much longer."

It's like buying a walking stick without a rubber plug thing on the end. Why spend $70 for a regular walking stick without a plug thing when you can spend an extra $5 and get one with one on it, on the end there. So that's $75 with a plug as opposed to $70 for one without one. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Spend the extra $100 and think of the future you. You'll thank yourself down the road.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Eternauta3k]

or gold-plated connectors (for *digital* signals??), it's actually at least a half-decent player?

It sounds like audiophile crap, but lots of connectors are gold plated, for example the ones in my old Palm and some serial cables. It barely adds any cost, they just want you to think so.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Keeper]

There is no difference between 1080p output and 1080i output if your tv does proper pulldown detection. Gold plated jacks are also pointless if you're hooking everything using digital outputs. HDMI 1.3 might be interesting if you have equipment that supports it, but I certainly don't. And the difference in video processing primarily benefits upscaling of DVD's -- if you've already got a good upscaling player then that isn't necessary.

So I'd say $99 is a damn good deal if
a) your tv isn't a pile of crap
b) you're using HDMI for video
c) you're using HDMI/spdif for audio

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Shabbs]

1080p is marketing hype. Feeding a 1080i or a 1080p signal to a 1080p TV will be EXACTLY the same if the source is HD DVD or Blu-ray.

Now, 1080p/24 is interesting. The HD-A20 and XA2 are going to be getting firmware updates to allow 1080p/24 output. The HD-A2 will not get this update. That is cool, if you have a 1080p/24 device you can watch HD film as it should be. But, how many people have a 1080p/24 display device? How many are even out there? Very few.

Cheers.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

You really aren't getting much more than the much cheaper to rent or buy DVD disc.

The difference between SD (480i) and 720p HD is about the same as the difference between 720p and 1080i/p. So yes, you will notice a difference.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Paradoks]

Sure, until you get a 1080p a year or two down the road. Just seems kinda shortsighted not to spend the extra $100 and to get a player that is going to support you for much longer. I'm on my third DVD player due to hardware failure, and I was a bit of a late adopter. Do you really think that a low-end first generation HD-DVD player is going to last more than a year or two? I'd imagine that in a year or two the players are likely to get faster and more useful anyway -- heck, combo Blu-Ray and HD-DVD drives might be relatively commonplace.

With that much uncertainty, why would spending $100 now for currently useless features be a good idea?

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[MrDERP]

Well, I am not sure, but I have heard, that It's good to set the refresh rate to 72Hz for watching movies because 3 * 24 = 72 so every 3 refresh cycles the movie syncs with the HDTV. Setting it at 60hz they don't sync. Luckily I have an HDTV 42" that supports 72 Hz at 1080p and doubles as a computer monitor. Highly recomended Westinghouse, the only thing I ever got at best buy for a good price (was an "open box" deal.. Anyway my point.. Set your HDTV/Monitor to 72 Hz so it will sync up with 24 fps movies.. This is interestig to me, let me see how much a hd-dvd BURNER costs, then i can download .iso imgaes of HD-DVD (of course legalally distributed documentary / nature type stuff ;-) The BBC "Planet Earth" looks AWESOME when i input from my computer to the HDTV throughtt the VGA/DVI port. I have never really looked to see how many titles are available for HD-DVD how much do they usually costs? Also does Netflix/Blockbuster have the titles available in big enough quantities? Also, I usually don't watch many Action Movies or CGI stuff mainly comedy and drama so not sure 1080P is really neccesary, Not intersted in Pirates of the Caribbean 3 , finding Nemo etc.. Jeff

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[mgabrys_sf]

Frame rate sure. Resolution? Tons. Freeze frame both and you can see the difference. That's the point.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Shabbs]

Blu-ray and HD DVD source are both 1080p/24 natively on the disc. So, if you have a player that can output 1080p/24 and a display that can show 1080p/24 you will see the native format, untouched. The less conversions, the better. Right now, it goes 1080p/24 (disc) --> 1080i/60 (leaving the player) --> 1080p/60 on the TV. The signal gets touched quite a bit.

Cheers.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[7Prime]

Why would I get a 1080p set a year or two down the road? I had my last SDTV for 10 years, and I just spent $450 on a new HD set.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Wdomburg]

The HD-A20 costs about $320 right now, so make that an extra $220. And most peoples brains to money ratio are such that they won't be buying new televisions every year or two.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[7Prime]

Ummm... no

Resolution aside, you still get two things that a DVD player won't do: progressive scan, and widescreen. To be honest, the biggest visual difference *I* see between SD and HD is getting rid of interlaced video. NTSC resolution is actually pretty good at the distances you usually watch TV. But with the flicker that interlacing causes, NTSC is crap. SD -> ED is a much bigger jump in quality than ED -> HD. So, for me the difference between 720p and 1080p is a drop in the bucket.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[JonXP]

I thought the granparent poster had a point until I read this. Of course! How stupid of me to forget that while I'm watching movies, I like to see single frames at a time, so I can get FULL enjoyment out of it. It took me a MONTH to finish the first Star Wars movie, but I sure as heck liked it better than the rest of you losers.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Wdomburg]

Gold is a non-corrosive and highly conductive. Good choice for plating contacts and connectors. For the quantity necessary for that application, it's not even particularly expensive from a manufacturing perspective.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[7Prime]

Just a knitpick, but 720i does not exist.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[jridley]

Sure, except in the context of this sale (if real, and if generally available), it's $99 versus $400.

I have a 720p projector, and I'm very unlikely to get a 1080 one for at least 5 years. It'd be nice to get a player that did 720p. For $99, who the hell cares if I throw it away in 3 or 4 years?

I actually probably wouldn't even spend $400 versus $300 for 1080. It was a big step for me and a lot of money for me to get the 720p projector, and it really is going to be quite a while before I upgrade it. I'd rather spend that $100 on some movies.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[jridley]

I've got an upsampling DVD player with HDMI output into a 720p projector. I don't have interlacing when I play my regular DVD movies. The player does both progressive scan and widescreen.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[7Prime]

well, deinterlacing isn't the same as natively progressive, though.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Phoobarnvaz]

So when you're watching a 1080i source on a 1080p television you are actually effectively seeing 1080p 30frames per second instead of 1080p 60frames per second. You will not see a single bit of difference because the content is 24fps to begin with.

Sounds like the $15 5 inch portable I bought at an outlet mall for my camping trips won't allow me to realize the true 1080i/p experience that Sony & others are hoping for. No stereo output...no digital surround 5.1/7.1 hookups & a black & white screen means that Sony & others need to up their standards for those like me.

Am VERY disappointed in their decisions...since I'm the type of discriminating customer they were hoping for for their products!!!;)

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[amokk]

Where do you get your fucking facts?
Almost ALL of the available HD-DVD and Blu-ray movies are 1080p transfers.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[evilviper]

Feeding a 1080i or a 1080p signal to a 1080p TV will be EXACTLY the same

That would be true if your TV has perfect 3:2 pulldown reversal... which doesn't exist.

Feeding hard telecined 24fps material guarantees artifacts.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[evilviper]

Your 1080p display can take 1080i input from a 1080i source such as the A2 and will recombine fields to create full frame images.

3:2 pulldown reversal has never been, and never will be perfect. You will have artifacts from the unnecessary two conversion steps.

So when you're watching a 1080i source on a 1080p television you are actually effectively seeing 1080p 30frames per second instead of 1080p 60frames per second.

You're omitting the fact that deinterlacing is a difficult and inexact process that horribly mangles video.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[ben there...]

well, deinterlacing isn't the same as natively progressive, though.

It is for most films on DVD, though not for NTSC TV.

The process is called IVTC, and it reconstructs the original progressive frames, if the source was progressive before being put on DVD.

It doesn't work for NTSC TV, where the source is interlaced and was put on DVD interlaced. For that you need smart de-interlacing that is likely to cause blurriness due to combining two slightly different interlaced fields into a frame.

(I do IVTC every time I rip a movie to H.264 or XviD, or when I want to take a good-looking progressive screencap)

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[ben there...]

That would be true if your TV has perfect 3:2 pulldown reversal... which doesn't exist.

Feeding hard telecined 24fps material guarantees artifacts.

You keep posting that. But I don't believe it. Do you have some links to cite?

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[pinkfloydhomer]

You're a moron. Storing 25Hz/30Hz progressive content as 50Hz/60Hz interlaced content is a non-lossy process. You can get back the original 25Hz/30Hz progressive content with a simple, deterministic algorithm, regardless of 3:2 pulldown and other issues. (Note: I am talking about 24 fps film to PAL or NTSC here. This is the important case, and also, which is my point here, the trivial case).

Now, in reality, a lot of releases do exist that has the wrong flagging and so forth, that will make crappy dvd players output a crappy signal that has been de-interlaced in the wrong way.

But interlacing is not the issue with dvd. The vast amount of dvds will play flawlessly and losslessly progressively if you have a good (or nowadays, just decent) dvd player. And of course you need a progressive display, but virtually all LCDs, plasmas, digital front projectors, back projectors etc. are progressive. If they're not fed a progressive signal from your dvd player, they will deinterlace it themselves. Are you sure you have ever watched a dvd interlaced and "flickering"? You might have, on your old CRT. But HD-DVD and BluRay will also flicker on your old CRT. Because it is an interlaced display.

The issue with dvd is not interlacing (although it would be nice to get rid of). It is mainly pixel resolution and color resolution (dvd only has half vertical color resolution, to put it shortly). /David

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Shabbs]

The only way to avoid the 3:2 pull down is to have a 24fps device. So, a 1080p/24 source (like HD DVD or Blu-ray) output to a 1080p/24 capable display device will eliminate the issue you keep posting about.

For others, more info about 3:2 pull down (Telecline) can be found here:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#3:2_pulldown

Cheers.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[pinkfloydhomer]

>
> well, deinterlacing isn't the same as natively progressive, though.
>

In the case of 24Hz film to PAL or NTSC, yes it is.

The fact that stuff is being done to the signal in both the PAL case (speeding up by 25/24) and the NTSC case (3:2 pulldown) to "convert" the signal from 24Hz to 25Hz or 30Hz, has nothing to do with the interlacing as such. It is a timing issue.
Converting 24Hz (progressive) film to 48Hz interlaced film, where the union of the two interlace fields is exactly the original progressive frame, and back again to 24Hz progressive, is a trivial and non-lossy process. Basically you just merge the two fields and you're done.

The problem arises only if you're having something which is _natively_ interlaced, just as a PAL _recording_ in which the two fields in a "field pair" does not represent the same moment in tame. Basically one field (with only odd lines) was captured at one point in time, t. And the next field (with only even lines) was captured at t + 1/50 second. If you merge these two frames, you will get jaggies. This will of course not happen if you go from 24Hz progressive to 48Hz interlaced and back. /David

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[evilviper]

The only way to avoid the 3:2 pull down is to have a 24fps device.

This is besides the point, but what you said is not entirely true. A progressive display, at any other frame-rate, can also avoid 3:2 pulldown, (which is only used for interlaced displays).

So, a 1080p/24 source (like HD DVD or Blu-ray) output to a 1080p/24 capable display device will eliminate the issue you keep posting about.

HD-DVD is not a 1080p source. The video is stored progressive on the disc, but I haven't yet heard of an HD-DVD player that will output progressive video. It will perform the 3:2 pulldown process on the video before the player outputs it (to HDMI or component) much like standard DVD players. And in the case of a 1080p display, the TV will then immediately try to reverse it.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[sheldon]

Resolution aside, you still get two things that a DVD player won't do: progressive scan, and widescreen

DVD players have been doing progressive scan and widescreen since like at least 2002. That's when I bought my Sony HDTV set and Panasonic DVD player with progressive scan.

For the past 3 or so years, they've been doing upsampling to 720p via HDMI outputs.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[BoberFett]

It's been a while since I took grade school math, but $70 to $75 is a different scale than $100 to $200. At least by my calculation.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Shabbs]

You've fallen into the Sony Blu-ray marketing trap and 1080p hype they're spinning. Toshiba has two players that put out 1080p: the HD-A20 and the HD-AX2. And, they will soon be getting firmware updates to output at 1080p/24.

Cheers.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[ivan256]

Double?

LCDs are "progressive scan" (they don't scan at all).

But they don't cost twice as much as plasma, they cost the same... So where do you get "double" from?

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[evilviper]

Toshiba has two players that put out 1080p: the HD-A20 and the HD-AX2. And, they will soon be getting firmware updates to output at 1080p/24.

Fair enough. I openly admit I haven't kept-up on recent hardware from either company. It's still by far most likely, however, for an HD-DVD owner to have a 1080i unit, and most likely for a BluRay owner to have a 1080p unit, despite a few exceptions on both sides.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Lumpy]

Funny, My Denon with a faroudja upconverter gives me pristine Progressive scan at 720p.
That "crap" NTSC looks better on my 109 inch screen at home than any film I see at the movie theater.
35mm film at many theaters are so high of a generation copy (usually 6th or 7th generation from the secondary print copy) and abused as well as out of focus and ill maintained that it's a pretty crappy picture.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[fyngyrz]

The difference between SD (480i) and 720p HD is about the same as the difference between 720p and 1080i/p.

Wait, what? 720p is far superior to 1080i. 1080i - that "i" stands for interlace and what that does is halve the data rate - in 1/60th of a second, you get 1/2 a frame, or 1920x540, about a megapixel per 60th. You won't get the data for those same scan lines again for a 30th of a second, which means larger steps for motion. Worse, the next bunch of visual info, 1/60th of a second later, is on different lines and represents a different slice of time, so if there is motion, the data on the second frame won't line up with the first frame - a problem that HD was designed to solve, not bring us a brand new version of, by the way.

720p is 720x1240, about 90% of a megapixel per 60th, but the data is not interlaced so there is no scanline level sliding of the image as motion drives the frames out of sync for interlace.

I can't believe anyone who really cares about quality, and has a quality HD signal source, would watch 1080i if 720p is available to them. 1080i sucks. 1080p, sure. 1080p has twice the temporal resolution of 1080i, no flicker like 720p, and no interframe distortion artifacts.

Don't make the mistake of setting up a source at 1080i and then letting your display scale to 720p, either; that'll turn spatial distortions into blurs without solving any problems. Set your source to 720p and your display to 720p, and you have the best chance at the highest quality image you can get short of 1080p all the way through the system.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Type-E]

All movies are in 1080p 24fps. You have a point though since 1080i is in 1080 interlaced 60fps. If 3:2 pull down is done correctly, 1080i should be able to see as good image as 1080p/24. The problem is not many chip does 3:2 pull down perfectly, and a lot of 1080p LCD cheated with a cheap deinteracing processor that does not perform 1080i to 1080p dot for dot. Thus you loose some of the original signal.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[rm999]

GP meant the HD-DVD player is double...

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[funfail]

First, it's not like $70 and $75, but rather $99 and $199. Second, the extra feature (1080p) won't do any good for now, and when you are able to use it, there will be $100 players which are better than the ones currently sold for $199.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Keeper]

3:2 pulldown reversal is trivial to perform, and with a digital source (like the one provided via HDMI) is artifact free. If you've got a bad source and really REALLY crappy pulldown detection in your TV, you might go 5 frames (~150ms) before the reversal algorithm resyncs to a new sequence.

You're omitting the fact that deinterlacing is a difficult and inexact process that horribly mangles video.

You're omitting the fact that you don't know shit about what you're talking about. Even for straight up interlaced 30fps content, modern motion adaptive deinterlacing algorithms are incredibly effective. Horribly mangles video my ass...

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Keeper]

Uh, the player is still using a 1080p image as a source, and when you pause it, it should still be spitting out an interlaced version of that 1080p image instead of the current frame in the output buffer. And if it doesn't, it CAN, and is a mere reflection on the (lack of) quality of the player.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Kabal`]

Uh, this is all forgetting that most HD movies come from film which run at 24 frames per second, so you aren't losing any temporal resolution if you run it at 1920x1080i @ 60hz, *and* you get more detail. Unless your displays de-interlacer is absolute shite.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[fyngyrz]

Uh, this is all forgetting that most HD movies come from film which run at 24 frames per second

Hold on there, I didn't forget any such thing; I specifically said "has a quality HD signal source", I didn't say a word about film. I'm talking about actual 60 frame per second content, not ancient 24 FPS grain-ola. Film - frankly - isn't by any means a dependable source of high quality images. Aside from the frame rate being WAY too slow (they double shutter it, two flashes per frame, so your eye doesn't catch the low data rate, did you know that? Makes it 48hz instead of 24hz, but of course it adds nothing, just stops you from going into an epileptic fit), the annoying collection of minor aspect ratio changes, the poor match of the color gamut to most display systems, and the unspeakable things it does to motion, film just isn't the HD fan's friend.

Real HD content comes from cameras, machines (like the PS3) that can generate it natively, and from broadcast systems that record and reproduce it natively. For anything that was film in the first place, you're dead-stuck with data that changes every 41.6 milliseconds along with the horrifying motion blur inherent in the attempt to make two frames 41 ms apart show smooth motion, and if that satisfies you, more power to you. Me, I definitely prefer real HD content at 16 ms or so. Converting something upwards in space *or* time doesn't add quality. Either it is there in the first place, or it isn't. As more HD content comes along, I rather hope film dies a horrible death.

I will note that with a film conversion to HD at least you don't have to put up with the theater operator fouling up the focus, the film melting and/or breaking, the sound track turning into a warbly, trashy ghost of what it should be, and obviously as long as people continue to use film, the only way we're going to get to see these works is in the original form or as a conversion, but the bottom line is, Full-on HD kicks film's butt right off the planet, and the sooner motion picture folks catch on to that, the better off we'll all be.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[fistynuts]

My IDE and SATA cables aren't gold-plated. They seem to work just fine.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[lachlan76]

Why? It will probably be possible to get something better later on, and besides, you'll be paying 10x as much for the TV anyway.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[gregben]

Aside from the frame rate being WAY too slow (they double shutter it, two flashes per frame, so your eye doesn't catch the low data rate, did you know that? Makes it 48hz instead of 24hz, but of course it adds nothing, just stops you from going into an epileptic fit

This isn't true. Standard 24fps movie film is flashed on-screen 3 times/frame for a blink rate of 24*3 = 72Hz. If you were
to watch a film blinking at 48Hz. it would probably drive you mad in short order.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[tepples]

Just a knitpick, but 720i does not exist.

Nitpick 1: Nitpick doesn't start with a K.

Nitpick 2: IBM 8514 display equipment was 768i, which is close to 720i.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[fyngyrz]

If you were to watch a film blinking at 48Hz. it would probably drive you mad in short order.

So... you're saying that all those who watch 50 Hz PAL televisions with 25 Hz interlace field rates (basically most Europeans) have been driven mad by decades of exposure to low frame rates? Is it then your postulate that this is why they are often reported to actually drink warm beer? Because they are MAD?

Anyway, you're almost right. 48 hz (double gating) has been the norm for decades, but some modern designs are gating three times. So you can find 72 hz rates in some theaters, though I've never run into one myself. The principle is the same, though; it's still only 24 hz worth of image data. All these techniques do is reduce perceived flicker. They don't help one bit with the amount of detail available for you to perceive, or with any depiction of motion, including simple pans.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[evilviper]

3:2 pulldown reversal is trivial to perform,

That's beyond idiotic. It's ridiculous to suggest that ANY pulldown reversal algorithm always choses the correct field. And doing even basic analysis on HD material is very computationally intensive.

If you've got a bad source and really REALLY crappy pulldown detection in your TV, you might go 5 frames (~150ms) before the reversal algorithm resyncs to a new sequence.

It's unheard of for any source to maintain a perfect 3:2 pattern for any length of time.

You're omitting the fact that you don't know shit about what you're talking about.

Right. How many ivtc and deinterlacing algorithms have you written again?

Even for straight up interlaced 30fps content, modern motion adaptive deinterlacing algorithms are incredibly effective.

"Effective" could mean anything, so the above sentence says nothing at all. The fact is, there is no possible way to convert 60 fields into 30 frames, without losing significant information. It's mathematically impossible. And even the best motion adaptive deinterlacers make occasional mistakes. How visible their mistakes are will vary.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[John Betonschaar]

Sure, until you get a 1080p a year or two down the road. Just seems kinda shortsighted not to spend the extra $100 and to get a player that is going to support you for much longer.

Well, seeing that I only have it for like 6 months I don't think I'll be replacing it anytime soon. Especially because I sit close enough to my TV to not need (or want) a >=40" screen (my TV is 'only' 32"). For $99 I don't mind to replace it within a few years anyway.

As for the guy who commented that it's not really worth it to hook up a HD-DVD player to a 720p TV: I don't really believe that. If I watch closely I can see the macroblocking and color banding on some DVD movies. My current DVD player is not bad but definitely not great, and it doesn't do upscaling or anything like that. It would surprise me if I wouldn't be able to clearly see the difference with an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movie.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[StikyPad]

Gold plating is used because it's non-corrosive, not because it's a better conductor. Silver and copper are both more electrically conductive, but have a propensity to tarnish proportional to their purity. Most connectors are made with anti-corrosive alloys anyway, so it's pretty much a moot point.

You can usually find gold-plated cables for the same price as their tinned counterparts, if you care, and if you look around a bit.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Keeper]

That's beyond idiotic. It's ridiculous to suggest that ANY pulldown reversal algorithm always choses the correct field. And doing even basic analysis on HD material is very computationally intensive.

You don't need to analize the entire HD frame to determine where in the sequence you're at. Certainly, it would help the accuracy of the detection if you did. Of course, we were talking about actually reversing the 3:2 pulldown, not detecting it.

It's unheard of for any source to maintain a perfect 3:2 pattern for any length of time.

Unless, of course, your source is a hi-def player outputting 30fps 1080i content rendered from a 24fps 1080p source.

"Effective" could mean anything, so the above sentence says nothing at all.

Funny, one would think that "effective" would have the meaning it is defined to have in any common dictionary.

And even the best motion adaptive deinterlacers make occasional mistakes. How visible their mistakes are will vary.

I never said motion adaptive deinterlacers are perfect, just effective.

The fact is, there is no possible way to convert 60 fields into 30 frames, without losing significant information. It's mathematically impossible.

Bullshit. 60 fields of an interlaced source IS 30 frames.

For the sake of argument I'll assume you mean that it is "mathematically impossible" to reconstruct the original progressive frame from an interlaced source. To which I still call bullshit, and the proof is a simple white screen...

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[iainl]

Yes, but they're also 1080p at 24fps. So the TV taking the 1080i input can quite easily perform a 3:2 pulldown and display the frame correctly; they usually have to, since every LCD is progressive internally, in any case.

So there are a few reasons:

a) you're playing videogames, not watching films. In which case the player is irrelevant.
b) your TV has an unusually poor deinterlacer. Ooops. But I've not seen any like that which do, however, accept 1080p.
c) you don't want to fiddle with the audio settings to compensate for the 60th of a frame display. Assuming you can even tell it's there.

Personally, I'm happy with 1080i, and really, REALLY wish I could get one here. The cheapest I can find a UK version is £250, or 5 times what they're being offered for. So I'll stick with my 360 add-on instead for now.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[evilviper]

Certainly, it would help the accuracy of the detection if you did.

I'm confused. How can you be more accurate than 100%, perfectly "artifact free", as you've claimed.

Of course, we were talking about actually reversing the 3:2 pulldown, not detecting it.

To reverse pulldown you have to detect which fields go together. There's no other magic solution.

Unless, of course, your source is a hi-def player outputting 30fps 1080i content rendered from a 24fps 1080p source.

Really? You're going to guarantee that the clock in your TV and the clock in your high-def player are going to be synchronous to at least 1/60th of a second, over the course of any arbitrary 4 hour period? Great!

Bullshit. 60 fields of an interlaced source IS 30 frames.

No, 60 fields is 60 (half-height) frames per second. You can't put 60 interlaced frames (fields) into 30 (double-height) progressive frames, without significant visual losses. You'll get half the smoothness of motion, and as little as half the resolution (when there is significant motion).

I'll assume you mean that it is "mathematically impossible" to reconstruct the original progressive frame from an interlaced source.

No, it's mathematically impossible to display 30fps/60field interlaced material on a 30fps progressive display, without loss. Even if you could generate the "original progressive frame", you've still only got half the frame rate, and so, motion that is inherently twice as jerky.

To which I still call bullshit, and the proof is a simple white screen...

A white screen is a case of absolutely no motion at all. In that, and only that situation, you can deinterlace perfectly, but still images are not VIDEO by any stretch of the imagination.

The counter to your proof is one field of black followed (1/60th of a second later) with one field of white. Repeat that sequence endlessly. Now feed it to any deinterlacer.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Anonymous Coward]

The last DVD player that I bought from Toshiba lasted about 90 days - just long enough for it's warranty to expire. http://www99.epinions.com/Toshiba_SD_3980_DVD_Play er/display_~reviews I wouldn't buy any of Toshiba's cheaper DVD players. They all seem to have reliabilty issues.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[soleblaze]

Of course due to 2:3 pulldown and some other things, a 1080i movie will look pretty much the same as 1080p.. unless it's 1080p at it's native framerate of 24fps. Of course, many 1080p drives also convert the video to 1080i and then back to 1080p (most of the bluray players do this, not sure of the xa2 does)

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[Keeper]

To reverse pulldown you have to detect which fields go together. There's no other magic solution.

Pulldown reversal and pulldown detection are two different things. You need one to perform the other, but they're not the same thing.

Really? You're going to guarantee that the clock in your TV and the clock in your high-def player are going to be synchronous to at least 1/60th of a second, over the course of any arbitrary 4 hour period? Great!

Wow, I've never seen anyone suggest that detecting the current position in the field required checking the CLOCK in the TV... no wonder you think that the process is impossible.

No, it's mathematically impossible to display 30fps/60field interlaced material on a 30fps progressive display, without loss. Even if you could generate the "original progressive frame", you've still only got half the frame rate, and so, motion that is inherently twice as jerky.

You assume (incorrectly) that the frame rate of the original source material is always greater than 30fps.

The counter to your proof is one field of black followed (1/60th of a second later) with one field of white. Repeat that sequence endlessly. Now feed it to any deinterlacer.

I'm not the one claiming it was 100% mathematically IMPOSSIBLE to correctly reconstruct the frame, now was I? Now, when watching an interlaced program, which is more likely -- a portion of the scene remaining somewhat consistent from frame to frame, or a portion changing rapidly enough to cause an epileptic seizure?

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[famikon]

Walking stick analogies; The new car analogy!

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[evilviper]

You need one to perform the other, but they're not the same thing.

I fail to see how you can claim pulldown reversal is absolutely perfect, but detection (needed for reversal) is not.

Wow, I've never seen anyone suggest that detecting the current position in the field required checking the CLOCK in the TV... no wonder you think that the process is impossible.

Clock drift has nothing to do with pulldown reversal. It does have to do with the TV receiving a perfect 3:2 pattern from the player, for any length of time. As I said, you NEVER get a perfect pulldown pattern for long.

You assume (incorrectly) that the frame rate of the original source material is always greater than 30fps.

You're saying interlaced material is not (always) interlaced? That doesn't make one bit of sense.

which is more likely -- a portion of the scene remaining somewhat consistent from frame to frame, or a portion changing rapidly enough to cause an epileptic seizure?

That was an extreme example, as was your own. Which is more likely -- video with features and movement, or recording a completely white room, with no shadows and no movement?

ANY movement at all, even the tiniest, and you lose detail when deinterlacing. It is simply not possible, even in theory, to do otherwise.

Re:I wouldn't buy it

[heinousjay]

Thus you loose some of the original signal

That's why I bought a Monster brand signal tightener for only 300 bucks.

One week my ass :)

[Blahbooboo3]

Ya, sure just 1 week. 3 weeks later, a new special for $69 :)

wow

[androvsky]

In today's class, we'll look at how to tell who's losing a format war...

This is why Toshiba's having trouble getting other hardware manufacturers on board, with them selling at such a loss. Sure HD-DVD is supposed to be cheaper than blu-ray for disc pressing, but the players have pretty much the same specs, it can't be that much cheaper for Toshiba to build them.

Re:wow

[DrXym]

This is why Toshiba's having trouble getting other hardware manufacturers on board, with them selling at such a loss. Sure HD-DVD is supposed to be cheaper than blu-ray for disc pressing, but the players have pretty much the same specs, it can't be that much cheaper for Toshiba to build them.

Exactly HD-DVD & Blu-Ray share the same blue laser diode, similar hardware specs, and a similar software stack. If HD-DVD players are selling for less than Blu-Ray it is because Toshiba is heavily subsidizing them to push more sales. The Blu-Ray camp seems less inclined to drop prices, probably because they're winning so why lose money on sales?

Re:wow

[TheMeuge]

The players probably cost $20 to make.

Re:wow

[toleraen]

Yeah, and the R&D probably cost 'em $50, a couple pizzas, a case of beer, and a long weekend.

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

HD-DVDs are cheaper to produce now, but in the long run Blu-Ray discs will be because they are simpler to produce and use less raw product; one sheet of plastic vs two.

Re:wow

[Locutus]

that was what I was thinking when I read this. What I've noticed recently was that when marketshare numbers where put out on HD players, they would note later on that the PS3 shipments were excluded and that, IMO, shows that HD-DVD is losing. Having to play tricks with market share numbers is one indicator of what's really going on and this price cut also shows who's got to try harder to get customers. Who in their right mind wouldn't pick up a PS3 for their HD video( BluRay ) player when for maybe $100 you get a 3rd Gen game console thrown in?

To tell you the truth, I also figure Universal and Microsoft are behind this deal since both have tons to lose when HD-DVD fails to gain much marketshare. Universal has partnered with Microsoft and is exclusive to HD-DVD while recently also shutting off Apple from it's music portfolio by not renewing their iTunes license. So Toshiba might not be losing any money on this if it's subsidized by Microsoft and/or Universal.

While tempting, I still don't want to get caught with a device only supported by such a limited market. Not to mention such a lowend device/player.

Re:wow

[Sancho]

Lots of problems here.

What I've noticed recently was that when marketshare numbers where put out on HD players, they would note later on that the PS3 shipments were excluded and that, IMO, shows that HD-DVD is losing. If you buy a Bluray player, there's a damned good chance that you bought it to play Bluray discs. If you buy an HD-DVD player, there's a damned good chance that you bought it to play HD-DVDs. But according to one report, 70% of console owners don't realize that their game systems play DVD discs[1]. It seems like including every PS3 purchase (many of which were returned due to problems/lack of games) as a Bluray player sale artificially inflates the success of Bluray. Excluding them entirely may not be fair, but including them probably skews the conclusion even more.

Who in their right mind wouldn't pick up a PS3 for their HD video( BluRay ) player when for maybe $100 you get a 3rd Gen game console thrown in? Someone who doesn't want a 3rg Gen console? Someone who would rather have HD-DVD for some reason (personally, there aren't a lot of Bluray movies I'd be interested in.) Someone who wants a combo player?

Universal ... recently also [shut] off Apple from it's music portfolio by not renewing their iTunes license. Untrue untrue untrue! Universal declined to renew a long-term contract, opting for a short-term one which gives them more bargaining power. Universal music will continue to remain on iTunes.

While tempting, I still don't want to get caught with a device only supported by such a limited market. For $100, I'd do it. I've been wanting an upscaling DVD player, anyway, and those tend to cost around $60. Who in their right mind wouldn't pay an extra $40 for a 2nd gen DVD player if they're buying an upscaling DVD player anyway?

Re:wow

[king-manic]

If you buy a Bluray player, there's a damned good chance that you bought it to play Bluray discs. If you buy an HD-DVD player, there's a damned good chance that you bought it to play HD-DVDs. But according to one report, 70% of console owners don't realize that their game systems play DVD discs[1]. It seems like including every PS3 purchase (many of which were returned due to problems/lack of games) as a Bluray player sale artificially inflates the success of Bluray. Excluding them entirely may not be fair, but including them probably skews the conclusion even more.

There is a high correlation with owning a PS3 and buying a BD movies. The returns aren't that significant and were only in the launch phase where some individuals wished to buy them to resell but saw the market wasn't there for that. Your arguments are unsupported by reality. I suppose you could substitute your own reality?

Re:wow

[Cowclops]

"I've been wanting an upscaling DVD player, anyway,"

Either your TV doesn't need to scale the image (because its a 480i CRT) or it MUST be scaled to the native res (because its an LCD). An unscaled image on an LCD would have black bars around the outside and it would be the wrong pixel ratio.

Since scaling must occur somewhere, it either happens in the TV or the DVD player. The only way an upscaling DVD player can be "better" than just plugging 480i from your DVD player to your TV is if the TV's built in hardware is inferior to your hypothetical $60 DVD player.

Say your screen is 1366x768, as many LCDs are. DVDs are 720x480, but the standard hi def formats are 1280x720 and 1920x1080. Since no tv format is exactly 1366x768, all inputs must be scaled no matter what it is. A good TV will do a good job of this and won't be beat by a "$60" external DVD player. A crappy TV shouldn't have been purchased, so who cares if a $60 DVD player's scaler beats it?

The exact same argument is used for laserdisc players and their comb filter. Laserdiscs store composite video which must be run through a comb filter SOMEWHERE in order to (eventually) turn it into RGB. New, high quality TVs have better comb filters than any laserdisc player could have, so usually its BETTER to run composite out than s-video.

Re:wow

[Sancho]

Your arguments are wholly unsupported. I at least provided a link which gave some data.

Also, you don't have to be confrontational to get your point across. "I suppose you could substitute your own reality?" That was unnecessary to a good argument. I'll be ignoring further posts by you.

Good day to you, sir.

Re:wow

[orasio]

Yeah, and the R&D probably cost 'em $50, a couple pizzas, a case of beer, and a long weekend. R&D doesn't have marginal cost.
The whole idea of selling at a loss is gaining traction in order to sell big volumes.
Nintendo could sell the Wii at $1000 to pay for R&D, but probably they pay for it sooner selling tons of units at a cheaper price, because R&D doesn't have marginal cost!
R&D is a sunk cost. It doesn't affect unit price. They price stuff based on marginal cost, and marketing.

It's the total earnings that count.
Even selling at a loss is good for paying R&D costs, because you can get licensing contracts that amount to lots of money.

Re:wow

[Sancho]

First of all, you make a quite large and erroneous assumption. I actually have a CRT HDTV, so there isn't the fixed-pixel problem you mention.

Second, one of the benefits of an upscaling DVD player is that it produces a signal which is, natively, one of the common HD resolutions. No TV that I've seen takes the digital data on the disc and rescales it to the appropriate resolution--rather, they take the signal and scale it. This can lead to distortion and/or unnecessary bits of the picture being cut off. Scaling on the DVD player tends to eliminate this, from what I've seen. Your TV gets a 720p, 1080i, or 1080p signal and displays it as expected. You might have black bars, depending upon the disc, but you don't lose picture, and you don't get distorted picture.

Re:wow

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

While tempting, I still don't want to get caught with a device only supported by such a limited market. Not to mention such a lowend device/player. Thats what i was thinking at first, too, but for $100 for the player, and another couple bucks a month on my netflix, i can have an essentially throw-away player if HD-DVD loses, and not really need to own any movies I'd get stuck with. Its actually kindof a tempting deal if you're willing to just count the $100 as a loss from the get-go.

Re:wow

[jridley]

It was a joke. He didn't say that was a marginal cost, he was poking fun at the $20 by saying that the ENTIRE R&D cost was $50 plus pizza and beer.

Re:wow

[Wdomburg]

Who in their right mind wouldn't pick up a PS3 for their HD video( BluRay ) player when for maybe $100 you get a 3rd Gen game console thrown in?

s/maybe $100/twice as much/ (at current market prices)
s/maybe $100/$400 more/ (if the deal mentioned in the link is available)

And with the PS3 you're getting a player that doesn't auto-play when you swap discs (unless you power the player off), doesn't have a remote control, is incompatible with standard universal remotes, and draws a whopping 170W (even playing SD content) necessitating far more fans.

Re:wow

[jridley]

Who in their right mind wouldn't pick up a PS3 for their HD video( BluRay ) player when for maybe $100 you get a 3rd Gen game console thrown in?

I've got no use whatsoever for a game console, and a PS3 is going to look like crap in my media equipment stack.

Re:wow

[Aliriza]

The price of the player is not important to much but the price of the media is important. They also sell inkjet printers cheap but the cartridges cost too much.

Re:wow

[king-manic]

Your arguments are wholly unsupported. I at least provided a link which gave some data. I acknowledge you said you would ignore this but I wish to reply simply to outline indignation != right. The study referenced at the end of the brief article you use as a source outlines only that "just 30 per cent of owners of DVD-capable machines knew they actually enabled DVD playback".It would seem inexplicable to truly have 70% of the console player demographic unaware their machines could play DVD's since that demographic is principly the 13-35 set which tends to know these things. We don't know what exactly the question was we only know the result that 30% were aware their game console played DVD's, we don't know what they considered owner (A parent with a Xbox at home may not be away the Xbox their kid plays on plays DVD). I scanned the web for the exact paper but was unable to unearth it. This may not have anything to do with the PS3 as it's a pretty generic statement. Most people who currently own PS3 are early adopters. Early adopters tend to be richer and more technical. They would be more likely to be aware that their PS3 plays BD disks. The phrasing of Dale Gilliam the researcher would be more generic saying that his study suggest only 30% of a sampled group were aware the game console in their house played DVD's. The methodology is highly important because if they only surveyed the person who used the machine they will get a different answer then the person who bought it or simply the head of the house hold.

Also the article itself has problems as it gives 2:1 360 vs ps3 however this shows that is not the current trend. It seems to be 4:3 360 vs ps3 at worse (week of may 13th) in the last several months. We'd have go go back to feburary or so to see the 360 doing 2:1.

many of which were returned due to problems/lack of games Seems to be part of your argument. However it's just a random assertion no worse or better then mine, your article did not cover this. The only reliable source I have read to says there were large PS3 returns were early on when a lot of people bought them only to resell them. What source exactly tells you there has been on going large scale returns? Or are we leaning on the ambiguity of "many" to cover 1-infinity. Officially release return rate for faults are 1%. I could not find any other data.

Also, you don't have to be confrontational to get your point across. "I suppose you could substitute your own reality?" That was unnecessary to a good argument. I'll be ignoring further posts by you. The statement is supposed to be flippant not confrontational but sometimes subtleties get lost in the facelessness of the internet. (mythbusters:adam savage "I reject your reality and substitute my own!")

Re:wow

[afidel]

Actually I've done some reading and there is some information available at decode time that allows DVD based scalers to do a better job then even relatively expensive tv based scalers. I too wondered how it was possible for a $100-200 DVD player to do a better job then a $1-5K tv, but I read an article explaining exactly why it was true. Unfortunately I don't remember enough of the details to Google it, but I do remember reading it and understanding (at least temporarily) how it worked.

Re:wow

[Locutus]

good points on the hassles/missing parts for using the PS3 as a HD video player. Sony goofed there too.

LoB

Re:wow

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad when people get so worked up over an innocent comment that they pull a temper tantrum and ignore insight that seems to be much more well-informed than their own. I would've expected better from a Slashdot vet--now I guess I know not to expect maturity from even some of the older members here.

Re:wow

[benwaggoner]

How do you think other Blu-ray companies feel about the PS3? It is simultaneously the only capable player, and heavily subsidized.

Both LG and Samsung have gone from being BD-only to announcing dual-format players...

To show attendees by the sounds of it

[DrXym]

The blog makes it sound like only show attendees may be able to apply for this. I don't see how they could offer it to the general public unless Toshiba was prepared to lose hundreds of millions in a last gasp bid to win the format war.

Re:To show attendees by the sounds of it

[EVil Lawyer]

That can't be true. The expo is over on July 19, and the offer is slated to run beginning July 22. They are just going to announce the offer at the expo.

Dammit

[Durrok]

The link was there in the preview, I swear! Here it is

Re:Dammit

[Brad1138]

"+5, Informative" for correcting a mistake? Boy they are handed out easy these days.

Re:Dammit

[aplusjimages]

Too bad we can mod up mods for being funny.

$50

[Anne Thwacks]

If only we could get $50 HDI cables to go with it!

Re:$50

[anakin876]

Did you mean HDMI? how about this? $4.79 http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id =102&cp_id=10240&cs_id=1024004&p_id=2412&seq=1&for mat=2&style=

Re:$50

[AvenNYC]

www.monoprice.com ..... lol

Re:$50

[cj]

Why pay that much? The Apple Store has HDMI cables for $20. http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/A ppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=6C04E07A&nplm=TL951LL/A

Re:$50

[sethmeisterg]

I was in Fry's the other day and noticed a number of different manufacturers selling HDMI cables -- Monster at $100, another major brand at $90, then there were the generics for $15. People just don't understand that Monster cables are total overkill for HDMI. If you can see the signal, the cable's good. There is no analog improvement, no matter how much technobabble Monster wants you to think matters.

Re:$50

[Anonymous Coward]

Markertek has good prices.

Re:$50

[Wdomburg]

Most people also don't understand that retailers put high markup on cables, since people don't comparison shop for them - they go bargain hunting for the electronics and then buy whatever accessories they need at the same store. Even if you insist on paying for Monster, you can get the prices for $50, other premimum brands can be found $20-30, respectable brands $10-20 and generics starting at $2.

I generally wouldn't go completely bottom barrel, since construction quality on generics can be spotty, but buying online you'll either get a drastically better price or drastically better cable for the same price.

Re:$50

[Lumpy]

Exactly I get cheap HDMI cables all day long.

What I get a kick out of is the fools that listen to the know-nothing salesmen at Best Buy. they upsell that the "monster" HDMI cables for $80.00 give you better video. they dont. a $80.00 HDMI cable is no better than the $4.95 HDMI cable. if you get video it's the exact same quality between the two.

The only difference in the two cables is pretty packaging and marketing. Oh and with some of the really silly $140.00 HDMI cables they put other useless crap on the cable jacket to fool you. or entice the "videophile".

Re:$50

[donaldm]

In Australia we can get 3m (approx 10 foot) HDMI cables for AU$299 (US$259) and I even got a talk how they were absolutely fantastic and well worth the money. Fortunately I am an Electrical Engineer and I politely told the sales guy off and then went and purchased a HDMI cable for AU$19 (US$16.50) at a shop just down the road. I know I can get cheaper HDMI cables by on-line purchase but you end up paying for the courier which brings the price up.

Actually the cheaper HDMI cables are normally version 1.2 or earlier but if you have a 720p HDTV which I have, this is good enough. Version 1.3 HDMI cables are best for 1080p HDTV's and of course you do pay more but you would have to have two identical HDTV sets side by side to pick the difference between version 1.2 and 1.3 HDMI.

Just a marketing SCAM!

[jsldub]

Did you read the fine print in the press release?

Questex Media Group provides certain customer contact data (such as customers' names, addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses) to third parties who with to promote relevant products, services, and other opportunities which may be of interest to you...

Re:Just a marketing SCAM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it is. And of course this is just another Slashdot attempt to save the dead HD-DVD format.

After the Slashdot iPhone fiasco no one should have any doubt that this site has turned into a marketing blog.

Re:Just a marketing SCAM!

[timeOday]

Wow, they throw in free opportinuties of interest!? Now if only it were bundled with a two-year commitment to AT&T wireless...

Re:Just a marketing SCAM!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I noticed that too. Not only do they want to spam you, but you also have to register for their expo for hundreds of dollars. This is pure BS.

Punctuation Rule

[Anonymous Coward]

An added bonus is three free HD-DVD's.

Here's a handy rule to remember: if you don't know how to use an apostrophe, don't use one at all.

There are places where correct English is less important - published articles are not one of them.

Re:Punctuation Rule

[heinousjay]

Here's another one for you: if you're correcting other people's English, stop.

Re:Punctuation Rule

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe it's actually acceptable to use an apostrophe when pluralizing acronyms or initialisms, even though grammatically it seems wrong.

YGGMV. (Your Grammar Guide May Vary)

Re:Punctuation Rule

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another handy rule: the use of apostrophes for pluralizing acronyms does not have a single, settled, agreed-upon rule. Both "HD-DVD's" and "HD-DVDs" are in wide use and are acceptable.

(And I say that as a member of the no-apostrophe camp.)

Re:Punctuation Rule

[LabRat]

Since you've taken to the jack-assery of correcting someone's grammar, here's a tip for you:

"published articles are not one of them" is grammatically incorrect. A plural noun cannot be "one" of anything.

"published articles are not among them" would be one correct way to express that thought.

Re:Punctuation Rule

[Planesdragon]

Here's a handy rule to remember: if you don't know how to use an apostrophe, don't use one at all. No, that's correct.

You are allowed to use an apostrophe for a simple pluralization when doing so increases readability -- such as when using letters, such as "you forgot to cross your T's". Were I to write "... your Ts", there's a high chance that it could be read as a strange "tiss" word.

Re:Punctuation Rule

[ctscan]

You're not entirely correct. Only for lowercase letters. Plural of T is Ts. Plural of t is t's. see here http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutsp elling/pizza?view=uk/

Re:That's it, Blu-ray is toast

[toleraen]

Wow, a little hopeful are we? If all it took was a one week sale to kill Blu-Ray, they would have done it months ago. This sale isn't going to do jack other than get rid of the lingering inferior toshiba HDDVD player (compared to their other HD DVD Players, see an above post explaining why it sucks) so they can make room for the next revision of their hardware.

Cool -when can I get a $99 HD-DVD WRITER?

[Glasswire]

...for my PC. THAT'S what I'm waiting for. RO media is so passe.

Re:Cool -when can I get a $99 HD-DVD WRITER?

[Aleksej]

Why is this modded offtopic? Who needs a player most? MPAA does!

Re:That's it, Blu-ray is toast (dont be naive!)

[apodyopsis]

Don't be naive. if there is any SURE sign that BluRay is getting the upper hand then this is is.

Companies just do not give things away at cost for no reason, my guess is that this would be ploy to try and gain back market and advertising space.

Make HD-DVD open source!

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way that Toshiba can overcome the tyranny of Sony/Minolta and their competing Blue-Ray format is to obviously make the HD-DVD format open source. By leveraging the dedication and organizational abilities of the Open Source developer community can they create a multi-pronged assault on the market share of the Sony/Minolta format.
Providing access to the source to HD-DVD additional functionality can be added to HD-DVD such as higher read/erase density; increased reading speeds, true support for 720p and of course 24-bit color depth. GIMP would certainly take advantage to the the HD-DVD MPEG format.

It would be truly awesome for Toshiba to ally themselves with the OSS and using the extensive JDK libraries available. That indeed is good news for the consumer.

Which is nice.

Re:Make HD-DVD open source!

[westlake]

The only way that Toshiba can overcome the tyranny of Sony/Minolta and their competing Blue-Ray format is to obviously make the HD-DVD format open source.

Nice one.

But Blu-ray's prime advantage is in studio support.

Re:Make HD-DVD open source!

[DrXym]

The only way that Toshiba can overcome the tyranny of Sony/Minolta and their competing Blue-Ray format

The tyranny??? Toshiba is no better or worse than Sony. The Japanese electronics industry is so incestuous that these two can be fighting about one thing (the HD format) and cooperating on another (making Cell processors). People who think Toshiba are some sort of rebel alliance are simply out of their tree. It's a lousy format war FFS. If you want to side with HD-DVD fine, but do so for the merits of the system, not out of some misguided hatred of one mega-corporation over another.

Re:Make HD-DVD open source!

[otis wildflower]

Well, perhaps Toshiba isn't any less evil "per capita" than Sony, but Sony's much bigger and more diversified, and has stuck little clumps of feces into an awful lot more pies than Toshiba..

Big deal

[Form-o-Stuff]

Until I can afford an HD TV, this just doesn't matter to me.

Re:Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

So don't bother posting peasant.

Re:Big deal

[TheRaven64]

I can afford an HDTV, but I don't want to invest in a format that I can't also play on my laptop. If I could rip the disks and copy them, then I might be interested. This laptop's less than a year old, and I'm on a three-year upgrade cycle (warranty expiring on my main machine is the only reason I upgrade anymore), so I won't be getting a laptop with an HD-DVD or BD drive until 2009 at the earliest. A HD-DVD player that doubled as a USB/FireWire drive and could be used for ripping would possibly interest me in the interim, but unfortunately that would mean exercising fair use, and the studios don't want that kind of behaviour to catch on.

Re:Big deal

[otis wildflower]

XBox 360 HDDVD drive is USB and works with at least XP and Vista (not sure about OSX I think it's unlikely). Check Doom9 forums for HDDVD crack information. You'd be able to rip HDDVDs if you had about 20-30G per movie to spare.

I'd hold out for the cheap burners though. I wonder who will make it to $99 for an internal SATA burner first?

Big harry deal!

[josquint]

Its a promotional stunt to promote the conference!

Now, next time I walk into Mall Wart and see a (name brand) HD-DVD or Blu-ray player for $148.97, then THAT will be a big deal.

slashvertisement

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, another slashvertisement. Can thing be more like digg.com? Can we have more slashvertisements?

get back with me when they have a $99 HD-TV

[Anonymous Coward]

No way am I going to spend $400+ on a damn television to replace my 29" crt. Show me something in a equivalent size or larger for like $300 and I might take an interest.

I'm not paying a premium for more pixels.

Re:get back with me when they have a $99 HD-TV

[SengirV]

I purchased a refurb Sanyo 30" HDTV CRT for $299 at an East coast place called Value City. 2+ years later and I'm still happy with it. They are out there if you look hard enough.

Re:get back with me when they have a $99 HD-TV

[Anonymous Coward]

I see 200 small problems there.

Re:get back with me when they have a $99 HD-TV

[Gizzmonic]

I got a 36" sony CRT HDTV for $300 off of eBay. It has HDMI, QAM, ATSC, all the candy....1080i native.

$99 HD-DVD Player Coming Soon?

[Threni]

Well, it's either that or the format never takes off.

Actually there are NO HD-DVD burners yet

[DumbSwede]

Are you sure HD-DVD Burners work? I challenge you to find even one for sale. Toshiba announced the first one back in Jan 2007, but it keeps getting delayed. Still no firm ship date. You can find several 2x Blu-Ray burners and 4x and 8x models on the way.

HD-DVD burners don't work because the layer widths were designed for red light lasers. The duplication process is more like stamping than burning which is why they can get away using the old DVD duplication equipment with some minor retrofitting. Blu-Ray was designed from the start as a burner. There have been Blu-Ray burners since 2005 for over the air transmission recording.

HD-DVD's whole premise was to be quick and cheap for duplication houses. Since Blu-Ray disc prices are on average cheaper than HD-DVD, these seems not to have mattered.

Re:Actually there are NO HD-DVD burners yet

[Saurian_Overlord]

I haven't seen one either. Just the [url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp x?Submit=ENE&N=2010100071+1087425858&name=HD+DVD-R ]media.[/url] Staples carries them as well, so I have seen the discs in person.

Re:Actually there are NO HD-DVD burners yet

[Saurian_Overlord]

Sorry about the URL.

Re:Actually there are NO HD-DVD burners yet

[DumbSwede]

I guess I should have specified FULL HD-DVD burners. These are only single layer. So with what you are posting it isn't 50 vs 30, but 50 vs 15. Why would anyone bother upgrading to go from 9G to 15G?

Re:Actually there are NO HD-DVD burners yet

[otis wildflower]

HD-DVD's whole premise was to be quick and cheap for duplication houses. Since Blu-Ray disc prices are on average cheaper than HD-DVD, these seems not to have mattered.

I have no idea what you're talking about. HDDVD at retail chains I have found to be identical or better in price, and most catalog HDDVDs on Amazon I've seen for $19. I call shenanigans.

Re:Actually there are NO HD-DVD burners yet

[Saurian_Overlord]

Oh yeah, I didn't even notice that. I think Newegg had some DL ones before, though. Maybe they pulled them due to the fact that no one was buying them, as no one has a DL burner. ;-)

But seriously, I haven't even seen a single-layer burner myself (and a DL would be barely better than a SL Blu-Ray drive anyway), so I totally agree with you. I'm just wondering why I seem to see the media occasionally, but never the drives.

Honestly, I would love to upgrade to 15 from 9, but not at those prices. I have used very few DL DVDs, because I can't justify the cost for most things, but a 15 GB disc would be very useful if it wasn't quite $10. Not to mention the theoretical burner being who-knows-how-much...somebody show me one?

Re:Actually there are NO HD-DVD burners yet

[DrXym]

This February article supports the notion that Blu Ray discs cost slightly more to replicate. The problem for HD DVD is it's not that much more, and if Blu Ray sales are 2x HD-DVD then the quantity alone might chop any advantage for HD DVD. The Blu Ray might also work out cheaper if it can get away with a single layer but the HD-DVD is forced to use dual layer.

Is there any confirmation on this?

[josquint]

It looks like the only information is an email from a listserve?

Umm.. I just got several emails promising to enlarge body parts, improve bodily functions, and sell me prescription drugs at unreal prices. An the fax I got the other day lets me in on an offere to go to Disney World for $69. So what?

So a slashdot article now has come down to some dude posting the cool spam they got?

great deal...

[mustafap]

> HD-A2 player at $99 for one week only, beginning July 22.

What, and then we give it back after the weekend?

The road of digital media

[Casandro]

Well HD-DVD and Blueray will go down the road of all digital hardware-based media.
Today the players cost hundreds of dollars, tomorrow the chineese will build $50 ones which will play a lot more than the expensive ones will. The picture and sound quality will be almoust the same and most people will just play pirated or at least non-hollywood content on those players.

Sony probably lost a lot of money on DVD-Players. In the past Sony (and other big brands) were able to justify charging way more for a VHS recorder than the competition as they were able to create an aura of quality. With digital media, such an aura is hard to create.

Re:That's it, Blu-ray is toast (dont be naive!)

[sqlrob]

Like the five free Blu-Ray movies with purchase of the player (including PS3) is signs of HD-DVD having the upper hand?

Re:$99 Betamax Player?

[otis wildflower]

You can keep it.

Personally, I like having less infringement on my freedom (weaker copy protection, no region coding) and better video quality (initial BR discs were shitty MPEG2 rather than modern MPEG4, 3x the space use yet crappier video?), and avoiding Sony garbage is just a fringe benefit.

Plus, _The Big Lebowski_, _Heroes_, _Dune_ and _Serenity_ are exclusive. As will be _Scarface_ and the rest of the NBC Universal range.

You can keep _Star Wars_ and Disney stuff thanks.

Then again, if I can find a BR player for $199, maybe I'd consider giving it my receiver's remaining HDMI port.

Optic storage is losing the format war

[BlueParrot]

We know for sure that SONY cannot win a format war because then the universe would implode. We also know that Toshiba is not winning this format war. The logical conclusion is that the whole HD-DVD concept is about to fail miserably in favour of increased internet bandwidth and magnetic storage. Heck, the standard offers over where I am is already in excess of 5 mbit. By the time either HD DVD format has a chance to overtake DVD ( guessing 5-10 years at least ) it will be more than enough to doom the entire HD-DVD concept. Unless the MPAA can cripple broadband deployment in key markets ( read US ) sufficiently of course.

Re:Optic storage is losing the format war

[king-manic]

We know for sure that SONY cannot win a format war because then the universe would implode. We also know that Toshiba is not winning this format war. The logical conclusion is that the whole HD-DVD concept is about to fail miserably in favour of increased internet bandwidth and magnetic storage. Heck, the standard offers over where I am is already in excess of 5 mbit. By the time either HD DVD format has a chance to overtake DVD ( guessing 5-10 years at least ) it will be more than enough to doom the entire HD-DVD concept. Unless the MPAA can cripple broadband deployment in key markets ( read US ) sufficiently of course.

We're doomed for sure then because of the CD, 3.5" floppy and so on.

Re:Optic storage is losing the format war

[noidentity]

"Optic storage is losing the format war"

Where will I store my eyeglasses and magnifiers in the future?!?

Re:Optic storage is losing the format war

[otis wildflower]

OK, here's a question.. Say the average HD film in MPEG-4 takes up 25GB. How many of those can you fit on to a 1TB disk? About 40? My DVD collection is north of 250 and that's not even that big. My HDDVD collection is about 10 or so now, not counting some on order from Amazon. Even if Microsoft rented 1080p for the 360, I couldn't fit a whole film of it on there! All these fancy game consoles cum video players, the PS3 80GB could hold 3 movies?

Nope, as long as optical media price/density, durability and ease-of-use beat magnetic media, there will be some disc format or another. And while you have advances in magnetic media, optical isn't sitting still. Maybe when home video goes 4K we'll have the next gen of holographic disc to hold the 100GB for a 4k film..

Re:Optic storage is losing the format war

[AlpineR]

You think it's going to take 5-10 years for a high definition disc to become relevant? I have an HDTV right now. I would spend $200 tomorrow if there were just one HD format. But there are two, and I don't know which is going to die, so I'm waiting.

I don't care about the copy protection on movies. I get all my movies from Netflix -- I don't buy them. I watch them once and send them back. The only thing stopping HD discs from becoming a huge success right now is existence of an incompatible competitor.

It's fine with me if HD over Internet becomes the norm in five years. But my DSL and magnetic storage can't handle it today, and I don't want to wait that long to start enjoying HD movies.

Crack it.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Wake me up when one format is open, either by unilateral action by whoever controls the format (say, Sony gets a conscience), or by cracking it so thoroughly that we can have something like a libaacs to rival libdvdcss.

Or if it happens to both at once, the winner will be whichever has the best price/storage deal. (If it happens to both at once, I'm rooting for Blu-Ray, but that's only because I like the idea of using a real programming language (Java) instead of some hacked-together "menu" system.)

Until it's that well cracked, I won't buy them, because until it's cracked, the only way I can watch HD on my Linux box is either some HD cable/satellite, or downloading movies from people who have HD cable/satellite or have already cracked the crypto for me. (Right now, I can't be bothered to buy an Xbox 360 and a moddable HD-DVD drive just to rip Serenity.)

Re:Crack it.

[Hawthorne01]

That's becoming a big part of it for me. With Handbrake and ffmpegX, I can take a DVD movie and put it on any device I want (and no, I don't file-stea...share). The convenience of watching movies on my laptop during long airplane trips without swapping discs is great, plus it's nice to have movie playing in a corner of my screen while working at home.

Until either format can do that, count me out.

Re:Crack it.

[Anonymous Coward]

you wouldn't need the 360 to use the hd-dvd drive on a pc. and last i heard it worked just fine on win and mac, shouldn't be too difficult on linux but who knows. but anyway, you don't really care about all that, you just like being anti-big-whatever. "I can't be bothered to buy an Xbox 360 and a moddable HD-DVD drive just to rip Serenity"...... why exactly would you need to RIP content when you have the hardware and the original hard copy? backups? no, i'm sure such a person that knows how to rip media knows how to handle a god damned disc from case to drive without scratching it to the point where its unusable. blah. your type annoys me.

Re:Crack it.

[SanityInAnarchy]

you wouldn't need the 360 to use the hd-dvd drive on a pc. and last i heard it worked just fine on win and mac, shouldn't be too difficult on linux

Last I checked, the crack doesn't work on Linux yet. I could be wrong, there might be a way which involves downloading a key from somewhere, but the only crack I've seen which is entirely self-contained on a PC involved playing the disc in PowerDVD.

But you're retarded if you think there's a "legit" way to play it on Linux. Open source, by its very nature, means that if you can play it, you can rip it. So, even if I was going to just pop it in the drive and watch it, I'm still not buying it until I have the capability of ripping it -- because I wouldn't be able to watch it in the first place!

Incidentally, the above is still true of DVDs, and thanks to the DMCA, it is still illegal to watch a DVD on Linux.

but anyway, you don't really care about all that, you just like being anti-big-whatever.

Not particularly. I don't mind being pro-big-corporations which actually behave -- Google is usually pretty good.

"I can't be bothered to buy an Xbox 360 and a moddable HD-DVD drive just to rip Serenity"...... why exactly would you need to RIP content when you have the hardware and the original hard copy?

First, none of your fucking business. There's no need for you or any other MPAA flack to know what I want to do with my content, or why. I know it's not legally true, but as far as I'm concerned, I bought it, it's mine.

Second, as stated above, I need the ability to rip in order to play it on Linux.

But there are actually plenty of reasons. Why do people rip DVDs? Here's a few:

• Backup. You know, some people have kids. You have a choice: Either buy them Toy Story and give them the real disc (which they will scratch to bits and then whine for a new copy), or burn them a copy and let them play with that. When they destroy it, it's $0.30 for another copy.
• Lending it out. Not only the kids, but say your friend wants to watch a movie you have. Give them a burned copy, and demand it back when they're done -- you probably won't be watching it in the meantime. And if they don't give it back, at least it wasn't your original.
• Video iPod. Rather than buying the same god damned movie again from iTunes, you just rip it from the DVD you already bought, re-encode it, and put it on your iPod.
• Road trips. Or plane trips. Rip a few movies to your laptop and you're good to go -- much better than having to swap discs -- oh, and having to have those discs survive travel, which is a bit harder than "handling a god damned disc from case to drive without scratching it to the point where its unusable."
• Convenience at home. Build a few terabytes of storage, store DVD images. Hook it up to a MythTV box. You now have all your stuff at the push of a button, not after looking through a bookshelf, popping open a case, putting it in the drive, pushing a button, and waiting.
• Bypassing stupid fucking commercials that take your control away. This includes things like the WB logo, but there are actually DVDs out there that FORCE you to watch every single preview before you can start the movie. And all official players (those that don't actually crack the CSS) obey these restrictions.
• Archival. Who knows when that original DVD is going to die? Not because of mishandling, but simply because of limitations of the media, or maybe you stored it in too hot a room, or maybe it actually did rot. Or maybe after years of watching the movie, even the most careful handling is going to put one scratch on after another until a chunk of the movie is gone.

Besides which, it isn't hard to rip media.

You know, your type annoys me, too. I bet you don't mind privacy invasions because you have "nothing to hide", right? I mean, those big corporations and governments are so trustworthy, they'd never hurt you -- right?

Hidden costs

[Torodung]

Wow! And after my $99 dollar purchase I'll just have to cough up $5000 for a 50" HDTV to realize *any* of the benefits, not to mention the HDMI non-benefits!

I'll stick with my standard VHS and DVD resolutions for the time being. The best televisions that use them cost little more than $1000. You early adopters can go fish.

All this affects is HD-DVD vs. BluRay adoption for people who have too much disposable income, and too little imagination on how best to spend it.

Hint: Repurchasing all your DVD's is a poor use. Try funding a scholarship or something.

--
Toro

Re:Hidden costs

[greatgreygreengreasy]

Wow, if you're paying $5000 for a 50" HDTV I've got some land in Arizona to sell you...

Re:Hidden costs

[westlake]

You early adopters can go fish.

The "early adopters" went HD in 2001. HD is mass-market in 2007: ilo 32" Widescreen LCD HDTV w/ Built-in Digital ATSC/NTSC Tuner $500

Resolution 1366 x 768
HDMI, S-Video, Component Video, DVI Inputs

Re:Hidden costs

[nomadic]

You can get a good 42 inch 1080P LCD TV for less than $1500 these days.

Hint: Repurchasing all your DVD's is a poor use. Try funding a scholarship or something.

Who's repurchasing all their DVDs? I plan on getting either an HD DVD or blu-ray player soon, but I won't even stop buying regular DVDs (since it will be years since everything I'd want is on high definition DVD), let alone rebuy things I already have.

Re:Hidden costs

[hokiejimbo]

That sounds like the comments of a poor person. A 32" LCD TV is $400-$500, an Xbox is $400, and the HDDVD drive is $200... Altogether a little over a thousand dollars for an HD DVD setup. If you don't have a thousand dollars in disposable income in a year, you need to change jobs.

Re:Hidden costs

[evilviper]

I'll just have to cough up $5000 for a 50" HDTV to realize *any* of the benefits, not to mention the HDMI non-benefits!

50" HDTVs are under $1,000 and even that is not necessary for HDTV.

27" HDTVs are under $400 and will work perfectly.

Re:Hidden costs

[Achoi77]

The "early adopters" went HD in 2001. HD is mass-market in 2007: ilo 32" Widescreen LCD HDTV w/ Built-in Digital ATSC/NTSC Tuner $500

Resolution 1366 x 768

Except people actively shopping for HD are mostly looking for units that support 1920 × 1080, not 1280 × 720. Probably the reason why these units are getting cheaper and cheaper is because nobody is really buying them..? Anyways what's the deal with that weird resolution setting? 1366x768?

Re:Hidden costs

[sootman]

And 32" SD CRTs cost about half that.

Re:Hidden costs

[Torodung]

Exactly. If it's not doing 1080p (or 1080i if you can stand it), what's the point of hooking up an HD-DVD player to it? 720p? You're going to purchase a full-on HDMI system for 720p?

My point is (More carefully worded since I got modded down for "flamebaiting"):

a) You need at least a 50" screen for HD-DVD technology to make a difference. Otherwise, get a decent upsampler for that new 37" set. Your DVD's will look fine.
b) You will be repurchasing DVDs if you want any of those benefits for movies in your collection.
c) You will be adopting HDMI, which is about as smart as upgrading to Vista.
d) You will be paying $99 for a glorified disk drive.

In other words, all the really important technology is in the monitor and the sound receivers, speakers, etc, and that is still quite costly because you need it to be fully HDMI. An HDMI compliant setup (all components) may not retail for my polemic $5000, but if you do it in a way that is worth bothering, it's going to run well over $2000. $1500 for the monitor alone.

(Sorry about the exaggerated prices, the last time I checked this out, plasma was king.)

When I think about it, and the apparent excitement over a $99 HD player, $99 is a lot of money for a disk drive. I think I'll wait till these things are down to $45, and hopefully HDMI will flop like Divx did all those years ago.

--
Toro

Re:Hidden costs

[westlake]

And 32" SD CRTs cost about half that

Your hernia-in-a-box won't mount on a wall, have widescreen display, digital audio outputs, a digital ATSC tuner, etc., etc. You are paying the close-out price on close-out tech.

Bleh

[PenguinGuy]

I don't want either...I am happy with the DVD's I have now and until they stop making those and the players for them, I am not 'upgrading'

Re:Bleh

[gordgekko]

Well said. I'm no Tyler Durden but I'm not working a job I don't like to buy crap I don't need, like HD or BR.

Throw in a $99 HD television as well...

[morari]

and I'm on board! Until then, it doesn't really matter, now does it? Though to be perfectly fair, I don't want to see any Sony format win, so hopefully this sale will do something to secure the future... You know, assuming either of these are even still relevant in the future once those holographic projectors come out.

Re:Throw in a $99 HD television as well...

[pabrown85]

"Help me Atsutoshi Nishida, you're my only hope."

I want one

[Ixlr8]

Finally I will be able to tell if camelot is only a model or not. .. o wait, nevermind.

Re:I want one

[otis wildflower]

Well _Monty Python & The Holy Grail_ is distributed by Columbia TriStar so it's unlikely to be available on HDDVD.. But I have the HD-DVD of _Excalibur_ and it's most definitely _not_ a model there..

(I wonder if Warners' has _Excalibur_ on Bluray yet?)

Re:$99 Betamax Player?

[Reapman]

Hmmm I just googled to confirm what you said about Serenity... here's something that I thought was rather funny:
http://www.amazon.com/Is-Serenity-on-Blu-Ray/forum /Fx2OBJXPD8AAL2V/Tx3HBJ73B4L8NHR/1?_encoding=UTF8& asin=B00005JO0J

"No, Universal is still in the HD DVD-only camp. Annoyingly, Fox is in the Blu-ray camp so if Firefly ever comes out in high-def, it will be a different format from Serenity." :D

Re:That's it, Blu-ray is toast (dont be naive!)

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the sure sign that blu-ray is getting the upper hand was Blockbuster Video's announcement mid-June that it is going to exclusively stock blu-ray titles in its stores while phasing out HD tiles in it's online service.

Annoying intros,trailers

[zymano]

I will be pissed still if we can't FF through those damn things.

If i buy it I should be able to CONTROL MY DAMN MACHINE.

Sue the manufacturers?

Re:Annoying intros,trailers

[bill_mcgonigle]

Sue the manufacturers?

Nobody has such a feature at any price?

Re:Annoying intros,trailers

[baglunch]

Press the "Menu" button on your remote control to go straight to the main menu to tweak whatever settings. Or hit Stop twice and then Play to go straight to the movie using default settings.

Anyone can afford an HDTV

[emkman]

Umm, maybe you haven't checked, but HD ready TVs can be had for as low as $200 these days: http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Sub mit=ENE&N=2102640411+4018&name=%24200+-+%24300
If your not working so many jobs that you dont have time to read /. you can afford an HDTV, even if its not a big one. The price went back up, but my roommate and I just split this Hitachi 55" TV, which we got for 899 from Circuit City right before the 4th of July. The picture quality on SD and HD content is amazing. Its only 720p but still looks great, and the price was impossible to turn down. So I would definitely say at this point, anyone can get an HD tv. Getting HD content to watch is another story though, and maybe more expensive than the TVs now.

Re:Anyone can afford an HDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

This is completely off topic, but I gotta say that I'm very sorry for you man. So sorry that you bought an Hitachi.

I had the 50" of that Hitachi TV, and I thought it was great too. Couldnt say enough good things about it. Until I had it for 3 months and one day it just stopped turning on (no response whatsoever, like it wasnt plugged in). That's when I found out Hitachi service is HORRIBLE.

Long story short, a part was ordered, took 7 WEEKS* to arrive, didnt fix the TV. Second part was ordered, another 6 WEEKS*, and that time it was fixed. In the interim however I had bought a Samsung TV to replace it, and just gave the fixed Hiatchi to my father. During this fiasco I called Hitachi several times and got bounced around from one idiot to the next telling me I should "buy an extended warranty", which made no sense because the TV was already being repaired under the manufactures 1 year warranty. In the end I gave up with the phone and I sent them a registered letter directly, to which I recieved a form letter response telling me that I should call their service line because the problem was too complex. Unbelievable.

So best of luck to you and your roommate, because if anything ever goes wrong with it you will probably be screwed over completely. The saving grace of course is that you got it pretty cheap. For my TV with matching stand I threw away over $2000.

*it's interesting to note that the parts for my Hitachi TV came from a warehouse approximately a 90 minute drive away from my house. However they managed to take months to deliver is beyond me.

Playstation 3

[Twiceblessedman]

I know quite a few people who have a blu-ray player, which is the playstation 3.

HD-DVD should give up

[aaronmarks]

Blu-ray is winning the war now that Blockbuster has decided to exclusively carry BD in on all of their stores. When you go into many retail stores now, there are also bigger displays for Blu-ray discs since they are selling MUCH better.

I had asked the guys at my local Blockbuster store how many people were renting HD-DVD's and they all said that it was close to a 10:1 ratio of Blu-ray to HD-DVD rentals. Blu-ray may cost less, but consumers are more aware than ever of wanting quality in the electronics they purchase.

Won't buy till...

[Nonillion]

I for one WON'T be buying till the machines include the following.

1.15 pin VGA connector
2.DVI connector
3.component RCA connectors
4.composite connector
5.RF 'F' connector

I recently looked at several HD-DVD machines, all of them have HDMI and component connectors, NO VGA, no DVI. Uh excuse me, that's NOT good enough. If Toshiba, Sony and others expect me to jump on the HD wagon they're just going to have to offer these connections at FULL RESOLUTION. I am not about to go out and buy another TV just for the HDMI connector. I don't care about the MPAA, I don't pirate their fucking shit anyway. I just want to be able to watch HD on ANY monitor I choose, period.

Re:Won't buy till...

[dpaton.net]

Sorry, you're delusional. Asking for HD output on a commodity composite connector is like asking for GB ethernet on a cat3 cable.

Component can only do 1080p over short distances without the addition of expensive repeater boxes or expensive cables.

VGA is the same.

An F connector could, if you got people to change to expensive high grade coax and got all the TV manufacturers to put GOOD ATSC tuners in their sets.

DVI is dead as a consumer A/V interface. It's still great for computers, but it offers no A/V connection capability. People don't like dealing with a mountain of cables. Yes, the change to HDMI was industry driven, but it was also consumer driven. It was generally good thing, despite the inferior connector that HDMI came with.

If you're really intent on complaining about the HDMI/DVI issue, spend $20 over at Parts Express and get a DVI to HDMI adapter cable. I use two, they work just fine.

Honestly, your bitching and whining post struck me like someone asking their computer to support dual layer DVDs and magtape at the same time. It's just lame and uneducated.

I'm not going to get into the DRM argument, but suffice it to say that for the short term, if you want 1080p, you need a digital connection. That means DVI or HDMI. You don't get any other choices. Put up or shut up.

Re:Won't buy till...

[compro01]

Honestly, your bitching and whining post struck me like someone asking their computer to support dual layer DVDs and magtape at the same time. It's just lame and uneducated.

how is having DVDs and magtape unreasonable? magtape is still the best medium for backups in my opinion and also the opinion of most any sizable IT dept, though it's probably gross overkill for most any home user.

though then again, the IPTV box we use for HD service packs coax, component, HDMI, composite with RCA audio, and optical audio.

though what kind of length do you mean by "short distances" on composite? if you're meaning short as in "2 feet maximum" that's plenty for most any hookup and ought to be supported, though if you mean short as in "single-digit inches" it wouldn't be good for most people.

Re:Won't buy till...

[ChronosWS]

It's actually becoming more of a problem given the size of the HD TVs. FInding a proper place to place a 50" HDTV *and* having room next to it for an HD player can be tough. Many of these TVs are best hung on the wall and not always directly above the components. But for the smaller TVs it's true, 1m is usually sufficient. My last projector setup actually had about a 3m run of component and it did alright, but that was a 720p signal. I'm sure the tolerances are closer for 1080p.

Re:Won't buy till...

[IcePop456]

$20 for HDMI/DVI converter? Try this http://store.pchcables.com/hdfemadvadgo.html/

Re:Won't buy till...

[dpaton.net]

Er...I think you mean short distances for component. Composite can't handle the bandwidth for HD without some insane changes in the hardware on TVs. Short to me is a meter or so. Most cheap cables aren't good for HD data rates at anything over that. If you can manage to get it to work, more power to you, but things like 100% braided shields, teflon foam dielectric, and solid center core cables are needed to make it work for thing in the 3M+ range. Currently my video sources are about 25' from my TV, and I had to do quite a bit of testing to find cables that wouldn't degrade the signal over that distance. Thankfully, I'm an EE, and had the tools and the sources to try a lot of different kinds of cable. In the end I made my own (for everything but HDMI), and it works great, but I don't recommend it to everyone.

As for magtape, I was thinking more of the 12" reels that were used in the 60s. Finding a machine that can read the low rate data from those is getting pretty hard. Composite and RF interfaces are equally old, and equally encumbered by decades of acceptance.

Re:Won't buy till...

[CopaceticOpus]

Hmmm, I've never heard of this "Par T Sex Press.com" - are they a quality reseller?

Re:Won't buy till...

[dpaton.net]

Parts Express is an excellent souce for all things A/V and audio. I've been a loyal customer of theirs for over a decade, and their house brand cables, by and large, are most excellent values.

Why 1 week only?

[MSTCrow5429]

What is the business/marketing logic behind selling them at a presumed loss for 1 week only? I'm quite happy with my cheap Apex DVD player that is maybe 4-5 years old or so, and have no plans to move to anything else, as I'm also quite happy with my 15 year old 20" TV set. It does seem to me that Blue-Ray is far and away the winner of this very brief format war, so maybe this is just an attempt to sell some HD-DVD players while they still can?

Do I Care?

[RAMMS EIN]

Do I care if a $99 HD-DVD player is coming soon? I think the whole HD business is a stinky mess. As for the $99, I expect players cheaper than that to be available sooner or later.

Re:Do I Care?

[Keeper]

Sooner or later yes. But is it really worth waiting 3 years to save $25?

What might kill BR

[vineet000]

Sony lost the Betamax-VHS war because of their reluctance to have adult films on Betamax. If Sony is still unwilling to have adult films on BR then all this discussion on superior technology and PS3 bundling might be redundant.

Re:What might kill BR

[senatorpjt]

moot

yah right

[axia777]

I will believe it when I see it. There have been lots of reports of cheaper player and none of them have paned out. Oh yah, and Blu Ray has a lot more and better movies IMO.

Format wars and the uninformed

[Metroid72]

As I read this heading, I can't help but comment on a conversation I heard today at Best Buy. As I waited for the clerk to finish with a customer to ask if an item was in stock (RE4 for Wii) I overheard him assure the customer that the format wars was over and that BluRay was going to be dominant. The customer stated that he didn't want to make the BetaMax mistake.
The sad thing is that although there's increasing support for BluRay from the content providers, there is still not a compelling reason or a killer library of movies available even for rental.
The PS3 is a bargain BluRay player, and it seems that Sony is gaining traction moving units, but if ultimately there's no content (and I am not talking about videogames here) any player (HD DVD or BluRay) is not a good buy at the moment.

A $99 device (regardless of the format) hits the sweet spot in adoption (As the 199 point is the sweet spot for video game consoles).

Oh well... c'est la vie. As far as myself goes, I'll sit and relax, watch the media format challenge unfold and make my purchase in 2010.

And sadly no RE4 Wii in stock. :-(

Here, your first hit of crack is free

[The Master Control P]

Or at least really cheap. Then we (the media corporations) can lock you in and rape you at our leisure.

That's all it's about folks.

Still not worth the price

[Ka D'Argo]

Ok so if you get to pick the 3 free HD-DVD's, it might be. But as I've said in the past the only way to get main stream penetration for either format is to make them equally priced as a regular standard DVD player is now. I can walk into Wal-Mart now and pick up a nice little dvd player for $60-70. Sure it doesn't have a shit ton of features but it plays dvd's which is all I require. When I can pick up a HD-DVD player or Blu-Ray for $50-70 then I'll buy one. This deal is pretty nice itself, but they probably have 3 specific movies to give away (the article didn't specify?).

That's 1/3rd the price of that unit @ Wal*Mart

[gelfling]

For comparison's sake, the online price of that unit from Walmart is $299. A 2/3rd's discount off a Wal*Mart price is probably half the cost of making one.

Please let the cheapest format win

[sycomonkey]

If HDDVD doesn't pull ahead and win this I will be a very pissed off consumer. It's not like I actually have bought into it yet, I'm not that stupid, but the only reason bluray has any market share at all is pure consumer stupidity and a distinct disinterest in saving any money whatsoever. When this whole mess started and they presented us with two formats, one being signifgantly cheaper to manufacture than the other, why EVERYONE didn't immediatly back the cheaper one I do not understand. How bluray is actually winning, other than Sony imploding in the attempt by shoving it into their game console for no discernible reason whatsoever, I also do not understand. This whole mess is stupid, and I wish it was over. It's not like anyone can afford an HDTV anyway. $1000 for a TV is ridiculous for nothing but a marginal increase in resolution.

Re:Please let the cheapest format win

[ivan256]

When this whole mess started and they presented us with two formats, one being signifgantly cheaper to manufacture than the other, why EVERYONE didn't immediatly back the cheaper one I do not understand.

They cost exactly the same amount to manufacture. The manufacturing savings went out the window the moment HD-DVD adopted the blue laser. BluRay disks are slightly more expensive to manufactuer, and that's it.

There are differences is licensing costs though.

The consumer has zero say in who wins the format war. None. The media distributors are a cartel, and they'll pick the winner. BluRay is winning because more studios are releasing for it, which is probably due to the stronger DRM. Consumers are an afterthought, especially since 80% of everybody will buy the winner regardless of which one it is.

Re:Please let the cheapest format win

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because the HD-DVD is cheaper, doesn't mean it's better. The simple fact the Blu-Ray holds 50GB on a standard disc compared to 30GB(?) makes it the winner in my case.
I'm rooting for Blu-Ray, even if it is a Sony based product since I want it for my PC and for storage which beats HD-DVD hands down. In the end, once it becomes prevalent enough (basically once it's as cheap as DVDs) it's likely they'll be just as cheap (if not more when it becomes bigger) as the HD-DVD (assuming it is still alive and kicking somewhere).

Not to mention Blu-Ray sounds better than HD-DVD.

w0000t?

[AlgorithMan]

An added bonus is three free HD-DVD's.

there are already three movies released on HD-DVD? or do you get King Kong three times?

better offer

[AlgorithMan]

they could offer an hd-dvd player with 300 hd-dvds

Yeehaw !

[Joebert]

I can hear the swarm of rednecks talking about how much better their Dale Earnhart DVD looks on the 5 year old bigscreen sitting in their garage they're still paying Rent-A-Center for with their new $99 HDDVD player now.

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.

The Star Wars Holiday Special

[Foerstner]

Quite a few die-hard Star Wars fans would pay $99 to be able to buy the Holiday Special. Even the crappy home-video rip is remarkably popular, if only for the humor value.

And it would be even more popular among the disillusioned George Lucas haters.

Re:The Star Wars Holiday Special

[elrous0]

If only to hear Carrie Fisher's sweet, sweet singing voice again. Hell, the comical stylings of Art Carney and Bea Arthur *ALONE* make it well-worth every dime!

Re:$99 Betamax Player?

[otis wildflower]

Heh, that and a few features from Columbia (most notably _Monty Python & The Holy Grail_) that I would like. But Sony's stuff is largely popcorn summer garbage that I don't care about, and Disney's basically baby tranquilizer except for the Pixar films that look great upconverted on my XA2 (as does _South Park: The Movie_ unsurprisingly).

BUT.. (and it's a big but):

Most of those Bluray exclusive studios are exclusive only in the North America region. There are a number of films from those studios available on HDDVD in other regions (such as Europe and Asia) and since HDDVD has no region encoding and there's no more PAL/NTSC bullshit, you can order them from foreign distributors (or domestics that source from foreign) and get them here.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/printthread.php?t=6 97243&pp=60 (Studio Canal releases Fox and MGM HDDVDs)

Few right now...

[SuperKendall]

But, how many people have a 1080p/24 display device? How many are even out there? Very few.

I buy for what I can do now, and what I can do later. If you feature-limit what you can buy now, that's pretty wasteful (both from a monetary standpoint and an environmental standpont).

Titanic

[FatherOfONe]

Someone else said it but I think this tells it well...

Buying an HD-DVD player at this point is kind of like buying a ticket on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

Neither one is doing "great" but seeing that 95+% of all sales come from console and the PS3 just dropped the price another $100 and Christmas is around the corner... Well it isn't shocking that Blockbuster doesn't stock HD-DVD any more in their store.

It appears that this time the better technology is going to win out over the competition even though the competition is Microsoft+Toshiba+Warner. All this because of Java... Come on Microsoft you guys can code Java can't you? Oh wait I see now, you don't want a JVM in every household... Oh well you lost this one.

Re:$99 Betamax Player?

[bblboy54]

Mod Parent up.... +1 Sony Employee

Sticking to the point, Is it a good deal?

[Douglas Goodall]

There are a few major truths here. High Definition looks nice. We don't know for sure who will win. IMHO the unsung hero is the upsampling DVD player fed into a HD display. Anyone with a HD display and a collection of DVDs should buy an upsampling DVD player so they can enjoy their existing library and their HD display. If the upsampling player happens to do HDDVD also, what's not to like about that. While I do own four BD titles, I have 125 wide screen DVDs that look great on the upsampling player on my HD display (46" LCD). Personally, I own a PS3 so my BD needs are covered and I own a $100 upsampling DVD player (Panasonic). If I did not yet own an upsampling DVD player, I might bite on the HDDVD/upsampling DVD player just for the versatility. I think the HD titles cost way too much money and I am not rushing out to collect them. In fact the way to go is probably to rent them. The new releases cost about $40 which is way too much for a piece of plastic. When I bought my PS3, I thought the BD titles were going to cost $25 and I thought about budgeting for one per month. At the higher price, I am rethinking my decision to collect.

Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

HD DVD is fast becoming a thoroughly irrelevant software and hardware format. A some weeks back the HD DVD Promotions Group issued a press release proclaiming 60% of the high definition player market in North America belongs to HD DVD players. While I'm sure that's true, what they're talking about is stand alone players. According to their press release 60% means they've sold 150,000 of them.

The bitter pill to swallow is that 1.5 million PS3s have sold in North America. Ten times more than stand alone HD DVD players. Ten. You can talk about attach rates until you're blue (or I suppose red actually) in the face but the mountain is already too big for HD DVD to climb.

War is over. Blu-ray won.

Here...

[phekno]

You people would bitch if your ice cream was cold.

Manufacturer

[Wahlau.NET]

Made in China?

Re:Manufacturer

[night_flyer]

duh?

Factor in Quality

[bill_mcgonigle]

I buy for what I can do now, and what I can do later. If you feature-limit what you can buy now, that s pretty wasteful both from a monetary standpoint and an environmental standpont .

Yes, but the player you buy today is going to stop working in 2.3 years, and it'll be more expensive to fix than buying a new player which can do 1080p.

Universal movies are on HD DVD, not BD

[tepples]

Is this "Blue Ray" related to Ray Charles? No. Ray (2004) is published by Universal, one of the two major film studios that are boycotting Blu-ray Disc. (The other is Weinstein Company.)

I thought Blu Ray won, and definitively?

[catmistake]

This must have been what it was like for Betamax just before the very end.

My players last five to ten years

[SuperKendall]

I buy stuff I think may last me five to ten years. My amp is twenty years old. My DVD player is at least five years old... that's what I'm saying, why buy something that's just going to be dead or pointless in one to two years?

Re:My players last five to ten years

[bill_mcgonigle]

I buy stuff I think may last me five to ten years. My amp is twenty years old. My DVD player is at least five years old... that's what I'm saying, why buy something that's just going to be dead or pointless in one to two years?

My 10-15 year old AV stuff has just about died. I think they stopped making quality gear at moderate prices about when I bought those. I've owned probably 5 DVD players, ranging from $600 to $30. They've all lasted about two years, give or take.

Maybe I can still buy a DVD player today for $500 that could last 10 years (I'm not sure). But the $30 one can play MPEG-2 ISO discs, mp3 and aac, do JPEG slideshows, etc, none of which my first DVD player (if I still had it today it'd be about 10 years old) could do. I actually got rid of that one because it wasn't compatible with The Matrix extras. I'm keen on getting a new one that can handle h.264 when those hit $30 (assuming I don't just scrap the whole concept and put in a Myth box instead).