Blue-Ray or HD-DVD - Page 7

Last message on previous page:
So...not everybody stores only music on discs. I could store 35 gig TS files...

My point, one file can be bigger than the supposed limit, ie. one 20 gig TS file, that's around 4 gigs past your single layer HD-DVD limit. My FLAC and Wavpack files eat space like crazy too, imagine having to separate my lossless Zappa collection, that would be insane!

Seeing as I need more disc space, I can burn a rewritable, finish encoding one file, and bring that file back on to my drive for more encoding.

I'm quite neutral to this battle, but your argument isn't true in most situations. I can probably split a big file into an archive, but why waste the time? Encoding takes days, archiving might take just about the same amount of time.

Why don't you just buy a couple 750 gig hard dives, spend just as much as buying a decent blu-ray burner, and have 1500 gigs of space that moves MUCH faster than any blu-ray or hddvd player would ever be able to do?

Sorry, 12 pages is a lot to slog through...

I hear ya.

I like Sony. They're one of the few companies out there that really push the boat out for the progression of technology, unlike others that just want the safest profit possible, regardless of how good it is.
I respect them for taking the risk with blu-ray, because lets face it, its far superior to hd-dvd that can barely hold a HD film, despite its title.
With the PS3 as well, they pack it with more bang than the 360, adding in blu-ray and supporting FULL HD gaming unlike the liars of M$, and offer it all at a price (which though may seem expensive against other consoles) is bloody good for what you get in it (blu-ray players alone cost about as much as a PS3).

And yes, they've had a bad year with the diode problems and the exploding batteries and the DS beating it in sales (which i'm actually thankful for, because Nintendo also please me with their revolutionary schemes, and i don't want to see the end of them) but half of that wasn't their fault.

So, all in all, sorry for 2006 sony, and good luck with blu-ray, i'm routing for ya

P.S don't waste your time with "fanboy" comments, i couldn't care less

Wait. The Xbox 360 has a scaler chip, the PS3 doesn't. If you have a 1080i only HDTV (my parents have two Mitsubishis from 2000 and 2002 that are 1080i only) and you buy the Xbox 360 and PS3, the Xbox 360 will scale your games to match the TVs resolution, while the PS3 will downgrade 720p games to 480p, since 480p is the highest resolution the PS3 game and the TV support.

How is that full HD gaming? The Xbox has better VGA options and better scaling, the PS3 only delivers "full HD" if you have a TV that supports 1080p, 1080i, 720p and buy a HDMI cable that does not come with either version of the PS3.

Dude, I have an old crap CRT. It is 480i. No point at all. I am looking at some nice 1080p DLPs to replace it...

Dude, this is such a stupid post. So much stupidity... *sigh*. :?

Because people payed $600 for a beta product.

Hurray, for you beta testers!... Though I remember being a beta tester was free.... oh well guess not.

Rear projection CRT = Burn in *duh
Plasma (new and old) = Burn in (your looking for models that advertise shifting pixels) This doesnt stop burn in completly, but lessons the chance and effect.

LCD = no burn in
LCD DLP = depends... look up the model

Do reasearch... there are VAST differences between the two and I wouldnt buy untill that research is done very well. Nobody here will beable to give you enough valid information for you to choose based on someones post count.


Either way, here are hte basics

DLP uses a light bulb that lats 1000+ hours... 300$ to replace
DLP uses many moving parts, such as a spinning color wheel.

LCD is lighter, thiner, and is subject to the same problems and LCD Monitors.

Really though, you should look it up.

Yeah, and don't trust the salesmen either. Having been one (a long time ago), and knowing several from many major retailers, I can safely say that 99% of them know nothing about the thing they are trying to sell you besides its dimentions and the basic tech that it uses. Some may have an idea of what's going on, but often its either made up, or something heard from a "friend of a friend"

Yeah, salesmen are useless. I one time asked a guy at a car lot "what's the horsepower on that car?" and he was like "I don't know... who cares? If you like the look of it, but it. It's got tons of power. When I see something I want, I just buy it!"

Now, that guy was extra stupid, but you get the idea. Salesmen = useless.

Info as stated above

Thats it. Plain and simple.
I would apreciate it if you wernt rude.



If you want more info, look it up, but otherwise those are the big differences between the technology... which isnt much in the long run.
DLPs cost the most to upkeep,
LCDs are thin and dont do burn in
PLasmas are thin, subject to image burn, and have high contrast (though LCD's are comming close)

IF you want specific INFO REQUEST IT.

HD-DVD and Blue-Ray are capable of displaying movies at the same quality. More capacity doesn't necessarily mean higher quality video unless you plan to increase the screen resolution beyond 1080.

HD-DVD has a considerable price advantage over Blue-Ray so all things being equal HD-DVD has the best benefit to the consumer. As a data storage medium better alternatives are in the pipeline.

HD-DVD is more consumer friendly, movie studio's like Sony aren't consumer friendly, that's why they support it. In the end the consumer decides who wins. Frankly I think Blue-Ray would fail if there were no HD-DVD at all.

Ah I see. I did not mean for that to be a rude respone, my oppologies.
I did think though, that information was what you were requesting, which is why I reposted it. If you would more specific differences, I willl get them and post um for you.

Ok thats easier to answer.

Firstly, disreguarding physical dementions, the quality of the image is completly dependant on the manufacturer. You do get what you pay for.

DLP TV's use a bulb to illuminate the image, which produces a brighter image overall, but LCD is closing the gap (Depends on model and $$$)

All imputs are independant of the technology, so you would want to look at each brand when you look to buy.

Why did DLP reach 1080p first? Because DLP is a great technology... beyond that I dont know.

LCD's refresh at a constant 60hz, but only the information that needs to change. So for example, ALL LCD's are Progressive. No such thing as 1080i because of the way LCD's work. (look up for more info on why).

1080p does not improve image quality, rather image smoothness. Fast action requires a progressive picture for the best viewing experience. If your TV supports only 1080i (non lcd), then your beter off watching football in 720p.

The beter deal is DLP. Its a cheaper technology to produce at large sizes.... however, there is a maintenance cost that doesnt exsist with LCD's, which is replacing the 1000-3000 hour bulbs @ ~300 a pop.

Here is a great link for you as people who are professionals on this subject work there.

avguide.com
soundandvisionmag.com
hometheaterforum.com

There is a few more, but at work, I am limited to the sites I can visit. Those should do you well if you have any other questions, as thats their speciality.

Thanks for the info

Is the diferance betweem 720p and 1080p large? I mean, with LCDs you pay a premium for the 1080p level...

What about brightness, color diferances, etc. on DLP and LCD? I know that LCD is GENERALY considered brighter. However, I've seen some LCDs with a washed out look.

whats your take?

Number crunching and specs are fine, but don't get sucked into wanting 'big numbers' rather than what's useful in reality. 1080p is higher res than 720p, but that doesn't automatically make 720p bad.

720 - 1080 no difference?

The Imaging Science Foundation ranks resolution as 4th for consideration of a good picture.

If you have money to burn, by all means, get a 1080p TV. Why not.

However, if you're on a budget like most people, you should consider what you realistically need and really care about. Personally, I just bought a 720p Panasonic 42" plasma. 1080p looked good, and side by side, if you're trying, you'll be able to pick out the differences.

But will you be staring at pixels a month after you buy it or will you actually be watching the movie instead? I realized that I couldn't tell the difference if I wasn't looking for it. Looking at a wall of various TVs I couldn't tell you which were 720 and which were 1080.

As for the whole Blue-Ray vs HD-DVD thing, I'll wait. As I just pointed out, I don't have a 1080p TV, so I don't really need a 1080p signal. I'll stick to an upscaling DVD player for now.

I'll spend $2000 now on 720p and an upscaling DVD player, then upgrade again in a few years. I could spend $5000 to go with a big 1080p TV and HD/BR player, but I'd rather a new comp for Supreme Commander and Crysis with that extra $3000.

My choice certainly isn't for everyone, but that's what I ended up doing. Don't forget 1080p will be old news in a few years too.

Hope that helps.

No kidding there's a big difference in quality between 720 and 1080. I don't even know why somebody would argue that. It's like saying "1024x768 and 1920x1200 are pretty much the same".

Dean. He was arguing that the difference between 720 and 1080 is small compaired to the difference in image quality, which I agree.

You first want a TV with great image quality, then go with the highest rez tv you can.... I know a few people who purchased Mitsubishi TV's that are DLP 1080p, and they look like crap.


What is your price range. I might be able to recomend one for you.

Ironic that you should mention that... my girl totally owns a mitsu high-def 1080 TV and it looks like total crap. I have seen old non-hi-def Sony Trinitrons that I would rather have than her HDTV.

This isnt a reply to you dean.

I seem to remember a time when TV was first coming outnad two techs were there. One was a tubed design which is or what the common tv one used a spinning wheel to project pictures onto a screen. I also remember one dieing rather rapidly due to mechanical issues and sub quality issues compaired to the first.

Considering i hardly turn my TV off i find hte bulb thing a bit um stupid

But then again i dont care since i have been checking out flat panal TV's nothing seems to look better then a high quality LCD tv which i cannot afford right now. But since i rarly watch TV out side of watching house and its normaly just on for noise i dont really need a tv at least not one over $100.

Good thing i have a $800 computer monitor!

thats what I assumed as well.

As you said though, 1080p makes it a mute topic...