  ToadmanHypnotoad
join:2001-11-28
Ohio
kudos:1 | DOA Can anyone say DOA. This thing will be a dud in a year and anyone who buys it can set it right next to their betamax player and Nintendo Virtualboy! | |
|
 | Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Re: DOA Yeah, this is over before it began. DirecTV is setting the standards for HD, albeit, low quality HD (if that's even possible to say). I can't see people buying DirecTV/cable w/HD to get regular channels then buying yet another service for HD movies...
However, HBO, Cinimax and the others all have "series" now and even if great only last two years then poof (except Surpranos - sp?). That being said if the selection is latest and greatest and cheaper than HBO + Cinimax combo, that might be the market.
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
|
| |  guhunaR.I.P MikePremium
join:2001-03-31
Truckee, CA | Re: DOA DirecTV is setting the HD standards? HA HA!
I chuckled there for a bit. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Re: DOA said by guhuna:DirecTV is setting the HD standards? HA HA! I chuckled there for a bit. I was speaking in regards to being a leading provider of HD. There are other issues in terms of quality with their service. Nobody does TrueHD yet so this provider may be the first and in that case they'd be "setting the standard" but as with my main point, they won't have any customers... so is that really standard setting?
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
|
|  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | this sounds like it just upconverts as NOBODY (terrestrial, cable or satellite) is sending true 1080P broadcasts. * y a w n *
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
 dbmavenThere's no shortagePremium,Mod
join:1999-10-26
Sty in Sky
kudos:2
 ·VOIPo
 ·Optimum Online
Host:
Filesharing Software
No, I Will Not Fix..
Road Runner
Bright House Netwo..
Computer Hardware ..
| For Movies Only ? Talk about a niche market....
I suspect that they will have a tough time signing up customers if the only content available is movie based. Of course, given that movies are the only content available in 1080p resolution with Dolby Tru-HD or DTS HD sound (7.1 audio), I guess it's not surprising.
The price point will have to be pretty low to make this a mass market winner.
--
If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
Living in "an optimized state of temporary chaos" | |
|
|  TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | Las Vegas Bookies Are today taking bets on who ends up with XstreamHD, Echostar, or Direct TV. 
--
Eat pork chops for Allah! | |
|
| |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Las Vegas Bookies Yup... similar to 'voom hd' deployed then either bankrupt/fire sale or bought out.
1080p/7.1 would be great.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 |  Re: For Movies Only ?
said by dbmaven:Talk about a niche market.... I suspect that they will have a tough time signing up customers if the only content available is movie based. Of course, given that movies are the only content available in 1080p resolution with Dolby Tru-HD or DTS HD sound (7.1 audio), I guess it's not surprising. The price point will have to be pretty low to make this a mass market winner. And based on their web site they are a hardware vendor. And there is no mention of any deals they have signed with content providers or satellite owners. Basically they own nothing but some hardware gear that can route 1080P content between ground/satellite/home server.
»www.xstreamhd.com
I wouldn't look for any deliverables for quite some time.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page
| |
|
|  djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T U-Verse
·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
2 edits | quote:
What does it mean to watch HD in your home? Unless you’re watching a true HD DVD, it often doesn’t mean much. That’s because most home viewing systems (be it online or through your cable connection) aren’t set up to deliver full-quality HD.
For movies, 1080i might as well be 1080p. Due to the low framerate, deinterlacers can perfectly construct 1080 progressive lines. In fact, because there are 60 interlaced fields per second for only 24 frames, there's even some redundancy that can be thrown out entirely. The area where 1080p would really shine is "video" material like sporting events. If this is for movies only, 1080p is really wasted here.
Less compression, however, would certainly be a good thing. I think for most people, what DirecTV and the cable companies offer are good enough for the average sized HD bigsreen, so I don't see this being a big hit. | |
|
| | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: For Movies Only ? Very true... DTV/Cable 1080i works well for most HD's.
Blu Ray 1080p w/high frame rate is awesome if your TV supports it. Take a trip to Fry's and watch a 1080p 60Hz and 120Hz Samsung side by side on Blu Ray, and anything which high motion or panning is AWESOME on the 120Hz set.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
| | ? Sure, it may be better than HD DVD.. but is it better than blu-ray? Considering the trend HD DVD has had in their encoding quality, upconverted DVD is almost as good. | |
|
|  imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: ? said by bogey780: Considering the trend HD DVD has had in their encoding quality, upconverted DVD is almost as good. What are you talking about? Are you trolling again, trying to claim that HD DVDs have poor video encoding?  Please. There have been many blind tests with both versions of the film on both BR and HD DVD, they all look the same, some have minor difference each way, but nothing major. Nor did any upconverted DVD look as good as either of them. | |
|
| |  JoeG4
join:2001-12-16
945941 | Re: ? How dare a small company try to do this! Only AT&T and comcast are allowed to start up media enterprises, and anyone who wishes to challenge will either go bankrupt or bought out! | |
|
| | | | I agree with you! Blue-Nay is BETA Re-Born!
I am going with HD-DVD | |
|
| | | | 'There have been many blind tests with both versions of the film on both BR and HD DVD, they all look the same, some have minor difference each way, but nothing major.'
So you're telling me that the same encode looks the same across two seperate containers? I'm shocked!
No, the trouble is HD DVD hasn't had a really great encode in a while. Hot Fuzz was probably the last truly great one. Since then it's just been half-hearted attempts. They're just not trying hard to make the best. No wonder when their entire userbase consists of people who really don't care about getting the best. | |
|
| | | | | Re: ? Wow! those are some pretty broad statements that scream I am a snob.
I would agree with the first person that corrected you by saying there is virtually no difference in the quality of HDDVD or BluRay. | |
|
| Reviews:
 ·WildBlue
1 edit | said by bogey780:Sure, it may be better than HD DVD.. but is it better than blu-ray? Considering the trend HD DVD has had in their encoding quality, upconverted DVD is almost as good. Never put away those $ony pom poms do yah. It is a shame people will try to mislead people with BS like this to support a company they aren't even a part of. | |
|
| | | | Re: ? It's not BS. HD DVD just hasn't been having great AV scores lately. They're just not trying anymore. | |
|
| | | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: ? No, the trouble is HD DVD hasn't had a really great encode in a while. Hot Fuzz was probably the last truly great one. Since then it's just been half-hearted attempts. They're just not trying hard to make the best. No wonder when their entire userbase consists of people who really don't care about getting the best. You really have no idea what you're talking about, and just showing how much of a fanboy of Sony you truly are. As if the BR discs are nothing but fantastic and perfect in every way. You have absolutely no argument so you just start throwing FUD everywhere, and then call the people who opted for HD DVD, idiots. And that you think that only people who buy BR want the best in high def movies. You really do live in a dream world. It really is fun watching you make a fool out of yourself. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: ? tsk tsk..I didn't call them idiots.
I said they just don't care about quality. And so far it's been proven by their support.
So you really think that a 3.5 release is "high quality"? | |
|
| | | | | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: ? said by bogey780:And so far it's been proven by their support. It has? How so? You mean that since the majority of all HDTVs out there are 720p or 1080i, that they are smart enough to not need to spend $400+ on a 1080p player, which would be useless for them. I find you theory pretty dumb. I'm sorry, but you're just grabbing at straws because you are mad that you spent a crapload of money for a BR player and others had opted to go for HD DVD and spent a lot less. So you call them names and claim they don't know quality if it hit them in the face. Man, fantasy island must be awesome, it's just too bad I'll never be able to go there.
So you really think that a 3.5 release is "high quality"? What are you talking about? Arbitrary numbers don't mean a thing. Going by the way you think, I'm sure there are 3.5 or less BR releases as well. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: ? 'What are you talking about? Arbitrary numbers don't mean a thing. Going by the way you think, I'm sure there are 3.5 or less BR releases as well.'
There were a lot of 3.5 releases... last year when it was all new. But it's unexcusable for a non-catalog title to look so poor in HD. | |
|
| | | | | | | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: ? said by bogey780:There were a lot of 3.5 releases... last year when it was all new. But it's unexcusable for a non-catalog title to look so poor in HD. Again, what are you talking about. Show some proof of all these 3.5 or less titles like you claim. Otherwise, you're just pulling things out of your backside, like you always have when talking about HD DVDs or BR. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: ? said by bogey780:And even then you still don't see much that's impressive. I guess if you're completely biased to one format sure. Ignorance is bliss.
I, personally, don't care who wins. Once the BR camp pulls their heads out of their butts and realize that they need sub $200 players their format will not be the dominant one. Once they do have a sub $200 player, then I'll get one and be format neutral. Until then I'll enjoy my HD DVD discs, and enjoy watching you spread FUD about a format that you seem to know nothing about. | |
|
| | | | |  SlyPremium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN
·Callcentric
1 edit | said by bogey780:tsk tsk..I didn't call them idiots. I said they just don't care about quality. And so far it's been proven by their support. So you really think that a 3.5 release is "high quality"? I don't normally get involved in these useless arguments but you are acting like an idiot. Here is a screen shot from the same movie both in HD and Blu-Ray format. Even in a still it's almost impossible to see any differences much less in full motion. I bet if I took off the captions you would only get it right half of the time... 
--
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato - | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |  C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | Re: ? said by djrobx:We need dual format players. LG makes one , but it's $1000  | |
|
| | | | | | | | You do realize comparing the same encode from a blu-ray and a HD DVD is like comparing the end result of WinRAR and WinZIP. You're going to see the exact same info. Sheesh.
Why does Transformers not have HD audio? Because HD DVD couldn't do it. Every time HD DVD delivers an inferior product it's because HD DVD did the best it could with what it had. Which is lacking so often. | |
|
| | | | | | | imrfPremium
join:2002-06-06
Utica, MI | Re: ? said by bogey780:Why does Transformers not have HD audio? Because HD DVD couldn't do it. They could have done it if they felt the real need for it. There are so few receivers out there that could even utilize it, they must have felt that the extras would be better. I'm sure once more receivers with HDMI inputs they will release a special edition with it on there, like all studios love to do.
You do realize that there are plenty of BR discs that don't have HD audio. But you'll probably skirt the issue like you always do. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
See 11 replies to this post |
|
| | | | | | | SlyPremium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN Reviews:
·Callcentric
| said by bogey780:So you're telling me that the same encode looks the same across two seperate containers? I'm shocked! said by bogey780:You do realize comparing the same encode from a blu-ray and a HD DVD is like comparing the end result of WinRAR and WinZIP. You're going to see the exact same info. Sheesh. Umm... wow. You just totally contradicted yourself in less than 24 hours. First you claim that they are two separate containers and that the image can't look the same... Then you claim that there is no difference in the container (winrar vs. winzip) and the difference is in the audio...
What are you going to say next? Here is a thread for you: »[Poll] HD-DVD or Blu-Ray Tell me which one is which, fanboy...
--
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men."
- Plato - | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | Re: ? I actually didn't contradict myself.
If you take the same VC-1 stream and put it on blu-ray and HD DVD the end result should always look the same. That's the problem with comparing dual format releases. They almost always use the same encode.
The only thing close to a comparison was when Nature's Journey came out and they maxed the bandwidth for each format. They were nearly identical but a few shots tipped towards blu-ray. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | SlyPremium
join:2004-02-20
Johnson City, TN
1 edit | Re: ? nm | |
|
| C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | I'd like to have some of whatever you're smoking.
At launch, BluRay was only using MPEG2 encoding, where HD-DVD had most of its movies in VC-1. At that point, the picture quality vote was (almost) always in HD-DVD's favor.
Nowadays, while both have predominantly went to H.264 for the video encoding, some try to play with what the sound codecs are available. To BluRay's advantage, they have the disk space to support uncompressed audio tracks relatively easy. But at the same time, the Dolby TrueHD and other types of codecs available to HD-DVD make it so that they are able to provide more codec types and better non-price extras with their movies (see 300).
And now that BluRay is making BD-Java support required for players, many of the companies outputting bluRay movies have all tried using it in a hackneyed DRM way, which makes many of these movies unplayable on 90% of the BluRay players out there. What few HD-DVD's share the same fate are from the companies that are outputting media to both formats, alluding to that they probably just put out a half-arsed copy-paste job for each format, DRM and all. But even then, less HD-DVD players appear to be having the inability to play these DRM-enabled HD-DVD's than BluRay players with DRM'd BluRay. | |
|
| | | | Re: ? 'At launch, BluRay was only using MPEG2 encoding, where HD-DVD had most of its movies in VC-1. At that point, the picture quality vote was (almost) always in HD-DVD's favor.'
True. the tides have turned as now they can't spend so much time hand-tweaking the encode to fit all that data so well in a 30GB VC-1 encode. It's why King Kong rocked and after that... well they were still really good. And now it's just mediocre.
'But at the same time, the Dolby TrueHD and other types of codecs available to HD-DVD make it so that they are able to provide more codec types and better non-price extras with their movies (see 300).'
If they can fit it on the disc. Transformers couldn't get anything above DD+ because of bandwidth. In fact Blu-ray has more lossless tracks than HD DVD because PCM is available, it has the bandwidth for it, and all players support it.
'And now that BluRay is making BD-Java support required for players'
BD-J has always been required. You're referring to the 1.1 profile which requires memory minimums and PiP support. This will NOT AFFECT MOVIE PLAYBACK. It will only affect 1.1 features. What you're hinting at is BD+ which has always been in the spec and required from the start. HD DVD does not support BD+ and no HD DVDs have it. They both however have AACS. Which has not presented any problem with playback on either format. | |
|
| | | C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And PolicePremium
join:2001-10-03
Davenport, FL | Re: ? No... BD-Java was not required up until this month in players.
And almost immediately, BluRay content makers all went and used it for one thing - DRM.
HD-DVD uses HDi for the interactive menus and stuff, and has been available from the start. Why else do you think that 300 has so many more extras on the HD-DVD release, that Warner has only said that they will have to re-release the movie on BluRay again after BD-Java was made required in the next version/revision of the "standard" ?
Doesn't seem very standard if they have to keep re-iterating on it this way. But then again, I don't expect Sony to understand the meaning of an industry standard - usually implies something that does not change on a whim, which they are prone to do. They can't even decide on a single version of their own Memory stick "standard". Why would I expect them to agree on how their own BluRay media is supposed to work? | |
|
| | | | | | Re: ? 'No... BD-Java was not required up until this month in players.'
No, it was required from start. Otherwise Java based titles such as Pirates would not be able to play in the 1st Samsung player. Again, you're confusing 1.1 with Java.
'And almost immediately, BluRay content makers all went and used it for one thing - DRM'
Just stop. You're getting everything wrong. Java is not used for DRM. You're thinking of BD+. Please, I've corrected you. Please research your assumptions before restating them.
'Why else do you think that 300 has so many more extras on the HD-DVD release, that Warner has only said that they will have to re-release the movie on BluRay again after BD-Java was made required in the next version/revision of the "standard"?'
Stop it. you're getting it all wrong. HDi is not the reason for the extras. The reason is the PiP. 1.1 is the PiP profile and has nothing to do with Java. that's the reason why they'll double dip on the title. All the "extras" had nothing to do with Java.
'But then again, I don't expect Sony to understand the meaning of an industry standard - usually implies something that does not change on a whim'
Toshiba just changed and added to the HD DVD standard. Comment?
Like I said, you're getting the most basic of info wrong. | |
|
 PolarBear03The bear formerly known as aaron8301Premium
join:2005-01-03 | Voom, anyone? Can anyone say Voom? | |
|
| | | Re: Voom, anyone? I can say this Voom 2.0 will Boom 2.0 | |
|
 DotMac4Shill H8rPremium
join:2007-10-26
Huntington Beach, CA | Free off the usenet is a hard price point to beat | |
|
 MarkinCTWhat Are You Looking Here For?Premium
join:2003-09-03
West Hartford, CT | What's really funny.. ...to me at least... Most of the 'deployed' HD-TVs are max out at 720p anyway. So you know there is someone somewhere saying "Yeah, 1080P, that's for me!" When they've got a TV that can't even handle it... (Like me  )
--
MarkH - wireless and clueless... | |
|
| | | Re: What's really funny.. Everyone I know has a 1080p tv. Are they recent adopters? Well, within the last year. I don't know about most people, but I guess most plasma tvs and many LCDs are 720p. Meh, they're both fine, but the people I know want the best thing available sans the marketechnology... | |
|
| |  KA3SGM- -... ...- -Premium
join:2006-01-17
West Chester, PA
·Verizon FiOS
·Cricket Broadband
| Re: What's really funny.. said by jjeffeory:Everyone I know has a 1080p tv. Are they recent adopters? Well, within the last year. I don't know about most people, but I guess most plasma tvs and many LCDs are 720p. Meh, they're both fine, but the people I know want the best thing available sans the marketechnology... My Samsung LNS4096 40" LCD supports full 1080p and it's 8 months old already.
Hardly a 'new' technology, but it is true that there is nothing being broadcast beyond 1080i, and most HDTV's are only supporting 720p max.
HD-DVD and Blu-Rat both support 1080p on their newer generation of players, and I have a few HD-DVD titles that are encoded in the 1080p format.
1080p is usually not worth it for anything smaller than a 40" screen anyway,
but I should add that I have a 24" 1900x1200 DVI Interface monitor on my PC and the picture quality blows away anything I have ever seen on a TV before.
--
"Lithium is no longer available on credit" | |
|
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | Voom DBS, anyone? As much as I'd love to see this it awfully sounds like another Voom, destined to same end (stockholders force the board to pull the plug.)
--
| |
|
|
|
