Walmart: $98.87 Toshiba HD DVD Player

Walmart has yet again proved that it can afford to make ludicrous price drops and leave the competition dazed. I was trying to figure out yesterday why there was no longer a mention of an HD DVD player over at Walmart's website. The answer came in the form of an excited post by one of our members on the forums. This Friday, don't be surprised to hear reports of a human stampede towards your local Walmart store.

The largest grocery retailer in the United States has done the unthinkable by pricing an HD DVD player, which not so long ago cost half a grand, within only 2 digits. That's right, forget Toshiba's sub-$200 HD-A2 and embrace the sub-$100 HD-A2. The device may be an outdated product, but it will definitely be sold out before the holidays. The fact that Toshiba (or Sony for that matter) has yet to start cutting prices in time for the shopping craze that is December is probably the most important piece of information here. The recent price cuts have been all done by retailers and they chose HD DVD.

UPDATE: Best Buy joins the club

View: Friday Specials
Link: Forum Discussion (Thanks Boz)

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google Goes OpenSocial to Trump Facebook

Next Story

Wal-Mart Sells $199 Linux Computer

106 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.


I got the last one in all of northern Chicago burbs!! Geez this was hard to find. I had to call around to tons of stores before finally finding a store that had two. By the time I got there they only had one which I nearly lost out on if I had been 3 minutes later (sorry to the guy who got there after me).

They had them sitting up in front with no prices or product cards at all so I guess you had to "be in the know" in order to be searching them out. Oddly enough I got it right in front of a guy who was there before me and buying a much more expensive HD player and had no idea the Toshiba was going for $98! It pays to be informed!!

You know... This deal would have been great... If it wasn't for the people taking ALL the HD-DVDs at once. There were a couple people with a HUGE stack of them in their carts... Heck, there were only a few people in line, but they had a HUGE stock of them /w them and they were sold out after that.

Depressing. The only people that got them are the ones that want to make a quick buck. =/

Are the prices of individual HD DVD's/Blu-Ray supposed to drop anytime soon? paying 25-30 bucks a movie scares me much more than dropping a few hundred for the player

Just got back from walmart

Asked them about the HD DVD player, they said they had no idea what was talking about , and didn't even know they were selling one for that cheap tomarrow

They were either Lying or they have not been iformed by the company

In anycase I hid a copy of transformers HD behind another movie just so I have a chance off getting it if, the HDVD thing turns out ot be real

If it turns out to be real? Of course it's real, they are running national ads on television and have it right on their web site. The employee probably just didn't know anything about it, which isn't really surprising. Retail employees being wrong about things is nothing unusual.

It's kinda expensive; don't you think? I can get one of those brown plastic doorstops at the hardware store for $1.98.
Thanks, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitresses!

Wow. Just...Wow.

If I didn't get the 360 attachment, I would be all over this.

Bye, bye Blu-Ray!


Normally I don't like people using big fonts with different colors and ALL CAPS, but this is an exception. Great find!

Everybody arguing over wich format is better. I don't care its a $100 hd-dvd player That would allow me to wacth planet earth, transformers,matrix, and some other movies that are out now for hd-dvd.

I am happy with that.

Gimme a sub$200 dual format player and I'll snatch it in a heartbeat - that's really what the majority of consumers want and are ready to pay for. I hope it will make fanboys stfu too. I personally am ready to wait a year for it if it takes that long. There's no urge to upgrade. While video quality is important both DVD2.0 formats fail to significantly improve audio and quite honestly, there wasn't much they could do. Regular DVD still offers decent image and excellent audio quality which is equally important to me!

so they've got a cheap outdated high def drive, i'm still not sinking my money into either until its clear the format wont be dead in a year. its not just about the player, its the movies too. no sense having to have an extra player sitting on my shelf taking up space and lookin ugly to play a couple movies I bought in a 12 month period.

Still not buying into any of this new format crap yet. I am just fine with my plain dvd's. I just want to watch the movie not look at more crap.

Wrong. If HD DVD were as confident as you are that they've 'won', they would have had no reason for these price drops.

Fanboys suck because they want someone to 'win'. They fail to realise that it's precisely because of the format war why these prices are dropping so rapidly.

As a consumer, I am grateful for the competition.

Lt-DavidW said,
Wrong. If HD DVD were as confident as you are that they've 'won', they would have had no reason for these price drops.

Fanboys suck because they want someone to 'win'. They fail to realise that it's precisely because of the format war why these prices are dropping so rapidly.

As a consumer, I am grateful for the competition.

Umm, who on earth is this conscious "HD DVD" entity you mention? Wal-Mart dropped the price, not Toshiba or "HD DVD", whoever that may be to you.

illz55 said,

Umm, who on earth is this conscious "HD DVD" entity you mention? Wal-Mart dropped the price, not Toshiba or "HD DVD", whoever that may be to you.


I did not state that HD DVD is a conscious entity, and cannot fathom why you would assume I believe such a ludicrous idea. To make it clear for you, I understand that HD DVD is an optical disc format. Besides, whether or not HD DVD is a conscious entity is circumstantial and irrelevant to the validity of my stated claims in favour of competition.

Taken the premise that 'HD DVD' refers to the format's manufacturers and backers, there is only one reason I can think of why HD DVD would gain an advantage in lowering their prices so quickly. That one reason I can think of is to gain a higher market share.

Therefore, it is logical to deduce that the prices may have been lowered in order to compete with rival Blu Ray (which is also not an existential being).

Every redneck in America, which is about 98% of the US population will now own a Wal-Mart HD-DVD player. Guess the war is won.

PS..I'm an american redneck.

Love,
Amino


AminoSC said,
Every redneck in America, which is about 98% of the US population will now own a Wal-Mart HD-DVD player. Guess the war is won.

PS..I'm an american redneck.

Love,
Amino

ty amino for bringing this into persepctive perfectly...while the rest of you rant and have a digital jihad over bd vs. hd-dvd here's what happened in my world yesterday...mom who bought her 1080i crap hdtv at walmart saw the ad and called and said...that'll work with my tv right...i said yes of course mom and she's gonna get one and care less about not having the top of the line this or that...and there's millions of moms and families out there that will make the same decision

I hope people realize what the specs are that your paying for on this player. If you have a HD tv with 1080P and you buy a 1080i player and watch movies, your not getting all your moneys worth out of that tv AND the movie you just bought so why bother at all. People have to make sure they match this stuff up properly. Im beginning to think this is a desperate move to rid these craptastic players. Who in their right mind would waste their money on one anyway? If your going to get into HD, go 1080p, not 1080i or 720P. I understand cable and sat HD channels are 1080i and 720p but a 1080p HD tv is capable of all 3 99% of the time.

Bottom line, wait for the 1080p players to come down in price like this one is now and then make the purchase, otherwise its money wasted. Why pay for an outdated and limited product in terms of specs and features?

On the otherhand if your rich I guess you can afford it.

God the ignorance! How many times.. this is exactly the type of thing why I hate BDA crap and all that full HD crap.

sk11vengeance, since you obviously don't know a lot I will enlighten you.

1080i and 1080p THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY if your 1080p TV has a solid deinterlacing and most who want quality TV as you say will have a solid TV. The rest is ABSOLUTELY the same.

Here educate yourself:
http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymor...7061080iv1080p/

Second, there is absolutely NOTHING outdated with A2 player. A2 and A3 are exactly the same player except for the fact that A3 is a bit slimmer and actually cheaper to produce. The electronics are exactly the same.

If anything by HD DVD standards EVERY HD DVD player HAS to support TrueHD and DD+ 1.5 audio with ethernet (online support) and HDi standard for advanced interactivity with dual video decoders for Picture-in-Picture functionality. All of the features that this "obsolete" player has, there isn't 1 Blu-Ray player on the market that can do that even at 2-3 times higher prices.

Let me enlighten you. Profile 1.0 players are incapable of proper interactivity and most of them in the $399-$499 don't even have DTS-MA and high-res audio except PCM (uncompressed) and inferior DD+ 640.

THE ONLY 2 units that might be capable of matching even the "obsolete" A2 features are newly announced $499 Panasonic Blu-Ray player with Profile 1.1 (aka Bonus View now) and PS3 (without officially announced Profile 1.1 update). Other players are ALL Profile 1.0 meaning that no new discs from studios who incorporate additional features like PiP, interactivity and online access will not be available as Profile 1.0 don't have BONUS VIEW. Actually not even the newest announced Profile 1.1 Panasonic has ethernet access.

So how in the hell is a player that offers EVERYTHING that the LATEST Blu-Ray player offers and MORE can be considered "obsolete"?

The ONLY thing obsolete is ALL Blu-Ray players except possibly PS3 and this new Panasonic as the Profile 1.0 player profile support ENDED yesterday. The deadline was for today as ANY new player that comes out has to be Profile 1.1. All new titles coming out will use 1.1 features (BONUS VIEW) that you will not be able to access via your Profile 1.0 player.

My friend, before you stop dissing something, try to understand what you are talking about, cause you sound lke you are talking...well you know.. out of your ass.

Boz said,
God the ignorance! How many times.. this is exactly the type of thing why I hate BDA crap and all that full HD crap.

sk11vengeance, since you obviously don't know a lot I will enlighten you.

1080i and 1080p THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN QUALITY if your 1080p TV has a solid deinterlacing and most who want quality TV as you say will have a solid TV. The rest is ABSOLUTELY the same.

Here educate yourself:
http://blog.hometheatermag.com/geoffreymor...7061080iv1080p/

Second, there is absolutely NOTHING outdated with A2 player. A2 and A3 are exactly the same player except for the fact that A3 is a bit slimmer and actually cheaper to produce. The electronics are exactly the same.

If anything by HD DVD standards EVERY HD DVD player HAS to support TrueHD and DD+ 1.5 audio with ethernet (online support) and HDi standard for advanced interactivity with dual video decoders for Picture-in-Picture functionality. All of the features that this "obsolete" player has, there isn't 1 Blu-Ray player on the market that can do that even at 2-3 times higher prices.

Let me enlighten you. Profile 1.0 players are incapable of proper interactivity and most of them in the $399-$499 don't even have DTS-MA and high-res audio except PCM (uncompressed) and inferior DD+ 640.

THE ONLY 2 units that might be capable of matching even the "obsolete" A2 features are newly announced $499 Panasonic Blu-Ray player with Profile 1.1 (aka Bonus View now) and PS3 (without officially announced Profile 1.1 update). Other players are ALL Profile 1.0 meaning that no new discs from studios who incorporate additional features like PiP, interactivity and online access will not be available as Profile 1.0 don't have BONUS VIEW. Actually not even the newest announced Profile 1.1 Panasonic has ethernet access.

So how in the hell is a player that offers EVERYTHING that the LATEST Blu-Ray player offers and MORE can be considered "obsolete"?

The ONLY thing obsolete is ALL Blu-Ray players except possibly PS3 and this new Panasonic as the Profile 1.0 player profile support ENDED yesterday. The deadline was for today as ANY new player that comes out has to be Profile 1.1. All new titles coming out will use 1.1 features (BONUS VIEW) that you will not be able to access via your Profile 1.0 player.

My friend, before you stop dissing something, try to understand what you are talking about, cause you sound lke you are talking...well you know.. out of your ass.

There is a difference in 1080i/p. Maybe not to your eyes but on a good display properly setup there is a difference, otherwise there wouldnt be all these varieties in the players that you see. Also I do believe that the electronics are different, theres higher quality video chips in the 1080p model players. Audio chips is the same as well. If it IS the same electronics in all the players from the lowest priced to the highest priced one, either HD DVD or Bluray, its "deactivated" some how unless its hackable by a firmware flash or something. But I doubt they would sell those low cost players with those high cost advanced chips in them that are for the 1080p hdmi 1.3a video standards and all the lossless and pcm surround stuff.

Also remember all LCD and plasma tv's display different sources differently. One LCD or Plasma may look better at 1080i than 1080p. Its just all about how its made, what type of panel and chips it has, etc. Also calibration of the tv can make a big difference.

sk11vengeance said,
There is a difference in 1080i/p. Maybe not to your eyes but on a good display properly setup there is a difference, otherwise there wouldnt be all these varieties in the players that you see. Also I do believe that the electronics are different, theres higher quality video chips in the 1080p model players. Audio chips is the same as well. If it IS the same electronics in all the players from the lowest priced to the highest priced one, either HD DVD or Bluray, its "deactivated" some how unless its hackable by a firmware flash or something. But I doubt they would sell those low cost players with those high cost advanced chips in them that are for the 1080p hdmi 1.3a video standards and all the lossless and pcm surround stuff.

Also remember all LCD and plasma tv's display different sources differently. One LCD or Plasma may look better at 1080i than 1080p. Its just all about how its made, what type of panel and chips it has, etc. Also calibration of the tv can make a big difference.

Obviously you have decided to keep your own opinion despite the facts that reputable experts say otherwise.

Okay, whatever. You just go ahead and keep buying Blu-ray and watch it to admire that 0.00000000000001% difference in quality YOU MIGHT see for $400 more is all I can say really.

Some people just don't really have any contact with reality.

Boz said,
Obviously you have decided to keep your own opinion despite the facts that reputable experts say otherwise.

Okay, whatever. You just go ahead and keep buying Blu-ray and watch it to admire that 0.00000000000001% difference in quality YOU MIGHT see for $400 more is all I can say really.

Some people just don't really have any contact with reality.


Hey man, chill. Im not sideing with any HD format. I dont own either if you must know. And I read that info in that webpage, all of which I already know, except the math part :P
Anyway at the end of the article is what im exactly talking about. I'll quote it for you:

"The only time you would see a difference is if you have native 1080p/60 content, which at this point would only come from a PC and maybe the PS3. 1080p/60 does have more information than 1080i/30, but unless you're a gamer you will probably never see native 1080p/60 content. It is incredibly unlikely that they will ever broadcast 1080p (too much bandwidth) or that 1080p/60 content will show up on discs (too much storage space and no one is using it to record/film)."

Now I disagree with him that 1080p will never be broadcasted in cable and sat, because it will when the bandwdith improves with newer technology in the future. Just look at the recent developments in the prototype discs which hold 100's of gigs of data. Terabyte hard drives. Its all there, just in the future, and when its affordable.

Don't sweat Boz. Here's more disproven lies:
The ONLY thing obsolete is ALL Blu-Ray players except possibly PS3 and this new Panasonic as the Profile 1.0 player profile support ENDED yesterday. The deadline was for today as ANY new player that comes out has to be Profile 1.1. All new titles coming out will use 1.1 features (BONUS VIEW) that you will not be able to access via your Profile 1.0 player.

In what the studio is dubbing "Enhanced Viewing Mode," the Blu-ray disc's picture-in-picture feature will make full use of the secondary video decoding capabilities of Profile 1.1-compliant Blu-ray players. Furthermore, the disc will also be the first to utilize Profile 1.1's live audio mixing abilities as well, with a "Surround Sound Mixer" feature that allows users to switch sound sources between main and secondary windows and "remix the audio of a scene from the movie.

(Note that we've received confirmation from Fox that the disc will be fully playable even in non-Profile 1.1-compliant Blu-ray players. The video portion of the "Enhanced Viewing Mode" will be viewable in a full-screen mode at standard DVD resolution (480p) only, while the "Surround Sound Mixer" feature will not be functional.)

Sounds like access to me. Not to mention all the other standard bonus features that are on discs like Spider-Man 3 and the Pirates trilogy.


Par for the course of a supporter of the format that's "The Look and Sound of Good Enough"

1080i = 1.2 million active pixels, interlaced, flickering visible on fine detail.

1080p = 2.1 million active pixels, progressive, no flickering (unless in source).

First we hear how lossless audio doesn't matter on Transformers, despite HD DVD folks saying that Dolby TrueHD was "mandatory" for HD DVD and not Blu-ray. Irony is that the "optional" format has far, far more lossless audio titles and the mandatory format has less than 10% of it's titles with lossless audio.

Nor that 50GB doesn't matter (the reason lossless audio isn't on Transformers)

...and now 1080p doesn't matter. Surprise surprise surprise.

HD DVD: you get what you pay for.

PeterTHX said,
Don't sweat Boz. Here's more disproven lies:
The ONLY thing obsolete is ALL Blu-Ray players except possibly PS3 and this new Panasonic as the Profile 1.0 player profile support ENDED yesterday. The deadline was for today as ANY new player that comes out has to be Profile 1.1. All new titles coming out will use 1.1 features (BONUS VIEW) that you will not be able to access via your Profile 1.0 player.

In what the studio is dubbing "Enhanced Viewing Mode," the Blu-ray disc's picture-in-picture feature will make full use of the secondary video decoding capabilities of Profile 1.1-compliant Blu-ray players. Furthermore, the disc will also be the first to utilize Profile 1.1's live audio mixing abilities as well, with a "Surround Sound Mixer" feature that allows users to switch sound sources between main and secondary windows and "remix the audio of a scene from the movie.

(Note that we've received confirmation from Fox that the disc will be fully playable even in non-Profile 1.1-compliant Blu-ray players. The video portion of the "Enhanced Viewing Mode" will be viewable in a full-screen mode at standard DVD resolution (480p) only, while the "Surround Sound Mixer" feature will not be functional.)

Sounds like access to me. Not to mention all the other standard bonus features that are on discs like Spider-Man 3 and the Pirates trilogy.


Par for the course of a supporter of the format that's "The Look and Sound of Good Enough"

1080i = 1.2 million active pixels, interlaced, flickering visible on fine detail.

1080p = 2.1 million active pixels, progressive, no flickering (unless in source).

First we hear how lossless audio doesn't matter on Transformers, despite HD DVD folks saying that Dolby TrueHD was "mandatory" for HD DVD and not Blu-ray. Irony is that the "optional" format has far, far more lossless audio titles and the mandatory format has less than 10% of it's titles with lossless audio.

Nor that 50GB doesn't matter (the reason lossless audio isn't on Transformers)

...and now 1080p doesn't matter. Surprise surprise surprise.

HD DVD: you get what you pay for.


I'm sorry, you just proved yourself wrong. Boz stated that there would be 1.1 features that (obviously) wouldn't play on a 1.0 player; and you just named one. Surround Sound Mixer.

Since not many films are recorded (encoded) in 1080p anyway... why is a 1080p player mandatory? The player is $100, it's not even a major investment, quite frankly why would you pay quadruple the price to get a player that does something that... no film uses right now?


I'm sorry, you just proved yourself wrong. Boz stated that there would be 1.1 features that (obviously) wouldn't play on a 1.0 player; and you just named one. Surround Sound Mixer.

No, he's trying to imply the titles themselves won't play properly AT ALL.
I guess every HD DVD player is hooked up to ethernet as well.

Look on the back of any Disney DVD. "Some players may not be able to access all features". Yet somehow the films themselves play fine. Do you see people rioting in the streets because they have to use a PC for the InterActual content?

PS3 owners will be 1.1 compliant anyways.


Since not many films are recorded (encoded) in 1080p anyway.

You've sealed your lack of research on the topic at hand.
No wonder you support HD DVD.

Nearly ALL titles in both formats are 1080p.

Most masters are 2k (2000+ lines of resolution). The original FILM itself is around 4k.

HD DVD: the ignorant choice.

PeterTHX said,
HD DVD: the ignorant choice.

I don't actually care much either way but really, reading through this thread is pretty sickening and chiefly it's because of you ramming your POV down everybody else's throats. I think (going out on a limb) we've got your general point now and watching you spend all your time bitch-slapping people like some schoolkid trying to score 'internet points' is rather saddening. What's up? You're either being paid to agressively promote a platform or you're treating said platform like some kind of religion. That's either a bit sad or pathologically insane.. Just read back and see how you're coming across - do you think people respect that? Really? Cheers.

I just can't stop laughing reading completely absurd statements by PeterTHX. LOL!

Yeah, ok.. you know what.. you just go ahead and buy $400-$500 Blu-Ray players and we'll be picking up $15 HD DVD movies and $99 players. We'll meet again when Warner goes HD DVD exclusive. Just to hear how you Blu-Ray fanatics explain that one. I'm sure there will be 4 unnamed sources saying that Warner was paid a gazillion dollars. I mean how can they go exclusive when every retailer has been dumping obsolete HD DVD players that do actually more then Profile BD players. Hell even Profile 1.1 is not fully featured. It doesn't have ethernet.

LOL.. You truly sound ridiculous. Do you read your comments? LOL..

And that link you posted about PS3.. HAHAHAHH .. nowhere does it say that Sony is making money on PS3. Tha latest word is that they lost ANOTHER billion this year.

I'm betting you'll get an A2 for $99. <snipped - rule 5> Keep talking crap and then you go secretely buy HD DVD when you see you made a mistake.

Boz, I'm surprised they haven't banned you for lying so often.

Or at least take you seriously after being proven wrong again and again.

Yeah, ok.. you know what.. you just go ahead and buy $400-$500 Blu-Ray players and we'll be picking up $15 HD DVD movies and $99 players.

$99 is too much for something with no software. I'll be enjoying Die Hard, Pixar & Disney movies, The Simpsons, etc while you watch I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry or Evan Almighty.

As for Warner:
Warner VP Dan Silverberg represented the only major dual-format studio.

According to Silverberg, however, that may not be for long.

"One thing that may be changing is our strategy," he said. "When both formats launched and hardware prices were high, we made a decision to support both formats and let the consumer decide. But now that hardware pricing is affordable for both Blu-ray and HD DVD, it appears consumers no longer want to decide — so the notion of staying in two formats for the duration is something we are re-evaluating now that we are in the fourth quarter."

Silverberg went on to emphasize the Warner's strong Blu-ray sales, noting that the studio's Blu-ray release of '300' is the format's top selling disc. "We can definitely talk Blu-ray," said Silverberg. "We are committed to the format."

Does that sound like Warner's going HD DVD?

Hell even Profile 1.1 is not fully featured. It doesn't have ethernet.

Who cares? So you can go to Universal's website and buy Evan Almighty stuffed animals? Last I checked it was the FILMS themselves that mattered most. And BD has both the picture and audio bandwidth for that. And here you are plugging a player that can't even do 1080p or pass lossless audio codecs.

I'm betting you'll get an A2 for $99. That's how you Blu-Ray fanboys are. Keep talking crap and then you go secretely buy HD DVD when you see you made a mistake.

Wrong on all counts again. Aren't you tired of shilling for Toshiba's hardware monopoly yet?

PeterTHX said,
Boz, I'm surprised they haven't banned you for lying so often.

Or at least take you seriously after being proven wrong again and again.

Yeah, ok.. you know what.. you just go ahead and buy $400-$500 Blu-Ray players and we'll be picking up $15 HD DVD movies and $99 players.

$99 is too much for something with no software. I'll be enjoying Die Hard, Pixar & Disney movies, The Simpsons, etc while you watch I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry or Evan Almighty.

As for Warner:
Warner VP Dan Silverberg represented the only major dual-format studio.

According to Silverberg, however, that may not be for long.

"One thing that may be changing is our strategy," he said. "When both formats launched and hardware prices were high, we made a decision to support both formats and let the consumer decide. But now that hardware pricing is affordable for both Blu-ray and HD DVD, it appears consumers no longer want to decide — so the notion of staying in two formats for the duration is something we are re-evaluating now that we are in the fourth quarter."

Silverberg went on to emphasize the Warner's strong Blu-ray sales, noting that the studio's Blu-ray release of '300' is the format's top selling disc. "We can definitely talk Blu-ray," said Silverberg. "We are committed to the format."

Does that sound like Warner's going HD DVD?

Hell even Profile 1.1 is not fully featured. It doesn't have ethernet.

Who cares? So you can go to Universal's website and buy Evan Almighty stuffed animals? Last I checked it was the FILMS themselves that mattered most. And BD has both the picture and audio bandwidth for that. And here you are plugging a player that can't even do 1080p or pass lossless audio codecs.

I'm betting you'll get an A2 for $99. That's how you Blu-Ray fanboys are. Keep talking crap and then you go secretely buy HD DVD when you see you made a mistake.

Wrong on all counts again. Aren't you tired of shilling for Toshiba's hardware monopoly yet?

Okay, you just keep hoping that's what it means, cause you know.. Warner not continuing membership with BDA means they are going Blu-Ray. LOL!

You can quote me on this... within 2 WEEKS if not, by end of November, Warner is going HD DVD exclusive.

Warner not continuing membership with BDA means they are going Blu-Ray

You drinking or something? Warner is very much a member of the BDA, they sit on the board, one of their formats is in the specs, etc.

You can quote me on this... within 2 WEEKS if not, by end of November, Warner is going HD DVD exclusive.

Oh this is gold. You've always been wrong before.
I'd even bet you that you can't post anymore if you're wrong, but you've lied time & again.

In other news, Walmart Canada is trying to sell DVD Players for $100. I believe they don't sell any HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players here at all. Future Shop (aka BestBuy) has the HD-A3 for $350! And that's the cheapest one on sale here...

wow HD DVD sure is getting pushed hard.

everyone knows what a DVD is, and everyone knows what HD is, so...even the non techy people that dont look into there purchases know what is right away, were as some dont know what blu ray is.

and since hd dvd is a lot cheaper...

i think hd dvd might start getting a large boost pretty soon.

I think this is the desperation of the HD-DVD camp coming out. Count the number of Blu-Ray players and the number of HD-DVD players. There's only a few hundred thousand HD-DVD players out there. Meanwhile there's millions of Blu-Ray players thanks to the PS3 having a Blu-Ray drive built in. Sure, Microsoft offers an external HD-DVD drive for the 360, but that hasn't really sold too well, especially with the games still using regular DVDs, and even then most 360s don't have HDMI output anyway. Sure, if Sony hadn't bundled the BR-DVD drives with the PS3, Blu-Ray would be far behind, but they did, and because of that Blu-Ray is selling more than twice as much as HD-DVD.

Go ahead and cut the HD-DVD player prices, it isn't going to help much.

the few million BluRay playes in the form of the PS3 is useless, seeing as the PS3 is the SOLE reason that BluRay has a lower Attachment rate than HD-DVD. HArdly anyone with a PS3 use it as a BD player.


So what do you think th eanswer is when you add up
Really Cheap HD-DVD players+HD-DVD has by far the hgihest attachment rate.

yeah the answer is that HD-DVD will be outselling BD in not too long. At best BD will be able to keep up.

Really Cheap HD-DVD players+HD-DVD has by far the hgihest attachment rate.

But not actual SALES.

THAT is what the industry cares about, and the only people citing attach rates are NOT in the industry.

PeterTHX said,
Really Cheap HD-DVD players+HD-DVD has by far the hgihest attachment rate.

But not actual SALES.

THAT is what the industry cares about, and the only people citing attach rates are NOT in the industry.

Not actual sales yet, not.

Obviusly you didn't bother to comrpehend what I said,as the whole point was just what you said right now.

except now that there will be a lot more HD-DVD players out in the wild. and these are ACTUAL player, where the peopel who buy them are buying them to watch movies, hence why HD-DVD has such a high attachment rate. As more and ore HD-DVD players are being sold, and witht he HD-DVD attachment rate, HD-DVD sales will soar and you will no longer see BD at the top of the list.

except now that there will be a lot more HD-DVD players out in the wild

So you say.
So far the only people excited about this are HD DVD owners.

Whether the general public cares is an entirely different thing.

You think the iPod came to dominate the industry by being the cheapest item out there?

Or was it software?

When the general public realize they can't get Simpsons Movie, Disney movies, etc you think they will go for that?

When they buy a Sharp or Panasonic or Pioneer or Philips HDTV you think they will want a Toshiba or a Toshiba or a Toshiba or maybe a Toshiba player for it?

Nope. And so far 2007 shows it in spades.

What a week. Kmart goes HD-DVD exclusive, sales on the A2 and A3 everywhere, and not Wal-Mart breaks the $100 price barrier on the A2 and begins running television advertisements for it. This sounds like a job for... PeterTHX and the Action Spin Team!

So far the only people excited about this are HD DVD owners.

They just now announced it, how do you know who's excited over it. Have you been traveling around the country for the past few hours polling people?

You think the iPod came to dominate the industry by being the cheapest item out there?

Yeah because this situation is just like the iPod, great comparison.

When they buy a Sharp or Panasonic or Pioneer or Philips HDTV you think they will want a Toshiba or a Toshiba or a Toshiba or maybe a Toshiba player for it?

Ok, now you're getting desperate. That was just incredibly dumb.

Downplay and spin all you want, no rational person could look at this and see it but anything but great news for HD DVD.

Downplay and spin all you want, no rational person could look at this and see it but anything but great news for HD DVD.

Sorry, but anyone with a hint of business acumen knows that this is a desperate, last chance move.

K-Mart vs. Target...

& Wal-mart carries the Sony units and the PS3.

Yeah because this situation is just like the iPod, great comparison.

It is a very apt comparison. You think this is a race to the bottom as far as pricing goes. Well, Hollywood and the entire consumer electronics industry think different.

You guys have been making predictions like this all year on various other news items. You mock me and call me names and say I'm lying but you have been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME. This is NO different.

Time will prove me and the rest of the industry correct, you really haven't got any idea how this industry works.

PeterTHX said,
Downplay and spin all you want, no rational person could look at this and see it but anything but great news for HD DVD.

Sorry, but anyone with a hint of business acumen knows that this is a desperate, last chance move.

K-Mart vs. Target...

& Wal-mart carries the Sony units and the PS3.

Yeah because this situation is just like the iPod, great comparison.

It is a very apt comparison. You think this is a race to the bottom as far as pricing goes. Well, Hollywood and the entire consumer electronics industry think different.

I thought the guys Sony and other hire to seed product placement and talk crap about the competition was supposed to keep a low profile so they wheren't found out...

you gotta work on that, cause there's no way to can be that into BD without being paid for it.


But yeah I'm sure you thinkit'd be great to just have BD, and have prices for players rise back to the 600-800$ and movis to stay at and rise to 30$+ a piece...

But yeah I'm sure you thinkit'd be great to just have BD, and have prices for players rise back to the 600-800$ and movis to stay at and rise to 30$+ a piece...

Because that happened with DVD, right?

Prices fall...NATURALLY. As R&D costs are paid for and mass production. Not to mention there's Panasonic, Pioneer, Sharp, Samsung, Philips, Hitachi, Mitsubishi, Yamaha, Sony all fighting for the consumer's dollar.

So far all this format war does is turn off customers and line the pockets of Microsoft.

The truly informed choose Blu-ray.

HArdly anyone with a PS3 use it as a BD player.

Isn't that a strawman? Or if not, why aren't they doing that? If they already own a HD player? Why aren't they using it, if they also already own a HDTV set?

It's not even a strawman.

Just a look at various boards and industry polls show a HUGE amount of BD owners are watching their discs via PS3.

Walk into any BB and ask the people browsing the BD section "PS3 owner?" You'll get a LOT of nods.

PeterTHX said,
The truly informed choose Blu-ray.

My gosh you are clueless.

Pretty much every post you've made has factual problems. Both Blu and HD DVD have benefits the other lacks. Both of them have drawbacks. Both can have spin manufactured out the wazoo. You really need to tone down your rhetoric and not be a prig by insinuating everyone with a different preference is clueless or a donkey.

Blu benefit(s):
-Disk space (* presuming HD DVD TL51 doesn't become a wide standard)
-BD-J potentially offers a richer experience
-1080p from every device (* which isn't actually necessary since virtually every new 1080p TV has a deinterlacer that can accurately assemble a perfect 1080p image from interleaved 1080i frames)
-Studio support (* fewer studios are on the HD side, but Universal has released the most catalog titles of any studio.)
-Largest installed base
-BD Profile 2.0 technically more advanced than HD DVD 1.0

Blu failings:
-Incomplete specs
-Existing players can't be upgraded to support new features (profile 1.1 and 2.0)
-BD-J much more difficult and costly to work with than HDi
-BD-50 yields are very poor (only a small handful of titles are 50GB)
-Hardware more costly
-Studio support (* in absolute terms, Universal and Paramount own significantly more movies than Sony, Fox, and Disney combined)
-Installed base are mostly gamers, movie releases have been biased towards that crowd (action, sci-fi, big budget)
-Releasing content on Blu is supporting a vertically-integrated competitor (generally a bad idea for content providers, meaning, no matter what you do, your competitor will make money off your sales)

HD benefits:
-Finalized specification since April 06
-HDi spec is richer than BD and much cheaper to work with (mandatory Ethernet capability)
-Cheaper hardware
-Studio support (* broader reach of catalog titles)
-Significantly larger installed base of dedicated set-top players.
-Simple firmware updates via broadband (potentially allowing TL51, etc)

HD failings:
-1080p not required (see above caveat since it isn't a real failing, more so a marketing problem)
-Disk space, doesn't impact movie quality, "extras" could need a separate disc
-Studio support (* Blu will probably see a greater number of big-budget releases)
-HDi may be more limited than BD-J from a technical perspective
-Limited number of hardware vendors
-Smaller installed base in absolute terms

Common:
-Video and Audio quality is identical between the platforms. When differences are noted it was due to some arbitrary decision at the studio (or an issue within the player). Disc space hasn't been a problem for HD DVD and almost all BD releases are currently on 25GB media. HD DVD doesn't do LPCM, however Dolby TrueHD tracks are identical and take less space (where applicable).

As for the companies behind the formats. It has never been proven that Toshiba subsidizes their hardware. Microsoft and Toshiba have been making "exclusive marketing incentives." MS could make billions of dollars on HDi licensing. However, pretty much everyone with a mutual fund owns Microsoft shares (Thus if you are an investor or have a 401k, hoping for them to utterly fail is more or less like shooting yourself in the foot. I'm not saying you *have* to support them, but rooting for failure is weird if you own their stock).

Sony does subsidize the PS3 and is losing over a billion dollars per quarter on their gaming division. Their dollar amount of their studio pay-offs are not proven.

Conversely, Fox and Disney have been paid for exclusivity. They can't switch if they wanted to (like Paramount) until their exclusivity contract expired (unknown duration). The only company currently not on a paid contract is WB, and that's because they expected sales to be much higher. Paid exclusivity contracts make *far* more money than selling movies. Case in point, WB has only made about $20M so far selling discs. Paramount made $150M signing a piece of paper. As a result, WB absolutely will go exclusive, but it won't have any bearing on technology. Just whomever pays them more. Internally they are biased towards HD (as their biggest Blu backing VP has left the company -- can't remember his name, but he was the biggest advocate in any of the studios for a neutral stance), however externally they really don't care because it's all about the money and shareholders. I'm sure they'll take the biggest offer.

And that's an unbiased assessment of the state of HD movies. In the interests of full disclosure I currently have a Toshiba HD-A1 and a pre-order for a Samsung BD-UP5000 dual-format player (I haven't liked any of the existing BD hardware and I refuse to watch movies on a game system, I would have bought the BD-P1000 on release day if it compared to the HD-A1, but it wasn't even close).

My gosh you are clueless.

Really?

Blu benefit(s):
-Disk space (* presuming HD DVD TL51 doesn't become a wide standard)

TL51 isn't even compatible with their current hardware. It will never be a factor.

-1080p from every device (* which isn't actually necessary since virtually every new 1080p TV has a deinterlacer that can accurately assemble a perfect 1080p image from interleaved 1080i frames)

If you have a 1080p TV why would you want a interlaced input? Why not a 1:1 input? Why not avoid combing artifacts and such. Plus a lot of the new TVs support true 24fps input as well.

-Studio support (* fewer studios are on the HD side, but Universal has released the most catalog titles of any studio.)
-Largest installed base
-BD Profile 2.0 technically more advanced than HD DVD 1.0

Blu failings:
-Incomplete specs

Specs are complete, that's why it's 1.1 and not 1.0. The movies themselves play just fine. By your definition DVD was "incomplete" when introduced since things like DTS, InterActual, MPEG4/MP3 capability were introduced after DVD players were on the market.

-Existing players can't be upgraded to support new features (profile 1.1 and 2.0)

The PS3 can.

-BD-J much more difficult and costly to work with than HDi

Only because Sun isn't subsidizing it the same way Microsoft is for HDi.

-BD-50 yields are very poor (only a small handful of titles are 50GB)

Out and out wrong. Most new titles are BD50, and have been now for several months. It's been a full year now that BD50s have been available (first title was "Click"). In fact, you'd be hard pressed to name a current title that is *not* BD50.

-Hardware more costly

Companies want a return on their investment. You wonder why Toshiba can't get any others to front their format?

-Studio support (* in absolute terms, Universal and Paramount own significantly more movies than Sony, Fox, and Disney combined)

Only if you're counting titles from the 40's. Besides, you're forgetting MGM.


-Installed base are mostly gamers, movie releases have been biased towards that crowd (action, sci-fi, big budget)

Both formats are guilty of this, because that's what sells HDTVs. But which format has more day-and-date current releases?

-Releasing content on Blu is supporting a vertically-integrated competitor (generally a bad idea for content providers, meaning, no matter what you do, your competitor will make money off your sales)

Panasonic, Pioneer, etc all hold significant IP within the BDA (it's been argued Panasonic holds more than Sony on some things) so this is a non factor.

HD benefits:
-Finalized specification since April 06

Yet things like combo discs have many problems, firmware update after firmware update, and HD DVD fans are already on their 2nd players, wiping out the cost "advantage".

-HDi spec is richer than BD and much cheaper to work with (mandatory Ethernet capability)

Thank Microsoft for fronting those costs. Mandatory ethernet? How many households even have ethernet jacks in the family room?

-Cheaper hardware

Modded laptops using off the shelf parts, take forever to boot, forever to load, and lack even resume play or foward & reverse frame search.

-Studio support (* broader reach of catalog titles)

Again, you're forgetting MGM.

-Significantly larger installed base of dedicated set-top players.

Set top numbers are actually pretty close.

-Simple firmware updates via broadband (potentially allowing TL51, etc)

Toshiba engineer has already said that this is unlikely. Why do you think they've been quiet about it lately?

HD failings:
-1080p not required (see above caveat since it isn't a real failing, more so a marketing problem)

1.2 million active pixels vs over 2 million active pixels. True 24 frame support (film is 24fps)

-Disk space, doesn't impact movie quality, "extras" could need a separate disc

There are plenty of "bit starved" HD DVD transfers. Studios like Paramount & Warner have been using aggressive DNR to smooth out for easier compression, lack of lossless audio despite the "mandatory" status.

-Studio support (* Blu will probably see a greater number of big-budget releases)

Not to mention region coding. New Line has effectively given Blu 3-6 month exclusives on all their new titles because HD DVD lacks it. Also studios like Fox & Disney will *not* support the format without it.

-HDi may be more limited than BD-J from a technical perspective

Either way, it's a non-issue. People want the films themselves in the best possible presentation for both audio & video.

-Limited number of hardware vendors

Toshiba, Toshiba, Toshiba...Toshiba...rebadged Toshiba (Onkyo, Venturer)....Toshiba...

-Smaller installed base in absolute terms

someone's playing movies on those PS3s after all, despite Toshiba not wanting to count them

Common:
-Video and Audio quality is identical between the platforms. When differences are noted it was due to some arbitrary decision at the studio (or an issue within the player). Disc space hasn't been a problem for HD DVD and almost all BD releases are currently on 25GB media. HD DVD doesn't do LPCM, however Dolby TrueHD tracks are identical and take less space (where applicable).

Already you're seeing HD DVDs lack space for either IME or TrueHD. There's also the problem of absolute bandwidth, 36Mbps vs 54Mbps. Titles like "Face/Off" and "Flags of Our Fathers" being sharper on the BD version due to encodes that take advantage of the extra space and bandwidth. Nearly every BD release has lossless audio, 10% or so of HD DVD releases have it despite "mandatory" status.


As for the companies behind the formats. It has never been proven that Toshiba subsidizes their hardware. Microsoft and Toshiba have been making "exclusive marketing incentives." MS could make billions of dollars on HDi licensing. However, pretty much everyone with a mutual fund owns Microsoft shares (Thus if you are an investor or have a 401k, hoping for them to utterly fail is more or less like shooting yourself in the foot. I'm not saying you *have* to support them, but rooting for failure is weird if you own their stock).

What about Panasonic? Pioneer? Sharp? Hitachi? Philips, etc?

Sony does subsidize the PS3 and is losing over a billion dollars per quarter on their gaming division. Their dollar amount of their studio pay-offs are not proven.

Not proven because it's conjecture. Meanwhile we have exact figures on the Viacom deal ($150 million)

Conversely, Fox and Disney have been paid for exclusivity.

Disney has already come out and said they're not paid. Fox either. Fox wants the copy protection & region coding.

They can't switch if they wanted to (like Paramount) until their exclusivity contract expired (unknown duration). The only company currently not on a paid contract is WB, and that's because they expected sales to be much higher. Paid exclusivity contracts make *far* more money than selling movies. Case in point, WB has only made about $20M so far selling discs. Paramount made $150M signing a piece of paper. As a result, WB absolutely will go exclusive, but it won't have any bearing on technology. Just whomever pays them more. Internally they are biased towards HD (as their biggest Blu backing VP has left the company -- can't remember his name, but he was the biggest advocate in any of the studios for a neutral stance), however externally they really don't care because it's all about the money and shareholders. I'm sure they'll take the biggest offer.

You have it backwards. The person who left was the HD DVD cheerleader Steve Nickerson who went to Paramount. His successor, Dan Silverberg, has been talking Blu.

And that's an unbiased assessment of the state of HD movies. In the interests of full disclosure I currently have a Toshiba HD-A1 and a pre-order for a Samsung BD-UP5000 dual-format player (I haven't liked any of the existing BD hardware and I refuse to watch movies on a game system, I would have bought the BD-P1000 on release day if it compared to the HD-A1, but it wasn't even close).

Thought so.

EDIT: I tried using "quote" blocks, but they were printed literally. I'll use the old email-syntax instead.

>Really?

I’d say the selective presentation of your facts makes that obvious. No company on the planet fails completely, or does anything perfectly.

>TL51 isn't even compatible with their current hardware. It will never be a factor.

It has been publicly stated on the record that it is in Toshiba press materials, and will be provided for in a firmware update if market-forces dictate. You had mentioned “a Toshiba engineer who said it wasn’t possible”. This was a non-authoritative and non-public statement. Given that it didn’t originate from Toshiba no one can prove that the engineer even exists, and could just been a made up quote making rounds on fan-sites.

>If you have a 1080p TV why would you want a interlaced input? Why not
>a 1:1 input? Why not avoid combing artifacts and such. Plus a lot of the
>new TVs support true 24fps input as well.

1080i or 1080p input actually doesn’t matter if you have a new 1080p TV. Modern deinterlacing chips assemble a perfect progressive image from interlaced frames. I would question the accuracy of the very first 1080p display devices (as most could only accept 1080p via VGA), however any display device that can accept native 1080p via HDMI will be fine. As a result, anyone who claims to notice a difference is actually having their mind play tricks on them. Additionally a 120Hz TV will display the same image regardless of an interlaced or progressive screen, both will benefit with a perfect 5-frame synchronization of native 24fps source material (and thus not resort to 3:2).

>Specs are complete, that's why it's 1.1 and not 1.0. The movies themselves
>play just fine. By your definition DVD was "incomplete"...

Correct, DVD was enhanced later. However, the specification changes didn't significantly change the movie experience for the user. The DVD specification changes (like DTS support) didn’t alter what you could do with the film. Strangely enough DTS is much less common these days and the studios have really focused on the DD implementations. Additionally, these changing specs cause all sorts of problems with existing players as some movies will not play without firmware updates. I can’t say I know them off the top of my head since I’m still waiting for the BD-UP to arrive.

There are other problems coming from non-final specifications. Fox films with BD+ can’t play on all players unless they’ve been updated. Gee, that’s nice. Mind you I've only heard that online at AVS in the Blu forums, and haven't had first-hand experience.

>The PS3 can.

What the PS3 can do is largely irrelevant. If 80% of plain DVD users watched their movies on PS2s, then the capability of the PlayStation as a movie device would be relevant. Over time, the PS3 will have a significantly diminished effect on the marketplace. The PS3 also has other significant limitations. It’s loud (compared to a set-top device), it can’t use a Harmony remote (thus my Logitech Harmony is useless trying to control it), it doesn’t feature analog outputs, thus forcing users with high-quality older audio gear to need to upgrade. On top of that you have cosmetic issues in that it doesn’t stack or mount in an AV rack, and finally it has issues with 720p output if you’ve got a projector (or older TV) with less than optimal resolution. Video game consoles are crappy DVD players. This is a universal constant, applies to the HD add-on, the PS2/3, the Xbox 1 and 360, etc. No one should ever advocate using one as a primary disc playback device. If someone asked which BD player to buy, I’d say “buy the $499 Panasonic”. 30 and 40-something adults don’t want to buy a game console for movies.

>Only because Sun isn't subsidizing it the same way Microsoft is for HDi.

Sun’s subsidy (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with it. HDi is an XML based spec that “media authors” can use to create advanced interactivity fairly simply. BD-J has no such ease-of-use and requires dedicated programmers to fully exploit. The HDi toolset doesn’t. As a result, no one should expect any reasonable interactivity with catalog titles because no studio will spend money to properly code a limited release. On the positive side, BD-J could technically be much more complicated, but then you run into potential problems with the code being incompatible with several players (the game on Pirates of the Caribbean).

>Out and out wrong. Most new titles are BD50, and have been now for several months.

Most are not. Many are, but not the majority. You can check the BD section of AVS Forum and get a list of titles. Someone posted a running thread of titles in there.

>Companies want a return on their investment. You wonder why Toshiba
>can't get any others to front their format?

They have Toshiba, Onkyo, Samsung, LG, Venturer, and I think one other, but I can’t remember who. The RCA was just a Toshiba re-badge (Venturer and Onkyo are not, but based on the reference design). And the “cheap Chinese crap” argument doesn’t hold due to the fact that most PS3s are manufactured there. There is an ROI issue, but clearly Toshiba has the most motivation of success since they’ve spent R&D dollars. Similarly Sony, Panasonic, etc, are in the same boat.

>Only if you're counting titles from the 40's. Besides, you're forgetting MGM.

The titles of the existing studios cover a huge range of years, mostly from the 80s onward. So classics don't count? I’m not forgetting MGM because Sony owns them and their catalog. I didn’t mention DreamWorks because Paramount owns them (not DreamWorks Animation).

>Both formats are guilty of this, because that's what sells HDTVs.

Yes, it sells HDTVs. Both formats are not guilty. HD DVD currently has more titles that are likely to be enjoyed by women. Day-Date current releases are just about equal. This past year Universal/Paramount was responsible for I believe one more blockbuster than was the Sony/Disney combination.

The actual studio-count is favorable towards BD. The absolute movie count is favorable towards HD. The current release count is more or less equal. I am a firm believer that people should own both formats if economically feasible. Otherwise buy-in when the cost gets to however you define "reasonable."

>Panasonic, Pioneer, etc all hold significant IP within the BDA
>(it's been argued Panasonic holds more than Sony on some
>things) so this is a non factor.

That has nothing to do with it. Paramount pictures is not competing with Pioneer. They are however competing with Sony. Supplying revenue to your competitor is a stupid idea. This is also why WB is in the strongest financial position of any studio, due to the fact that they’ve been getting a cut of all conventional DVD sales (and why they really don't want to hand this power to Sony). Sony isn’t happy about WB's current revenue, neither is GE, News Corp, or anyone else for that matter. If you are going to enrich a patent-holder, it is better if they aren’t in competition with you.

I have no idea who would argue the Panasonic point. They are misinformed. BD is based on an earlier Sony technology mostly intended to replace BetaCam. They've been working with the technology far longer than the consumer product known as BluRay.

>Yet things like combo discs have many problems, firmware update
>after firmware update, and HD DVD fans are already on their 2nd
>players, wiping out the cost "advantage".

Combo problems are resolved with firmware updates. I have about 30 movies, have Netflix-ed about 70 others and have never had a problem that wasn’t resolved, in all cases I had the needed firmware far in advance of the movie (which was easily updated via Ethernet). I’m on my first player. It works fine. The first generation players have more features than the latest ones. The HD-A1 for instance has full analog outputs, whereas the HD-A2 does not. No individual has needed to buy a new player to get their disc to work correctly. Some have purchased for other rooms, or moved their A1 to the bedroom after buying an XA-2 downstairs, etc. People buying second players are doing it because they love the format. Not because some new revised spec came out and they *need* to in order to use all the features. No supporter of HD DVD has bought a second player due to "need", simply the cost is right to upgrade everything in the house.

>Thank Microsoft for fronting those costs. Mandatory ethernet? How many households
>even have ethernet jacks in the family room?

What’s wrong with that? MS made my life easier. Why am I supposed to complain about this? I have dedicated Ethernet in every room behind every TV for the purposes of whatever comes along. Most new homes built from 2004 onward do this. Besides, you can easily get an Ethernet to Wireless bridge for $50 from Amazon and not have an issue. At the very least, the Ethernet jack makes firmware updates simple (even if you need to temporarily move the player or string a 30-foot cord).

>Modded laptops using off the shelf parts, take forever to boot, forever to load,
>and lack even resume play or foward & reverse frame search.

Why does this matter? It works. That's the oddest reason I've ever heard for not liking something. 45 seconds of boot-up doesn’t annoy me given how wonderful the presentation happens to be. The A1 has forward and reverse frame search, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Besides, it’s a first-gen device and not expected to be as polished as more recent devices. It does do 5.1 Dolby True HD decoding over analog outputs (which the PS3 lacks) so I can’t really complain. The only BD device I’ve seen with comparable features (True HD, 1.1, Ethernet, etc) is the Samsung universal, which is why I ordered one.

>Again, you're forgetting MGM.

Nope, I’m not. You earlier mocked “movies from the 40s”, and then you mention MGM, which is noted for their classic movies... So are old movies a good thing, a bad thing, or don’t matter? I’m curious how you classify this since you were against them before you were for them.

>1.2 million active pixels vs over 2 million active pixels. True 24 frame
>support (film is 24fps)

As I stated above... A 1080i signal includes 2 million pixels. Film is 24Hz. The TV runs at 60 or 120. Any quality deinterlacer is capable of taking the even and odd frames from the HDMI connection and putting them back together into the 1080p source-frame. There are many, many documents on this fact on the Internet. Either that go to DailyTech and get in an argument with Michael Asher (masher), their science editor. He set me straight with a reply good enough to be a doctoral thesis the last time I tried to use your argument against him.

A 1080i source (i.e. broadcast) will never be as good as a 1080p source. However, a 1080p source, interlaced to 1080i, and deinterlaced to 1080p will *always* be identical to a direct 1080p source.

>There are plenty of "bit starved" HD DVD transfers. Studios like Paramount
>& Warner have been using aggressive DNR to smooth out for easier
>compression, lack of lossless audio despite the "mandatory" status.

There are no "bit-starved transfers" as a result of technical necessity. During various compression shoot-outs it has been proven that you can put almost 3.5 hours of VC-1 video indistinguishable from the master on a 30GB disc (with audio and lossless tracks). If a studio makes a choice that is less than ideal, that’s entirely their fault and they should be held accountable.

Case in point, Batman Returns is indistinguishable from masters (as claimed by everyone involved on the production), runs over 2 hours, features PiP, TrueHD, etc. All the movies you named (Face Off, etc) are all shorter, use a simpler color palette, etc. Thus it's pretty obvious the individual author is at fault, or some combination of flags (still the author's fault) that were used and instructed the decoder to perform smoothing.

The BD format has a lot of these problems as early transfers weren’t in the OaR. Even Pirates featured significant cropping and was not accurately presented in the original theatrical aspect ratio. I give the studios a “pass” because they are getting used to the formats. Go back and watch a DVD authored in 97. I purchased one of the very first players in the USA (March 97, a Toshiba with a low 4-digit serial number), and that early-generation media was horrendous compared to what was released after the turn-of-the-century. Hopefully the studios will be so good as to release "special editions" with all the kinks fixed.

>Not to mention region coding. New Line has effectively given Blu 3-6 month
>exclusives on all their new titles because HD DVD lacks it.

And you think region coding is a good thing? I’m sitting on a stack of HD DVDs that play just fine in my A1. Titles like Fantastic Four and Total Recall. New Line hasn’t given exclusives on “all” their titles. Only a handful of them. Mostly those where the release was very limited, and likely to be staggered out over many months. These are generally low-budget titles where the domestic revenues are used to distribute the film internationally. I’m pretty certain Fox and Disney care only because of their exclusivity agreement and associated “exclusive marketing incentive.”

Which brings me to another point. The contract with Paramount forbids them from sharing the terms of the agreement. The $150M might be accurate, but is completely circumstantial via unnamed sources. Questions to Paramount typically result in a denial of said agreement. Likewise, Fox and Disney have exclusive agreements, with marketing “payoffs” intended to assist in content creation. However, those studios would also be gagged from disclosing the terms of the agreement. Unless someone behind the scenes sings to the Wall Street Journal, it is highly unlikely we’ll know the reasons. You can look in the insider forums at AVS. Most of the people who work at the studios seem to care a whole lot less about the formats than do the "fans".

Believe me, they aren’t releasing media on the format for any other reason. As I’ve already stated, Paramount’s exclusivity agreement made them more money with the stroke of the pen than the profits on all the discs ever sold by all the studios in either format.

>What about Panasonic? Pioneer? Sharp? Hitachi? Philips, etc?

Every one of those companies is foreign, not traded on a domestic exchange, and highly unlikely to be in a domestic stock and/or mutual fund portfolio (even one with an International component). I’d say any American with hatred towards Microsoft is, by and large, rather unsympathetic to their own country (unless they were working for a competing company). For instance I would never buy Apple products, but I own their stock and want them to be successful. They employ a lot of people. They make money, I make money, everyone is happy. Likewise it is fair to assume a large percentage of the adults within the United States are part-owners of Microsoft (most large-cap mutual funds contained within a 401k will have a heavy mix of blue chips).

Foreign corporations are rather odd. Especially Japanese ones. If you name a Japanese company, any Japanese company, more than likely will be owned in large part by a bank. The same goes for European firms. Security laws here in the US prohibit certain types of business relationships, and as such, banks rarely have a significant financial stake in a publicly traded firm. Those laws don’t exist overseas, which is why most of the international conglomerates are owned by international banks (and not necessarily individual shareholders).

>People want the films themselves in the best possible presentation for both audio & video.

That’s not true. That’s why the “Superbit” marketing phenomenon crashed. No one bought the disks. Everyone wanted the extras. Audio/Videophiles might not care about extras, but regular consumers, by and large, want a lot of interactive and extra content. "Superbit" titles were "superior" but still failed miserably on the market.

>10% or so of HD DVD releases have it despite "mandatory" status.

Lossless audio is not “mandatory”. It is only mandatory that the player supports it. The content author can do whatever they want. As I said, I already covered this before. There are a sizeable number of problems in authoring on both formats. None of them are space related (for either format). I agree, more titles should be lossless. In the long run it really doesn't matter. Generally even an audiophile won't notice the difference between DD+ and TrueHD unless they are paying more attention to sound quality than they are the movie.

>Not proven because it's conjecture. Meanwhile we have exact figures on
>the Viacom deal ($150 million)

This is a ridiculous statement. Every console with the exception of the Wii is heavily subsidized. This is plainly self-evident with the financial reporting. Unlike the other companies you named previously, Sony *is* traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and as such must make detailed financial statements. Inside information, like loss-per-product is proprietary information, however it is widely known they are taking a several hundred dollar loss. The degree of loss is unknown. It is fairly easy for analysts at Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch to estimate these numbers because both MS and Sony disclose their sales volume, the losses per division, and other numbers which allow a skilled market observer to determine their present manufacturing cost +/- a small margin of error.

As for the deal with Paramount. The exact number is unknown because of a confidentiality clause in the contract. The 150 million isn’t known, but assumed based on “insider information” presented to the Wall Street Journal. I don’t doubt that information, it is just as accurate as the fact that Sony is taking a several hundred dollar loss on each PS3 sold.

Incidentally, it is a lot easier to recoup that loss on game sales, as they probably make $10-20 per game sold, whereas the revenue per BD-ROM is probably only around 50 cents or less (the DVD license fee is very low, we are talking nickels and dimes). As a result, Toshiba and Sony can’t sell their set-top devices at a loss because it would take hundreds of films to recoup those losses (which is why we don’t see any cheap set-top players). “Exclusive Marketing Contracts” can be signed because they are against “projected future revenues” from all licensing, and not amortized against the sales of an individual set-top device.

>The person who left was the HD DVD cheerleader Steve Nickerson who went to
>Paramount. His successor, Dan Silverberg, has been talking Blu.

Which is how it was presented by BD fans. Everything I've seen from WB seemed to indicate he was the biggest supporter of a dual-format strategy. The reality is that none of the studios really give a hoot and they’ll side with whomever gives them the biggest exclusivity deal. If Sony antes-up, then they’ll win, if Toshiba or Microsoft do, than WB will go HD exclusive. Tons more money is made with an exclusivity contract than any studio will make for *years* by selling media. It would probably have taken Paramount 4-5 years to make $150 selling both BD and HD ROMs.

>Thought so.

What, that I supported both formats? I encourage everyone to buy both. Find a player that meets your needs and purchase it. I had to wait for the Samsung, because prior to that unit every one of them had a feature deficit compared to my 18-month-old HD-A1. $100-$200 is a great entry-point for a player.

Despite what the fansboys are saying, neither format is going anywhere. This isn't VHS v Beta. This is DVD+ and DVD-. The "war" might drag things out a couple years, but eventually everything will be dual. Cheap duals are coming next year. This year's crop packed only "high end" features (HQV, analog out, Burr Brown DACs), thus the cost.

PeterTHX said,
My gosh you are clueless.
-1080p from every device (* which isn't actually necessary since virtually every new 1080p TV has a deinterlacer that can accurately assemble a perfect 1080p image from interleaved 1080i frames)

If you have a 1080p TV why would you want a interlaced input? Why not a 1:1 input? Why not avoid combing artifacts and such. Plus a lot of the new TVs support true 24fps input as well.

Cause I am not rich! HD-DVD has players that output 1080p and players that output only 1080i. The consumer can choose the player they want but they rarely have a choice in the video quality of a movie when they buy it. So a 1080i player will be for low-end market and those who don't need the top of the line.

All HD-DVD movies are 1080p! The source is what matters most.

Yes at the Walmart that I work at we got a total of 8 of them....however we did get about 30 of the laptops that are going to be on sale.

I saw a commercial for this where some lady bought the player for her husband, "the price was low even by WalMart standards." They didn't mention what the price was, WOW.

If people wait a little while longer they'll be free!

That's it Toshiba, ensure no one else makes HD DVD players because they can't make any money on it!
Enjoy the hardware monopoly, after all Beta did well with only one manufacturer!

Newsgroups? Usenet?

BETACAM is a very different format.

As a consumer format, Beta failed miserably. This time there's both less capability and industry support for HD DVD.

It's funny how the lower pricing is backfiring horribly in Japan. Cheaper = junk there.

Looks to me Wal-mart is trying to clear out some stuff they don't want to be stuck with, freeing up valuable shelf space for the holidays.

As far as Beta failing, yes.. you're right, but it was also more expensive. I think the format was is going to last well into next year.

FUD is incorrect information.

Show me I'm wrong.

You seriously expect companies like Denon, Marantz, Pioneer, etc to abandon Blu-ray to sell players below cost?

They were giving away DIVX players and software when the end came too (for anyone here who remembers 1998/99)

No, FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. A tactic used by one side to discredit the other and make people believe it's going to fail.

Looks to me Wal-mart is trying to clear out some stuff they don't want to be stuck with, freeing up valuable shelf space for the holidays.

FUD.

Nope. Now is that FUD?

The unit on sale is discontinued.

How about this?

Two weeks after losing arguably HD DVD's best exclusive title for the year, and the same week new BD players from Panasonic and Sharp hit, as well as the $399 PS3, and the first holiday season where the PS3 will be readily available (as well as cheaper) with good games is a coincidence?

Anyone who takes business knows when you start giving the product away you're in big trouble. Even when Apple was at their deepest, darkest hour in terms of sales they never stooped to fire sale prices. It's not good business. Period.

Oh so when the PS3 price gets cut it's great for Sony, but when Toshiba cuts prices it's a fire sale? lmao, whatever. Keep up the good fud spreading, and enjoy those sour grapes, I have a feeling you're going to be having a steady diet of them from this point on.

There's a big difference.

Sony actually makes money off the PS3 now.

You seriously think Toshiba is?

Your tears are yummy and sweet. Ah the tears of unfathomable sadness. Yess! Yessss!

Sony actually makes money off the PS3 now.

lmao. Of course they are Baghdad Bob, of course they are. Mind posting your source? Yeah I didn't think so. Well it's been fun laughing at you but since arguing with a well known Sony shill such as yourself goes on forever I'm not going to make this thread any longer than it already is. Nice South Park quote by the way, very witty. (snicker)

Good night all.

PeterTHX said,
There's a big difference.

Sony actually makes money off the PS3 now.

You seriously think Toshiba is?

Your tears are yummy and sweet. Ah the tears of unfathomable sadness. Yess! Yessss!

Dude, whatever you're smoking: keep it away from me... It's causing brain damage...
You must either work for Sony (my bet) or have them anally fitted somehow.

PeterTHX said,
Whoa.

Somebody has something on their mind.

Do you dream of these so called fittings or something?

hey dude you need to stfu. your argument is so biaised by your stupidity.
hd-dvd will always be cheaper because it's based on nearly same manyfacturing process than dvd.
meaning less money to invest in devolopping the format. Sony are in big trouble for all the losses they had since the launch, even started before that. They barely were making money when it was over 600$cdn. Do you expect them to make after a 150$ cut. Ignorance will kill you one day, you know

Ummm.. Wow?

Still, I hope HD DVD dies out. I own a PS3 and would like to start buying HD movies. BluRay would be better for TV series and whatnot for its larger capacity, so hopefully that means less compression/more episodes per disk.

We'll have both formats untill we no longer have physical formats, so you're going to have to get a 100 dollar HD-DVD player.

PeterTHX said,
That's Microsoft thinking there.

I'm glad you trust them. I don't want to put my entertainment choices in their hands.

oh so that wasn't the majority of movie studies recently admitting that these HD formats where only a stepping stone to digitally distributed formats then... it's not just microsoft, it's the movies studios themselves, they want to go digitally, they're all just waiting for the consumers to accept it and broadband to hit a more reasonable speed and cost level.

PeterTHX said,
I'm glad you trust them. I don't want to put my entertainment choices in their hands.

Better in Sony's? You're forgetting who made BetaMax and DVD+R... Sony is out for hardware dollars. Microsoft needs to make efficient software - that shouldn't include having to support two near indentical technologies. They chose the better one, the one that doesn't still use MPEG2 compression...

You're forgetting who made BetaMax and DVD+R.

The also made the Compact Disc and the 3.5" floppy disc.

DVD+R? That was Philips. Sony actually had the first DVD burner that burned + & - formats.

Microsoft needs to make efficient software - that shouldn't include having to support two near indentical technologies. They chose the better one, the one that doesn't still use MPEG2 compression...

Identical? Hardly. They chose the one they can use their VC-1 codec as the primary method, and be the big fish instead of a little fish in the Blu-ray pool because it was occupied by Panasonic, JVC, Hitachi, Apple, Dell, Pioneer, Philips, Sharp, etc.

Do a little research next time, and you'll find the majority of BD releases are MPEG4 AVC. They also have VC-1 from Warner. Besides, some of the best stuff is in MPEG2, like Ice Age 2, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, etc. (& there are MPEG2 HD DVD titles too).

As for space, here's a great comparison of the recently issued "Face/Off" HD DVD and import Blu-ray. Same transfer, same compression (MPEG4 AVC) but less bandwidth and storage space for the HD DVD:
Top version Blu-ray, mouseover for HD DVD

Again, top Blu-ray, mouseover for HD DVD

Sorry guys, but HD DVD days are numbered.

PeterTHX said,
You're forgetting who made BetaMax and DVD+R.
As for space, here's a great comparison of the recently issued "Face/Off" HD DVD and import Blu-ray. Same transfer, same compression (MPEG4 AVC) but less bandwidth and storage space for the HD DVD:
Top version Blu-ray, mouseover for HD DVD

Again, top Blu-ray, mouseover for HD DVD

Sorry guys, but HD DVD days are numbered.

Both of those comparisons look almost identical to me, the blu-ray verion just looks the tiniest bit sharper, but it by no means justifies the greater price tag of the format.
Right now, neither format is winning, in fact I'd bet that both are loosing considering that both of their sales combined don't come anywhere close to the sales of the DVD version. The majority of people at the moment don't really care for the "HD" thing and are more than happy with DVD, it's just not a big enough leap to justify forking out the amount either format is charging.
If people do upgrade, it'll more than likely be due to needing a new DVD player and opting for a cheap HD player instead, so really the fastest way to "win" is to get your players down to a cheap value. That's how VHS won, even though it was the inferior format and that's how the winner here will be decided.

Of course, that's assuming digital downloads don't beat them both.

PeterTHX said,
You're forgetting who made BetaMax and DVD+R.

The also made the Compact Disc and the 3.5" floppy disc.

DVD+R? That was Philips. Sony actually had the first DVD burner that burned + & - formats.

Microsoft needs to make efficient software - that shouldn't include having to support two near indentical technologies. They chose the better one, the one that doesn't still use MPEG2 compression...

Identical? Hardly. They chose the one they can use their VC-1 codec as the primary method, and be the big fish instead of a little fish in the Blu-ray pool because it was occupied by Panasonic, JVC, Hitachi, Apple, Dell, Pioneer, Philips, Sharp, etc.

Do a little research next time, and you'll find the majority of BD releases are MPEG4 AVC. They also have VC-1 from Warner. Besides, some of the best stuff is in MPEG2, like Ice Age 2, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, etc. (& there are MPEG2 HD DVD titles too).

As for space, here's a great comparison of the recently issued "Face/Off" HD DVD and import Blu-ray. Same transfer, same compression (MPEG4 AVC) but less bandwidth and storage space for the HD DVD:
Top version Blu-ray, mouseover for HD DVD

Again, top Blu-ray, mouseover for HD DVD

Sorry guys, but HD DVD days are numbered.

ROFL, your a moron. The studio obliviously DNR'd the HD-DVD, like idiots. Every other comparison the images are identical.

PeterTHX said,
That's Microsoft thinking there.

I'm glad you trust them. I don't want to put my entertainment choices in their hands.

WTH does Microsoft have to do with this? HD-DVD is supported by Microsoft, but it is not a Microsoft thing, it is more of a toshiba thing...

BTW you do realize that EVEN Blu-Ray players HAVE TO and DO support VC1 encoded video. And is the choice of most studios since it has better definition than MPEG4, encodes faster and decodes faster.

VC1 = Microsoft WMV (Windows Media Video 9.x)

So if anyone think Blu-Ray gets away from MS, they are either crazy or don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Outside of the media, there is little difference between the formats, except Sony's Blu-Ray can be more restricture and has more DRM, this is why Microsoft dropped their Blu-Ray support, because Sony wouldn't let go of features that restricted contect to media locks.

PeterTHX said,
You're forgetting who made BetaMax and DVD+R.

DVD+R? That was Philips. Sony actually had the first DVD burner that burned + & - formats.

Actually, DVD+R was developed by the DVD+RW Alliance. Philips was not originally a member. Philips was a founding member of the DVD Forum which created the dash format. Philips switched sides later, and became one of the three leading companies of the + format. Sony, Philips and Thomson are those 3.