|
|
Posted by Doug Jacobs on 07/08/06 01:35
In rec.games.video.sony Roy L. Fuchs <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote:
> >And you still haven't answered my question, despite scattering your
> >response to me over 3 different posts. Why do you do that?
> Gonna play netkopp now?
I didn't say anything of the sort, other than your non-standard response
model is annoying.
At least this time you included everything in one post. Thank you. It
makes it easier for me to reply.
> > Given that, why did you
> >choose HD-DVD *FIRST*?
> I am not real big on Sony's philosophy. The retarded bastards
> should have gotten on board with Toshiba... BUT NOOOOOOOoooo...
> They are too fucking B.Gatesesque. DRM rootkit and all. Fuck Sony.
By far the most intelligent thing you've said - and I agree with your
points.
> > Furthermore, what's with your obsession about
> >calling Blu-Ray "BluTurd"?
> It isn't an obsession. It doesn't work, so in common lingo, it is a
> turd. Hence the all too appropriate moniker.
I dunno, it makes your posts look at little immature. You may not like
it, but at least have the courtesy to use the proper name.
> > Were you beaten as a child by some guy named
> >Ray who loved wearing blue suits?
> You're a goddamned retard, boy.
My attempt at levity failed. Oh well.
> > It's immature
> No... YOU are immature.
Is this when I'm supposed to reply with "Oh yeah? Well, you're immature to
the inifinity-th power!" so you can reply with "Well, you're immature to
the infinity-th power plus one!" I can never remember how this line of
arguing goes.
> > and certainly gives the
> >impression that you consider HD-DVD superior in some way to Blu-Ray
> It is. IT works, and BluTurd doesn't.
I don't know. I've seen a demo player of both formats at the local Best
Buy. Oddly, they were on opposite ends of the store...but that conspiracy
theory's being discussed elsewhere. Now I'll grant you a demo isn't the
same as putting product on the shelf, but they both seem to work - and
they both have issues. Really, at this point, I don't think either is
ready for the market just yet...
> >Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD can be used to store high quality audio and HD
> >video.
> Yes, but only one seems to be doing it successfully.
Again, I've seen functional units of both. I know there's a problem with
getting the 2nd layer on the Blu-Ray discs to work, and that could spell
trouble for the first players out of the gate if they can't be
upgraded/reprogrammed in the field. But I've also read about problems
with the first HD-DVD players as well. Comparing the two really seems
like 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.
> > medium has slightly more storage
> >space than the other.
> It has abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to do with storage capacity.
> > But in terms of A/V, that's mostly moot.
> Mostly? Get a clue.
An extra 5 to 10GB could mean some extra content - especially when you
consider the recorders. Yes, I know your stance on that too.
But it's not really an issue.
> >As for your comment that the market can support both formats, I have to
> >again disagree.
> Yes, but you ain't real bright, son (Foghorn Leghorn inflection)
Ok, so you explain how the market will support 2 equal - but incompatible
- formats. Yes, I know companies have begun talking about
combo-play-everything players but that's probably a few years from now.
In the meantime, people are going to have to buy 2 separate players in
order to handle their new library since it's inevitable they'll end up
wanting some titles from both camps.
Having multiple formats also causes confusion. It's going to be really
amusing when people begin to realize that their new DVD player will only
play about half the movies they'll want to buy or rent... The stores,
too, I'm sure are going to love dealing with the complaints and returns
stemming from people trying to play Blu-Ray discs in HD-DVD players (or
vice versa) - after all, they all look the same.
> > Yes, the market does support both DVD-R and DVD+R - but
> >why?
> That is such a retarded example, I am not even going to address it.
Why? I think it's a perfect example. Here you have another case of two
competing formats that do the exact same thing.
Don't you remember the early days of -R and +R? Some devices were able to
read one, but not the other - what fun! And the early combo drives were
rather flaky despite their high price point.
Sure, today any DVD burner handles both types of media. But doesn't it
strike you a bit odd that we've got two separate, incompatible formats
that do the exact same thing? There's no difference between them. Both
store the same amount of data, read and write at the same speeds, etc.
Why the difference? It adds expense and complexity to the device that
doesn't hold any benefits for the user whatsoever.
Or, how about DVD-Audio vs. SACD? At least in DVD-R/+R, both formats were
adopted by the market. But with DVD-Audio vs. SACD, neither format took
off, yet they continue to fight their meaningless format war in the dusty,
forgotten corners of stores around the world. The Blu-Ray/HD-DVD format
war has the real potential to end up like another DVD-Audio vs. SACD war.
Sure, people will buy it, but it'll never come close to being widely
accepted.
> > Some players handle +R better than -R, for
> >instance - and for no good reason. There's no advantage to +R over -R or
> >vice-versa so you'd think they'd be interchangable...but they aren't! And
> >the same thing could happen to Blu-Ray/HD-DVD.
> You are just spittin' out words to see where they splatter.
Ok, then YOU explain which is better - -R or +R - and why. Then explain
why some DVD ROM drives handle only handle one (-R, +R) as opposed to
handling both?
And if you say there's no difference between -R and +R, then explain how
having 2 separate and incompatible formats is somehow a "good" thing for
the market.
Because from where I'm sitting, it's just a waste of money supporting the
both of them.
> > - but then I still have to ask: why two
> >formats?
> Ask the retards at Sony.
Yes, yes, I know... But it's not just Sony that's supporting Blu-Ray you
know.
> IF they both functioned they would both be viable. Since only one
> functions, the reason why it is better than the other is obvious.
True enough. But BD players haven't yet hit the shelves. Again, I've
only seen a demo - nothing to sell yet.
> > With Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, if you
> >choose only one format, you'll lose out on the titles released by the
> >studios that don't support that format.
> They will all eventually press all three standards.
I can see doing DVD and a HD DVD format, but why both HD DVD formats? If
anything, that just splits their HD market. Or do you think they'll come
out with some funky hybrid disc that's HD-DVD on one side, and BD on the
other? Yeah, I could see that working, but either way, it's going to be more
expensive for studios to support both HD formats. And currentally no
studio has announced they will provide both formats. They've either
chosen sides, or are sitting on the fence.
> > This means you'll either have to
> >buy 2 separate devices - that do essentially the same thing. Or you could
> >buy a multi-format player - which will cost more than a single format
> >player simply due to the added complexities of having 2 or more laser
> >assemblies inside.
> Wrong. Same laser light wavelength... same laser. They are
> already ALL dual laser just to provide continued compatibility with
> standard DVD and CD playback.
I thought that HD-DVD used a red laser vs. the "blue" laser for Blu-ray.
So you'll need separate assemblies.
> > Yes, I suppose the studios could just start producing
> >2 separate versions of all their titles - one for Blu-Ray, and one for
> >HD-DVD.
> Suppose? Try count on it. With "count" being the key word. Money
> is money, and the master is the same for both.
I don't really think most studios are going to do this. Too much added
overhead.
> > In this case, this
> >will make it much more difficult and expensive to manufacture.
> Cost of manufacture won't differ one iota. An optical disc reader
> is an optical disk reader is an optical disk reader... period.
Yes, but now you'll need at least two of them. One for each format. And
you'll need two different inserts - one that says "BD" and the other that
says "HD-DVD". Surely you'll acknowledge that one large batch is going to
be cheaper to produce than 2 smaller batches? Say a company wants to
produce 1 million copies of a movie. With 2 formats, they'll do 500k of
one, and 500k of the other. But it would have been cheaper if they only
had to worry about 1 batch of 1 million, instead of 2 smaller, nearly
identical batches of 500k each.
> > Not only
> >doesn't this benefit the consumer, it doesn't benefit the studios!
> The studios and the hardware makers are twit separate entities in
> most cases. Yet more proof that Sony's move was retarded.
Even Sony Studios is separate from Sony's CE division.
But this would mean that the studios will end up paying 2 separate
consortiums for each film they wish to produce - again, more added costs
with no benefit to either the studios or the consumers.
> >It seems the industry expects the consumers to make the choice between
> >Blu-Ray and HD-DVD when they haven't considered the third option -
> You haven't a clue as to what they have and have not considered.
> >consumers ignore both formats and simply leapfrog to the
> >next-next-generation which I guarantee will debut only after it's
> >format-wars have finished.
> There is no "next generation". 1080 IS the final resolution for us
> for at least two decades.
I wasn't thinking resolution - I was thinking medium. We're really
pushing the limits on how much data you can cram onto a fast spinning
piece of plastic. Even my old ATA hard drives can stream data faster than
today's HD-DVD or Blu-Ray drives. And with broadband becoming faster and
more ubiquitous, what if people go with some form of electronic storage
and forego Blu-Ray and HD-DVD altogether? What about flash ROM? We'll
probably see thumb drives capable of 4GB or more by the end of this year.
What's going to happen when you can put 20GB or more onto one
inexepensively? At that point, why not put movies on ROM cartridges? And
then there's holographic storage though that's probably at least a decade
away from any commercial product...
> Whatever. I'm sure my brash responses will yield yet another set of
> "why did you ave to talk to me that way" craptoids. It must have been
> that stupid "beaten as a child" bullshit. Are you in this thread from
> the wrestling group?
No, actually I didn't realize this was being x-posted there. No wonder.
Only trolls seem to inhabit that place...
No, I'm actually over on the sony-videogame group. It's arguably
off-topic for either the xbox or playstation gropus, but since Sony is
basically betting the farm that the PS3 will singlehandedly launch Blu-Ray
into millions of homes this fall, it's worth investigating.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|