HD-DVD is Dead (was: First Signs of Blu-Ray Dominance)

[Aus_Snow]

Why?

Disclaimer: I'm not one of them. . .

But I can see how DVDs being so easily scratched, with their data being exposed like that, are more vulnerable (and therefore unworthy?) than video cassettes.

Other than that, I got nothin'.

Though it reminds me of this guy I met years ago who preferred tapes to CDs, because they are more 'warm' or some #&@!. I think that was the angle. Eh, whatever.

 

[drothgery]

The only reason DVD has become outdated as far as size is concerned is because of HD. For the most part, DVD is still fine for PC data storage, and SD video storage.

It's my understanding that most movies could fit on a double-layer DVD even in HD, given a high-compression codec (like WMV), and virtually all could fit on a double-sided/double-layer DVD. Now, if you want to encode an HD movie with the same codecs that are typically used for DVDs, that won't fit on a DVD. But almost no one does that (pretty much nothing except some early Blu-Ray movies).

 

[Orius]

I still use VHS, it's a pretty cheap way of recording programs, but I think it'll soon reach the point of obsolesence for me. For actually watching stuff, DVD is usually better (lasts longer and with better quality too, can more easily skip to a certain scene, etc.).

I didn't use CDs until a few years ago either, largely because of a lack of recording options. I still use cassettes for listening, but only in cases were the cassette is my only copy, or if I just want background music and not specific tracks. If I like the music, why should I throw it out if it's not on a CD or an .mp3? Cassettes still have their niche too, I've read they're still popular for audiobooks, because unlike a CD, you can simply stop the cassette and pick up where you left off.

I don't fear technology at all, but sometimes the older stuff has a certain appeal that newer stuff just can't emulate. The best example I can think of is books. I really prefer reading from a book than off a screen.

 

[John Crichton]

I don't fear technology at all, but sometimes the older stuff has a certain appeal that newer stuff just can't emulate. The best example I can think of is books. I really prefer reading from a book than off a screen.

I hear that. PDFs that I get for work and even short things like cover letters and resumes I still like to print out and read.

 

[Bront]

Disclaimer: I'm not one of them. . .

But I can see how DVDs being so easily scratched, with their data being exposed like that, are more vulnerable (and therefore unworthy?) than video cassettes.

Other than that, I got nothin'.

Though it reminds me of this guy I met years ago who preferred tapes to CDs, because they are more 'warm' or some #&@!. I think that was the angle. Eh, whatever.

It's more of "I'm happy with VHS, so why should I change?" I think. Also, they didn't have any room for one in their stereo cabinet.

I still use VHS to record stuff, as, since I have it, it's cheeper than DVR or a DVD recorder. We also don't record to many shows though.

And I know what you mean about the "Warm"ness of sound, though that's usually reserved for LPs over CDs, not Tapes. However, I haven't had a working tape player outside of a car since 2001, and haven't had one at all since 2007. The only thing I have on tape I still want is the origional radio broadcast of Hitchhikers Guide (which varries from the book reads, other versions of the radio play I've heard, and the BBC movie ages ago. I won't even mention the other perversion).

 

[Bront]

I hear that. PDFs that I get for work and even short things like cover letters and resumes I still like to print out and read.

I'll take hard copy over PDF just about any time.

Unless I have to do a search in one of them

 

[Banshee16]

Disclaimer: I'm not one of them. . .

But I can see how DVDs being so easily scratched, with their data being exposed like that, are more vulnerable (and therefore unworthy?) than video cassettes.

Other than that, I got nothin'.

Though it reminds me of this guy I met years ago who preferred tapes to CDs, because they are more 'warm' or some #&@!. I think that was the angle. Eh, whatever.

Maybe they like the sound of the scratches on the record? I don't know...

I wonder sometimes if the difference is largely just nostalgia for the older technology? I look at my VHS tapes, and compare them against my DVDs and they're lacking in picture quality, sound, and the whole thing with needing to rewind or fast forward is just a royal pain.

Banshee

 

[Rackhir]

FWIW here's a guide to Blu-Ray movies in terms of their picture quality (not of how good a movie they are).

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858316

One note, the same "master" is generally used for both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD movies. At least where the same movie is released for both formats. Often the same compression is used as well. So differences in picture quality between the formats is usually going to come down to the player and/or TV being used, IF there is any visible.

 

[Simon Atavax]

*yawn*

Wake me when the format war is over. I don't have the money to sink into either format to risk watching it go obsolete in two years. Besides, DVD is still good enough for me at this point.

Well said. My wife and I finally bought a DVD player when we realized that all the good movies at the video store were *only* coming out in DVD.

That's when we'll switch to BluRay / HD DVD. When one of them is the *dominant* format at the video store.

 

[Tharkun]

Frankly, the whole idea of a format war is dumb to begin with. I'm not sure why it's needed. If I'm happy with my HDDVD player, and you're happy with your Blu-Ray player, why don't we each just buy disks in the appropriate technology? This whole idea of Warner and Disney and all these companies having exclusivity deals is just dumb.

I think it's about controlling the channels that sell discs, you can't maximize profits if you have an opposing format. Remember America is a capitalist country and that means profit is what is important not compatibility.