1) It was reported that Wal-Mart is now backing the HD format. Does anything think this is another nail in the coffin?
2) Sony Computer Entertainment (SCE) chief executive officer and chairman
Ken Kutaragi will resign from both positions and henceforth only serve
as honorary chairman of the company he built a decade ago, effective
June 19th. Furthermore, the Father of the PlayStation family will
continue to offer his technological expertise to Sony Group chief
executive officer Sir Howard Stringer as senior technology adviser. In
a statement, Kutaragi said he wanted to work on even wider network
systems in the future.Meanwhile,
Kazuo "Kaz" Hirai will take over Kutaragi's responsibilities as chief
operating officer, while retaining the position of SCE president.
The 2nd one straight from rpgfan.com
Kutaragi stepping down is old news. I just wanna see where Kazuo "RIDGE RACER" Hirai leads them.
How is Ken stepping down a nail in their coffin? As for the first, Blu-Ray is already "winning" by quite a bit.
Indeed. I think the war between blu-ray and HD-DVD has yet to reach any kind of pivotal moment. blu-ray might have won the first battle or two, but with a major chain like Wal-Mart endorsing HD-DVD, that's sure to give that format a considerable boost. I don't know when the market is going to make a major shift to either of the new formats, though. Regular ol' DVDs still have some good life in 'em.
For all of 2006 HD DVD was winning, then starting in 2007 Blu Ray has been kicking butt. Everyone seems to believe that the Wal-Mart news is quite false.
Beta was winning at first too.
Blu-Ray wasn't winning at the beginning, either.
Say you're going to Best Buy. If you see HD DVD and Blu-Ray, and find that a majority of the films are on Blu Ray(with the exception of Universal), which one are you going to invest in?
Whatever costs less, because HD-DVD and Blue Ray are both stupid in my opinion. I'm pretty sure I'd just buy a regular DVD because from what I've seen, Blue Ray/HD-DVD are more about charging more per movie and a lot more for the necessary hardware than anything else.
BTW: yeah, I'm aware the disks have like 50gig storage or whatever. I don't see why I'd pay $10-$20 more per movie for the small visual quality gains that the formats offer. There seem to be better ways to spend that money (like, more movies, if you must!)
You are better off getting an upconvert DVD player IMO.
Anyways I think the REAL nail in PS3's coffin is when they cut off the cheap model. If they don't lower price soon, I don't see them going anywhere fast.
http://xylon.haloapplications.com/bluray/stargate/04/
Just a grain or two upgrade...
I think they're exaggerating the fuzziness of the regular DVD there, Axis. My movies don't look that bad, even on my projection screen TV.
1. You're sitting at a computer screen from about 2 feet away. Step back about 10-15 feet and look at it. It looks pretty good. How far away do you sit from your projection screen? Go up and from about 2 feet away and tell me what it looks like. My regular DVD movies look like **** compared to Blu Ray/HD DVD.
2. This was done with direct screen captures, they aren't fuzzying up the pictures for no reason.
blu-ray will have spidey 3. HD Dvd will not. i say this fact pretty much will overpower watever advantage walmart will give hd dvds.
If they awarded a retarted post of the decade, you would have just won it.
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I don't sit 2 feet from my television. I'm saying that DVD's in contrast to Blu Ray/HD DVD look like crap. He thought the image I posted was blurried on purpose, which is false.
How about I don't sit two feet away from my TV, so the difference is neglegable?
Sit 10 feet away from the computer screen and look at DVD image. Then sit back 10 feet away and look at the HD version. Which would you rather watch?
lol we're still talking about the PS3 eh
I like my PS3 it rocks. I just hope they get out of debt and move on to do better things with it.
My deal with the PS3 is the lack of games I want.
I still think the fuzziness of that image is doctored or just captured poorly. I can see the glyphs on Ra's mask a little better than that on my regular old DVD.
In any event, upgrading to HD-DVD won't be worth it to me unless they start releasing entire seasons of TV shows and get a lot more anime on the format. The TV seasons better be cheaper than their regular DVD counterparts, too.
I looked at that thing. I don't think it's doctored, but it's not a fair comparison. That standard DVD is most likely on the analogue output. I know for a fact that digital output on standard DVD's doesn't look nearly that bad. Especially on an LCD TV; it actually looks much closer to the HD than anything.
I'm sure HD is great, but, until you've seen what a regular DVD looks like on digital (S-Video) output, you're kidding yourself to say HD is so much better. It isn't.
I've seen the difference. But until you've seen it on the best set-up you can buy, you're kidding yourself to say it isn't much better.
Somehow I don't think the difference warrants me re-buying my DVD collection and getting a new DVD player. I've seen the difference, and I'm unimpressed with it given how much more it costs.
What does that have to do with anything? All I'm saying is that the difference is pretty ****ing noticeable and for anyone to say "it's not much better" is flat-out wrong. Whether the difference is enough to warrant the money spent is a completely different subject that I really don't care about.
Well, the point of HD DVD is to get a crystal-clear picture, right? It's hard to enjoy the crystal clear picture of HD DVD if you don't have the equipment, isn't it? What I'm saying is, for the price of the equipment and movies, you really don't get anything that's good enough to warrant the price. If you don't wanna discuss that, whatever. I'm simply saying it's overpriced.
HD discs also have more storage space than a normal DVD, meaning an entire season of a TV show could be put on one or two discs instead of 6 or 7.
[quote=Axis;575635]Blu-Ray wasn't winning at the beginning, either.
It's the beginning right now. Blu-Ray only came out 5 months ago, or 2 months ago for every territory.
[quote=Axis;575635]I'm saying that DVD's in contrast to Blu Ray/HD DVD look like crap.
When played on an HDTV, yes. Compare a DVD on a progressive scan CRT next to a BRD/HDDVD on an HDTV. The difference really isn't as mind-blowing as they'd have you believe. The visual difference between 480p and 720p is exactly 1.5 x 480p, not six times. SD/ED video looks much worse on an HDTV than it will on a TV that was designed for it. HDTVs don't have the same native resolution, nor do they have exactly double the pixels. You end up getting a picture of a TV trying to display one pixel across one and a half, which is impossible, so it ends up as this blurred mess.
I own an 24" LCD HDTV, and I'd say the difference is small unless the programming is broadcast in HD. Then it is noticably crisper, especially text. But part of that probably has to do with the television itself - non-HD channels look clearer on an LCD panel than they do on a CRT, imo.
HD programming isn't all that great admittedly. There's just not enough of it yet. Though movies broadcast in HD, sports, and games all looks markedly better.
Blu Ray/HD DVD movies are better than the ones broadcasted on TV. No film noise, grain, images are more crisp, etc.
Indeed, though they still look pretty awwight on TV.
Yeah, Discovery HD has some pretty amazing stuff.
[quote=Axis;577690]
Try 11 months for the United States.
That's still the beginning, sir. It hasn't even complete its first year.
[quote=Axis;577690] What are you trying to say? Cathode Ray Tubes are used in HDTV's. Primarily in DLP's, Plasmas, etc. CRT TV's are HDTV's, so I don't know what exactly you're trying to say. Are you referring to a rear project CRT that's HDTV compatible? Projection screens?
You can't get HD CRTs here (other than regular old PC monitors) and I forgot they are available over there. By CRT I meant SD CRT.
[quote=Axis;577690] Have you ever watched standard tv on a 46 inch TV? It looks like complete ****. A 46'' HDTV looks so much better than a standard definition TV that's 46''. But yeah, ask anyone who owns an HDTV and ask them if they notice a huge difference, I bet 95% will say yes.
1) Most people don't have 46" HDTVs.
2) You didn't specify what kind of screen. An SD picture displayed on a 46" CRT will look much MUCH better than an SD picture displayed on a 46" LCD or plasma.
3) I didn't say it didn't look better. I said it didn't look six times better. HD is really quite overhyped.
I have one, and I don't think it's really "amazing". I'd say that it certainly is easier to read text displayed on one and things tend to be a bit crisper overall. But if I was to answer on a questionaire if I prefer HD over regular, I'd say no preference, because the difference isn't that significant.
Hence, why I stated "most", not "all".
Just curious, what kind of brand of TV do you have? A 24'' HDTV doesn't sound great to begin with.
Yeah... buying an HDTV under 32" sounds like a big waste of money. My boss has a massive 60" HDTV and that thing is truly amazing.
They cost a ridiculous amount of money. At least 4-5 thousand
Not their fault if your *****-*** is broke. :)
I thought that the flat screen ones were pretty expensive.. nevermind then
Yeah, I got my 46'' for 1700. Prices aren't that bad anymore.
[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;577946]Yeah... buying an HDTV under 32" sounds like a big waste of money. My boss has a massive 60" HDTV and that thing is truly amazing.
You'll find most people have 17" "HD" screens attatched to their PCs. And you'll also find that there's a pretty damn good reason not to use a 17" SD screen instead.
Okay?
How many people use a 17 inch HD screen for their TV to watch movies and TV on?
I still don't see the point of watching a 17" HD screen. HD content should be seen on bigger televisions, you know, for detail and ****. That's kind of the point of HD.