Recent Comments:
Black Friday Giveaways (part 13): Slingbox Pro + HD Connect Cable {Engadget HD}
Nov 25th 2007 10:25PM
This would totally compel me to buy a TiVo HD finally...
Black Friday Giveaways (part 12): Sony PSP {Engadget}
Nov 25th 2007 10:23PM
I am very happy that the PSP is having quite the comeback as of recent. I've always [positively] viewed the PSP as the successor to the Atari Lynx. What I would use this PSP for is for my friends to use it when they were over to play against me on my current PSP.
I also think if Sony goes ahead and adds Divx/Xvid playback to the PSP [as is already planned for the PS3] then there's gonna be a whole new slew of PSP owners...
Black Friday Giveaways (part 19): Wii + Metroid Prime 3 and more {Engadget}
Nov 25th 2007 10:19PM
If I win, I'm going to give the machine to my father. Perhaps the much hyped "fitness benefits" of the Wii games with the Wiimote will prove positive for his diabetes. I might actually let him win some of the competitive games too, since he pretty much lost interest in competing against me in video games when I finally started beating him at "Combat" and "Outlaw" on the family's trusty Atari 2600 circa 1981. :)
HD DVD and Blu-ray releases on November 13th, 2007 {Engadget HD}
Nov 13th 2007 1:08AM @mloddy11
I merely pointed out that *Night at the Museum* on Blu-ray looked good even though it was MPEG-2, just like many of the first Blu-ray releases. I'd much rather it had been encoded in AVC, and that is why I only rented it instead of purchasing it.
As for a quality comparison between VC-1 and AVC, I would welcome such a comparison if the studios would provide it. Hell, if Warner would just up the bit rate on their VC-1 transfers for Blu-ray, that would also be acceptable, but they are not interested in doing as such since it would cost extra, and again, it is not in Warner's interest to make the Blu-ray versions the best. I would really like it if the upcoming *Blade Runner* Blu-ray release were encoded in a higher bit rate on either VC-1 or AVC, but alas, it ain't happening. Maybe by the time of the double-dip release...
Now, back to the film grain issue from my prior posts. Watch NBC's *Chuck* in HD. The picture is not as clear as say *Heroes* in HD. It all depends on the studio, not to mention the preferences of the production team, the DP, and the director him/herself.
HD DVD nearing the half million mark in standalone player sales? {Engadget HD}
Nov 13th 2007 12:53AM
I bought my PS3 because it was the best Blu-ray player at the time (and still is) as well as a next-gen game system all wrapped up into one. And let me assure you that I watch Blu-ray movies on it...both purchased as well as rented through NetFlix. And I am not in the minority.
And yes, it is hooked up to an HDTV, thank you very much.
If anyone wishes to anecdotally disprove that statistic spread by Microsoft and Toshiba, just stand in the Blu-ray section of your local Best Buy or Frys and ask the customers buying the Blu-ray movies what player they own. Based on the stats, probably 70% - or more - are PS3 owners. I know I asked when I was buying *300* on its release date and they were all PS3 owners.
HD DVD nearing the half million mark in standalone player sales? {Engadget HD}
Nov 12th 2007 8:44PM
I really don't believe that claimed statistic that stated that only 40% of Sony Playstation3 owners knew the unit could play Blu-ray discs. But even if that was true at the time of the survey and still true today, that's 2.4 million Playstation3 owners [based upon 6 million sold] that know their console can play movies in high def.
Let me repeat that... 2.4 million Playstation3 owners versus 700k HD DVD owners between stand alone Toshiba players and the Toshiba-built HD DVD add-on drive for the Xbox360.
2.4 million > 700k.
Toshiba has a long ways to go to catch up while hoping that the cheaper PS3s don't sell and nobody else buys a stand-alone Blu-ray player. Good luck with that.
HD DVD and Blu-ray releases on November 13th, 2007 {Engadget HD}
Nov 12th 2007 8:33PM @Kris
I stand corrected. You are an uninformed owner. Film grain has nothing to do with the capabilities of the format or the codec. If there is "heavy" film grain, then it is the fault of the studio. Perhaps they were using old HD masters for the transfer. Perhaps they didn't come up with a new film print. Not every flick you buy is going to be treated pristine with a new transfer or digital scrubbing per frame of film as what was done to the original *Star Wars* Trilogy for its last DVD release or MGM with the James Bond classic library. If you read the forums, Universal is taking a lot of criticism for just throwing catalog titles onto HD DVD without doing decent transfers. So no, that has nothing to do with the format. *Click* may have looked like crap, but I never saw it in the theatre so I have no basis for comparing the Blu-ray release to the original theatrical experience on opening night with a virgin film stock copy. But I'll tell you that *Night at the Museum* on Blu-ray looked damn good and it only used MPEG-2 for its codec.
If you have the first version of *The Fifth Element* on Blu-ray, you can send it in to Sony and they'll replace it with the remastered version encoded in AVC which is the superior codec. You know, the codec that is primarily the one used on all current non-Warner Bros. Blu-ray releases. The codec so good that Paramount ended up using it on HD DVD for *Transformers* but ran out of disc space so they could not offer uncompressed audio. Had it been released on Blu-ray, Paramount could have cranked up the bit rate for the video quality and still kept the uncompressed audio.
And as for bad transfers, that was also the case in the early days of DVD. Lots of film grain on those early releases, especially on Schwarzenegger titles like *Predator* and *Conan the Barbarian* for example.
You act like Sony is "screwing" you because your SHARP Blu-ray player doesn't support Profile 1.1. Here's a newsflash for you, Sharp is not Sony and Sony isn't the entire Blu-ray Disc Association. Unlike with HD DVD, more than one company makes Blu-ray players.
As for video quality between the two standards, I'd love to see a "neutral" company like Warner Home Video give us a real comparison...say for example releasing the same title on both formats, but use VC-1 only on HD DVD and then offer a high bit rate version using AVC on Blu-ray. Of course, Warner Home Video won't do that because the higher quality of Blu-ray would be evident. Paramount could have done the same back when they supported both formats, but alas, Paramount generally used VC-1 for HD DVD and MPEG-2 [and not AVC] for Blu-ray.
@Eddie
HD DVD is the "format of the people"? Really? You must be talking about the people of Redmond, Washington on the Microsoft payrolls. I bet you think that the Microsoft Zune is the MP3 player of the people too.
HD DVD and Blu-ray releases on November 13th, 2007 {Engadget HD}
Nov 12th 2007 3:24PM @Kris
Half-baked format? You are a total fanboi. Get back to me when HD DVD has the storage capacity of Blu-ray, the transfer rate of Blu-ray, the ability to have higher bit rates for video and uncompressed audio (*Transformers* proved HD DVD couldn't) all on the same release, and a useful feature like applying a scratch-resistant coating on all discs standard.
I could care less for useless features like PiP. Sony can add that along with all the other Profile 1.1 features with a simple firmware update to the PS3. Your Toshiba HD DVD player will never receive an update that can match Blu-ray's transfer rates via a firmware update. That's the difference. Don't blame me and the people who chose Blu-ray just because you chose the last-gen side whose only hope of survival is proletariat pricing and Microsoft subsidies/payola.
MGM takes 'Ronin' and 'Red Dawn' off the table for 2007 {Engadget HD}
Nov 12th 2007 2:44PM
Fox is also pricing their Blu-ray titles with MSRPs up in the clouds just as they did in the early days of DVD. They must think the words "Fox" means they can charge a premium.
Granted, in terms of Blu-ray releases, at least Fox is using AVC as the codec [on most of their titles], unlike say Warner Home Video which uses the same low bit VC-1 encoding on their HD DVD releases. After all, Warner can't give the impression that Blu-ray has the ability to present a better picture than HD DVD, now can it? That would be like shooting themselves in the foot in terms of their projected patent revenues from that format...
MGM takes 'Ronin' and 'Red Dawn' off the table for 2007 {Engadget HD}
Nov 12th 2007 2:38PM
Fox wasn't the most prolific releaser of titles back in the early days of DVD. First, they supported Circuit City's DIVX, and then begrudgingly supported DVD with titles with bad transfers.
MGM released more titles on DVD back in the day when Warner Home Video controlled its distribution. Of course, Warner had a piece of the patent pie in terms of DVD so they had a vested interest in ensuring that the format survived in its early days. The same goes for HD DVD today in terms of Warner Home Video and how it profits off of Blu-ray but treats Blu-ray owners with contempt based upon their unequal releases.
