Warner goes Blu-ray exclusive

[SamuriHL]

Oh yeah, for sure they will. Unless, I'm missing something, they'd be foolish to cling on to a sinking ship.

Exactly. And if Universal goes, Paramount is going to be pissed being locked into another 14 months of exclusivity. I mean, how can that deal stand up if no one else is selling HD DVD??

Ain't that the truth. :agree:

Studios will do whatever they can get away with.

Average consumers are just clueless.

I wouldn't mind Blu-ray so much if the region restrictions were removed (along with the extra DRM junk).

Obviously they're clueless...look how many people whined and complained about the release notes touting the HD DVD stance. Do you think that might actually have been needed now?? Region coding is a pain, yes, but, it can mostly be circumvented. BD+, well, we have to wait as you're well aware of. So, yes, it sucks, but, in the end it'll be "consumer friendly" thanks to James and Peer.

 

[Webslinger]

I understand quite well webslinger but most of the cosumers are like me will wait to see a light at the end of the tunnel and then boom the sales begins shortly after. I am not knocking HD-DVD and joked a bit with you and SamuriHL about it at times but I am not one for this one or that one but merely read and wait.

I can understand wanting the format war to be over. I really do. And I don't blindly hate Blu-ray; I just find the region restrictions and extra DRM nonsense really annoying.

 

[Webslinger]

Exactly. And if Universal goes, Paramount is going to be pissed being locked into another 14 months of exclusivity. I mean, how can that deal stand up if no one else is selling HD DVD??

I thought the deal was conditional upon a certain percentage of sales being HD-DVD. If it drops below that percentage, they can back out of the contract (or so I thought, anyway).

Region coding is a pain, yes, but, it can mostly be circumvented.

For now, yes . . .

So, yes, it sucks, but, in the end it'll be "consumer friendly" thanks to James and Peer.

Yeah. And then what other DRM junk will be forced upon us?

I have faith in James and peer, but obviously the more restrictive something is the longer we, as consumers, will have to wait for updates so that we can use our purchases the way we want to. And some of you are seeing that right now with BD+.

So while I'm sure having the format war decided is all very nice, having extra DRM and other restrictions shoved upon me isn't (hello Microsoft Vista . . . I want to play DirectX 10 games; what real choice do I have? Hello, Blu-ray . . . I want to watch High Definition movies? What choice do I have?).

By the way, I find HD-DVD fanboys just as annoying as Blu-ray fanboys.
HD-DVD fanboys say, "Sony sucks. Look at the rootkit nonsense. They aren't consumer friendly."
And Microsoft is?

So, I'm not blind. I just wish the studios would be a little more consumer friendly. HD-DVD is less restrictive (at this time, anyway) than Blu-ray. That's all.

 

[HD Putz]

Certainly FOX being on Blu-ray is also helping the cause, but, it's not like they've released their top titles on the format yet. Neither has Disney for that matter, I suppose, but, with both studios backing Blu-ray, there is an expectation that both will release their top titles on the format at some point in the near future. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Toy Story, Finding Nimo, Aladdin, etc, etc, etc. That's a pretty big enticement to those with kids as to which format to choose. And for the parents, as well, who want things like Predator(GRIN), Aliens, ID4, and all the other Fox titles. Add Sony in the mix(cough cough) and you have a compelling format with titles. HD DVD has some good titles to be sure, but, nowhere's near the draw of Blu-ray.

I'm still a bit new to all this HD stuff, but buying older titles and entertainment for the kids on high def media seems to be a waste to me. Does a 4 year old really care if Aladdin or Cars is on Blu Ray? I doubt it, but I'm sure he'll care during the next road trip when he can't watch his favorite movie in the car because mommy and daddy don't have a portable BD player. I love the Indiana Jones trilogy, but will we really gain much by watching it in HD? The storage media isn't going to make up for the 1980's film technology that originally shot the picture will it?

Putz

 

[Webslinger]

I love the Indiana Jones trilogy, but will we really gain much by watching it in HD?

2001: A Space Odyssey looks far better on HD-DVD (both Blu-ray and HD-DVD versions contain the exact same 1080p/VC-1 transfers) than the standard dvd version (even when upscaled on a good upscaling dvd player). The film originally was released in 1968. So, provided the transfer is half-decent, the answer to your question is yes.

 

[HD Putz]

2001: A Space Odyssey looks far better on HD-DVD (both Blu-ray and HD-DVD versions contain the exact same 1080p/VC-1 transfers) than the standard dvd version (even when upscaled on a good upscaling dvd player). The film originally was released in 1968. So, provided the transfer is half-decent, the answer to your question is yes.

Well then, maybe I'll have to upgrade some of my older flix. Thanks for the info.

 

[Webslinger]

Well then, maybe I'll have to upgrade some of my older flix. Thanks for the info.

I suggest reading some reviews online before buying anything. Sometimes the picture quality isn't great (the problem may be the compression method used or the transfer). The picture quality will be better than a dvd (but sometimes, not by much).

 

[Laddy]

Since the BD standard is not set in stone, won't Sony just keep changing things so that Slysoft and others have to spend months cracking each new iteration. Since they're using a VM strategy is there really any limit to the protection they can embed? Sony was the last holdout for eliminating music DRM and they only did that because it was a war they had lost years ago and just got around to conceding. I think they learned a lot from that experience. I know people don't like to talk about Sony rootkits, but companies that go to that extreme will also go to extremes for their new video technology in my opinion. I'm wondering if we'll even be able to play newer titles in the future on our HTPCs. I'm guessing Sony would prefer everyone to buy a standalone or PS3.

 

[SamuriHL]

I'm still a bit new to all this HD stuff, but buying older titles and entertainment for the kids on high def media seems to be a waste to me. Does a 4 year old really care if Aladdin or Cars is on Blu Ray? I doubt it, but I'm sure he'll care during the next road trip when he can't watch his favorite movie in the car because mommy and daddy don't have a portable BD player. I love the Indiana Jones trilogy, but will we really gain much by watching it in HD? The storage media isn't going to make up for the 1980's film technology that originally shot the picture will it?

Putz

I've had this conversation on cdfreaks recently. What a lot of you who say "why bother with old movies on HD" don't get is that they perform a restoration process on them. Compare the DVD release of Bullitt with the Blu-ray release sometime. Or 2001. Or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Or Blade Runner. You'll soon understand that, YES, there IS a point. When they do an HD transfer, they're doing it from a restored copy from the original film. The higher bitrates allowed by HD will obviously give more digital data to work with, allowing for a higher quality picture. So yea, you'll GAIN a lot by watching Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and all the others that have already had a 4k transfer done on them. They're just waiting for a transfer to HD at this point. The restoration process has already been done.

As for kids, my 7 year old knows the difference QUITE well between DVD and Blu-ray and HD DVD. He much prefers Blu-ray and HD DVD.

 

[SamuriHL]

I suggest reading some reviews online before buying anything. Sometimes the picture quality isn't great (the problem may be the compression method used or the transfer). The picture quality will be better than a dvd (but sometimes, not by much).

It also depends on the restoration process used. They're still using chemical processes on a lot of older films and NOT digitally restoring them. They do a photo chemical process that essentially copies the film frame by frame, but, if they're not using a 4k process to digitally "fix" things, then the quality could be lower. And yes, the transfer itself makes a HUGE difference. Look at Fifth Element and the original, CRAPPY transfer. The redone transfer is excellent. So, some of the older titles suck, but, they're getting much much better at it.

 

[HD Putz]

I've had this conversation on cdfreaks recently. What a lot of you who say "why bother with old movies on HD" don't get is that they perform a restoration process on them. Compare the DVD release of Bullitt with the Blu-ray release sometime. Or 2001. Or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Or Blade Runner. You'll soon understand that, YES, there IS a point. When they do an HD transfer, they're doing it from a restored copy from the original film. The higher bitrates allowed by HD will obviously give more digital data to work with, allowing for a higher quality picture. So yea, you'll GAIN a lot by watching Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and all the others that have already had a 4k transfer done on them. They're just waiting for a transfer to HD at this point. The restoration process has already been done.

As for kids, my 7 year old knows the difference QUITE well between DVD and Blu-ray and HD DVD. He much prefers Blu-ray and HD DVD.

Good stuff - thanks. I'm keeping my 8 year old in the dark when it comes to HD.

 

[knobber]

Originally Posted by SamuriHL View Post
I've had this conversation on cdfreaks recently. What a lot of you who say "why bother with old movies on HD" don't get is that they perform a restoration process on them. Compare the DVD release of Bullitt with the Blu-ray release sometime. Or 2001. Or Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Or Blade Runner. You'll soon understand that, YES, there IS a point. When they do an HD transfer, they're doing it from a restored copy from the original film. The higher bitrates allowed by HD will obviously give more digital data to work with, allowing for a higher quality picture. So yea, you'll GAIN a lot by watching Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and all the others that have already had a 4k transfer done on them. They're just waiting for a transfer to HD at this point. The restoration process has already been done.

As for kids, my 7 year old knows the difference QUITE well between DVD and Blu-ray and HD DVD. He much prefers Blu-ray and HD DVD.

for now they are "mostly" doing what you say, but once HD is mainstream they for sure arent gonna pay to have every catalog film restored... same thing happened with dvd at first, now dvd's are terrible quality...

 

[Stormlord]

Well put: neither is perfect ...

It's sad we'll have to live with the added DRM on Blu Ray, but I guess there will be ways around it as usual... When will the industry get it that people do not want all these crap protected media, they want a common - decent format that is OPEN to use (MP3, Ogg, DivX, you name it..). Ofcourse that doesn't justify piracy, but if they think that will stop the real pirates (especially the ones that make money out of duplicating discs on a large scale on presses and then selling them) - they're even dumber then I first thought...

Nobody really wants or needs annoyances with protections: not on cd, not on DVD, not on blu ray, not on HD DVD, Windows Media, AVI,Quicktime... Whatever!!!

No matter what protectionscheme they come up with: there will always be a means to break it, since there always has to be a means to play it back! The only thing they can do is make it a bit harder - and they know it...

When are they going to get it that all their investments in crappy protections and formats (not to mention extra hardware requirement) are totally for nought? They only serve to irritate legit buyers when they cannot play the media they rightfully purchased by just any means and on any device they want to play it on - not just pirates.

If they 'd just sell the media at more reasonable prices and charge a duplication tax on blank media (which is already being done in many countries) so that it becomes uninteresting to spend time on copying - it would be beneficial for both parties: more people would actually be able to buy the original and thus support the artists, completely legit... In terms of fair use: why don't they offer a service that allows cheap replacement of damaged discs, so that endusers don't have to bother to make their own copies?

The time for the big distribution and studios raking in the money by the tons is at an end, when will they finally realise this? If they don't: I will see more artists going online with their stuff and selling direct to endusers, this would simply be the end of many studios, distribution companies and stores. It's usually not the artist that is making the big money most of the time if they get 1-1,50 EUR on a CD/DVD they usually have a good deal with their studio...

Can anybody explain to me for example why o why album CD are often more expensive than a DVD version of the same disc? Completely illogical, since DVD requires much more mastering work!

 

[SamuriHL]

for now they are "mostly" doing what you say, but once HD is mainstream they for sure arent gonna pay to have every catalog film restored... same thing happened with dvd at first, now dvd's are terrible quality...

I personally won't buy any movies that aren't well done. Robocop, for instance, is absolutely horribly done on HD. Why buy something that isn't any better than an upscaled DVD version? If they want to resell all these movies, they're going to have to step up and give us GOOD HD transfers. If not, they'll sit on shelves not selling.

 

[Bill101]

SamuriHL,
Is there a review site that rates the transfer quality of the HD movies?

 

[SamuriHL]

Yes, absolutely. I visit High Def Digest every single day. I trust their reviews quite well as they've not been wrong so far IMO. They rate video, audio, high def extras, etc. Really great site.

 

[Bill101]

Thanks alot SamuriHL,I really appreciate that.

 

[SamuriHL]

No problem. It's a great site.

 

[SwollenGoat]

If they 'd just sell the media at more reasonable prices and charge a duplication tax on blank media (which is already being done in many countries) so that it becomes uninteresting to spend time on copying - it would be beneficial for both parties:

I'm sorry but this is *not* an option, and never *should* be an option. Why punish those who want to use the media for legitimate uses? (and legitimate uses include backing up your media).

Hard drives are blank media. How about we charge duplication taxes on that? What about thumb drives? What about web storage services?

It's just a bad idea all around.

 

[WeeJockPooPongMcPlop]

SamuriHL,
Is there a review site that rates the transfer quality of the HD movies?

Or you could try AVForums Movie Reviews, just because I review for there doesn't mean I'm biased lol.

Thanks
Keith