And yes, I recall that it was Warner Bros. that finally came down firmly into the Blu-Ray camp, and within a few weeks HDDVD disks were being sold of for less than a fiver.
To be fair that was probably the HD-DVD camps fault. In an attempt to lock Warner into an exclusitivity contract they opened up a counter bid from the Blu camp. Allegedly Warner were leaning towards HD-DVD but were hesitant and wouldn't go exclusive without Fox switching to the HD-DVD camp from Blu Ray. The HD-DVD camp offered Fox a deal which they were close to accepting when the Blu Ray camp offered them something better as well as offering a large bung to Warner. Fox stayed put, Warner went Blu exclusive, and with only two studios behind it HD-DVD had to concede defeat.
If the HD-DVD camp had not made that attempt to end the format war it is likely that it would have dragged on for a while. The Blu Ray camp hadn't seemed too interested in buying exclusivity unless it had to, so either side could have ended up winning. Or we could have just ended up with lots of dual format players.
So were Blu Ray - that's not the point. HD DVD has 30Gb capacity using two layers - BD has 25Gb with one.
BTW, I'm not a BD 'fan boy' - I'm too old for that sort of thing , but I was glad that another format war - a la VHS vs. Betamax ended.
Amen to that :- nobody needed another media war and Tosh. were fairly sensible to admit defeat quickly. My point was simply that I believe Sony overstressed the extra capacity of Blu-Ray discs as a big plus when 30GB can be quite adequate for a film - as far as the extras go, I can take them or leave them.
The HD machine I have is still a more complete performer than the BD player which is two years younger.
Cheers, Mike.
Might be able to read more layers with a firmware update?
You must be joking.
Early Bluray players with no PIP ability or internet connection cannot even be updated for that.
Apart from the PS3 no Bluray players can be updated for 3D.
So you expect a simple OTA upgrade to enable them to do something that would require its laser to work differently ?
Not a chance.
However , its not happening so its no longer an issue
Also Warner was developing a new format called TotalHD . The discs have Blu-ray on 1 side , and HD-DVD on the other , So all there discs would play on either machine.
Obviously , When HD-DVD died so did TotalHD from Warner.
As much as some are going on about capacity , I found that some HD-DVD releases were superior to the Blu-ray counterpart.
Take Face/Off for instance , On Blu-ray , its a vanilla disc , on HD-DVD it had lots of extras. So capacity wasn't always the problem.
Also picture quality and interactivity was more advanced on HD-DVD than Blu-Ray.
And yes I have kept my HD-DVD player as I do have a lot for films for it. Also they are very cheap too now!!
HD DVD had to go because from a tech point of view it was inferior to Blu ray. It hold less storage than blu ray and less bitrate specs as well.
The superior format won in the end backed by almost the entire CE manufactuerers. Toshiba were sucked in by their pride and the sweet whisperings offered to them by Microsoft.
HD DVD had to go because from a tech point of view it was inferior to Blu ray. It hold less storage than blu ray and less bitrate specs as well.
The superior format won in the end backed by almost the entire CE manufactuerers. Toshiba were sucked in by their pride and the sweet whisperings offered to them by Microsoft.
If you mean Toshiba were proud because their players were superior, I'd go along with that.
Mike.
If you mean Toshiba were proud because their players were superior, I'd go along with that.
Mike.
Toshiba thought they could simply bulldoze their way to another format win like how they did with DVD. Remember back then sony was in the rival camp and gave way to toshiba.
This time Sony had the superior format and expected toshiba to give way. Toshiba thought they could simply again push sony aside. Sony was not having it again.
The only reason the vhs vs betamax war ended was because the adult entertainment industry picked VHS
This is a myth .
In the UK the adult interest had zero relevance as soft porn was the only thing allowed and it was cut to 18 levels so legal porn was barely available.
The reason that VHS quickly took over in the UK was down to an agreement between Thorn EMI and JVC who allowed Thorn to use its various brands like Ferguson to badge JVC machines for sale but mainly for rental.
Until the mid 80's most VCR's were rented because they were expensive.
Thorn dominated the rental sector with Visionhire , Radio Rentals , Multibroadcast and DER so if you rented from them you got VHS.
Independents and Granada were the only ones who had Beta for rental and never exclusively.
Even by 1981 when I got my VCR there were more titles to rent on VHS and most rental shops supplied few if any Beta tapes.
By the time machines were cheap enough to buy most people had been using VHS for several years and there was no reason to switch and make your collection obsolete.
Sony rather jealously guarded Beta and it was licenced out to far fewer companies so they really shot themselves in the foot.
While the US market may have been affected by adult video it played no part in the UK at all.
The problem with Blu-ray compared to HD-DVD was it wasn't ready for release, so it came out unfinished and went thought the different profiles to add the features that HD-DVD already had such as picture in picture and internet capability.
I think the final nail in the coffin for HD-DVD was lack of region coding, some of the film companies such as Disney need to have the restrictions so they can control their releases.
No region codes meant too much freedom for the consumer.
The problem with Blu-ray compared to HD-DVD was it wasn't ready for release, so it came out unfinished and went thought the different profiles to add the features that HD-DVD already had such as picture in picture and internet capability.
I think the final nail in the coffin for HD-DVD was lack of region coding, some of the film companies such as Disney need to have the restrictions so they can control their releases.
No region codes meant too much freedom for the consumer.
Region coding was part of the reason some studios gave for not using the format but the final nail in the coffin without a doubt was Warners decision to drop HD DVD after supporting both formats from the start. (and never using coding anyway)
Ironically we see that the majority of US discs , and even more UK ones are region free anyway.
I had an HD DVD player for Star Trek but I was really glad when the war ended as it seriously delayed mainstream acceptance for HD discs .
I was far from alone in delaying my buying into HD while there were 2 formats.
This may have been true in the early days of Profile 1 Bluray players but its certainly not now.
Can't see how you come to that , I will admit that picture wise now that Blu-ray has evolved , they are about the same.
However for interactivity , HD-DVD was miles ahead of Blu-ray at first. Every HD-DVD had internet capabilities , Blu-Ray did not and still not on every player.
Also Blu-ray was rushed released. Firstly people had problems with BD-J disks , Then BD-Live had its problems , and still some players you buy now still do not support BD-Live.
Where as HD-DVD already had HDi (Which was developed by Disney!) and internet interactivity!
However for interactivity , HD-DVD was miles ahead of Blu-ray at first. Every HD-DVD had internet capabilities , Blu-Ray did not and still not on every player.
!
Where's the confusion?
I said it was true in the early days of Profile 1 .
You have just agreed with me.
All Blu players have been Profile 2 since last year .
Profile 2 means they can connect to the internet.
No problem.
I had an HD DVD player but the discs I had with PIP features were very clunky and took a while to settle down if you were using those features.
I find Bluray is far smoother when using PIP.
My multiregion Bluray player is only Profile 1.1 but I've used BD-Live on my PS3 and I can't see any real use for it.
I think it will be as important for Bluray as the multi angle feature was for dvd.
Of course the net connection itself is proving useful for those player with Youtube and Iplayer.
Are any of the standalone Profile 2 players able to connect wirelessly yet ?
... (now £50 -£100 from some stores) I think it won't be long before sales of Blu-Rays out sells DVD's.
Blu Ray players maybe but not the discs so long as they charge a 50% premium for them. The end of purchased media is in sight IMO. My Sony BR player has Lovefilm, YouTube, BBC iPlayerHD, DLNA and various other online mopvie rental companies. Why would you buy a BR or even go out and rent one when you can watch the same movie online, when you want for slightly more than renting but 1/3 the cost of buying?
Blu Ray players maybe but not the discs so long as they charge a 50% premium for them. The end of purchased media is in sight IMO. My Sony BR player has Lovefilm, YouTube, BBC iPlayerHD, DLNA and various other online mopvie rental companies. Why would you buy a BR or even go out and rent one when you can watch the same movie online, when you want for slightly more than renting but 1/3 the cost of buying?
Not sure where you get the 50% premium.
In most cases a Bluray is £1-£3 more than the dvd and often you get a dvd with it too anyway.
Movies I want to keep I want on disc so the idea of downloading them is a non starter and I think that downloads will have very little affect on the buyers market.
However , for renting it will be a useful option and I forsee downloading having a considerable affect on renting although prices will have to change.
£4.49 for an HD rental on the PS Store is a joke.
I use Lovefilm but downloads are always inferior picture quality and I've yet to find one with 5.1 sound let alone HD audio.
The UK broadband network is some years away from making downloads a regular viable large scale alternative.
At the moment only those on the real high speed BB setups can download a movie in a few minutes but as ever , audio and video remains inferior to discs
Comments
Toshiba and NEC as well.
Erm.. probably just you mate...
To be fair that was probably the HD-DVD camps fault. In an attempt to lock Warner into an exclusitivity contract they opened up a counter bid from the Blu camp. Allegedly Warner were leaning towards HD-DVD but were hesitant and wouldn't go exclusive without Fox switching to the HD-DVD camp from Blu Ray. The HD-DVD camp offered Fox a deal which they were close to accepting when the Blu Ray camp offered them something better as well as offering a large bung to Warner. Fox stayed put, Warner went Blu exclusive, and with only two studios behind it HD-DVD had to concede defeat.
If the HD-DVD camp had not made that attempt to end the format war it is likely that it would have dragged on for a while. The Blu Ray camp hadn't seemed too interested in buying exclusivity unless it had to, so either side could have ended up winning. Or we could have just ended up with lots of dual format players.
So were Blu Ray - that's not the point. HD DVD has 30Gb capacity using two layers - BD has 25Gb with one.
BTW, I'm not a BD 'fan boy' - I'm too old for that sort of thing
The HD machine I have is still a more complete performer than the BD player which is two years younger.
Cheers, Mike.
Not sure about HDDVD but if there had been more than 2 layers of Bluray , no players currently available would be able to read them anyway.
Early Bluray players with no PIP ability or internet connection cannot even be updated for that.
Apart from the PS3 no Bluray players can be updated for 3D.
So you expect a simple OTA upgrade to enable them to do something that would require its laser to work differently ?
Not a chance.
However , its not happening so its no longer an issue
The only reason the vhs vs betamax war ended was because the adult entertainment industry picked VHS
Obviously , When HD-DVD died so did TotalHD from Warner.
As much as some are going on about capacity , I found that some HD-DVD releases were superior to the Blu-ray counterpart.
Take Face/Off for instance , On Blu-ray , its a vanilla disc , on HD-DVD it had lots of extras. So capacity wasn't always the problem.
Also picture quality and interactivity was more advanced on HD-DVD than Blu-Ray.
And yes I have kept my HD-DVD player as I do have a lot for films for it. Also they are very cheap too now!!
The superior format won in the end backed by almost the entire CE manufactuerers. Toshiba were sucked in by their pride and the sweet whisperings offered to them by Microsoft.
If you mean Toshiba were proud because their players were superior, I'd go along with that.
Mike.
Toshiba thought they could simply bulldoze their way to another format win like how they did with DVD. Remember back then sony was in the rival camp and gave way to toshiba.
This time Sony had the superior format and expected toshiba to give way. Toshiba thought they could simply again push sony aside. Sony was not having it again.
This is a myth .
In the UK the adult interest had zero relevance as soft porn was the only thing allowed and it was cut to 18 levels so legal porn was barely available.
The reason that VHS quickly took over in the UK was down to an agreement between Thorn EMI and JVC who allowed Thorn to use its various brands like Ferguson to badge JVC machines for sale but mainly for rental.
Until the mid 80's most VCR's were rented because they were expensive.
Thorn dominated the rental sector with Visionhire , Radio Rentals , Multibroadcast and DER so if you rented from them you got VHS.
Independents and Granada were the only ones who had Beta for rental and never exclusively.
Even by 1981 when I got my VCR there were more titles to rent on VHS and most rental shops supplied few if any Beta tapes.
By the time machines were cheap enough to buy most people had been using VHS for several years and there was no reason to switch and make your collection obsolete.
Sony rather jealously guarded Beta and it was licenced out to far fewer companies so they really shot themselves in the foot.
While the US market may have been affected by adult video it played no part in the UK at all.
This may have been true in the early days of Profile 1 Bluray players but its certainly not now.
I think the final nail in the coffin for HD-DVD was lack of region coding, some of the film companies such as Disney need to have the restrictions so they can control their releases.
No region codes meant too much freedom for the consumer.
Region coding was part of the reason some studios gave for not using the format but the final nail in the coffin without a doubt was Warners decision to drop HD DVD after supporting both formats from the start. (and never using coding anyway)
Ironically we see that the majority of US discs , and even more UK ones are region free anyway.
I had an HD DVD player for Star Trek but I was really glad when the war ended as it seriously delayed mainstream acceptance for HD discs .
I was far from alone in delaying my buying into HD while there were 2 formats.
Can't see how you come to that , I will admit that picture wise now that Blu-ray has evolved , they are about the same.
However for interactivity , HD-DVD was miles ahead of Blu-ray at first. Every HD-DVD had internet capabilities , Blu-Ray did not and still not on every player.
Also Blu-ray was rushed released. Firstly people had problems with BD-J disks , Then BD-Live had its problems , and still some players you buy now still do not support BD-Live.
Where as HD-DVD already had HDi (Which was developed by Disney!) and internet interactivity!
Where's the confusion?
I said it was true in the early days of Profile 1 .
You have just agreed with me.
All Blu players have been Profile 2 since last year .
Profile 2 means they can connect to the internet.
Sorry I actually mis-read what you put!!;)
No problem.
I had an HD DVD player but the discs I had with PIP features were very clunky and took a while to settle down if you were using those features.
I find Bluray is far smoother when using PIP.
My multiregion Bluray player is only Profile 1.1 but I've used BD-Live on my PS3 and I can't see any real use for it.
I think it will be as important for Bluray as the multi angle feature was for dvd.
Of course the net connection itself is proving useful for those player with Youtube and Iplayer.
Are any of the standalone Profile 2 players able to connect wirelessly yet ?
Blu Ray players maybe but not the discs so long as they charge a 50% premium for them. The end of purchased media is in sight IMO. My Sony BR player has Lovefilm, YouTube, BBC iPlayerHD, DLNA and various other online mopvie rental companies. Why would you buy a BR or even go out and rent one when you can watch the same movie online, when you want for slightly more than renting but 1/3 the cost of buying?
I think Samsung have done one.
Found one at Tesco
Panasonic DMP-BD65EB-K £149.99
http://direct.tesco.com/q/R.209-9822.aspx
Not sure where you get the 50% premium.
In most cases a Bluray is £1-£3 more than the dvd and often you get a dvd with it too anyway.
Movies I want to keep I want on disc so the idea of downloading them is a non starter and I think that downloads will have very little affect on the buyers market.
However , for renting it will be a useful option and I forsee downloading having a considerable affect on renting although prices will have to change.
£4.49 for an HD rental on the PS Store is a joke.
I use Lovefilm but downloads are always inferior picture quality and I've yet to find one with 5.1 sound let alone HD audio.
The UK broadband network is some years away from making downloads a regular viable large scale alternative.
At the moment only those on the real high speed BB setups can download a movie in a few minutes but as ever , audio and video remains inferior to discs